INTRODUCTION... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5 REPORTED EVENTS AND TOTAL DAMAGES ESTIMATE... 6 UNDERGROUND DAMAGE PREVENTION ANALYSIS...

INTRODUCTION

The Damage Information Reporting Tool (DIRT) is the result of the efforts of the Common Ground Alliance (CGA), through its Data Reporting & Evaluation Committee (DR&EC or Committee), to gather meaningful data regarding the occurrence of facility events. An event is defined by the CGA DIRT User’s Guide as “the occurrence of downtime, damages, and near misses.” DIRT provides industry stakeholders a means to anonymously report data into a comprehensive database for analysis of the factors that contribute to the events.

DIRT is a tool. One definition of a tool is “anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose.” The CGA’s primary focus is safety and damage prevention. DIRT does not prevent damage, but it is a tool to identify opportunities for improvement and to measure the progress of related efforts. The results of this report can be used to develop educational programs and/or best practices to potentially reduce future damages. Stakeholders are encouraged to use all of the tools at their disposal to reduce damage and follow the industry’s best practices.

The annual DIRT report provides a summary and analysis of events occurring during the prior year, and as additional years of data are collected, provides the ability to monitor trends over time. The 2010 DIRT report focuses on the data gathered throughout the United States and Canada during the four-year period from 2007 to 2010. Since 2008, the number of events reported has steadily decreased, from 135,621 records in 2008 to 112,917 in 2010. In addition to the number of records submitted, a critical factor of DIRT success is the

completeness of those records. Complete records allow for better overall analysis and provide for a more inclusive review of the contributing factors behind the events. As a way to gauge the overall level of completion for the submitted records, the Committee implemented the Data Quality Index, or DQI, in 2008. A further discussion about the DQI and a detailed breakdown of the DQI for 2010 data are included in the report.

The Committee can speculate on reasons for the trends, differences, and commonalities identified by the data analysis in this report based on the diverse collective experience and knowledge of its members. In addition, readers of this report are encouraged to draw upon their own experiences or knowledge when interpreting the data and applying it to damage prevention efforts. The Committee encourages feedback on this report from readers.

As with the prior years, the data collected for all of the DIRT elements were reviewed by the Committee. While not all of this information is included in the report, it is published and available online at http://www.damagereporting.org/annual.

4

C

INTRODUCTION... 3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5


REPORTED EVENTS AND TOTAL DAMAGES ESTIMATE... 6


UNDERGROUND DAMAGE PREVENTION ANALYSIS... 9


Was a locate request made prior to excavation? ... 10

Was the facility properly marked? ... 10

Was the site properly excavated? ... 11

DATA ELEMENT RESULTS... 15


Part A: Who is submitting this information?... 15

Part B: Date and location of the event... 15

Part C: Affected facility information... 17

Part D: Excavation information... 18

Part E: Notification... 19

Part F: Locating and marking ... 19

Part G: Excavator downtime ... 19

Part H: Description of damage ... 20

Part I: Description of the root cause ... 21

REGIONAL DATA COMPARISONS... 22


DATA QUALITY INDEX INDICATIONS... 27


RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ANALYSIS... 29


APPENDICES... 30


Appendix 1: List of groupings used in this report... 30

E

S

One of the CGA’s primary objectives in collecting data is to be able to better focus damage prevention efforts through meaningful analysis. The DIRT Report for 2010 highlights key areas of success and areas where additional effort may be needed.

One Call Center Notification: All damage prevention stakeholders should be recognized and commended for their damage prevention efforts. Public education campaigns and related initiatives that promote "call before you dig" have certainly encouraged contractors, governments, homeowners, and utilities to notify one call centers prior to excavation. For example, survey data from one particular one call center indicates that perhaps as much as 50% of first-time callers learned to “call before they dig” directly from information provided by their utility companies on monthly invoices or other direct mailings.

Data collected from 31 one call centers and associated damage data in DIRT indicates that less than 1% of excavations preceded by a locate request resulted in a damage. This is further described on page 10 of this report. Analysis of the damages reported to the CGA’s 2010 DIRT database further demonstrates that approximately one third (32%) of the damages resulted from failure to notify prior to excavation. Therefore, a call to a one call center may be the simplest and most effective means to reduce or eliminate excavation-related underground utility damages. Event Details Provide Insight: DIRT attempts to answer the following three questions: 1) Was a locate request made prior to excavation? 2) Was the facility properly marked? and 3) Was the site properly excavated? When the details regarding the event incurred and related

circumstances are entered in DIRT, the Committee can provide a more comprehensive review of the data and insight about the who, what, when, where, and why surrounding the events.

Some noteworthy observations can be made regarding the analysis of the 2010 DIRT data when the answer is "no" to the following questions:

Was a locate request made prior to excavation? Small fencing, irrigation, and

landscaping contractors were most involved in events that included a failure to notify prior to excavation.

Was the facility properly marked? Contract locators performed the majority of site

markings for the events reported in 2010, but proportionally they performed no better or worse than utility locators.

Was the site properly excavated? Contractors and municipalities performing excavations

related to sewer and water construction were involved in the highest percentage of events, using backhoes and similar equipment at times and under certain situations when possibly hand tools and soft excavation should have been employed.

Putting the Results into Action: CGA and its stakeholders can use these results in much the same way any business markets its products and services. Based on the analysis, the following

6

R

E

T

D

E

The number of events reported to DIRT in 2010 was 112,917. This number represents 2,315 fewer events than in 2009 (115,232), a 2% decline year-to-year. In addition, this is the second annual decline in the number of reported events since 2008. However, this could be the result of an overall decline in construction activity. Therefore, caution should be used before attributing this trend to improved underground damage prevention practices.

The performance metric of a damage rate, expressed as the number of reported damages per 1,000 one call center tickets, may be more compelling measurement of the damage prevention success. Unfortunately, the total number of tickets submitted (i.e., incoming notices to one call centers) in 2010 for all one call centers was not available for this analysis. However, a sample of 31 one call centers for which this data were available reveals an overall damage rate of 3.02 damages per 1,000 tickets, ranging from a low of 0.07 to a high of 11.95.

As Exhibit 1 illustrates, there is no apparent relationship between the number of one call center tickets and the damage rate. However, these results are largely influenced by reporting practices. Some states may have a higher number of unreported events.

It is logical to conclude that there are reasons for the variations in the damage rates that need to be explored. There may be correlations to explore with regard to the impact of regulatory

requirements for such things as white-lining or pre-marking on reducing damages (only 18 states require pre-marking). If data from all states were available, it may become obvious which

regulatory requirements have had the greatest impact on reducing damage. Anecdotally, pre-marking is presumed to lower damages, but it would be best to confirm this with supporting data. It may be worth mentioning that tolerance zones also differ across the states; 13 states do not have hand-dig clauses and 18 states do not require that a positive response be issued to the excavator.

Causality of these and other issues could be explored by looking at damage rate data before and after regulations came into effect. The impact of each regulatory requirement on damages can usually be identified because most requirements are adopted one at a time through the legislative process. The impact of regulatory requirements is best explored at the state level rather than region level because one call laws are written by state legislatures.

Annual one call ticket volumes for 2008 and 2009 were available for 13 of the one call centers included in the previously mentioned sample. Similar analysis reveals an increase in the overall damage rate for these 13 one call centers from 2009 to 2010 of 2.13 to 2.70 damages per 1,000 tickets (see Exhibit 2).1

8

Because the number of reported damages is merely a subset of all damages that occur in a given year, the total number of actual damages may be significantly greater. For 2008 and 2009, the number of DIRT-reported events (i.e., damages and near misses) was 135,621 and 115,232 respectively, compared to total damages estimates of roughly 200,000 and 170,000.

The total damages estimate has traditionally been made comparing the number of reported events to population counts and new housing starts for the states of Colorado and Connecticut, which both mandate reporting of all damages. Assuming this remains an accurate means of estimating total damages, the 2010 estimate is 165,000 events.

U

D

P

A

In general, DIRT assists with answering the following questions about underground excavation activity: 1) Was a locate request made prior to excavation? 2) Was the facility properly marked? 3) Was the site properly excavated? The first two questions are related to prevention, whereas the third references practice. The more often these questions are answered “yes,” the fewer damages should be incurred. Moreover, these questions and their answers should direct the CGA’s

underground damage prevention efforts.

A damage root cause was reported for slightly more than half of all events submitted to DIRT for 2010 (54.3%). The traditional categorization or groupings of these root causes aligns with the three questions posed above. Analysis of the current data set reveals a somewhat even

distribution of damages among three general categories of root causes: 1) Excavation Practices Not Sufficient; 2) Notification NOT Made; and 3) Locating Practices Not Sufficient. These three root causes account for 95% of the known events as illustrated by Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3: Distribution of Known Events by Root Cause Group (2010)

Given that there are limited resources available to invest in efforts to prevent underground damages, the challenge is identifying the common characteristics (i.e., type of excavator work performed, equipment used, etc.) most frequently associated with such damages. Directing future efforts and resources accordingly should then provide the greatest return on investment, as measured in terms of fewer damages.

10

Was a locate request made prior to excavation?

A locate request is the most effective means of preventing damages. An analysis of 31 one call center ticket volumes and damages included in the 2010 DIRT data set for the corresponding states supports this. The number of damages in the 2010 DIRT data set for which a locate request was made was compared to the total number of one call center tickets for those 31 states in which one-to-one comparisons could be made; this comparison shows that less than 1% result in damage.2

The majority of reported damages in 2010 (63%, Data Element Results, Part E) were preceded by a locate request. Ideally, the percentage of damages preceded by a locate request should eventually reach 100%, which would have the potential of eliminating “Notification NOT Made” as a reported damage root cause. If the analysis of the 31 one call centers previously described is indicative of the overall experience, perhaps as much as 30% of underground damages could have been prevented in 2010 (i.e., 99% of excavations that include a locate request do not result in damage, therefore 99% of damages reported in 2010 for which “Notification Not Made” was the given root cause could have been avoided).

Damages that were not preceded by a locate request were compared to characteristics of the excavator and excavation information (Part D); the result suggests that smaller, residential-oriented contractors are most commonly associated with these incidents.

Was the facility properly marked?

As Exhibit 3 illustrates, a quarter of reported damage root causes were related to insufficient locating practices. Insufficient locating practices may be the result of markings not being visible (e.g., never made) or made incorrectly. The 2010 DIRT data set suggests that incorrect markings as opposed markings that are not visible are perhaps a greater contributor to underground utility damages (see Exhibit 4). For those damages that were preceded by a locate request (from Part E) and were attributed to “Locating Practices Not Sufficient” as the root cause (from Part I), the problem lay primarily with the 90% not being marked correctly (based on a joint analysis of Parts F and I), as opposed to only 2% not being visible.

Contract locators performed approximately 72% of utility locates reported for 2010 in the DIRT data set. Although their percentage of facility markings that were either not visible or incorrect is not significantly more than those made by utility locators (see Exhibit 4), the relative number of locates performed by contractor locators suggests that contractor locators should be targeted first and/or more aggressively than utilities to influence the prevention of future damages. Again, this does not imply that contract locators performed better or worse than utility locators, but that contract locators made almost three times as many facility markings as utility locators.

Exhibit 4: Site Marking Characteristics by Locator

Was the site properly excavated?

Improper excavation practices were the leading root cause of underground utility damages reported to DIRT for 2010 (38% of known root causes selected). This pattern is similar to DIRT data sets from previous years. No doubt focusing the CGA’s efforts on educating the industry about proper excavation practices and promoting/supporting the education thereof should lead to fewer damages in the future.

The root causes categorized as “Excavation Practices Not Sufficient” and the number of events reported in 2010 for each is listed individually and in total in Exhibit 5.

12

Exhibit 5: Distribution of Root Causes for Group "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Known Events)

For almost half of the events reported in 2010 with a damage root cause categorized as “Excavation Practices Not Sufficient,” no details regarding what specifically was done

improperly during excavation are given (49% "Other excavation practices not sufficient"). The next two most-reported events with such detail indicate that “Clearance not maintained” and “Hand tools not used” are the leading root causes of underground utility damages when the sites were improperly excavated.

When the damages for which “Excavation Practices Not Sufficient” was the reported root cause are segmented by the excavation information provided in Part D, the characteristics most likely to be involved in underground damage are revealed. These characteristics include: type of

excavator, equipment used and work performed.

As Exhibits 6 and 7 illustrate, contractors and developers were most often represented by damages incurred as the result of improper excavation practices in 2010, typically involving backhoes/trenchers and when performing sewer/water construction. However, it should be clearly stated that although contractors and developers account for the most damages associated with the “Excavation Practices Not Sufficient” root cause, this relationship cannot and should not be attributed to greater carelessness or poorer excavation practices or skills. One could assume that the greater likelihood of damages resulting from improper excavation practices involving a contractor or developer is merely a result of the greater volume of overall excavations performed by this group.

Exhibit 6: Segmentation of “Excavation Practices Not Sufficient” Root Cause by Excavator and Excavation Equipment Type (Part D)

14

Exhibit 7: Segmentation of “Excavation Practices Not Sufficient” Root Cause by Excavator Type and Work Performed (Part D)

D

E

R

Part A: Who is submitting this information?

Natural gas, telecommunications, and one call centers are the reporting stakeholder groups for 76% of events submitted for 2010. Yet these three groups have averaged roughly 90% of known events for the reporting stakeholder group response each of the past three years. Whereas the share of events reported for natural gas and telecommunications remains somewhat consistent year over year, the observed change in 2010 is greatest among one call centers (13% vs. 27%, 2010/2009), state regulators (5% vs. 1%, 2010/2009), and Unknown/Other (10% vs. 1%, 2010/2009).

Exhibit 8: Change in Number of Events Submitted by Reporting Stakeholder, 2009-2010

Part B: Date and location of the event

This data element includes the physical location of the event (e.g., city, state/province) and the type of right-of-way (ROW). The greatest number of events reported to DIRT in 2010 occurred in One Call Systems International (OCSI) regions 3 and 6 (as illustrated in Exhibits 9 and 15). These two regions accounted for 43% of the total events reported. Almost half of the reported

16

Part C: Affected facility information

This data element includes the type of utility that was damaged (e.g., cable TV, natural gas, water); the type of facility affected (e.g., distribution, transmission); whether it was a joint trench; and if the owner of the damaged facility is a one call member. Natural gas and

telecommunication utilities experienced the most damages, representing more than 90% of the known events (61% and 30% respectively). Although this data is consistent for these two utilities compared to previous years, significant and inexplicable changes in 2010 were observed for electric utilities (down from prior years) and the number of events categorized as

"Unknown/Other" (up from prior years).

Exhibit 10: Events Segmented by Facility Damaged and Facility Affected (Excludes Unknown/Other Responses)

The number of events that identified electric utilities as the facility damaged was 12,325 for 2009. For 2010, this number was 3,985. By comparison, the number of events categorized as "Unknown/Other" increased from 11,926 in 2009 to 20,644 in 2010. These data aberrations are believed to be the result of changes in reporting activities or practices rather than trends that suggest annual improvements or declines.

18 Part D: Excavation information

This data element includes the type of excavator, the type of excavation, and type of work performed during the reported event. This is one of the most critical components of the DIRT data set because it identifies the “who” and the “how” related to excavation damages. The Underground Damage Prevention Analysis section of this report addresses this data element in additional detail, and suggests that the greatest number of damages involve contractors using backhoes to perform sewer and water excavation when either minimum clearances were not maintained or hand tools were not employed.

More than 50% of events that listed “occupant” as the excavator also reported “Notification NOT Made” as the root cause. Perhaps some explanations include the occupants not believing that a call was necessary when using hand tools (this is not required in some states), not being aware of 811 or a similar one call option, or not knowing that the service is available to them (see Exhibit 11).

Because of the importance of the data collected in Part D and its role in developing the CGA’s underground damage prevention efforts, it is vital that the excessive number of "Did Not

Collect" and "Unknown/Other" responses be minimized. The return on investment in such efforts is severely hindered without this information.

Part E: Notification

The most important component of this data element for the purposes of this report is whether or not a locate request was made. Of the events reported in 2010, 62% included notification made to a one call center. As discussed in the Underground Damage Prevention Analysis section of this report, making a locate request is considered the best means of preventing damage. It is

estimated that the number of damages could be reduced by as much as 30% if all excavations were preceded by a locate request.

Part F: Locating and marking

This data element designates the locating organization (i.e., contract locator or utility owner locator) and indicates whether the markings were visible and correct. Slightly more than 70% of known events were located by a contract locator, and the majority of known events were marked either visibly (72%) and/or correctly (62%).

Part G: Excavator downtime

This data element reports whether excavator downtime was incurred because of the event and includes downtime duration and cost. Although a large majority of reported events do not include these data (approximately 70%), the share of known data increased significantly in 2010 compared to previous years. However, almost all indicated that no downtime was incurred. The same pattern is repeated for the excavator downtime hours and cost.

When excavator downtime was experienced, the majority of events lasted between one and three hours, with associated costs of $1 to $1,000 per event (see Exhibit 12). The insert to Exhibit 12 illustrates that the lengthiest downtimes reported in 2010 were associated with sewer excavation. As discussed in the Underground Damage Prevention Analysis section of this report, this

analysis should encourage greater attention to damage prevention efforts among contractors and developers performing this type of work, because they are involved in the majority of damages where “insufficient excavation practices” was reported as the root cause.

20

Exhibit 12: Distribution of Events Experiencing Excavator Downtime by Cost (and Duration by Facility Damaged—Insert)

Part H: Description of damage

This data element indicates whether damage was incurred and includes details regarding the service interruption if realized. The results of this analysis can be summarized as follows:

• 98% of events reported to DIRT in 2010 incurred damages (2% considered “near

misses”).

• Less than half of the events reported have known data regarding service interruption. • Of the known reports that included data about service interruptions, the majority (69%)

did experience service interruption.

o Even fewer events experiencing service interruptions (above) include service interruption details, but of those that do, the majority of events experienced service interruptions lasting two to eight hours (70%) and affecting zero to one customer (87%).

o Furthermore, 69% of damages experiencing service interruptions incurred costs of $1,000 or less.

Part I: Description of the root cause

A damage root cause was reported for slightly more than half of all events submitted to DIRT for 2010 (54.3%). Analysis of the current data set reveals a somewhat even distribution of damages among three groups of root causes: 1) Excavation Practices Not Sufficient; 2) Notification NOT Made; and 3) Locating Practices Not Sufficient. These three root causes account for 95% of the known events (see Exhibit 13).

Exhibit 13: Distribution of Known Events by Root Cause Group (2007-2010)

The distribution of root causes is consistent with that of recent years, as is shown in Exhibit 12. Although it is questionable how reliable year-to-year data comparisons are, it should be noted that the percentage of known events with a "Notification Not Made" root cause for 2010 is the lowest in four years.

22

R

D

C

As in previous years, event data were submitted to DIRT by state/province. The 2010 DIRT data set was segmented by OSCI region to determine the variety of event characteristics by

geography. As a result of changes in event reporting that may occur in a given year, annual comparisons are not advised, because they could lead to false data interpretations.

The greatest numbers of events reported to DIRT in 2010 were from OSCI regions 3 and 6 (as illustrated in Exhibit 14). These two regions account for 43% of the total.

Exhibit 14: Distribution of Events by OSCI Region

OSCI region> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# of events 14,011 10,223 22,583 14,194 8,949 25,933 9,822 7,202 % of total events 12% 9% 20% 13% 8% 23% 9% 6%

Exhibit 15 shows the distribution of events by reporting stakeholder group by OSCI region. One call centers and natural gas and telecommunications utilities represent the greatest source of reported event data, although some variance is observed by OSCI region. For example, one call centers lead in region 1, whereas natural gas utilities lead in regions 4, 6, and 8. It should be noted that all but one region include very few "Unknown" responses. For half of the data collected in region 3, the Reporting Stakeholder Group was "Unknown." The introduction of a legal requirement to report events in one of the states included in this region is considered a possible reason for this observed anomaly (for example, more reports were submitted as required, but the quality of those reports was poor).

Exhibit 15: Distribution of Events by Reporting Stakeholder Group and OSCI Region OSCI region> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 One Call Center 45% 28% 5% 28% 0% 0% 1% 0% Electric 1% 7% 0% 1% 3% 2% 8% 2% Engineering 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Excavator 0% 1% 0% 0% 15% 12% 0% 1% Liquid Pipeline 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Locator 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Natural Gas 39% 30% 19% 67% 23% 66% 32% 51% Private Water 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Public Works 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% Railroad 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

24

The type of facility damaged is fairly consistent across OSCI regions. Natural gas and telecommunications utilities represent well more than 50% of known event data.

Exhibit 16: Distribution of Events by Facility Damaged and OSCI Region

OSCI region> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cable Television 1% 5% 1% 5% 1% 0% 5% 1% Electric 2% 9% 2% 4% 3% 1% 9% 2% Liquid Pipeline 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Natural Gas 33% 44% 29% 70% 25% 82% 32% 50% Sewer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Steam 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Telecom 9% 35% 17% 15% 62% 14% 54% 47% Water 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% Unknown/ Other 54% 4% 50% 3% 5% 2% 0% 0%

Considering the excavator associated with an event, excavation equipment used and type of work performed, consistency of results is shown across the OSCI regions as illustrated in Exhibit 17. For each region, the top results (as measured by the percentage of known events) are presented for the excavator, excavator equipment, and work performed.

Exhibit 17: Distribution of Events by Excavator, Excavation Equipment, and Type of Work Performed by OSCI Region (Top Two Boxes)

OSCI region

Excavator excavation _equipment work performed 1: Northeast US contractor/developer (84%) backhoe/trencher (75%)

hand tools (15%) sewer/water (42%) energy/telecom (16%) 2: Mid-Atlantic US contractor/developer (71%) occupant/farmer (12%) backhoe/trencher (66%) hand tools (17%) sewer/water (38%) energy/telecom (25%) 3: Southeast US contractor/developer (69%) occupant/farmer (12%) backhoe/trencher (66%) drilling (13%) hand tools (13%) sewer/water (36%) energy/telecom (21%)

4: Great Lakes US contractor/developer (73%) occupant/farmer (11%) backhoe/trencher (47%) other (29%) sewer/water (35%) energy/telecom (21%) 5: Plains US contractor/developer (65%) occupant/farmer (17%) backhoe/trencher (60%) hand tools (19%) energy/telecom (29%) sewer/water (21%) 6: Southwest US contractor/developer (71%) government (12%) backhoe/trencher (59%) hand tools (27%) sewer/water (38%) energy/telecom (23%) 7: Northwest US contractor/developer (82%) occupant/farmer (11%) backhoe/trencher (70%) hand tools (15%) sewer/water (30%) energy/telecom (22%) 8: Canada contractor/developer (85%) occupant/farmer (10%) backhoe/trencher (75%) hand tools (17%) sewer/water (35%) construction/development (17%) street/roadway (17%)

26

Analysis of the root cause by OSCI region suggests somewhat consistent results for known events; however, the percentage of events with known data varies widely by region, from more than 50% to approximately 25%.

Exhibit 18: Distribution of Events by Root Cause by OSCI Region

D

Q

I

I

The Data Quality Index (DQI) measures the completeness of event data submitted to DIRT. Data that is complete (i.e. information is provided for all fields) receives a score of 100%. As illustrated in Appendix 2, Share of 2010 data element using DNC, other, unknown, almost half of the fields have missing data of more than 50%.

Exhibit 19 reports the DQI and total number of records submitted for each reporting stakeholder group from 2008 to 2010.

Exhibit 19: DQI by Reporting Stakeholder Group

Source: 2008, 2009, and 2010 DIRT data sets, FMI analysis

Exhibit 20 reports the percentage of overall DQI and percentage of DQI for each DIRT part. Percentage of overall DQI is the aggregated DQI of all the records in the dataset. The percentage of organization DQI is the averaged DQI of all the organizations that submitted data. The

28

Exhibit 20: DQI by Part, Overall, and Percentage of Organization

Part Description and percentage weight 2009 % of overall DQI 2009 % of org. DQI 2010 % of overall DQI 2010 % of org. DQI A Who is submitting the information (5%) 99% 96% 100% 100% B Date and location of event (12%) 66% 78% 69% 80% C Affected facility information (12%) 65% 90% 65% 90% D Excavation information (14%) 57% 85% 60% 86% E & F Notification, locating, and marking (12%) 76% 91% 75% 88% G Excavator downtime incurred (6%) 17% 63% 17% 45% H Description of damage (14%) 40% 76% 24% 59% I Description of root cause (25%) 57% 81% 55% 84% Total weighted DQI 59% 83% 57% 80%

R

B

A

The following recommendations are the Data Reporting & Evaluation Committee’s

recommendations to damage prevention stakeholders. These are based on analysis of the 2010 DIRT Report and are intended to enhance damage prevention efforts and the data collection process with a focus on the overall goal of reducing damages.

1. Increase one call requests by small fencing, irrigation, and landscaping contractors. Review one-time or occasional users to ensure they are calling every time they excavate and not just occasionally.

2. Provide reminders and sufficient training to locating professionals. Benchmark good practices, and visit locating professional trade associations to speak to them or have discussions about such practices.

3. Develop and distribute educational material regarding safe excavation practices (e.g., soft excavation and/or hand digging when the mechanical equipment is close to a facility and/or targeting water/sewer contractors working with municipalities).

4. Encourage the incorporation of obtaining a one call ticket into the permitting/contract process.

5. Encourage one call centers to submit complete data including total incoming ticket requests to CGA through the OCSI data tool3.

6. Use damage rate as a data reporting benchmark.

7. Improve data quality submitted into DIRT (e.g., complete more fields within the tool and collect more data from the jobsite).

8. Use the DIRT report data and indicators to formulate your own particular programs rather than using the report as a static document.

30

A

Appendix 1: List of groupings used in this report

Excavator Group

Group type of excavator

contractor/developer contractor, developer occupant/farmer occupant, farmer

utility utility

government state, county, municipality

other railroad

Excavation Equipment Group

group type of excavation equipment

backhoe/trencher backhoe, track hoe, trencher

hand tools hand tools, probe

drilling auger, bore, directional drill, drill

other grader, scraper, road milling equipment, explosives, vacuum equipment, farm implement

Work Performed Group

group type of work performed

sewer/water sewer, water

energy/telecom natural gas, electric, steam, liquid pipe, telecommunication, cable TV

construction/development construction, site development, grading, drainage, driveway, demolition, engineering, railroad, waterway

street/roadway roadwork, curb/sidewalk, storm drainage, milling, pole, traffic signals, traffic signs, streetlight, public transit

landscaping landscaping

fencing fencing

agriculture agriculture

Root Cause Group

group root cause

Excavation Practices Not

Sufficient failure to maintain clearance, failure to support exposed facilities, failure to use hand tools where required, failure to test hole (pot-hole), improper backfill practices, failure to maintain marks, excavation practices not sufficient (other)

Notification NOT Made no notification made to one call center Locating Practices Not

Sufficient incorrect facility records/maps, facility marking or location not sufficient, facility was not located or marked, facility could not be found or located

Notification Practices Not

Sufficient notification of one call center made but not sufficient, wrong information provided to one call center Miscellaneous root cause abandoned, one call center error, deteriorated, previous

32

TERMS OF USE

You have requested to access the CGA Damage Information Reporting Tool ( DIRT) Analysis and Recommendations for the Calendar Year 2010, Released October 2011 (the “Report”). The Report is the

copyrighted work of the Common Ground Alliance (“CGA”). If you choose to access the Report you agree to the following terms of use:

1. Acknowledgement of CGA Copyright.

You agree to respect the CGA’s copyright and intellectual property rights in the Report. If the Report is quoted or reproduced by you under these Terms of Use, or in any other manner, you agree to include with any reproduction of the Report a copy of the following copyright notice:

© 2011, Common Ground Alliance, all rights reserved 2. Grant of License for Use.

If you comply with these Terms of Use the CGA grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, cancelable license to use, link to, and reprint the Report for non-commercial use. You may not exploit the Report or the information contained in the Report, or create any derivative works based on the information in the Report or any part of the Report, for any commercial or profit making endeavor or attempt to license it to any third party. You agree that this license may be revoked at any time by the CGA, and if so revoked you will immediately cease all use of the Report.

3. No Warranty.

The information contained in the Report is obtained by the CGA from third parties who voluntarily submit this information to the CGA. The CGA does not confirm or verify any of the information submitted and the CGA does not make any representations or warranties with respect to the source data submitted. The Report and the data provided in the Report is provided to you “AS IS” and the CGA MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES,WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING AN WARRANTIES OF MERCHAINTIBLITY, FINTESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, FREEDOM FROM VIRUSES, AVAILABILITY ON AN UNITERRUPTED BASIS, OR FREEDOM FROM ERRORS. The CGA reserves the right to withdraw or modify the Report without prior notice to you. The CGA also reserves the right to change any technical inaccuracies or typographical errors in the Report without notice to you.

4. Limitation of Liability, Definitions and Terms.

The CGA, its employees, directors and agents shall under no circumstances be liable for any damages of any nature whatsoever through your use of the Report including, but not limited to indirect, consequential or special damages. You acknowledge that the CGA is distributing the Report without charge as an educational function and accept it in that context. The CGA has endeavored to be consistent in the use of terms and definitions between the Report and other reports and publications compiled and published by the CGA. If any discrepancy exists between the Report and the CGA’s Best Practices, the definitions and terms in the Best Practices shall control as to meaning and usage.

5. Choice of Law.

These Terms of Use shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

DIRT Report for 2010: The following consultants conducted data analysis and worked with CGA’s

www.commongroundalliance.com

www.cga-dirt.com

Bronze

Aegis Insurance Service, Inc Alliance Pipeline

American Petroleum Institute American Public Gas Association

Associated General Contractors of America Association of American railroads

Association of oil Pipe Lines

Sponsors

GoLd

Atmos energy Corporation Chevron

SILver

American Gas Association Colonial Pipeline

ConocoPhillips Kinder Morgan Marathon Pipe Line Panhandle energy

PLATInUM

BP America

el Paso Corporation

U.S. department of Transportation, PhMSA

Shell Pipeline Company TransCanada Pipeline Williams Avista Corporation CenterPoint energy Chesapeake Midstream Consumers energy deere & Company dTe energy enbridge energy enterprise Products

explorer Pipeline Company exxonMobil Pipeline

Interstate natural Gas Association of America Koch Pipeline Company

Magellan Midstream Partners

national Association of Pipeline Safety representatives

national Association of State Fire Marshals niSource

oneoK Partners Pacific Gas & Electric Plains All American Pipeline Public Service electric & Gas Southwest Gas Corporation Spectra energy

TePPCo Texas 811 Travelers

Underground Safety Alliance vectren energy

verizon

InTernATIonAL PArTner