BlueSafe
Excavation Near Underground Services (Potholing) Risk Assessment

Excavation Near Underground Services (Potholing) Risk Assessment

  • • 100% Compliant with Australian WHS Acts & Regulations
  • • Fully Editable MS Word & PDF Formats Included
  • • Pre-filled Content – Ready to Deploy Immediately
  • • Customisable – Easily Add Your Logo & Site Details
  • • Includes 2 Years of Free Compliance Updates

Excavation Near Underground Services (Potholing) Risk Assessment

Product Overview

Identify and control organisational risks associated with Excavation Near Underground Services (Potholing) through a structured, management‑level WHS Risk Management approach that focuses on planning, governance and system controls rather than task‑by‑task instructions. This Risk Assessment supports compliance with the Work Health and Safety legislation framework, strengthens Due Diligence for Officers, and helps protect your business from operational and legal liability arising from underground service strikes.

Risk Categories & Hazards Covered

This document assesses risks and outlines management controls for:

  • Strategic Planning, Design & Scope Definition: Assessment of how works near underground services are planned, scoped and designed to minimise service strike risk before mobilisation.
  • Underground Service Information Management: Governance of Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) enquiries, plans, as‑built drawings, and verification processes to ensure current and accurate service data.
  • Service Locating, Survey & Potholing Governance: Management of locating methodologies, survey quality, potholing verification requirements and acceptance criteria for exposing services.
  • Asset Owner Consultation, Permits & Isolation: Protocols for engaging utilities and asset owners, obtaining permits, coordinating isolations and clearances, and managing access conditions.
  • Excavation Method Selection & Plant Control Near Services: Assessment of excavation techniques (hand, vacuum, mechanical), plant selection, exclusion zones and operating limits around buried assets.
  • Competency, Training & Authorisation Systems: Requirements for training, competency verification, licences and formal authorisation for personnel working near underground services.
  • Site Establishment, Mark‑Out & Physical Protection: Controls for service mark‑out, pegging, barriers, supports and protective measures to prevent damage during potholing and excavation.
  • Supervision, Spotting & Work Coordination: Management of supervision levels, dedicated spotters, work sequencing and interfaces between crews and subcontractors.
  • Unexpected Finds, Buried Objects & Cultural Heritage: Procedures for identifying, stopping work, assessing and managing unknown services, archaeological finds and cultural heritage items.
  • Environmental & Ground Stability Risk Management: Assessment of ground conditions, trench stability, water ingress, contamination and environmental impacts around buried assets.
  • Emergency Preparedness & Utility Strike Response: Planning for gas, power, water and communications strikes, including isolation, evacuation, notification and recovery processes.
  • Contractor, Subcontractor & Designer Management: Governance of third‑party designers, locators, vacuum truck providers and excavation contractors involved in underground service work.
  • Communication, Consultation & Information Sharing: Systems for toolbox talks, pre‑start briefings, distribution of service plans, and consultation with workers and Health and Safety Representatives.
  • Documentation, Records & Continuous Improvement: Management of permits, risk assessments, service location records, strike reports, audits and review processes to drive continual improvement.

Who is this for?

This Risk Assessment is designed for Business Owners, Construction Managers, Project Managers and Safety Professionals responsible for planning, approving and overseeing excavation and potholing works near underground services.

Hazards & Risks Covered

Hazard Risk Description
1. Planning, Design and Scope Definition for Works Near Underground Services
  • • Inadequate consideration of underground services during early design and planning stages
  • • Scope of works not clearly defining locations, depths and tolerances around known utilities
  • • Failure to allow sufficient space and clearances from existing assets in the design
  • • Inadequate consultation with utility owners and asset managers before finalising design
  • • Lack of contingency planning for design changes if unexpected underground services are discovered
  • • Insufficient time allowed in the program for safe potholing, survey and service proving activities
  • • Failure to consider alternative construction methods that reduce need for excavation near services
  • • Inadequate planning for work within easements, corridors or congested utility zones
2. Underground Service Information Gathering and Verification Systems
  • • Failure to request accurate and current utility plans from all relevant service providers
  • • Reliance on outdated, incomplete or poor‑quality as‑constructed information
  • • No standard process to consolidate, review and validate service information from multiple sources
  • • Service plans not geo‑referenced or not compatible with project survey datum, leading to location errors
  • • Lack of procedure to deal with conflicting service information between drawings and field observations
  • • Inadequate documentation of assumed service locations where information gaps exist
  • • No formal system for updating records after new services are installed or modified
  • • Failure to capture and store potholing and service‑proofing results for future reference
3. Service Locating, Survey and Potholing Verification Governance
  • • Use of unqualified or inexperienced service locators leading to mis‑located utilities
  • • No formal standard for selection, calibration and operation of locating equipment (GPR, EM, etc.)
  • • Inconsistent survey methods resulting in inaccurate depth and position records of exposed services
  • • Inadequate procedure governing where and how many verification potholes are required
  • • Failure to verify all critical crossings or intersection points with potholing before major excavation
  • • Poor documentation of pothole positions, depths and service identifications
  • • Service proving activities not integrated into the construction program, leading to rushed or incomplete verification
  • • No process to validate locator results in complex or treed landscapes where signal quality is compromised
4. Asset Owner Consultation, Permits and Isolation Coordination
  • • Failure to obtain required permits or approvals to excavate near particular utility assets
  • • Lack of clarity around ownership, control and technical requirements for different underground services
  • • Poor coordination of isolation, shut‑down or pressure reduction arrangements with utility operators
  • • Permits that do not adequately describe the work area, methodology and separation distances
  • • Misunderstandings between principal contractor and asset owner regarding monitoring, standby personnel or supervision needs
  • • Inadequate communication of permit conditions to supervisors and workers on site
  • • No system to verify that permit conditions and isolations remain valid throughout the work
  • • Inability to quickly contact asset owners in an emergency due to incomplete or outdated contact information
5. Excavation Method Selection and Plant Management Near Services
  • • Use of inappropriate excavation methods too close to vulnerable services (e.g. mechanical augers, rock breakers, trenchers)
  • • No standard exclusion distances for plant and attachments operating near verified or suspected services
  • • Failure to control drill rigs or boring equipment to prevent drilling into subsurface utilities
  • • Inadequate system for limiting excavation depth and direction when working above or alongside services
  • • Poor change management when switching from potholing to bulk excavation methods
  • • Lack of assessment for vibration, ground movement or collapse risk impacting adjacent buried assets
  • • Uncontrolled use of high‑pressure water or air that may damage protective coatings or conduits
  • • No process for approving specialised plant (e.g. vacuum trucks) and ensuring they are fit for purpose
6. Competency, Training and Authorisation for Work Near Underground Services
  • • Supervisors and workers lacking specific training in underground service identification and control measures
  • • No competency criteria for personnel directing excavation near critical utilities
  • • Inadequate understanding of the consequences of striking particular service types (e.g. gas, HV, fibre optics, water)
  • • Subcontractors engaged without verification of training and experience in service strike prevention
  • • Failure to train personnel in recognition of non‑obvious signs of buried infrastructure in treed or landscaped areas
  • • No refresher training regime leading to skill fade over time
  • • Workers unaware of procedures for dealing with unexpected buried objects or artefacts
  • • Lack of clear authorisation system for who can approve excavation advances closer to identified services
7. Site Establishment, Mark‑Out and Physical Protection of Services
  • • Inaccurate or incomplete on‑ground mark‑out of underground utility locations and no‑go zones
  • • Service markers removed, disturbed or not maintained as excavation progresses
  • • Lack of physical barriers, edge protection or covers to protect exposed assets during works
  • • Poor distinction between different service types in line marking and flag systems
  • • Failure to account for future excavation stages when establishing initial exclusions and barricades
  • • Inadequate protection of services in public or high‑traffic areas, increasing risk of vehicle or plant impact
  • • Inconsistent handover of mark‑out information between shifts or separate crews
  • • Temporary works and stockpiles encroaching into service protection corridors
8. Supervision, Spotting and Work Coordination Controls
  • • Insufficient supervision for complex excavation near multiple underground services
  • • Spotters used without clear role definition, training or authority to stop work
  • • Multiple contractors working simultaneously in the same service corridor without coordination
  • • Poor communication between plant operators, spotters and supervisors during critical excavation passes
  • • Supervisors responsible for too many work fronts to effectively oversee service protection
  • • Failure to adjust supervision levels when conditions change (e.g. discovering additional services, reduced visibility, night works)
  • • Spotters distracted with other tasks or not provided with appropriate vantage points
  • • Language barriers or cultural issues affecting clear communication of directions and warnings
9. Management of Unexpected Finds, Buried Objects and Cultural Heritage
  • • No formal procedure for dealing with unexpected buried objects, voids, unknown services or artefacts
  • • Workers continuing excavation after discovering unexpected items due to production pressure
  • • Disturbance of heritage artefacts, human remains or culturally sensitive material
  • • Failure to recognise non‑utility objects that may still present hazards (e.g. unexploded ordnance, contaminated soils, old tanks)
  • • Inadequate notification and escalation pathways when unexpected services or objects are found
  • • Poor coordination with regulators, heritage authorities or asset owners following discoveries
  • • Lack of documentation of unexpected finds leading to repeat exposure for future works
  • • Uncontrolled backfilling or covering of finds that may be needed for investigation
10. Environmental and Ground Stability Risk Management Around Buried Assets
  • • Ground instability or collapse of excavations impacting adjacent underground services
  • • Water ingress, flooding or erosion undermining service bedding or supports
  • • Tree roots and vegetation removal affecting support for nearby buried pipework or conduits
  • • Disturbance of contaminated soils or asbestos‑containing material around existing services
  • • Settlement or heave of ground after excavation and backfilling causing service stress or damage
  • • Inadequate design and control of dewatering systems, leading to movement of ground around utilities
  • • Failure to consider loadings from plant, stockpiles or traffic above shallow services
  • • Poor reinstatement around services, reducing long‑term protection and increasing likelihood of future failures
11. Emergency Preparedness, Incident Response and Utility Strike Management
  • • Lack of a documented emergency response plan for utility strikes (gas, electricity, water, communications)
  • • Workers unaware of immediate actions required following a suspected strike or leak
  • • Inadequate provision or maintenance of emergency equipment such as fire extinguishers, spill kits and first aid supplies
  • • Delays in contacting emergency services or asset owners during an incident
  • • Poor control of site evacuation and exclusion zones in the event of a gas escape or electrical fault
  • • Incident investigations that do not identify root causes and systemic failures related to service strike
  • • Failure to notify regulators and duty holders in accordance with WHS notification requirements
  • • Learning from incidents and near misses not systematically shared across projects
12. Contractor, Subcontractor and Designer Management for Underground Service Risks
  • • Selection of contractors without adequate experience or systems for managing underground service risks
  • • Designers not engaged during construction to address clashes or unexpected conditions
  • • Inconsistent risk standards between principal contractor and subcontractors working in the same area
  • • Poor integration of service management requirements into contracts, scopes and deliverables
  • • Limited oversight of subcontractor compliance with locating, potholing and permit procedures
  • • Reliance on lowest‑cost providers for critical functions such as service locating or vacuum excavation
  • • No requirement for designers to consider construction methods and excavation constraints around existing services
  • • Inadequate close‑out of contractor performance issues relating to underground service protection
13. Communication, Consultation and Information Sharing with Workers
  • • Workers not informed about locations of underground services or changes to service information
  • • Limited worker input into identifying local underground service risks and practical controls
  • • Inadequate toolbox talks or pre‑start meetings focused on production rather than risk controls
  • • Information on service locations and control measures not readily accessible at the work face
  • • Language and literacy barriers preventing workers from understanding plans, permits and procedures
  • • Shift changes and rotating crews leading to inconsistent awareness of current service risks
  • • No mechanisms for workers to raise concerns about service‑related risks without fear of reprisal
  • • Lessons from previous projects or earlier stages not communicated to new crews or subcontractors
14. Documentation, Records and Continuous Improvement of Underground Service Controls
  • • Incomplete or poorly controlled documentation of underground service management activities
  • • Loss of critical records such as permits, potholing logs, as‑built plans and incident reports
  • • Difficulty retrieving information for future works, leading to repeat exposure to known risks
  • • No systematic review of effectiveness of underground services risk controls across projects
  • • Failure to update corporate procedures and standards following incidents or regulatory changes
  • • Inconsistent record‑keeping practices between projects and business units
  • • Insufficient management review of leading indicators such as near misses and verification failures
  • • Non‑compliance with legislative or client requirements for retention of safety and asset records

Need to add specific hazards for your workplace?

Don't worry if a specific hazard isn't listed above. Once you purchase, simply log in to your Client Portal and add your own custom hazards at no extra cost. We take care of the hard work—creating the risk ratings and control measures for free—to ensure your document is compliant within minutes.

Legislation & References

This document was researched and developed to align with:

  • Work Health and Safety Act 2011
  • Work Health and Safety Regulations 2017
  • Safe Work Australia – Excavation Work Code of Practice: Guidance on managing risks associated with excavation work.
  • Safe Work Australia – How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks Code of Practice: Framework for identifying, assessing and controlling WHS risks.
  • Safe Work Australia – Construction Work Code of Practice: Requirements for managing WHS in construction projects involving underground services.
  • AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018: Risk management — Guidelines.
  • AS 5488.1:2019: Subsurface utility information – Detection, verification and location.
  • AS 1742 series: Manual of uniform traffic control devices – For managing traffic interfaces around excavation sites where relevant.
  • AS 1885.1: Measurement of occupational health and safety performance – For monitoring and reviewing incident and strike data.
  • ISO 45001:2018: Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements with guidance for use.
Standard Risk Assessment Features (Click to Expand)
  • Comprehensive hazard identification for all activities
  • Risk rating matrix with likelihood and consequence analysis
  • Existing control measures evaluation
  • Residual risk assessment after controls
  • Hierarchy of controls recommendations
  • Action priority rankings
  • Review and monitoring requirements
  • Consultation and communication records
  • Legal compliance references
  • Sign-off and approval sections

$79.5

Safe Work Australia Aligned