Michigan House Bill HB5246

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/25/23
• Refer: 10/25/23

Caption

Environmental protection: pollution prevention; financial assurance for any facility required to file a pollution incident prevention plan; require. Amends secs. 3101, 3103 & 3115 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.3101 et seq.) & adds sec. 3106c.

Impact

The legislation is likely to have significant implications for state laws pertaining to environmental protection and pollution management. By mandating financial assurance, it aims to enhance the state's capacity to respond to pollution incidents, particularly in the context of the Great Lakes, which are particularly sensitive to ecological disturbances. Facilities will now be obligated to set aside or secure funds that can be accessed for emergency response and cleanup, which could lead to a lower incidence of pollution as operators will be more incentivized to prevent such events.

Summary

House Bill 5246 seeks to amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act in Michigan by introducing provisions that require facilities to maintain financial assurance for pollution incident prevention plans. Specifically, it defines various terms related to pollution management, such as 'aquatic nuisance species' and 'ballast water treatment method'. The bill establishes new guidelines under which facility owners must agree to maintain sufficient financial assurance to cover potential cleanup costs from pollution incidents, thereby ensuring environmental protection and accountability in pollution management.

Contention

One notable point of contention may arise regarding the burden this financial assurance requirement places on facility operators, especially smaller businesses. Critics could argue that these new financial obligations may disproportionately impact smaller operators who may struggle to meet the requirements, potentially threatening their viability. Additionally, the implementation timeline and criteria for determining the financial assurance amounts could be points of dispute, as stakeholders may have differing views on what constitutes adequate coverage.