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