Underground Safety Revisions
House Bill 247 updates North Carolina’s Underground Utility Safety and Damage Prevention Act, which governs how excavators and utility operators coordinate before digging near buried facilities. The bill revises key definitions, including “nonmechanized equipment,” “soft dig technologies,” “subaqueous” facilities, and the “tolerance zone,” and it changes notice and response timelines for excavation, demolition, and underwater work. It also expands and clarifies duties for both operators and excavators, including marking requirements, emergency response expectations, and rules for work near pipelines and electric transmission lines.
The bill also tightens and reorganizes the process for handling violations. It expands the Underground Damage Prevention Review Board’s structure and procedures, gives the Board authority to review alleged violations, recommend training or civil penalties, and route penalties through the Utilities Commission, and adds a path for informal conference, arbitration, and judicial review. It further specifies venue for damage claims in North Carolina courts and creates a rebuttable presumption of due care for excavators in certain situations where operators fail to respond or properly locate facilities.
The act amends multiple sections of Chapter 87, Article 8A of the North Carolina General Statutes, changing the legal framework for underground utility locating, excavation notice, operator marking obligations, exemptions, liability, and enforcement. It affects excavators, utility operators, locators, contractors, surveyors, local governments, and owners of underground facilities, while also adding procedural authority for the Underground Damage Prevention Review Board, the Utilities Commission, and the Attorney General in penalty enforcement. The law takes effect October 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislature, passing both chambers unanimously on recorded votes. The absence of recorded opposition and the final ratification suggest general agreement that the measure was a technical and safety-oriented update to existing underground damage prevention rules. The overall tone reflected in the bill’s movement is one of consensus around improving coordination, safety, and enforcement in excavation practices.
No committee transcript was provided, and the voting history shows no recorded dissent, so there is little evidence of major controversy. The most likely areas of policy tension are the expanded enforcement process, including Board review, informal conferences, arbitration, and civil penalties, as well as the revised notice windows and excavation restrictions near subaqueous facilities and utility lines. Stakeholders most directly affected would be excavators, utility operators, contractors, and local government maintenance crews, but the bill’s unanimous passage suggests any disagreements were resolved or limited in scope.