BILL ANALYSIS
AB 833
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 833 (Ruskin)
As Amended June 1, 2007
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-0
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Eng, Evans, |Ayes:|Leno, Caballero, Davis, |
| |Feuer, Nava | |DeSaulnier, |
| | | |Huffman, Karnette, |
| | | |Krekorian, Lieu, |
| | | |Ma, Nava, Solorio, Feuer |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Walters, Emmerson, La |
| | | |Malfa, |
| | | |Nakanishi, Sharon Runner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes the California Toxic Release Inventory
Program that mirrors the federal Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Specifically,
this bill :
1)Makes finding and declarations about the federal TRI.
2)Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) to establish the California TRI if the CalEPA
Secretary determines there has been a specified change made to
the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
(EPCRA), or the regulations adopted pursuant to EPCRA, so as
to make EPCRA or regulations less stringent or to reduce or
lessen any reporting requirements that reduces the timely
access by the public to accurate information about chemical
releases.
3)Requires the California TRI to impose the same requirements as
EPCRA as in effect on or after January 1, 2006.
AB 833
Page 2
4)Requires CalEPA, no later than one calendar year after the
date when the Secretary makes that determination, to adopt
regulations to implement the program that are identical in
application to the federal regulations in effect on January 1,
2006.
5)Requires the adopted regulations to apply retroactively to the
effective date of the changes made to EPCRA or the federal
regulations to ensure no gap in data collection.
6)Requires CalEPA to determine whether existing California
specific reporting requirements can substitute, in whole or in
part, for the information that would be required under the
adopted regulations.
7)Requires the adopted regulations to use the same reporting
forms used for the EPCRA prior to the changes in the federal
reporting requirements unless the agency determines that an
alternative form is necessary to substitute chemical release
data reported under existing California specific programs.
8)Prohibits the Secretary from making the determination if there
are legal challenges to the changes to EPCRA or the federal
regulations that result in a stay or injunction of the
changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes CalEPA to request any business to submit the
information required to be submitted in the toxic chemical
release form pursuant to the federal Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA).
2)Prohibits CalEPA from requiring the form from certain
businesses or in an amount lower than the applicable threshold
amount specified in EPCRA.
AB 833
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor potential General Fund (GF) costs, perhaps
$600,000 for CalEPA to establish the California TRI program to
fill the gaps in reporting from the federal TRI (GF). Ongoing
costs are likely to be covered by revenue generated by fees
imposed on businesses and other entities required to report
hazardous material inventories to CalEPA. (Reimbursements)
COMMENTS: According to the author, this bill ensures that
Californian's will always have access to information regarding
the hazards posed by toxic releases near their homes, schools,
and workplaces. This bill is in response to the recent federal
regulations that reduced information requirements for the
federal act. It is also needed to ensure that, independent of
the action of the federal government, California will still have
access to information.
According to the federal EPA, the goal of TRI is to empower
citizens through information, to hold companies and local
governments accountable in terms of how toxic chemicals are
managed. In 1984 a deadly cloud of methyl isocyanate killed
thousands of people in Bhopal, India. Shortly thereafter, there
was a serious chemical release at a sister plant in West
Virginia. These incidents underscored demands by industrial
workers and communities for information on hazardous materials.
Public interest and environmental organizations around the
country accelerated demands for information on toxic chemicals
being released "beyond the fence line," outside of the facility.
Against this background EPCRA was enacted in 1986 with the
primary purpose of informing communities and citizens of
chemical hazards in their areas.
Armed with TRI data, communities have more power to hold
companies accountable and make informed decisions about how
toxic chemicals are to be managed. The data often spurs
companies to focus on their chemical management practices since
they are being measured and made public. In addition, the data
serves as a rough indicator of environmental progress over time.
Federal rollback: On September 21, 2005, the federal EPA
announced its intention to roll back reporting requirements for
all chemicals under the federal TRI. The federal EPA proposal
had two major components: 1) Increase the amount of chemical
AB 833
Page 4
releases that trigger detailed TRI reporting from 500 to 5,000
pounds per year; and, 2) eliminate annual reporting and replace
it with reporting every other year.
The federal EPA offered no rationale for the proposal other than
its desire to ease the regulatory burden on business. It was
met with much opposition and prompted the federal EPA to modify
its proposal. When the final rule was published in December
2006, the proposal for alternate-year reporting was removed, and
the threshold for reporting chemical use was raised not to 5,000
pounds, but 2,000 pounds. However, raising the threshold by a
factor of four rather than a factor of 10 still will eliminate
reporting of millions of pounds of toxics chemicals nationwide.
Efforts in 2006: The author had a similar measure in 2006, AB
2490, which was vetoed by the Governor in September, 2006. The
veto message stated "This bill is overly broad, premature and
duplicative." However, as the federal government has instituted
a roll-back of reporting requirements in December, 2006, the
threat to access to this critical information was realized.
Analysis Prepared by : Caroll Mortensen / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0001304