Webinar Recap: Understanding MACP Scoring — What Your Numbers Really Mean
-
- June 15, 2026
Last Tuesday’s webinar on MACP scoring drew 312 registered attendees and generated one of the most engaged Q&A sessions we’ve hosted. Here’s a recap for anyone who missed it, plus links to the full recording for community members.
What We Covered
Dr. Sandra Okafor, our Research Lead, walked through the five MACP grade levels with real inspection photographs and field examples from actual municipal programs. The session was notably practical — rather than focusing on the standard’s technical language, Sandra used before-and-after comparisons to show what each grade level looks like in the field and what rehabilitation decision it drives.
Key themes from the session:
Grade 3 Is the Critical Decision Point
The most important MACP grade is Grade 3 — because this is where the rehabilitation decision has the highest variability. A Grade 3 manhole might be appropriately addressed with a protective polyurea coating, or it might require structural relining, depending on what’s driving the grade. Sandra emphasized that inspectors and engineers need to look beyond the overall grade to the specific defects contributing to it.
An H2S-driven Grade 3 (active surface deterioration but structurally sound barrel) calls for a different response than a Grade 3 driven by cracking and joint separation. Both are Grade 3 on the MACP scale — but the right rehabilitation approach is completely different.
Documentation Quality Affects Capital Planning
One of the most discussed points: the value of MACP data depends entirely on how consistently and accurately it’s collected. Municipalities that use different inspectors with different interpretations of the defect codes end up with data that can’t be reliably compared across the system — which makes prioritization much less defensible.
Sandra’s recommendation: adopt a written interpretation guide that clarifies how your team applies the key judgment calls in MACP scoring, train everyone from it, and require consistency checks (have two inspectors independently score the same 10 manholes and compare results).
Connecting MACP Grades to Capital Planning
The second half of the session covered how to use MACP data in capital planning — building a risk matrix, modeling condition deterioration, and presenting the results to elected officials and finance committees in a way that makes the case for investment. This generated the most Q&A of the session.
Top Questions from the Session
Q: How often should MACP inspections be repeated?
A: Best practice for most systems is a 5-year inspection cycle for all assets, with higher-risk assets (Grade 3+, high H2S environments, near-surface-water) inspected more frequently — every 2–3 years. After rehabilitation, re-inspect within 1 year to confirm treatment performance.
Q: Can we use smartphone video for MACP inspection documentation?
A: Yes, with caveats. A modern smartphone camera is entirely adequate for photographic documentation. The key requirements are consistent lighting (bring a portable LED ring or equivalent), consistent camera position for barrel shots so future comparisons are valid, and thorough atmospheric monitoring before and during entry. Many municipalities now use body cameras for inspection crews — efficient and consistent.
Q: Does MACP data need to be reported to regulators?
A: This varies by state and by whether you’re operating under a consent decree or CMOM program. In general, the data doesn’t have to be proactively reported, but you should maintain it as part of your CMOM documentation. If you’re operating under a consent decree, check your specific requirements — many decrees explicitly require documented inspection programs. See our MACP Field Guide for more on regulatory context.
Access the Recording
The full 90-minute webinar recording, including the slide deck and the complete Q&A transcript, is available in the community resource library. Community members can access it now — log in and look under “Webinar Archive > June 2026.”
Upcoming Webinars
Our next session is July 8: Polyurea vs. Cementitious Coatings: Making the Right Call — hosted by Marcus Webb, Technical Director. See all upcoming events and register.
Related reading: MACP Inspection Scoring: A Field Guide | Building a Manhole Asset Management Program | H2S Corrosion in Manholes
Paul Watkins
3 months agoExcellent session — that point about Grade 3 variability being the critical decision point is something we’ve been saying in-house for years. Good to see it articulated so clearly. The consistency check protocol Sandra recommended is going straight into our inspection program manual.
Dr. Kim Westbrook
3 months agoI appreciated the emphasis on documentation consistency. In the research context, we see this constantly — MACP datasets from different municipalities that are nominally comparable but actually can’t be reliably compared because of inspection protocol differences. Standardization is foundational.
Marcus Torres
3 months agoThat question about regulators was asked directly at me — our consent decree does require documented inspection programs and the MACP data has been invaluable for our quarterly reports. Highly recommend anyone under a decree to get this data collected and organized now.