BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE BILL NO:AB 2339
Senator Tom Hayden, Chair AUTHOR:Sweeney
VERSION:
Original:2/20/98
Amended:6/17/98
FISCAL:Yes
URGENCY:No
CONSULTANT:Kennedy Jones
HEARING DATE:6/23/98
SUBJECT: Water Quality
ISSUE:
Should the Regional Water Quality Control Boards be
required to begin cleanup of toxic hot spots with "all
deliberate speed" and focus, initially, on those areas for
which responsible parties have been identified?
SUMMARY:
Requires implementation of cleanup plans developed under
the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup ("Toxic Hot Spots")
Program and makes other changes to the program.
BACKGROUND & EXISTING LAW:
1.Requires the State Water Resources Control Board and the
Regional Water Quality Controls Boards, under the Bay
Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program (BPTCP) to develop
and implement a comprehensive program to identify,
characterize, and remediate areas of pollution, or "toxic
hot spots," in enclosed bays and estuaries. The state
and regional boards are also required to amend water
quality control plans and to implement strategies for the
prevention of further toxic hot spots. More
specifically, BPTCP requires:
Requires each regional board to have completed
a toxic hot spots cleanup plan by January of 1998,
to include:
a) a priority ranking of hot spots;
b) a characterization of the pollutants present;
c) an assessment of the sources of the pollutants
and of the actions required to cleanup the hot
spots; and
d) a two year expenditure schedule.
The plan must also include an estimate of the costs
that may be recoverable from parties responsible for
the hot spot pollution.
Requires the state board, by June 30, 1999, to
submit to the Legislature a consolidated statewide
toxic hot spots cleanup plan.
Sunsets the fee provisions on January 1, 1998.
5.Funded the program through fees paid by dischargers.
PROPOSED LAW:
1.Requires implementation of the Bay Protection and Toxic
Cleanup Program. It would primarily direct the SWRCB and
the regional boards, in continued consultation with the
Department of Fish and Game and OEHHA, to complete toxic
hot spot cleanup plans in such a manner that allows for
the proper determination of areal extent of the toxic hot
spots (the size of the area impacted).
2.Requires regional water boards on the coast to
coordinate, with responsible parties making the
determination, the geographical extent of each toxic hot
spot within their jurisdictions.
3.Requires the SWRCB and the regional water boards, in
completing the consolidated statewide toxic hot spot
cleanup plan and the regional plans respectively, to hold
open meetings and comply with CEQA.
4.Requires the SWRCB before submitting the consolidated
plant to hold public hearings in Northern and Southern
California.
5.Requires SWRCB to implement the consolidated plan with
"all deliberate speed" for sites with identified
responsible parties. For sites with no identified
responsible parties (orphan hot spots), SWRCB must, by
June 30 1999, recommend to the Legislature a clean up
plan and identify funding sources.
6.Expresses legislative intent to implement the toxic hot
spots program be paid from the Waste Discharge Permit
Fund to the extent funds are so appropriated in the
annual Budget Act.
COMMENTS:
1.The author introduced this bill because the regional
boards are required to complete cleanup plans for marine
toxic hot spots. After years of delay and missed
deadlines, the plans are only in draft form. In
addition, existing law does not require the plans to be
implemented. According to the author, this bill would
take the next step and require implementation of the
plans beginning with toxic hot spots where a responsible
party has been identified.
2.Supporters state that this bill would ensure that
valuable information gained from the Bay Protection and
Toxic Cleanup Program is not lost by the sunset of that
program.
3.Opponents believe that this bill would preempt current
plans that regional boards are in the process of
developing. They also believe that sites should be
cleaned up on the basis of their impact to water quality
and human health and not on whether a responsible party
has been found.
4.The author previously introduced AB 1479, relating to
toxic hot spots and extending the sunset for the fee
provisions in BPTCP. That bill was vetoed and the fee
provisions sunset on January 1, 1998. The Governor's
veto message to AB 1479 implied that extending the fee
provisions was not necessary because the Board will
continue to monitor, identify, and remediate pollutants.
The SWRCB ordered the regional boards to develop cleanup
plans by the January 1, 1998 deadline. The deadline has
passed with only draft plans available.
5.According to draft regional plans, cleanup of toxic hot
spots could reach $550 million. Without focusing on
sites for which responsible parties have been identified,
how would the cleanup be funded?
SUPPORT:
Sierra Club
Environmental Health Coalition
Contra Costa Humane Society
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Save San Francisco Bay Association
Planning and Conservation League
OPPOSED:
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Department of Finance
American Electronics Association
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County