BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2583
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2583 (Hall) - As Amended: April 22, 2010
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 6-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the California Emergency Management Agency
(Cal EMA) to adopt regulations to require water system operators
to consider the use of and, under specified circumstance,
actually use "safer technologies." Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "safer technologies" as those that, compared to
currently used technologies, reduce or eliminate the possible
release of hazardous raw materials used for water treatment
and the dangers to public health and safety and the
environment associated with such a release.
2)Requires Cal EMA, by January 1, 2013, to adopt regulations
requiring a public water system or a wastewater treatment
system that is required to prepare a Risk Management Plan
(RMP) to do the following:
a) As part of the RMP, identify process modifications
needed to mitigate the potential catastrophic harm from the
releases of hazardous substances transported for use as raw
materials.
b) Include in the RMP the requirement to use raw material
chemical products derived from safer technology, if
appropriate.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time GF costs in 2011-12 to Cal EMA of approximately
$200,000, equivalent to two senior positions, to develop
regulations.
AB 2583
Page 2
2)Ongoing GF costs of a minor amount, likely in the tens of
thousands of dollars, to Cal EMA for enforcement and
administration.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends this bill will encourage water
services to reduce potential loss of life that could result
from the release, accidental or intentional, of chlorine gas
transported for use by many California water systems.
2)Background .
a) Emergency Planning Requirements . Federal law requires
facilities that handle significant quantities of regulated
substances to prepare an RMP before such a substance is
introduced to the facility. In California, state law
requires every facility that must prepare an RMP to
participate in the California Accidental Release Prevention
(CalARP) program. CalARP is more comprehensive than the
federal program and has lower thresholds for some regulated
substances, so some facilities not required to prepare an
RMP must still participate in CalARP. Cal EMA and the
appropriate local agency implement CalARP.
b) Water Treatment Facilities, Chlorine Gas and Safer
Technologies . Traditionally, water agencies have used
chlorine gas to treat drinking water to ensure it meets
state and federal standards and protects public health.
However, concern has grown over the transport of chlorine
gas to these facilities. Some fear accident or attack upon
a train transporting chlorine gas as it travels though an
urban area, which might release a gas cloud that could
threaten the lives of tens of thousands or people. There
has been a push to use alternatives to chlorine gas that
achieve the same drinking water safety goals but avoid the
risk to public safety, alternatives which have been adopted
by many water agencies.
3)What's "Appropriate?" The bill calls for Cal EMA regulations
that would require the use of safer technologies when
"appropriate." The bill leaves it to each water service to
determine the appropriateness of alternative technologies,
though it does provide those entities criteria to guide their
AB 2583
Page 3
determination: commercial availability and a comparison with
conventional technologies of safety and environmental effects.
Nonetheless, differing interpretations of the appropriateness
of alternative technologies is likely. Presumably, Cal EMA
could enforce its own regulations, should it disagree with a
water service's determination of the appropriateness of an
alternative technology. And other agencies that review water
service plans, such as the state Department of Public Health,
could exercise authority within their jurisdictions. It is
not clear, however, if independent third parties, such as
citizens groups or industry, would have standing to similarly
challenge a water service's determination.
4)Supporters , including Greenpeace and the California Teamsters
Public Affairs Council, among others, contend there are
alternatives to chlorine gas already being used by water
treatment facilities in California, throughout the United
States and around the world.
5)Opponents include the Association of California Water
Agencies, Metropolitan Water District and other water agencies
and services, who contend the bill requires use of "safer"
technologies without assessment of those technologies by
federal or state officials. Opponents assert the bill focuses
on a small segment of the chlorine gas transported by train
and used in California, and contend that water utility experts
are best equipped to make facility-specific choices about the
best and safest way to disinfect drinking water.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081