BILL ANALYSIS
AB 833
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2007-2008 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 833
AUTHOR: Ruskin
AMENDED: June 1, 2007
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: July 2, 2007
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Bruce Jennings
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
PROGRAM
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Requires certain California industrial facilities that use
any of approximately 650 chemicals annually to disclose
information about releases to air, land, and water to the
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for the
dissemination of information in a publicly accessible,
on-line data base, referred to as the Toxics Release
Inventory or TRI, pursuant to the federal Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA,
Chapter 116 of Title 42 of the United States Code).
2) Authorizes the California Environmental Protection Agency
(Cal EPA) to request any business to submit the information
required pursuant to EPCRA to also submit such information
to Cal EPA.
a) Prohibits Cal EPA, however, from requiring the form
from certain businesses or in an amount lower than the
applicable threshold amount specified pursuant to EPCRA.
This bill :
1) Requires Cal EPA to establish the California TRI, if the
Cal EPA Secretary determines there has been a specified
change made to EPCRA, or the regulations adopted pursuant
to EPCRA which make EPCRA or its regulations less stringent
or to reduce or lessen any reporting requirements that
AB 833
Page 2
reduce the timely access by the public to accurate
information about chemical releases.
2) Requires the California TRI to impose the same requirements
as EPCRA as in effect on January 1, 2006.
3) Requires Cal EPA, 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.
4) Requires the adopted regulations to apply retroactively tot
eh effective date of the changes made to EPCRA or its
regulations to ensure no gap in data collection.
5) Requires Cal EPA 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.
6) 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.
7) Prohibits the Secretary from making the determination if
there are legal challenges to the changes to EPCRA or its
regulations that result in a stay or injunction of the
changes.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author's office, AB 833
ensures that Californians 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 separate from federal administrative
actions, California will maintain access to information
AB 833
Page 3
about chemical releases.
2) Background . The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) constitutes
a body of information on the release of toxics at the
community level as part of what was for many years regarded
as the nation's premier right-to-know law - EPCRA.
Established in 1986, TRI simply required certain industrial
facilities that manufacture, process, or use significant
amounts of certain toxic chemicals, to annually report the
amount of chemicals they release and dispose of each year.
The TRI report contains information about the types and
amounts of toxic chemicals that are released each year to
the air, water, and land. Additionally, TRI provides
information on the quantities of toxic chemicals sent to
other facilities for disposal or treatment.
3) Changes in Federal Regulatory Requirements . 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 releases
that trigger detailed TRI reporting from 500 to 5,000
pounds per year; (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 gone, 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 report of
millions of pounds of toxics chemicals nationwide.
4) US EPA Science Advisory Board - Criticisms . On July 12,
2006 the US EPA Science Advisory Board wrote to the
Administrator of US EPA regarding their perspective on
proposed changes to federal law, "We are sufficiently
concerned about the potential negative impacts of these
changes on scientific research that we offer this
AB 833
Page 4
commentary." The SAB then noted that they anticipated that
the proposed changes would affect the value of TRI data in
the following two ways: First, it will obscure the extent
of facilities' releases of toxics chemicals; and second,
biennial reporting will make it impossible to track actual
emissions in communities (or by facilities) from year to
year (As noted above, the final change dropped the change
to biennial reporting).
5) GAO - More Criticisms . In a review by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) released in February of this
year, GAO concluded the following regarding the federal
changes:
"We believe that the TRI reporting changes will likely have a
significant impact on information available to the public
about dozens of toxic chemicals?.We estimate that 302
[facilities] in California would no longer have to report
any quantitative information to the TRI?.and that
California could have 33 percent fewer chemical reports."
6) Prior Legislation . Assemblymember Ruskin authored 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." It
would appear that AB 833 is no longer overly broad,
premature, or duplicative.
SOURCE : Assemblymember Ruskin
SUPPORT : Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Fund,
Environmental Working Group, League of Women
Voters of California, Planning and Conservation
League, Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : Silicon Valley Leadership Group