Minutes
2007 National NAPSR Meeting
Mystic Marriott Hotel
Mystic, CT
Board Members:
Chairman Phil
Sher (
Vice
Chairman Ron
Law (
Secretary
Treasurer Hans
Mertens (
Past
Chairman Ed
Steele (
Eastern
Region
Eastern
Region Gavin
Nicoletta (
Central
Region Bob
Leonberger (
Central
Region Annmarie
Robertson (
Western
Region Joel
Tierney (
Western
Region
Southern
Region Chris
Isley (
Southern
Region Mark
McCarver (
Southwest
Region Dennis
Fothergill (
Southwest
Region Bruno
Carrara (
* Alternates for the Region Chairs
Chairman Phil Sher called the meeting to order and welcomed
all attendees. Chairman Sher introduced Donald E. Downes, Chairperson of the Connecticut
Department of Public Utility Control, who welcomed NAPSR to Mystic Connecticut.
He talked about the state being very densely populated but with a very strong
economy and having a very successful damage prevention program.
Address
to NAPSR from the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA)
– Deputy Administrator, Krista Edwards
1.
VAdm. Thomas Barrett has been
confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Transportation
2.
Ms. Edwards is now Acting
Administrator of PHMSA
3.
Ted Wilke has been named
Associate Administrator of the Office of Hazardous Materials (Haz Mat) safety,
Jeff Wiese has been named Associate Administrator of the Office of Pipeline
Safety and Jim Pates has been named Associate Chief Counsel.
4.
Recognized the importance of
State programs and the federal-state partnership.
5.
PHMSA has issued its 5-Year
Strategic Plan. Ms. Edwards had sent it
to NAPSR before the meeting in Mystic.
6.
Federal government never
planned on undertaking civil enforcement of One-Call laws. PHMSA considers this a state role, while the
federal role should be one of support.
7.
Essential elements of a civil enforcement
program by a state are:
§
Appropriate civil penalties
§
Investigation
§
Documentation of incidents
§
Information transparency and
§
Measurement of impacts.
8.
PHMSA plans to publish
criteria for new grants in grants.gov at the end of October. The new PHMSA damage prevention grant program
must have the following features:
§
Be inclusive of stakeholders
in the State
§
There must be a plan meeting
the objectives of the 9 elements in damage prevention
§
Have a fixed time frame
§
Have quality control
§
A state must commit to enforce
§
Feature performance metrics
§
Measure extent of impact on
national risk reduction
9.
As viewed by PHMSA, features
of State pipeline safety base grant criteria would be:
§
States could be eligible for
up to 50% matching of state expenditures for implementing the base program
§
Beyond the 50% maximum, the
increase in matching percentage would be progressive, depending on:
a.
Compliance with PSIA 2002 (enforcement
of IMP, OQ, Public Awareness)
b.
Risk- based approach to
inspection planning
c.
Contribution to data – reporting
performance
d.
Supporting transparency
e.
Showing progress on 9 element
program, and
f.
Participating in NAPSR.
10.
Emergency Waiver authority
does not pass directly to state programs.
A more appropriate term has been chosen by PHMSA to capture the intent:
“Special Permit”. Even with the changes
due to the PIPES Act, PHMSA is maintaining its existing role in State
waivers. This means that the State must
seek PHMSA’s emergency authority. They
can act quickly if needed, and will work with each State on alternatives. States’ role in the waiver process remains
the same.
11.
PHMSA does not see itself
enforcing the PIPES Act requirement for Excess Flow Valves (EFVs) starting in
June of 2008. The process will take
time, especially due to the need to verify the feasibility of installation of
EFVs.
12.
In line with risk-based
thinking in the upcoming DIMP rule, a new approach is being considered by PHMSA
regarding intervals for inspecting pipeline facilities. PHMSA could propose that certain inspection intervals
be risk-based rather than fixed, subject to agreement between a state and its
operators. Overall, DIMP rule should
bring no surprises to states.
13.
Appropriations: House has approved $20 million for state
grants; the Senate has not yet approved a bill but is considering $20.6
million. House-Senate conference will
likely result in something in between.
PHMSA has just started planning for FY 2009, but at this point is not
permitted to talk about it.
14.
User fee discussion: Program costs are up and not supported by
existing fee structure. Options being
reviewed include a user fee assessed to LDCs.
PHMSA report to Congress due in February.
15.
Increased emphasis, resources
being devoted to
16. 2006 Resolutions: working on first revisions to State Guidelines
document, expects to have final by end of year.
Working on gas gathering issues.
17. Expressed appreciation for NAPSR
Administrative Manager and ideas for the development of this role.
Pipeline Safety Current
Issues – PHMSA Assistant Administrator & Chief Safety Officer, Stacey
Gerard
Ms. Gerard recognized former or
outgoing NAPSR members for their contributions: Charles, Kenow, Craig Steele,
Vicki O’Neil, Darrell McKown, Glynn Blanton, and Jim Anderson.
1.
Further discussed program
funding issue: Looking to collect an
added $10 million for state grants through pipeline user fees
2.
AGA is studying the
possibilities of a FERC “Tracker” mechanism to collect user fees from
everyone. This involves an interstate
company keeping track of changes in certain costs and reporting such changes to
FERC at the end of the year for adjustment without necessarily filing a rate
case.
3.
PHMSA recognizes that there
may be an effect on the states that already collect state user fees. A survey in 2004 showed that out of 25 states
that responded, 16 charge in-state user fees. PHMSA is looking for input from
the states as to possible scenarios and impacts. Comments should be sent to
Zach Barrett.
4.
PHMSA is also planning for
congressional reauthorization of Haz Mat legislation, scheduled to start in
February of 2008. At that time, PHMSA
may decide to also seek small changes in the pipeline safety law, to address
the reallocation of user fees.
5.
PHMSA sees the $10 million
increase undergoing considerable scrutiny within the Federal Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and other oversight agencies.
6.
A suggestion was made from the
NAPSR audience that perhaps there could be a temporary assessment on all of the
nation’s gas customers to cover the needed increase in the state grants program.
7.
PHMSA Strategic Plan – The
states were given a chance to preview the Plan by way of the e-mail from the Deputy
Administrator. PHMSA’s focus is on
improving management or Process Safety Management. Is safety performance adequate? How can we gain in any area? How can we use information better? Are we using an “enterprise” approach to the
issues?
§
#1 priority in the Plan is to
drive down risk,
§
#2 priority be a model agency,
and
§
#3 priority strengthen the
capability of its partners.
8.
Lingering concerns:
§
How to address the potential for
risk that cannot be reached through the regulatory system, e.g. dealing with
employee attitude toward safety.
§
PHMSA is considering
company-related (non-regulated) areas they have not considered before
§
Energy security/reliability of
supply
§
Factors such as climate
change, increased encroachment, new threats and interdependency of energy
sources must be considered
§
Emphasized that enterprise
approach and partnership is critical.
Cited Excavation Damage Prevention Initiative as a good example of the
enterprise approach that PHMSA is seeking.
Preliminary comment from a state during
the presentation was that the Strategic Plan does not give the states
sufficient credit for implementing new pipeline safety programs instituted by
PHMSA.
Improving Pipeline Safety
Enforcement – PHMSA Associate Chief Counsel, James Pates
1. Background :
2. Overview of Chief Counsel:
Provides all legal services, including Final Orders, petitions for
reconsideration, rulemakings, legislation, waivers, interpretations,
policies. Works with EPA and DOJ on
enforcement cases (ex. Kinder Morgan and
3. Alaska Department of Natural Resources and PHMSA signed
agreement to share information while retaining separate authority. Intent is to look at the problems that
resulted in the non-compliances.
4. Improving damage prevention: Greater federal role, which can be improved
by better communications about accidents.
Believes we should look beyond individual incidents and look at
potentially bigger issues.
5. Emergency waivers: Intent
is to turn them around as quickly as possible.
States should feel free to call PHMSA on this.
6. Feel free to contact him or staff in his office at any
time.
Where NAPSR is and Where
NAPSR is Going – NAPSR National Chairperson, Philip Sher
What is right about NAPSR
§
People
§
§
Communications
Where NAPSR needs to improve
§
Workload of Chairman is still
excessive
§
Involve vice-chair in
important issues
§
Have means to quickly
establish NAPSR positions involving multiple issues
§
Expedite decision-making
§
Find compromise that can be
supported by all
§
Advocate for positive change
rather than just oppose
§
Continued growth of new people
in positions of significance
§
An active Board to deal with
current issues
§
Better communications between
PHMSA & Board
§
Clearer policy direction from
the Board
§
More open dialog
§
More response from NAPSR to issues with potential impact on State
programs
§
Spread the load by providing
for others to enter the power stream
Discussed the State-Federal
partnership, the way it is today and the way it will be tomorrow
Risk-Based data-driven management and
the need to measure performance of gas and liquids operators, Federal programs,
and State programs. Measurements must:
A NAPSR Board member raised the
question of whether a State with a high-risk system has to seek compliance with
the 9 elements in the law, while a state with a low-risk program brought about
by compliance with the 9 elements, can seek a base grant increase up to the 80%
maximum matching amount. Stacey
confirmed that the law provides rewards for good performance, as well as
incentives for performance improvements.
Role of States in Pipeline
Security – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) / Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) General Manager of Pipeline Security, Jack Fox
§
On September 28, 2004 DHS
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DOT
§
An Annex to the MOU was
published on August 9, 2006:
o
Delineated lines of authority
o
Established 11 program
elements
o
Outlined a multi-year action
plan
§
Corporate security review
program (CSR)
§
Pipeline Security Smart
Practices were developed reflecting the results of more than 65 CSRs. The practices document is available from
Steve Froehlich.
§
Security awareness training
materials are also available at http://www.tsa.gov/wht_we_do/tsnm/pipeline.shtm
§
TSA relationship with NAPSR
members:
o
Provide coordination with
transportation utilities on TSA initiatives.
o
Promote security awareness
o
Monthly stakeholder calls
o
Reporting of suspicious
incidents and activities to the Transportation Security Operations Center
(TSOC)
o
Attend annual security meeting
Action: TSA’s Steve Froehlich will send and
electronic copy of the TSA Security Smart Practices to George Mosinskis for
distribution to NAPSR.
PHMSA State programs – Outgoing
Director of PHMSA Office of State Programs, Tom Fortner and Incoming Acting
Director, Zach Barrett
Tom expressed this thanks to the
states and the state agencies for participating throughout the years. Stressed the importance of the base program
and stated that NAPSR input is key to the success of the many new
initiatives. As part of his transition
out of full time employment with the federal government, Tom prepared a 5-year
plan, which was shared on screen with the NAPSR attendees during the meeting.
Action: Tom will
send an electronic copy of the 5-year plan to NAPSR-All. This plan is not all-inclusive, but is aimed
at issues in need of resolution.
Zach stated that he sees the Office
of State Programs as performing a support function for the states and wants to
build upon the strong federal-state partnership. The 5-year plan has not yet been reviewed by
the OPS Associate Administrator.
PHMSA intends to work with the key NAPSR
task groups and assign one of the 5 staff people in the Office of State
Programs to supporting the task group.
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 29, 2007
PHMSA Pipeline Safety –
Current Status and New Initiatives – Associate Administrator of PHMSA Office of
Pipeline Safety, Jeff Wiese
Jeff covered
§
Main points emphasized during
Regional meetings
§
Messages from PHMSA leadership
§
Key to Success: data-driven, transparent, enterprise approach
§
P3 concept: People,
Process and Pipeline = Performance
§
Quick updates on Biofuels/LNG,
DIMP, calling 911, Public Awareness Clearinghouse status, Post-clearinghouse
actions by OPS, Emergency Responders.
§
Seven proposed criteria that
would form the basis for allocating grant funds for damage prevention
§
Challenges shared with
stakeholders in 2006 and in 2007
Biofuels -- A policy statement by
PHMSA released in the Federal Register on August 10, 2007. PHMSA asserts its jurisdiction over lines
that transport ethanol and biofuels and asks for comments in helping identify
possible areas of concern in the safety of such pipelines.
DIMP – The rule proposal may come out
around November of this year. Suggested
that NAPSR might want to begin working on first steps for implementation.
Call 911 – There appears a lot of
variation about who should call 911 when there is an unintended release of
product from the pipeline. The Fire
Service has already stated that a call should be made to 911 if there is
escaping product from a damaged pipeline.
Public Communications Clearinghouse –
The Federal Clearinghouse has processed 1528 programs covering 1923 operator IDs.
The last program submission will be accepted not later than October 15, 2007. OPS is considering formal enforcement action
against operators who have not submitted programs for review by the
clearinghouse, in those states which have not opted to do their own
review. PHMSA is now developing field
implementation forms. A public meeting
is planned for Spring of 2008 to cover the findings of the clearinghouse,
lessons learned by operators after 3 cycles, and possible recommendations for a
second edition of RP 1162.
Damage Prevention Grant Award
Criteria –The award criteria would be used to by PHMSA to decide which state is
awarded what amount from the $1.5 million total that may be available for FY
2008. So the damage prevention grant
applications can be submitted in time for FY 2008 funding, Stacey would like
comments from NAPSR on the PHMSA Award Criteria before the end of September. Suggested that some key elements that should
be included are consensus agenda, plan for state damage prevention program and
plan for how the funding will be used for damage prevention program
development. The EDPI effort will also
be considered.
Action: The Board
agreed to provide the comments to Stacey shortly after the Grant Allocation
Committee meeting in mid-September. This
will allow this committee to consolidate and discuss the comments received.
Jeff also expressed his thanks to
NAPSR and its officers, Tom Fortner, George Mosinskis and Zach Barrett.
Question/Answer Session with
PHMSA Leaders -- Krista Edwards, Stacey Gerard, Jeff Wiese and Zach Barrett
During its closed session in the
afternoon, NAPSR developed a number of questions and concerns to bring up with
the PHMSA leaders. See 8/29/07 Closed
Session Minutes.
Can PHMSA designate someone in their organization to put down in
writing what it wants from NAPSR in terms of the 9 element damage prevention
program?
At this point, PHMSA just wants
comments on the 7 Award Criteria. In reply to a question from NAPSR Board
members about the difference between the 9 element criteria previously
developed and presented by NAPSR and the award criteria being presented, Stacey
Gerard clarified that they viewed the NAPSR document as presenting a
clarification of the objectives for the 9 elements in damage prevention. Stated that she would also like NAPSR input
for other items, such as prioritizing the nine elements, consideration of other
possibilities for using the funds – for instance, states who already meet the
nine elements could possibly serve as educators.
A NAPSR Board member commented that
since the damage prevention grant funds are designed for a broader group than
state pipeline safety agencies, a broader group of stakeholders including
NAPSR, should be participating with PHMSA in the allocation decision
proceedings.
What do states have to do to show that they are already have been
implementing risk-based pipeline safety programs?
Stacey noted that Award Criteria # 6
addressing the contribution of a state to the national risk reduction effort
will result in some states getting a larger share of the funds than
others. She was non-specific as to what
states should do in relation to risk-based programs, but stated that in
general, it should be more than just ensuring compliance with the risk-based
regulatory provisions in the existing pipeline safety code. May have to look at several types of risk.
In Stacey’s view, the highest
priority objective should be improving the state’s ability to beef up
enforcement.
50 to 80% matching grant maximum -- Seeking
to clarify the distinction between the states eligible for damage prevention
grants and states eligible for the base grant matching grant increase up to the
80% maximum, Stacey stressed that the state’s ability to use information to
quantify its risk against the national risk, and targeting its programs guided
by the information on risk would be a factor in PHMSA’s determination as to the
maximum matching amount a State would be eligible for.
When does PHMSA plan to provide the State program managers a new
computer?
PHMSA replied that, if funds are
available, by summer of 2008 the state program managers’ computers will be
replaced with new ones using the Windows Vista operating system. Currently, PHMSA is working out a problem in
connection with using WinDot on
Further clarify the role of the five State Evaluators in the Office of
State Programs.
This will come in the future from
further consideration of the 5-year Plan presented earlier and is seen as an
evolving role. Zach’s intent is to
commit to state support, work towards consistency and assist new State program
managers.
An additional question was asked about
the steps PHMSA is taking in addressing timely training of state pipeline
safety program personnel. Stacey stated
that if it turns out that PHMSA needs more resources to train government
pipeline safety personnel, they will get the additional resources.
Training and Qualifications
– Manager of T&Q, Richard Sanders
Connecticut Comprehensive Underground
Damage Prevention Program – CT DPUC Gas pipeline Safety Unit’s, Daniel Nivison
Daniel covered
THURSDAY AUGUST 30, 2007
Enhancing State Damage Prevention
Programs – AGA Senior Vice President of Operations & Engineering,
Lori covered:
Lori also
distributed a draft EDPI document that addresses how the 9 elements are
supported by the CGA best practices.
Action:
George Mosinskis will send the draft EDPI document to NAPSR-All for
comments, along with link to CGA web site location where info on EDPI is being
housed.
Current Issues Including DIMP – AGA
Operations and Engineering Senior Counsel,
Phil covered:
1.
Upcoming
DIMP Challenges
•
One size rarely fits all in gas distribution
•
Flexibility in how states implement elements
of rule
•
Collecting and analyzing more data
•
Options available – operator’s choice
•
Minimize justifying non-use of some options
•
In some cases “doing more” may not be needed
•
Keeping an open mind
2.
Properly
addressing risks
3.
Risks
and inspection intervals of service piping.
Stated that general consensus, based on preliminary finding is that
corrosion is not a threat. Automated meter
reading and other technology and periodic inspection issue is under discussion
4.
Cost-benefits
of DIMP – unsure how customer bills will be affected. Stated that he would send numbers to George.
American Public Gas Association
(APGA) – APGA President and CEO, Bert Kalisch and Vice President of Operations
John Erickson
Bert covered:
John
covered the Security and Integrity Foundation (SIF) achievements and plans.
National Propane Gas Association
(NPGA) –Regulatory and Technical Services Vice President, Michael Caldarera
Rex
Evans provided a brief update concerning the Program Guidelines. First revisions will be released in
January. More revisions to come after
more discussion in 2008. PHMSA will
provide an editable document for NAPSR’s use.
NAPSR Closed Session
See NAPSR
8/30/07 Closed Session minutes.