SB 665 and SB 989 Letter
-
DATE: DEC 23 1999
-
Revises corrective action workplan review procedures. Currently,
section 25299.37, subdivision (c)(3) requires a local agency, the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), or a regional water quality control board (RWQCB),
at the request of a responsible party, to review a required corrective action workplan.
The reviewing agency must accept or reject the work plan. SB 665 additionally
requires the reviewing agency to indicate the elements of the workplan that are, in all
likelihood, adequate and necessary to meet corrective action requirements and which, if any,
elements may be unnecessary to comply with corrective action requirements.
(§ 25299.37, subd. (c)(3).) If the reviewing agency disapproves the workplan,
it must identify its reasons for disapproval. (Ibid.)
-
Revises requirements for SWRCB suspension of corrective action or investigative work.
Section 25299.39 provides that the SWRCB may suspend additional corrective action or
investigative work at sites that meet certain requirements. SB 665 clarifies the
limitations on SWRCB authority to suspend work, defines "emergency site" for the purposes
of this section, requires the SWRCB to adopt regulations that specify the conditions under
which a site is an imminent threat to public health or safety or the environment, and
prohibits the SWRCB from suspending corrective action or investigative work at any site
pursuant to this section until the required regulations become effective. (§ 25299.39.)
-
Revises SWRCB procedures for review of closure petitions. SB 665 provides that
all responsible parties, not just tank owners or operators, may petition the SWRCB for review
of a tank closure case. (§ 25299.39.2, subd. (b)(1).) The SWRCB may close the tank
case or require closure, if the tank case is at a site under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB or a
local agency that is implementing a local oversight program and if the SWRCB determines that
corrective action at the site is in compliance with specified statutory and regulatory
requirements. (§ 25299.39.2, subd. (b)(2).) If a tank case is at a site under the
jurisdiction of a local agency that is not implementing a local oversight program, the SWRCB
may recommend to the local agency that the tank case be closed. (Ibid.)
-
Reorganizes and revises provisions for review of SWRCB decisions regarding claims to the
Cleanup Fund. Currently, directions regarding procedures to appeal Cleanup Fund
staff decisions and to petition the SWRCB to review decisions are dispersed throughout Chapter
6.75. SB 665 relocates these paragraphs to section 25299.56. A new provision
extends to 270 days the time allowed for the SWRCB to take final action on a petition that
involves an adjudicative proceeding. (§ 25299.56, subd. (c).) An "adjudicative
proceeding" is defined. (§ 25299.11.5.) New language clarifies that specified
sections of the Evidence Code apply to adjudicative proceedings.
(§ 25299.56, subd. (g)(1).)
-
Imposes a $3,000 limit on Cleanup Fund reimbursement of claims for regulatory technical
assistance. SB 665 defines regulatory technical assistance as assistance from a
person, other than the claimant, in the preparation and submission of a claim to the Cleanup
Fund. (§ 25299.57, subd. (j)(2).) The bill also limits reimbursement of regulatory technical
assistance costs to $3,000 per occurrence. (§ 25299.57, subd. (j)(1).)
-
Revises Cleanup Fund procedures for preapproval of corrective action costs.
Current law requires the local agency, SWRCB, or RWQCB to advise and work with responsible
parties regarding the opportunity to seek preapproval of corrective action costs.
(§ 25299.37, subd. (c)(6).) SB 665, in addition, requires Cleanup Fund staff to grant or deny
a request for preapproval within 30 days after receipt of the request and provides a procedure
for SWRCB review of a Cleanup Fund decision to deny a preapproval request.
(§ 25299.37, subd. (c)(6)(A).) The bill also specifies standards to guide the SWRCB when
reviewing preapproval petitions and deciding to deny or modify a claimant's request for
preapproval of a corrective action cost. (§ 25299.37, subd. (c)(6)(B)-(C).)
In conjunction with the revisions SB 665 made to the workplan review procedures, the preapproval changes highlight the importance of responsible parties, regulatory agencies, and Fund staff working together on corrective action plans. The Fund has had extraordinary success with the preapproval process, all to the benefit of claimants. By emphasizing the preapproval process and requiring the Fund to meet rapid turnaround requirements for preapprovals, the legislature has recognized the vital role preapproval plays in the reimbursement process.
-
Clarifies the existing prohibition on double payments to Cleanup Fund claimants.
SB 665 provides that the SWRCB shall not reimburse a claimant for eligible costs for which
the claimant has been or will be compensated by another person, except as specified.
(§ 25299.54, subd. (g).) The SWRCB may reimburse a claimant who has a written contract,
other than an insurance contract, with another person and the contract requires the claimant
to reimburse the person for payments the person has provided the claimant pending receipt of
reimbursement from the Cleanup Fund. (§ 25299.54, subd. (g)(1).) The SWRCB may
reimburse a claimant whose insurer has made payments on behalf of the claimant pursuant to an
insurance contract that explicitly coordinates benefits with the Fund and requires the insured
to reimburse the insurer for any costs paid by the insurer pending reimbursement of those
costs by the Cleanup Fund. (§ 25299.54, subd. (g)(2)(A).) The SWRCB may also
reimburse a claimant whose insurer has made payments on behalf of the claimant, if the
claimant received a letter of commitment prior to June 30, 1999, and the claimant is required
to reimburse the insurer for any costs paid by the insurer pending reimbursement of those
costs by the Cleanup Fund. (§25299.54, subd. (g)(2)(B).) SB 665 states that the
foregoing provisions are declaratory of existing law. (§ 25299.54, subd. (i).)
-
Amends the definition of "site." New language provides that adjacent parcels of
real property under common ownership or control are separate sites if the USTs located on the
parcels are not and never were operated by the same person. (§ 25299.23.1, subd. (b).)
Similarly, one parcel of property may consist of multiple sites if each separately operated
UST or group of USTs is not, and has not been, operated by a person who is operating or has
operated another UST at the same parcel. (§ 25299.23.1, subd. (c).) The new
definition potentially increases the money available from the Cleanup Fund to UST claimants
with distinct UST operations at adjacent parcels that are under common ownership or control.
-
Expands the UST upgrade loan program. The small business loan program is expanded
to cover new UST requirements. (Gov. Code, § 15399.14.) Further, it establishes a
new grant program for certain small businesses that already have outstanding loans for UST
upgrades. (Id., §§ 15399.11 & 15399.15-.15.2.) The grants are only
available to persons otherwise eligible for RUST loans, who already have loans, and who must
expend additional funds to upgrade their USTs to meet UST upgrade deadlines established in
SB 989. (Id., § 15399.15.) Each grant recipient is limited to a $50,000
grant. (Id., § 15399.15.2.)
Please address questions regarding the loan program to the California Trade and Commerce Agency, RUST Loan Program, 801 K Street, Suite 1600, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 323-9879.
- Increases the corrective action reimbursement available from the Cleanup Fund.
This act includes provisions to increase by $500,000 the amount of corrective action
reimbursement available to eligible owners and operators of petroleum USTs. Previously,
the SWRCB could reimburse no more than $1 million per occurrence from the Cleanup Fund for
corrective action costs and third-party liability costs. The total available
reimbursement increases from $1 million to $1.5 million per occurrence, but the Cleanup Fund
can only reimburse the additional $500,000 for corrective action costs.
(§§ 25299.51, subd. (c), 25299.57, subd. (a), 25299.59, subd. (b), & 25299.94, subd. (a).)
SB 989 provides the additional $500,000 per occurrence to local agencies and RWQCBs cleaning
up abandoned and emergency sites, eligible owners and operators, and eligible sites
contributing to a commingled plume. (Ibid.)
-
Extends the sunset of the Cleanup Fund by six years. The UST Cleanup Fund Program
is extended from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2011. (§ 25299.81.)
If you have any questions, please call 1-800-813-FUND. Please be as specific as possible
when leaving a message so that the proper staff can return the call.
TO: INTERESTED PARTIES
SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND PROGRAM (FUND), SENATE BILLS 665 (SHER) AND 989 (SHER)
Senate Bill No. 665 (SB 665) and Senate Bill No. 989 (SB 989), authored by Senator Sher become effective on January 1, 2000. SB 665 makes improvements to the underground storage tank (UST) regulatory program and UST Cleanup Fund in a variety of ways. SB 989 addresses the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as an oxygenate in gasoline, the efficacy of UST systems, and the state's response to releases of MTBE into the environment. SB 989 also increases the amount of money available to claimants for corrective action, while extending the Fund program six years.
For a complete text of these two bills, visit the legislative counsel's website at www.leginfo.ca.gov.1
This memorandum summarizes the main provisions of SB 665 and SB 989 that impact the Fund. Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this memorandum are to the California Health and Safety Code as it will read on January 1, 2000.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Dave Deaner, Manager
UST Cleanup Fund
Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Program
Last Modified: 01/04/2000