Encouraging Innovation in Locating and Characterizing Underground Utilities (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

15C H A P T E R 3 Utility Issues in Transportation ProjectsSubsurface Utility Engineering Up until the 1980s, a department of transportation (DOT) employee usually worked directly with a utility company rep- resentative to address utility issues. In 1989, at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-hosted National Highway Utility Conference, in Cleveland, Ohio, a new branch of civil engineering was introduced. It was called subsurface utility engineering, or SUE. Since its introduction, SUE has evolved to encompass not only utility mapping, but also utility char- acterization, coordination, design, and relocation design. Since 1989, the FHWA has played a major role in validating and promoting SUE. The basic premise of SUE is that utility location data, as shown on plans, can come from various sources, including records, surface geophysical imaging, determinations based on visible physical features, and conversations with reliable— or unreliable—parties. Knowing the data’s genesis and the processes used to collect and interpret it allows the data to be classified according to its reliability. The evaluation of data reli- ability is based on four utility quality levels (QL). Quality level A, B, C, and D designations all require adherence to rigorous protocols before the data is assigned a utility quality level. Per- haps most importantly, an appropriately registered profes- sional must take direct, responsible charge of data collection and depiction before the data is associated with a quality level. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Guidelines (1) standardize these collection and depiction protocols. Interactions Between the Project Owners and Utilities Responsibility for determining the ownership, location, and condition of a visible object in the highway right-of-way is generally well defined, and there are clear standards for accu- racy and precision of depicted items, including visible utility structures. The transportation project owners invariably pro-duce a topographic survey and take responsibility for that cost and time. This is not the case for the nonvisible space. Chal- lenges in documenting and understanding accuracy for indi- rectly measured or inferred utilities are part of the problem of resolving utility issues on transportation projects and also relate to interpretations of the “accuracy” language in state one-call statutes. Responsibility for locating and characteriz- ing the nonvisible (that is, buried utility) items occupying space varies widely and is not well delineated in practice. Also, different parties may be responsible for utility depictions for differing phases of the project (for example, planning, design, and construction). A new transportation project is an opportunity to repair, upgrade, and, in some cases, rationalize existing buried infra- structure within the limits of the project. However, compre- hensive utility work prior to a transportation project extends the project timetable and the period of concentrated disrup- tion for residents and businesses. The utility work itself may cause unexpected damage to adjacent utilities or structures— causing further delays and uncertainties. Such decisions need to be taken on a project-by-project basis. Why Is Knowing the Location and Character of Utilities Important? The purposes for locating and characterizing utilities are many. They include the broad categories that follow: • Reducing or eliminating unnecessary utility relocations; • Obtaining timely information for design, construction, and material inventory for necessary relocations; • Making sound decisions on betterment or relocation or replacement versus rehabilitation (in situ) of utilities based on their condition, their location, or both during the win- dow of opportunity of the transportation project; • Making the public and construction worker safe; • Continuing and maintaining important utility services; and

16• Limiting pavement damage during utility expansion or repair. Utility Relocations The FHWA issued a report in 2002 on avoiding utility relo- cations (2). It included reasons why utilities are relocated unnecessarily. Some of these reasons have direct application to this study and they are discussed in this section. Utilities May Be Moved More Than Once per Project Utilities being relocated more than once per project can occur when initial project utility relocations are not recorded properly or not recorded at all, and a subsequent project design change creates a new utility conflict. The situation occurs because of the following reasons: • Utility relocations are usually performed before project con- struction, so that construction can proceed without conflicts. • Late-stage design changes are a frequent occurrence, some- times happening after utilities are relocated. • Projects are halted during some stage of their design or construction, but after some amount of utility relocation, and are reactivated at a later time. • Initially relocated utilities may not be constructed in accor- dance with the relocation plans for various reasons. These reasons may include mistakes or intentional changes due to site or ground conditions. Providing accurate as-built records to the project managers may not occur when these changes are made. • Project designers may be using old plan sets that show the original utility locations, but not the relocated ones, since project owners usually wait until construction plans are issued to incorporate these initial utility relocations. Utilities Are Not Located in a Timely Fashion Knowing where utilities are as early as possible during the project development process allows for the efficient use of that location data for planning purposes. These purposes include budgeting utility relocation costs and time; taking into account existing utility plans for new or upgraded ser- vice; public outreach for utility structure placements; and per- mitting for environmental issues, height restrictions, or other reasons. This does not happen on many projects for various reasons, including the following: • Utility issues are rated low in importance in the overall complexity of a highway planning process. • Agencies are reluctant to expend resources for utility map- ping for a project that may never be designed or for which the project footprint may change.• Many publications by the SUE industry, FHWA, and others advocate using only utility owner records for the depiction of utility locations in the planning stage of a project (e.g., Subsurface Utility Engineering: A Proven Solution) (3). Some state DOTs (Virginia and Washington, for example) are beginning to advocate the use of surface geophysics to map utilities for large projects at the cusp of design (0 to 10% com- pletion stage) in spite of the above reasons for not locating utilities at this early stage. For example, Virginia DOT includes utility designating as a service item (locating through surface geophysics) in their topographic survey contracts, typically performed in the planning or early design stages. Washington DOT has done the same on a specific large project, the Alaska Way Viaduct and Sea Wall Replacement Project, through downtown Seattle. Utilities Can Be Damaged During Construction Transportation projects typically require excavation for pave- ment replacement, vertical or horizontal alignment changes, and drainage system additions, as well as the relocation of any existing utilities affected by the project. This excavation work opens up the possibility of damage to existing utilities and the risk of deaths, injuries, costs, and project delays. Because of the seriousness of many utility and pipeline accidents and the high cost of disruption to some types of utilities (for example, fiber optic cables), much attention has been paid to this issue over the past 10 years. Efforts to mitigate damage have fallen into the following major categories: • Procedural mitigation: Improved one-call procedures; increased use of one-call (public and contractor) educa- tion; tracking damage statistics (national and state utility offices); using damage statistics to prioritize actions; and moving the responsibility of the damage-prevention mark- ing process to contractors or a single entity rather than indi- vidual utility owners. • Technological mitigation: Improved locating and marking technologies; improved mapping; pipeline encroachment monitoring; leakage and mechanical damage detection; and “see ahead” technologies for excavation equipment. It is important to understand the extent of utility damage and its causes in order to plan how to reduce damage and dis- ruption of projects. On a national level, the Common Ground Alliance has initiated a Damage Information Reporting Tool (DIRT). There is some collection of data at the state level, with one of the best examples being the Utility Notification Center of Colorado (UNCC). Its 2005 report indicated that 9,371 damage incidents occurred in 2005, an 11.4% decrease from 10,573 incidents in 2004. Excavators did request a locate

17on 55.7% and did not request a locate on 32.3% of the inci- dents (4). The fact that 55.7% of those excavators that dam- aged a facility had requested a locate within the time specified under the law means that merely gaining compliance with one-call laws is not sufficient to prevent damage. Excavating, locating, or marking practices still need major improvement. Not all damage to utilities is reported or immediately detected, which makes assigning responsibility for damage costs difficult. It also may cause later service problems that are difficult to trace and that produce unexpected, severe safety consequences. Utilities May Not Be Where Logic Would Indicate A mistake frequently made is that the existing features of the land are taken to reflect the location of the utilities beneath it. Utilities are expected to follow the line of the road, be at the edge of it, trend straight between visible structures such as fire hydrants, and cross roads perpendicularly. This was mostly the case for the 20th century, because it was efficient for past construction techniques (for example, hand digging, back- hoes). However, underground obstacles encountered during construction, such as rocks or water, may have affected this preferred emplacement from time to time. Also, while utilities may have been originally installed following the trend of the road, the land could have changed over time. Roadways may have been straightened, widened, added to, and removed, and the utilities may have stayed where they were. New construction techniques and materials allow differing util- ity emplacement procedures and alignments to be easily accomplished. Materials such as fiber optic cables and plastics are easily bendable. Emplacement techniques, such as direc- tional drilling, allow greater freedom from the constraints of above-ground features. Utilities can now exist almost any- where and in any kind of configuration or pattern. Pavement Integrity Is Important to Transportation Agencies The interplay between utilities and transportation projects does not occur only during the planning, design, and construc- tion of the project but must be managed throughout the life of the transportation service. Few occurrences in public works are as frustrating for the public and the public works engineers as a new street or highway pavement being cut for utility work. Efforts to combat this problem have included Utility Coordi- nation Committees—typically on a citywide basis for street work or a regional basis for state highway work. These commit- tees meet on a regular basis, and the transportation project plans are discussed in detail to allow utility companies to plan their work within the affected rights-of-way to be completed in a timely fashion prior to or during the street or highway work.This collaboration is also encouraged or enforced by restric- tions on utility cuts (except for emergency operations) for a certain period after completion of the new pavement. This report is not about managing utilities in the right-of- way during the service life of a transportation project, but this issue cannot be separated from the planning, design, and con- struction operations if a minimal life-cycle cost and a well- managed coexistence between utilities and transportation is to be achieved. The primary interactions between life-cycle issues and the planning, design, and construction process include the following: • Utility coordination should occur at the earliest stages of planning a transportation project. • Effective utility coordination requires resources and time during the project planning phases. • Accurate and comprehensive utility maps are needed as early as possible in the project so that the necessary utilities can be targeted. • Effective characterization of the operating condition, safety and remaining life of the affected utilities needs to be accom- plished so that decisions can be made about rehabilitation or replacement prior to placement of the new pavement. • Utility companies need to understand the permit restric- tions and costs that will become effective once the project is constructed. Who to Contact and What Utilities to Look For Determining who has underground facilities is an important and necessary first step in order to ask them for information on their buried utilities. Interactions between the transporta- tion agency and the utility owner will be nonexistent if the owner is not identified. Responsibility for documenting whose facilities are underground at a particular location is vague. Recorded sources of information on who owns the utilities in the ground are varied and generally inconsistent from area to area. DOT or municipal permitting departments, past proj- ects, governmental agencies, a state one-call center, Internet/ literature searches, and conversation are some information sources. Another method of determining ownership may be possible by detecting the presence of a utility and then tracing it to a visible structure that gives a clue as to ownership. The list of utility types is extensive. Power, natural gas, telecommunications, sewer, and water top the standard list. Steam, cathodic protection, gasoline, oil, propane, industrial gases, and others exist in certain places. Each utility is typically composed of wires or pipes of different sizes, materials, and protective sheathing. Each utility may have associated struc- tures occupying underground space, such as thrust blocks,

18vaults, and storage areas. Wires may be encased or individu- ally placed in common trenches. Splices and loops may exist beyond the immediate area of the main pipe or cable. Some utilities may occupy the same space, such as a fiber optic cable inside a sewer pipe. In any one project location, the list of utility owners also can be extensive. An individual person may own a water well and septic system and run underground wiring for light or heat. An individual may also own the sewer system connection to the main or to the public right-of-way line. Corporations may own fiber optic lines running between buildings. Municipal- ities may own storm and sanitary sewer systems, and sometimes the town gas, electric, and water systems as well. Apartment complexes may own steam and gas systems. College and industrial campuses may own all or some of the utilities found on their property. Railroads own signal and track switching wiring. DOTs may own storm drainage, sign lighting, and information technology systems. Public and private corpo- rations or authorities may supply water, gas, electric, and telecommunications. Where Is It Underground? This is one of the major questions for which this study hopes to find better solutions. Accurate and comprehensive records are a solution. However, existing records of underground site conditions are usually incorrect and incomplete, and the rea- sons may include the following: • Records were not accurate in the first place—design draw- ings are often not “as built,” or installations were “field run,” and no record was ever made of actual locations. • On old sites, there have usually been several utility owners, architects, engineers, and contractors installing facilities and burying objects for decades in the area. The records seldom get put in a single file and are often lost—there is almost never a composite map. • References are frequently lost. The records show some- thing 28 ft from a building that is no longer there, or from the edge of a two-lane road that is now four lanes or part of a parking lot. • Lines, pipes, and tanks are abandoned but do not get taken off the drawings. Even so-called as-builts frequently lack the detail and veracity needed for design purposes in a utility congested environment. Furthermore, references on depth are rarely referenced to a recognized elevation datum. The amount of cover over a utility can change without obvious visual indica- tions due to interim construction activity, erosion, and so forth, creating errors on records where “depth of cover” is the sole reference to vertical position (5).The problem has only grown worse since 1995. The increas- ing use of GIS systems for utility recordkeeping, coupled with the easy integration of data from CADD systems, has led to a proliferation of utility data. Sometimes original data has been scrapped once it has become digital. Digitizing mistakes are common, as are misinterpretations of the original record data. Without ground-truthing or other verification means, it is impossible to know the accuracy or completeness of these util- ity location and characterization data. A reliable image of a utility’s position can be accurately transferred to plans through professional survey and map- ping services. However, sometimes markings on the ground surface are transferred to paper or CADD without the bene- fit of professional quality control. Pacing off distances, using a GPS system inadequate for engineering survey accuracies, or other means of measurements are sometimes used. The precision of the surface geophysical methods are defeated when this occurs, and the accuracy and reliability of the final data become unknown despite appearing to be well docu- mented or determined. Even with all available surface geophysical tools in use and with adequate time and budget, there are still those situations in which the tools are inadequate or the data are ambiguous. Tough locating tasks with improbable or impossible locating success due to the utility circumstances or its environment (for example, nearby structures that interfere with the locat- ing methods used) are listed in Box 3.1. Another obstacle is the diverse ways in which surface geo- physical methods are used and by whom. Reliance on the response of utility owners through one-call systems has not worked well for the design stage of projects because the system was designed for safety during construction only. Indeed, in a majority of states, the legislation or practices preclude permit- ting or mandating that utility owners respond to “design locates.” Regardless of whether utility owners should mark during design, the following are some arguments as to why individual utility companies cannot do as good a job for plan- ning or design purposes as a single entity responsible for marking all the utilities in a project. The practice of a single entity marking all utilities within the project limits fosters an environment in which this full range of utilities can be marked on the ground surface with greater reliability during design than is likely to be the case if individ- ual markings are made on a utility-by-utility basis. Compar- isons of the two approaches are given in Table 3.1. An additional and significant problem exists when utility owners mark their own utilities. Someone has to transfer that data from the ground to the CADD file. This process begins with the surveyor. However, when the surveyor has no con- trol over the process of the field marks, the surveyor does not know when to actually survey the marks. The surveyor does not know if all the marks have been made in the field and so

19Deep utilities Braided utilities that weave around each other Utilities layered on top of others Empty nonmetallic conduits Close and parallel utilities Abandoned and discontinuous utilities, and utilities in poor condition Stubs for future connections Anode beds/wires Large grounding systems Under cars and other obstructions Septic systems Material and depth variance Box 3.1. Challenging Conditions for Utility Location Inaccurate or missing records Gas and oil field gathering lines Railroad communications facilities Thrust blocks Limits of encasements Utilities under salt water Loops of wires Slag and highly conductive backfill Utilities beneath reinforcing steel No access to utilities Wooden water lines Steam lines Utilities near guardrailsmay need to make multiple trips to the same spot to survey additional marks. All of this results in cost and time ineffi- ciencies and potential quality issues. Another issue is that of responsibility. For those states allowing utility owners to mark for design, in many cases those utilities are protected from liability by statutes that say the util- ities are not responsible for accuracy or completeness of the marks. There is little incentive for doing the job correctly. Finally, it is necessary to have a wide variety of surface geo- physical equipment available to effectively image various util- ities under a range of site conditions (see, for example, the appendix to ASCE 38-02) (1). The cost of having this equip- ment available, and technicians trained to use it, is high. A properly outfitted technician may have equipment at his dis- posal costing more than $100,000, when vehicle, survey equip-ment, safety equipment, and surface geophysical equipment are considered. Coordinating Utility Issues with the Project Effective action in the planning and design stage is a key to reducing the impact of utility problems on transportation proj- ects. This utility coordination process is addressed by a com- panion SHRP 2 study (6), and these two studies, while separate, should be integrated for a more complete understanding of the problems, issues, and potential solutions facing transportation project providers and utilities. Because of the many utility owners, long timelines of proj- ect development, different systems of recordkeeping, different purposes for knowing the locations and character of utilities,Comprehensive Approach Utility-by-Utility Approach Has available or at least has requested all available utility owners’ records Finds and marks all utilities capable of being found Has a realistic time frame for finding and marking utilities Has many pieces of equipment on-site or readily available Maps a large area, allowing better familiarization with utilities at a site Because of the large area to be marked and reasonable time frames, traffic control can be set up, allowing time and security for decision and precision Has available only those records for each utility owner Only marks some utilities—does not have advantage of seeing all parts of the puzzle. For instance, abandoned utilities, unknown utilities, and multiple nonencased wires cause identification confusion. Is under severe time constraints for getting utilities marked Has limited equipment available Usually only responsible for a small area, making it difficult to see the large picture Usually no time for traffic control. Locator runs between vehicles when clear of traffic. Table 3.1. Comparison of Comprehensive and Utility-by-Utility Approaches to Utility Identification and Locating

20State DOT Personnel Utility engineers Survey section Property department Traffic department Maintenance Consultants Box 3.2. Roles Related to Utilities in Transportation Projects Utility Company Personnel Records Engineering Locators Contract locators Construction inspectors Other Personnel Railroads State one-call centers, inspectors, consultants, designers Municipal GIS departments, engineers, consultants Federal agencies Military Private ownersand different accommodation policies and guidance, the responsibility for collecting and depicting utility information for transportation projects is varied. Transportation agencies typically have a department or person responsible for seeing that this function is carried out in accordance with their own procedures and policies. This department, depending upon the organization, may be contained within the broader divisions of design, survey, construction, or maintenance. The personnel or organizations that may have a role in the utility issues for a transportation project are listed in Box 3.2. With this many parties involved in the process, there is a need to clearly identify responsibilities, scopes of work, and timing sufficiently to address all the parties and the means to get util- ity information delineated on plans. The Virginia DOT Case Study The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has perhaps the most extensive use of SUE services and consul- tants under contract. This reduces the number of parties responsible for utility issues outside the control of VDOT. The list below is illustrative of VDOT’s contracted services or benefits. • VDOT employs several strategies to get horizontal utility mapping on the project plans. In each case, it relies on con- sultants under its control. This ensures that (1) the map- ping scope includes those utilities not typically marked by utility owners or their one-call contractors (such as unknown, abandoned, out-of-service, or privately owned utilities, multiple direct-buried cables, cathodic protection systems, and empty conduits), (2) the timing of data col- lection is in accordance with project needs, (3) VDOT is protected against errors or omissions in the utility map- ping data, and (4) the survey and CADD mapping of the data are efficient. • VDOT establishes regional subsurface utility mapping con- tracts directly with providers of this service. Additionally,it has included horizontal utility mapping in statewide and regional topographical survey contracts. This enables VDOT to move collection of comprehensive accurate hor- izontal utility data into the planning stages of the project and to start using that data early for planning and prelim- inary design decisions. • VDOT reimburses all utility owners for their relocation design costs. Utility owners can do this design themselves or get permission to use a consultant. • VDOT has regional utility relocation design contracts in place. This allows VDOT to directly perform utility reloca- tion designs for municipalities or for other utility owners. • VDOT negotiates and obtains any required utility easements directly with the land owners in conjunction with the high- way project. • VDOT provides utility owners and consultants with licenses for their project CADD platforms. • VDOT sometimes includes utility coordination in consul- tant design contracts; it also employs outside consultants under direct contract with the DOT for these services on an as-needed basis. These consultant services can encompass responsibility for conflict identification. • VDOT uses its regional SUE contracts for conflict verifica- tion through physical exposure (test holes). All of these services, controlled by VDOT, take burden from the utility owners. Utility owners are still included in correspondence and meetings and can take control of aspects of these services when they desire. VDOT has stated a 20% reduction in time to take a project from planning to construc- tion by using these procedures. It has also reduced institu- tional wariness and conflict between the agencies. In a 2007 report to the Virginia Transportation Commission, VDOT met every project budget and timetable for every project for the first time since it has been tracking projections (7). VDOT’s project constructors still must use the one-call sys- tem for damage prevention purposes. This is an important state-mandated process that addresses the utility owners’ roles

21and responsibilities. It is their final chance to protect their facil- ities and find utility changes and additions within the project location after design is complete but before construction is complete. Other state DOTs use SUE consultants to varying degrees. Some use them on a project-specific basis or for just a portion of a project, such as for planning purposes only or design only. Some states do not use SUE consultants at all. Some states have a prequalification process for SUE consultants; many do not. Subsurface utility engineers typically have access to a much wider array of utility surface geophysical devices and tech- niques than utility owners and contract locators do, and the commensurate training to use it. However, even with this wider array and training, there may be some utilities that can- not be identified or detected. The following chapter discusses available locating technologies. References 1. American Society of Civil Engineers. Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data. ASCE Standard No. CI/ASCE 38-02, ASCE, Reston, Va., 2002, 20 pp. 2. Avoiding Utility Relocations. DTFH61-01-C-00024, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Program Administration, July 2002. 3. Subsurface Utility Engineering: A Proven Solution. U.S. FHWA Film, 1995. 4. Perspectives on Facility Damage—2005. Utility Notification Center of Colorado, Golden, Colo., Sept. 2005, p. 76. 5. Anspach, J. H. ASCE Continuing Education Class: CI/ASCE 38-02. Reston, Va., 1995. 6. Ellis, R., M. Venner, C. Paulsen, J. Anspach, G. Adams, and K. Van- denbergh. SHRP 2 Report S2-R15-RW: Integrating the Priorities of Transportation Agencies and Utility Companies. TRB, Washington, D.C., 2009. 7. VDOT Meets or Exceeds All Project Completion and Budget Goals for First Time. Roads & Bridges News, Sept. 2007.