Options for Reducing Copper Theft
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Options for Reducing Copper Theft Final Report 657 Prepared by: Jeremy Schoenfelder Mid-Atlantic Innovative Technology Center 9630 Gudelsky Drive Rockville, MD 20850 October 2009 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-09-657 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date October 2009 Options for Reducing Copper Theft 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jeremy Schoenfelder 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. MITC (Mid-Atlantic Innovative Technology Center) 11. Contract or Grant No. 9630 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 T08-49-00014 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Project Manager: Frank R. Di Bugnara 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This research investigated the theft of copper, including scope, impacts, and countermeasures. The researchers completed a literature review to demonstrate a global perspective of the problem. They took a survey of other state departments of transportation, utility companies, and developers to determine both successful and unsuccessful techniques being used to deter copper theft and the impact copper theft had on other geographical regions and other industries. Additionally, the researchers conducted a site survey to gain knowledge of the specific issues impacting the Arizona Department of Transportation and what mitigation techniques it was implementing. During the time of the research it was found: 1. The Arizona Department of Transportation estimates that costs over the last two years have exceeded $500,000. 2. The Arizona Department of Transportation has been diligent in implementing and adapting various methods and/or techniques to prevent copper theft and apprehend culprits. Suggested mitigation techniques include: 1. Implement a collaborative effort among ADOT, the contracted private investigation firm, and outside consultant(s) to review and amend efforts on a periodic basis to maximize effectiveness through a think- tank type of approach. 2. Implement a program that would monitor ongoing development of methods used by other organizations. 3. Make particular use of the Copper Keeper, a device that makes it difficult to pull wire through conduit by locking the wire in place through the tightening of a compression bolt. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 23. Registrant’s Seal Copper theft, wire theft, metal theft, vandalism Document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 22161 19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 50 SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA AREA 2 2 2 2 in square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm mm Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in 2 2 2 2 ft square feet 0.093 square meters m m Square meters 10.764 square feet ft 2 2 2 2 yd square yards 0.836 square meters m m Square meters 1.195 square yards yd ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 2 2 2 2 mi square miles 2.59 square kilometers km km Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi VOLUME VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal 3 3 3 3 ft cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m m Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft 3 3 3 3 yd cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m m Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3. MASS MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams mg mg megagrams 1.102 short tons (2000lb) T (or “metric ton”) (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact) ºF Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit ºF temperature or (F-32)/1.8 temperature ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf lbf/in2 poundforce per 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per lbf/in2 square inch square inch SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................4 LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................6 SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................14 SITE ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................................21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................22 APPENDIX ...............................................................................................................................25 EXHIBIT 1. Survey and Summary Results.......................................................................26 EXHIBIT 2. Site Risk Assessment......................................................................................34 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Amount of Copper Stolen........................................................................................16 Figure 2. Separate Incidents of Theft.....................................................................................16 Figure 3. Incidents vs. Arrests.................................................................................................17 Figure 4. Amount of Copper Stolen........................................................................................17 Figure 5. Separate Incidents of Theft.....................................................................................18 Figure 6. Arrests vs. Thefts .....................................................................................................18 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Department of Transportation Respondents ..........................................................14 Table 2. Utility Companies/Contractors Respondents..........................................................15 Table 3. States Reporting Issues .............................................................................................15 Table 4. Monitoring Methods..................................................................................................19 Table 5. Methods for Limiting Access....................................................................................19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Department of Energy estimates copper wire theft costs the public $1 billion per year.1 The Arizona Department of Transportation estimates costs over the last two years have exceeded $500,000. Theft appears to be increasing and the culprits are becoming bolder and more sophisticated. The severe increase in the cost of copper, coupled with the multiple options for sale of stolen wire, has made theft of copper wire attractive to thieves. Copper wire theft has not been confined to any specific area, as wire has been stolen during shipping, while in storage, and after installation. Vacant buildings and street lighting have been common targets for theft of wire that has been installed. Legislation in many states has changed or is changing as a result of the magnitude of this phenomenon. The typical change in legislation involves increasing penalties for theft of copper and other metals, as well as initiating new ones or increasing existing reporting requirements for vendors, such as recycling facilities, that may buy scrap metal. Since this type of theft is relatively new, many of the methods used to combat the problem are untested and theoretical. For this reason, a trial-and-error approach has been common in attempting to decrease these types of theft. Some methods will work for a period of time