Government
Jul. 30, 2016
Bill to create contamination cleanup fund divides environmentalists
A bill to fund cleanup of lead-acid battery contamination has prompted a fight in the state Legislature that has divided environmentalists, with critics saying it could limit industry liability and place significant barriers to state action.
Daily Journal Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO — A bill to fund cleanup of lead-acid battery contamination has prompted a fight in the state Legislature that has divided environmentalists, with some supporting the industry-backed legislation. At issue is language critics say could limit industry liability and place significant barriers to state action.
The goal of AB 2153 is to address a backlog of contaminated sites in California, including many "orphan" sites that no longer have an owner or other entity to hold liable. The bill is backed by the Battery Council International and other trade groups, along with the California League of Conservation Voters and local environmental groups from contaminated communities.
It would create a new fund by charging a $1 fee on each consumer purchase of a car or other lead-acid battery, matched by $1 paid by manufacturers. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) would use the money to clean and monitor pollution from lead-acid battery manufacturing and recycling facilities.
But some environmentalists and a former DTSC director say the bill substantially changes who is responsible for cleanup.
"This is a get out of jail free card for battery manufacturers," said Debbie Raphael, who headed the agency from 2011 to 2014. She added that the bill undermines "polluter pays, which is a fundamental precept of hazardous waste law."
She said as written, the bill would reduce or eliminate several civil and criminal penalties that battery manufacturers may face under the California Hazardous Waste Control Act of 1972. Raphael is currently director of the city and county of San Francisco's Department of the Environment, but she said she was speaking as a private citizen.
The Consumer Attorneys of California sent a support letter for AB 2153 in April, but the plaintiff attorneys' group has been heavily involved in recent negotiations.
"Like most important issues involving layers of liability, it is very complicated," said CAOC spokesman Eric Bailey.
Private attorneys in California have filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of nearby residents against lead-acid battery facilities in recent years.
The bill's author, Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, said AB 2153 would bring in "between $35 million to $60 million" annually for cleanup efforts. California's most notorious lead-acid contamination site, the Exide Technologies recycling plant in Vernon, is located within a few miles of her district.
"We can't keep waiting for the perfect solution," Garcia said in a statement. "I can't keep going home every week and telling people to wait, to trust that we'll somehow find the money to help them."
Garcia introduced the bill in February and it moved quickly through the Assembly, but began to draw fire in the Senate in June. The assembywoman's office has been negotiating with supporters, the Brown administration and Sierra Club California.
An opposition letter from the Sierra Club said the bill "would establish huge barriers" to DTSC efforts to recover cleanup costs.
It said the bill would require the DTSC "to wait until the Lead-Acid Battery Cleanup Fund is depleted before the agency could pursue cleanup money from responsible parties," also noting it was a "revolving fund" that "may never be entirely emptied."
"I don't support the belief that we are in any way weakening environmental laws," said Mark Thorsby, executive vice president of Battery Council International. The Chicago-based trade organization represents over 200 companies worldwide, including manufacturers, recyclers and retailers.
He said his organization was seeking to speed cleanup efforts and address problems with current law, such as the ability of DTSC to sue any manufacturer or other entity that has delivered batteries to a recycling facility, even if they were not involved in any wrongdoing.
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
Malcolm Maclachlan
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com