BILL ANALYSIS
AB 234
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 234
AUTHOR: Huffman
AMENDED: June 9, 2010
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 14, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill and
Response (OSPR) Act:
1) Requires the governor to establish a state oil spill
contingency plan (Government Code 8574.1 et seq. ),
establishes oil spill response and contingency planning
requirements (8670.1 et seq. ), and establishes oil spill
prevention, response, containment, and cleanup programs
(Public Resources Code 8750 et seq .).
2) Requires the OSPR administrator to adopt and implement
regulations governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency
plans to be prepared and implemented, taking into
consideration marine facility or vessel contingency plan
requirements of the national and California contingency
plans, the State Lands Commission, State Fire Marshal, and
California Coastal Commission. The regulations must, among
other things: a) ensure that standards set for response,
containment, and cleanup equipment are maintained and
regularly improved to protect state resources; and b)
ensure that each contingency plan demonstrates that all
protection measures are being taken to reduce the
possibility of an oil spill occurring as a result of the
operation of the marine facility or vessel. (Government
Code 8670.28).
3) Requires any person who causes or permits any oil to be
discharged in state marine waters to immediately contain,
cleanup, and remove the oil in the most effective manner
AB 234
Page 2
that minimizes environmental damage in accordance with
applicable contingency plans, unless otherwise ordered by
the Coast Guard or OSPR administrator. (8670.25).
4) Requires the OSPR administrator and the State Lands
Commission (SLC) executive officer to propose, and requires
the SLC to adopt, rules and regulations relating to certain
matters for a marine terminal (a marine facility used for
transferring oil to or from tankers and barges). (Public
Resources Code 8755).
This bill :
1) Requires a transfer unit or oil transfer operation, as
defined, to provide appropriate equipment and supplies for
containment and removal of oil spills in water adjacent to
the transfer site, and to preboom each oil transfer for the
entire transfer operation. (A "boom" refers to a flotation
boom or other effective barrier containment material for
containing oil discharged onto surfacewater).
2) Sets requirements for the preboom transfers relating to
boom length, area of boom deployment, and boom adjustment.
3) Requires transfer units in an oil transfer operation to be
equipped with properly functioning alarms and sets
requirements relating to alarm operation, audibility, and
other matters.
4) Requires the transfer unit or oil transfer operation to
have at least one person on the bridge able to communicate
fluently and effectively in English and in the language of
the vessel master.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "On October 30,
2009, the Dubai Star spilled between 400 to 800 gallons of
bunker oil into the San Francisco Bay within six miles of
the Alameda coastline, devastating local wildlife and
aquaculture. The results of the investigation are still
pending, but reports have cited investigators for [OSPR] as
AB 234
Page 3
saying the Dubai Star oil spill occurred when one of the
ship's massive fuel tanks overfilled during an early
morning refueling stop and crew members failed to notice
until oil had already seeped into the bay. The Dubai Star
did not pre-boom prior to the oil transfer, but did have
the appropriate equipment on board the vessel. According
to OSPR, by the time workers realized there was a leak, it
was too late to contain by deploying the booms."
The author notes that "Had the Dubai Star pre-boomed prior to
beginning the oil transfer, it could have prevented a vast
majority of the oil leaking into the bay from contaminating
the vast swath of bay that it did and prevented economic
hardships for the fisheries that had to be closed.
Prevention is the key to protecting the environment from
any harm that an oil spill may cause. Pre-booming prior to
an oil transfer can effectively retain a significant amount
of oil under oil spill conditions, providing precautions
for maximum possible containment."
According to the author, "California experienced 14 oil spills
(including the Dubai Star spill) . . . from refueling/oil
transfer operations. Of those 14, one operation
pre-boomed. OSPR recently opened up a rulemaking to amend
their prebooming regulations. The current draft . . . does
not require pre-booming. "
The author also notes that "AB 234 is modeled after Washington
State, which requires pre-booming unless unsafe or
ineffective, in which case the vessel operator must file a
report explaining why they did not pre-boom. According to
the [Department] of Ecology, Washington has [a] 90%
pre-boom rate (when they expect pre-booming to occur, per
weather conditions, currents, tide). The [Department] of
Ecology says they see oil transfers and pre-booming
occurring in areas from 0 to around 3 knots. Booming in
current is a normal operation on the Columbia River , which
experience knots that exceed 1 knot."
2) Current OSPR booming regulatory efforts . OSPR distributed
a "Notice of Informal Written Comment period" May 19, 2010,
for draft regulations relating to booming. The informal
AB 234
Page 4
comment period ends June 14, 2010. Current regulations
authorize "prebooming" or "standby booming" for transfer
units.
Proposed draft regulations require prebooming, except that
standby booming is required if the transfer units have
successfully demonstrated to the OSPR administrator their
ability to deploy and maneuver boom in an equipment
deployment drill. Proposed draft regulations also require
annual equipment deployment drills necessary to meet these
standby drill requirements, monitored by OSPR, that must be
conducted in an environment and under conditions similar to
those that would be encountered during an offshore
bunkering operation.
AB 234 requires a transfer unit or oil transfer operation to
preboom each oil transfer for the duration of the entire
transfer operation, and includes additional alarm and
bridge staffing requirements.
3) Support and opposition concerns . According to the
Department of Fish and Game in opposing AB 234, "OSPR is
vested with very broad authority to promulgate regulations
governing activities that may result in oil spills in
marine waters. Among this authority is the ability to add
requirements to enhance spill prevention and increase
environmental protections during fuel transfer operations.
OSPR recently held a public meeting to discuss the need for
regulatory additions in this area and was pleased with the
broad participation by interests from across the spectrum
of oil-spill response stakeholders. OSPR is committed to
completing this process this year, culminating with the
adoption of regulatory improvements, as warranted." The
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) asserts that
this bill "will make fuel transfers unfeasible in certain
areas of California where regular high currents render
containment boom unsafe and ineffective." PMSA believes
that AB 234 "would effectively put an end to fueling at
anchorage in the [San Francisco] bay" and could threaten
businesses at upriver ports where there are no options for
taking fuel beyond the bay.
AB 234
Page 5
According to many supporters, state regulations "require
vessels conducting fuel transfers to either pre-boom the
vessel or have boom on hand to respond to a potential spill
within 30 minutes. Unfortunately, in the case of the Dubai
Star, the shipping company did neither. In fact, Coast
Guard officials have told us that they have never known a
vessel to preboom for a fuel transfer in San Francisco
Bay." Supporters note that "Fuel spills will undoubtedly
occur again as ships fuel in San Francisco Bay on an
ongoing basis. Californians deserve assurance that our
responsible state agencies will indeed do what is entirely
possible to prevent fuel from spreading throughout the Bay
and reaching marshes, wetlands and other sensitive wildlife
habitat." According to the Crab Boat Owners Association,
Inc., "AB 234 builds on the positive experience of
Washington State, which has mandated pre-booming as the
gold standard for safe oil-transfers to protect people,
wildlife, and the environment . . . When oil is spilled,
every minute counts and pre- or immediate booming is the
best line of defense."
4) Clarification needed . AB 234 contains definitions from
various regulations. If the committee believes that boom
requirements should be addressed in statute, rather than
through the regulatory process (as currently being
undertaken by OSPR, for example), it would be helpful to
more clearly define the circumstances under which this
bill's boom, alarm, and bridge staffing requirements apply.
5) Referral to Natural Resources and Water Committee . If this
measure is approved by this committee, the do pass motion
must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate
Natural Resources and Water Committee.
SOURCE : Assembly Member Huffman
SUPPORT : Audubon California, Blue Frontier Campaign,
Center for Biological Diversity, Crab Boat
Owners Association, Defenders of Wildlife, East
Bay Bird Advocates, Environmental Defense
Center, Friends of the Earth, Institute for
Fisheries Resources, Natural Resources Defense
AB 234
Page 6
Council, Ocean Conservancy, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Pacific
Environment, Richmond Shoreline Citizen
Response, Sierra Club (S.F. Bay Chapter),
Surfrider Foundation, Turtle Island Restoration
Network, Waterways Restoration Institute, 2
individuals
OPPOSITION : Department of Fish and Game, Pacific Merchant
Shipping Association