BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 234|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 234
Author: Huffman (D)
Amended: 8/9/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/14/10
AYES: Simitian, Corbett, Hancock, Lowenthal, Pavley
NOES: Runner, Strickland
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE : 6-3, 6/29/10
AYES: Pavley, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Padilla, Simitian, Wolk
NOES: Cogdill, Hollingsworth, Huff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-1, 8/2/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Ashburn
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson, Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Oil spill prevention and response: transfer of
oil
SOURCE : Pacific Environment
DIGEST : This bill requires a transfer unit, or an oil
transfer unit, as defined, to provide at the point of
transfer of oil appropriate equipment and supplies for the
CONTINUED
AB 234
Page
2
containment and removal of oil spills in water adjacent to
a transfer site. This bill also requires the transfer unit
or oil transfer operation to have, among other things,
equipment compatible with a vessel traffic advisory control
system and a high level alarm and tank overflow alarm to
alert crew. This bill also requires the State Lands
Commission, on or before March 1, 2011, to report to the
Legislature on regulatory action, pending or already taken,
and statutory recommendations for the Legislature to ensure
maximum safety and prevention of harm during offshore
drilling.
ANALYSIS : 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
that minimizes environmental damage in accordance with
applicable contingency plans, unless otherwise ordered by
the Coast Guard or OSPR administrator. (8670.25).
AB 234
Page
3
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.
5.Requires the SLC, on or before March 1, 2011, to report
to the Legislature on regulatory action, pending or
already taken, and statutory recommendations for the
Legislature to ensure maximum safety and prevention of
harm during offshore oil drilling. The report shall
include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
A. A comprehensive set of requirements for
offshore oil drilling rigs operating in state waters
to have fully redundant and functioning safety
systems to prevent a failure of a blowout preventer
AB 234
Page
4
from causing a major oil spill.
B. A complete description of a response plan to
control a blowout and manage the accompanying
discharge of hydrocarbons, including both of the
following:
1) The technology and timeline for regaining
control of a well.
2) The strategy, organization, and resources
necessary to avoid harm to the environment and
human health from hydrocarbons.
C. Requirements for the use of the best available
and safest technologies and practices, if the
failure of equipment would have a significant effect
on safety, health, or the environment.
6.Sunsets the report on January 1, 2015.
Comments
According to the author's office, "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 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's office 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
AB 234
Page
5
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's office, "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's office 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."
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
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.
This bill requires a transfer unit or oil transfer
operation to preboom each oil transfer for the duration of
AB 234
Page
6
the entire transfer operation, and includes additional
alarm and bridge staffing requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
Increased revenues from ($520)
($1,040)($1,040) Special *
vessel fees
Potential increased revenues Up to ($5,200) per year
Special *
from per barrel fee
Development of regulations $50 $50
Special *
Enforcement of pre-booming $1,150
$1,150Special *
regulations
Oil drilling report
Absorbable within existing resources General
* Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/9/10)
Pacific Environment (source)
Association of Bay Area Governments
Blue Frontier Campaign
California Associaiton of Professional Scientists
California League of Conservation Voters
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Oceanic Awarenss, Research, and Education
Clean Water Action
Crab Boat Owners Association
Defenders of Wildlife
East Bay Bird Advocates
Environment California
Environmental Defense Center
Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association
AB 234
Page
7
Friends of the Earth
Marin Audubon Society
Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Ocean Conservation Research
Ocean Defenders Alliance
Oceana
Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Association
Richmond Shoreline Citizens Response
Save the Bay
Save the San Francisco Bay
Surfrider Foundation
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Waterways Restoration Institute
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/9/10)
California Labor Federation
Department of Fish & Game
Matson Navigation Company
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
Sailors Union of the Pacific
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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."
AB 234
Page
8
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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.
TSM:nl 8/9/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****