Modifying the inspection requirements and the definition of an above ground storage tank
The bill's most impactful provisions adjust the inspection requirements for regulated tanks, stating that self-inspections and self-certifications may replace third-party inspections for certain tanks. This change is expected to reduce operational costs for businesses that previously needed to finance external inspections, thereby encouraging economic activity in sectors reliant on above ground storage. However, operators must still comply with monthly documentation of secondary containment inspections, which maintain some level of regulatory oversight over tank integrity and environmental protection.
House Bill 2598 aims to amend the regulations surrounding above ground storage tanks in West Virginia, specifically focusing on the inspection and certification process. The bill introduces modifications to the definition of what constitutes an aboveground storage tank (AST), notably excluding smaller tanks that store relatively non-hazardous fluids, such as brine water, from certain regulatory requirements. This exemption is significant as it alleviates some regulatory burdens on operators of small storage tanks, which proponents argue will support local businesses engaged in hydrocarbon production and distribution activities.
The sentiment surrounding HB 2598 is mixed. Supporters, particularly within the energy sector, view the bill positively, believing it creates a more favorable business environment by reducing unnecessary red tape and aligning state regulations more closely with industry practices. Conversely, environmental advocates and some lawmakers express concern that relaxing inspection standards could compromise safety and increase risks of leaks and spills, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas. This divergence underscores a broader tension between economic growth and environmental stewardship in legislative discussions.
Notably, contention arises from the provisions that exempt certain tanks from rigorous inspection requirements due to their size and location. Critics argue that this regulatory leniency could lead to increased pollution and accidents in areas that are already vulnerable to environmental degradation. Meanwhile, proponents counter that responsible self-regulation can achieve the same safety outcomes as more stringent external inspections, emphasizing the importance of trust in industry to adhere to self-imposed standards to protect public health and safety.