03/12/1998 01:37 PM Senate L&C

             SB 330 - LOCATING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES                          
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN LEMAN announced SB 330 to be up for consideration.                    
                                                                               
MS. ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff to Senator Labor and Commerce                      
Committee, pointed out all the changes that had gone on in creating            
this legislation indicating a stack of papers in front of her.  In             
the process, amendments have been proposed, but not adopted.                   
                                                                               
She said SB 330 was introduced at the request of the Alaska                    
Telephone Association to provide an understanding of the standards             
and responsibilities for locating and excavating underground                   
facilities throughout the State for utilities and contractors.                 
                                                                               
She explained three amendments had been proposed.  The first one               
makes a change to 42.30.410 (g), page 3, line 9 because this                   
Section doesn't address the situation where the excavation locate              
extends for considerable distances.  The request was to put                    
something in here that would allow for a charge beyond a certain               
length (perhaps 330 ft.).  But there is no prohibition in the bill             
for charging, so that's why the amendment wasn't included in the               
bill.                                                                          
                                                                               
An additional definition for "repair" was requested for AS                     
42.30.490, the definition section.  The problem is, if an excavator            
digs up a newly installed underground facility and splices through             
a cut cable, is the splice enough of a  repair or should the entire            
cable be replaced.  If the Committee does define repair, it should             
be to "accepted industry standards."                                           
                                                                               
One other concern addresses the issue of excavators exposing high              
voltage power cables and leaving them accessible to individuals                
other than qualified personnel.  The feeling among all participants            
is that there are already specific provisions in industry standards            
regarding this issue, like the National Electric Safety Code and               
other federal codes dealing with high voltage lines.                           
                                                                               
Number 461                                                                     
                                                                               
MR. JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association,                
said over two years ago its Engineering and Planning Committee got             
together and recognized that standards are needed for locates.                 
Here he noted that nothing in this bill is directed just to                    
telephone utilities, but to all utilities.  He explained that the              
electric utility digs next to a water utility line, the telephone              
utilities are digging near the gas utilities line, etc.  He said               
there are national pressures to come up with State standards and               
this was modeled basically after the State of Washington and after             
it was brought to this Committee, the state of Minnesota.  Most                
states have locate standards.                                                  
                                                                               
MR. ROWE said they wanted something that would benefit the citizens            
of the State and would make utilities efficiently responsive and               
allow the same thing for whoever the contractor may be.                        
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if he had any reaction to the definition of               
the word "repair."                                                             
                                                                               
MR. ROWE responded that he agreed with Ms. Kreitzer's presentation.            
He felt the definition would be extending beyond what they are                 
doing in the bill.  The industry standard should not be raised if              
the repairs have been done according to national standards in the              
past.                                                                          
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN LEMAN noted that by not having a definition, by its                   
omission, a standard  has to be followed anyway.                               
                                                                               
MR. ROWE agreed that there are standards in effect now.                        
                                                                               
MR. MIKE GOLAT, Unalaska, said the bill takes positive steps                   
towards protecting the safety of the public and his utility workers            
- and his assets.  It also provides consistent guidelines for                  
locates  It raises another issue of liability and clearly                      
establishes that.  His problem with the bill is that they have                 
private utilities located on their city-owned rights-of-way and                
have always taken a cooperative approach to utility management.                
They have let other utility companies put their utilities in their             
rights-of-way free of charge and have always been able to work out             
where liability lies without having the State dictate it.  This                
creates a real lopsided situation, because they have three times as            
many utilities in their city-owned rights-of-way as ITC has and                
theirs are typically just below the surface.  If there is any                  
digging to do in repairing the road, they are the most likely                  
utility to be hit.  He understands that they have two options: one             
is to get an exclusion from this bill.  The other option is to                 
charge ITC for having their utilities in his rights-of-way, so he              
can litigate some of their exposure. Mr. Dave Goggins understands              
this and doesn't oppose it at all.                                             
                                                                               
The second concern he has is that the liability is not clearly                 
defined when an operator can't reasonably locate with accuracy its             
utilities (Section 42.30.410(b)).  He has a solution that wouldn't             
clearly define liability, but it would mitigate any disputes.  When            
the operator says he can't locate a utility with reasonable                    
accuracy, they should have a spotter from the utility on-site until            
the contractor locates its utility.                                            
                                                                               
MR. RANDY NELSON, Member, Alaska Telephone Association Engineering             
and Planning Committee, said he is currently employed by GTE Alaska            
and has been in the industry for 27 years.  He has also worked in              
other states and is here to answer questions.  This bill is of                 
mutual benefit to both excavators and owners.  All utilities find              
themselves wearing both hats.  The emphasis of a clear                         
understanding for both parties is mutually beneficial and will                 
result in a reduction of out services to all of their customers                
and, in the long run, a reduction of costs to both parties.                    
                                                                               
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if he had any reaction to Mr. Golat's comments            
on lines 15 - 19, when a utility cannot locate with reasonable                 
accuracy, they should have a spotter on-sight.                                 
                                                                               
MR. NELSON said he has experience with those situations and that is            
typically the best way to approach it.  People from both parties               
should be there until the utilities are found.  He didn't object to            
that.  The owner definitely wants to help locate those facilities              
to avoid damages and out-services.                                             
                                                                               
TAPE 98-14, SIDE B                                                             
                                                                               
SENATOR HOFFMAN moved a conceptual amendment providing for an on-              
site spotter.  There were no objections and it was so ordered.                 
                                                                               
MR. ROWE agreed that it was a good amendment.                                  
                                                                               
SENATOR MACKIE moved to pass CSSB 233(L&C) from Committee with                 
individual recommendations.  There were no objections and it was so            
ordered.