UNDERGROUND DAMAGE PREVENTION: UNDERGROUND DAMAGE PREVENTION Kansas City Metro Initiative to Implement Common Ground Practices at the Local Government Level


PRESENTERS: PRESENTERS Tom Bizal Black & Veatch Glenn Martin & Jerry Smith City of Lee’s Summit Murvyn Morehead City of Overland Park Monty Zimmerman City of Lenexa Dean Katerndahl Mid-America Regional Council


PROJECT PARTICIPANTS: PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Kansas Corporation Commission Missouri Public Service Commission Cities in Kansas City Metro Area Kansas City Metro Region Common Ground Committee Kansas and Missouri One-Call Programs Mid-America Regional Council


PROJECT FUNDING: PROJECT FUNDING U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Projects Administration Matching Funds Kansas Corporation Commission Local Governments Mid-America Regional Council


BACKGROUND: BACKGROUND Telecom Boom Multiple entrants into the right-of-way leads to multiple cuts Customer service issue Safety issue Local governments responsible for regulating and monitoring activities in the right-of-way States concerned, especially with regard to natural gas lines Special issue with the relatively new trenchless technology


BACKGROUND: BACKGROUND City Response Development of right-of-way ordinances (see www.marc.org/telecom/telecomdocs.htm) Dedicated staff just for right-of-way coordination Exploration of new requirements Degradation fee Early submittal of design and location information More stringent replacement requirements for new pavement HDD guidelines


BACKGROUND: BACKGROUND Common Ground Effort of USDOT to convene stakeholders in underground facilities to identify and develop best practices Stakeholders divided into nine functional areas to develop best practices Report issued in 1999 Mainly focuses on areas of consensus Common Ground Alliance (www.commongroundalliance.com)


CITIES and COMMON GROUND: CITIES and COMMON GROUND Common Ground and Cities Stakeholders included utilities, engineering firms, contractors, locaters, the federal government, and states Only two municipal utility reps out of over 160 participants How do cities apply common ground best practices? Are there best practices that local governments can use that were not a part of the Common Ground practices?


CITIES and COMMON GROUND: CITIES and COMMON GROUND Cities can be important agents in preventing damage to underground facilities because: Cities are where there is the greatest density of underground facilities, Cities are where there is the greatest amount of activity, Cities are where there is the greatest number of underground facility incidents, Cities have local regulatory and inspection powers that can set development standards to prevent damage to underground facilities.


CITIES and COMMON GROUND: CITIES and COMMON GROUND Cities are in a position to implement many of the best practices identified in Common Ground Design and location considerations Marking of underground facilities Excavation practices Improve communications and coordination Facilitate compliance with the state’s one-call program


THE PROJECT: THE PROJECT Kansas Corporation Commission Initiation KCC approached MARC about working together to implement Common Ground at the local level MARC and area cities agreed this would be a good extension of past activities KCC applied on behalf of MARC, the Missouri Public Service Commission, and local governments Award of $241,875


THE PROJECT: THE PROJECT Objectives Adoption and implementation of uniform damage prevention best practices by cities and counties in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Improved sharing of geographic information between cities, counties and state one-call systems reducing over-notification.


THE PROJECT: THE PROJECT Project Organization KCC contracted with MARC Damage Prevention Steering Committee KCC PSC City right-of-way and public works reps 2 year project started Oct 2002 Steering Committee selected Black & Veatch


SELECTING BEST PRACTICES: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES Identify All Potential Best Practices Started with Common Ground Black & Veatch looks in literature and nationally Identify others through interviews with stakeholders


SELECTING BEST PRACTICES: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES Receive Input from All Stakeholders Interviewed 50 stakeholders Contractors Utilities Locators Local government One-call State corporation commissions


SELECTING BEST PRACTICES: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES Receive Input from All Stakeholders What are their issues with regard to damage prevention? What potential practices do they feel would help the most? Are there practices that should added to the list?


SELECTING BEST PRACTICES: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES Picking the Truly Best Practices Started with list of 78 potential practices B&V provided information on the number of stakeholders that supported each practice B&V provided comments made in interviews on each practice List narrowed to 19 practices by Steering Committee


SELECTING BEST PRACTICES: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES Picking the Truly Best Practices List of 19 was evaluated based on three criteria Was this a practice that was applicable to local government implementation? What was the potential benefit in terms of reducing damage to underground facilities by implementing the practice? What was the chance that the practice could be successfully implemented?


SELECTING BEST PRACTICES: SELECTING BEST PRACTICES The Final Best Practices Black & Veatch, working with the Steering Committee, through combining some practices and eliminating others reduced the final list to five best practices B&V then developed detailed descriptions for each of the five practices


REVIEW & TESTING OF PRACTICES: REVIEW & TESTING OF PRACTICES Review of Practices by Stakeholders Metro Common Ground Committee Underground Location Coordinating Committees Utility Managers Revisit and adjustment by Steering Committee


REVIEW & TESTING OF PRACTICES: REVIEW & TESTING OF PRACTICES Testing of Best Practices Cities are implementing some or all of the practices on a one-year test basis Black & Veatch has established a reporting form At the conclusion of this construction season B&V and MARC will interview stakeholders to develop a final assessment of the practices


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES The Five Final Best Practices Design Drawings and SUE In-Ground Facility Identification Potholing Strategic Relationships HDD Guidelines


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Design Drawings and SUE Objective is to define collection and depiction of underground utility data on design drawings for construction projects in public ROW Based on CI/ASCE 38-02, Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Design Drawings and SUE Collection of Data Preparation of scaled base maps Construction limits of project ROW limits Notable surface features and facilities Existing subsurface facilities within construction limits of project… through the SUE process


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Design Drawings and SUE SUE is Subsurface Utility Engineering – An engineering process to identify and map ug utilities as well as assign a quality level to data Quality Level A – highest level – locating or potholing – precise plan and profile info Quality Level B – designating horizontal position through surface detection methods and collecting info through survey method Quality Level C – surveying visible subsurface structures and correlate with existing utility records Quality Level D – most basic level – collect data from existing records


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Design Drawings and SUE Selecting SUE Quality Level Joint decision between project owner, engineer, and governing authority Factors include project location, utility congestion, ROW width, size of project Variable SUE levels on a project


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Design Drawings and SUE Design Drawings Design = Base maps + SUE data + best design (minimize conflicts) Electronic drawing format To scale with drawing legend Distinct line types, symbols, and notes Identify SUE quality level Identify facility data information source Plan and profiles


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Design Drawings and SUE This was the one practice that produced comments from private sector stakeholders Concern about time and cost of providing such information Since there is not a single GIS database with existing utilities, engineers will end up duplicating a lot of work It is more effective providing this information right before construction or during construction


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES In-Ground Facility Identification Objective is to identify and recommend permanent devices be installed with buried non-conductive facilities to allow facility detection through non-invasive methods For new as well as replacement facilities


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES In-Ground Facility Identification Recommendation to install tracer wire with access points every 300 feet maximum Additional use of plastic warning tape For direct buried and HDD applications Can be supplemented with markers


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Potholing Objective is to ascertain horizontal and vertical location of facility Methods Air vacuum excavation (preferred) Water vacuum excavation Hand digging Backhoe (discouraged)


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Potholing Conditions requiring potholing include: Any excavation within utility tolerance zone Any utility crossings of HDD Every 50 feet for HDD paralleling a utility within 3 feet Every 200 feet for HDD paralleling a utility within 5 feet Excavations near congested utility areas Excavations within 3 feet of hazardous or vital systems Backfill and restoration


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Strategic Relationships Objective is to develop goodwill and positive relationships between key stakeholders that results in the exchange of useful information regarding facility location and protection All stakeholders share a common goal Municipal Facility Owner Project Owner Contractors One-call


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Strategic Relationships Totally dependent on voluntary participation Identification of stakeholders/communication information distribution Having a voice to impact is the motivation Meetings ULCC (Utility Location Coordinating Committee) Damage Prevention Roundtable Educational Seminars Industry-Sponsored Conferences Pre-Construction Meetings Meet and Greet Socials More deliberate and structured in approach


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES HDD Guidelines Objective is to provide basic guidelines/fundamental elements of HDD process to ensure public safety and protect existing utilities The guidelines are based on two sources: City of Overland Park Horizontal Directional Drilling Guidelines Handbook (http://www.opkansas.org/Documents_&_Forms/hdd_guidelines.pdf) Horizontal Directional Drilling Good Practices Guidelines by the HDD Consortium


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES HDD Guidelines HDD Attributes Trenchless installation technique developed to install pipe under natural or man-made obstacles (crossings) Also used for parallel installations Used extensively in the following industries: Gas Water and Sewer Pipelines Electric Communications


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES HDD Guidelines Requirements addressed: Planning and Design Permitting Construction Safety Construction Guidelines Drilling Fluid Containment and Disposal Storm Water Pollution Prevention Construction Records


THE BEST PRACTICES: THE BEST PRACTICES Summary Observations Common goal: damage prevention Synergy between 5 practices, especially Design Drawings, Potholing, and HDD Guidelines Practices available in hard copy and electronically (www.marc.org/damprev/DamagePrev.htm)


TRENCHLESS TECH TRAINING: TRENCHLESS TECH TRAINING Training for Local Government Employees Training arranged by Trenchless Flowline, Inc. and their president Ted Dimitroff Goal was to ac quaint local government officials with the processes and procedures that should be followed to successfully use trenchless technology Trenchless technology can be a method for preventing damage to underground facilities, if used properly


TRENCHLESS TECH TRAINING: TRENCHLESS TECH TRAINING Training Agenda HDD electronics HDD setup HDD use of fluids Vacuum excavation Subsurface scanning New technologies


CITY EXPERIENCE: CITY EXPERIENCE Some cities have already used some of these practices Some cities are trying them for the first time Trying to get as much uniformity in practices as possible Some cities are still in adoption phase


CITY EXPERIENCE: CITY EXPERIENCE Murvyn Morehead City of Overland Park, HDD Handbook & recent experience with cable overbuilder Monty Zimmerman City of Lenexa, Potholing & recent experience with cable overbuilder Glenn Martin & Jerry Smith City of Lee’s Summit, recent experience


ONE CALL: ONE CALL The primary objective of project has been on developing and testing best practices A second objective is to improve communication between local governments and the Missouri and Kansas One-Call programs


ONE CALL: ONE CALL Meeting between Missouri One-Call, Kansas One-Call, One-Call Concepts, the service provider for both programs, the KCC, PSC, and local governments Exchange of up-to-date GIS information Mutual support Public education focused on homeowners


ONE CALL: ONE CALL Exchange of GIS Information One-call programs have challenge in keeping base maps up to date, especially in developing areas Have to deal with a large number of cities to get data MARC has just developed a GIS base map of the entire region for Enhanced 9-1-1 which is kept up to date MARC can transfer this updated base map information to One-Call Concepts in a digital format they can use This will ease burden on cities and one-call programs and contribute to more accurate locates, especially in rapidly developing areas


ONE CALL: ONE CALL Mutual Support Local governments can: Distribute one-call information Can require a one-call tickets before issuing a permit One-Call can: Provide information on local contacts Provide inquiry information to cities Both have the same interest, to reduce damage to underground facilities


ONE CALL: ONE CALL Homeowner Public Education A big problem is homeowner damage to underground facilities They are not reached in the same manner as the professional stakeholders and often are unaware of one-call requirements and local permitting requirements Called on regional Public Information Officer group to help design campaign


ONE CALL: ONE CALL Homeowner Public Education (cont.) Program included: Brochures distributed through permitting offices, county extension offices, libraries, equipment rental companies, and nurseries Placards at same locations Public Service Announcements on cable channels Articles in city newsletters and on city web sites Web site: http://www.marc.org/onecall/


REGIONAL UTILITY MAP: REGIONAL UTILITY MAP Important Potential Initiative Developing a single, regional utility location map would be a great asset Cited during interviews Cited in discussion of design drawing practice The beginnings of such a system is under development in Johnson County


REGIONAL UTILITY MAP: REGIONAL UTILITY MAP Key Issues Liability for sharing information Security Business information Technical, in creating single regional GIS map that is compatible across jurisdictions and utilities Steering Committee has authorized a preliminary study of these issues


CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION What is Next? Complete testing over the summer of the practices Evaluate practices Conduct regional utility map study Produce a report Formally promote and adopt practices Continue to work on one-call and utility map issues