BILL ANALYSIS AB 1674 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1674 (Saldana) As Amended April 21, 2010 Majority vote ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 9-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Nava, Miller, Blakeslee, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, | | |Chesbro, Davis, Feuer, | |Bradford, Charles | | |Monning, Ruskin, Smyth | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, De | | | | |Leon, Hall, Miller, | | | | |Nielsen, Norby, Skinner, | | | | |Solorio, Torlakson, | | | | |Torrico | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Modifies existing exemptions of underground storage tanks (UST). Specifically, this bill : would make various technical changes to existing law pertaining to USTs and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) including: 1)Exempts from certain UST design and construction requirements those USTs for which exterior surfaces of the UST can be visually monitored (such as those that are in concrete vaults) and where the USTs meet other regulatory requirements. 2)Eliminates a provision of current law that allows the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to object to a local agency decision as to whether a tank meets UST regulatory requirements. 3)Makes various technical changes to existing law pertaining to ASTs, including deleting the authorization for a local Unified Program Agency (UPA) to waive a local AST regulatory fee on state or local government agencies. EXISTING LAW : 1)Requires all USTs installed after April 1, 2003 to be double-contained, both primary and secondary containment to be "product tight" (impervious to the liquid and vapor phases of the substance stored); water intrusion to be prevented, AB 1674 Page 2 secondary containment to meet specified volumetric requirements. Requires the tank to have a continuous leak monitoring system, pressurized piping to be equipped with leak detection and the tank to be tested using enhanced leak detection before it is placed into use. 2)Provides exemption from underground tank design, installation and operation requirements for tanks if all exterior surfaces, including connected piping and the floor directly beneath the tank can be monitored by direct viewing. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill may result in annual costs to state agencies. State agencies operate ASTs and this bill deletes local agencies' ability to waive fees on such state agencies. The actual cost of this bill depends on: 1) the number of ASTs operated by state agencies; and, 2) the amount of fees local agencies charge those state agencies that the local agencies otherwise would have waived. COMMENTS : 1)Need for the bill . According to the sponsors of the bill, the California Health Officers Association, AB 1674 will address two enforcement issues involving fuel storage tanks. Specifically, the bill clarifies that vaulted tanks are not mandated to meet every requirement placed on USTs installed after July 1, 2004. Certain requirements, such as pressure monitoring between the soil and the exterior walls of the tanks, are not applicable to tanks that are below-grade but not buried in the ground. The bill makes a technical amendment to the Above Ground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) to include CUPA oversight of above ground petroleum storage in federal facilities. This change will enable the collection of fees that will provide cost recovery for APSA program implementation. 2)UST design standards . Federal and state laws and regulations set standards for UST system design, construction, installation and notification; upgrading of existing UST systems, general operating requirements, release detection; reporting and investigation; corrective action and AB 1674 Page 3 out-of-service and closed UST systems. Those standards were enacted to reduce the risk of water contamination by petroleum products and hazardous and toxic additives such as MTBE that can leak from USTs. 3)AST fee waiver authority . The sponsors of the bill have requested clarification on the ability of local governments to assess fees on federal facilities. In order to create a level fee structure that captures the full cost of local government oversight, the federal agencies have raised objections to exemption of state and local facilities from permit fees. Analysis Prepared by : Robert Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0004183