Utility Records and Accurate Mapping of Infrastructure (Break-out Session on April 21, 2010)

Improper facility records have resulted in utility damages, civil penalties and liability claims. During this session, stakeholders discussed the challenges and benefits of preparing and maintaining accurate facility records and how enhancements to current mapping systems can improve public safety, reduce utility damages, reduce operational costs and allow for more precise girding of infrastructure systems at the notification center.

Issues:
• In Virginia, every member operator is required to provide the notification center with information that will allow proper notification of excavation near the operator's utility lines. This data shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after an operator installs or aquires underground facilities it had not previously identified to the notification center. In the case of sanitary sewers, the data shall be provided no later than 15 days after the utility line is accepted by the operator.

• The notification center must maintain detailed maps or electronic means depicting the member operators’ service areas, and verify the data provided by member operators no less frequently than annually.

• VUPS depends on Member operators to supply accurate information regarding the location of their infrastructures.
     – Damages have resulted from operators improperly gridding
     – Over-notification can occur when operators grid too large of an area
     – Over-notification results in added expense to operators and rate payers, and wastes resources of the notification center, locators, and excavators

• As new infrastructure is installed, operators must ensure that proper utility mapping information gets to the locators, the notification center, and into the GIS in a timely manner.

• § 56-265.19. G. “For underground utility lines abandoned after July 1, 2002, operators shall make a reasonable attempt to keep records of these abandoned utility lines, excluding service lines connected to a single-family dwelling unit…”

• Locators can use this information to check whether they have inadvertently marked an abandoned facility.
     – How many operators are doing only what the law requires, making no attempt to map lines abandoned prior to 2002 when it comes to their attention?

• 20VAC5-309-160. “The operator shall prepare and maintain reasonably accurate installation records of the underground utility lines installed after July 1, 2001, other than electric, telecommunications, cable TV, water, and sewer underground service lines connected to a single family dwelling unit.”

• What is “reasonably accurate?”
     – If an operator is unable to mark their facilities in accordance with the Act using conventional locating methods, the only way to mark is by records.
     – Are utility records accurate enough to place marks within two feet of the utility line if the line can not be located through conventional methods?
     – Are records “reasonably accurate” if they do can not be used to fulfill the requirements of 56-265.19. A.?
     – What about all of the lines that existed prior to July 1, 2001?

• New technologies being developed can play a role in active QA and also assist in identifying records discrepancies before a damage occurs.

Solutions:
• A stakeholder group consisting of Utility Operator, Notification Center, Locator, and Staff representatives to meet in June or July to draft best practices and present to the Advisory Committee for approval for:
     – Operators to promote the use of new technologies and use field locating data to improve prints (both existing and future installations)
     – Operators, during the installations of infrastructure, to capture GPS, SUE, Survey, and or Tie Down information to overlay with existing GIS and Facility record information
     – During routine maintenance, field personnel record information regarding change in infrastructure to report to GIS personnel
     – Submitting information to VUPS and locating personnel on newly installed facilities within 15 days
     – Submitting information to locating personnel on proposed facilities within 15 days

Read more

Importance of a Utility Operator’s Role in Educating Its Contractors (Break-out Session on April 21, 2010)

Utility operators are responsible for the actions of their contractors and must help to ensure a properly trained workforce. During this session, stakeholders discussed problems associated with using contractors that are unfamiliar with Virginia Law. Additionally, attendees explored what steps utility operators can take to ensure a well trained workforce.

Issues:
• We have all seen the negative impact that a poorly educated workforce can have with regards to damage prevention.

• Contractors, or subcontractors from out of state are often unfamiliar with the laws and rules here in Virginia. More can be done when an out of state contractor is hired to perform excavation in Virginia to ensure he knows about the applicable laws and rules.

• Historically, contractors working for utility operators damage a large number of jurisdictional gas facilities.
     – Utility operators need to ensure their contractors are properly educated.
     – Operators need to educate their contractors about the law, the rules, and utility separation requirements.
     – Operators could have statement of work clauses in their contractual agreements that address applicable laws and require education in their contracts.

• Locators must be trained to applicable industry standards no less stringent than those published by NULCA (56-265.19.E.) A record of that training must be kept by either the utility operator or the contract locator.
     – NULCA standards require that locators be trained in all applicable state laws.

• The responsibility to ensure a well trained workforce must be a shared one.

• If utility operators hire a contractor, it should be the responsibility of that operator to ensure that the contractor is properly trained.

• It should be the responsibility of the prime to ensure the education of the sub.

• It is not acceptable to hide behind the “cloak of contract.”

Solutions:

• Staff will provide outreach to the Board for Contractors to require damage prevention elements during licensing.

• VUPS will request the license number from excavators- those that are not licensed will be reported to Board for Contractors and the utility operator they work for.
     – If possible, integrate DPOR verification through VUPS’ systems.

• Uniform Accountability
     – Develop a Best Practice for utility operators to educate, audit, track through data, and formulate corrective actions to ensure that operators play an active role

• HCCA, HRUHCA, and RAMCA will increase education and outreach efforts and work with operators to provide contact information.

• VUPS will capture first time callers and out of state contractors and send hyperlinks to items like the excavator manual and the marking standard booklet electronically with Positive Response information.

• Require attendance at Advisory Committee Meetings and LDPC as remedial actions for repeat offenders during an Offer of Settlement.

• As a remedial measure, require excavators who have extensive history and performance issues to attend either SVCC or Train the Trainer Courses during an Offer of Settlement.

Read more

Use of Data to Improve Damage Prevention (Break-out Session on April 21, 2010)

Sound decisions require the use of accurate data. This session discussed the benefits of designing and implementing a data analysis process to effectively define issues and address the unique problems that individual organizations may face in their damage prevention program.
Issue:
• Data analysis can be used to provide direction, identify your company risks and focus energy and limited resources to mitigate threats to subsurface infrastructure.

• It is important to understand potential threats and problems faced by your organization in order to effectively and efficiently address them.

• Each organization’s damage prevention program needs to have risked based elements
     – Attack larger problems first for greatest impact

Solution:
• Arrange a meeting consisting of excavator, locator, operator, VUPS, Commission Staff, and local government representatives to identify data applicable to each industry that would be useful to promote efficiencies and positively impact damage prevention

• Draft language for a best practice delineating the use of data to improve damage prevention in Virginia. Data collection and analysis should include geographic and demographic elements related to damage prevention and be used to direct resources to mitigate utility damage risks, and better focus training and public outreach efforts.

Read more

The Pros and Cons of Mandatory White Lining (Break-out Session April 21, 2010)

This breakout session, facilitated by excavators and locators, discussed whether white lining should become a requirement on all excavation sites.


Issues:
• Virginia law requires excavators to provide the specific location of proposed work when calling the notification center.

• Utility operators must mark their utilities within the work area as defined by the excavation ticket.

• The work areas defined on excavation tickets are sometimes excessive:
     - For example: Ticket marking instructions say, “Mark Entire Property” when the work is for building a deck, installing a single sign, or planting a tree;
     - Some properties are large and, when the work area is not specific, markings are placed in areas where no excavation will occur, also known as over-notification.

• Over-notification can lead to several problems, including:
     - Delays in marking
     - Delays in excavation
     - Increase in no-show tickets
     - Increased usage of code 60

• There has been an ongoing public outreach effort to minimize over-notification which have included encouraging excavators to:
     - Use “standard” white lining or “electronic” white lining
     - Use “verbal” white lining via the use of quadrants to define the excavation area when giving notice to the notification center

• As it stands now, white lining is a requirement, but only in certain circumstances and only with the use of paint:
     - §56-265.17 E. states, in pertinent part, “In the event a specific location of the excavation cannot be given…, prior to notifying the notification center…, the person proposing to excavate or demolish shall mark the route or boundary of the site of the proposed excavation or demolition by means of white paint, if practical.

• Should white lining be a requirement for every excavation?

• What would be the pros and cons of mandatory white lining?

Solutions:
During this breakout session, attendees agreed upon several pros, with minimal cons, concerning mandatory white lining:

• White lining will reduce overnotification, which will help reduce:
     - Damages
     - 3 Hr notices
     - Code 60 usage
     - No-show tickets
     - Delays in marking
     - Delays in excavation
     - The use of unnecessary paint, flags, or stakes

• White lining may increase costs for different stakeholders:
     - Operators who pay per ticket located
     - Excavators who may buy paint or buy/upgrade phones that have data plans for use with the Pilot Project technology and spend time white lining or paying per ticket to use a white lining software

Once the pros of white lining were realized, the attendees were able to reach consensus on the following potential solutions to making white lining mandatory:

• In an effort to spread the use of white lining, staff will offer remedial measures as a part of settlements that would include a reduction of civil penalty in exchange for the use of some type of white lining.

• Staff will bring the Pros and Cons in front of the Advisory Committee to get a vote on recommending white lining as a mandate.

• Staff will organize a working group to draft the following:
     - Language to offer a definition of white lining that would allow it to encompass “standard” (white paint), “verbal” (quadrants and over-the-phone- descriptions), and “electronic” methods to be included in §56-265.15.
     - Language making the newly defined “white lining” a requirement in the event a specific location cannot be given and removing the “if practical” stipulation from §56-265.17 E. due to the numerous ways in which white lining can now be accomplished.

Read more

Project Design and Right of Way Overcrowding (Break-out Session on April 21, 2010)

Overcrowding of utility rights of way and extreme underground utility burial depth has been a growing problem resulting in utility damages and work delays. This session, facilitated by VDOT, excavators and utility operators, focused on identifying possible solutions to these problems.

Issues:
• How can we prevent future right of way overcrowding?

• Can we fix the current overcrowding problem?

• How deep is too deep for a utility to be accurately located within the tolerance zone?

• How deep is too deep for the requirement of hand exposing underground utilities?

Solutions:
• The best practice will be drafted by the session panel and submitted to the Advisory Committee for review and adoption by the August meeting.
     - An installation best practice will be established to recommend a common design for utility line placement in utility easements.

• The best method for fixing the current problem is by promoting the installation best practice and slowly organizing our buried facilities over time during relocation and facility betterment / replacement projects.

• Given the standard locating equipment and good conditions, a locate technician can accurately locate a facility that is buried to a depth of 10 feet. After 10 feet, the accuracy becomes questionable.
     - The session panel will create a best practice for installing buried utilities that will incorporate the industry standards for burial depth, including the 10 foot depth as the “no-deeper than” depth.

Read more

Preserving Utility Markings (Break-out Session on April 20, 2010)

Commission Rules require excavators to reasonably protect and preserve utility marks on an excavation site. Some excavations require removal of areas where those same marks are placed. This session discussed the reasonable steps an excavator may take to ensure utility marks are preserved. Additionally, during this session GPS and SUE surveys were discussed as an alternate means to preserve utility markings and whether Virginia law should be amended to include these methods.


Issues:
• Excavators use Global Positioning Systems to re-identify underground utility location marks after they have been eradicated due to construction activities.

• How can excavators preserve the utility location marks when it is known they will be removed due to construction activity?
     - When pavement or other hard surfaces that have been painted with underground utility location marks are removed, the excavator must call for a remark ticket and wait the required waiting period.

Solutions:
• Due to the current accuracy and cost of GPS technology, it is not reasonable to have an excavator collect coordinates of utility markings and use the coordinates when the actual markings are destroyed. In time, when GPS is accurate and more readily available, we may be able to incorporate this practice into Virginia’s damage prevention program, pending certain responsibilities and liabilities are agreed to.

• For the purpose of preserving the marks in areas that will be destroyed by construction activities, excavators are encouraged to add additional marking instructions on their Miss Utility ticket, requesting off-set marks, stakes, flags or whiskers.

• A new type of ticket (“Meet to Mark”) is needed to help excavators and locators coordinate a time to have an area that was previously marked, remarked when the hard surface is removed for construction activity. Staff will coordinate with the session panel members to draft language for a new ticket to be presented to the Advisory Committee later this summer. Note: This new ticket type will require a legislative change prior to implementation.

Read more

Making Sewer Lateral Records Available to Excavators (Break-out Session on April 21, 2010)

This breakout session involved local governments and excavators determining the need for guidelines that may compliment the newly passed legislation relative to marking of sewer utility lines.

Issues:
• §56-265.19:1.G does not define “exercise reasonable care”. What is reasonable care?

• What type of mark should be used by the utility operator when marking according to §56-265.19:1.B.1.a & b?

• What is the best type of record that can be made available to excavators? (i.e. drawing, diagram, picture) Should there be a best practice regarding this?

• Should there be a consistent method (“best practice”) to make sewer lateral records available to excavators when required to do so by law, or when the information is available regardless if it is a requirement or not?

Solutions:
During this breakout session, a consensus was reached on the following potential solutions to assist local governments and excavators with the newly passed legislation relative to marking of sewer utility lines:

• Establish a working group to:

     - Define what “reasonable care” measures an excavator can take to comply with subsection §56-265.19:1.G. The consensus of the breakout session is as follows:
     - The excavator will use metal fish tape or a similar device through the sewer cleanout to locate the private sewer lateral.
     - Municipalities to consider purchasing / using ground penetrating radar to locate private sewer laterals.
     - Septic system contractors will work with homeowners to determine the location of septic / sewer lines.
     - Should the location of the private sewer lateral be undetermined by the excavator and potentially in conflict, a policy will be created to prohibit trenchless excavation from occurring.
     - If the private sewer lateral is locatable by means of tracer wire, the excavator is responsible for locating the lateral. (i.e. locate equipment, private locating company)
     - Determine the type of mark that should be used by the utility operator when marking in accordance with §56-265.19:1.a & b. The consensus of the breakout session is as follows:
     - When marking within the public right-of-way (“ROW”) or public sewer easement (“PSE”), the operator will use the current best practice by placing a green triangle to indicate a private sewer lateral exists.
     - When marking inside the ROW or PSE, the operator will use the current best practice of placing an arrow to indicate that the utility continues beyond the ROW or PSE.
     - Establish a best practice regarding the type of sewer lateral record that can be made available to excavators. (i.e. drawing, diagram, pictures, video) The consensus of the breakout session is as follows:
     - The best record to make available to the excavator is a diagram. However, the operator shall provide any records or information available to the excavator regardless of the excavation type.
     - Establish a best practice for attaching a tracer wire to the cleanout cap and installing an identifying label to indicate the presence of a tracer wire.

• Division staff will update educational items

• Division staff and industry stakeholders will begin training

Read more

How to Prevent Miss Utility Ticket Abuse (Break-out Session on April 20, 2010)

After 15 years of active damage prevention programs in Virginia, ticket abuse still occurs. This abuse negatively impacts all stakeholders. During this session, stakeholders explored ways to prevent misuse of Emergency Tickets, Update Tickets, 3 Hour Notices, and Meeting Tickets. The attendees also discussed how inaccurate excavation descriptions, improper ticket scope, generic ticket descriptions, continuous recalling of completed excavation areas, incomplete markings, and erroneous responses to tickets can cause marking and excavation work delays and can lead to misunderstandings that may result in damages.

Issues:
Session attendees identified two main categories in which ticket abuse occurs.

• How excavators abuse the process:
     – Emergency Tickets (calling in Emergency tickets for normal type excavations)
     – Three Hr. Notices (using three hour notices as a quick remark)
     – Update Tickets (calling in the same ticket continuously, without ever performing an excavation)
     – Meeting Tickets (using meeting tickets to get marking prior to the 48 hour period for the purpose of excavating)
     – Ticket Size/ Scope (calling in a large area when the excavation area is significantly smaller)

• How locators abuse the Process:
     – Incomplete Markings (failing to mark the entire area as delineated on the ticket)
     – Improper use of Response Codes (placing a code on the system that is not reflective of the marking status of the ticket)

Additionally, attendees discussed the following topics at length.

• Excavators are legally obligated to call the notification prior to and provide the specific location of the proposed excavation. Requesting the entire property for building a small deck, planting a tree, or placing a single utility pole is not specific enough to meet this requirement.

• Locators, in response to an excavation area that is too large, will sometimes get agreements from field representatives to change the scope of work and mark what they believe to be the area of excavation based on those field conversations, even though they are legally obligated to mark the area delineated on the ticket.

• Technologies have been developed to reduce over-notification, reduce ticket size/scope and enhance documentation and field conditions, but are not widely used, even when it has been demonstrated that initial start up and implementation of technology solutions has been more than offset by gained efficiencies and lower overall operational costs.

• If ticket size and scope are going to continue to be modified in the field, perhaps the time has come for us to create a bilateral, full duplex positive response.

• Enforcement exists to address certain types of abuse, but is lacking for others, such as 3Hr. Notice abuse.

• Should enforcement actions ensue, and if so, does the current law address the specific concerns of the stakeholders?

Solutions:
• Staff will form a stakeholder work group to draft proposed legislation to address abuse of tickets.

• VUPS and Staff will draft criteria and procedures for VUPS’ reporting of ticket abuse and VUPS will initiate reporting.

• VUPS and Staff will draft language to inform callers of the correct purpose of ticket types and inform callers of VUPS’ reporting practices.

• Staff will investigate reported probable violations and take necessary enforcement actions.

• Staff will create an online reporting portal that transmits complaints of probable violations to the Division’s email inbox.

• Staff will revise DPA -1 form to better allow for reporting of a probable violation where there was no damage.

• VUPS will develop excavator ticket management software to allow bi-lateral communication.

• Staff will form a stakeholder group to develop a Best Practice for Operators to include language in their contracts to address proper use of Miss Utility tickets.

Read more

Enhancing Web Ticket Entry (Break-out Session on April 20, 2010)

This session explored potential solutions that can enhance Web Ticket Entry by preventing overnotification and excessive after-hour ticket entry. Enhancing the current Web Ticket audit process to identify problematic Web Ticket Entry users was also discussed.


Issues:
• Over-notification by mapping (often referred to as overgridding) occurs when a person draws an unnecessarily large polygon for the work area when using Web Ticket Entry (“WTE”).

• Excessive after-hour ticket entry occurs when large volumes of web tickets are entered after Miss Utility’s (“VUPS”) normal working hours, and it poses a logistical burden to the operator/locator community.

• Identifying problematic users – Should the current WTE audit process be modified?

Solutions:
During this breakout session, the group reached consensus on the following potential solutions:

• VUPS will investigate automatic polygon monitoring and report findings to the Advisory Committee at the June/July meeting.
     - If the software detects that a polygon may be in violation of the legal limits of ticket size/scope, it will generate an alert to notify the user of the potential problem.
     - If the ticket is submitted and the software determines that the size/scope may still be invalid, then the ticket will automatically be added to the existing queue of tickets to be audited by VUPS staff. VUPS auditing staff will then take appropriate action, as necessary.

• To reduce the logistical challenge to the operator/locator community, yet still allow WTE users to input tickets at any time, the group recommended that a “cut-off” time be implemented for web tickets that matches the time for tickets called in by telephone. After normal working hours, web tickets could still be entered by the user and would still be transmitted to the operator/locator, but the waiting period and other dates would be calculated as if the ticket had been entered on the following working day. For example:
     - Currently, when a web ticket is submitted after hours on a Monday (but before midnight that night), the waiting period begins at 7 a.m. on Tuesday and ends at 7 a.m. on Thursday, when the ticket is due.
     - Under the proposed change, that same ticket would still be transmitted to the operator/locator at the same time, but the waiting period would not begin until 7 a.m. on Wednesday and would end at 7 a.m. on Friday, when the ticket would be due.
     - The group also recommended that a working group of stakeholders be formed to address any necessary changes to the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act and/or Commission Rules for Enforcement.

• The group requested that VUPS adopt and/or emphasize risk-based audits and report trends/results to the Advisory Committee at the June/July meeting.
     - Currently, VUPS’ auditing staff examines at least one ticket from each user per day, with a goal of auditing 20% of tickets entered by each user per day. When a problematic user is identified, there is no formal procedure in place to ensure that a higher percentage of that user’s tickets are examined (risk-based audits). 100% of tickets for new WTE users are audited for the first 30 days of use.
     - Under the proposed change, VUPS will adopt or place greater emphasis upon a more structured system utilizing risk-based audits.

Read more

Enhancing Virginia’s Damage Prevention Outreach Program (Break-out Session on April 21, 2010)

In light of recent budgetary issues, this breakout session discussed ways to make available resources go further and help Virginia’s damage prevention outreach program.

Issues:
• In light of recent budgetary issues, how can we make available resources go further?

• How can we promote and encourage the consistent use of Virginia’s damage prevention message amongst all stakeholders?

• How can we encourage all stakeholders to take a proactive role and become involved with Virginia’s education / outreach program?

Solutions:
During this breakout session the attendees reach consensus on the following potential solutions to make available resources go further and help Virginia’s damage prevention outreach program.

• Hold a meeting with utility damage prevention personnel, their public relations persons and others in June or July to discuss and encourage the consistent advertising regarding damage prevention awareness amongst Virginia’s utilities. Staff and the current advertising agency will also attend.

• Have the Statewide Education Executive Committee announce a damage prevention advertising competition (with categories) at the next Advisory Committee meeting in June. Offer incentives and recognition for participation. The Statewide Education Executive Committee to be the judges of the competition.

• VUPS to improve the DEAP Software to display and be able to layer various educational efforts for each geographic area.

• Have VUPS actively pursue stakeholder involvement with their DEAP software.

• Provide DEAP data to our advertising agency by January 15th of each year so it can be used in the planning of the DP campaign early in the planning stages.

• Provide a presentation on Virginia’s damage prevention program at all local damage prevention Committee meetings.

• Make available the damage prevention artwork on the Miss Utility website for all organizations to use.

• Create a form that would allow organizations to complete and submit their annual damage prevention outreach plan via the Miss Utility website. Make the forms available at the Advisory Committee meetings and Miss Utility outreach events.

• Create an online message to remind organizations when it is time to submit their plans.

• Initiate a contest to have organizations make a 60 second video about damage prevention and upload them to www.youtube.com. At next year’s conference the videos would be voted on and the winner would receive an award. The motivating stipulation for eligibility would be for all competitors to have already submitted their outreach plan.

Read more

Municipalities and Damage Prevention Awareness (Break-out Session on April 20, 2010)

This breakout session discussed the benefits of having municipalities take a damage prevention leadership role in their communities.
Issues:
• Virginia municipalities and their contractors performing excavations were the leading cause of jurisdictional gas damages in 2009 and were involved in 326 damages across the state.

• It is important that Virginia’s county, city, and town officials, and their employees take a leadership role in damage prevention awareness.
- Local Governments are created to serve the public.
- When the public is at risk, it is the duty of localities to do something.
- When underground utilities are damaged, it becomes a locality issue.

• More could be done in counties, cities and towns to promote damage prevention awareness.

• How can we achieve consistency promoting damage prevention awareness by all of Virginia’s counties, cities and towns?

Solutions:
During this breakout session, the attendees reached consensus on the following potential solutions to making municipalities more proactive with their damage prevention awareness programs:

• Staff will arrange a meeting with representatives of VUPS, excavator associations, the Virginia Municipal League (“VML”), and the Virginia Association of Counties (“VACO”), to promote damage prevention leadership, education, and awareness amongst the members of VML and VACO. Additionally, Staff will ask to be put on their upcoming conference agendas to discuss damage prevention related issues.

• Staff will arrange a one day damage prevention seminar in June or July for local government employees and association members to attend and discuss local government’s role in damage prevention. Staff will invite local governments with high number of probable violations of the Act.

• VUPS will begin an active program to encourage local governments to become more involved with Local Damage Prevention Committee Meetings.

• Staff will arrange a damage prevention Train the Trainer Workshop exclusively for local governments with high number of probable violations of the Act.

• VUPS will establish point of contacts with all local governments and provide them with damage prevention education and awareness items.

• Staff will provide damage data to the municipalities with a high number of damages involving their employees or their contractors.

• Municipality employees will interact, on a case by case basis, with probable violators, and when necessary contacting the fire marshal in circumstances involving imminent danger.

Read more