Amending definition of "aboveground storage tank"
If passed, SB88 will redefine the regulatory landscape for ASTs, influencing how these tanks are monitored, inspected, and maintained. It sets forth explicit guidelines that may facilitate better compliance among tank owners and operators, as well as improve the state’s ability to respond to potential environmental hazards associated with ASTs. The modification of definitions could affect businesses that utilize these tanks for storage, particularly in industries dealing with hazardous materials, which will now require adherence to stricter standards.
Senate Bill 88 seeks to amend and reenact the definition of an 'aboveground storage tank' (AST) within West Virginia's regulatory framework. The bill clarifies the parameters of what constitutes an AST by specifying various criteria, including size, construction materials, and operational requirements. The aim is to ensure that the state's regulations regarding ASTs are up-to-date and reflect current best practices for environmental safety, particularly in preventing leaks and contamination of water resources.
The sentiment surrounding SB88 appears to be largely supportive among environmental advocacy groups and public safety officials who believe that enhanced regulations will contribute positively to water protection efforts. However, some industry representatives have voiced concerns regarding the potential increase in operational costs and regulatory burdens associated with the redefined standards. The balance between necessary regulation to protect public resources and the implications for businesses remains a critical element of the discussion.
Notable points of contention include debates over which types of tanks should be affected by the new definitions and the thresholds set for regulations. There are concerns that the expanded definition might impose unnecessary restrictions on small operators or certain agricultural practices. Additionally, the clarity of the definitions regarding secondary containment and the criteria for what constitutes a regulated tank are points of concern, as they may lead to different interpretations in enforcement, ultimately impacting compliance costs and operational practices.