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.