Page 9 - TN811

2024
UUDPA
Updates
Summary
Disclaimer
By Craig Ingram
Public Awareness Manager Tennessee811
The following summary is intended to make you aware of recent changes to the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act (TCA 65-31-101 et seq.). The information provided does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, it should be utilized for general informational purposes only.
Two key changes were proposed during the 2024 session:
1. Immediate and impending goes away in favor of one “emergency”
with one definition.
2. When someone is found in violation of the law, the executive committee can start with a monetary penalty instead of violator training.
Full list of proposed changes:
• Delete definition of impending emergency.
• Add new definition of emergency to the definitions section of the code.
• Remove reference to impending emergencies from section -106.
• Replace the word “e-mail” with the word “electronic”.
• Update language in -108 to explain the response window on the new, consolidated, emergency.
• Clean up -109 to take out old emergency definition and to sync it up with the other changes above.
• Update -112 to say that a first offense can be a monetary penalty instead
of training, but that training can be offered as an alternative to paying the penalty.
• Allow money from the Damage Prevention Fund to be applied to the expenses of the PUC to offset costs we must pass along to members.
• Clean up -120 to fix a broken reference.
Explanation of new emergency definition and response window:
Emergency means a sudden or unforeseen occurrence involving a clear and imminent danger to life, health,
or property; the interruption of utility services requiring repair or restoration; or repairs to transportation facilities that require immediate action.
Response window does not change, but it’s reworded. Default response is two hours, but the excavator can indicate
a time and date that is more than two hours but less than 72 hours when the two-hour response isn’t necessary.
Full context and intent of penalty change:
The current approach is mandatory training for the first violation, meaning the executive committee of the enforcement board can’t impose a monetary penalty on a first offense unless it’s gross negligence. The new approach allows them to start with a monetary penalty (suggested $811 for 1st offense) but they can offer the
violator the option of training as an alternative to paying that amount. This allows the executive committee of the enforcement board to better match
the first penalty to the nature of the offense. If it’s truly accidental or there are mitigating factors, then they can offer training in lieu of penalty. If it’s serious but not gross negligence, then they can assess a monetary penalty commensurate with the offense without going all the way to $15,000.
It’s fair to say that going straight to monetary penalties will look better to PHMSA, but in terms of TN811, our motivation for supporting the change is to adjust the perspective on training so that it’s an appealing alternative
to writing a check instead of just the default consequence of a violation. At the same time, if the violator opts to pay the penalty, it keeps us from wasting effort on someone who isn’t receptive
to training and creates an opportunity (by virtue of growing the Damage Prevention Fund) to reach other, more receptive, audiences.
Effective Date
The bill proposing the above language (HB2286/SB2260) was signed by the governor on 3/27/24 and becomes effective 7/1/24.
2024, Issue 2
Tennessee811 • 7