|
Minutes of The Marking Guidelines Meeting
June 27, 2006
Miss Utility Call Center
Hanover, MD 21076
Wayne began the meeting by verifying contact information
and attendance
Error: Dennis Lescalleet is missing “C” in name for e-mail address.
For the record: K. Woolbright, M. Jewell, D. Collins, K. Riley, C. Musgrove,
D. Jones and T. Goodman were not present for this meeting.
Reviewed committee’s operating procedures as they apply to attendance.
Kathy Riley has missed two meetings and will bee contacted by Kelly Hardy and
reminded that her attendance is important.
Tom Baldwin made some points about the commitment to
attend the meetings.
Mark Hamrick suggested that at the bottom of the minutes
that it should be stated that the next meeting will be
held on _____ and that if for whatever reason you are
unable to attend or send an alternate, to please notify
the committee of an upcoming absence.
Wayne asked the group to review minutes of last meeting
of May 23, 2006. Motion was made by
Tim VanCleve to accept/approve the minutes as they are.
Ken Payne expressed concerns about distance between markings
as reviewed in APWA.
Tom Baldwin reviewed current standards that state marking
facilities from 18” on either side of facility.
Wayne referred back to Del Marva packet on distances
between markings.
Kelly Hardy discussed that typically, in rural areas
markings are spread further out as opposed to more congested
areas.
The committee began discussing the width, length and
distance between markings and as recorded by Wayne Gilmer, the
committee voted 100% in favor of:
Single facility markings being:
- 2”-4” wide
- 6”-18” long
- 2’-12’ distance
between markings, all site specific
Also, the committee voted 100% in favor of:
- Use
of statement on page 10 of BGE marking standards
with the inclusion of
“historic locations”.
Tom Baldwin reminded the committee that when specific
wording is used that it can be turned around and
used against a company, so we should be careful.
Both Tom Baldwin and Ken Payne discussed the use of
single line markings (for a single facility) for pipe
sizes 4” or less and the use of corridor markings
for pipe sizes greater than 4”.
Kelly Hardy gave his definition
of a corridor mark: “where
multiple cables are direct buried in a common trench”.
Discussion was made as to which utility co. would mark
the corridor marks, when several utilities exist.
Everyone on committee had comments about what the definition
of a corridor mark is.
Norman Moore expressed concerns as to what the excavator
will believe they are digging to expose.
Wayne interjected to remind the group that identifiers
will be discussed at future meetings.
Tom Baldwin and Zeek both commented that utility companies
may be opening themselves up for liability for
incorrectly labeling utilities as being in a conduit
that may not be.
Ken Payne expressed concerns about not being sure (per
asbuilts) as to what is in a conduit and what
isn’t.
Tom Baldwin stated that we, as a group cannot cater
to one utilities’ issues and that some things
will just have to be accepted as the best practice.
Tom also tasked himself to detail the definition of
corridor marks and conduit marks. He will send this
to Wayne for Wayne to forward to group for review before
next
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 1:35pm
The next meeting will be held immediately after the
Damage Prevention Meeting on July 25, 2006.
If you cannot be present or send an alternate, please
notify the group of your upcoming absence.
|
