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