Difference between revisions of "Near Shore and on Shore: Utilities"

From MDOT Policy Manual
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |- | colspan="3" | '''Utilities''' |- | colspan="3" | =Primary Guidance= Storm Water Management *Minimum cover: on major travel lanes designed for trai...")
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
| colspan="3" |
 
| colspan="3" |
 
=Primary Guidance=
 
=Primary Guidance=
Storm Water  Management
+
==Storm Water  Management==
 
*Minimum cover:  on major travel lanes designed for trailers, mafis container forklifts, min cover for > 18 in RCP is 4 ft.
 
*Minimum cover:  on major travel lanes designed for trailers, mafis container forklifts, min cover for > 18 in RCP is 4 ft.
 
*Specify airport  rated manholes and manhole covers where design vehicles include any of the following:  container forklifts, mafis, goldhofers
 
*Specify airport  rated manholes and manhole covers where design vehicles include any of the following:  container forklifts, mafis, goldhofers
  
Electric
+
==Electric==
 
*Primary vs. secondary power:  facility with any single month demand > 200,000 kwh, conduct cost-benefit study to implement primary power
 
*Primary vs. secondary power:  facility with any single month demand > 200,000 kwh, conduct cost-benefit study to implement primary power
 
*Energy efficiency:  as feasible and cost-effective, implement LED lighting; solar panels
 
*Energy efficiency:  as feasible and cost-effective, implement LED lighting; solar panels
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
=Discussion=
 
=Discussion=
Storm Water Management
+
==Storm Water Management==
 
Minimum depth consideration is warranted where large diameter pipes cross major thoroughfares subject to vehicle loads in excess of standard highway trucks.  Alternatively, special pipe bedding or pavement section may be used as appropriate.  State highway and municipal manhole and cover standards are typically structurally insufficient for extreme axle loads from the cited design vehicles.
 
Minimum depth consideration is warranted where large diameter pipes cross major thoroughfares subject to vehicle loads in excess of standard highway trucks.  Alternatively, special pipe bedding or pavement section may be used as appropriate.  State highway and municipal manhole and cover standards are typically structurally insufficient for extreme axle loads from the cited design vehicles.
  
Electric
+
==Electric==
 
Cost-benefit studies to convert to primary power is warranted where the electrical maintenance expertise and resources are available on staff or can be readily contracted.  Evaluating and providing electrical system redundancy for high demand and critical facilities is appropriate where:
 
Cost-benefit studies to convert to primary power is warranted where the electrical maintenance expertise and resources are available on staff or can be readily contracted.  Evaluating and providing electrical system redundancy for high demand and critical facilities is appropriate where:
  

Revision as of 17:26, 26 October 2016

Utilities

Primary Guidance

Storm Water Management

  • Minimum cover: on major travel lanes designed for trailers, mafis container forklifts, min cover for > 18 in RCP is 4 ft.
  • Specify airport rated manholes and manhole covers where design vehicles include any of the following: container forklifts, mafis, goldhofers

Electric

  • Primary vs. secondary power: facility with any single month demand > 200,000 kwh, conduct cost-benefit study to implement primary power
  • Energy efficiency: as feasible and cost-effective, implement LED lighting; solar panels
  • System redundancy: for critical or public facilities and TWIC controlled access gates, 2 independent feeders or a backfeed loop, and diesel or propane generator

Discussion

Storm Water Management

Minimum depth consideration is warranted where large diameter pipes cross major thoroughfares subject to vehicle loads in excess of standard highway trucks. Alternatively, special pipe bedding or pavement section may be used as appropriate. State highway and municipal manhole and cover standards are typically structurally insufficient for extreme axle loads from the cited design vehicles.

Electric

Cost-benefit studies to convert to primary power is warranted where the electrical maintenance expertise and resources are available on staff or can be readily contracted. Evaluating and providing electrical system redundancy for high demand and critical facilities is appropriate where:

  • Power is unreliable under normal use or in extreme weather events
  • Where secondary feeders are proximal
  • Where power loss constitutes a security breach or unacceptable operational hardship

Combining redundant supply methods should be based on security and operational need for power continuity, off-terminal distribution grid and secondary feeder(s) proximity, maintenance personnel available to exercise backup generators and air quality permitting requirements for generators.

See Also