BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 193
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 13, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 193 (Monning) - As Amended: August 6, 2013
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:6-2
EST&M 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires chemical manufacturers and suppliers to
provide, upon request by the state Hazard Evaluation System and
Information Service (HESIS), within the Department of Public
Health (CDPH), specified information regarding the purchase by
customers of potentially hazardous chemicals as identified by
HESIS. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires chemical manufacturers, suppliers, distributors,
importers and their agents, when requested by HESIS following
a determination-in consultation with the Chief of the Division
of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control based on new
scientific or medical information--that a substance
potentially poses a serious health hazard to an employee, to
provide HESIS the names and addresses of their customers who
have purchased certain chemicals or commercial products
containing those chemicals, as specified by HESIS.
2)Requires the information per (1) to be provided for every
product final destination that may be a place of employment in
California, and to also include the quantity and dates of
shipments and the proportion of a specified chemical within a
mixture containing the specified chemical.
3)Requires, for requests per the above on or after January 1,
2015, that the information include current and past customers
for not more than one year prior to the date of the request.
4)States that the above requirements do not apply to a retail
seller of the chemical or commercial product sold to the
public.
SB 193
Page 2
5)Stipulates that the information provided to HESIS is exempt
from disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA) and is
considered confidential except to the extent its disclosure is
not required by any other law or regulation. However, HESIS
may disclose the information to the DPH and other specified
state entities.
6)Stipulates the CDPH is entitled to reimbursement of attorney's
fees and costs incurred in seeking an injunction to enforce
the above requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT
Any costs incurred by the CDPH to seek an injunction against an
uncooperative entity will be reimbursed. Any other
administrative costs will be absorbable.
COMMENTS
1)Background . HESIS, established in 1978, is supported through
an interagency agreement between the Department of Industrial
Relations, Cal/OSHA, and the CDPH, Occupational Health Branch.
HESIS was created to conduct two primary activities: a)
providing reliable information about possible health hazards
from exposures to toxic materials; and, b) collecting
toxicological, epidemiological and other information pertinent
to evaluating potential hazards to human health. HESIS uses
scientific, medical and public health expertise to prevent
occupational illness and disease.
2)Purpose . According to the author, California has confronted a
number of difficulties when responding to the release of
chemical hazards in recent years. Too often, the public is
provided protections only after damaging effects to workers'
health have become pervasive. Finding information concerning
new, unregulated chemicals, such as certain solvents, is often
very difficult to track when they are used in many different
settings. When it has been able to obtain the necessary
information, HESIS has provided early warnings to various
industries concerning prospective hazards, such as alerts on
chemicals posing reproductive hazards.
SB 193
Page 3
3)Opponents include several associations representing
manufacturers and distributors of chemicals and chemical-based
products. Opponents are seeking amendments to: a) require
consultation with the Director of Industrial Relations (DIR)
prior to HESIS requesting customer information; b) increase
the threshold for triggering customer disclosure, based on the
particular use and concentration of the substance in question,
the fact that the substance cannot be made safe, and the need
for immediate action; and c) clarify that PRA exemptions also
extend to state officials that receive customer and product
information from HESIS.
4)In response , the author argues the amendment increasing the
threshold for notification and customer disclosure will unduly
increase the bar that HESIS must meet to request information
in order to fulfill its statutory mandate. The author notes
that, had this bill been in effect since HESIS was established
35 years ago, the bill's provisions would have applied in only
nine instances over this entire time period.
5)Amendments . The author has agreed to include consultation with
the DIR director and to clarify the PRA exemptions.
a) On page 5, line 21, after with add the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations and
b) On page 6, end of line 29, add: Any officer, employee,
or agency to whom the information is disclosed shall be
subject to the requirements of this subparagraph.
In addition, there are two technical amendments:
On page 6, line 3, strike out 2015 and add 2016.
On page 6, line 40, strike out the and on page 7, line 1
strike out repository and insert HESIS.
6)Prior Legislation . In 2005, AB 816 (Lieber), a similar bill,
was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who argued that the
bill imposed an unreasonable and duplicative reporting
requirement on employers.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 193
Page 4