MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF

1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

In the matter, on the Commission’s own motion, to propose forms and procedures Case No. U-17497 for use under Public Act 174 of 2013, known as the MISS DIG Underground Facility Damage and Safety Act. /

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF’S REVISED DAMAGE PREVENTION COMPLAINT FORM AND RESPONSES

TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE FORM

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF Michael J. Orris (P51232) Assistant Attorney General Public Service Division 7109 W. Saginaw Hwy., 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48917 (517) 284-8140

DATED: March 12, 2019

2

In the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (Commission’s) Order dated

February 21, 2019 the Commission proposed that the current MISS DIG complaint

form be updated in order to streamline the complaint process and enhance the

quality and relevance of the information being gathered. The proposed amended

form was attached to the order as Exhibit A and the Commission invited all

interested parties to submit suggestions and comments regarding the proposed form

by 5:00 pm on March 5, 2019. Three parties, Consumers Energy, DTE Energy, and

AT&T submitted comments.

Consumers Energy proposed that the term ‘accurately’ be defined as ‘within 4

feet’ in order that there is clarity to the word ‘accurately,’ that a typo be changed

from ‘locked’ to ‘located’, and that the complaint form include the ability to upload

pictures and drawings to assist in understanding the nature of the incident. DTE

Energy proposed that the complaint form include the ability to attach files and

pictures and requested an opportunity to view any changes to the form before it is

adopted. AT&T also proposed that the form include the ability to attach pictures

and that the form include a question asking whether the complainant has contacted

the party complained against.

3

The Commission Staff has reviewed the comments and submits the following responses:

(1) File Attachments: This is something that Staff would like to incorporate in the future, however the system Staff has developed does not have that capability. In the future, when a complaint is submitted

an e-mail will be automatically generated with a case number and sent to the submitting party. The submitter can then respond to that e- mail with attachments and that responding e-mail and the

attachments will be added to the case file. This process will be outlined in the help text included on the complaint form page, the auto generated email following submission of the complaint, and/or future

editions of the Damage Prevention Complaint Form Users Instructions.

(2) Drop Down Menus: Staff’s updated form and Damage Prevention

Complaint Form Users Instructions include updated drop-down menus. The drop-downs are consistent with current Common Ground Alliance’s (CGA) DIRT data collection practices in order to align with national industry data collection standards. Staff has submitted a

request to update the typo in the drop down on the current form and this issue will be address in the new form.

(3) Approximate Location: Approximate location is defined as “a strip of

land at least 36 inches wide, but not wider than the width of the marked facility plus 18 inches on either side of the facility marks.” MCL 460.723(b). Staff does not propose to use any other definition.

If necessary, the person submitting the complaint can provide additional information regarding the accuracy of the marking in the Narrative section of the form.

(4) Has the Other Party been Contacted: The existing form includes this with a free form box titled ‘Explain Steps Taken to Resolve Dispute

4

Prior to Filing Complaint”. The current User Manual includes instructions on how to fill out the form including what is required in

this text box regarding communications between the parties. This is required by law and the person filing the complaint can provide details regarding their contact with the other party in this section of the form.

The February 21, 2019 the Commission Order required that “[t]he Commission Staff will post proposed revisions to the form on the Commission’s E-dockets website in this docket, no later than March 12, 2019.” Based on the

aforementioned discussion of comments received, Staff proposes no further revisions to the proposed Damage Complaint Form. Attached to this filing are the Staff’s revised Damage Prevention Complaint Form and the updated Damage Prevention

Complaint Form User Instructions.

Respectfully submitted, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF Michael J. Orris (P51232) Assistant Attorney General Public Service Division 7109 W. Saginaw Hwy., 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48917 Telephone: (517)284-8140

DATED: March 12, 2019

ATTACHMENT A

Damage Prevention Complaint Form User Instructions Page 1 of 9

Damage Prevention Complaint Form User Instructions These instructions were created to guide users of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) Damage Complaint Form to select the appropriate entries. Consistency in the selection of entries ensures a more meaningful data analysis and hastens complaint resolution.

This Damage Prevention Complaint Form is to be utilized for both damages and events not involving damage; such as near misses or downtime incurred as the result of an event. “Event,” as used in these instructions, includes all occurrences for which this form will be submitted.

If more than one event is to be reported, complete a separate form for each event.

Use of the “unknown” fields is discouraged, as this impacts the quality of data collection and requires additional investigation prior to resolution. If a prompt is unclear, or does not capture all of the information, a narrative field is provided at the end of this form to clarify the details of the event.

Before filing a complaint, be aware that some form of resolution process must have taken place between the parties involved. If this process has not taken place or the MPSC views the attempts as inadequate, your complaint may be found without merit by the MPSC. At a minimum, the resolution process should include an in-person meeting or discussion between the claimant and the potential respondent, where a discussion of the claim(s) and evidence of liability and damages occurs in an attempt to resolve the issue amicably without the involvement of the MPSC. This resolution meeting can be facilitated formally, but that it is not a requirement.

If the attempts at resolution are unable to be conducted, either through any party’s unwillingness to engage in a discussion or lack of responsiveness, such attempts at engagement are to be documented and provided in Part 5 of the form.

Step 1) Who is Submitting this Information? Who is Filing the Complaint?: Select one of the options from the pull-down menu to indicate who is submitting this complaint.

• A property owner or occupant excavating on their property should select the “excavator” option.

• If a facility operator was excavating at the time the event occurred and is the party filing the complaint, the “excavator” option should be selected.

• In most cases, “excavator” will be selected by those performing the work and the remaining options will be selected by those affected as a result.

Contact Name, Phone Number, Email: Enter the name and contact information of the individual filing the complaint. This will be required to reach the complainant for resolution.

Filed on Behalf of (Company): Enter the name of the company for whom this complaint is being filed for, if applicable.


Step 2) Damage or Event Details Date of Event (MM/DD/YYYY): Enter the date the event occurred, if known (in MM/DD/YYYY format). Otherwise, provide the date it was discovered and describe the discovery in the narrative.

Address, City, State: Enter the location of the event.

Was There Damage to a Facility?: Select yes or no.

What Type of Facility Was Affected?: Select one of the options from the drop-down menu. The following descriptors will aid in selecting the correct classification. The provided options include all associated equipment and appurtenances.

• Distribution: Distribution lines are the tier below transmission for gas and electric but also apply to water companies. Water companies often refer to their distribution lines as water mains. Electric companies further delineate the distribution network into primary and secondary. For the purpose of this Damage Prevention Complaint Form, select Distribution for primary electric and as appropriate for the other listed facilities.

• Gathering/Collection: Any pipeline or electrical line that transports a commodity from a production facility to a transmission line or distribution main, or directly to an end-user.

• Service/Drop: For the purpose of this Damage Prevention Form, select Service/Drop for secondary electrical lines, gas services, and laterals for water and sewer. Also, since CATV and telecommunications are not normally delineated as either transmission or distribution, select Service for these facilities.

• Transmission: Transmission lines are generally operated by electrical utilities and by natural gas and other pipeline utilities/operators. Electrical transmission includes both extra-high-voltage (EHV) lines and high voltage (HV).

• Unknown/Other: All other facilities that do not fulfill the requirements stated above.

What Type of Facility Operation Was Affected?: Select one of the options from the pull-down menu. If the user wishes to report two or more events, complete a separate report for each one. The following descriptors will aid in selecting the correct classification.

• Cable TV: Any underground CATV facility.

• Electric: Any underground electrical lines and related electrical facilities, regardless of the voltage or the type of service i.e., primary or secondary.

• Liquid Pipeline: Any underground facility that contains and/or transports any liquid other than water, including petroleum products.


• Natural Gas: Any underground facility containing and/or transporting natural gas.

• Sewer (Sanitary/Storm): Select for both forced mains or gravity sewers and facilities associated with lift stations. This category also includes storm water facilities.

• Steam: Any underground facility providing steam for use in heating or other industrial applications.

• Telecommunications: Any underground buried telecommunication lines or fiber optic lines used for either telecommunications or for internet/data transfer.

• Water: Any underground facility installed for the purpose of supplying or transporting water for consumption or industrial purposes, including reclaimed water.

• Unknown/Other: Any underground service not included in the other categories.

Type of Work Performed: Select one of the options from the drop-down menu that best describes the work being done at the time of the event. The following descriptors will aid in selecting the correct classification. If multiple types of work were occurring concurrently, for example water and sewer, choose the one that best fits the work being performed at the time of the event, if possible.

• Agriculture: Excavator working in farm environment, this includes tiling, tilling, plowing, sub-soiling, terracing, etc. Also include logging activities here.

• Building Construction: Infrastructure for residential, commercial, or institutional purposes.

• Building Demolition: Infrastructure for residential, commercial, or institutional purposes.

• Cable Television: Excavator working on coaxial or fiber-optic cable facilities for television.

• Curb/Sidewalk: Excavator working on pedestrian walks / driveway aprons.

• Drainage: Excavator working in open trenches.

• Driveway: Excavator working on the parking area of a property.

• Electric: Excavator working on or for electric system facility.

• Engineering/Survey: Work to plan and execute surveys for the location, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of civil and other engineered projects.

• Fencing: Excavator working on enclosures and boundary structures.

• Grading: Excavator working on levelling or sloping the ground surface.

• Irrigation: Excavator working on interval water supply systems to plants and crops.

• Landscaping: Excavator working on modifying the visible features of an area of land.

• Liquid Pipeline: Excavator working on or for a facility used to transport liquid petroleum products, including brine.


• Milling: Grinding of a paved road surface, typically in preparation for repaving. The ground up material is either disposed of or treated and reapplied.

• Natural gas: Excavator working on or for natural gas underground pipelines and related facilities.

• Pole: Excavator working on utility and lighting poles, anchors, and related equipment.

• Public Transit Authority: Excavator working on or for a facility used by public vehicles.

• Railroad: Excavator working on or for a facility used by railways.

• Road Work: Excavator working on vehicle roadways.

• Sewer: Excavator working on or for facility used to drain sanitary or storm water.

• Site Development: Excavation work, in preparation for building, that is not better described by another selection.

• Steam: Excavator working on or for to steam power or piping facility.

• Storm Drain/Culvert: Excavator working on or for drainage system.

• Street Light: Excavator working on electrical lines for public lighting.

• Telecommunication: Excavator working on or for a facility used to transmit communications signals.

• Traffic Signal: Excavator working on or for timing controls to change traffic lights.

• Traffic Sign: Excavator working on visible cues to help control the flow of traffic.

• Water: Excavator working on or for water facilities or systems.

• Waterway Improvement: Excavator working along waterway (this includes dredging and stream bank improvements).

• Unknown/Other: The type of work performed cannot be determined to fit any of the available choices.

Type of Excavation Equipment: Indicate the type of equipment or machinery that was involved in the event, regardless of fault or liability. Select one of the options from the drop-down menu. The following descriptors will aid in selecting the correct classification. Damage Prevention Complaint Form User Instructions 7 of 11

• Auger: Machinery used to drill earth horizontally or vertically by means of a cutting head and auger or other functionally similar device.

• Backhoe/Trackhoe: A hydraulic machine consisting of a tractor with an attached hinged boom with a bucket on the end.


• Boring: Machinery used to dislodge or displace spoil by a rotating auger or drill string to produce a hole called a bore. Also include pneumatic tools such as hammer head or hole-hog.

• Bulldozer: A machine propelled on continuous tracks or rubber tires equipped with a wide blade on the front and possibly a ripper on the rear which is used to push material with the blade or to loosen material with the ripper.

• Drilling: Using a shaftlike tool with rotating cutting edges to make holes in soil.

• Directional Drilling: A steerable system for the installation of pipes, conduits and cables in a shallow arc using a surface-launched drilling rig. Traditionally the term applies to crossings in which a fluid-filled pilot bore is drilled using a fluid-driven motor at the end of a bent-sub and a back reamer to the size required for the product pipe.

• Explosives: Any controlled explosive that is used in the process of excavating, such as blasting.

• Farm Equipment: Planter, combine, tractor, plow, and items used for tiling, tilling, terracing, anhydrous fertilizer applicators, sub-soilers (used to break up hard pan for draining), etc. (See also: Agriculture under Type of Work Performed).

• Grader/Scraper: a machine, either self-powered or towed by a tractor, which levels the earth.

• Hand Tools: Pick ax, shovel, drill, hammer, grounding rod.

• Milling Equipment: Equipment used for grinding a paved road surface, typically in preparation for repaving. The ground up material is either disposed of or treated and reapplied.

• Probing Device: Any slender rod that is pushed through the ground until it hits an obstruction; is used for locating purposes.

• Trencher: Any of several pieces of equipment that is used to excavate a narrow trench; can be through the use of a vibratory plow, walk-behind trenching machinery, or trenching attachments to larger pieces of equipment.

• Vacuum Equipment: Soft-excavating equipment used to expose facilities, such as a hydro-vac.

• Unknown/Other: The type of work performed cannot be determined to fit any of the available choices.

Step 3) Notification and Marking Was MISS DIG Notified?: Select yes or no.

MISS DIG Ticket Number: Enter the complete ticket number. If there are multiple ticket numbers, enter the most relevant ticket number then add additional numbers in the narrative.

Were Facility Marks Visible in the Area of the Excavation? Select yes, no, or unknown/other. If unknown/other is selected, provide a description in the narrative.


Was the Approximate Location of Facilities Marked Accurately? Select yes, no, or unknown/other. If unknown/other is selected, provide a description in the narrative.

Step 4) Who Is This Complaint Filed Against? Complaint Filed Against: Select facility operator, excavator, or “other” from the drop-down menu. If “other” is selected, enter the contact information of the offending party.

Contact Name, Phone Number, Email: Enter the person or contact name for the company which the complaint is filed against.

Company Name: Enter the name of the company for which the complaint is filed against.

Step 5) Complaint Details Please choose an Apparent Cause Category and Apparent Cause: Select the appropriate Category and Cause options from the drop-down menus. The following descriptors will aid in selecting the correct classification.

• MISS DIG Notification Issue

o No notification made to MISS DIG: Select this if there was no notification to MISS DIG or if an invalid ticket was the main cause of the damage.

o Excavator dug outside area described on ticket: Excavator did notify MISS DIG of intent to dig, but then dug outside of work area as described on one call ticket.

o Excavator dug prior to valid start date/time: Excavator did notify MISS DIG of intent to dig, but then dug before the stated start date and time. Include when excavator dug before markings were completed when facility operator or locator requested delay in accordance with state regulations. Include if excavator failed to check positive response system where required.

o Excavator dug after valid ticket expired: Excavator did notify MISS DIG of intent to dig after the 21 or 180 day expiration of the ticket without renewal or renotification.

o Excavator provided incorrect notification information: Excavator provided wrong information on MISS DIG ticket, such as start date, worksite location, etc., either by voice or electronic notification to MISS DIG.

• Excavation Issue

o Excavator dug prior to verifying marks by test-hold (pothole): Excavator did not hand dig, or use a “soft excavation” practice such as vacuum excavation to dig a test hole (or pothole) to verify accuracy of markings prior to beginning excavation within the tolerance zone. Excavator did not continue to hand dig test holes on a regular basis during excavation.


o Excavator failed to maintain clearance after verifying marks: Excavator failed to maintain a safe distance between excavating equipment and marked facility after verifying accuracy of marks (pot-holing) in accordance with state regulations.

o Excavator failed to protect/shore support facilities: Excavator failed to provide proper shoring or support for marked and exposed facilities.

o Improper backfilling practices: Excavator failed to use caution while backfilling or compacting soils in or near marked and exposed facilities. Example: large / sharp rocks or pieces of sidewalk or pavement in in the backfill.

o Marks faded or not maintained: Marks were either destroyed or faded. Excavator failed to maintain marks or request re-marking by facility owner/operator. If state has a "Life-of-Ticket" rule consider "Excavator dug after valid ticket expired" as possible root cause.

o Improper excavation practice not listed above: Please consider the other Excavating Issue Root Causes before selecting this one. Excavator's methods and practices were improper and did not protect marked and exposed facilities but none of the other excavating practices apply.

• Locating Issue

Facility not marked due to: o Abandoned facility: Facility not marked due to an abandoned facility in the area; facility

owner/contract locator may not mark abandoned facilities or may not be aware that an abandoned facility is in the area. Operator maps/records indicated facility is abandoned, but it is actually active.

o Incorrect facility records/maps: Facility was not marked or the ticket was cleared with no markings because facility is not mapped at all, or facility owner/contract locator's maps/records incorrectly indicate the facility outside the work area (example: on opposite side of the street or the other side of the building). Also includes when operator did not receive ticket because facility was not in MISS DIG's mapping data from the member.

o Locator error: Please consider other Locating Issue Apparent Causes before selecting this one. For example, if the lack of marks was due to incorrect maps, tracer wire issue, or unlocatable facility, choose one of those root causes. Facility not marked due to locator error examples: the locator misunderstood the requested scope of the ticket and failed to mark all of the facilities, or the locator cleared the ticket in error.

o No response from operator/contract locator: Facility owner/operator or their contract locator received a valid ticket, but did not mark, locate or communicate (i.e., positive response where required) with the excavator prior to the start of work.

o Tracer wire issue: Locator did not mark a facility due to broken tracer wire or there was no tracer wire available for the facility.

o Unlocatable Facility: Facility owner/contract locator were unable to locate a facility due to the type of facility, depth. Example: Clay or concrete sewer that cannot be detected with


traditional locating equipment. Excessively deep facility. If unlocatable due to missing or damaged tracer wire, consider "tracer wire issue" as possible root cause. If unlocatable due to lack of records or maps, consider "Incorrect facility records / maps" as a possible root cause.

Facility marked inaccurately due to: o Abandoned facility: Facility inaccurately marked due to an abandoned facility in the area.

• From facility owner/contract locator point of view: marked an abandoned facility in error or may not be aware that an abandoned facility pulled the signal/tone away from an active facility and the marks for the active facility were placed outside of the tolerance zone.

• From excavator point of view: pot-holed and exposed marked facility, then damaged another nearby facility. Investigation finds marked (pot-holed) facility is abandoned and damaged facility is active.

o Incorrect facility records/maps: Facility was marked inaccurately due to incorrect facility records/maps; Example: facility owner/contract locator's maps/records incorrectly indicate the facility is on the opposite side of the street or the other side of the building and as a result the facility was marked inaccurately or outside of the caution zone.

o Locator error: Please consider other Locating Issue Apparent Causes before selecting this one. For example, if the inaccurate marks were due to incorrect maps or a tracer wire issue choose one of those root causes. Facility was marked inaccurately due to locator error; the locator marked the work zone but did not locate a facility accurately; a facility was marked incorrectly or marked outside of the tolerance zone.

o Tracer wire issue: Locator marked a facility incorrectly and outside of the caution zone due to broken tracer wire, there was no tracer wire available for the facility, or tracer wire was too far away from facility.

• Miscellaneous Apparent Cause

o Deteriorated facility: An existing deteriorated facility is discovered during the excavation activity. Example: pipe is corroded or graphitized and vibrations or loss of soil support during excavation activity caused leak rather than contact with excavating equipment.

o MISS DIG Center Error: Includes issues with MISS DIG Center entered data, and includes online tickets only if they were intercepted and approved by MISS DIG Center staff. Please select "Notification Issue - Excavator provided incorrect notification information" for errors by online users not intercepted by MISS DIG Center staff. Please select "Miscellaneous Apparent Causes - Apparent Cause Not Listed" for ticket transmission and receiving site equipment failures.

o Previous damage: A significant period of time has passed from the actual damage to the failure or the discovery of the damage. Examples: responding to water leak, gas odor,


electric or telephone outage report finds evidence of previous excavation damage. Use date of discovery as date of event.

o Apparent cause not listed: Please consider other available Apparent Causes before selecting this. The cause of the damage or near miss is not addressed above.

Narrative of Complaint: Describe the event and provide additional details relevant to the complaint. If there were any instances where the Damage Prevention Complaint Form did not capture necessary information, enter it here.

Explain Steps Taken to Resolve Dispute Prior to Filing Complaint: Describe all prior attempts to resolve this complaint with the offending party. Include dates, contact information, and correspondence details.

Before filing a complaint, be aware that some form of resolution process must have taken place between the parties involved. If this process has not taken place or the MPSC views the attempts as inadequate, your complaint may be found without merit by the MPSC. At a minimum, the resolution process should include an in-person meeting or discussion between the claimant and the potential respondent, where a discussion of the claim(s) and evidence of liability and damages occurs in an attempt to resolve the issue amicably without the involvement of the MPSC. This resolution meeting can be facilitated formally, but that it is not a requirement.

If the attempts at resolution are unable to be conducted, either through any party’s unwillingness to engage in a discussion or lack of responsiveness, such attempts at engagement are to be documented and provided in Part 5 of the form.

ATTACHMENT B

User Manual

Damage Prevention Complaint Form

WHO IS SUBMITTING THIS INFORMATION

*Contact Name

Enter Contact Name

*Filed on Behalf of(Company):

Enter Filed on Behalf of

* Email

Enter Email

*Event Date

*City

Enter City

*State

Michigan

*Who is Filing The Complaint

--Select one--

*Phone Number

Enter Phone Number

DAMAGE OR EVENT DETAILS

What Type of Facility was Affected:

--Select One--

*What Type of Facility Operation Was Affected:

--Select One--

Page 1 of 2Damage Prevention Complaint Form

Type of Excavation Equipment

--Select one-- -- Select one --

NOTIFICATION AND MARKING

Was MISS DIG Notified:

--Select One--

Were Facility Marks Visible in the Area of the Excavation:

--Select One-- --Select One--

*Event Address

Enter Address

*Was There Damage to a

Facility:

--Select One--

Type of Work Performed

MISS DIG Ticket Number:

Was the Approximate Location of Facilities Marked Accurately:

COMPLAINT DETAILS

WHO IS THIS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST

*Complaint Filed Against:

--Select one--

*Phone Number:

Enter Phone Number

*Contact Name:

Enter Contact Person

* Enter Name of Company or Person:

Enter Contact Person

*Email

Enter Email

Page 2 of 2Damage Prevention Complaint Form

Please Choose an Apparent Cause Category:

--Select one--

Please Choose an Apparent Cause:

--Select one--

*Narrative of Complaint:

*Explain Steps Taken to Resolve Dispute Prior to Filing Complaint:

Submit

Documents

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STAFF