Skip to content

Bills · 2015-2016 Regular Session

AB 701

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: action required to be taken in response to a discharge of hazardous substances, exemption from liability for certain hazardous substance discharges, providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures, and granting rule-making authority. (FE)

Agriculture, trade and consumer protection, department of Environmental protection Justice, department of Natural resources, department of — Environmental protection Waterways and water power

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill makes changes to the requirements that apply if residual

contamination remains on a property after a hazardous substance cleanup is

completed. The bill also creates requirements for obtaining a liability exemption

relating to contaminated sediment.

Current law generally requires a person who possesses or controls a hazardous

substance that has been discharged or who causes the discharge of a hazardous

substance to restore the environment to the extent practicable and minimize the

harmful effects from the discharge. Generally, the Department of Natural Resources

(DNR) is the agency that administers the laws with respect to discharges of

hazardous substances, although the Department of Agriculture, Trade and

Consumer Protection (DATCP) has authority to require a person who discharges an

agricultural chemical to take necessary corrective action.

Sites with residual contamination after cleanup

This bill makes changes to the requirements that apply if residual

contamination remains on a property after a hazardous substance cleanup is

completed.

Under current law, DNR or DATCP may impose certain requirements as a

condition of approving a cleanup of a hazardous substance discharge or issuing a case

closure letter if residual contamination remains on a property after the conclusion

of a cleanup. Under current law the agency may require 1) maintenance of an

engineering control on the property; 2) investigation and, if necessary, additional

remedial action if a structure is removed that had prevented a complete investigation

or remedial action at the property; and 3) any other limitations or conditions related

to the property to protect public health, safety, and welfare and the environment, and

to promote economic development. An engineering control is an object or action that

is designed to contain contamination or minimize the spread of contamination, such

as a cap or a soil cover. Under the bill, an engineering control does not include a

sediment cover, which is a layer of uncontaminated sand or similar material that is

deposited on top of contaminated sediment. Under current law, the property owner

is responsible for maintaining the engineering control and conducting additional

investigation or remedial action, unless there is an agreement in place for someone

else to do so. Either the property owner or a person who occupies the property is

responsible for complying with any other limitations or conditions that the agency

imposes on the property.

Under this bill, DNR or DATCP may impose additional requirements as a

condition of approving remedial action or of issuing a case closure letter if a person

is required to clean up contaminated sediment or a discharge of a hazardous

substance that resulted in contaminated sediment, and the person uses an

engineering control to address residual contamination remaining on the property.

If the person uses an engineering control, the agency may require that the person

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Berceau (D) , Considine (D) , Czaja (R) , Genrich (D) , Jacque (R) , Kahl (D) , Macco (R) , Nygren (R) , Ohnstad (D) , Petryk (R) , Shankland (D) , Sinicki (D) , Steffen (R) , Subeck (D) , Swearingen (R) , Tittl (R)

8 cosponsors

Allen and Krug , Cowles (R) , Hansen (D) , Lasee (R) , Lassa (D) , LeMahieu (R) , Petrowski (R) , Tiffany (R)

Votes

Assembly: Report passage recommended by Committee on Environment and Forestry, Ayes 12, Noes 1

Passed 12–1 Feb 4, 2016 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Jan 13, 2016 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Tittl, Genrich, Berceau, Czaja, Jacque, Kahl, Macco, Nygren, Ohnstad, A. Ott, Petryk, Shankland, Sinicki, Steffen, Subeck, Swearingen and Considine; cosponsored by Senators Cowles, Lassa, Hansen, Lasee, Petrowski, Tiffany and LeMahieu

  2. Jan 13, 2016 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Environment and Forestry

  3. Jan 19, 2016 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Jan 19, 2016 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Jan 20, 2016 · Assembly

    Representatives Allen and Krug added as coauthors

  6. Jan 20, 2016 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  7. Feb 2, 2016 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  8. Feb 4, 2016 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by Committee on Environment and Forestry, Ayes 12, Noes 1

  9. Feb 4, 2016 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  10. Apr 13, 2016 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1