Low Impact Marking

**GWJ_CAS** · May 27th, 2008, 11:22 AM

OK, I posed this topic on the old board, but I need some new feedback.

I am involved with Sunshine State One Call as a committee member on the Low Impact Marking Committee. For those not aware, a City in South Florida (the City of Miami), proposed changes to the state statute requiring the removal of locate marks at project completion. The City of Miami passed a commission resolution requesting all municipalities in the State to weigh in on the issue and force legislative change. They mailed a letter and a copy of their resolution to each and every city/county/town/village commission member, manager and clerk in the State and requested their support.

Sunshine One Call of Florida (SSOCOF) has conducted symposiums on the issue and requested input from the various stakeholders. A recent symposium in Miami turned into a well-refereed finger pointing session with the City saying the marks are an "eyesore", the locators saying that they only paint the utilities in the areas requested by the Contractors and the Contractors saying that the locators either paint too much, or not enough.

The subject of removal is very touchy. The City wants the marks gone as soon as possible, but no later than project completion. The Contractors say they won't touch them because they are not their marks. The Locators don't want to touch them because of the liability involved with removing a potentially necessary mark and the facility owners want their plant protected.

A study by Florida Gas Transmission (FGT), estimated that removal of locate marks would cost 3x the cost of placement. We think this estimate is light.

So questions:

1. What is your opinion on removal of the marks?

2. Does your company have a process for mark removal?

3. If yes, what is the process?

4. If marks should be removed, then when and who does it?

Low Impact Marking

There are currently few options regarding low impact marking; 1) Chalk and 2) Fugitive by Aervoe.

If you have used either, what is your opinion? What has been your results? How long do they last?

Do you know of another low impact marking product?

Does your company use water or solvent based paint? Do they use both? If they use both, what is the criteria for using each?

Lots of questions, but a topic that could greatly affect how we all do business. If Florida was to adopt rules on low impact marking and make it law, many other states could follow...

Looking forward to your replies.

**UULC** · May 27th, 2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by GWJ_CAS

OK, I posed this topic on the old board, but I need some new feedback.

I am involved with Sunshine State One Call as a committee member on the Low Impact Marking Committee. For those not aware, a City in South Florida (the City of Miami), proposed changes to the state statute requiring the removal of locate marks at project completion. The City of Miami passed a commission resolution requesting all municipalities in the State to weigh in on the issue and force legislative change. They mailed a letter and a copy of their resolution to each and every city/county/town/village commission member, manager and clerk in the State and requested their support.

Sunshine One Call of Florida (SSOCOF) has conducted symposiums on the issue and requested input from the various stakeholders. A recent symposium in Miami turned into a well-refereed finger pointing session with the City saying the marks are an "eyesore", the locators saying that they only paint the utilities in the areas requested by the Contractors and the Contractors saying that the locators either paint too much, or not enough.

The subject of removal is very touchy. The City wants the marks gone as soon as possible, but no later than project completion. The Contractors say they won't touch them because they are not their marks. The Locators don't want to touch them because of the liability involved with removing a potentially necessary mark and the facility owners want their plant protected.

A study by Florida Gas Transmission (FGT), estimated that removal of locate marks would cost 3x the cost of placement. We think this estimate is light.

So questions:

1. What is your opinion on removal of the marks?

2. Does your company have a process for mark removal?

3. If yes, what is the process?

4. If marks should be removed, then when and who does it?

Low Impact Marking

There are currently few options regarding low impact marking; 1) Chalk and 2) Fugitive by Aervoe.

If you have used either, what is your opinion? What has been your results? How long do they last?

Do you know of another low impact marking product?

Does your company use water or solvent based paint? Do they use both? If they use both, what is the criteria for using each?

Lots of questions, but a topic that could greatly affect how we all do business. If Florida was to adopt rules on low impact marking and make it law, many other states could follow...

Looking forward to your replies.

I will give you my take from a contract position.

1. Marks should be required by the contravtor to be removed. This would eliminate the contractor from calling in a blanket ticket for all the property when only one area needs to be marked.

2. CLS did not have a requirement to remove marks. Only if a locator became over zelous in marking or if FPL required it would I remove them.

3. I would use Goof-Off to remove marks.

4. If marks had to be removed then the contractor who called in the ticket SHOULD be required to remove them. This would cause the to call in a ticket we specific locate instructions.

I bought Chalk paint for my guys. It is required by FPL on the West Coast of Fla. Chalk paint is only good if you do not expect rain for the day. We would use chalk paint and take pictures the it rained and the next day the contractor was calling saying the area was not marked. We would tell them to call in another ticket and to go to the site and see where the marks are before you go out to dig.

We wou;d use water based paint. if it is direct Florida sun light it willbe gone in 6 months.

It all comes down to it being the person calling in the ticket to remove the marks. That was it will cut down on excessive marking. If someone said to mark 3000' on a roadway we would put offsets every 25' since they would not stake out the area.

**PowerSweep** · May 27th, 2008, 03:35 PM

The City of Indianapolis passed an ordinance (Don't know if they still inforce it or not) stating that any tickets called in for the "Down town" area would be indicated in white paint by the contractor. The locators were only allowed to paint the area in white and 5 feet beyond that. Once the excavation was completed, the contractor had 5 business days to remove the marks. There was a lot of new pressure wash companies in operation while this was being inforced. The contractors just added this new expense to the price of their bids.
It was very effective in reducing the scope of tickets called in and there were a lot more contractors calling in "Joint meet" tickets so they could show the locators the area they wanted located.

**TBONE** · May 27th, 2008, 09:04 PM

Not to sound like a jerk but our job is to paint the ticket not paint it and remove it. Here the contractor removes the paint off the driveways and sidewalks unless we feel like it was an exessive or diliberate act on the locator that did the ticket otherwise too bad so sad

**Goldenboy** · May 27th, 2008, 09:44 PM

We use solvent based paint. I am so glad I've never heard any mention of going with the low impact markings. I can't even imagine not having all mark hard marks scattered through town. These marks literally save me hours a day.

**TBONE** · May 27th, 2008, 09:48 PM

I wish we had solvent based paint for road crossings and such keep straining the eyes looking and hopeing for a mark to drop on.

**yahoo** · May 27th, 2008, 09:58 PM

God help us ........if we have to start removing marks after the contractor has finished his job or homeowner......

**TechMaster** · June 30th, 2008, 02:47 AM

Most Down town areas have passed that law. Down here we use water base paint however the company that locaets the electric lines apear to be useing oil base. No matter all I know is it it the contractor who has to remove the paint not us.

**sprayandpray** · June 30th, 2008, 07:32 AM

Just a guess, but I bet using Goof Off at 6,000 plus sites per day would cause the tree-huggers to go nuts!

**LadyLeatherneck** · June 30th, 2008, 08:25 AM

MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION:

Production (both for mark removal and current production) will be significant and would require a lot of thought and planning if locators would be required to do it.

Contractual Agreement? Who would pay the locating companies to remove the paint and how would they bill their time for production? How would that change the contracts we have with the utility companies?

1. If the state requires it, should they pay for it? How should they? Annual or monthly fee or production (i.e. so much per removal like with utility owners, which would require some sort of ticket)?

2. I agree that the Contractor should pay for it, with the expense passed on in their bids.

3. To set up for locating companies will be extremely involved and more hassle than it is worth.

Also, just as you said, if the marks are removed who will accept liability? If the state requires it, they should accept responsiblity for it. The point of the paint is to protect the facilities and public from damage and injury. The more everyone knows where the utilities are, the better everything is protected. I understand about the paint being an eye sore, but what should the priorty be?

Also, just like Goldenboy said, it would be imperitive that everyone understand that removal of existing marks would drastically reduce productivity for the locators. The offsets and old marks are significant aids in the production game. Without them profit margins would decline, potentially fatally damaging the locating companies.

MY PERSONAL OPINION:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. IT AIN'T BROKE. Ok, there's a little paint on the ground. There has been for years. It all washes away eventually. They need to spend my tax dollars doing their jobs to impact our society in a more positive way instead of being so uppity and petty they have to concentrate on paint. Do they not have enough to do to keep them busy? If not, maybe we should consider down-sizing. They get paid too much anyway! That would help the budget.

**Lucky219** · June 30th, 2008, 08:11 PM

Sure sounds like a good case for white line laws instead of locating 500 ft in all directions of a tv ped just for a drop. Like the idea about goof off it would kill the grass and probably blech the hard surfaces.

**LadyLeatherneck** · June 30th, 2008, 08:33 PM

Oh, don't even go there lucky219. White lining is a big issue for me at the moment! Ticket called for locate in white lined area on one lot, located! Contractor shows up to do job, saw marks, decided to move to next lot down, bored and hit line. Sup says should have been marked by locator! No support for locator by mgmt! Now we are not only locators but are required to read minds and locate areas not on tickets while making production.