Beyond Zero: A Tiered Approach to Utility Damage Prevention

The pursuit of "zero damages" in utility infrastructure protection is a noble goal, yet, as Raimund Laqua aptly argues in "The Trouble With Zero," focusing solely on the number can obscure the path to true safety. This is particularly relevant in the context of utility damages, as highlighted by the CGA's DIRT reports. While striving for zero damages remains crucial, we must acknowledge that not all damages carry the same risk, and our approach needs to reflect this reality.

Every year The DIRT reports reveal the sheer volume of underground utility damages, impacting everything from gas pipelines to fiber optic cables. These damages can lead to service disruptions, environmental hazards, and, most critically, severe injuries or fatalities. However, the current "zero tolerance" messaging from our industry, while well-intentioned, can lead to a sense of futility and a lack of nuanced risk assessment.

Laqua's analysis draws parallels with the evolution of quality management. Initially, "zero defects" was the mantra, but it eventually became clear that focusing solely on the outcome neglected the underlying processes. Similarly, in safety, a singular focus on "zero harm" can overshadow the need for robust risk management and continuous improvement.

A Tiered Approach to Risk Management

Instead of a monolithic "zero damages" target, we need a tiered approach that recognizes the varying levels of risk associated with different types of utility damages. This framework would categorize damages based on factors such as:

• Potential for harm: Damages to high-pressure gas pipelines pose a significantly higher risk than damages to low-voltage electrical lines.
• Location and environment: Damages in densely populated areas or environmentally sensitive zones carry greater consequences.
• Type of utility: The nature of the utility (gas, electric, telecom, water) dictates the potential impact of damage.

In my mind, this tiered system wouldn't imply that any damage is acceptable. Rather, it would allow for a more targeted allocation of resources and a more precise evaluation of risk mitigation strategies. Just as we assess risk in our personal lives – taking extra precautions when handling hazardous materials or driving in adverse conditions – we need a similar nuanced approach to utility damage prevention. When we use Urbint 's AI Risk Model, it is based on threat levels which are like risk tiers - so this would be like bringing that to life in terms of response and locate management.

Learning from Quality Management

As Laqua suggests, we can learn from the evolution of quality management. Just as "zero defects" was a stepping stone to process improvement and customer satisfaction, "zero damages" should be a catalyst for:

• Enhanced process capabilities: Implementing advanced technologies like ground-penetrating radar, improved mapping systems, and precise excavation techniques.
• Increased worker engagement: Fostering a culture of safety where workers are empowered to report near misses and contribute to process improvements.
• Data-driven decision-making: Utilizing the wealth of data provided by the DIRT reports to identify high-risk areas and implement targeted interventions.
• Total Safety Management (TSM): as Laqua proposes, we need a holistic approach that integrates behaviors and systems, moving beyond simple management to actual safety.

Real-World Implementation: Prioritizing High-Risk Utilities

The concept of a tiered risk-based approach to utility damage prevention, as discussed previously, is not merely theoretical. In fact, some of our clients are already implementing elements of this strategy, particularly when it comes to high-risk utilities like natural gas pipelines.

Recognizing the heightened potential for catastrophic consequences associated with gas line damages, these organizations are strategically deploying specialized resources. They are utilizing:

• Utility-Specific Locators: Instead of a generalist approach to locating all underground utilities, they are employing teams with focused expertise and equipment tailored specifically for gas line detection. These locators possess in-depth knowledge of gas pipeline infrastructure, materials, and potential hazards, allowing for more accurate and reliable locating.
• Prioritized Response: In areas where gas lines are known to be present, they implement stricter excavation protocols and prioritize these locations for pre-excavation surveys. They are also utilizing advanced mapping and data analytics to identify high-risk areas based on factors such as pipeline age, material, and proximity to densely populated areas.
• Specialized Training: They are providing specialized training to their personnel on gas line safety, emergency response procedures, and the specific challenges associated with working around these critical infrastructure assets.

This targeted approach reflects a clear understanding of the tiered risk concept. By allocating specialized resources to the highest-risk utilities, they are effectively prioritizing safety and minimizing the potential for severe incidents.

This real-world implementation demonstrates that a tiered approach is not only feasible but also highly effective. By acknowledging the varying levels of risk and deploying tailored strategies, organizations can significantly enhance their utility damage prevention efforts, particularly when it comes to safeguarding critical assets like gas pipelines. This strategy allows for a more focused use of resources, and a greater level of safety for the public and workers alike.

The Human Element and the Path Forward

Ultimately, utility damage prevention is about protecting people. We must approach this challenge with the same level of care and vigilance we would apply to safeguarding ourselves and our families. While aiming for zero damages is a worthwhile aspiration, it's the continuous improvement of processes, the understanding of risk, and the fostering of a strong safety culture that will truly make a difference.

Moving away from a rigid "zero damages" mindset doesn't mean lowering our standards. It means adopting a more sophisticated and effective approach that acknowledges the complexities of utility infrastructure protection. By embracing a tiered risk assessment and a commitment to continuous improvement, we can move closer to a future where utility damages are not just minimized, but prevented.

We must also continue to invest in research and development to improve locating technologies and data management systems. Collaboration between utility companies, excavators, and regulatory bodies is essential to ensure that best practices are shared and implemented consistently. Furthermore, public awareness campaigns play a vital role in educating homeowners and contractors about the importance of calling 811 before digging.

By acknowledging that striving for zero is a journey, not a destination, and by embracing a tiered, risk-based approach, we can build a safer and more resilient utility infrastructure for all.

Link to Raimund Laqua's post: https://www.leancompliance.ca/post/the-trouble-with-zero