Page 16 - MS811

Icringe whenever the television screen comes on, whenever the news is on, or when headlines appear on my tablet. Every newsworthy or not-so-newsworthy announcement creates a barrage of opinions back and forth between the pundits and advocates. And hopefully, you do not unknowingly post an opinion that is a bit controversial on any social media site. It seems that the story itself takes less prominence than the spin we are given or the way we are told to evaluate it. Unfortunately, these misinterpretations spread quickly.
I see this same polarization among parties in the excavation process. Excavators are defensive about being found liable for any damage. Any hint of a failure to cross all the “Ts” and dot all the “Is” is met with resistance and sometimes anger. And the “ugly” situations are always the ones most remembered. Utilities, regardless of what their representatives may state in the field after the damage, always seem to send an invoice. And they tend to remember certain excavators the same way that excavators remember utilities.
Unfortunately, many excavators as well as their insurance carriers look at the claims processed and dollars paid as an indicator of the success of their damage prevention. Utilities look at their damage recovery percentages in the same manner. If the focus is on
dollars, which are determined well after the damage has occurred, no true prevention will occur.
When I was first given safety and risk/ loss management as part of my duties,
I was also guilty of stressing incident documentation and trying to avoid liability whenever appropriate. I did not concern myself enough with preventing the damage from ever occurring.
When I finally could sit down with my counterparts in the utility companies, the ones who participated in the location process, it became easier to start attacking the problems. Too often, after a damage, the parties start to take positions and any open discussion, any room for compromise, any opportunity for problem-solving evaporates.
For many of us, the focus has changed, but some of the smaller excavators still have trouble accessing the proper people at the utility companies. So, is there a course through all of this? I believe so.
First, take a hard look at your internal processes and make sure they are complete and followed in the field. The best policy is meaningless if the field people do not uniformly follow it. Look for the root cause for every damage and every near miss, no matter how small. Document it and track trends. Try to prioritize which demands a fix most critically. Time consuming it is, but it
By Joe Igel
will save time and money on the tail end.
Second, having identified several problem areas, find a contact within the utility company or companies that your crews have the greatest issues with. Talk with the one call in your area for a list of people if necessary. Contact these individuals and explain that you would like to have a two-way conversation with them regarding location requests. Try to make it a casual meeting, over coffee and non-confrontational. I would recommend not focusing on any specific damage, but on your overall analysis
of damages and incidents and the improvements you would like to make or help with a future locate request that could prove to be difficult (large project tickets are a good focus here as they often create heartburn for all parties). At the conclusion of the meeting, a thanks, and a promise/request to meet again would ice the cake.
Many parties have done this, and all have achieved a level of success in reducing damage, minimizing claims, and achieving improvements in the locate process.
Mr. Igel retired as vice president of the George J. Igel & Co., Inc. after working there for more than 35 years.
14 • Mississippi 811 2024, Issue 2