Michigan House Bill HB4940

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/11/25
• Refer: 9/11/25

Caption

Environmental protection: underground storage tanks; underground storage tank corrective action fund; modify. Amends secs. 21502, 21503, 21506a, 21506b, 21510, 21510a, 21510d, 21515, 21516, 21518, 21519, 21519a, 21521, 21524 & 21548 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.21502 et seq.) & repeals sec. 21510c of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.21510c).

Impact

If enacted, HB4940 would significantly affect existing state laws regarding the financial responsibilities associated with owning and operating underground storage tanks. The bill proposes stricter requirements for reporting confirmed releases of petroleum, as well as guidelines for claiming reimbursement for corrective actions taken to address such releases. This means that tank operators must ensure adherence to compliance requirements, or risk losing access to financial support aimed at cleanup efforts and remediation. Furthermore, it aims to eliminate ambiguity in the claims process for cleanup costs, thereby streamlining the procedure for affected parties.

Summary

House Bill 4940 aims to amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act by making several changes related to underground storage tanks (USTs). The bill specifically addresses the management of the underground storage tank corrective action fund, modifying how claims for contaminated sites are handled, and setting new guidelines for compliance and operational protocols for tank owners and operators. These amendments seek to enhance both accountability and support for cleanup efforts related to petroleum products, thus addressing potential environmental hazards effectively.

Contention

Some notable points of contention surrounding HB4940 focus on the implications regarding financial deductions required of tank operators when filing claims for cleanup costs. There is also concern about the penalties imposed for non-compliance, particularly around the reporting timeframes for confirmed releases. Critics argue that imposing rigorous financial responsibilities may disproportionately affect smaller operators who may struggle to meet these standards, leading to potential financial burdens or even closure of their businesses. Proponents, however, uphold that these measures are necessary to maintain environmental integrity and public safety.