Damage Prevention Workshop October 10, 2001 SeaTac, WA Summary of Minutes

1
Damage Prevention WorkshopOctober 10,
2001SeaTac, WASummary of Minutes
2
Penny Hansen, the meeting facilitator, reminded
the group that during the July meeting, the
majority of the group suggested the Board of
Peers and a complaint driven process as an avenue
to enforce RCW 19.122. During the August
meeting, the group had two paths they wanted to
pursue, 1) continue to define the Board and 2)
others wanted to brainstorm alternate methods of
enforcement.
3
Penny Hansen told the participants how the
objective of todays morning session was to
continue to define the Board of Peers and the
afternoon session would be reserved for looking
into other alternates besides the Board of
Peers.Penny then broke the room into groups by
industry. Some groups decided to combine forces
to work the task together. The groups ended up
being One-call locators, pipelines (gas and
hazardous liquid), contractors and water/power.
4
The groups were given three tasks1) How would a
complaint process work?2) Define solutions on
how to prevent damage to underground facilities
proactive (ie. near misses).3) Which government
agency should assist the advisory board in
implementing the law?
5
Water/Power ConclusionsAnswer to Question 1)
How would a complaint process work? Complaints
come from parties when they cant resolve them on
their own. (Assume the parties try this method
first). Complaints can come because of no
one-call, late locates, mismarking, reckless
excavation, or actual damage.Step 1 -
(Complainant/Harmed Party), requests complaint
form from one-call center (possibly get off
website). Include with the form pictures, copy
of ticket(s), description of incident(s), any
records of recurring behavior. (The complainant
must submit evidence with the complaint form so
that malicious complaints dont occur).Step 2 -
Documentation submitted to the Board for
consideration. Parties representatives must be
from high enough level within the companies not
just a crew member. Board may request additional
information and further investigate the claim
Board Chair assigns the complaint to one
individual from the Board to call both parties to
try to mediate. Mediation is documented (who,
what when, where, etc.)If mediation is not
successful, Chair selects hearing panel based on
the location of the two parties.Hearing
Panel/Board reaches a decision and makes a
recommendation to the Attorney General (WUTC AG?
Or Main AG)
6
Water/Power Group Continued..Answer to Question
2) Define solutions for proactive enforcement.
This group felt that Proactive Damage
Preventionis a better term. Educate - Have
permitting agencies include one-call information
with the permits. Local jurisdictions should
voluntarily participate (buy-in). Individual
utilitiesLocal UCCs (state local)Contractors
licensingEducation on the requirement to
join/participate in one-call.Answer to Question
3) Which Government Agency? WUTC, through
existing adjudicative process. Possibly LI, may
not accept if issue is not employee safety
related.Idea Legislation could direct how fines
are used, i.e. fines go for damage prevention
activities that are competitively awarded to
local OR state UCCs or other entities for
specific purposes.
7
One-call Locators GroupAnswer to Question 1) How
would a complaint process work? Complaint, filed
by any entity (i.e. utility, contractor,
citizen). Complaint sent to affected call
center. Call center researches the ticket and
verifies information. All information gathered is
public information.Action, log complaint
information and research and give it a file
number. Contact entity who the complaint is
against and give them the option to agree with
complaint and go for a settlement OR disagree and
go to the resolution board. Resolution Board
1st Step Informal - With both parties present,
board hears both sides. Nothing said can be used
in a formal hearing, nothing recorded, no minutes
taken. Board can ask questions. Board meets
privately to discuss the case. Parties called
back to hear the decision announced verbally. A
settlement is offered (waive a certain amount of
the penalty or probation). Accused party then
has 24 hours to accept or reject the decision of
the Resolution Board. If the decision of the
board is accepted, the fine/education settlement
goes to the agency that will take action of the
settlement. If the decision is rejected the case
goes to a formal hearing in front of a
administrative law judge from whoever the
designated agency would be.
8
One-call Locators continuedAnswer to Question
2) Define solutions for proactive enforcement?
Use complaint process for any infraction (no
damages, etc. the actual infraction is the
focus). Have permitting agencies issue
citation.Proactive action, look at other
states.Answer to Question 3) Which Government
Agency? WUTC, administrative law judges (ALJ)
only, not the Commissioners presiding over a
formal hearing of a complaint. If the accused
party does not agree with the decision of the
ALJ, they can then appeal to the Commissioners.
Penny Hansen noted that as it is now, it is the
discretion of the Commissioners on whether they
sit in on a hearing or not.
9
Pipeline Group ConclusionsAnswer to Question 1)
How would a complaint process work? Anyone can
register a complaint (no anonymous complaints,
must pursue the complaint so that retaliation
doesnt occur). Complaint is submitted to the
WUTC or a call center by a phone call with
documentation to back it up. A form is filled
out and the complaint form is sent to the Board
of Peers. (Only the complaints that could not be
worked out between the parties first should be
submitted try to get it solved at the lowest
level if possible). The Board is a means of
mediation, not a court system. Board reviews the
code violation, does not address the damage.
Board will only proceed if there is substantiated
evidence (completed form, photos, call ticket,
etc.) All records/information is open to the
public. A portion of the penalty money would go
for the boards costs and safety education.
10
Pipeline Group Conclusions continuedAnswer to
Question 2) Define solutions for proactive
enforcement? Develop education fining structure.
Recommend 1,000 fine, may some that may be
waived at the time of settlement. Create a tier
of fines.Answer to Question 3) Which Government
Agency?L I (may not want to take on because
they deal with only employee safety), WUTC (has
the most knowledge) or Dept. of Ecology (dont
deal solely with pipelines).
11
Presentation from Contractors GroupThe
contractors group read a letter addressed to
Penny Hansen from the Utilities Contractors
Association of Washington (UCAW). The letter was
supported by the Association of General
Contractors (AGC). The letter stated that the
contractors oppose the WUTCs ongoing efforts to
compel an enforcement mechanism of RCW 19.122.
The letter also indicated that after two
workshops that participants have not been able to
agree on this issue.
12
Penny thanked the groups for their ideas and
stated that she respects where everyone is coming
from. She reminded the group that the afternoon
session will be for brainstorming other solutions
to the problem of lack of enforcement in RCW
19.122. Penny made the point that the current
system of taking the violator to court is not
working. Everyone wants to create a process that
is fair to all stakeholders. During the August
meeting, participants asked for statistics on
damage prevention and in response to that
request, the WUTC sent out a data request asking
all the underground utilities to submit
statistical information on facility damage caused
by third party damage. Penny read some of the
facts that she received from 20 companies thus
farFor the year 2000 through year to date
2001How many third party incidents caused damage
to your facility? 17,201 incidents.1) How many
how this incidents were the result of no locates?
2,832incidents2) How many incidents were
because of failure to locate? 610 incidents3)
How many incidents because of mis-locates? 937
incidents
13
4) How many third party incidents were the
results of failure to mark facilities within 2
business days? Too many to list 5) How many
third party incidents resulted in damage that was
not reported? 12 incidents6) What was the dollar
value of damage caused by third-party
damage?Over 10 million dollars in damage for
those that did respond to the request.Has your
company ever used the court system to pursue
civil damages from third-party hits? 5 used the
court systemPenny noted that this information
is still a work in progress and that she will
continue to receive data requests. The point was
also made that this information may not be
accurate because all companies track their
information in different ways, some dont track
this at all, and also the contractors and the
companies may be recording the same information
and reporting it in this data request.
14
Afternoon Session Brainstorm Other Ideas for
Enforcement Besides a Board of PeersEducation -
Educate building permitting agencies on RCW
19.122, because building inspectors have the
capability to shut down jobs now. It was noted
that the act of shutting down is sometimes
punishment enough for the contractor/excavator
because of lost money and time. Educate
companies that rent excavating equipment to the
public. For example, the rental company must
check for a valid one-call ticket before the
equipment will be rented. Someone noted that
this would be difficult to enforce and instead it
was suggested that the rental company give the
renter of the equipment some education material.
Put informational flyers in all utility
bills or information actually on the invoice.
Public Service announcements. Require licenses
or certificates for damage prevention education
before a person can operate heavy equipment.
Comp and Pers? Training should touch on damage
prevention education.
15
Afternoon Session Brainstorm Other Ideas for
Enforcement Besides a Board of PeersEducation -
Better education on the part of the law that
if a company cant get to marking the facility
within the two days, then the company will pay
the utility for their lost time. Educate
excavators at their safety meetings on how to use
the 800 number, painting the locates and showing
them how to log locates. Educate the Health
Department and have them force the independent
water associations to join the one call. Help
water associations with more education with some
of the penalty money. Also offer a subsidy for a
fax machine, etc. for doing locates.
16
Afternoon Session Brainstorm Other Ideas for
Enforcement Besides a Board of PeersOther
Processes Suggested that the Governor
write a letter to utilities and permitting
agencies urging them to learn about and commit
to damage prevention. The upper management need
to make it a priority from the top down. Make
the utility lines brighter colors so that they
are more visible in the ground. It was also
suggested to make above ground facilities
brighter colors or put an orange flag on them.
Reward excavators with good behavior (i.e. no
damages) a monetary reward. Where should the
money for the reward come from? From the tax
payers. Require licenses or certificates for
damage prevention education before a person can
operate heavy equipment. Require that a
compotent person be on-site during a high risk
dig (i.e. gas/hazardous liquid pipelines, high
voltage, etc.) Encourage risk management
services to offer to contractor their services as
a claims mediator. Sometimes a contractor will
pay for a fine even though they are in the right,
just because they dont want to fight the claim.
17
Afternoon Session Brainstorm Other Ideas for
Enforcement Besides a Board of PeersOther
Processes Lay trace wires in water lines
so they are easier to locate. If all
stakeholders cannot come to a consensus on this
issue, just go ahead with legislation for the gas
and hazardous liquid lines. He noted that the
pipeline companies are getting anxious and do not
want another incident to occur in Washington
state. Suggested that WUTC be involved because
they already have the background with their
pipeline safety program. Reword the section
in RCW 19.122.070 that states results in
damages. Feels that this would solve some
problems. Have the UCCs keep a list of the
violators and give out that list to cities and
counties so that information is available during
bidding and franchise agreements. UCC
meetings already have a section on the agenda
called field work problems where two parties
come together to try to mediate a situation.
Suggested that the affected parties go the the
nearest UCC to mediate.
18
All the group conclusions and brainstorming
ideas will be put into a for discussion draft
legislation. The Commission will draft some
legislation that would create a mediation board
to review and mediate complaints and make
recommendations. These discussion drafts will be
brought to the next meeting on October 26th.
Anyone can bring draft bill language to the next
meeting on the 26th. Next meetingFriday
October 26th930 400Location TBA