Latest issue of the BPELSG Bulletin is now available.
http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin38.pdf
BPELSG Bulletin
-
Stephen Johnson
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:48 am
-
Ian Wilson
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
- Location: Bay Area
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
-
TTaylor
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:17 pm
SUE
Glad to see an article on SUE penned by members of the Geologist's TAC and the Civil TAC.
This subject has been of great concern for the construction of highway improvement projects for quite some time. And is important for all construction projects.
The reasons are many. Firstly, and most importantly, is the safety of workers. (Remember the deaths in CCC when an excavator hit a gas line because it was not located properly?). Secondly, having good underground utility location information early in a project aids in decision making by the CE designer and reduces CCO's during construction.
The second reason above means having accurate mapping data that is on the same datum as the topographic surveys and the ultimate design. This is regardless of the "ambient or applied energy fields" used to accurately locate the utilities. Note: I am only discussing the mapping of the SUEs - not any other property.
I am of the opinion that a surveyor is legally required to be involved in the SUE process for the same arguments I presented in the previous post on machine guidance systems. In this instance 8726 (a), (b), (g), (m), and (n). I know that 6731 gives engineers the same legal basis for some of these activities, however, it has been my experience that they are not very good at mapping and are more than happy to have Land Surveyor's do this work.
I am also glad to the following sentence in the article: "It’s important for contractors to be aware of appropriate levels of licensure required for those elements that compose Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE)." This is exactly the reasons the LSTAC tasked me to write the white paper on MGS. I.e. to aid in communication with the Contractor's Board the legal requirements for the appropriate licensed professional.
So what? Well my recommendation to the Land Surveying community is to vocalize your support to have an LSTAC member working with the other TACs and being a co-author on any article, paper, etc. on this important subject where LSs should be involved.
This subject has been of great concern for the construction of highway improvement projects for quite some time. And is important for all construction projects.
The reasons are many. Firstly, and most importantly, is the safety of workers. (Remember the deaths in CCC when an excavator hit a gas line because it was not located properly?). Secondly, having good underground utility location information early in a project aids in decision making by the CE designer and reduces CCO's during construction.
The second reason above means having accurate mapping data that is on the same datum as the topographic surveys and the ultimate design. This is regardless of the "ambient or applied energy fields" used to accurately locate the utilities. Note: I am only discussing the mapping of the SUEs - not any other property.
I am of the opinion that a surveyor is legally required to be involved in the SUE process for the same arguments I presented in the previous post on machine guidance systems. In this instance 8726 (a), (b), (g), (m), and (n). I know that 6731 gives engineers the same legal basis for some of these activities, however, it has been my experience that they are not very good at mapping and are more than happy to have Land Surveyor's do this work.
I am also glad to the following sentence in the article: "It’s important for contractors to be aware of appropriate levels of licensure required for those elements that compose Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE)." This is exactly the reasons the LSTAC tasked me to write the white paper on MGS. I.e. to aid in communication with the Contractor's Board the legal requirements for the appropriate licensed professional.
So what? Well my recommendation to the Land Surveying community is to vocalize your support to have an LSTAC member working with the other TACs and being a co-author on any article, paper, etc. on this important subject where LSs should be involved.
Tom Taylor
7512
7512
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Actually Tom, BPELSG held a Joint TAC meeting in late August primarily to address the SUE issue and the LSTAC was part of that. Their input provided clarification to both the Civil TAC and Geologist / Geophysicist TAC pertaining to the practice of land surveying, above and beyond the authority of the California Civil Engineer.
I asked the chairs of the Civil and G&G TACs to collaborate on the Bulletin article because in the grand scheme of this issue as it currently is impacting California from BPELSG's perspective, land surveying only plays one role in this. An important role, but only one role.
Across the nation many of the activities included within the definition of SUE, that California licensees normally view as regulated practice, are not necessarily regulated in the same fashion, or at all, as California. This may be due in large part to ASCE's published guidelines for SUE that defines the overall process as engineering. For example, Professional Geophysicist's are only licensed in California and most recently Texas. That portion of the SUE activities are not generally regulated elsewhere.
As part of our initial research on this issue, I queried other Boards across the nation and of the ones that responded most do not follow or regulate SUE activities and the ones that do generally consider it engineering. Keep in mind that California tends to have a much more broad and extensive definition of both engineering and land surveying than the rest of the nation.
I asked the chairs of the Civil and G&G TACs to collaborate on the Bulletin article because in the grand scheme of this issue as it currently is impacting California from BPELSG's perspective, land surveying only plays one role in this. An important role, but only one role.
Across the nation many of the activities included within the definition of SUE, that California licensees normally view as regulated practice, are not necessarily regulated in the same fashion, or at all, as California. This may be due in large part to ASCE's published guidelines for SUE that defines the overall process as engineering. For example, Professional Geophysicist's are only licensed in California and most recently Texas. That portion of the SUE activities are not generally regulated elsewhere.
As part of our initial research on this issue, I queried other Boards across the nation and of the ones that responded most do not follow or regulate SUE activities and the ones that do generally consider it engineering. Keep in mind that California tends to have a much more broad and extensive definition of both engineering and land surveying than the rest of the nation.
-
TTaylor
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:17 pm
For Ric,
Sorry if my retired status has kept me out of the loop on some current events.
From my experiences at Caltrans, a lot of the CCOs on projects were directly related to utility conflicts. A surprising percentage (wish I had numbers for you).
It is really good that CA considers this an important aspect of certain licensed professionals. I find it amazing that other states just ignore it. Another chance for CA to lead the way!!
BTW, also from my experiences the geologists were territorial around GPR, soundings, etc as there province. I have no problem with that. Just the very important aspect of positioning the results.
While our (LSs) involvement is only one aspect of the discussion it a very important one.
Again, Ric, Thanks. Great job.
Sorry if my retired status has kept me out of the loop on some current events.
From my experiences at Caltrans, a lot of the CCOs on projects were directly related to utility conflicts. A surprising percentage (wish I had numbers for you).
It is really good that CA considers this an important aspect of certain licensed professionals. I find it amazing that other states just ignore it. Another chance for CA to lead the way!!
BTW, also from my experiences the geologists were territorial around GPR, soundings, etc as there province. I have no problem with that. Just the very important aspect of positioning the results.
While our (LSs) involvement is only one aspect of the discussion it a very important one.
Again, Ric, Thanks. Great job.
Tom Taylor
7512
7512