BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1674
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1674 (Saldana)
As Amended April 21, 2010
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 9-0
APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Nava, Miller, Blakeslee, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Chesbro, Davis, Feuer, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Monning, Ruskin, Smyth | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, De |
| | | |Leon, Hall, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Torrico |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Modifies existing exemptions of underground storage
tanks (UST). Specifically, this bill : would make various
technical changes to existing law pertaining to USTs and
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) including:
1)Exempts from certain UST design and construction requirements
those USTs for which exterior surfaces of the UST can be
visually monitored (such as those that are in concrete vaults)
and where the USTs meet other regulatory requirements.
2)Eliminates a provision of current law that allows the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to object to a local
agency decision as to whether a tank meets UST regulatory
requirements.
3)Makes various technical changes to existing law pertaining to
ASTs, including deleting the authorization for a local Unified
Program Agency (UPA) to waive a local AST regulatory fee on
state or local government agencies.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires all USTs installed after April 1, 2003 to be
double-contained, both primary and secondary containment to be
"product tight" (impervious to the liquid and vapor phases of
the substance stored); water intrusion to be prevented,
AB 1674
Page 2
secondary containment to meet specified volumetric
requirements. Requires the tank to have a continuous leak
monitoring system, pressurized piping to be equipped with leak
detection and the tank to be tested using enhanced leak
detection before it is placed into use.
2)Provides exemption from underground tank design, installation
and operation requirements for tanks if all exterior surfaces,
including connected piping and the floor directly beneath the
tank can be monitored by direct viewing.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill may result in annual costs to state
agencies. State agencies operate ASTs and this bill deletes
local agencies' ability to waive fees on such state agencies.
The actual cost of this bill depends on: 1) the number of ASTs
operated by state agencies; and, 2) the amount of fees local
agencies charge those state agencies that the local agencies
otherwise would have waived.
COMMENTS :
1)Need for the bill . According to the sponsors of the bill, the
California Health Officers Association, AB 1674 will address
two enforcement issues involving fuel storage tanks.
Specifically, the bill clarifies that vaulted tanks are not
mandated to meet every requirement placed on USTs installed
after July 1, 2004. Certain requirements, such as pressure
monitoring between the soil and the exterior walls of the
tanks, are not applicable to tanks that are below-grade but
not buried in the ground.
The bill makes a technical amendment to the Above Ground
Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) to include CUPA oversight of
above ground petroleum storage in federal facilities. This
change will enable the collection of fees that will provide
cost recovery for APSA program implementation.
2)UST design standards . Federal and state laws and regulations
set standards for UST system design, construction,
installation and notification; upgrading of existing UST
systems, general operating requirements, release detection;
reporting and investigation; corrective action and
AB 1674
Page 3
out-of-service and closed UST systems. Those standards were
enacted to reduce the risk of water contamination by petroleum
products and hazardous and toxic additives such as MTBE that
can leak from USTs.
3)AST fee waiver authority . The sponsors of the bill have
requested clarification on the ability of local governments to
assess fees on federal facilities. In order to create a level
fee structure that captures the full cost of local government
oversight, the federal agencies have raised objections to
exemption of state and local facilities from permit fees.
Analysis Prepared by : Robert Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0004183