BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2738
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2738 (Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee)
As Amended July 1, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |63-8 |(May 28, 2014) |SENATE: |33-0 |(August 7, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E.S. & T.M.
SUMMARY : Contains technical or noncontroversial revisions to
hazardous materials and safe drinking water provisions of the
statutes. Specifically, this bill :
1)Modifies the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of
1986 (Proposition 65) as follows:
a) Clarifies the provisions of Proposition 65 that require
the noticing party to inform the alleged violator of his or
her right to cure the violation.
b) Specifies that the party alleging a Proposition 65
violation must send the notice of special compliance
informing an alleged violator of the right to correct the
violation, if any of the alleged violations in the 60-day
notice are subject to the right to cure.
2)Removes duplicate references to the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) for the Department of Public Health
(DPH) Point-of-Use Water Treatment Device Certification.
The Senate Amendments remove proposed authorization for the DPH
to annually adjust the fee schedule for fees paid for Safe
Drinking Water Revolving Fund loans.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill is substantially similar to
the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : This bill provides for a series of technical,
corrective, and non-substantive modifications to the hazardous
AB 2738
Page 2
materials and drinking water laws. The issues addressed in this
bill were the result of legislation passed in 2013 that include
AB 227 (Gatto), Chapter 581, related to Proposition 65 and AB
119 (Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee),
Chapter 403, related to point-of-use water treatment devices.
AB 227 changed the enforcement provisions of Proposition 65 by
limiting recovery by private citizen enforcement action for
specified types of exposure to chemicals causing cancer or birth
defects or other reproductive harm in those circumstances when
failure to provide clear and reasonable warning has been
remedied and a penalty has been paid.
The technical amendments in this bill were suggested based on an
initial implementation of
AB 227 by the California Department of Justice. The proposed
amendment clarifies that the noticing party must immediately
inform the alleged violator of the right to cure the violation,
and not wait until after sending the 60-day notice. The second
amendment to Proposition 65 makes it clear that the noticing
party must send the notice of special compliance informing an
alleged violator of the right to cure if any of the alleged
violations in the 60-day notice are the specific types of
exposures subject to AB 227. Leaving the current statutory
language in place creates a potential unintended loophole by
letting the noticing party allege at least one violation that is
not subject to AB 227 to avoid the entire process.
.
AB 119 provided that a water treatment device may be sold,
provided it meets the ANSI standard or it had previously been
approved by the DPH. The requirements of Health and Safety Code
Section 116845, include the ANSI standards as well as
alternative requirements for previously approved water treatment
devices.
The current inclusion of the ANSI requirement in addition to the
posting on the DPH Web page duplicates the requirements that
must be met in order to be placed on the DPH Web site. The
provisions of this bill make it clear that previously approved
devices would be allowed to remain on the DPH website and
therefore be authorized for sale in California.
Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
AB 2738
Page 3
FN: 0004392