LEGISLATIVE SNAFU-AB 492

     Will Gaston of Gaston & Associates (please see "Quality Consultants I Know", right-hand side of this Blog) has called to my attention that Assembly Member Baca's AB 492 (see February 20 Post below) makes no sense. Apparently, the proposed legislation is mistaken in proceeding on the assumption that dry cleaners use perchlorate. As Will writes:

"The recent February 20 Post about perchlorate in AB 492 raised some questions. This bill, which was introduced by Assemblyman Baca (D-San Bernardino), is intended to require reporting of the handling and disposal of perchlorate waste.

"The proposed legislation appears intended at least in part to target dry cleaners and ensure they submit reports 'detailing the manner in which the perchlorate waste is disposed' as stated in the bill. However, the inclusion of dry cleaners in the bill as targets did not make sense to me, since dry cleaners do not and have never used perchlorate.

"Perchlorate is usually found as a salt, with ammonium perchlorate being one of the most common. Perchlorate and perchlorate compounds are inorganic compounds; that is they do not contain carbon. The common dry cleaning chemical tetrachloroethene, abbreviated PCE, and frequently referred to as 'perc", is an organic solvent. The only similarity between these two chemicals is that they both have four chlorine atoms. To call them similar would be like calling sodium chloride (common table salt) similar to hydrochloric acid (a very reactive acid) because each has one chlorine atom.

"But back to AB 429: the Sacramento offices of Assemblyman Baca were recently contacted and a discussion was held with one of the staffers who has been working on perchlorate matters. After discussing the apparent mistake, the staffer stated that it was likely a drafting error and that he would contact the Office of the Legislative Counsel to have the matter reconciled and the bill revised appropriately.

"Our opinion is that the likely problem was confusion of the non-technical staffers drafting the legislation by the common term for dry cleaning solvent 'perc' and the chemical of concern 'perchlorate'. An understandable mistake, I suppose.

"The perchlorate waste-reporting bill (AB 492) will apparently be revised and resubmitted. In any event, despite the bill's intent, AB 492 (at least as presently drafted) would therefore not bear upon dry cleaners.

"Will"

     Thanks, Will, for the clarification. Your effort will hopefully lead to a more coherent bill or to the withdrawal of the present version of AB 492.