SB 438 — Refineries: turnarounds.
Last action — From Assembly without further action.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law, the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act of 1990 (act) , states that its purpose is to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, flammable, or explosive chemicals. Existing law provides for the adoption of specified process safety management standards for, among others, refineries that handle acutely hazardous material. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature for, among others, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management, as defined, in refineries and other facilities as deemed appropriate. A violation of the act is a crime. This bill would require a refinery employer to, every September 15, submit to the division a full schedule of planned turnarounds, meaning any instance of an industrial plant or unit being partially or totally taken offstream or offline for the purposes of maintenance, overhaul, repair, inspection, testing, or replacement of materials or equipment, for the following calendar year, as specified. Upon the request of the division, the bill would also require a refinery employer to provide the division with specified documentation relating to a planned turnaround within a certain period of time. Because a violation of the bill's requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/04/13 - Amended Senate Current pdf April 04, 2013
- Introduced 02/21/13 - Introduced pdf February 21, 2013
- SB438 View text html
Action History
-
From Assembly without further action.
-
From committee without further action.
-
Set, second hearing. Held in committee and under submission.
-
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Referred to Com. on L. & E.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 30. Noes 9. Page 1104.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1014.) (May 23).
-
Set for hearing May 23.
-
Placed on APPR. suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 6.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 1. Page 664.) (April 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing April 24.
-
Re-referred to Com. on L. & I.R.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
-
Referred to Com. on RLS.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Hancock · Primary
- Skinner · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 2 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Hancock
Co-sponsors (1)
- Skinner
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 14% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Morrell | — | Nay |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Yea |
| Gorell | — | Yea |
| Roger Hernández | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 27 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 30 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 77% | 23% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (39)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Block | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Nay |
| Knight | — | Nay |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Nay |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Torres | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Nay |
| Fuller | — | Nay |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Nay |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Nay |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Yea |
| Evans | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Nay |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Nay |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 71% | 29% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Nay |
| Beth Gaines | — | Nay |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 60% | 20% | 0% | 20% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Nay |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Not Voting |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 438 do?
- Existing law, the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act of 1990 (act) , states that its purpose is to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, flammable, or explosive chemicals. Existing law provides for the adoption of specified process safety management standards for, among others, refineries that handle acutely hazardous material. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature for, among others, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management, as defined, in refineries and other facilities as deemed appropriate. A violation of the act is a crime. This bill would require a refinery employer to, every September 15, submit to the division a full schedule of planned turnarounds, meaning any instance of an industrial plant or unit being partially or totally taken offstream or offline for the purposes of maintenance, overhaul, repair, inspection, testing, or replacement of materials or equipment, for the following calendar year, as specified. Upon the request of the division, the bill would also require a refinery employer to provide the division with specified documentation relating to a planned turnaround within a certain period of time. Because a violation of the bill's requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
- Who sponsors SB 438?
- SB 438 is sponsored by Hancock and Skinner.
- What is the current status of SB 438?
- This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 438?
- Track SB 438 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 438
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 438
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →