Underground Damage Prevention Program, One-Call Notification System, further provided for complex or large projects
HB517 revises Alabama’s Underground Damage Prevention Program, which governs the state’s One-Call Notification System for excavation and demolition near underground utilities. The bill adds a new category for “complex or large projects” and requires excavators on those projects to provide at least five working days’ notice, hold a pre-excavation planning meeting, share project scope and timeline information, identify contractors and contacts, and negotiate a working agreement with operators and locators. It also clarifies and updates several definitions in the underground damage prevention chapter, including excavation, hand digging, tolerance zone, positive response, and design/survey locate requests.
The bill also strengthens and reorganizes enforcement and administration of the program. It amends existing notice, marking, response, and damage-reporting provisions; creates a new Underground Damage Prevention Fund; and establishes the Underground Damage Prevention Authority and its board structure, complaint process, hearing procedures, and penalty framework. HB517 also removes certain statutory sunset language tied to the program and makes the act effective January 1, 2026.
In practical terms, the bill would affect excavators, utility operators, locators, contractors, public agencies, and the One-Call Notification System by imposing more detailed pre-work coordination requirements on larger or more complicated projects and by formalizing how violations are investigated and penalized. It would also direct civil penalties and other collected funds into a dedicated fund for training, education, and damage-prevention activities rather than the state general fund.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is pro-safety and pro-coordination, with the legislation framed as a way to reduce utility damage, protect public safety, and improve compliance. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate in the available materials, but the bill’s structure suggests support for stronger administrative oversight and clearer excavation procedures.
Notable potential points of contention are the added compliance burden on excavators and contractors, especially on large or phased projects, and the expanded enforcement authority and penalty process. The bill also changes how complaints are handled, including limiting public access to complaint records before final resolution, which could raise transparency concerns. Operators may also need to adjust internal processes to meet new response, reporting, and working-agreement obligations.
HB517 would amend multiple sections of Alabama Code Chapter 15 of Title 37, which governs underground damage prevention and the One-Call Notification System. It adds a new Section 37-15-4.2 for complex or large projects, revises notice, marking, response, and damage-reporting rules, and updates definitions that determine when excavation and demolition activities are covered. The bill also creates a dedicated Underground Damage Prevention Fund and formalizes the Underground Damage Prevention Authority’s enforcement, hearing, and penalty procedures, while deleting certain sunset-related language tied to the program.
The bill’s tone is generally supportive of stronger utility-safety regulation and more structured coordination between excavators, operators, and locators. It appears designed to improve compliance, reduce damage to underground facilities, and enhance enforcement consistency. No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no recorded opposition or support beyond the bill’s text itself.
The main areas likely to draw debate are the new pre-planning and working-agreement requirements for complex or large projects, which may be viewed as adding time and administrative burden for excavators and contractors. The expanded enforcement system, including civil penalties, complaint handling, and a board-driven hearing process, could also be contested by those concerned about regulatory complexity or due-process protections. In addition, the bill’s limits on public access to complaint records before final resolution may raise transparency concerns, while utility operators may need to absorb additional coordination and reporting responsibilities.