BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1083
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Allen |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |3/31/2016 |Hearing |4/20/2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Rachel Machi Wagoner |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: California oil spill contingency plan
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law, under the Clean Water Act:
1) Prohibits the discharge of any pollutant from a point source
into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
2) Requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the
United States and regulating quality standards for surface
waters by implementing pollution control programs such as
setting wastewater standards and setting water quality standards
for all contaminants in surface waters.
3) Establishes the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
300 (40 CFR §300)) as the planning and response framework for
oil spills, including the establishment of regional and area
contingency plans, establishing a system that brings together
the functions of the federal government, the state (and local)
government, and the responsible party to achieve "an effective
and efficient response, where the on-scene coordinator maintains
authority." This is the "unified command" and no single agency
has sole jurisdictional authority to direct all aspects of a
major emergency.
SB 1083 (Allen) Page 2 of ?
Existing California law, under the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil
Spill Prevention and Response Act:
1) Establishes the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response
(OSPR) in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
2) Requires the OSPR administrator to implement activities relating
to oil spill response and to represent the state in any
coordinated response efforts with the federal government.
This bill: requires a communications element to be developed by
the administrator and included in the California oil spill
contingency plan.
Specifically:
1)Requires the communications element provide the framework for
efficient and timely communications with the unified command
across all levels of government and with the public, as
specified. The communications element:
a) Establishes a process for developing and maintaining a
database of local public information officers in each coastal
county.
b) Establishes a process to ensure timely and accurate
information is provided to news and social media consistent
with the following:
i) When the OSPR administrator has the authority to do so,
(1) Shall appoint a lead
public information officer or joint information center
manager who is state personnel.
(2) Shall retain final
approval authority for news releases or other material
created on behalf of the unified command for the purpose
of communicating with the public.
c) Establishes a mechanism to ensure critical information is
shared from the local level to the unified command, as
SB 1083 (Allen) Page 3 of ?
specified.
d) Establishes a process for early community outreach in spill
affected areas that ensures the public has up-to-date and
timely information on the spill including information on the
responsible party and the right of affected parties to file
claims against the responsible party.
2)Requires that this element be incorporated within the California
oil spill contingency planning framework established by federal
and state law and regulation to the extent feasible.
Background
1) Contingency Plans. The national contingency plan establishes a
response management structure that brings together the functions
of the federal government, the state (and local) government, and
the responsible party. This is the "unified command" and no
single agency has sole jurisdictional authority to direct all
aspects of a major emergency.
For large oil spills, the unified command includes a federal
on-scene coordinator (the US Coast Guard for marine spills), a
state on-scene coordinator (identified below) and the
responsible party (for the spill). If federal assistance is not
required, incident command may be composed of members from state
and local government and the responsible party. The on-scene
coordinator in charge, generally the federal coordinator,
retains ultimate authority for decisions related to oil spill
response.
In the event of an oil spill, the on-scene coordinator is
directed to collect pertinent facts about the release, the
nature, amount and location of the amount released and other
relevant factors (see 40 CFR §300.135). The on-scene
coordinator is also required to ensure that all appropriate
public and private interests are kept informed and that their
concerns are considered throughout a response, to the extent
practicable.
Incidents may have their own incident-specific team, and who is
in charge and the number of personnel involved will vary
depending upon the circumstances. With limited exception,
responsible parties can hold many jobs within incident command.
SB 1083 (Allen) Page 4 of ?
The regional contingency plan for California includes
neighboring states. Within California, designated locations for
area contingency planning include the ports of Los Angeles/Long
Beach and the nearby vicinity. The area contingency planning
process is open to all stakeholders and includes agencies from
all levels of government, industry and environmental groups.
2) Precipitating Event. On May 19, 2015 a pipeline owned by Plains
All American Pipeline (Line 901) ruptured spilling a
then-reported 101,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the
Gaviota coast in Santa Barbara County. An estimated 21,000
gallons of oil from the pipe ended up in the water at Refugio
Beach. Oil from the spill ended up dispersing along the coast
of Southern California. Approximately one week after the
initial spill, tar balls started washing up on Manhattan Beach,
more than 100 miles south. An eight-mile stretch from El
Segundo to Torrance Beach was closed. The composition of these
tar balls matched the oil from the Refugio Beach spill.
The Office of Pipeline Safety in the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the US Department of
Transportation released a "Preliminary Factual Report" on the
Line 901 failure in February 2016. While noting that PHMSA
continues to investigate the May 19, 2015 failure, preliminary
findings "indicate that the root cause of the Line 901 failure
was external corrosion". The total amount of the spill appears
to remain uncertain. Initial estimates were 2,400 barrels
(about 100,800 gallons) but the operator later reported to PHMSA
that it was 2,960 (about 124,320 gallons) (without
documentation). A final report is expected in spring 2016.
Both OSPR and the US Coast Guard are expected to release Refugio
Beach response evaluations later this spring.
3) Communication barriers are not isolated to this incident.
Issues with local public communication were also an identified
issue in the response to the M/V Cosco Busan incident in San
Francisco Bay. While each incident's circumstances are unique,
the reports reviewing response noted that improvements were
recommended in information sharing with local governments, for
example, and that local stakeholders need to be familiar with
the area contingency plan. Apparently not all local governments
had been actively participating in the area contingency planning
process.
Comments
SB 1083 (Allen) Page 5 of ?
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "SB 1083 will
strengthen oil spill contingency planning by requiring the
Office of Spill Prevention and Response to add a communications
element to the State's Oil Spill Contingency plan in an effort
to ensure local communities have more timely and accurate
information in the wake of an oil spill."
The author notes that OSPR responded promptly when tar balls hit
Manhattan Beach, but notes that "the South Bay communities
impacted by the tar balls lacked critical information to ensure
their impacts were addressed in a timely fashion."
"When local residents obtained modelling data showing oil from
the leak would likely land on South Bay beaches, they lacked a
means to effectively communicate with state responders before
the tar balls landed. Community leaders also struggled to
ensure volunteers had the necessary information to ensure they
could safely assist in the cleanup. Local business leaders who
were economically impacted by the spill were not even made aware
that the tar balls were a result of the spill and they could
file a claim for damages."
DOUBLE REFERRAL:
This measure was heard in Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee on
March 29, 2016, and passed out of committee with a vote of 7-2.
SOURCE: Author
SUPPORT:
California Coastal Protection Network
Defenders of Wildlife
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION:
California Chamber of Commerce
California Independent Petroleum Association
SB 1083 (Allen) Page 6 of ?
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
Western States Petroleum Association
ARGUMENTS IN
OPPOSITION: The opposition argues that "it's unclear what
problem SB 1083 is attempting address. The bill is unnecessary
would compromise federal laws that are designed to ensure a
coordinated response between RPs and the appropriate agencies.
It's important for operators and vessels, if they become an RP, to
work closely with federal, state and local entities to effectively
carry out the response plan in a timely and coordinated fashion.
SB 1083 goes against that very coordination that is needed among
federal, state and local entities?."
-- END --