When most people think of dirt, they imagine loosely packed soil or a filthy substance such as mud. When contractors and engineers have to consider dirt, they often are referring to sandy loam or hard-packed clay for excavating, design, or estimating purposes.

Interestingly, DIRT is viewed quite differently by those stakeholders involved in preventing damage to the underground infrastructure (e.g., buried utilities such as gas, electric, water, telecom, etc.). Since 2004, these folks utilize DIRT, the “Damage Information Reporting Tool”, established and maintained by the Common Ground Alliance (CGA), for the purpose of collecting and reporting underground damage data for trend analysis on a national level. Based on the analysis, the CGA and those stakeholders are able to concentrate their damage prevention resources where they will have the greatest impact.

Figure 1. Distribution of Known Events by Root Cause Group (2007-2010)

Figure 2. Distribution of Known Events by Root Cause Group (2010)

Uncovering the DIRT Report
The 7th annual CGA analysis of data submitted to DIRT was published in October 2011. This report shares findings from The DIRT Report for calendar year 2010. After 6 previous reports showed consistent Root Cause trends with “Notification Not Made” declining, “Excavation Practices Not Sufficient” remaining steady, and “Locating Practices Not Sufficient” steadily increasing, the CGA’s Data Reporting & Evaluation Committee (DR&EC), charged with maintaining DIRT and developing the annual report, took a new approach for the 2010 report.

A new consultant, FMI Corp. (the largest provider of management consulting and investment banking for the engineering and construction industry) was engaged to bring new perspective to the analysis and to make comparisons with other industry data.

Working together with the Reporting Task Team (a smaller team of DR&EC members), FMI recognized that DIRT is geared to answer 3 main questions related to Root Cause:

1. Was a locate request made prior to excavation?
2. Was the facility properly marked?
3. Was the site properly excavated?

Based on the data submitted to DIRT where the answers to these questions were “no”, analysis yielded the following observations:

• Small fencing, irrigation, and landscaping contractors were most involved in events that included a failure to make a notification prior to excavation.
• 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.
• Contractors and municipalities performing excavation related to sewer and water construction were involved in a greater percentage of events, using backhoes and similar equipment at times and under certain situations when possibly hand tools or soft excavation should have been employed.

These questions, or facts related to an event¹ are obvious keys in determining how an event occurred. DIRT also collects other details regarding the damage² or near miss³  to provide a more comprehensive view of the circumstances surrounding these events.

Some of this information asks:

• Where was the facility physically located (what type of right-of-way)?
• What type of excavator (contractor, utility, municipality, etc.)?
• What type of equipment (backhoe, bore machine, hand tools, etc.) was being used?

This year’s report highlights the need to call before digging. Using DIRT and other industry data, the findings indicate damage occurs less than 1% of the time during excavation when a notification has been made prior to digging! With almost one-third (32%) of events reported stating “Notification Not Made” as the root cause, it is clear that “a call to the one call center (811) is therefore the simplest and most effective means to reduce or eliminate excavation-related underground utility damages”. This is big!

That’s the Ticket
Another significant highlight from the 2010 report is the development of a damage or incident rate. Some state agencies and other groups have data that compares damages against the number of locate tickets received. This has long been a goal of the DR&EC on a national level, but it has been recognized that locate ticket characteristics, such as ticket life and size of work area per ticket, vary from state to state.

To develop this benchmark, FMI used data from more than 30 one call centers across the U.S. together with the DIRT data, and derived a rate of 3.02 damages per 1,000 locate requests received. This figure is comparable to similar metrics, and seems to be reasonable. The data also can be used as a measuring stick against one’s own data, as well to measure improvement in the future.

FMI further pointed out this damage rate may be a better indicator of the success of damage prevention efforts rather than the estimate of total damages occurring in the U.S. because the damage rate compared to locate requests accounts for factors such as the economy and level of construction activity.

The report, however, does provide an estimate of total damages occurring in the U.S. In 2010, based upon data submitted to DIRT, and using Colorado and Connecticut as samples (These 2 states require every damage be reported, and all events are submitted to DIRT.), there were approximately 165,000 damages in 2010.

This same methodology has been used to estimate damages in prior years, and the good news is there has been a consistent reduction, starting with a high of 410,000 estimated damages in the 2004 report. While the efforts of CGA and others have contributed to this reduction, along with the implementation of 811, the economic downturn of the past few years also may have had an impact.

As the DIRT Report process continues, the DR&EC and FMI are tasked with correlating construction activity to the number of damages. This new benchmark -- or damage rate -- is the first step toward this goal.

Who Submits Data?
Industry participation in DIRT has been admirable. In the early years of DIRT reporting, 100+% growth was documented year over year. However, even with the anonymity of the submitter and the confidentiality of submitted data as paramount guarantees by the CGA, there are many stakeholders still not submitting their data to DIRT.

Best practices of data reporting and evaluation, established in the Common Ground Study of 1999 and agreed to by all stakeholder representatives, state all stakeholders report information.

DIRT is designed so excavators as well as owner/operators, contract locators and right-of-way providers, are able to submit their data. In this way, all parties involved in a damage or near miss can tell their side of the story. Of course, ethical and truthful submission of information is vital to the integrity of the data.

Currently, operators still report the vast majority of the information, submitting more than 65% of the data. The Natural Gas stakeholder group continues to be the largest submitter of data to DIRT with Telecom stakeholders submitting more than 20%.

To facilitate Telecom participation and to provide additional layers of anonymity and confidentiality, the North American Telecommunications Damage Prevention Council (NTDPC)⁴ operates its own Virtual Private DIRT (VPD) application. The NTDPC VPD, available to all Telecom companies, automatically uploads the required information to the DIRT North America database so those Telecom operators only have to submit their data one time. This is not a substitute for specific state-mandated reporting requirements, unless of course those states accept DIRT data. Currently, both Colorado and Kansas accept DIRT submissions as compliance with their reporting requirements.

Another benefit of submitting data within the NTDPC VPD is the opportunity to compare one’s own telecom-related damage data against that of the rest of the industry.

Telecom facilities are located along virtually every street and alley in America as well as along private rights-of-way and along railroad corridors, making these buried utilities one of the most impacted by facility damages. This is further evidenced by the fact that Telecoms receive the majority of locate requests from one-call centers. However, estimates show only about 25% of all Telecom events are submitted to DIRT and, therefore, included in the annual analysis!

Based on estimated damage figures and assuming a modest cost of repair for each, a mere 10% reduction in Telecom-related damages could save the industry more than $121M right off the bottom line! This figure does not include other costs associated with a facility damage.

Additionally, as noted above, "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" is reported as a root cause in 25% of events and has continued to increase over the years. Telecoms utilize contract locate vendors and internal personnel to locate and mark facilities in response to locate requests. The 2010 Report suggests that, proportionally, contract locators "performed no better or worse than utility locators". This is a true statement based on analysis of the data provided to DIRT. However, with much of the Telecom-related data not included in the analysis, is it an accurate assessment? There is no question, as the Report recommends, that sufficient training should be provided to locating professionals.

Why Participate in the DIRT Process?
As it has been said many times, it's a "value proposition". How much does it cost and what resources are required to submit damage data to DIRT? And what do you get in return for this effort?

First, submitting data to DIRT is free and open to any provider! While membership in the CGA is beneficial, as more than 1,400 current members can attest, it is not required to submit data to DIRT. Nor is membership in the NTDPC required for telecommunications providers to submit to the VPD.

Second, DIRT is easy to use, with pull-down menu options for reports of a single event and tools that allow submission of multiple events contained in a spreadsheet.

It is important that users (excavators, operators, etc.) capture the information DIRT seeks at, or near, the time of the event in the field. Of course, safety at the damage site is of utmost importance but recording the necessary damage information in the field is key to submitting data without additional effort in the office, as well as ensuring a high Data Quality Index (DQI).

The DQI is a "measure of completeness" associated with each submitted DIRT record to provide users with feedback regarding their own data submission. The DQI calculates a score (out of 100) based on the number of questions filled in with something other than "Unknown" or "DNC" (Data Not Collected). While first time submitters may have a lower DQI because they might not yet collect all the information DIRT requires (hence "Data Not Collected" instead of "Unknown"), it is expected submitters will quickly align their data-collection practices with DIRT.

With complete data from all stakeholders, meaningful analysis can identify trends that can be targeted with damage prevention actions to reduce and minimize the number of underground facility damages (think 811!). Fewer damages mean a safer workplace, a cleaner environment, and increased profits.

So the next time you see a pile of dirt, don't think of it as soil or mud, or kick it to prevent the groundhog from using it again. Remember that dirt represents knowledge, and submitting that knowledge to DIRT can lead to reduced and minimized damages and near misses. DIRT can enhance public safety and help prevent loss of vital services (such as 911) provided by underground utilities. So let's get DIRT-y!

Endnotes
1. Event: The occurrence of facility damage, near miss, or downtime), are obvious keys in determining how an event occurred. DIRT also collects other details regarding the damage.

2. Damage: Any impact or exposure that results in the need to repair an underground facility due to a weakening or the partial or complete destruction of the facility, including, but not limited to, the protective coating, lateral support, cathodic protection or the housing for the line device or facility) or near miss.  

3. Near Miss: An event where a damage did not occur, but a clear potential for damage was identified.

4. The North American Telecommunications Damage Prevention Council (NTDPC) is a non-competitive forum dedicated to promoting the protection of underground facilities, subsurface facility awareness and the use of One Call notification systems. For more information, visit www.ntdpc.com.

Brian Tooley is Sr. Consultant, OSP Damage Prevention & Recovery for Verizon Global Network Field Operations. He also represents the NTDPC. For more information, please email brian.tooley@verizon.com or visit www.ntdpc.com.

What’s your take on this subject? Leave a comment and get the conversation going.