BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1674
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1674
AUTHOR: Saldana
AMENDED: April 21, 2010
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 14, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Amber Hartman
SUBJECT : HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES: STORAGE TANKS
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Requires the primary containment of underground storage
tanks (USTs) to be product-tight and compatible with the
substance stored. Requires the secondary containment of
USTs to be constructed, operated, and maintained in a
manner to prevent structural weakening and also to be
capable of storing the hazardous substances for the maximum
anticipated period of time necessary for the recovery of
any released hazardous substance. UST design and
construction requirements became increasingly stringent in
2003 and 2004. (Health and Safety Code 25290.1, 25290.2,
25291).
2) Establishes additional requirements for USTs, including
requiring continuous monitoring systems; interstitial
space; equipment to prevent spills and overfills; and
automatic line leak detector, among others. (25290.1,
25290.2, 25291).
3) Exempts tanks from meeting underground tank design,
installation, and operation requirements if all exterior
surfaces, including piping and the floor directly beneath
the tank can be monitored by direct viewing. (25283.5).
4) Establishes the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA)
which authorizes the Unified Program Agency (UPA) to
inspect and certify aboveground storage tanks (ASTs).
(25270.4).
AB 1674
Page 2
5) Establishes, in the Barry Keene Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup Fund Act of 1989, guidelines and programs to store
fuel in USTs. (25299)
6) Under federal law, Subchapter IX of Chapter 82 of Title 42
of the United States Code allows USTs to be regulated
pursuant to an authorized state program. California has
such authorization.
This bill :
1) Removes the ability of the UPA to waive a fee for state and
local agencies that have an AST.
2) Defines "tank facility" for the APSA to be tanks used by a
single owner or operator.
3) Exempts underground tanks from some UST design and
construction requirements if the exterior surfaces of the
tanks can be visually monitored and if the tank meets other
UST regulatory requirements.
4) Deletes the ability of the SWRCB to object to a local
agency's determination that a tank fulfills the UST
requirements.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "Current law
requires impractical testing of vaulted USTs that can be
visually inspected and is unclear as to whether the SWRCB
has to review and approve every exemption that a CUPA may
grant for a UST. Also, current law does not grant the
authority to allow CUPAs to inspect aboveground fuel tanks
on DoD land."
2) Background . This bill addresses two separate issues.
First, by using the words "owner or operator" rather than
"single business entity" in the tank facility definition,
it conforms with preceding definitions in the section of
owner or operator which include business entities as well
as governmental and academic agencies. In actual practice,
AB 1674
Page 3
CUPAs currently inspect governmental and commercial ASTs
already and this technical amendment clarifies that
authority.
Second, the bill attempts to lay out the proper
requirements for USTs that are vaulted rather than buried,
which means, in practice, that they can be visually
inspected by CUPAs. The statutory requirements were
written primarily for tanks physically surrounded by soil
rather than below-grade tanks suspended in a concrete vault
and, as currently written, create confusion in the field
during inspections.
3) Removing fee waiver . Removing the authority for the CUPAs
to waive AST fees for state and local agencies could
conceivably increase costs of operation for these agencies.
However, brief surveys conducted by the Assembly
Appropriations Committee suggest that, although they have
the authority, CUPAs rarely, if ever, charge fees for
inspections of AST's. Because fees are not charged in the
first place, they do not end up being waived. Therefore,
deletion of this authority would not seem to greatly impact
the status quo.
4) SWRCB authority . At first glance, deleting the phrase
"without objection from the Board" from 25283.5 might seem
to diminish SWRCB's authority over UST exemption
determinations. However, SWRCB retains full ultimate
authority and responsibility for all fuel storage tank
inspections through oversight of the CUPAs in 25404.1(a).
In fact, it seems reasonable that the vaulted UST approval
process will move more efficiently if SWRCB is not involved
in case-by-case verification of local agencies' approvals.
Instead, the Board would issue broad guidelines needed for
vaulted UST compliance and have the CUPAs adhere to those
guidelines while retaining ultimate authority if
clarification is required in the future.
5) Secondary containment: 1984 vs. 2003 . As currently
drafted, vaulted USTs installed on or after 2003 are
required to meet 1984 design and construction standards
defined in 25291 because many of the vapor monitoring and
external space monitoring requirements in the 2003 sections
AB 1674
Page 4
(25290.1) are not applicable to vaulted USTs, which are
not actually buried in the soil. However, it does seem
prudent to require tanks installed after 2003 to still
comply with more stringent secondary containment
requirements rather than allowing them to revert back to
single-walled tanks where the cement vault and epoxy create
the secondary containment. This type of secondary
containment is much more vulnerable to petroleum
contamination of the environment than is a double-walled
tank-within-a-tank configuration. Therefore, the committee
may wish to adopt amendments that remove the single-walled
tank with secondary containment as a form of compliance
with 25291.
SOURCE : Industrial Environmental Association
California Association of Environmental Health
Administrators
SUPPORT : County of San Diego
OPPOSITION : None on file