SUMMARY

OOS utility facilities, sometimes referred to as abandoned, inactive, retired, or idle utilities, located in or adjacent to state right-of-way can have major disruptive impacts during highway project construction, especially if the existence of such utilities is discovered during the construction phase of a highway project, and questions about ownership, utility type, and other risk factors exist. Efficient management of OOS facilities spans the entire highway facility lifecycle, including project development and delivery and facility operations and maintenance. The purpose of NCHRP Project 08-148 was to develop holistic guidance to locate, track, and manage OOS facilities throughout the lifecycle of highway facilities, including strategies to address long-term, short-term, and urgent or emergency OOS facility issues.

Researchers identified technologies, business practices, and strategies that have been proven to locate OOS facilities; strategies to maintain information about OOS facilities in the field; and established practices to conduct necessary activities related to the maintenance, redesignation, or potential removal of OOS facilities. Based on estimated risks by stakeholders, researchers documented how OOS facilities impact functions of the right-of-way during the highway lifecycle, including planning, design, construction, and operations and maintenance and how negative impacts of OOS facilities can be resolved or mitigated. These efforts resulted in a guide for the management of OOS facilities that was published as a separate document.

The research team conducted a survey of OOS utility stakeholders and practitioners to gather an understanding of the state-of-the-practice regarding OOS utilities. Key items of interest included potential outcomes of OOS utilities, the handling of OOS information throughout the highway lifecycle, tools and technology that OOS utility stakeholders use to manage OOS utility information, relevant standards and policies implemented by OOS utility stakeholders, and lessons learned when dealing with OOS utilities during highway projects. In total, 87 percent of participants agreed that project delays are a potential outcome when an OOS utility is found during a highway project, and 76 percent indicated that cost increases and budget overruns are potential outcomes. Stakeholders noted that OOS utilities are mostly unrecorded, utility ownership is often unclear, and utility status (active or out of service) is typically unknown when found.

Regarding challenges or obstacles stakeholders face when dealing with OOS utilities in the right-of-way, project owner participants mentioned determining utility ownership, locating the OOS utility, and managing the utility conflict during an active construction project. Contractor and consultant participants noted that issues with OOS utilities during the construction phase of a project could have been mitigated during the planning and design phases of the project.

Survey respondents were asked about successful strategies or practices to manage and resolve OOS utilities. Project owner participants mentioned several successful strategies and practices, including documentation and recordkeeping, communication and coordination, regulatory compliance and policy implementation, application of suitable technology and tools, and enforcement and permitting strategies. Contractor and consultant participants recommended contracting strategies, earlier coordination and communication, and the use of SUE investigations and new AI technology. Not surprisingly, strategies for the management of OOS utilities varied greatly by project phase.

Project Outcomes, Impacts, and Risks Related to OOS Utilities

The research team surveyed stakeholders about the expected likelihoods and impacts of outcomes related to OOS utilities, including safety issues, constraints in right-of-way availability, changes in project scope, environmental impacts and concerns, cost increases or budget overruns, and project delays. For each outcome, survey participants were asked to identify the likelihood of occurrence when an OOS utility is found on a highway project using the following 5-point likelihood scale ranging from “extremely unlikely” to “extremely likely.” For each outcome, survey participants were also asked to estimate the impact when an OOS utility is found on a highway project using a 5-point impact scale, where 1=low impact and 5=high impact.

Survey respondents estimated that potential outcomes of OOS utilities, such as project delays or changes to the project scope, are not likely in the planning phase. One-third of respondents estimated that project delays due to OOS utilities are somewhat or extremely likely at this stage. Participants estimated slightly higher likelihoods of these outcomes in the design phase, particularly regarding constraints in right-of-way availability. The likelihoods of outcomes related to OOS utilities during the construction phase was much higher. Participants rated all outcomes to be more likely than not. Nearly all (94 percent) of the participants estimated that project delays are somewhat or extremely likely when an OOS utility is found in the construction phase, and 92 percent of stakeholders estimated that cost increases or budget overruns are somewhat or extremely likely. All other outcomes were estimated to be somewhat or extremely likely by 49 to 65 percent of respondents.

Survey participants estimated that the impacts of outcomes related to OOS utilities in the planning phase are low. Constraints in right-of-way availability had the highest estimated impact. However, using the scale where 1=low impact and 5=high impact, 17 percent of survey participants rated the potential impact of OOS utilities on constraints in right-of-way availability as 4 or higher. Survey participants estimated the impacts of outcomes related to OOS utilities to be higher in the design phase. Survey respondents estimated the impacts of outcomes related to an OOS utility found in the construction phase of a highway project to be much higher than during the planning or design phases. Participants estimated that project delays would have the highest impact, with 73 percent of respondents estimating an impact score of 4 or 5.

Based on the estimated likelihoods and impacts, the research team calculated expected project risks and risk scores for all outcomes, project phases, and stakeholder types. Risk scores for all outcomes, using a scale where 1=very low risk and 5=very high risk, were 1.5–2.2 in the planning phase. In the design phase, risk scores increased to 1.8–2.8, with constraints in right-of-way availability having the highest risk score. In the construction phase, risk scores increased substantially to 3.4–4.4. The outcomes with the highest estimated risks in the construction phase were cost increases or budget overruns (4.2) and project delays (4.4).

Case Study Analysis

Researchers conducted six cases studies that involved interviews with project owners, utility owners, and other affiliated stakeholders, and documented activities related to the management of OOS facilities during the project life cycle. The research team analyzed and consolidated best practice information, which resulted in the following findings:

• The term abandoned is still widely used, but stakeholders note that the term is inadequate because it implies a lack of responsibility for the utility facility by the utility owner.
• OOS utilities that are found during the construction phase can result in serious project delays and contractor claims. While this situation should be avoided, a proactive process that anticipates this situation and accelerates utility conflict resolution can minimize project delays and contractor claims.
• Ongoing maintenance of OOS utility records remains an issue. Although many states require utility owners to retain records of OOS utilities, OOS utility records are likely to be incomplete, especially in areas with decades old utilities. This issue is compounded by OOS utilities that are reactivated without the knowledge of the department of transportation (DOT).
• Some states have started to implement new database systems or expand existing database systems to improve the management of utility data. Although technical challenges remain, data generated by DOTs or consultants can generally be integrated into these systems. Larger challenges remain with utility owner data; a variety of concerns prevent them from making the data available to DOTs.
• Lump sum contracts for the removal of OOS utilities during the highway construction phase can simplify the management of the OOS utility removal. However, these contracts require that the OOS utility and its owner are identified during the project’s design phase and that the owner and the DOT can agree on a lump sum amount.
• Some states have started to experiment with repurposing OOS utilities. Stakeholders noted that this is currently an informal practice that often lacks formal policies or agreements and has some unresolved issues regarding ownership, maintenance responsibility, and long-term planning. Practical limitations and technical challenges also exist. However, in the few cases where it has been attempted, the practice has been beneficial in reducing costs and utility installation impacts.
• Gyroscopic mapping or IMUs can be useful for pinpointing the location of underground utilities, especially in areas that are difficult to access, such as below water. Although the technology is mature, it is not yet widely used; problems can result in the field caused by inexperienced staff or unforeseen circumstances.
• Geophysical methods to detect and locate underground utilities that often result in SUE QLB deliverables are a useful method to acquire underground utility data. However, these methods are costly, so their widespread use is typically limited to high-risk projects. The success rate of these methods to locate underground active or OOS utilities depends on many factors including the equipment used, staff knowledge and experience, and environmental factors such as soil type and soil water content.
• Call-before-you-dig services such as 811 were originally established to prevent damage to underground utilities. Recent software tools are improving these systems by improving the visualization of OOS utilities in the field. However, OOS utility information is limited to utility owners that participate in these efforts.

Although DOT staff and other stakeholders agree that OOS utilities can be a major problem during transportation project development and during project maintenance, only few states have started to take action to improve the management of OOS utilities. Managing the OOS utility data, utility owners not notifying DOTs of changes in status, and not including OOS facilities on design drawings are just some of the issues with OOS utilities that remain challenging for state DOTs.

Gyroscopic mapping devices hold promises to improve the accuracy of subsurface utility facility data, both in service and OOS. Similarly, the advancement of SUE technology and tools used by One Call service centers that make OOS data more easily available and useful to stakeholders should help avoid OOS utility issues in future transportation projects.

The prevalence of the term abandoned throughout federal and state regulations and guidance documents continues a tendency of utility owners to ignore responsibilities for utility lines that have an abandoned status based on state rules, even if state rules specifically state that utilities continue to be responsible for record keeping or potential removal of those facilities in the future. As a result, the term abandoned continues to be problematic, as evidenced by PHMSA’s changes in the pipeline status definitions in the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) that replaced abandoned with permanently abandoned. Change is slowly happening in this area, with some states preferring the use of the term out of service to leave less room for misconceptions.