2006-05-10 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

New Pipeline Safety Rules Continued.. ~ Rate Authority argued for modifications to address serious short-comings iri the new requirements that the Office of Pipeline Safety proposed to put into effect. Among the issues that cities urged the Office of Administrative Hearings to consider included: who actually owns the facilities, who is responsible for them, and whether MnOPS went beyond its statutory authority in attempting to ~gu1ate the locating/markiT1g of such facilities. . MnOPS argued that cities would bear no costs under the new requirements because installation of service laterals in a public right-of-way is handled by and paid for by the installing contractor or by the property owner. MnOPS also concluded that cities should maintain information on the location of service laterals installed after 2005 because most local governments already regulate public rights-of-way within their jurisdictions, by means of conriection fees and a permit proceSs. During lengthy rules advisory committee deliberations and a hearing before an administrative law judge, the League, l\1MUA, and other OJWIn17Jdions representing the expertise of city officials charged with responsibility fOr city utilities. expressed concern that providing locate information on service laterals increases the risk of costly litigation because some of the existing location data on which cities rely may be faulty. MnOPSreasoned that local governments have sufficient indemnification under current statutes. The proposal to require operators to install a locating wire (or have an equally effective means of marking) to locate noncon- ductive underground facilities installed within a public right-of-way was perhaps the most controversial requirement of the new rules. The League and other municipal interests argued that use of locating wire is inherently unreliable. MnOPS reasoned that cities have the right to require that installers infonn them about, and provide information on. new service laterals installed and connected to the city's water and sewer facilities. Therefore, MnOPS argued, it is logical and reasonable to assume cities as operators can require installers to provide them with the necessary information for both cities and municipal utilities to TnJIintJlin sufficient information on such laterals for future locate purposes. MnOPS declined the suggestion that cities and municipal utilities put forth that there be a pilot project or study before imposing the requirement to locate nonconductive facilities. Cities said the requirement to install tracer wire or other means of locating sewer laterals was unreasonable because current technology often does not work; is not accurate; and that locating wires are unreliable when used at the depths water and sewer laterals are found in Minnesota. Cities also asked for a standard statewide locating wire installation standard. These concerns were dismissed. On the other hand, MnOPS also rejected a recommendation by private utility contractors that the rule be expanded to include the entire length of the service lateral, from the water or sewer main to the building. This was rejected because "the Depart- ment's jurisdictional authority may be brought into question with respect to codes, such as the Building Code." MnOPS acknowledged no current technology is 100 percent accurate, but that locating wire, as a minimum standard, was reasonable. The Minnesota Rmal Electric Association (MREA) also opposed any service latera1locating and marking by electric utilities, because they do not own. install, or m;lintain the lines beyond the meter. The MnOPS response was similar to the one they made to cities: that primary locating responsibility needed to be placed on the entity in the best position to maintajll records and locate ~rground facilities-the opQIators. Recommendations 1. To meet the new obligations under the rules it is important that cities develop a system to manage those installing facilities in the right-of-way. Some cities have already done this through use of a right-of-way management ordiDance; for others this will require adopting new local regulations. At the very least, every city with water and sewer facilities needs to estab- lish a right-of-way excavation permit process that meets its needs. At a minimum, such an ordinance should require notice to the city; a city approval process; and a requirement mandafjng the installers provide the city with required information on the location of the facilities they have installed. Ideally cities would reCeive accumte as-built maps or records of the type the city uses. 2. The city must develop a system to respond to excavators who will request information about the location of pre-January 1, 2006, installations through GSOC. The city is only required to provide the best available information. Some cities, how- ever, may want to embark on a citywide mapping effort in order to meet this 9bligation. Continued on back page NOVEMBER 2005 ff