“Promoting Trenchless the Rational way”

How the application of Trenchless Technology is being promoted by various stakeholders? By convincing people that the Trenchless Techniques reduce social costs and therefore use it? Do you really believe any project owner would be happy to pay for Trenchless just because it is reducing the social costs? Is it rational economically for him? Yes, in case there is no paucity of funds, project owners may accept the argument, but then that is never the case. Always it is the other way round resulting into a lost battle for Trenchless. Whatever the project planner might have desired, the project’s financial approval would be on the basis of optimum expenses leading to having lesser funds available. Then how it is used? Today trenchless techniques are used in the instances where there is no open cut or conventional alternative available. The cause is not very difficult to comprehend. Most of such decisions for the projects are cost centric rather than environment or social cost centric and if while planning, the environmental or social cost impact was ignored, the apparent cost effective solution would be the open cut method instead of Trenchless. Later, even if the fact is other way round and understood by the project executioners or owners, it is next to impossible for them to change the scope of work or the design of the project to switch to Trenchless Technology unless the open cut becomes completely impossible.

I do not say that it can not be done but is not quite easy. To understand the magnitude of the problem, look at some of the ongoing projects. One example is the Kolkata Environment Improvement Project that underwent such trial and travails and a supplementary loan was recommended by the Chairman ADB. The justification for cost escalation for the Sewerage and Drainage Component is given in the Supplementary Loan Report which can be accessed at http://www.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/IND/29466-02-IND-RRP.pdf. Part of the recommendations from the President ADB, to the Board members is quoted hereunder:

The cost increase in sewerage and drainage (S&D) was caused by

(i)         price escalation in construction materials,
(ii)         inclusion of Borough VII,
(iii)        increase in property connections,
(iv)        change in design,

Out of the above what do points (iv & v) refer to? One can not accept that the project engineers were not aware about the heavy traffic conditions when the project was planned and execution was started in the first stage then why the design changes, unless Trenchless was not considered earlier and its requirement was felt later due to impossibility of open cut? It is not an accusation on anyone but is a wakeup call for our city engineers. Such oversights are expensive and can be avoided if we explore all the possible options in the feasibility stage itself. Magnitude of the problem can be understood if we look at JnNURM projects where India is investing close to 1.20 lakh crore Rupees in the water supply and drainage networks of the Mission cities and the DPRs / CDPs and other project related planning documents are being prepared all around. If one will ignore Trenchless at the planning or design stage, he will face a great resistance to get TT applications accepted later and in majority of the cases he may have to content himself with the open cuts with high social costs or no projects at all or go for additional financial support where costs would go up and the nation would loose good money. Do we want this? At least, I do not. I will explore all the possible alternatives before resorting to open trench digging in my project plans. The Feasibility study would contain the Trenchless option as I want to renew the urban settings and not to destroy them.

But then how one does that if he is not sensitized about the techniques. Hearsay does not help one to plan a project. If he feels that these techniques have landed on earth from Venus or Mars or are something like the ones shown in science fiction movies or displayed as inventions on several Television Channels, then he is bound to conclude that such techniques are good in virtual world but can not be employed at his site due to the perceived risks. A real loss for Trenchless Technology and the Environment!

Now what should be done? Proposed solution is to provide basic information to such engineers so that they do not consider that these techniques have come from Mars or Venus but have been developed and deduced through sound engineering principles and can be understood easily by them. A detailed design calculation may not be possible at their level but at least a basic schematic planning can be understood and if required, done as well. The project planning also could be a realistic one and not with impossible demands which the techniques would not be able to deliver. For an example if a project owner requires an upsizing of 70% in a pipe bursting project he may be fishing for trouble. The engineer should be able to differentiate between possible and impossible only then they will get a proper project. Standardization is another call of the day. Unless standardized, no technique can be continuously sold. With a view to this IndSTT has scheduled the No Dig India Show 2008, between 15th~17th May 2008, where several starter classes and advanced classes have been scheduled for such non-sensitized engineers.

In addition to the basic sensitization in the event the newer developments would be presented in a conference. Some of the major issues are the release of Codes of Practices so that engineers are provided with a tool for proper project execution. The commercial implications also are of prime importance and there are two actions IndSTT is taking; one is the revision of the schedule of rates released earlier; and the second is the development of similar systems for other techniques where the rates have not been developed yet. You can find more details about the event in this issue.

We believe that this is the rational approach to promote Trenchless Technology rather than proposing its use through the convoluted route of savings on the social costs. Fact is that if I need an expensive medicine whatever may be cost I will have to buy that no cheap alternative can replace that medicine. What we need to do is to fix is the real cost of the expensive medicine rather than comparing it with the cheaper or ineffective alternatives and to do so we need the standardization of the complete technique to suit certain local requirements.

*-*-*-*-*