Underground storage tanks: design and construction requirements: exemption.
If enacted, AB 626 will impact state laws regarding the operation and compliance requirements for USTs storing hazardous substances. The bill modifies existing regulations by creating a grace period for compliance with an upgrade to double-walled tanks, thus aligning the regulatory framework with the operational realities faced by tank operators. The provision for local enforcement agencies to review applications for exemptions implies an added layer of responsibility and cooperation at the local level, potentially enhancing regulatory oversight.
Assembly Bill 626 seeks to offer an exemption to operators of single-walled underground storage tanks (USTs) from the mandated permanent closure of these tanks, provided they demonstrate good faith efforts to upgrade to double-walled tanks by a specified deadline. Specifically, the bill allows these operators to avoid penalties if they submit the necessary permit applications and show that any delays in the permitting process are beyond their control. This legislation aims to facilitate a transition towards safer storage solutions without disproportionately burdening operators who are making genuine attempts to comply with regulations.
The general sentiment around AB 626 appears to be supportive, particularly from stakeholders in the fuel and hazardous materials industries who face challenges associated with the existing regulations. The bill is seen as a pragmatic approach to balancing environmental safety with the operational capabilities of UST operators. However, environmental advocacy groups may raise concerns regarding the potential for lax enforcement and the adequacy of protections against environmental contamination during the transition period.
Notably, AB 626 has sparked discussions regarding the adequacy of the regulatory framework for hazardous storage and the importance of maintaining strict environmental standards. Some opponents of the bill may argue that allowing exemptions compromises public safety and environmental health. The requirement for operators to document good faith efforts could be viewed as a safeguard, but there are concerns over how delays might be judged and whether this will lead to inconsistent enforcement across different jurisdictions.