Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Potholing Standards topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board unveils draft potholing standards to reduce excavation strikes

5436770 · July 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff presented draft 'potholing' (pot-holing) standards that would require excavators to confirm utility marks, document potholes and communicate results. Staff recommended publishing the draft for public review.

Board staff presented proposed minimum standards for potholing — the targeted excavation method used to visually confirm underground utilities — recommending publication of draft guidance for public comment. Why it matters: Staff told the board that excavators currently rely on varied practices and that standardized potholing requirements would reduce ambiguity and improve safety. The proposed standards aim to identify locations that require potholing, confirm operator marks, set exceptions for deeply buried facilities, require documentation of marks and potholes, and establish communication practices for potholing results. Details: Staff described the proposed elements: identification of potholing locations using multiple data sources; confirmation of marks using operator responses and surface indicators; an exception framework for deeply buried facilities; documentation and communication of potholing results; procedures for identifying changes in direction or cover; and actions when potholing cannot be performed. The draft would also require operators to respond to excavator requests for additional location information. Public responses and board discussion: MP Safety Service’s Allen recommended consistent terminology, suggesting the regulatory text use “subsurface installations” rather than alternative terms used in earlier drafts. Several board members urged clarity on frequency and scope thresholds for when potholing must occur; one member said the draft’s guidance was still vague on frequency. Staff said the draft is intended as a starting point and recommended a public review period that would inform final standards. Next steps: Staff recommended publishing the draft potholing standards for public comment and developing an FAQ to address misconceptions raised in earlier surveys. The board directed staff to proceed with outreach and return with revisions as appropriate.