The Damage Prevention Legislation Paradox - Part II

Mike Sullivan – President – Utility Safety Partners

A few months ago, I wrote an article on the paradox of damage prevention legislation. Given how consumed I am with the subject, I find myself revisiting the topic again and expanding my thoughts around it. So, if you’ll indulge me once again.

Alberta One-Call Corporation (AOC), now doing business as Utility Safety Partners, has a long history of working toward comprehensive damage prevention legislation. Prior to the most recent effort that began with the Alberta Common Ground Alliance, it was the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops that orchestrated the deepest pursuit of this legislation in the late 1990s. Despite the efforts of the working group assembled by FedGas, the Government of Alberta disagreed with the subject matter experts eliminating blanket legislative language requiring registration of all buried utilities with AOC and every excavation to commence with a locate request.

Decades have passed since then and without legislation, voluntary registration with AOC (now USP) increased, as did locate requests. USP operations and the locate request process streamlined; software improved; web-based locate requests now dominate the damage prevention process; and new locating and marking options have been introduced. Despite these advancements, and the chorus of USP members promoting ClickBeforeYouDig, no-locate damages to buried utilities and contacts with overhead energy assets continues.

In my humble opinion, I believe USP has captured not only the low-hanging objectives but also the medium-to-high hanging objectives as well and securing damage prevention legislation mandating registration with USP, and submission of a locate request prior to every ground disturbance, would significantly reduce damages to buried and overhead energy and utility assets.

Damage prevention legislation and regulations governing and enforcing mandatory locate requests, safe excavation practices, proper excavation techniques, and following guidelines to prevent damage to underground infrastructure will reduce the likelihood of damage to buried utilities during excavation activities. There is, however, a perceived downside to securing legislation.

The paradox of damage prevention legislation refers to the potential conflict between the intention of preventing harm through regulations and the unintended consequences that may arise from such regulations. While the primary goal of the legislation is to protect people, property and the environment from harm, there may be instances where the regulations themselves lead to negative outcomes or unintended consequences.

For example, strict regulations on certain industries may lead to increased costs of compliance. Additionally, overly prescriptive regulations may stifle innovation and hinder technological advancements that could potentially prevent harm in more effective ways – a top-of-mind consequence considering the advancements USP has been able to implement over the past decade.

This is the challenge USP is weighing. Developing proposed damage prevention legislation has moved USP into a policy-making role and for that, it is important for USP to carefully consider the potential unintended consequences of damage prevention legislation and strike the proper balance between protecting public, worker and community safety and encouraging innovation.