One of the reasons USP produces this newsletter is to inform industry stakeholders about what’s new and what is happening with safety partners in Alberta. A second reason for this newsletter is to increase engagement and encourage open dialogue among safety stakeholders. It is for that reason I am starting this stakeholder opinion article as a monthly newsletter feature. It is my hope to encourage you to submit an opinion article of your own on any subject related to safety or damage prevention, intended to spark dialogue and share a viewpoint from your unique perspective in industry. Let’s get the conversations started.
LOCATING STANDARDS — AS I SEE IT
The whisper of change is in the air in our industry. For some time now, there have been various conversations around creating industry standards around locator training and competency. There have been attempts in the past to bring some kind of standardization to the practice of locating. Some attempts are based on asset-owners’ desire to increase the quality of locating or to create a “pool” of locators that meet their contract requirements. Earlier attempts coming from the locating industry were motivated by creating a baseline competency around which they can then build a case for locating as a recognized trade, occupation or profession. Best practices have always included high-level guidelines for locating a site. The Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance (ORCGA) created a Damage Prevention Technician training program for locators that is working for some, but not for others due to the level of detailed requirements. One locating company in Canada has adopted the certification program started in Australia.
The latest attempt is coming from CAPULC, which is currently working on standards it hopes to apply nationally through its association of locators. USP is engaging with CAPULC by offering review and comment from a mixed-industry task force we collectively started in April 2021; and CAPULC is committed to publishing a standard by early summer 2022. It’s an aggressive timeline for a project with so many moving parts and stakeholders seeking the opportunity for meaningful engagement.
At some point, there has to be a drive to build consensus among the critical players. The standard has to work for locators both large, small and independent — ideally with a way for asset owners to also train internal locators to an established level of competency. The standard has to be acceptable to excavators whose livelihoods and very lives depend on locator competency. The standard has to be built with buy-in from industry, who will ultimately have their say by hiring or training based on this certification — or not.
As I see it, the damage prevention process is unsustainable in its current format, where the burden of providing timely locates falls solely on the asset-owners. Delays, backlogs and costly project overruns will continue unless something changes to provide a release valve for the ever-increasing demand for locates. A standardized, certified locator definition of competency can open doors to some of those changes. There is an opportunity right now for everyone to participate in the process of building this critical piece of damage prevention practice. If we build it together, it will solve more than just the question of what defines a competent locator. It could be the key to a new, sustainable damage prevention process.
Sher Kirk – Operations Director, USP