Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
9This study identifies that each DOT has a unique range of practices for dealing with utility issues as they relate to high- way design. This chapter reviews in detail five specific practices: (1) con- sideration of utilities during design, (2) philosophies regard- ing design versus relocation, (3) knowledge of designers in utility issues, (4) procedures and practices for decision mak- ing, and (5) utility mapping (both overhead and underground). Most of the issues identified in this chapter fall within these broad categories. CONSIDERATION OF UTILITIES DURING DESIGN Utilities can be moved or the project can be designed in such as way as to keep all existing utilities in place. These are essen- tially the two possible endpoints. DOT historical philosophies, knowledge of designers in utility issues, interface of utility staff with designers, specific procedures and practices related to this decision process, and project-specific design and avail- able space elements influence the ârelocation versus design- to accommodateâ decision. DOT organization is quite diverse, subject to change, and was not a focus of this study. Most of the DOTs have persons knowledgeable in utility accommodation rules and policies who are responsible for coordinating any relocations with utility companies. In most states, the role is that of a manager of the utility coordination process. These persons may not necessarily have training or experience in highway design or utility design. The interplay between these persons responsi- ble for utility relocation coordination and the highway design staff varies from state to state and is in some respects related to how the DOT is organized. Just over 50% of the DOTs have placed their utility units within the DOTâs design section. Another 43% are placed in the right-of-way section. In some states, the right-of-way section is contained within the design section, making these statistics difficult to interpret (Question 10). It does appear as if there are two main ways in which the utility personnel are used for a project. They are either assigned to be part of the project design team (65% of the states) or they serve as a resource for the project design team (30% of the states) (Question 11). DOTs expressed the desire to get utilities involved in the process as early as possible. The nature of that involvement is diverse, but mostly is limited to determining what is there and where it is, rather than should it be considered important or costly enough to be a design issue. Twenty percent of DOTs get their utility personnel involved in the project planning stage (Question 12). In a majority of cases it is primarily an identifi- cation of the utilities that may exist within the project limits. In some cases it includes a preliminary utility cost estimate, where the costs of moving utilities out of the way of the highway proj- ect are estimated. Philosophies on what to consider differ; the preliminary utility cost estimate can be either a worst-case sce- nario, a best-case scenario, or a most-likely case scenario. Ten percent of DOTs start getting utility information at the topo survey stage, whereas 52% wait until the early design stage of a project. The remaining 18% wait until later in design, or sometimes until just before construction (Question 12). Almost 90% of DOTs consider the impacts of utilities on aerial versus underground utilities at the same time (Question 17). The 2004 AASHTO âRight of Way and Utilities Guide- lines and Best Practicesâ states that: Major utility companies should be identified early in the project development phase. The impact of the proposed project on exist- ing utility facilities should be evaluated. The cost to mitigate conflicts with these utilities should be evaluated when alternative designs are considered. If there are major conflicts, the utility owner should be contacted and encouraged to develop and eval- uate alternative design proposals (4). Although fewer than 30% of DOTs reported that they use this guidance document, anecdotal evidence suggests that this document is incorporated into their policies and procedures (Question 27). The SHRP 2 R-15 study discovered that: The DOT design development process is focused on solving a transportation need. Partly because of the weak structure of the coordination process, the transportation design proceeds for the most part without input from the utilities. The transportation project is designed with the belief that utilities can and will be relocated if there is a conflict. Designing to avoid utility conflicts is the exception rather than the rule (5). In some instances, ROW, terrain, or other considerations necessary to accomplish the surface transportation project CHAPTER THREE RANGE OF PRACTICES
may be unchangeable and, therefore, no consideration of a change of design versus relocation can take place. For instance, a project may involve large expanses of deep cuts. Given the high cost of ROW relative to the cost of utility ease- ments it is the rare project that would show a combined cost benefit (ratepayer/taxpayer) to buy additional ROW to relocate a utility. Philosophies Regarding Design Versus Relocation Thirty-three percent of DOTs believe that it is solely the responsibility of the utility owners to know where utilities are located within their ROW (Question 6). The remaining DOTs believe there is joint responsibility. These philosophies affect the way DOTs portray utilities on design plans. For instance, those believing they have no responsibility do not pay to get utilities depicted on their plans (e.g., through hiring a SUE) and are therefore at the mercy of the utility owners for both the timing and quality of information. Sixty percent of DOTs consider their project costs as more important than the relocation costs to the utility ratepayers (Question 7). This is understandable given that the DOT budget is derived from taxpayer money. This reality drives considerations such as the timing and gener- ation of utility cost estimates for relocation, designing proj- ect elements to avoid utility relocations, timing of involvement of utility companies in the design process, and training of designers in utility issues. Only 25% of DOTs consider the costs to ratepayer and taxpayer as equal in importance (Question 7). Seventy-three percent of the DOTs noted they do not con- sider cost or time factors as part of the relocation/design deci- sion (Question 23). This is somewhat in conflict with survey answers that indicated a decision to design around specific utility types in a majority of cases (such as cell towers, trans- mission gas, transmission electric, substations, environmental vaults, and petroleum pipelines), whereas other utility types are less apt to be considered for a highway design change to accommodate them (distribution gas, water lines, aerial dis- tribution facilities, sewer systems). Cost and time appear to be the common factors with these utility types. The cost factor is bolstered because if the utility has no compensable right to be in the ROW, the decision to relocate the utility versus design around it increases by a factor of about 33% for buried facilities (Question 24). Only for aer- ial distribution facilities does this not appear to be a factor in the decision. It is interesting that given the propensity to relocate a utility versus design around it, the survey respondents gen- erally considered the following design elements as a valid reason for a design change versus utility relocation: drainage design (84%), structure design (73%), cuts and fills (70%), 10 ROW procurement (65%), lighting design (54%), signage (51%), signalization (49%), and placement of the travel lanes (43%). This survey question was one in which there was a significant diversity of opinion within individual DOTs on whether it was valid to consider a relocation for a par- ticular type of utility versus design other elements around it (Questions 5 and 24). Knowledge of Designers in Utility Issues Despite the extensive network of underground utilities and pipelines across the United States, there is very little for- mal education and training specifically aimed at design, operation, and maintenance of these assets (8). This lack of training is exacerbated by the growing scope of required knowledge and the need for individuals with a broad knowl- edge base in utilities, their risks, and project design and construction practices (9). Limited efforts have been made to introduce pipeline-related courses and utility asset man- agement instruction into engineering curricula; however, this introduction is difficult because of the pressure of other growing education and training needs for each branch of engineering. The vast majority of individuals that assume the job duties dealing with utilities receive no formal train- ing at all. The FHWA recognized this and developed and sponsored the National Highway Utility Conference, which was held annually from 1991 through 2000. This conference brought together DOT personnel, utility company personnel, and consultants for information exchange and training. However, very few highway design personnel, if any, attended. It was at these conferences that ideas such as subsurface utility engineering, outsourcing of utility coordination, outsourcing of utility relocation design, and other ideas taken for granted today were first introduced on a national stage. Utility owner designers shared current information on costs and reloca- tion design constraints with attendees, and case studies on projects that were successful as far as avoiding unnecessary utility relocations. The AASHTO Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utili- ties has made an effort to fill the void created when the National Highway Utility Conference folded. This annual AASHTO meeting is primarily attended by DOT ROW or Utility Section personnel and consultants. Consultant designers do attend, and it has allowed an exchange of knowledge for consultant designers, who are familiar with aspects of highway design, with DOT utility personnel. In 2000, the National Highway Institute developed the Highway/Utility Issues Course. It is a two-day course designed to bring DOT utility personnel together with other utility per- sonnel to develop an awareness of each otherâs issues. This course held by the DOTs is infrequently requested (J. Lindly, University of Alabama, personal communication).
11 Utility organizations do develop and conduct specific util- ity design courses for their constituents. The Electric Power Research Institute (www.EPRI.com), Gas Technology Insti- tute (www.gastechnology.org), American Water Works Asso- ciation (www.awwa.org), and others hold courses, webinars, and sessions at conferences relating to the design of specific utilities. DOT designers could take advantage of these edu- cational opportunities and courses; however, there is no doc- umentation that they do. Sixty percent of DOTs surveyed reported that their design- ers were not trained in utility issues (Question 13); 16% were not sure. For those that did have training, 60% said that it was limited to issues regarding getting utilities relocated. Only 2% had training in utility relocation costs, providing little incen- tive for designers to look at design alternatives (Question 14). The R-15 study said this about knowledge of designers in utility issues: Several state DOTs and UCs claimed that many designers are not sufficiently knowledgeable of the utility relocation process (and technical issues) and suggested that training programs be held in order to educate them. High turnover rates at DOTs have led to inexperienced people doing design. Utility networks can be very complex. There is a feeling in the utility industry that if DOT designers understood the complexity of some utility systems, a greater effort would be made to avoid utility relocation during highway design. Advancements in technology are also being made, providing new information that could be utilized in the design and relocation process. Training must be done in order to get designers and UCs to utilize this information correctly. This practice should be employed before the design phase. When designers have a comprehensive understanding of the utility sys- tem and the relocation process, consideration of utilities during the design process will increase the potential for cost savings with innovative designs that avoid utility relocations. The development of a consistent procedure to follow and better coordination with the UC can increase timely relocations and reduce utility delay claims, and gain the confidence of the people you are working with (5). Procedures and Practices for Decision Making All state accommodation policies reviewed require the utility to relocate its facilities if they conflict with the transportation facility. A few state policies request designers to attempt to minimize relocations. Eighty-five percent of DOTs do not have any policies or guidance documents that affect a decision to relocate or to design around a utility conflict, other than for above-ground, clear zone safety issues (Question 8). The log- ical assumption from this statistic is that the decision to design around a utility or relocate the utility is derived from other factors. Approval for that decision is either through a normal chain of command process or a formal approval process of some type in 64% of the DOTs (Question 22). This implies that even though there is no formal decision policy, the deci- sion is dependent on more senior management, but must first originate with the designer. Several state DOTs have begun to include a work cate- gory of âdesign analysis and conflict resolutionâ in their con- sultant contracts. The level of activity varies from identifying potential conflicts at the 60% design stage for the selection of test holes to actually recommending changes to the highway design to accommodate select utilities. Current practice in most states is to return the project plans back to the utility owners and make them responsible for determining their own conflicts. In this manner, project own- ers do not pay for the conflict identification. This is another ratepayerâproject owner issue where the public pays for the inefficiencies created by multiple plan sets reviewed by mul- tiple individuals that will need to be collated. A single entity identifying all conflicts (the utility owners can verify and serve as a quality assurance role) is better. A single, trained, compe- tent individual can perform this function more efficiently than a mix of many utility owners on their own timetables with lim- ited resources. The amount of time to get familiarized with the project is more efficient for one person than ten (5). Several state DOTs have developed a âConflict Analysisâ spreadsheet that assists decisions on design versus relocation by relating estimated costs of relocation to conflicts. This practice is the focus of an ongoing SHRP 2 research project, R-15B, Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions. Fewer than 50% of DOTs rely on the FHWAâs Avoiding Utility Relocations (2) as a guidance document and fewer than 30% use AASHTOâs âBest Practices for Right of Way and Utility Issuesâ (Question 27). UTILITY MAPPING Perhaps the single most important step in dealing with util- ity issues is the knowledge of what and where utilities are present. If you do not know if something exists, or where it exists, the decision of whether to consider it during design is nonexistent. Utilities can be overhead (aerial) or under- ground, and many times are both, as in the case of electrical or telecommunications systems. Underground and aerial facil- ities are discussed separately in this chapter, but there are some common issues that may affect decisions on relocating versus design. Transportation projects and utilities share the same space. When anything within that space changes, it can produce actual or perceived physical conflicts that need to be resolved. The first step of resolving conflicts is the knowledge of the âwho, what, where, why, and whenâ of the space occupation. Cost, time, and safety are important factors that influence the technology and procedures used to answer these questions. Responsibility for determining this knowledge is clear for any- thing that is visible, and there are clear standards for accu- racy and precision of depicted items, including visible utility structures. The transportation project providers invariably produce a topographic survey and take responsibility for that cost and time.
Interpretations of, and responsibility for, the who, what, why, where, and when are fairly simplistic when an object is visible. This is not the case for objects in nonvisible space. Challenges in documenting and understanding accuracy for indirectly measured or inferred utilities are part of the problem and are perpetuated by âaccuracyâ language that is misunderstood in state One-Call statutes. Responsibility for locating and characterizing the nonvisible (i.e., buried utility) items occupying space varies widely and is not well delineated in practice. Different parties may be responsible for utility depictions for differing phases of the project (e.g., planning, design, and construction). These are some of the reasons that problems relating to utilities occur on transportation projects (8). The project limits for utility mapping can be a factor. Frequently, in an attempt to minimize initial project cost, project limits are set unrealistically small early in the proj- ect development process. This may not address subsequent space requirements for anticipated but not yet determined new ROWs, utility easements outside of the ROWs, or un- anticipated design changes during the project. The addi- tional costs of extending the survey limits a small amount are minimal when done in conjunction with the initial sur- vey mobilization (5). In addition to utilities themselves, the character of the existing space within the project limits must be identified. By character we mean the space occupied by the existing utilities and ground conditions that may affect the reloca- tion of existing utilities (such as bedrock, large boulders, depth to water table, debris and rubble from past use, and unstable ground). It is not only the utility âlinesâ that create potential issues. The space required for thrust blocks, vaults, pole anchors, and so forth can be a factor. The ways in which DOTs get utility information portrayed on their planning and design documents are diverse. They include research, analysis, and interpretation of utility records by DOT personnel or their consultants; submission of base plans to utility owners for them to draw on their facility loca- tions; requesting utilities to mark their facilities in the field for subsequent survey; hiring a contract locator to mark util- ities in the field; allowing department survey forces to make best guesses in the field based on visual observations; or hir- ing a subsurface utility engineering firm. In many cases, more than one way is used, usually at different phases of the proj- ect and in varying degrees of thoroughness. Sixty-four percent of DOTs reported that they have no formal mechanism to decide which particular method they will use to get utilities depicted on plans (Question 16). Several states and consultants indicated that it is the deci- sion of the individual project manager. This statistic is con- fusing when combined with another one, that being that 67% of the states noted that consultant-designed projects must follow the same procedures for getting utility infor- 12 mation on plans as the department (Question 18). This may indicate that although there is no formal mechanism for choice there is a set procedure. Overhead Utilities No documentation was found for a coordination process for relocation efforts involving multiple utilities occupying the same aerial structures. Electrical distribution poles may also serve various other utilities such as telephone and cable. Poles cannot be relocated until all utilities have been relocated. Util- ities are typically placed on a first come, first served basis. This process generally works, although a utility submitting a plan after another may conflict with the first utility plan and thereby cause inefficiencies. Coordination and design decision involving overhead util- ities follow the same procedures as those for underground ones. Eighty-nine percent of the DOTs consider the impacts of aerial facilities at the same time as they do the underground facilities (Question 17). Variances in responses for relocation decisions involving overhead versus underground facilities were within 4% (Question 5). Underground Utilities Underground utilities are the biggest challenges. They can- not be seen, good records are not kept of them, there are many of them, technology does not exist to image all of them, and there are no standard practices for identifying them that are in common and prevailing use. A recent SHRP 2 study, R-01, Encouraging Innovation in Locating and Characteriz- ing Utilities (8), is a current and comprehensive document that details many of the issues necessary in identifying and accurately portraying existing underground utilities on high- way design plans. Much of the same literature resulted from this research and similar but slightly different surveys have been performed. Much of the information contained within this section is duplicated in more detail in R-01. It is a good companion document to this study to more fully understand the range of underground utility mapping issues. Utility Records In 60% of the DOTs, department personnel obtain and use utility records (Question 15). In the R-01 survey, a slight majority of individuals responding to the survey believed utility records were sufficient for highway design purposes. Accurate and comprehensive records are a solution and a good first step. However, existing records of underground site conditions are often incorrect, incomplete, or otherwise inadequate because: ⢠They were not accurate in the first placeâdesign draw- ings are often not âas-built,â or installations were âfield runâ and no record was ever made of actual locations.
13 ⢠On old sites there have often been several utility owners, architects/engineers, and contractors installing facilities and burying objects for decades. The records are seldom put in a single file and are often lostâthere is almost never a composite map. ⢠References are frequently lostâthe records might show something 28 ft from a building that is no longer there, or from the edge of a two-lane road that is now four lanes or part of a parking lot. ⢠Lines, pipes, and tanks are abandoned, but do not get taken off the drawings. Even so-called as-builts frequently lack the detail and accuracy needed for design purposes in a utility-congested environment. Furthermore, references on depth are rarely referenced to a recognized elevation datum. The amount of cover over a utility can change without obvious visual indi- cations owing to interim construction activity, erosion, etc., creating errors on records where âdepth of coverâ is the sole reference to vertical position (10). The problem has only grown worse over time. The increas- ing use of geographic information system (GIS) systems for utility recordkeeping, coupled with the easy integration of data from computer-aided design (CAD) systems, has led to a proliferation of utility data. Sometimes original data have been scrapped once it became digital. Digitizing mistakes are common, as are misinterpretations of the original record data. GIS and CAD data can have the misperception of per- fection. It is important to know the pedigree of the data so that good judgments can be made on its validity. Without ground-truthing or other verification means, it is impossible to know the accuracy or completeness of these utility loca- tion and characterization data. This area is one focus of a new SHRP 2 study R-01A. In addition to using records, DOTs implement other mea- sures for obtaining, refining, or validating utility information. For instance, in 55% of the states, DOTs will provide to the utility companies a set of design plans on which to draw utili- ties (Question 15). The reasons for this may be related to cost, time, or accuracy. If accuracy related, the inference here is that utility owners can better interpret their own records, have better records than they are willing to give the DOTs, have better information in their institutional memory than their records, or be willing to augment record information with their own field locating. There was no information found for this study that determined the effectiveness of this practice. Utility records analysis and interpretation can be quite complex. To correlate these records to the highway plans, it is important that those plans be understandable and readable by the personnel using them. Several utility companies have part- nered with either state DOTs or consultants for developing and arranging Highway Plans Reading Courses. No literature was found indicating availability of a utility records interpretation course. It is unlikely that senior personnel, who may have the most experience with both these issues, are the ones that end up interpreting and translating this information onto plans. One-Call Markings Each state has a unique One-Call statute that requires utility owners to place utility markings on the ground surface for safety purposes during construction. As of 2004, only 13 states specifically allowed utility locates (âdesign ticketâ) and field marking for design purposes (11). It is illegal for utilities to provide this service in some states with the rationale of a ratepayer versus taxpayer issue, whereas in other states there is no mention of it one way or the other. As such, reliance on utility owners to provide utility markings for design pur- poses through their One-Call systems has not been effective because (1) the service is unavailable, (2) the service is not mandatory, and (3) the system was designed for safety dur- ing construction rather than for design. States that have a design ticket typically waive the requirements for accuracy or completeness of the marks. No entity is responsible for looking for abandoned or unknown utilities or other under- ground obstacles or for assessing how many cables go from one vault to another. The process is inefficient and the abil- ity to assess completeness is limited. In spite of this, approx- imately 30% of DOTs send out survey crews to survey util- ity ownerâs One-Call marks either at time of design or at time of construction (Question 15). SUE SUE was developed in the early 1980s to address many of the issues regarding uncertainty in the utility mapping process. It has steadily evolved over the years to the point where today it is viewed and endorsed by the civil engineering community as a branch of engineering practice, rather than a âboutiqueâ and unusual service. It includes many tasks associated with the risk management of utilities. Today, SUE includes the mapping of underground utili- ties in accordance with ASCE 38-02 (Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data); the inspection and mapping of gravity utilities utiliz- ing closed-circuit television systems, sondes, and insertion devices; aerial pole mapping and documentation of structures and utilities on poles; vault detailing; profile development; all aspects of utility coordination including conflict analysis and resolution; utility relocation cost estimates; utility relocation design; corridor planning; construction observation and cer- tified record drawing development during utility installa- tion; GIS database population; three-dimensional imaging and visualization; and general utility consulting (J. Harter, Cardno-TBE, personal communication). ASCE 38-02 is a national engineering consensus standard (in accordance with American National Standards Institute
rules) that outlines a procedure for obtaining utility informa- tion and classifying that information as to its Utility Quality Level. The 2004 AASHTO âRight of Way and Utilities Guidelines and Best Practicesâ (4) states that âAll state trans- portation departments should comply with the requirements in this standard guideline.â However, fewer than 50% of DOTs use this document for guidance; almost the same num- ber use their stateâs One-Call ticket (Question 27). Nineteen percent of DOTs regularly use SUE mapping on a majority of their projects, whereas another 54% use it on select projects (Question 15). Its low percentage of use can be ascribed to several factors: belief that the One-Call system is adequate for many projects; a philosophy that utilities should pay for location information; a history of inadequate SUE providers locally; and the perception that there is not a positive costâbenefit ratio (R. Memory, North Carolina DOT, personal communication). CostâBenefits of SUE Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, costâbenefit data on SUE mapping versus traditional utility depictions on plans were generated by two individual states (Virginia and Maryland) that had to justify their SUE contract expenditures to the U.S.DOT. The Virginia DOT (VDOT) found a $7.00 benefit for every $1.00 spent, plus a time savings for the project devel- opment through construction process of 20%. The Maryland State Highway Administration documented an $18.00 ben- efit for every $1.00 spent. Although well documented and publicized, these data were doubted by many state DOTs, as reported to the FHWA. In response, the FHWA commis- sioned an independent study that was published in 2000. This study was conducted by Purdue University and titled Cost Savings on Highway Projects Utilizing Subsurface Utility Engineering (12). It looked at a total of 71 projects evenly dis- tributed across 4 states. The projects selected for study all had a minimum mapping utility quality level of Quality Level B (QLB); some also had QLA data. The study found that the min- imum savings in gathering utility data on average was $4.62 for every $1.00 spent. The study reviewed the savings derived from having more accurate utility data than traditional Quality Level D (QLD)/Quality Level C (QLC) data (12). In 2005, the University of Toronto published a study titled âSubsurface Utility Engineering in Ontario: Challenges and Opportunitiesâ (13). This report outlines the results of a 12-month study commissioned by the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association to investigate the practice of utilizing SUE on large infrastructure projects in Ontario. The report includes detailed documentation of nine success- ful case studies of SUE implementation in Ontario. These case studies were generally characterized by having a value greater 14 than $500,000, being located in urban settings, and having a large number of buried infrastructure systems. The research team documented the qualitative costs and benefits of con- ducting SUE in these cases. For these particular cases, the average Return-On-Investment (ROI) for SUE was approxi- mately $3.41 for each $1 spent. ROI figures varied consider- ably across the case studies and ranged from as low as $1.98 to as high as $6.59. All figures indicate a positive ROI. In 2008, Penn State University published a report com- missioned by the Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT). The study undertook an in-depth analysis of ten PennDOT projects that had a minimum mapping utility quality level of QLB; some also had QLA data. It found that there was a cost savings of $22.21 for every $1.00 spent in gathering utility data. The study reviewed the savings derived from having more accu- rate utility data than traditional QLD/QLC data. All of the projects showed a strong relationship between the costâbene- fit ratio and the complexity of the buried utilities on the proj- ect. The analysis clearly showed that there is no relation- ship between SUE/benefitâcost ratio and project cost, and no relationship between buried utility complexity and project cost. The study concluded that Utility Quality Levels QLB and QLA be used based on the complexity of the buried util- ities on the project. The study further developed a decision matrix to assist the DOT in determining the potential com- plexity of the buried utilities. The decision matrix places a low threshold on the concept of complexity (6). Given the results of these studies, it is not clear why there is still so much resistance to state DOTs using the concepts of SUE for project mapping. One aspect identified in the R-15 study was that SUE is still viewed by many as an expensive version of the One-Call system, with the addition of a vac- uum truck, because it started out primarily as a craft service that marked nongravity utilities with pipe and cable locators and exposed them with vacuum excavation. However, the reality is that there is the opportunity to do a better job find- ing and marking utilities through SUE than through One-Call (see Appendix A). The R-15 study also had this to say: Many DOT engineers consider SUE services to be expensive and SUE services are not included in the budget. A few offer services via a program budget allocation, to encourage usage of SUE as needed. When DOTs procure SUE services, they want it to be worth it. SUE providers have proliferated and to a certain extent, and now SUE is treated like a commodity instead of a professional service. This has led to some problems in some cases, including: ⢠SUE provider not using adequate imaging equipment. ⢠Procurement of the wrong amount of imaging in order to cut costs or meet other goals and limits. ⢠Inadequate level of skill or experience interpreting visual output.
