The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires owners or operators of various facilities, including pipelines, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill from the pipelines could impact state waters, to have an oil spill contingency plan submitted to, and approved by, the administrator for oil spill response to ensure prompt and adequate response and removal action in case of a spill. The act requires the operator to maintain a level of readiness that will allow effective implementation of the applicable contingency plan.

The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, among other things, requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations in compliance with the federal law relating to hazardous liquid pipeline safety. The act requires any new pipeline constructed after January 1, 1984, and which normally operates under conditions of constant flow and pressure, to be designed and constructed in accordance with specified federal regulations, and have a means of leak detection and cathodic protection that the State Fire Marshal determines is acceptable. A violation of the act is a crime. Except as provided, the act defines pipeline as including every intrastate pipeline used to transport hazardous liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances, as provided.

This bill would require, by January 1, 2018, any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone to use best available technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife. The bill would require, by July 1, 2018, an operator of an existing pipeline near these sensitive areas to submit a plan to retrofit the pipeline, by January 1, 2020, as provided. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations relating to the above provisions by July 1, 2017.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires owners or operators of various facilities, including pipelines, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill from the pipelines could impact state waters, to have an oil spill contingency plan submitted to, and approved by, the administrator for oil spill response to ensure prompt and adequate response and removal action in case of a spill. The act requires the operator to maintain a level of readiness that will allow effective implementation of the applicable contingency plan.

The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, among other things, requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations in compliance with the federal law relating to hazardous liquid pipeline safety. The act requires any new pipeline constructed after January 1, 1984, and which normally operates under conditions of constant flow and pressure, to be designed and constructed in accordance with specified federal regulations, and have a means of leak detection and cathodic protection that the State Fire Marshal determines is acceptable. A violation of the act is a crime. Except as provided, the act defines pipeline as including every intrastate pipeline used to transport hazardous liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances, as provided.

This bill would require, by January 1, 2018, any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone to use best available technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife. The bill would require, by July 1, 2018, an operator of an existing pipeline near these sensitive areas to submit a plan to retrofit the pipeline, by January 1, 2020, as provided. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations relating to the above provisions by July 1, 2017.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires owners or operators of various facilities, including pipelines, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill from the pipelines could impact state waters, to have an oil spill contingency plan submitted to, and approved by, the administrator for oil spill response to ensure prompt and adequate response and removal action in case of a spill. The act requires the operator to maintain a level of readiness that will allow effective implementation of the applicable contingency plan.

The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, among other things, requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations in compliance with the federal law relating to hazardous liquid pipeline safety. The act requires any new pipeline constructed after January 1, 1984, and which normally operates under conditions of constant flow and pressure, to be designed and constructed in accordance with specified federal regulations, and have a means of leak detection and cathodic protection that the State Fire Marshal determines is acceptable. A violation of the act is a crime. Except as provided, the act defines pipeline as including every intrastate pipeline used to transport hazardous liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances, as provided.

This bill would require, by January 1, 2018, any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone to use best achievable available technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife. The bill would require, by July 1, 2018, an operator of an existing pipeline near these sensitive areas to submit a plan to retrofit the pipeline, by January 1, 2020, as provided. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations relating to the above provisions by July 1, 2017.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires owners or operators of various facilities, including pipelines, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill from the pipelines could impact state waters, to have an oil spill contingency plan submitted to, and approved by, the administrator for oil spill response to ensure prompt and adequate response and removal action in case of a spill. The act requires the operator to maintain a level of readiness that will allow effective implementation of the applicable contingency plan.

This bill would require, by July 1, 2018, January 1, 2019, the operators of an interstate pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, as provided, to use the best achievable technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect the state waters and wildlife, and to include a description of the use of those technologies in their oil spill contingency plans. The bill would require the Office of Spill Prevention and Response to consult with the Office of the State Fire Marshal for technical expertise, and would authorize the office to enter into a memorandum of understanding, as provided, for purposes of implementing the above provisions.

The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, among other things, requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations in compliance with the federal law relating to hazardous liquid pipeline safety. The act requires any new pipeline constructed after January 1, 1984, and which normally operates under conditions of constant flow and pressure, to be designed and constructed in accordance with specified federal regulations, and have a means of leak detection and cathodic protection that the State Fire Marshal determines is acceptable. A violation of the act is a crime. Except as provided, the act defines pipeline as including every intrastate pipeline used to transport hazardous liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances, as provided.

This bill would require require, by January 1, 2018, any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone to use best achievable technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife. The bill would require, by July 1, 2018, an operator of the above-described an existing pipeline near these sensitive areas to submit a plan to retrofit existing pipelines the pipeline, by January 1, 2020, as provided. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations relating to the above provisions by July 1, 2017.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires owners or operators of various facilities, including pipelines, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill from the pipelines could impact state waters, to have an oil spill contingency plan submitted to, and approved by, the administrator for oil spill response to ensure prompt and adequate response and removal action in case of a spill. The act requires the operator to maintain a level of readiness that will allow effective implementation of the applicable contingency plan.

This bill would require, by July 1, 2018, the operators of pipelines in an interstate pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas of state waters or along the coasts of those areas, as provided, to use the best achievable technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect the state waters and wildlife, and to include a description of the use of those technologies in their oil spill contingency plans. The bill would require the Office of Spill Prevention and Response to consult with the Office of the State Fire Marshal for technical expertise, and would authorize the office to enter into a memorandum of understanding, as provided, for purposes of implementing the above provisions.

The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires owners or operators of various facilities, including pipelines, while operating in the waters of the state or where a spill from the pipelines could impact state waters, to have an oil spill contingency plan submitted to, and approved by, the administrator for oil spill response to ensure prompt and adequate response and removal action in case of a spill. The act requires the operator to maintain a level of readiness that will allow effective implementation of the applicable contingency plan.

This bill would require the operators of pipelines in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas of state waters or along the coasts of those areas to use the best available achievable technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect the state waters and wildlife, and to include a description of the use of those technologies in their oil spill contingency plans.

(1)The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, prohibits a person from operating a solid waste facility without a solid waste facilities permit if that facility is required to have a permit pursuant to the act. The enforcement agency is required to immediately issue a cease and desist order ordering a solid waste facility that is operating without a permit to immediately cease operations and to direct the owner or operator of the facility to obtain a permit.

This bill would require, until January 1, 2025, the department to adopt regulations to authorize an enforcement agency, upon the departments approval, to issue a temporary solid waste facilities permit to a person carrying out solid waste operations at a facility that is required under the act to have a solid waste facilities permit, but for which a permit has not been obtained. The bill would require the regulations to direct any person desiring to obtain a temporary solid waste facilities permit to submit an application to the enforcement agency no later than 60 days from the date it is determined by the enforcement agency that a permit is required. The bill would require the owner or operator of a facility covered under a temporary permit to agree to inspections, at least monthly, by the enforcement agency.

The bill would require a local enforcement agency to notify the operators of all facilities within its jurisdiction of the availability of temporary solid waste facilities permits, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by imposing new duties upon local enforcement agencies. The bill would also require the department to review and act on a proposed temporary solid waste facilities permit submitted by an enforcement agency within 30 days of that submission.

(1)The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, prohibits a person from operating a solid waste facility without a solid waste facilities permit if that facility is required to have a permit pursuant to the act. The enforcement agency is required to immediately issue a cease and desist order ordering a solid waste facility that is operating without a permit to immediately cease operations and to direct the owner or operator of the facility to obtain a permit.

This bill would require require, until January 1, 2025, the department to adopt regulations to authorize an enforcement agency, upon the departments approval, to issue a temporary solid waste facilities permit to a person carrying out solid waste operations at a facility that is required under the act to have a solid waste facilities permit, but for which a permit has not been obtained. The bill would require the regulations to direct any person desiring to obtain a temporary solid waste facilities permit to submit an application to the enforcement agency no later than 60 days from the date it is determined by the enforcement agency that a permit is required. The bill would require the owner or operator of a facility covered under a temporary permit to agree to inspections, at least monthly, by the enforcement agency.

The bill would require a local enforcement agency to notify the operators of all facilities within its jurisdiction of the availability of temporary solid waste facilities permits, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by imposing new duties upon local enforcement agencies. The bill would also require the department to expeditiously review and act on a proposed temporary solid waste facilities permit. permit submitted by an enforcement agency within 30 days of that submission.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, prohibits a person from operating a solid waste facility without a solid waste facilities permit if that facility is required to have a permit pursuant to the act. The enforcement agency is required to immediately issue a cease and desist order ordering a solid waste facility that is operating without a permit to immediately cease operations and to direct the owner or operator of the facility to obtain a permit.

This bill would require the department to adopt regulations to authorize an enforcement agency, upon the departments approval, to issue a temporary solid waste facilities permit to a person carrying out solid waste operations at a facility that is required under the act to have a solid waste facilities permit, but for which a permit has not been obtained. The bill would require the regulations to direct any person desiring to obtain a temporary solid waste facilities permit to submit an application to the enforcement agency no later than 60 days from the date it is determined by the enforcement agency that a permit is required. The bill would require the owner or operator of a facility covered under a temporary permit to agree to inspections, at least monthly, by the enforcement agency.

The bill would require a local enforcement agency to notify the operators of all facilities within its jurisdiction of the availability of temporary solid waste facilities permits, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by imposing new duties upon local enforcement agencies. The bill would also require the department to expeditiously review and act on a proposed temporary solid waste facilities permit.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 864

Author:(Williams and Burke)

As Amended Ver:September 4, 2015

Majority vote

(vote not relevant)

Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.

SUMMARY: Requires pipelines to have the best available technology to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife.

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill, relating to solid waste facilities, and instead:

1. Require, by January 1, 2018, that any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone shall use best available technology in order to reduce the amount of oil released in a spill to the environment.

2. Specify that best available technology include, but is not limited to, installation of leak detection technologies, automatic shutoff systems, remote controlled sectionalized block valves, or any combination of these technologies based on a risk analysis conducted by the operator.

3. Require, by July 1, 2018, that any operator of an existing pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone submit a plan to retrofit these pipelines with best available technology, and complete the retrofits by January 1, 2020.

4. Require the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to adopt regulations by July 1, 2017 to implement this bill. Requires the regulations to include all of the following:

   1. A definition of automatic shutoff systems;

   2. A process to assess the adequacy of the operator’s risk analysis;

   3. A process by which an operator is allowed to request confidential treatment of information; and,

   4. A determination of how near an environmentally and ecologically sensitive area a pipeline must be to subject to be the requirements of the bill.

5. Require SFM to consult with the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) about potential impacts to state water and wildlife from oil spills.

6. Require an operator to notify SFM of any new construction of retrofit of a pipeline in waters near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone.

EXISTING LAW, pursuant to the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 (Elder Act):

1. Requires the SFM to adopt regulations in compliance with the federal law relating to hazardous liquid pipeline safety.

2. Requires any new pipeline constructed after January 1, 1984, and which normally operates under conditions of constant flow and pressure, to have a means of leak detection and cathodic protection that the SFM determines is acceptable.

3. Defines "pipelines" as including every intrastate pipeline used to transport hazardous liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances, as provided.

4. Requires SFM to study the spacing of valves which would limit spillage into standard metropolitan statistical areas and environmentally sensitive areas from surrounding higher ground. Specifics the following:

   1. Requires SFM to adopt regulations to require the addition of valves on existing pipelines if any existing pipeline system's valve spacing is deemed insufficient to protect California's uniquely situated population centers and environmental resources.

   2. Authorizes SFM to adopt regulations to require new valves on new, existing, or replacement pipelines as necessary to protect the public interest if the study indicates that guidelines for valve spacing do not, in the SFM’s opinion, adequately protect these population centers and environmental resources.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, initial costs of $1.69 million followed by $1.37 million annually ongoing to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) for SFM to develop and implement regulations on best achievable technology.

COMMENTS: On May 19, 2015, a pipeline owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline ruptured, spilling approximately 101,000 gallons to 140,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the Gaviota coast in Santa Barbara County. It is estimated that 21,000 gallons of the oil went down a storm culvert onto cliffs and into the Pacific Ocean. The immediate oil spill area stretched over nine miles of California coastline, and tar balls have washed up as far as one hundred miles from the spill site. The pipeline that ruptured, known as Line 901, is a common carrier pipeline that transports oil that was produced on platforms offshore in both state and federal waters to be refined in Santa Maria or Kern County. On May 20, 2015, Governor Brown issued an emergency proclamation for Santa Barbara County due to the effects of the oil spill. Refugio State Beach and El Capitan State Beach were closed for over a month because of the oil spill. Fisheries from Canada de Alegria to Coal Oil Point were also closed for over a month, which negatively impacted several commercial fisheries – including lobster, crab, shrimp, halibut, urchin, squid, whelk, and sea cucumber. The Oiled Wildlife Care Network recovered 195 dead birds and 106 dead marine mammals from the spill. Dead marine mammals recovered included dolphins, sea lions, and seals. Sensitive habitat of the California Least Tern and the Snowy Plover, birds protected by the Endangered Species Act, has been damaged. Hotels, tour outfits, and other tourism businesses have experienced cancelations and decreased bookings due to the spill. More than 1,000 workers from local, state and federal agencies worked to clean up the beaches. Over 14,000 gallons of oily water have been recovered to date. News reports indicate the pipeline was potentially severely corroded where it ruptured. The spill and events leading up to the spill remain under investigation. Line 901 was not equipped with automatic shut off technology that is installed on other pipelines of this size in Santa Barbara County.

The Elder Act regulates intrastate pipelines and the vast majority of those pipelines carry petroleum based hazardous liquids. There are a small number of intrastate pipelines that carry carbon dioxide. SFM estimates that there may be 2,000 miles of intrastate pipeline located within State waters and coastlines. While Line 901 has never shipped oil out of state, it has been classified by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) as an interstate pipeline, which is not subject to the Elder Act. However, a September 8, 2015 letter to the author of this bill from the President of Plains All American stated, "Plains would be willing to engage in a dialogue regarding a potential reclassification of Lines 901 and 903 to state jurisdiction." Plains All American could make a request to PHMSA to reclassify their pipelines to intrastate pipelines, which would make them subject to the requirements of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0002373

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 864

Author: Williams (D) and Burke (D), et al.

Amended: 9/4/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 8-1, 7/14/15

AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Wolk

NOES: Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-14, 5/18/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Oil spill response: environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires pipelines to have the best available technology to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/15 (1) delete provisions related to pipelines in the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, (2) delete the severability provision, and (3) revise the standard to best available technology for automatic leak detection and related systems on pipelines under the jurisdiction of the Office of State Fire Marshal.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides that pipelines in interstate service are under the jurisdiction of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

2. Provides for the protection of the waters of the United States from contamination through the Clean Water Act, among others.

3. Addresses oil spills in the navigable waters of the United States through the creation of a comprehensive prevention, response, liability and compensation program through the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended.

Existing state law:

1. Provides that pipelines used to transport oil (i.e. in hazardous liquid service) outside of oil and gas fields in intrastate service are under the jurisdiction of the Office of the State Fire Marshal. The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act (Elder Act) also authorizes the Office of the State Fire Marshal to exercise safety regulatory jurisdiction over portions of interstate pipelines located within the state and subject to an agreement between the United States Secretary of Transportation and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

2. Provides that contaminating waters of the state is illegal under various statutes.

This bill amends the Elder Act to require that pipelines under the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s jurisdiction to:

1. Require by January 1, 2018, that any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone shall use best available technology in order to reduce the amount of oil released in a spill to the environment.

2. Define best available technology for a given pipeline based upon a risk analysis performed by the operator:

1. Require best available technology in this context to include leak detection technology, automatic shutoff systems or remote controlled sectionalized block values or any combination thereof, as specified.

2. Require the Office of the State Fire Marshal to determine the best available technology, as specified.

3. Require by July 1, 2018, that any operator of an existing pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone submit a plan to retrofit these pipelines with best available technology, as defined, by January 1, 2020.

4. Allow the operator to request confidential treatment by the Office of the State Fire Marshal of certain information provided in the risk analysis, as specified.

5. Require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations to implement the changes to the Elder Act by July 1, 2017, as specified.

6. Require the State Fire Marshal to consult with the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in the Department of Fish and Wildlife about potential impacts to state water and wildlife from oil spills.

7. Require an operator to notify the Office of the State Fire Marshal of any new construction of retrofit of a pipeline in waters near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone.

Background

May 2015 Refugio Beach spill. On May 19, 2015 a pipeline owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline ruptured spilling approximately 130,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the Gaviota coast at Refugio Beach in Santa Barbara County. The release was from a 10.6 mile long, 24-inch diameter pipeline and (according to the operator) as much as 21,000 gallons of oil ended up in coastal waters. News reports indicate the pipeline was potentially severely corroded where it ruptured. The spill and events leading up to the spill remain under investigation.

The pipeline responsible for this spill transports oil that was produced on offshore platforms in state and federal waters onshore for refining. The pipeline was not equipped with automatic shut off technology that is installed on other pipelines of this size in Santa Barbara County. Regulation of this pipeline, as the result of an earlier lawsuit, was limited to the federal level.

The main oil spill stretched over nine miles of California coastline and tar balls associated with the spill were found, according to news reports, as far south as Los Angeles County. Shoreline and beaches were affected by the spill and nesting areas for protected species were also affected. Approximately 250 birds and 170 mammals in addition to a large number of marine invertebrates were known to be impacted by the spill. Although some of the birds and mammals have been released following treatment, most are dead. A 23 mile by six mile area was closed to fishing for over one month and beaches were closed, including over the Memorial Day weekend, resulting in economic losses.

Comments

Late amendments and support. Given the late amendments to this bill, the list of support was verified for a prior version of the bill. No organizations listed in support have submitted letters changing their position or indicated to committee staff that a change in position is imminent.

Related Legislation

SB 295 (Jackson, 2015) requires annual inspections of pipelines, among other provisions. The bill has returned to the Senate for concurrence.

SB 414 (Jackson, 2015) updates OSPR to respond to the Refugio Beach spill. The bill is on the Assembly Floor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee (for a previous version of this bill):

• Initial costs of $1.69 million followed by $1.37 million annually ongoing to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) for the Office of the State Fire Marshal to develop and implement regulations on best achievable technology.

• Unknown ongoing costs, likely in the mid-hundreds of thousands to the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for OSPR to advise operators on best achievable technology, evaluate contingency plans, and develop required regulations.

• Unknown costs to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) and the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for the Office of the State Fire Marshal and OSPR to coordinate, potentially under a memorandum of understanding.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/4/15)

Audobon California

Azul

California Coastal Commission

California Coastal Protection Network

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Carpinteria Valley Association

Center for Biological Diversity

Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County

Clean Water Action

Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation

Community Environmental Council

Defenders of Wildlife

Environment California

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

Environmental Defense Center

Environmental Defense Fund

Friends of the Earth

Gaviota Coast Conservancy

Get Oil Out!

Heal the Bay

Heal the Ocean

Los Angeles Waterkeeper

Natural Resources Defense Council

Ocean Conservancy

Orange County Coastkeeper

Pacific Environment

San Francisco Baykeeper

Santa Barbara Audobon

Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

Santa Barbara County Action Network

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors

Sierra Club California

Surfrider Foundation

Surfrider Foundation, Santa Barbara Chapter

Surfrider Foundation, South Bay Chapter

Surfrider Foundation, West LA/Malibu Chapter

The Fund for Santa Barbara

The Wildlands Conservancy

Ventura Audobon

Ventura Coastkeeper

Wholly H2O

Wildcoast

Wishtoyo Foundation

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/4/15)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “[a] recent oil spill at Refugio Beach, in Santa Barbara County, has devastated the local environment due to lack of detection and slow response times. […] Unfortunately, it appears the pipeline was not properly equipped with automatic shut off technology, and there were delays in communication with first responders.”

“Had the oil pipeline been equipped with automatic shut off valves or remote controlled sectionalized block valves, the impact of the oil spill would have been controlled and limited. Instead, we’re left cataloguing the negative effects to our environment and economy.”

“California coast and ocean are among our most treasured resources. The productivity, wildness and beatify found here is central to California’s identity, heritage and economy. California leads the nation and the world in coastal and wildlife protection. Early oil spill detection technology and automatic shut off controls are critical tools in preserving California’s ocean waters, coast line, and wildlife.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-14, 5/18/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Lackey, Obernolte, Patterson, Wagner, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez

Prepared by: Katharine Moore / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

9/8/15 20:56:36

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 864

Author: Williams (D) and Burke (D), et al.

Amended: 9/1/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 8-1, 7/14/15

AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Wolk

NOES: Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-14, 5/18/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Oil spill response: environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires pipelines to have the best achievable technology to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Provides that pipelines in interstate service are under the jurisdiction of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

2. Provides for the protection of the waters of the United States from contamination through the Clean Water Act, among others.

3. Addresses oil spills in the navigable waters of the United States through the creation of a comprehensive prevention, response, liability and compensation program through the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended.

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in the Department of Fish and Wildlife. OSPR’s mission is to provide the best achievable protection of California's natural resources and the public health and safety by preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills of oil and other deleterious materials; and to restore and enhance affected resources. Best achievable protection incorporates the use of best achievable technology.

2. Establishes OSPR’s jurisdiction to include oil spill prevention and response to pipeline spills.

3. Requires that pipeline operators prepare oil spill contingency plans, as specified. Environmentally sensitive areas are identified during the oil spill contingency planning process.

4. Provides that pipelines used to transport oil (i.e. in hazardous liquid service) outside of oil and gas fields in intrastate service are under the jurisdiction of the Office of the State Fire Marshal. The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act (Elder Act) also authorizes the Office of the State Fire Marshal to exercise safety regulatory jurisdiction over portions of interstate pipelines located within the state and subject to an agreement between the United States Secretary of Transportation and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

This bill:

1. Requires pipelines in intrastate and interstate service to use best achievable technology to limit the amount of oil spilled in order to protect the state’s waters and wildlife.

2. Requires by January 1, 2019, that an operator of an interstate pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone use best achievable technology to reduce the amount of oil released to the environment in the event of a spill.

1. Best achievable technology includes leak detection technology, automatic shutoff systems, or remote controlled sectionalized block valves or any combination thereof based on a risk assessment conducted by the operator. The Office of the State Marshal shall determine what is best achievable technology, as specified.

2. Requires that OSPR consult with the Office of the State Fire Marshal for its technological expertise, as specified.

3. Requires that OSPR develop guidelines for the operator’s risk analysis, as specified.

3. Requires that an interstate pipeline’s oil spill contingency plan for pipelines near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone include a description of how best achievable technology, as determined by the State Fire Marshal, is being used, as specified.

4. Amends the Elder Act to require that intrastate pipelines under the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s jurisdiction to:

1. Require by January 1, 2018 that any new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone shall use best achievable technology in order to reduce the amount of oil released in a spill to the environment.

2. Define best achievable technology based upon a risk analysis performed by the operator to include leak detection technology, automatic shutoff systems or remote controlled sectionalized block values or any combination thereof.

1. Require best achievable protection to include technology that provides the greatest degree of protection taking into consideration processes that are currently in use anywhere in the world and processes being developed or that could feasibly be developed, as specified, anywhere in the world.

3. Require by July 1, 2018, that any operator of an existing pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone submit a plan to retrofit these pipelines with best achievable technology, as defined, by January 1, 2020.

4. Allow the operator to request confidential treatment by the Office of the State Fire Marshal of certain information provided in the risk analysis, as specified.

5. Require the State Fire Marshal to adopt regulations to implement the changes to the Elder Act by July 1, 2017, as specified.

6. Require the State Fire Marshal to consult with OSPR about potential impacts to state water and wildlife.

7. Require an operator to notify the Office of the State Fire Marshal of any new construction of retrofit of a pipeline in waters near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone.

5. Provides that the provisions of the bill are severable.

Background

May 2015 Refugio Beach spill. On May 19, 2015 a pipeline owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline ruptured spilling approximately 130,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the Gaviota coast at Refugio Beach in Santa Barbara County. The release was from a 10.6 mile long, 24-inch diameter pipeline and (according to the operator) as much as 21,000 gallons of oil ended up in coastal waters. News reports indicate the pipeline was potentially severely corroded where it ruptured. The spill and events leading up to the spill remain under investigation.

The pipeline responsible for this spill transports oil that was produced on offshore platforms in state and federal waters onshore for refining. The pipeline was not equipped with automatic shut off technology that is installed on other pipelines of this size in Santa Barbara County. Regulation of this pipeline, as the result of an earlier lawsuit, was limited to the federal level.

The main oil spill stretched over nine miles of California coastline and tar balls associated with the spill were found, according to news reports, as far south as Los Angeles County. Shoreline and beaches were affected by the spill and nesting areas for protected species were also affected. Approximately 250 birds and 170 mammals in addition to a large number of marine invertebrates were known to be impacted by the spill. Although some of the birds and mammals have been released following treatment, most are dead. A 23 mile by six mile area was closed to fishing for over one month and beaches were closed, including over the Memorial Day weekend, resulting in economic losses.

Related Legislation

SB 295 (Jackson, 2015) requires annual inspections of pipelines, among other provisions. The bill has returned to the Senate for concurrence.

SB 414 (Jackson, 2015) updates OSPR to respond to the Refugio Beach spill. The bill is on the Assembly Floor.

NOTE: For additional information, please see the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee bill analysis.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Initial costs of $1.69 million followed by $1.37 million annually ongoing to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) for the Office of the State Fire Marshal to develop and implement regulations on best achievable technology.

• Unknown ongoing costs, likely in the mid-hundreds of thousands to the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for OSPR to advise operators on best achievable technology, evaluate contingency plans, and develop required regulations.

• Unknown costs to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) and the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for the Office of the State Fire Marshal and OSPR to coordinate, potentially under a memorandum of understanding.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/15)

Audobon California

Azul

California Coastal Commission

California Coastal Protection Network

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Carpinteria Valley Association

Center for Biological Diversity

Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County

Clean Water Action

Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation

Community Environmental Council

Defenders of Wildlife

Environment California

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

Environmental Defense Center

Environmental Defense Fund

Friends of the Earth

Gaviota Coast Conservancy

Get Oil Out!

Heal the Bay

Heal the Ocean

Los Angeles Waterkeeper

Natural Resources Defense Council

Ocean Conservancy

Orange County Coastkeeper

Pacific Environment

San Francisco Baykeeper

Santa Barbara Audobon

Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

Santa Barbara County Action Network

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors

Sierra Club California

Surfrider Foundation

Surfrider Foundation, Santa Barbara Chapter

Surfrider Foundation, South Bay Chapter

Surfrider Foundation, West LA/Malibu Chapter

the Fund for Santa Barbara

The Wildlands Conservancy

Ventura Audobon

Ventura Coastkeeper

Wholly H2O

Wildcoast

Wishtoyo Foundation

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/15)

California Independent Petroleum Association

Western States Petroleum Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “[a] recent oil spill at Refugio Beach, in Santa Barbara County, has devastated the local environment due to lack of detection and slow response times. […] Unfortunately, it appears the pipeline was not properly equipped with automatic shut off technology, and there were delays in communication with first responders.”

“Had the oil pipeline been equipped with automatic shut off valves or remote controlled sectionalized block valves, the impact of the oil spill would have been controlled and limited. Instead, we’re left cataloguing the negative effects to our environment and economy.”

“California coast and ocean are among our most treasured resources. The productivity, wildness and beatify found here is central to California’s identity, heritage and economy. California leads the nation and the world in coastal and wildlife protection. Early oil spill detection technology and automatic shut off controls are critical tools in preserving California’s ocean waters, coast line, and wildlife.”

“AB 864 will require an operator of an oil pipeline along environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas near the coast to use the best achievable technology to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill in order to protect state waters and wildlife. This includes automatic shut off technology, and requires a pipeline operator to document the best achievable technology user in their oil spill contingency plan.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Both the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) raise objections to elements in AB 864 that have, at least in part, been amended out since the letters were written.

In addition, CIPA objects to “ambiguity” in what constitutes “environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas,” raises concerns about the potential operational risks associated with the use of automatic shutdown systems, and recommends limiting the applicability of this bill to pipelines six inches and larger carrying liquids with certain properties. WSPA also recommends limiting this bill with respect to pipeline size and location.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-14, 5/18/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Lackey, Obernolte, Patterson, Wagner, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez

Prepared by: Katharine Moore / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

9/1/15 21:19:47

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 864 (Williams) - Oil spill response: environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 27, 2015

Bill Summary:

AB 864 would require pipelines to have the best achievable technology to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife.

Fiscal Impact:

• Initial costs of $1.69 million followed by $1.37 million annually ongoing to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) for the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to develop and implement regulations on best achievable technology.

• Unknown ongoing costs, likely in the mid-hundreds of thousands to the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response to advise operators on best achievable technology, evaluate contingency plans, and develop required regulations.

• Unknown costs to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) and the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for the SFM and OSPR to coordinate, potentially under a memorandum of understanding.

Author Amendments:

• Extend the deadlines for the interstate pipeline requirements by six months

• Specifies that OSPR and the SFM define “near” for interstate and intrastate pipelines, respectively

• Require the SFM determine best achievable technology for interstate pipelines

Committee Amendments:

• Establish a January 1, 2018 deadline for compliance with the bill’s requirements for new intrastate pipelines

• Clarify that the retrofit plan for intrastate pipelines plan for the upgrade of all intrastate pipelines by 2020.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 864 (Williams) - Oil spill response: environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 864 would require pipelines to have the best achievable technology to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife.

Fiscal Impact:

• Initial costs of $1.69 million followed by $1.37 million annually ongoing to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) for the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to develop and implement regulations on best achievable technology.

• Unknown ongoing costs, likely in the mid-hundreds of thousands to the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response to advise operators on best achievable technology, evaluate contingency plans, and develop required regulations.

• Unknown costs to the California Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Fund (special) and the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (special) for the SFM and OSPR to coordinate, potentially under a memorandum of understanding.

Background:

Existing law establishes the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, which created the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) within the Department of Fish and Wildlife. OSPR’s mission is to provide the best achievable protection (GOV §8670.3) of California's natural resources and the public health and safety by preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills of oil and other deleterious materials; and to restore and enhance affected resources. Best achievable protection incorporates the use of best achievable technology. Oil spill prevention and response to pipelines is under OSPR’s jurisdiction and existing law requires that pipeline operators prepare oil spill contingency plans, as specified. Environmentally sensitive areas are identified during the oil spill contingency planning process.

Different agencies have authority over regulating pipelines depending upon the size, service and location of pipelines in the state. Pipelines internal to operations of onshore oil and gas fields are under the jurisdiction of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources within the Department of Conservation. Pipelines used to transport oil outside of oil and gas fields to, for example, refineries, in intrastate service are under the jurisdiction of the SFM according to the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act. The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over pipelines used for handling at marine oil terminals, and would have a role in permitting pipelines on state tidal and submerged lands.

Interstate pipelines that transport hazardous liquids are under the jurisdiction of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the US Department of Transportation. Regulations for these pipelines are in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Proposed Law:

For interstate pipelines that are subject to Part 195 of Title 49 of the Federal Regulations that are near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone, this bill would require:

• The operator to use the best available technology, based on a risk analysis conducted by the operator, in order to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill, including leak detection technology, automatic shutoff systems, and remotely controlled block valves by July 1, 2018.

• OSPR to develop guidelines by July 1, 2017 to assess the adequacy of the operator’s risk analysis. OSPR’s implementation of these requirements would be required to be done in consultation with the SFM for technological expertise. OSPR would be authorized to enter into a memorandum of understanding to clarify roles and responsibilities.

• The operator to describe how it is using the best achievable technology, as determined by its risk analysis, to reduce the amount of oil released in a spill in its oil spill contingency plan.

For intrastate pipelines regulated by the SFM near environmentally and sensitive ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone, this bill would require:

• Any new or replacement pipeline to use best available technology, based on a risk analysis conducted by the operator, to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife. Best available technology would include installation of leak detection technology, automatic shutoff systems, and remotely controlled block valves.

• An operator to submit a plan to retrofit existing pipelines near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone with best available technology by July 1, 2018.

• The SFM would be required to develop regulations by July 1, 2017 and to consult with OSPR about the potential impacts to state water and wildlife.

• An operator to notify the SFM of any new construction or retrofit of these pipelines.

Staff Comments:

The SFM estimates that it would need approximately $1.69 million for personnel and operating expenses and $1.37 million ongoing afterwards for seven PYs. In making this estimate, the SFM notes that there are up 2,000 miles of pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone of California. While it is unknown how many systems will have to be evaluated within these 2,000 miles at this time, each segment will have very site specific conditions that will impact what is considered best available technology including the age of the pipe, elevation changes, and location.

OSPR will also have costs to implement the bill’s requirements in regards to interstate pipelines. Specifically, OSPR will have costs associated with advising interstate pipeline operators on best achievable technology, reviewing contingency plans, and developing regulations to assess the adequacy of the operator’s risk analysis. Staff notes that OSPR’s existing authority over pipelines is through the requirement for operators to prepare an oil spill contingency plan. As such, OSPR does not have staff that has expertise on pipeline technologies. Thus, OSPR’s costs associated with this bill will depend on the technical expertise that it receives from the SFM. Staff estimates that OSPR’s costs will likely be in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars for three to five positions plus unknown costs for work that the SFM may do on behalf of OSPR.

The bill requirements apply to interstate and intrastate pipelines “near” environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas. Staff recommends that “near” be defined to provide clarity as to which pipelines are meant to be impacted by the bill. Staff also recommends that the bill be amended to clarify that the requirements on new and replacement intrastate pipelines begin after the adoption of regulations by the SFM, perhaps July 1, 2018, consistent with the requirement on interstate pipelines.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Fran Pavley, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 864 Hearing Date: July 14, 2015

Subject: Oil spill response: environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

On May 19, 2015 a pipeline owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline ruptured spilling (according to the operator) up to 101,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the Gaviota coast at Refugio Beach in Santa Barbara County. The release was from a 10.6 mile long, 24-inch diameter pipeline and (according to the operator) as much as 21,000 gallons of oil ended up in coastal waters. News reports indicate the pipeline was potentially severely corroded where it ruptured.

The main oil spill stretched over 9 miles of California coastline and tar balls associated with the spill were found, according to news reports, as far south as Los Angeles County. (The investigation of the source of tar balls collected in San Diego County is still underway.) Shoreline and beaches were affected by the spill and nesting areas for protected species were also affected. Approximately 250 birds and 170 mammals in addition to a large number of marine invertebrates were known to be impacted by the spill. Although some of the birds and mammals have been released following treatment, most are dead. A 23 mile by 6 mile area was closed to fishing for over one month and beaches were closed, including over the Memorial Day weekend, resulting in economic losses.

The pipeline responsible for the spill transports oil that was produced on offshore platforms in state and federal waters onshore for refining. The pipeline was not equipped with automatic shut off technology that is installed on other pipelines of this size in Santa Barbara County. Regulation of this pipeline, as the result of an earlier lawsuit, was limited to the federal level.

The most recent update from the spill site indicates it has been “96%” cleaned up. The spill and the events leading up the spill remain under investigation.

In response to concern following significant oil spills, the Legislature passed the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (SB 2040, c. 1248, Statutes of 1990) (Government Code (GOV) §§8670.1 et seq., and others). This act created the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

OSPR’s mission is to provide the best achievable protection (GOV §8670.3) of California's natural resources and the public health and safety by preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills of oil and other deleterious materials; and to restore and enhance affected resources. Best achievable protection incorporates the use of best achievable technology. Oil spill prevention and response to pipelines is under OSPR’s jurisdiction and existing law requires that pipeline operators prepare oil spill contingency plans, as specified. Environmentally sensitive areas are identified during the oil spill contingency planning process.

Depending upon the size, service and location of pipelines in the state, different regulators may have primary responsibility for the pipeline.

Pipelines internal to operations of onshore oil and gas fields are under the jurisdiction of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. These pipelines, such as gathering lines, are required to be identified and are subject to regulation which includes the development of pipeline management plans, inspections, mechanical integrity testing protocols, identification of sensitive areas and other requirements (see Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, §§1774 et seq.).

Pipelines used to transport oil (i.e. in hazardous liquid service) outside of oil and gas fields to, for example, refineries, in intrastate service are under the jurisdiction of the Office of the State Fire Marshal (see the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, GOV §§51010 et seq.). The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act authorizes the Office of the State Fire Marshal to exercise safety regulatory jurisdiction over portions of interstate pipelines located within the state and subject to an agreement between the United States Secretary of Transportation and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over pipelines used for handling at marine oil terminals, and would have a role in permitting pipelines on state tidal and submerged lands.

Pipelines in interstate service are under the jurisdiction of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) (see Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, §195). Following the Refugio Beach spill, PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order to Plains regarding the pipeline responsible for the spill. Almost five years ago, PHMSA published advance notice of a proposed rulemaking to address pipeline safety for hazardous liquid operations in “high consequence areas” which includes leak detection standards and valve spacing requirements. This rulemaking is still pending.

Appropriate leak detection and automatic shut off valve technology was addressed during a June 26, 2015 joint hearing held by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Select Committee on the Refugio Oil Spill in Santa Barbara. At the hearing, a representative from Santa Barbara County testified that the County encourages pipeline operators to use automatic shut off systems through the planning and environmental review process. Two recent pipeline projects there that include automatic shutoff systems are the ERG Foxen Petroleum and the Venoco Line 96 pipelines. Automatic shut off systems are not installed as stand-alone components, but are part of a comprehensive automated system to protect against the failure of any one element in the system. The benefit of an automated system is that it functions quickly and independently and, in an emergency, can limit the size and scope of a spill.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would expand the requirements for pipelines under the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act and OSPR in order to protect state waters and wildlife. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Require the operator on a pipeline in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas of state waters and along the coasts of those areas to use best achievable technology – specified to include the installation of leak detection technology, automatic shut off valves or remote controlled sectionalized block valves or a combination thereof – to reduce the amount of oil spilled in the event of a spill, and

2. Require that the oil spill contingency plan for said pipeline includes a description of how this best achievable technology shall reduce the amount of oil spilled.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “[a] recent oil spill at Refugio Beach, in Santa Barbara County, has devastated the local environment due to lack of detection and slow response times. […] Unfortunately, it appears the pipeline was not properly equipped with automatic shut off technology, and there were delays in communication with first responders.”

“Had the oil pipeline been equipped with automatic shut off valves or remote controlled sectionalized block valves, the impact of the oil spill would have been controlled and limited. Instead, we’re left cataloguing the negative effects to our environment and economy.”

“California coast and ocean are among our most treasured resources. The productivity, wildness and beatify found here is central to California’s identity, heritage and economy. California leads the nation and the world in coastal and wildlife protection. Early oil spill detection technology and automatic shut off controls are critical tools in preserving California’s ocean waters, coast line, and wildlife.”

“AB 864 will require an operator of an oil pipeline along environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas near the coast to use the best achievable technology to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill in order to protect state waters and wildlife. This includes automatic shut off technology, and requires a pipeline operator to document the best achievable technology user in their oil spill contingency plan.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) writing in opposition notes, “[t]he bill enhances OSPR’s existing regulatory authority over pipelines. But it is not clear whether OSPR is the right agency to regulate oil pipelines for design and safety issues. That role has been largely occupied by the [Office of the] State Fire Marshal.” WSPA recommends that the Office of the State Fire Marshal continue to retain jurisdiction over the pipelines for these issues.

Additionally WSPA requests clarification on the size and location of the pipelines subject to this bill. They note that, depending on the size and location, the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, the State Lands Commission and/or the Office of the State Fire Marshal may have primary regulatory jurisdiction over the pipeline.

WSPA further suggests that the Office of the State Fire Marshal perform a risk analysis in order to determine the advisability and feasibility of automatic shut off systems.

COMMENTS

Late-breaking negotiations. The author and opponents are working together to address differences over the scope and content of the bill while ensuring that the regulatory weaknesses exposed by the Refugio spill are fully addressed. This includes the effective targeting of regulatory efforts and compliance timelines for new and existing pipelines. The committee may wish to direct staff to continue working with the author’s office to facilitate this discussion.

Protecting “all waters of the state.” An issue raised in the extension of OSPR’s programs to include rail last year is the extent to which the Clean Water Act may override federal preemption of state regulation of certain activities. This is not yet resolved in the context of rail and the eventual outcome may have relevance for pipelines.

Recent related legislation

SB 295 (Jackson, 2015). This bill would require annual inspections of pipelines, among other provisions. (this bill is before the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.)

SB 414 (Jackson, 2015). This bill would ban the use of chemical dispersant in oil spill response in waters of the state, provide for the use of fishing vessels in oil spill response and amends oil spill penalties, as specified. (this bill is before the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee.)

SB 718 (Leno and Hancock, 2015). This bill would have allowed OSPR to make loans against the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund in non-oil spills for wildlife care, as specified. (this bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File.)

SB 861(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, c. 35, Statutes of 2014). This Public Resources Budget trailer bill revamped OSPR to address the risks of crude oil transport by rail.

SUPPORT

Audobon California

Azul

California Coastal Commission

California Coastal Protection Network

California League of Conservation Voters

Carpinteria Valley Association Center for Biological Diversity

Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County

Community Environmental Council

Defenders of Wildlife

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

Environment California

Environmental Defense Center

Friends of the Earth

Heal the Ocean

Los Angeles Waterkeeper

Natural Resources Defense Council

Ocean Conservancy

Orange County Coastkeeper

Pacific Environment

San Francisco Baykeeper

Santa Barbara Audobon

Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

Santa Barbara County Action Network

Sierra Club California

Surfrider Foundation, Santa Barbara Chapter

Surfrider Foundation, West LA/Malibu Chapter

Surfrider Foundation, South Bay Chapter

Ventura Audobon

Ventura Coastkeeper

Wildcoast

The Wildlands Conservancy

Wishtoyo Foundation

OPPOSITION

California Independent Petroleum Association

Western States Petroleum Association (unless amended)

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 864

Author:(Williams)

As Amended Ver:April 30, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Authorizes solid waste local enforcement agencies (LEAs) to issue temporary permits for solid waste operations. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to adopt regulations to authorize a LEA to issue a temporary solid waste facilities permit to a person operating a solid waste facility that is required to have a permit by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Specifically, the regulations shall:

   1. Require that a temporary permit applicant submit a complete and correct application for the permit to the LEA no later than 60 days from the date the LEA determines that a permit is required.

   2. Establish the period of time during which a temporary permit is effective.

   3. Specify the types and operational status of solid waste facilities that are eligible to obtain a temporary permit.

   4. Require that the owner or operator of a facility that obtains a temporary permit to allow the LEA to inspect the facility at least monthly.

2. Requires the LEA to notify the operators of all solid waste facilities within its jurisdiction of the availability of temporary permits.

3. Requires CalRecycle to expeditiously review and act on a proposed temporary permit submitted by a LEA and provide assistance to LEAs upon request.

4. Authorizes CalRecycle to adopt these regulations as emergency regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill has absorbable costs, likely less than $100,000, for CalRecyle to adopt regulations for temporary permits.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "AB 864 fosters the anticipated construction and operation of new recycling facilities by reinstating temporary permitting authority under the guidance and oversight of CalRecycle."

AB 1473 (Feuer), Chapter 547, Statutes of 2007 established a temporary permitting system for solid waste handling operations, due to changing trends in solid waste handling and collection practices that required a solid waste facility permit. Under the program, LEAs were authorized to temporarily permit operations and facilities that fall under CalRecycle's regulatory authority. Fifteen temporary permits were issued to recycling and waste material processing facilities under the AB 1473 program. The program sunsetted in 2010.

Cities and counties are undertaking new and innovative efforts to increase the diversion of solid waste from landfills in accordance with the state's 75% recycling goal. AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires commercial generators of organic waste (yard trimmings and food waste) to arrange for recycling services. AB 1594 (Williams), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2014, specifies that green material (yard trimmings and untreated wood waste) used as alternative daily cover at a landfill does not constitute diversion and shall instead be considered disposal beginning in 2020. New recycling facilities, transfer and processing stations, and organic waste processing facilities will begin operation in California within the next decade to accommodate this material. Without the ability to offer temporary permits while the operators complete the full solid waste facility permit process, LEAs will be required to shut down recycling operations.

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0000265

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 864

Author:(Williams) – As Amended Ver:April 15, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires CalRecycle to adopt regulations to authorize solid waste local enforcement agencies (LEAs) to issue temporary permits until January 1, 2025, for solid waste operations. Additionally, this bill:

1. Authorizes CalRecycle to adopt regulations as emergency regulations.

2. Requires LEAs to submit temporary permits to CalRecyle for approval. Requires CalRecycle to process temporary permits within 30 days of receipt.

3. Requires LEAs to notify the operators of all solid waste facilities within its jurisdiction of the availability of temporary permits.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Abosorbable costs, likely less than $100,000, for CalRecyle to adopt regulations for temporary permits.

2. Unknown local nonreimbursable state mandated cost to provide the temporary permits. This cost will be offset by permit fees.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. AB 1473 (Feuer), Chapter 547, Statutes of 2007, established a temporary permitting system for solid waste handling operations, due to changing trends in solid waste handling and collection practices that required a solid waste facility permit.

Under the program, LEAs were authorized to temporarily permit operations and facilities that fall under CalRecycle's regulatory authority. Fifteen temporary permits were issued to recycling and waste material processing facilities under the SB 1473 program. The program sunsetted in 2010.

This bill provides interim or temporary permits for a limited period of time while the state implements new recycling requirements.

2. Background. The Integrated Waste Management Act establishes a state diversion (recycling) goal of 75% by 2020.

AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires commercial generators of organic waste (yard trimmings and food waste) to arrange for recycling services. AB 1594 (Williams), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2014 further specifies that green material (yard trimmings and untreated wood waste) used as alternative daily cover at a landfill does not constitute diversion and shall instead be considered disposal beginning in 2020.

New recycling facilities, transfer and processing stations, and organic waste processing facilities will begin operation in California within the next decade to comply with state law.

Without the ability to offer temporary permits while the operators complete the full solid waste facility permit process, LEAs will be required to shut down recycling operations, contrary to state recycling goals.

3. Local Enforcement Agencies. LEAs are generally cities and counties required to enforce statewide standards for solid waste handling and disposal. LEAs are certified by CalRecyle and have the primary responsibility for ensuring the correct operation and closure of solid waste facilities as well as the proper storage and transportation of solid wastes.

4. Emergency Regulations. Generally, there are two types of rulemaking procedures that a state agency can pursue: regular or emergency.

The regular rulemaking process requires that a state agency meet certain public hearing and notice requirements. The emergency rulemaking process has different requirements but generally includes a brief public notice period, a brief public comment period, review by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and an OAL decision.

An emergency regulation usually becomes effective when filed with the Secretary of State, and remains in effect for 180 days unless the agency files a completed rulemaking action with OAL or OAL approves a readoption of the emergency regulation during that time period. Emergency regulations can become permanent if the agency adopts the emergency regulation through the regular rulemaking process within the time period the emergency regulations are in effect.

3. Suggested Amendment:

In order to ensure this bill is not determined to be a reimbursable state-mandate, the author may wish to consider adding the following provision:

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Das Williams, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 864

Author:(Williams) – As Introduced Ver:February 26, 2015

SUBJECT: Solid waste facilities: temporary permits

SUMMARY: Authorizes solid waste local enforcement agencies (LEAs) to issue temporary permits for solid waste operations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Act):
   
   

   1. Requires local agencies to divert, through source reduction, recycling, and composting, 50% of solid waste disposed by their jurisdictions by the year 2000.
      
      

   2. Establishes a statewide diversion goal of 75% by 2020.
      
      

   3. Requires LEAs (generally cities or counties) to enforce statewide minimum enforcement standards for solid waste handling and disposal.
      
      

   4. Prohibits a solid waste facility from operating without a solid waste facilities permit and requires a LEA to issue a cease and desist order for any facility operating in violation of this provision. Prohibits an LEA from issuing a stay for a cease and desist order in this instance unless the facility has applied for a solid waste facilities permit or has been denied a permit for the facility.
      
      

2. Pursuant to AB 1473 (Feuer), Chapter 547, Statutes of 2007, authorized a LEA to issue a temporary permit for a solid waste facility that operated without a solid waste facilities permit from 2007-2010, if the following conditions were met:
   
   

1. The facility accepted only source-separated materials for recycling;
   
   

2. The owner or operator of the facility was actively engaged in "good faith efforts" to obtain a solid waste facilities permit;
   
   

3. An environmental impact report or negative declaration was prepared for the facility;
   
   

4. The facility operated in a manner that is consistent with all applicable solid waste laws and regulations during the period of the temporary permit;
   
   

5. The facility was in operation on or before January 1, 2007.
   
   

6. Sunset the temporary permit program in 2010.

THIS BILL:

1. Requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to adopt regulations to authorize a LEA to issue a temporary solid waste facilities permit to a person operating a solid waste facility that is required to have a permit by the Act. Specifically, the regulations shall:

   1. Require that a temporary permit applicant submit a complete and correct application for the permit to the LEA no later than 60 days from the date the LEA determines that a permit is required.

   2. Establish the period of time during which a temporary permit is effective.

   3. Specify the types and operational status of solid waste facilities that are eligible to obtain a temporary permit.

   4. Require that the owner or operator of a facility that obtains a temporary permit to allow the LEA to inspect the facility at least monthly.

2. Requires the LEA to notify the operators of all solid waste facilities within its jurisdiction of the availability of temporary permits.

3. Requires CalRecycle to expeditiously review and act on a proposed temporary permit submitted by a LEA and provide assistance to LEAs upon request.

4. Authorizes CalRecycle to adopt these regulations as emergency regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. This bill. According to the author, "AB 864 fosters the anticipated construction and operation of new recycling facilities by reinstating temporary permitting authority under the guidance and oversight of CalRecycle."
   
   

2. Temporary permits. AB 1473 (Feuer), Chapter 547, Statutes of 2007 established a temporary permitting system for solid waste handling operations, due to changing trends in solid waste handling and collection practices that required a solid waste facility permit. Under the program, LEAs were authorized to temporarily permit operations and facilities that fall under CalRecycle's regulatory authority. Fifteen temporary permits were issued to recycling and waste material processing facilities under the SB 1473 program. The program sunsetted in 2010.
   
   

3. Encouraging and expanding recycling. Cities and counties are undertaking new and innovative efforts to increase the diversion of solid waste from landfills in accordance with the state's 75% recycling goal. AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires commercial generators of organic waste (yard trimmings and food waste) to arrange for recycling services. AB 1594 (Williams), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2014 specifies that green material (yard trimmings and untreated wood waste) used as alternative daily cover at a landfill does not constitute diversion and shall instead be considered disposal beginning in 2020. New recycling facilities, transfer and processing stations, and organic waste processing facilities will begin operation in California within the next decade to accommodate this material. Without the ability to offer temporary permits while the operators complete the full solid waste facility permit process, LEAs will be required to shut down recycling operations.
   
   

4. Suggested amendments.
   
   

   1. This bill is intended to provide interim permits for a limited period of time while the state implements new recycling requirements. The committee may wish to amend the bill to sunset its provisions on January 1, 2025.
      
      

   2. This bill requires that CalRecycle process temporary permits "expeditiously," but does not define the term. The committee may wish to amend the bill to require CalRecycle to review and act on temporary permits within 30 days of receipt.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Environmental Health Administrators (sponsor)

Californians Against Waste

Opposition

Inland Empire Disposal Association
Los Angeles County Waste Management Association
Solid Waste Association of Orange County

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092