BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1075 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1075 (Alejo) As Amended May 13, 2015 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Environmental |5-2 |Alejo, Gonzalez, |Dahle, Gallagher | |Safety | |Gray, McCarty, Ting | | | | | | | |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------| |Appropriations |11-4 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Calderon, Eggman, |Gallagher, Wagner | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Eduardo Garcia, | | | | |Holden, Quirk, | | | | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Establishes standards for what constitutes a repeat serious hazardous waste facility violation and specifies the enforcement action to be taken by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Specifically, this bill: AB 1075 Page 2 1)Defines a repeating or recurring pattern of violation or noncompliance as a facility operator that has previously been found to be liable for, or convicted of, three or more violations of, or noncompliance with, within a five-year period. 2)Specifics that violation or noncompliance means an action that creates a significant threat of immediate and acute exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents at a facility or offsite from a facility. 3)Defines a serious violation as including any of the following: a) Fire, explosion, or an uncontrolled chemical reaction; b) Serious or acute injury or illness; c) Violation of any order issued by DTSC to the applicant or holder of the permit; or d) Federal or state felony conviction for violations of hazardous waste laws. 4)Excludes minor violations from violations that would be counted toward the three incident standards. 5)Provides that DTSC shall consider a repeating or recurring pattern of violation or noncompliance as compelling cause to deny, suspend, or revoke the permit for a hazardous waste facility.. 6)Authorizes DTSC to temporarily suspend a hazardous waste facility permit prior to a hearing, if the DTSC determines that conditions may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or safety or the environment. AB 1075 Page 3 7)Imposes an additional civil penalty of not less than $5,000 or more than $50,000 for each day of a serious hazardous waste violation, if the person has been found liable for, or been convicted of, three or more previous violations within any consecutive 60 months. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in minor, if any state costs associated with increased legal work if regulated entities choose not to settle potential violations captured under this bill and instead require DTSC to file a claim in court (Hazardous Waste Control Account). This bill would provide unknown cost savings resulting from increased compliance in order to avoid the additional penalties and repeat violations (Hazardous Waste Control Account). COMMENTS: Need for the bill: According to the author, "AB 1075 establishes a bright regulatory line for permit denial and revocation. The key feature of AB 1075 is to strengthen the authority of the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) by specifying that three or more serious violations during a five-year period results in a clear obligation on DTSC to revoke a hazardous waste facility permit. AB 1075 was developed based on the information gathered at the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials oversight hearing in September of 2014, where community groups came forward to report on issues in their neighborhood." Permitting hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal facilities: DTSC is responsible for the review of hazardous waste permit applications to ensure safe design and operation; issuance and denial of operating permits; issuance of post-closure permits; approval and denial of permit modifications; issuance and AB 1075 Page 4 denial of emergency permits; review and approval of closure plans; providing closure oversight of approved closure plans; issuance and denial of variances; provide assistance to regulated industry on permitting matters; and provide for public involvement. There are currently 118 DTSC permitted hazardous waste facilities in California. These facilities include: 44 storage sites, 43 treatment facilities, 3 disposal sites, and 28 post-closure sites. Criticism of the DTSC hazardous waste facility permitting process: A report entitled "Golden Wasteland," prepared by a consumer advocacy organization, issued in February of 2013, was critical of the DTSC hazardous waste permitting and enforcement process. According the report, DTSC settled cases out of court with facility operators, levies ineffective fines, and fails to develop and refer cases for prosecution. It asserted that DTSC often awards permits without environmental review, and it has not revoked the permit of a serial violator of environmental laws in more than 15 years. DTSC has undertaken a review of permitting and enforcement processes for hazardous waste facilities. To do this, DTSC contracted for an outside program evaluation by CPS HR Consulting which provided a review of the DTSC permit process in order to develop a standardized process with decision criteria and corresponding standards of performance. The DTSC evaluation included a review and assessment of the current timeliness of decisions, and evaluates the adequacy of program staffing. The program analysis of DTSC carried out by CPS HR Consulting of DTSC permitting process found that there has been significant dissatisfaction with the performance of the permitting office, due to the cost and length of time in completing the permit process and a perception that the office does not deny or revoke permits as often as it should to address community concerns. AB 1075 Page 5 Creating a bright line for regulatory action on hazardous waste facility permits: The CPS HR Consulting report recommended that DTSC develop a new system of categorizing violations that reflects whether they present an immediate and direct threat to human health and safety, versus a less urgent threat that can be mitigated or resolved through further actions of DTSC. The current definition of "Class I violations," although mandated by law, includes both violations that pose immediate and direct threats along with many that are relatively low- or long-term threats. Until the DTSC has a system to asses violations that can distinguish between significant threats to human health and safety and lesser threats, it will not be able to provide an objective standard to guide its own staff actions and to inform the public that the significant threats have been mitigated through actions such as permit modification, denial or revocation. Analysis Prepared by: Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0000478