BILL ANALYSIS
AB 234
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 234 (Huffman)
As Amended August 9, 2010
Majority vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |May 21, 2009 |SENATE: |21-14|(August 23, 2010) |
| | | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |6-3 |(August 26, 2010) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: U. & C.
SUMMARY : Requires the Office of Spill Prevention and Response
(OSPR) administrator to adopt regulations that would require booms
to be deployed before all oil transfer operations unless this
pre-booming is determined not to be safe and effective. Requires
the State Lands Commission (SLC), on or before March 1, 2011, to
report to the Legislature on regulatory action and statutory
recommendations to ensure maximum safety and prevention of harm
during offshore drilling.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and
instead:
1)Require the OSPR administrator to adopt regulations requiring a
marine oil transfer unit, at the point of transfer, to provide
and deploy equipment for the containment of oil spills if they
occur including:
a) Prior to oil transferring, a vessel would be required to
"pre-boom," or install a marine surface flotation barrier
prior to, and during any, oil transfer operation, including
bunkering or lightering, unless it is not safe to do so;
b) Check the boom during oil transferring, especially during
changes in weather conditions; and,
AB 234
Page 2
c) Determine alternative protocols when pre-booming is not
determined to be safe.
2)Requires the administrator to determine case-by-case thresholds
for pre-booming during oil transfers including personnel safety,
sea and wave states, current velocity, wind speed, vessel
traffic, and fishing activity, among others.
3)Requires the oil transfer vessel operator to communicate with
OSPR when an oil transfer was not pre-boomed at a time when
thresholds indicated that it was safe to do so.
4)Increases the maximum fee per-barrel of oil or petroleum product
to $0.06 and authorizes the administrator to adjust the maximum
per barrel fee annually for inflation according to the Consumer
Price Index.
5)Establishes the non-tank vessel owner or operator fee paid to the
administrator to be $3,000 per vessel for an application to
obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.
6)Requires, on or before March 1, 2011, the SLC to report to the
Legislature regarding regulatory actions taken to ensure maximum
offshore oil drilling including:
a) Offshore drilling rig requirements for state water
operations shall have fully redundant and functioning safety
systems to prevent blowout preventer failure;
b) A blowout response control plan description to accompany a
discharge of hydrocarbons including:
i) The technology and timeline for regaining well control;
and,
ii)The strategy, organization, and resources necessary to
avoid harm to the environment and human health as a result
of a spill.
c) Demonstration of the best available and safest technologies
and practices were applicable; and,
d) Sunsets the report on January 1, 2015.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required the California Energy
AB 234
Page 3
Commission, in administering funds received from the federal
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the State Energy Program
and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, to
identify and fund energy efficiency activities that also resulted
in reduced water consumption.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
this bill would:
1)Generate increased revenues to the Oil Spill Prevention and
Administration Fund of approximately $500,000 to $1 million per
year from vessel fees as well as up to $5.2 million per year
potentially from per barrel fees.
2)Increase costs of approximately $100,000 over the next two years
for regulation development as well as approximately $1.15 million
per year over the next two years due to regulation enforcement.
3)Create minor, absorbable costs to the General fund for annual
reporting.
COMMENTS : 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. Investigators for
[OSPR] say 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 also 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 and economic hardships for the
fisheries that had to be closed."
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
"pre-booming" or "standby booming" for transfer units. The
proposed draft regulations require pre-booming, except that standby
booming is required if the transfer units have successfully
demonstrated to the OSPR administrator their ability to deploy and
AB 234
Page 4
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.
Existing state regulations require an oil transfer unit to either
deploy pre-boom equipment surrounding a transfer operation or to
deploy stand-by booming, which is the ability to deploy at least
600 feet of boom within 30 minutes of the discovery of a spill. In
both situations, the transfer unit must have access to an
additional 600 feet of boom that can be deployed within one hour in
the event of a spill. Last month, OSPR held a public meeting to
discuss changes to the oil spill transfer regulations. The
proposed changes would restrict the stand-by booming option to
transfer units that have successfully completed a boom deployment
drill.
This bill would require a transfer unit or oil transfer operation
to pre-boom each oil transfer for the duration of the entire
transfer operation, and includes additional alarm and bridge
staffing requirements. This bill makes an exception for
pre-booming if weather or ocean conditions, or both, are such that
pre-booming would not be safe or effective.
OSPR regulations already contain requirements for oil pre-transfer
operations. For example, in the case of "lightering," oil must be
transferred from a larger oil tank vessel to a smaller vessel for
transport into a port due to size restrictions. OSPR regulations
state that oil transfer operations shall not be initiated, or shall
be discontinued, during severe weather, electrical storms, or wave
conditions, during a fire, if two-way voice communication is lost,
or if any other conditions jeopardize the safety of the transfer.
According to the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement within the Unites States Department if
the Interior (DOI), physical barriers including containment booms
are the first equipment mobilized at the scene of an oil spill as
well as the last equipment to be removed. Booming not only
contains the spilled oil, but also concentrates it to ease the
spill cleanup and recovery process. DOI indicates that, when
appropriate, booms are preferable to chemical dispersants or
burning because the oil may be recovered for recycling or for
proper disposal. Booms come in many different shaped and sizes,
AB 234
Page 5
and often include "skirts" that hang down underwater from the boom
surface to be able to contain more fluid volume. According to DOI,
most booms are not capable of containing oil in currents greater
than 0.7 knots (0.35 meter/second) that flow at right angles to the
boom regardless of boom size or skirt depth, which can limit the
speed of boom towing in order to function effectively. The
effectiveness of containment booming is dependent on currents,
wind, and waves. Even minor currents can draw oil under the booms;
waves may cause splash-over, and wind and currents may cause the
boom to sink or plane. However, new open ocean boom designs
capable of containing oil and tow at speeds greater than 3 knots
(15.4 m/s) are becoming commercially available. Although marine
weather conditions such as wave speed and height will have a
significant impact on the effectiveness of booming during oil
transfers, it is possible that the containment of any oil could be
considered a success in the case of an accidental oil spill during
transfer.
Booms have been researched and utilized for decades as useful tools
for containing spilt oil. In 1968, the science journal Nature
published an article on oil pollution following the Torrey Canyon
supertanker disaster off the coast of England in March of 1967.
The article called for more research into oil spill prevention and
containment, and made references to an impressive "experiment in
which a pipe a foot in diameter was slung between a grounded tanker
and another ship off the Bahamas in March this year." The same
scientific journal last month published a similar article in
response to the recent Deepwater Horizon spill which also described
booms as a persisting method of oil spill containment. Although
booms have persisted as effective and economical methods of oil
containment even with the development of modern chemical
dispersants, additional research should be directed towards novel,
environmentally responsible mechanisms for spill containment as
well as in oil spill prevention.
According to the opposition on record, this bill presents economic
and safety concerns. For example, according to the opposition,
"Anchorage 9 in San Francisco is the only designated anchorage for
fuel transfers in the Bay. Currents there exceed 1.0 knot in speed
for over 67% of the tidal cycles. Boom loses effectiveness at
currents over 0.7 knots. For this reason, as well as concerns over
human safety, AB 234 would effectively put an end to fueling at
anchorage in the bay." Additional arguments in opposition state
that "deployment of boom in fast currents and/or inclement weather
is inherently dangerous work. Although responders are prepared to
AB 234
Page 6
place themselves in harm's way in the event of a spill, assuming
those risks under a precautionary scenario where the benefits are
questionable may prove to be untenable for these companies."
Analysis Prepared by : Jessica Westbrook / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0006786