Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09241996 - D12 D.12 and D.13 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 24, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: (Please See Below for Vote) NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Report from Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety Regarding Requirements for Land Use Permits Dennis Barry, Deputy Director of Current Planning/Land Development, Community Development Department, provided the attached report to the Board of Supervisors outlining the recommendations of Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier relative. to the proposed ordinance entitled "Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials" and the proposed ordinance entitled "Community Safety Assurance Ordinance." Following discussion by Board members, Chairman Smith invited the public to comment on the issues. The following persons spoke: Doyle Williams, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 342, 1026 Crystal Court, Walnut Creek; Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council, 935 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez; Tom Lindemuth, Hazardous Materials Commission, 501 Daisy Place, Pleasant Hill; Linda Best, Coalition for Jobs & Community Safety, 3182 Old Tunnel Road, Suite E, Lafayette; Zane Gresham, Coalition for Jobs & Community Safety, Morrison & Forester, 345 California Street, San Francisco; Russ Miller, Eichleay Engineers, 1390 Willow Pass Road #600, Concord; John Marquez, 5061 Buckboard Way, Richmond; Scott Anderson, Industrial Association of Contra Costa County, 2709 Mayflower Drive, Antioch; Marj Leeds, Shell, P.O. Box 711, Martinez; Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment, 500 Howard #506, San Francisco; Clark Wrigley, Tosco, Martinez; Ron Banducci, President and CEO, Shell Martinez, P.O. Box 711, Martinez; Henry Clark, West County Toxics 'Coalition, 1019 Macdonald Avenue, Richmond; Stan Boren, N. California Millwright Local 102, 200 Promenade Lane, Danville; Tom Adams, Contra Costa Building Trades Council, 1875 S. Grant Street #900, South San Francisco; Sharon Barone, Contra Costa County Women's Advisory Committee, 3174 Naranja Drive, Walnut Creek; Shirley R. Butt, 235 East Scenic Avenue, Richmond; Donald Joost, 3711 Terra Granada Drive #2A, Walnut Creek; Craig Anderson, CCA, Concord; Lucille Allen, West County Toxics Coalition, 339 So. 27th Street, Richmond; Bruce Borjesson, 84 Alan Drive, Pleasant Hill; Gary W. Craft, Contra Costa Council, 3650 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 230, Lafayette; Page 1 of 3 Jim Payne, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 1021 Grandview Avenue, Martinez; Gene Atkinson, 159 Blue Canyon Way, Martinez; Tony Lingo, Shell Oil, 237 Riverwood, Martinez; Stan Fletcher, 22 Cutting Court, Richmond; John Wolfe, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, 820 Main Street, Martinez; Howard Spencer, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 432 First Street, Rodeo; Art Bertz, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Local I-326, 1035 6th, Crockett; Jeffrey R. Dodge, Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Local 1-5, P.O. Box 308, Martinez; Ron Espenoza, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 305 Sunnyslopes Drive, Martinez; Steve Mikich, 1030 Shory Court, Concord; Tim Holz, Plant Maintenance, P.O. Box 48, Martinez; James C. Austin, Jr., 162 17th Street, Richmond; Eric Lewis, 2312 L. Street #7, Antioch; Mike Rydman, IUPIW, 620 Edwards Street, Crockett; Andy Mechling, SEA, 902 St. Andrews Drive, E1 Sobrante; Ralph Sattler, CSE, 1204 Ulfinian Way, Martinez; Donald R. Brown, 1801 Sonoma Boulevard #117, Vallejo; Salli Spoon, P.O. Box 348, Crockett; Mary Mulliner; and Daniel Cardozo, Contra Costa Building Trades/Good Neighbor Coalition, 651 Gateway Boulevard, San Francisco. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues and took the following action: IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the introduction and first reading of the proposed ordinance entitled "Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials" is CONTINUED and SET for consideration on October 1, 1996; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Community Development Department and the Health Services Department staff are DIRECTED to report to the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 1996, on the amendments to Ordinance 96-20 as specified by the Board of Supervisors at the September 24, 1996, Board meeting including: creating an exemption for those facilities with a good safety record; reporting on the feasibility of hiring an environmental consultant; creating an emergency exemption to the permit process; amending the definition of a major maintenance project; creating an exemption for regulatory orders; and amending the definition of an incident to denote some type of significant release or problem; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that October 22, 1996, is SET to consider a second reading and adoption of the ordinance; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this issue is REFERRED to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and the Hazardous Materials Commission for review and report to the Board on October 22,1996; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and the Hazardous Materials Commission are DIRECTED to schedule special meetings, if necessary, to provided for review and report to the Board of Supervisors on October 22, 1996. Passed by the Board of Supervisors on September 24, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop and Smith NOES: Supervisors DeSaulnier and Torlakson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Page 2 of 3 The Board discussed the recent incident at the UNOCAL refinery and then took the following action: IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Health Services Director and the Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District, are DIRECTED to report to the Board of Supervisors on the recent incidents at UNOCAL and to explore possible civil and criminal penalties. Passed by the Board of Supervisors on September 24, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Board then discussed the proposed ordinance entitled "Community Safety Assurance Ordinance" and then took the following action: IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the proposed ordinance entitled "Community Safety Assurance Ordinance" is REFERRED to the Community Development Director and County Counsel for further review and report to the Board on October 8, 1996, on issues including how the ordinance could be implemented and perhaps co-implemented with the ministerial building permit process as an alternative to the California Envirornmantal Quality Act (CEQA) permit process. Passed by the Board of Supervisors on September 24, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Bishop, DeSaulnier and-Torlakson NOES: Supervisors Rogers and Smith ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September24 1996 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator eristineampler, Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator Community Development Director - County Planning Commission (via CDD) County Counsel Chief Little, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Director, GMEDA Health Services Director - Hazardous Materials Commission (via HSD) Page 3 of 3 D. OL-- TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - _ Contra FROM: Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial SafetyCosta Supervisor DeSaulnier '�a e - ' Supervisor Smith Srq ao County DATE: September 23,1996 SUBJECT: Requirements for Land Use Permits SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: a(1). CONSIDER introducing,waiving reading, and fixing a date for adoption of the following ordinance as proposed by Supervisor Smith: An ordinance entitled"Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials"(marked"D.13-a(1)")to amend County Ordinance Code Chapter 84-63 and section 72-4.010 and as presented to the Ad Hoc Industrial Safety Committee on September 19, 1996. OR CONSIDER the recommendation of Supervisor DeSaulnier to retain the existing land use ordinance 96-20 in its current form and review the ordinance in one year following implementation. a(2). CONSIDER introducing,waiving reading, and fixing a date for adoption of the following proposed ordinance: An ordinance entitled"Community Safety Assurance Ordinance"(marked"D.13- a(2)")to provide for earlier County involvement with the development of Risk Management Plans and as previously presented to the Board. b. CONSIDER requesting the County Planning and Hazardous Materials Commission to advise, comment and report within a reasonable time on these two proposed ordinances. C. CONSIDER tabling the Good Neighbor Ordinance at this time; d. CONSIDER directing staff to investigate the matter of building permit requirements in other jurisdictions further(especially in Kern County)and request staff to review the questions and responses in more detail. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 4 kMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE"— OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ER--- OTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE U (MOUS (ABSENT______j AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: �� NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE B ABSENT: � ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE S Contact Person: CC: Health Services Administration ATTESTED ATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY i�� Page 1 BACKGROUND On June 17 and June 25,the Board of Supervisors considered the Hazardous Materials Commission revised land use ordinance(Ordinance 96-20). At the June 25 Board meeting,the Supervisors adopted the revised land use ordinance and acknowledged that more has to be done to prevent industrial incidents involving hazardous materials. The Board recommended the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee and referred a number of issues raised in public hearings regarding the land use ordinance to the Committee Attachment A is a brief summary of the recent meetings that have occurred regarding the land use issue. Attachment B is a summary of recommended changes to the land use ordinance from the Health Services Department. The Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on September 19, 1996 resulted in the following agreed to recommendations: The Good Neighbor Ordinance would be tabled; The Community Safety Assurance Ordinance would be referred to the Board of Supervisors for consideration; and The issue of building permits would be referred to the Board of Supervisors for consideration in regards to requesting staff to investigate the matter further with other jurisdictions(especially that of Kern County)and requesting staff to review the questions and responses in more detail. On the issue of revisions to the adopted land use ordinance(Ordinance 96-20),the Committee was not in agreement and the following recommendations were voiced: Supervisor DeSaulnier recommends retaining land use ordinance 96-20 in its current form and reviewing the ordinance in one year following implementation so that adjustments can be made where necessary. Supervisor Smith recommends the introduction of amendments to ordinance 96-20 as supplied under separate cover. Page 2 ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF LAND USE RELATED BOARD AND AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETINGS JUNE 1996 - SEPTEMBER 1996 Board of Supervisors Meeting on June 17, 1996 - The Board and the public addressed concerns regarding the issues of fires, explosions, and releases of hazardous materials at industrial facilities in Contra Costa County in recent years. Specifically, issues raised by the public included the following: a) Permits should be required for projects at facilities that handle hazardous wastes and materials above certain thresholds; b) Public disclosure of potential risks from accidents and releases should be required; c) There should be special safety requirements for high pressure/high temperature welds; d) Public review and approval of proposed projects based on specified criteria should be required; e) Turnarounds and major repair projects are times when higher risks of accidents may be present- a government review process for repairs and maintenance at facilities should be required and provided for; f) Doubts as to whether state and federal regulations can adequately assist in the further reduction of the causes of accidents and reduction of further risks; and g) Concerns as to whether current enforcement agency staffing is adequate. Board of Supervisors Meeting on June 25, 1996- Supervisor Torlakson presented the Board with a memorandum addressing some specific issues to be addressed regarding safety in and around facilities which handle hazardous materials including causes and prevention of accidents and sufficiency of oversight. The Board accepted the Hazardous Materials Commission revised land use ordinance(now Ordinance 96-20)and created the Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety. The Board referred the issues listed above and the issues raised in Supervisor Torlakson's memo to the Ad Hoc Committee and the Hazardous Materials Commission for review. Ad Hoc Meeting on Jud 15. 1996-A workplan was presented to the Committee by staff to the Hazardous Materials Commission on options for developing recommendations to the Board concerning industrial safety. The Contra Costa Building Trades Council presented a paper titled"Neighborhoods at Risk" which discusses incidents at major facilities within Contra Costa County since 1989. Page A-1 Ad Hoc Meetingon n July 29, 1996-Health Services provided a presentation to the Committee on existing state and federal regulations including Process Safety Management,the state Risk Management and Prevention program, and the federal Risk Management Plan. Health Services also presented an overview summary of incidents at major facilities within Contra Costa County since 1989. Community Development presented an overview of the County land use authority and options for further addressing hazardous materials issues. Ad Hoc Meeting on August 29, 1996 - Community Development provided proposed revisions to the Good Neighbor Ordinance Health Services Department provided a preliminary report on incidents and other notifications from 1989 through July 1996 in Contra Costa County. The report included a discussion of the 7000 plus database entries which include incidents,notifications and complaints within the County. Ad Hoc Meeting on September 19. 1996- The following was presented at the meeting: a) The rationale followed by the Hazardous Materials Commission for regulating new and substantially modified facilities, as opposed to regulating existing facilities as proposed by the Good neighbor Ordinance- presented by the Hazardous Materials Commission; b) The effect of reducing the point score threshold for requiring land use permits on the number and type of projects which could be affected-presented by the Health Services Department; c) Comment on the Contra Costa Council proposal for the Community Safety Assurance Ordinance, including the remarks of Messrs.Adams and Gresham concerning the efficacy of the proposal-presented by County Counsel; d) Further evaluation of the Good Neighbor Ordinance,particularly regarding the written comments from Adams and Broadwell and the County health Services Department- presented by Community Development; e) Survey other appropriate jurisdictions in Contra Costa County and the County of Los Angeles regarding the Industrial Security Exemption from the Building Code, and comment further on the policy of keeping this exemption-presented by Community Development for the Building Inspection Department; and f) Supervisor Smith introduced revisions to ordinance 96-20 for consideration. Page A-2 ATTACHMENT B RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO LAND USE ORDINANCE DATE: September 23, 1996 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Lewis G. Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director SUBJECT: Requirements for Land Use Permits At the September 19, 1996 Ad Hoc Committee meeting on industrial safety,the Committee requested that staff provide their recommendations for the requirements of land use permits. There have been several recommendations from various parties over the last few weeks. Provided below are staff recommendations. Recommended Revisions to 96-20: In a meeting on September 11, 1996,Health Services(HSD) staff and Community Development (CDD) staff agreed to and recommend the following revisions to 96-20: 1. Baseline Period(Section 84.603.404 and Section 84-63.424) - Retain these sections of the existing ordinance and add language to section 84-63.424 requiring the baseline data for all five years be submitted with the project description. 2. Exemption for Pipelines and Related Equipment(Section 84-63.410(b)(1)) - Modify this section of the existing ordinance to read: "Pipelines and related equipment more than 300 feet from commercial or residential property. Related equipment includes,but is not limited to, items such as valves, fittings, pipe supports, insulation, instrumentation, corrosion protection systems,heat tracing systems, leak containment systems and fire protection systems. Related equipment does not include storage tanks, storage vessels, process units or plants,mechanical rotating equipment(pumps,compressors,motors,turbines, internal combustion engines, etc.)and fired equipment(furnaces, boilers, incinerators). However, the Zoning Administrator may determine, at their sole discretion,that minor equipment defined above as not related is exempt from the ordinance". 3. Transportable Treatment Units (Section 84-63.410(b)(3)) -Retain this section of the existing ordinance and add language stating the following: a) A maximum time limit of one year for a transportable treatment unit to be located on site; Page B-1 b) The Director of Community Development will have the authority to grant a one time one year extension if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the unit is temporary; and c) Require a land use permit if the unit will remain on site beyond the time limit specified above. 4. Projects with Complete Applications from Other Jurisdictions (Section 84-63.604) -Retain this section of the existing ordinance and add the language: "if the project has been deemed complete within one calendar year and has completed CEQA documentation". 5. Rebuild Facilities 1000 Feet from Nearest Residential Property (Section 84-63.604(b)) - HSD recommends retaining this section of the existing ordinance. This issue can be re- evaluated at the time of the one year review. (Note: Residential Property is defined in the ordinance as properties with a residential designation in the general plan.) 6. Lower Hazard Score for Requiring Permits (84-63.806) -Retain the threshold value of 80 until the one year review period is complete. At that time,this value can be re-evaluated. 7. Ensure that Large Development Projects Require Land Use Permits Regardless of the Hazard Score (84-63.806) -Add the following language to the ordinance: "Regardless of the hazard score, if a development project is required to obtain a discretionary permit from another agency,which permit is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA, a Land Use permit under this ordinance will be required". This is a straightforward and easily enforceable way to resolve the concerns that have been raised regarding a"large"development project not requiring a land use permit due to the fact that the project scores below the 80 point threshold. 8. Adjust the Method of Scoring(Section 84-63.1003) - Retain the existing ordinance as written. The Hazardous Materials Commission spent nearly four years developing the existing ordinance with much of the effort focused on the method of scoring and the threshold value. The following is a summary of the reasoning behind the scoring method chosen: Rather than base the screening solely on the volume of hazardous wastes or hazardous materials,the Hazardous Materials Commission proposed a point scoring method that would look at more relevant and important risk factors: toxicity and potential exposure. The screening formula considers four main issues: i. The potential increase of transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that is a result of the proposed project; ii. The distance to and the type of nearby communities; iii. The overall size of the proposed project(amount of material to be handled); and The degree of hazard of the materials or waste. The formula gives relatively equal value to transportation, community, and facility risks with the greatest weight being given to community risks. By using the multiplier effect for the hazard of the material,added weight is given to several factors if the materials to be used in the project are listed in a higher hazard category(A, B, or Q. To adjust the method of scoring would possibly upset the balance of the formula. Page B-2 �. lY The formula works specifically to encourage industry to build in industrial areas, site units farther from the community, reduce transportation, reduce overall storage of hazardous materials, and when possible use less hazardous materials in their processes. 9. Credits for Reductions (Section 84-63.1004(c)) -Retain this section of the existing ordinance and add language stating that credits afforded to a development project are only permitted if, the credits come from the project facility in which the development project is proposed. 10. Land Use Permit Requirement for Planned Maintenance- Do not add previously suggested language to the ordinance. Staff agrees with the CDD statement that there is likely some justification for reviewing maintenance and turnaround activities. However, it appears inappropriate to regulate maintenance activities through the planning process. It is inconsistent with how other uses are regulated and it is clearly not a planning function. Further, as CDD has pointed out,there is the issue of whether requiring a permit for maintenance could and would cause delays of needed maintenance possibly resulting in safety issues. Page B-3 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: September 18, 1996 To: Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel Re: Analysis of Comments regarding the Community Safety Assurance Ordinance At its last meeting, the Board of Supervisors's Ad Hoc Committee for Industrial Safety requested the County Counsel's Office's review of various comments made by attorneys for interested parties regarding the Community Safety Assurance.Ordinance prepared and presented by the Contra Costa Council ("Council"). According to the Council, the Community Safety Assurance Ordinance ("Ordinance") was developed in response to a challenge by Supervisor Smith to assist the Committee to develop local regulations that would enhance community safety, meeting four criteria. Specifically, the new regulations would have to: 1. Actually improve safety, and provide the tools to do so; 2. Add to the County's authority to monitor and oversee industry measures intended to improve community safety; 3. Not be political, but rather be functional -- not designed to serve a hidden agenda; 4. Be legally sound, and not being implemented to foster litigation and conflict. At the Committee's last meeting, following the Council's presentation of the Ordinance, attorneys representing the Council (Zane O. Gresham of Morrison and Foerster) and the Building and Construction Trades, AFL-CIO (Thomas R. Adams of Adams and Broadwell) made statements with respect to the Council's proposed Ordinance, which initially appeared to the Committee to be contradictory. The County Counsel's Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 2 Office was asked to review the various claims of the attorneys and provide the Committee with its analysis of the comments. A. COMMUNITY SAFETY ASSURANCE ORDINANCE (COUNCIL ORDINANCE) As noted in Section II, paragraph B of the proposed Ordinance, which sets forth proposed findings to be made by the Board, 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments mandate that.certain facilities ("stationary sources") prepare and submit to the "implementing agency;" Risk Management Plans ("RMPs"). (42 U.S.C. § 7412(r); 40 CFR § 68.3.) Recent regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act Amendments require submittal of most RMPs by June 20, 1999, and detail the required contents of an RMP. (Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 120, commencing with page 31668; 40 CFR Part 68.) For example, RMPs must include an offsite consequence analysis ( 40 CFR § 68.165), an accident prevention program (40 CFR § 68.175), and an emergency response program (40 CFR § 68.180.), which are similar to the current State of California requirements for Risk Management and Prevention Programs ("RMPPs"). Differences exist between the two programs; for example, under the federal requirements, the offsite consequence analysis must include worst case scenario analyses. In Contra Costa County, the Health Services Department requires a worst "credible" case analysis based upon state RMPP requirements. Section II, paragraph D of the Ordinance states that: "This Ordinance speeds up the process for public awareness and scrutiny of RMP [Risk Management Plans], by providing the County Health Services Department with immediate authority (1) to require facilities to report on the development and implementation of the RMP; (2) to conduct audits/inspections regarding RMP development and implementation for covered facilities located within the County; (3) to require facilities to respond in writing to the findings of the audit/inspection; (4) the public shall have access to the preliminary determinations of suggested revisions, responses, and final determinations of suggested revisions under this Ordinance." Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 3 In accordance with the above stated objective to speed up the RMP process, the Ordinance requires the submittal of an initial report by December 31, 1996, or 90 days after the effective date of the Ordinance, which report must include a schedule for development and implementation of an RMP, and intended actions. (Ord., § 450-3.006.) The ordinance also includes provisions for audit and inspection of facilities, including provisions for Health Department suggestions to the facility for RMP revisions, and public access to preliminary determinations of suggested revisions, responses, and final determinations. (§450-3.008). B. COMMENTS BY COALITION FOR JOBS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY SAFETY ASSURANCE ORDINANCE. On September 13, 1996, Mr. Gresham submitted to the Growth Management Director and the County Counsel, a paper entitled "The Community Safety Assurance Ordinance: Real Continuing Improvement of Community Safety" ("Paper"). The Paper was submitted on behalf of the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety and was copied to the Board of Supervisors. The Paper provides an overview of the Clean Air Act/RMP Regulations (Pages 13 to 16), as well as SB 1889 (Calderon), which is intended to bridge current State laws regarding Risk Management and Prevention Programs ("RMPPs") and the new federal requirements. (Pages 16-18; See Legislative Counsel's Digest to SB 1889, as amended in the Assembly on August 15, 1996.) Senate Bill 1889 has passed both houses of the Legislature, is now without opposition, and is expected to be signed by Governor Wilson. As of the date of this writing however, SB 1889 has not been signed. Whether SB 1889 becomes law somewhat determines the efficacy of the Ordinance. On pages 20 through 33 of the Paper, Mr. Gresham discusses the background for the Community Safety Assurance Ordinance, beginning by stating on page 21 that in responding to the Committee's challenge, following review of existing federal, state and local regulations, it was clear that the most meaningful improvement in support of community safety would be "to accelerate County oversight, and public awareness, of the implementation of the federal RMP program," resulting in the drafting of the Ordinance. This statement is an opinion, not appropriate for County Counsel comment. Similarly, the "benefits" of the Ordinance listed on pages 23 to 24 are mostly statements of opinion. However, on pages 25 through 30, the Paper summarizes the arguments as to. how the Ordinance may provide the County with additional authority over community safety, including in some cases, responses to alleged criticism of the ordinance. Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 4 While this office is not aware whether the specific criticisms were made, we provide the following analysis of the points and any counterpoints (sometimes paraphrased) raised in pages 25-30 of the Paper, to assist the Committee in satisfying itself as to any merits of the proposed Ordinance. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE, COUNTY COUNSEL COMMENTS. 1. Issue and Argument No. 1 in favor of the Ordinance: "The Ordinance expressly protects the County's existing and future authority under all other laws, regulations and ordinances." The Ordinance does not reduce County authority. The Ordinance states: "Nothing in this Section shall preclude, limit or interfere in anyway with the authority of the County to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering authorities under_any other provision of law." Ordinance, Section 450-3.008(k). County Counsel Comment: This office concurs that the Ordinance does not reduce or limit any current County authority. 2. Issue and Argument No. 2 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, the County has no authority under any of the existing laws to require any facility to provide information regarding its preparation of, or plans to implement, the RMP program." "Under the RMP legislation and EPA regulations, only EPA is granted authority to deal with RMP until EPA makes a formal delegation to state or local agencies. 42 USC § 7412(r); 40 CFR § 68.3. That delegation is not anticipated to be made until mid-1999. Under the Ordinance, however, the County is provided with immediate authority to monitor and oversee the implementation of RMP--years before the EPA delegation may occur." County Counsel Comment: We do not generally disagree with the above statements, although we are not in a position at this time to reasonably predict when formal delegation is expected to or will occur. However, under the SB 1889 (if passed), effective January 1, 1997, the County Health Services Department will have the authority Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 5 I under that law until and unless another agency is designated as the Certified Unified Permitting Agency ("CUPA"). (SB 1889, Section 5, Proposed Health & Safety Code § 25532(b).) 9 3. Issue and Argument No. 3 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, the County has no authority to require any information regarding the status of facility plans and schedules for RMP implementation." "Because the RMP is a federal program, which is not covered by other laws that the County already can administer, the County would not be able to compel disclosure of the status of a facility's planning for, and implementation of, RMP. The Ordinance requires that each facility submit to the Department an initial report setting forth the schedule adopted by such Facility for development and implementation of its RMP, and the actions such facility intends to take for that purpose. See Ordinance, Initial Report, 450-3.006. By contrast, federal regulations do not require any reporting prior to the filing of a final RMP in 1999. See, 40 CFR Section 63, Subpart G." County Counsel Comment: Based upon our review of the federal regulations, we concur with the above representations regarding federal law. We also agree that requiring the submittal of an initial report accelerates the requirements regarding RMPs under both federal and anticipated state law. (SB 1889.) We note however, that under the SB 1889, proposed Health and Safety Code section 25534.05 would require the Office of Emergency Services to develop regulations requiring a facility (stationary source) to work closely with the administering agency in deciding which process hazard review technique is best suited for the facility's covered process, as well as work closely with the administering agency in determining an appropriate level of detail for an RMP. In other words, under anticipated state law, upon the establishment of required regulations, state law would provide for County access to the RMP development process, assuming the County Health Services Department is designated the CUPA. We note again that as of this writing, the governor has not signed the legislation, and we are uncertain as to when regulations will be adopted.' 1 We have been informed by staff that it is generally expected that the regulations will be promulgated in a relatively short time frame. Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 6 4. Issue and Argument No. 4 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, the County does not have any authority to audit or inspect with regard to efforts to comply with RMP requirements." "Again, because the County now lacks authority over RMP, it cannot audit or inspect Facility efforts to comply with RMP. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the Department may annually audit and/or inspect a Facility's progress in achieving compliance with RMPs measured under Section 11.2(r) of the 1990 Clean Air Act. See Ordinance, Audit Inspection 450-3.008. In performing an audit, the department will have access to the stationary source, supporting documentation, and any area where an accidental release could occur. See Ordinance 450-3.008(e)." County Counsel Comment. We agree that under the federal regulations, the County would not have the ability to audit or inspect with respect to efforts to comply with RMP requirements until after an RMP is submitted. Senate Bill 1889 would provide the administering agency with authority to inspect for compliance with the SB 1889 requirements (Proposed Health and Safety Code section 25534.5), which are broader in coverage than federal law. As noted above, SB 1889 makes provision for regulations requiring the facility to work with the administering agency in the development of the process hazard review, and RMP content. 5. Issue and Argument No. 5 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, the County would have no method to review the preparation or implementation of an RMP, nor the authority to compel a Facility to respond to concerns or questions which it might have about that Facility's plans and progress." "Lacking authority to require even disclosure of the status of a Facility's preparation of RMP, much less audit RMP, the County could not review and comment on such RMP. "Pursuant to the Ordinance, every Facility will be required to meet with the Department, at the request of the Department, up to two times per year to review the Facility's progress in developing an RMP. See Ordinance Audit/inspections, 450-3.008. To provide the Department with information regarding a Facility's development and implementation of an RMP, the Department may annually audit and/or inspect a Facility's Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 .Page 7 progress in achieving compliance with Section 112(r). See Ordinance, 450-3.008." County Counsel Comment: Again, we agree that under the federal regulations, the County would have no ability to influence the RMP development process. But, under SB 1889, the County would have an ability to influence the process pursuant to regulations, when adopted, until and unless it is not designated as the CUPA. However., we agree that the Ordinance will provide the County with a vehicle, in addition to and in advance of the SB 1889 requirements, concerning the RMP process. 6. Issue and Argument No. 6 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, (a) there is no public access to any facility's preparation of an RMP, nor an opportunity for an independent, local public agency's review of RMP plans, and recommendations for improvement; and (b) neither the public nor the Board of Supervisors would have any means to obtain the information which would be available from an audit inspection, formal report (both preliminary and final) of the Department, nor the facility's responses." "The County has no authority under the federal RMP program, as noted above. Moreover, even the federal RMP program does not provide for the kind of public scrutiny of RMP as they are being developed and implemented, which the Ordinance provides. "Pursuant to the Ordinance, the public will have access to the initial reports, County Health Department RMP audit reports, preliminary County Health Department Determinations of suggested RMP revisions, Facility responses, and final County Health Department determinations of appropriate RMP revisions. See Ordinance, § 450-3.0080)." County Counsel Comment. We agree with the above characterization of the Ordinance with respect to federal law. Regulations under SB 1889 require affording the administering agency accelerated access to the RMP process. Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 8 7. Issue and Argument No. 7 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, there is no authority for a review of a Facility's RMP by the Board of Supervisors." "The Board of Supervisors would not have authority for a review of a Facility's RMP, because there would be no County ".administrative action" that could result in the matter being brought before it. "Pursuant to the Ordinance, a final determination of suggested revisions to a Facility's RMP issued by the County Health Services Department is an "administrative" action." This means that anyone aggrieved by the result of the County audit and review, or the facility's responses, could bring the matter before the Board. "Administrative actions" may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors in the manner provided pursuant to Chapter 14-4 of the County Ordinance Code. See 450-3008(i)." County Counsel Comment: We agree that the Ordinance provides an express process of appeal of certain RMP development actions to the Board of Supervisors. 8. Issue and Argument No. 8 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, the County has no authority to impose fees to allow the Department to monitor development and implementation of RMP - activities for which, as noted above, the County also does not have any . current authority." "Currently the County Department of Health Services is stretched even to manage currently authorized programs. It certainly does not have the funding for monitoring RMP, a federal program under which it has no authority to impose fees. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the Department may, upon a majority vote of the Board, adopt a schedule of fees to be collected from each business subject to an audit or inspection . under Section 450-3.008. Any inspection/audit fee schedule shall be set in an amount sufficient to pay only those reasonable costs incurred by the Department as a result of carrying.out the inspection or audit, including staff and/or outside consultant time. See Ordinance, Fees, 450-3.012. "The amounts specified in the Ordinance appear adequate to provide funding for this program. No evidence to the contrary has been presented." Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 9 County Counsel Comment: We agree that a fee provision should be included in the Ordinance as there is no other specific, express statutory authority for the imposition of fees for RMP development costs. Under SB 1889, the a County department may only charge fees to cover costs of implementing RMP development costs after it has been designated as a CUPA. Concerning the fee amounts, this office sees no reason to limit the dollar amount of the fee. As noted above, the Ordinance already provides that the fee be set in an amount sufficient to pay only reasonable costs incurred in carrying out the Ordinance. 9. Issue and Argument No. 9 in favor of the Ordinance: "Without the Ordinance, the County could not impose penalties on Facilities for failure to reveal to the public their schedule for and plans for preparation and implementation of an RMP, failure to participate in an audit or inspection, or to respond to the preliminary findings of an audit or inspection report." "in the absence of the legal authority provided by the Ordinance to compel the filing of RMP reports, the participation in audits, and the like, the County could not impose penalties on those who decline to perform those actions. "Pursuant to the Ordinance, the Department may assess a penalty upon a Facility for failure to submit an Initial Report, for failure to participate in an audit/inspection, and for failure to submit written responses to the report of any audit,'as provided in the Ordinance. The penalty shall be not less than $500, but not.more than $10,000, in any one calendar year. See Ordinance, § 450-3.014, Penalties. "These penalties are for failure to file reports or cooperate in audits during the development of RPM, between the present and June 1999, not for violations of the requirements of law once the RMP program has been implemented fully, in June of 1999. In fact, under federal law, there are no public disclosure, auditing or response requirements between now.and 1999. Accordingly, under federal law, there are no penalties for failure to perform those actions. The penalties specified in the Ordinance therefore are for administrative actions newly required under the Ordinance, and are reasonable to achieve compliance with those administrative requirements. "By contrast, penalties under federal law for failure to actually implement RMP by Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 10 June 1999, or thereafter to comply with the substantive requirements, properly are much higher. See, e.g., 42 USC SF413(b)." County Counsel Comment: Absent statutory authority, the County does not have authority to impose penalties. Senate Bill 1889 includes numerous provisions for civil penalties and fines for failure or refusal to comply with its various requirements. C. BUILDING TRADES COMMENTS Tho following are the points raised by Mr. Adams regarding the Ordinance during his address to the Committee at its last meeting, following by this office's comments. 1. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 1: The Community Safety Assurance Ordinance only allows the County to make "suggested revisions" to the RMP. Under federal law, after the final RMP is submitted, the agency may require revisions. (Compare Proposed Ord. Code § 540-3.008(1); 40 CFR 68.22(8), (h)•) County Counsel Comment: We agree that the Ordinance only allows suggested revisions to be made, and that the federal RMP regulations authorize the "implementing agency" (40 CFR § 68.3) to require changes to a submitted RMP as part of an audit. (40 CFR § 68.220 (a)(b).)2 However, the Ordinance is operative (at the latest) only.until an RMP is submitted. (Ord., § 450-3.010.) The federal regulations in question apply after an RMP is submitted. 2. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 2: The Ordinance does not give the County authority to monitor or enforce implementation of the RMP after the final RMP is submitted. State and federal law provide for enforcement of the RMP. (Compare Ord. 450-010(a); 42 USC § 7412(7)(E), 7414(a),(b); Health and Safety Code sections 25537, 25534, 25540.) 2Stationary sources with a Star or Merit ranking under OSHA's voluntary protection program are exempt from audit requirements. (40 CFR § 68.220(c).) We understand that no facility in Contra Costa County has this ranking. Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 11 County Counsel Comment: We agree that the Ordinance does not give the County authority to monitor or enforce implementation of the RMP after the RMP is submitted (§ 450-3.010, noted above), and that following submittal of the RMP, monitoring and implementation is the responsibility of the implementing or administering agency pursuant to federal and state law. This is in accord with the Ordinance's intent. Also, the Ordinance does not and cannot supersede any provisions of state law providing for stricter enforcement. (Ord. § V.) Upon the effective date of any state or federal law, state and/or federal law will apply. A County ordinance can only add to state or federal requirements where allowed. A County ordinance cannot excuse compliance with state or federal law. 3. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 3: Public Participation under the Ordinance is more restrictive - state law provision for a 15-day comment period is not included. (Compare § 450-3.0080) and H&S Code, 25537.) County Counsel Comment. Again, the Ordinance cannot limit the application of state requirements. Also, the above-cited Health and Safety Code section 25537 applies to RMPPs, and will be repealed by SB 1889. (SB 1889, § 23.) 4. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 4: The Ordinance restricts the County to one audit/inspection per year. No such restriction exists in state or federal law. (Compare Ord. Code § 450-3.008(b), 42 USC § 7414(a)(2), 40 CFR 68.220(a) and H&S Code § 25537.) County Counsel Comment: The Ordinance provides for the Department to "annually audit and/or inspect a Facility's progress in achieving compliance with [Clean Air Act] Section 112(r)." However, the Ordinance does not limit the length of time required for an audit, nor does it restrict access to a facility in connection with an audit. (See § 450- 3.008(d).) 5. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 5: The Ordinance restricts the County to two meetings per year with a facility to review progress in developing an RMP. No such .restriction exists in state or federal law. (See Ord. Code § 450-3.008(a). No comparable federal statute.) County Counsel Comment: We agree. r Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety September 18, 1996 Page 12 6. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 6: The Ordinance does not impose a faster schedule for completion of RMPs. It only requires that facilities provide the County with an "initial report" of the facility's "schedule" for implementing the RMP. (Compare Ord. 450-3.006, 40 CFR 68.10(a).) County Counsel Comment: We agree that the Ordinance does not impose a faster schedule for completion of RMPs. We also agree that the Ordinance requires the preparation of an "initial report" and a "schedule" for implementing the RMP. 7. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 7: The Ordinance permits the County to assess penalties of nor more than $10,000 per year. State and federal law provide for penalties of not more than $25,000 per day. (Compare Ord. Code § 450-3.014, 42 USC 7413(d), H&S Code § 25540(b) County Counsel Comment: As we have noted in a previous comment, the County can assess penalties only as authorized by state law. We are not aware of any statute authorizing the County to adopt an ordinance for assessing penalties in the total amount proposed by the Ordinance. 8. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 8: The Ordinance restricts County fees to $10,000 per year. No such limit exists in state or, federal law. (Compare Ord. 450-3.012, H&S Code § 25535.2. No comparable federal provisions.) County Counsel Comment: We agree. As noted above, the Ordinance limits annual fees to an amount sufficient to administer the requirements of the Ordinance, but no more than $10,000. We see no reason for a monetary limitation. 9. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 9: The Ordinance only covers extremely hazardous materials and certain flammables. No hazardous wastes would be covered; other hazardous materials would not be covered (e.g. catacarb). (Compare Ord. Code § 450-3.004, 84-63.1016.) County Counsel Comment: We agree that the Ordinance only covers materials covered by the federal act, and catacarb is not included. The reference to section 84- 63.1016 is to the County's recently adopted hazardous materials land use ordinance. (Ordinance No. 96-20.) C Ad Hoc Committee on In Safety September-18, 1996 Page 13 10. Building and Construction Trades Comment No. 10: County authority would cease (or never take effect) if the California Office of Emergency Services is designated as the implementing agency for RMPs. (See Ord. Code §450-3.101(a).) County Counsel Comment: We agree that if the California Office of Emergency Services is designated as the "implementing agency" (federal terminology) or "administering agency" (state terminology) for RMPs in this County, the County would'at such time have no further authority over RMPs CONCLUSION: After reviewing the Ordinance, the Paper submitted by Mr. Gresham, SB 1889 and the regulations at 40 CFR Part 68, and after discussing these subjects with Mr Adams, Mr. Gresham and County staff, it appears that both advocates for and against the Ordinance are generally correct in their various representations.' In our opinion, the Ordinance would not hinder the County's ability to protect public safety through the RMP process. While the Ordinance will not be the only vehicle providing for County and public access to the RMP development process (as it is anticipated that SB 1889 will be signed by the governor), the Ordinance would provide the County with some additional ways to oversee the RMP process. In particular, the Ordinance expressly requires that a preliminary report be submitted to the Health Department by December 31, 1996 (or 90 days after the Ordinance's effective date). Assuming that SB 1889 becomes law, it will not become effective until January 1, 1997, and many of its details will be left to regulations to be established. Until then, the Ordinance provides helpful guidelines for the Department as well as the regulated industry. Lastly, to the extent that SB 1889 does not allow RMP fees to be imposed until the Department is designated a CUPA, the Ordinance could provide for the imposition of fees to pay for the administration and implementation of RMP requirements. a:\cccord9.96m ,x, 13 _ �i) ORDINANCE NO. 96-- (Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. SECTION H. SECTION III. Chapter 84-63 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: CHAPTER 84-63 LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Article 84-63.-2 General 84-63,202 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is,to promote the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the County by encouraging businesses and other entities, in planning and developing projects involving hazardous material or hazardous waste, to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community, and by requiring land use permits for development projects which could significantly and adversely affect public health, safety and the environment. (Ords. 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.204 Conflict, This chapter is not intended, and should not be deemed, to prevent or preempt compliance with federal or state laws, regulations, rules or orders, or to excuse compliance with any other County ordinance, including other requirements of this code. (Ords. 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.4 Definitions 84-63.402 General. As used in this chapter, the words and.phrases defined in this article shall have the meanings given unless the context,otherwise requires. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.404 "Baseline Period," "Baseline period" means the consecutive twelve month period of time during which activity is measured for purposes of this chapter. The baseline period shall be any twelve consecutive month period within five years of the date of the submittal of the application that is reflective of a normal year of operation. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.406 "Change-in-risk project." A "change-in-risk project" means a new use of an existing building, structure, or facility, not involving construction other than minor alterations, which use will involve a hazardous material or hazardous waste in a higher hazard category and which use will result in a hazard score higher than the hazard score of the previous use. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.408 "Commercial property." "Commercial property" means all properties with a commercial designation in the general plan including but not limited to the following: regional commercial, airport commercial, office, and business park. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.410 "Development project." (a) A "development project" means a new permanent building, structure or facility to be constructed that will manage hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or a permanent change-in-risk project. As used in this section, "permanent" when used to describe a building, structure, or facility, or the new use of an existing building, structure, or facility (change-in-risk project) means that the building, structure, facility or use is intended to be in operation for more than six months. (b) A "development project" does not include: 1 Pipelines and related ui men <°5#G >` s` e `>:> . :...:. tt:.::.::.::::.:> 2+ te more than 300 feet from commercial or residential property. Storage tanks atej,:: are :.. not related equipment. 2 Any prajecq.---'-§fi 't i€1€< <:: :: t consisting only of maintenance, repair, and replacement or minor modification of existing equipment provided the storage design capacity is not increased and the hazard category of hazardous material or hazardous waste handled is not increased. s (3) Any transportable treatment unit that has obtained all required permits and is used solely for site remediation or waste treatment purposes: •:..:::.}}•:::.;':.;:::• +i:;:n::•.4:w.:•:R;i::;i:•:;. ...:.:: .:..:::.....:R.•:......,...........:%:.::•:••: i::..,...:i::: .:: :.::.::ii:.i•::�:•:..♦,:.iv:;?::'v;.:bw.i4.;.;:;i:4::::::::•.:;:•.:::::'•:::•:.::j':..{::;:..,:;;. (4) Any project for which permit applications have been deemed complete on or before the effective date of this chapter by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or 2 ytt<maS;,;p;:;.{:.,y..< 2?Yfi?swaxa•�ar;.;r,.r:,t;:acu,.<+p%{{<c:<;t<;:;{{i other government agency with jurisdiction over the project p?crtt ..,:,.;r::•tin:,+.:?{lx,. ::ro:{{•:rr.;x,.,u'�S{M'S::t%n;. o;^,..., '{{�C..cS{�;xc,.,.v.!{ :;�u>,.;{:1.:•:{;•{.,,{;..;•.t{.k.,:;:.. {::iii:•;};.ii}i:::::'i:;.vw:.w.:::.vv:vvvvv xvv..vv.vvvv..nn..v..v...uvw..v:+r:4%{{2{vi4ri:4::::.Hx..{Yr%tii<tix%<v.:{{tti:)G%•.<i4.{iG2itit{t{L:.v..nvn.v.....vv:{vv..vv Mvv..vv.v.v\...vxv The proponent of a project described by subsection (4) of subdivision (b) of this section may elect to be subject to the requirements of this chapter in lieu of any requirements in effect prior to the effective date of this chapter. (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63,412 "Dispose_" "Dispose" means to discharge, deposit, inject, dump, or place any hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or,be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. (Ords. 96-20, 86-100.) 84-63,414 "Equipment," "Equipment" means pipes, pumps, vessels and other similar types of apparatus. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.41 "Facility." "Facility" means a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels (including parcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in section 1002-2.002 of this Code) under common ownership or control. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63,418 "Hazardous material," "Hazardous material" means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment, and includes any material that is listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table), as amended from time to time. (96-20, 86-100.) 84-63,420 "Hazardous waste," "Hazardous waste" means any substance which is regulated as a hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services under 22 California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 30, or defined as a hazardous waste under Health & Safety Code section 25117, generally as follows: , (a) "Hazardous waste" means either of the following: (1) A waste, or combination of wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristic may either: (A) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness. 3 � • l3 (B) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. (2) A waste which meets any of the criteria for the identification of a hazardous waste adopted by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control pursuant to the Health & Safety Code section 25141. (b) "Hazardous waste" includes, but is not limited to, federal Resource Conservation and Recover Act ("RCRA") hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-20, 86-100.) •.:.:y::.,+.::+v:i•i:ini.:.} : : ..i;:is;i:.:::ii?.:v.i.::4:.i::}i:i::{:'`vi.-n:-v•--.:.ii:iYiiiiiYi i:•:i�;.:;!y:/.�t••i:j?�[n : .}::::. : ::y:: .:.•..•..v..•..r':( .'r1..::::...........:....•.....:^'T+..,:?}.i'.J}..•:..{;}.�:,•..•i.:}::}{v ....." 1f' y •:•5•.• }:..! .}}}'<:isii:":ii:i i::i::i:}'•::•}}}:::iii:{�:;i:;:iiii:}'m i::i::i::i:::iii'}:{}i}:i':::•:::tiiii}:i:i:}:'::i::i:•}+ '::iii i}:;iiiiii:{'4}:^}:4::^:^:•}}:•}:•} '.}}:i�•i}.isice•}::{.:.Yn}�i::}:v}i:::,}}i::...:.:.�:�..'�}F•'.......{ ..Y:...}: ':••{.:::...:•.�•::...:.....;Y.,...:..:i:`,:j:i��:�...•.�L..{L:�.'.:::•: .: ....:..:.:.....:{.:::'..:......}.: �,.. .:•. :: •[�{'��}��j �} �/•Q ,li�M i{ /''•N :•:�J::.•NF•::: :::�:::: :.' :::-x•Y.S�J:ZWf: i: t :l �iH.MI[i: } :••. v:..:.:................... .} :::::::::::w::• .................l:•:::::::. i'::{::::L:{::•.�:::::::::w::•.w:•�::nw:::::::.:,�:::::::nw•�:p}y::•{:::::x:::::w:�::::..•.:...:.:. .......... .......... ........................................ ........... ....:. ::::.: ::'n:.}•n:•i'+i}};•i}};{;,i}}}}•'4:•}}}:L}:4}:i•}::ii{.}::.:.:.t:y{: :..:..:..:...:::..:.....:......:_..:%...:......�.: :........ }: +}} .:...,.'.......... A:...• .: :., ..:...}::..:.....t......:.:....:......'.:•:•:•:i.:.:..�.:: ...........}:L}i�:ti::i:•:}}}v:•i::i•:}i::}:.i:.i:.R::}}}}' bt .. :< ;.; nxed>a :::aet£ :: ::: >::fE ::SI::: :.},}:;.;:.>:.}:.>:.:;.}}}:.}: ::.iii: }:. fr�xt : t act<:< :> ac ::: ::: :::::::::>::: ::i: : ::i: :::: : : :::i> :::ttic::: €o ::: ::� t:::the ::ta:ttt :::'. le< ....:..............................:.. s.......... iii'f.;:;:j<iy;.;i:;:viiiiiii:iii}}:•;p;.};�:::iiiiiiiiiiiiii}}}}}iii:L:iiv:ii::}'•i::i}'}iii::iii}}}}":::::}}}}}::i::i::i::::iii}}}}}iiiF''i:}y;;iiiiii:?£iii:ti:::isisi:::ti:iiiiiiii$ii:{iiiiiiiti�yi}}ii:!::}{i}:•:`}:}:::iii::i:::'�:i?ii::i::•••:n•• e.�€ .::.:.:..... �:<:ci:...:.:: :..:.:�:�. •}<:s�:: ;:: om:<�: .::�::: . .. .:.:::.:.�a :::� : .��r:> iar.:ciao >i:: :i::i:;;is«:::.:i:'::i::<:<:.:iii:::i::iii::i:<::<:::>::>::<:::>:: ::<:>:::i::<::::w>:::;:::»i:::.i::»:::::;i::;::>:•:.: :::i:.>::i::;:::«:i::i::iii:i..::i::::i::>'::ii<:<:ii>::ii:::;::�}:'::.:;.}:.}:.}}:.}:.}::+:;.}::.;.:::.:.'.}:.::.>:;;;.}�...:.}::i::.}:•::.}'.::.}:.}:.}:.}:<;::;.i:.}:.}:.}};:;.}:.:.:�}:.::.>::. (Ords. 96-::::. §3.) >4Mm le� ::Ft ~t `> t <: tt< <: e ::.} : ' ' ':.; '' ::::::<i' >': <: <>:::i :<::::<::;:: ..... :::.: ::. .:::::::::.....:.:..::.........:..:.. ::>;:: :>:::::::»::>::>«:>::>::>::::��:i:.:>:<}•<::<}'.:i::i:;;i::}:::'.:iii::i::;-..}:.:.}}}}:.}}}:.;.:.}:.;:.}:.}}}:.}:.}::i::i�:':.:;:::::'<:i::..i}};:.}:.;}...:':;.ii:::'.;}:.;:.;:.}:.;:.;:::.;:.}:.}:.;::.i::i:::;:}::i>:: >::i:....pq .:�: ;..:.....w...:....:......,i.......w.. ...}:........... .i.....,::..:.......:... :.....:.}}....:.... .....i...,:,}...:..;.:......is..:.......:..: :.....:.:.}........:. ...,,....,....:..:......:.,: .:. ::xi::i:�ir iti'i:;:iiii::•is::2:;:...,,,,..i::ti:::::t.:•:;:'x...:::...:.::::+i::::`i'�'.is<:::r:;;i:::?::;yt::::�::i2::;`:::::;:;:::: , Ord. 96-�—..§3:)}}:..............................:........:.,...,............... 84-63.42 "Manage." "Manage" means to generate, treat, store, transport, use or dispose of hazardous material or hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20, 86-100.) 84-63,42,84 "Project Description." "Project description" means a written description and explanation of the construction and operation of a development project. A project description shall address all phases of and for the life of the project. The project description shall include the following information as well as any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director for the purpose of determining the hazard score: (a) A description of the facility location with respect to major freeways and immediate neighbors, and the size (in square footage or acreage) of the property on which the facility is located. 4 (b) An area map showing the facility in relationship to the surrounding community; and (c) A description of all significant operations involving hazardous material and/or hazardous waste currently being managed, and/or proposed to be managed, including a brief general history of the facility. The Community Development Director may waive the requirement of submitting any or all of the information required by paragraphs (a) through (c), above. (Ord. 96-_ §3, 96-20.) ::::::::::::: .: ::. .: ......... .. :: :.....::::.::.. :: 1t:.:::::..: :........................................... .<:::::::.:::::::::;::: :.........................................................................: .::::..:...........:::..:. .. : ............................... :.::::::.::..::::::::::::::::. :.. ..;:... .. . .: ......:...:.:.:......::::.......:.:..::..:..:....:.....:..:.:...:....;.:...: ....;:..;.:.:..:::::,.:.::.:.. :.:.:....:.:.. .............i. . ::.:..:.:.,...:..::.:....:.:..: ;::::::::::::::.................................. . :..... : tt ..:.:..'. ..;.: D. r3 Article 84-63.6 ARRI-iohift- 84-63.602 Apylicability. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person proposing a development project >'" ` "`` ''�` which might otherwise be allowed in any zoning district shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ords. 96-_ §3, 86-100.) 84-0.604 Exemptions. The following projects and structures are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (a) Any project built solely to comply with federal, state, regional or local agency enforcement orders under a compliance time schedule that precludes timely review under this chapter. This section is primarily intended to allow exemptions for compliance with laws, regulations, rules, or administrative or judicial orders such as nuisance abatement orders or other short-term or immediately necessary actions. This section is not intended to allow automatic exemptions for projects being undertaken to comply with changed federal, state, regional or local laws. (b) If any building, structure or facility is destroyed or damaged by disasters such as earthquakes, floods, off-site fires, or an act of god or the public enemy, the building, facility or structure may be rebuilt under the following conditions: (1) The rebuilt project is used for the same purpose as the destroyed damaged project; (2) The rebuilt project complies with all environmental regulations in effect at the time of rebuilding, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or at least the same level of control that previously existed, whichever provides the greater level of protection to the public; (3) The rebuilt project s` hazard score ± j:::;:;:; ± € than the destroyed or damaged project (both rebuilt and destroyed or damaged project to be scored as if they are new); (4) The hazard category of chemicals used in the rebuilt project is not greater than , used by the destroyed or damaged project; (5) Construction is commenced within one year unless an extension is granted by the Community Development Director; (6) The rebuilt project is at least € AA feet away from the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor and no closer to the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor than the destroyed or damaged project; and 6 r . �•V3 (7) The rebuilt project will not manage Hazard Category A materials in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage hazardous wastes in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage Hazard Category B materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project, and will not manage Hazard Category C materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project. (c) A development project in which both the size, as defined in section 84-63.1012 and the monthly transportation quantity are less than: (1) for Hazard Category C materials - 4000 tons (2) for Hazard Category B materials - 5 tons (3) for Hazard Category A materials - the quantity specified as the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Materials List (Appendix A to 40 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended from time to time), or 500 pounds, whichever is less. in (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.60 6 Exemption. On the effective date of this chapter, any proposed development project which is subject to the provisions of this chapter, and which has obtained all required federal and state permits and other governmental authorizations to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material including, but not limited to, permits or authorizations under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.), Hazardous Waste Control, Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7 (§ 25280 et seq.) Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances, Health and Safety Code Chapter 3.5 (§39650 et seq.), Toxic Air Contaminants, and'Food and Agriculture Code Section 14021 et seq., and which has complied with the requirements of the Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act (Labor Code Section 6360 et seq.) shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter. , (Ords. 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.8 Standards and Procedures 84-63.802 Application for Applicability Determination: Exemption. Any person proposing a development project which may be used to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material shall apply to the Community Development Director for review and a 7 D. l3 determination whether a land use permit may be required under Article 84-63.10 or whether the project is exempt under section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606. Projects exempt under section 84-63.604(c) are not required to submit an application pursuant to this section. If the hazard score of a project is 469 or less and the project does not increase the amount of hazardous waste or hazardous material managed as compared to the baseline of the last three years, a determination of noncoverage and an application therefor are not required. The application shall include all information necessary to complete and verify the hazard score of the project such as chemical identification, distances to nearest receptors, aftd ::::::::.?::-::.v:rx+--;:,•r??????::X?{??4:f":rifff.:i+'?tiiY.•::Ci%•:iii'f.+'i4:•::ti•}•::?n.•.,iiiiifiii}'•i?•:?:•i:\+^:4ri?'i 4+:4i}ii:i:4i'i:•i:4ii"•iiiii:??:•i r. transportation routesea` : ::: €: . The application shall be accompanied by all fees established by the Board of Supervisors. (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.804 Application. Review. Determination. No later than ten calendar days after receipt of an application, or the submittal of additional information, the Community Development Director shall inform the applicant in writing that the application is complete or shall inform the applicant what additional information is required. Within twenty calendar days of the application being deemed complete, the Community Development Director shall issue a written determination of non-coverage pursuant to section 84-63.806, an exemption pursuant to section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606, or a determination that a land use permit is required pursuant to section 84-63.1002. (Ords. 96-20, 90-92.). 84-63.806 Determination of non-coverage. Upon determining that a proposed.project has a hazard score up to and including S�9 or that the project is exempt pursuant to section 84-63.604 or 84-63.606; the Community Development Director shall issue a determination of non-coverage or exemption. A determination of non-coverage for projects with a hazard score between 5-:40 and 9, inclusive, means that the project is not subject to the requirements of article 84-63.10, but is subject to sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. Projects with a hazard score below 469 and projects which are exempt pursuant to sections 84-63.604 and 84-63.606 are not subject to the requirements of sections 84-63.808 and 84- 63.810. (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20.) 84-63.808 Determinations - Public Notice. All determinations of non-coverage made , pursuant to section 84-63.806 shall be summarized on an agenda of the County Zoning Administrator within ten calendar days of issuance of the determination. (Ords. 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.810 Determinations - Further Public Notice. For projects with a point assignment between 470 and 9, inclusive, within five working days of issuing a determination of non-coverage, the Community Development Director shall mail notice on the date of the determination to all organizations and individuals who have previously 8 submitted a written request for such notice. The Community Development Director shall publish a four-inch by six-inch advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within ten calendar days of issuing a determination of non-coverage. The notices required by this section shall state the name of the applicant, briefly describe the project, provide the names and phone numbers of a representative of the Community Development Department and a representative of the applicant who will be available to answer questions about the project, and shall state the date by which an appeal must be filed. (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92.) 84-63,812 Appeals, Any appeal of a determination of non-coverage shall be filed within ten calendar days of the date the determination is listed on the Zoning Administrator's agenda or ten calendar days from the date of publication pursuant to section 84-63.810, whichever provides the longer period of appeal. Appeals from a determination of non-coverage shall be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Except as expressly provided in this section, appeals from all decisions and i determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the land use permit provisions of article 26-2.24 and are subject to the provisions of article 26-2.30. (Ords. 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.10 Land Use Permits - When Required 84-63.1002 Hazard Score: Permit Required. Unless otherwise exempt from the requirements of this chapter, a land use permit shall be required for a development project proposed for the management of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste if the development project obtains a hazard score of 6680 or more pursuant to the formula set forth in section 84-63.1004 <f > '"` #1e> " subject to the provisions of this article. (96-_ §3, 96-20.) 84-63.1004 Hazard Score. (a) Formula. The hazard score of a proposed development project shall be determined pursuant to the following formula: UT + C + P) xH] + D + A ; where the following symbols have the following designations: "T" refers to the point assignment for "Transportation Risk"; "D" refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Distance from Receptor"; 9 .- 13 "C"-refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Type of Receptor"; "A" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Total Amount"; "P" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Percent Change"; and "H" refers to the point assignment for "Hazard Category of Material or Waste." ............ .........v n...v...v.......v.....n.n.......v..............n.........n.n........v.....r....v.%: ii If more than one category of hazardous material or hazardous waste is used, the formula set forth in this section will be used to calculate a separate score for each material category. The material hazard category which results in the highest hazard score for the project will be used. (b) Point Assignment. The factors set forth in subdivision (a), above, shall have the following point assignments: TRANSPORTATION RISK M POINTS Truck - residential/commercial 10 (>25% increase or new) Truck - residential/commercial 9 (>5 - 25% increase) Truck - Industrial (>25% increase or new) 8 Truck - Industrial (>5 - 25% increase) 7 Rail - (>25% increase or new) 6 Rail - (>5 - 25% increase) 5 Ship - (>5% increase) 3 Pipeline - (>5% increase) 1 0 - 5% increase 0 10 COMMUNITY RISK Distance of P-roiect from receptor (D): 0-340 feet 30 >300-400 feet 29 >400-500 feet 28 >550-740 feet 27 >700-900 25 >900-1200 feet 25 > 1200-1500 feet 24 > 1500-1800 feet 23 > 1800-2100 feet 22 >2100-2500 feet 21 >2500-2800 feet 20 >2800-3200 feet 19 >3200-3500 feet 18 >3500-3800 feet 17 >3800-4000 feet 16 >4000-4200 feet 15 >4200-4500 feet 14 >4500-4800 feet 13 >4800-5400 feet 12 >5400-5700 feet 11 11 >5700-6000 feet 10 >6000-6500 feet 9 >6500-7300 feet 8 >7300-8000 feet 7 >8000-8600 feet 6 >8600-10,000 feet 5 > 10,000-11,000 feet 4 > 11,000-12,500 3 >12,500-14,000 feet 2 > 14,000-16,000 feet 1 Type of receptor (C): Sensitive receptor 7 Residential Property 5 Commercial Property 4 FACILITY RISK: SIZE OF PROJECT Total Amount of-change (Conversion to tons; 1 ton = 2000 pounds) (A): >40,000 tons 30 >32,000-40,000 29 > 18,000-32,000 28 > 10,000-18,000 27 >6,000-10,000 26 >4,000-6,000 25 12 D• 1� >2,100-4,000 24 > 1,200-2,100 23 >750-1,200 22 >400-750 21 >200-400 20 > 150-200 19 >90-150 18 >50-90 17 >30-50 16 >20-30 15 > 10-20 14 >6-10 13 >4-6 12 >2-4 11 > 1-2 10 >0.8-1 9 >0.5-0.8 8 >0.35-0.5 7 >0.25-0.35 6 >0.20-0.25 5 >0.18-0.20 4 >0.14-0.18 3 13 >0.12-0.14 2 >0.10-0.12 1 No change (0.10 or less) 0 l Percent Change (P) New 6 >200% 5 > 100% - 200% 4 >50% - 100% 3 > 10% - 50% 2 > 1% - 10% 1 0%.- 1% 0 HAZARD CATEGORY OF MATERIAL (H) Category A 5 Category B 3 Category C 1 a ` . .. `... OWN f (c) Credit for reductions or projects to be closed. A development project that would have a hazard score of 080 or more as determined by the formula in this section shall be 14 x. 13 entitled to a reduction credit for project closures and/or reductions in accordance with the criteria set forth in this subdivision. Reduction credit shall be given if the Community Development Director determines that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its operations and finds that all of the following criteria are met: 1. The project to be closed or reduced is currently in operation O@PWfM and has been in operation at < for at least three years prior to the date of application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule; 2. The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; 3. The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; 4. The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced; and 5. The development project will be more than 300 feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. The hazard score for the project to be closed shall also be determined by the formula set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section and pursuant to the provisions of this article. In determining the hazard score for the project to be closed or reduced, said project shall be deemed a new project. The hazard score of the development project shall be subtracted from the hazard score of the project to be closed or reduced. The resulting difference will then be subtracted from the hazard score of the development project to obtain a hazard score adjusted for the closure or reduction. The adjusted hazard score shall be the basis for determining whether a land use permit shall be required under this chapter. A determination by the Community Development Director that a project is not subject to the land use permit requirement of this chapter as a result of credit afforded for a project closure or reduction shall be reported to the Zoning Administrator pursuant to section 84- 63.808 and shall be subject to the public notification requirements set forth in section 84- 63.810. (d) Closure, reduction required. Projects proposed for closure or reduction for which closure or reduction credit was afforded under this section shall be closed or reduced as proposed within one year of completion of the development project. This subdivision (d) 15 D. ►� applies only in cases where a land use permit would have been required but for the closure or reduction credit afforded under this section. (96-_ §3, 96-20.) 84-63.1006 Determination of Transportation Risk. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated based upon planned total quantities of materials in a hazard category, measured in terms of tons per year for each hazard category proposed. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated for each mode of transportation proportionally within a single hazard category. That transportation point assignment shall be compared by hazard category with the total amount of material in the hazard category transported during the baseline period in order to obtain the percent change in section 84- 63.1004(b), Transportation Risk. For purposes of determining whether truck transportation is through residential/commercial or industrial areas, the shortest legal route from the closest two-lane (or larger) freeway shall be considered. If the route used in the County does not traverse a two-lane (or larger) freeway, the entire route shall be considered. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.1008 Determination of Community Risk - Distance to Receptor. "Distance to Receptor" shall be the shortest distance between an exterior wall or other part of the development project and the property line of the residential property, commercial property or the sensitive receptor used to determine the hazard score of a development project. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.1010 Determination of Community Risk - Type of Receptor. A hazard score shall be developed for each type of receptor (residential property, commercial property and sensitive receptor) within three miles of the development project based upon the distance of the parcel of each type of receptor that is closest to the development project. The receptor that produces the highest hazard score shall be used to determine the hazard score of the development project. Receptors more than three miles from a development project shall not be considered. (Ord. 96-20.) 84-63.1012 Determination of Project Risk - Size. The size,of a development project shall be measured in terms of tons of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste stored as a s result of the development project, based upon the fill-to-the-maximum capacity of the development project, including amounts stored in tanks; reactors; columns; process lines; tank cars, tank trucks or rail cars when connected to process equipment; or any other receptacle used for the containment of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes. The amount of material in hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project will be used to determine the total amount of change. If more than one category of hazardous material is used, the amounts of materials (A, B, or C) shall be used with the respective hazard category in the formula in section 84-63.1004. 16 The specific gravity of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes may be required to calculate the number of tons (or pounds) of hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste managed at the development project. The standard of 2000 pounds equaling one (1) ton shall ......;;;:•.:so:..;:•...;{::;.:;..,.;;•;o:...,{:.,,,,r....:,:..,x::,,::;..;;r••::::::•ry.:,rr..:::..•,.,;.:,+:a..•...•::tt:y:;...nrx•::vt:::.:..;r•:^.:,..•.:•..;...:•;v,..;t•,.y,•:•:,.,.i.,:,y::::,:..F•:ff.;.;,.{ beused. :...:..,. :.::.. ......:.:.::::. .....::::... :.:.... t The point assignment for storage of containerized material in buildings, such as labs or warehouses, shall be based upon the maximum anticipated amount of materials for each hazard category as a result of the development project. (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20.) 84-63.1014 Determination of Project Risk - Percent Change. The percent change of a development project shall be determined by comparing the amounts of materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, i. hNor C to be added to the site as a result of the development project to the total amount of all materials for the respective hazard categories A B '" �� #or C handled at the site from the baseline riod. .`. � � '1�•x:'�' �'� t � : 'e ........... (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20.) 84-63.1016 Determination of Hazard Category (a) Method of Determination. The hazard category of a material or waste shall be determined pursuant to this section. (1) The primary method of determining the material hazard category of a hazardous waste or material shall be by reference to the Winter 1994 version of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 ("49 CFR"), Section 172.101, Hazardous Materials Table." From columns (3) and (5), extract the "Hazard Class or Division" and "Packing Group" information, then proceed to 49 CFR 173.2 to determine the "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. If a material is listed in 49 CFR 172.101 more than once, the rating that results in the highest hazard category shall be used. The hazard category of a mixture is determined according to its common name as defined in Title v:.:::.::...<::...... N::....:....::::....:::., F... ` .:::::::.:.::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....: (2) Where a hazardous material or waste is not referenced in 49 CFR 172.101, and the hazard category cannot be determined using the primary method, refer to the manufacturer's MSDS for the D.O.T. "Hazard Class or Division," "Packing Group" and "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. (3) Where the preceding methods are not successful, the Contra Costa County Health Services Director or his designee shall be responsible for determining a material's hazard category. 17 - X13 (4) Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth above, materials with the word "poison" in column (6) of 49 CFR 172.101, Methyl chloride, and the metals Antimony, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, Thallium and Cadmium and their compounds, shall be Hazard Category A materials, and denatured alcohol and methanol shall be Hazard Category B materials for purposes of this chapter. (b) Exclusions. Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth in subdivision (a), above, Hot Coke, Hot Coal Briquettes, and materials not regulated by D.O.T. or which have no D.O.T. Hazard Class or Division are not regulated by this chapter. (c) Hazard Categories. "Hazard Category A Materials I. Forbidden Materials As referenced in 49 CFR 173.21 and 173.54. H. Explosives and Blasting Agents Class 1, as defined in 49 CFR 173.50(b)(1) through 173.50(b)(6). III. Reactive Materials A. Air Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.2 as defined in 49 CFR i73.124(b)(1) and (2). B. Water Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(c). C. Organic Peroxides - Class 5, Division 5.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.128. IV. Radioactive Materials Class 7 as defined in 49 CFR 173.403(y). V. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group I Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group I is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(1). 18 VI. Poisons, D.O.T. A. Poisons, Class 6, Division 6.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.133 (applies to all hazard zones). B. Infectious Substances, Class 6, Division 6.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.134. VII. Poison Gas Class 2, Division 2.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(c). Hazard Category B Materials VIII. Flammable Liquids Class 3 Packing Groups I and II as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(a). IX. Flammable Solids Class 4, Division 4.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(a). X. Oxidizers, D.O.T. Packing Group II Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group II is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(ii). M. Flammable Gases Class 2, Division 2.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(a). XII. Corrosives, D.O.T. Packing Group I or H Class 8 Packing Groups I or II as defined in 49 CFR 173.136(a) and 173.137(a) and (b). j Hazard Category C Materials XIII. Non-flammable Compressed Gases Class 2, Division 2.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(b). XIV. Combustible Liquids 19 Class 3 Packing Group III as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(b). XV. Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials Class 9 as defined in 49 CFR 173.155. XVI. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group III is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(iii). XVII. Corrosives D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 8 Packing Group III as defined in CFR 49 173.136(a) and 173.137(c). (Ords. 96-_ §3, 96-20.) 4»63:.: . >:Iraticn:::o <1nidet� >;R;04 �ec�rd::::<::: ? ::: :; ► :; ;: 11..:'.>:< i':::::::i>:::::1::i<:+;i:?L+.vi':tiv:i:iiiiij::}:vi::iiJilii:+'i.isiif'iiiiiFi:iiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i::iii:•:iiiry::::i::i::i::•:i::i::'••:ii•:i::iii:'jii::i'r::iii::iiiii:'}}}}: �c?�rd<:shall::<be::::i�t�d�:::b:. :::det�s�: # �>�:b `� :•; '::•':: . .:. :: :• :..::....:.:.. :.,_..::.,. ....::' •'.:': .:`::d.:... ..:.. ;,t Article 84-63.12 Land Use and Variance Permits 84-63.1202 Granting. An applicant for a land use permit shall submit a project description. Land use permits required under this chapter may be granted in accordance with the provisions of chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 96_ §3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.14 Offsite Hazardous Waste Facili , Compliance With County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 84-63.1402 Authority. This article is enacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 25135.4 and 25135.7, concerning the siting of offsite hazardous waste facilities. (Ords. 96-20, 90-73.) 84-63.1404 Definitions. (a) General. Unless otherwise specified in this section or indicated by the context, the terms used in this article have the meanings ascribed to them in Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.). (b) "County Hazardous Waste Management Plan" means the county hazardous waste management plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 29, 1989 and amended by the Board of Supervisors on January 30, 1990, approved by a majority of the cities within 20 the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area, and approved by the State Department of Health Services on February 28, 1990, as said plan is amended from time to time. (c) "Hazardous waste facility" means all contiguous land and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous waste. A hazardous waste facility may consist of one or more treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling hazardous waste management units, or combinations of these units. (d) "Offsite hazardous waste facility" means a hazardous waste facility at which either or both of the following occur: (1) Hazardous waste that is produced offsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled. (2) Hazardous waste that is produced onsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled and the hazardous waste facility is not owned by, leased to or under the control of the producer of the hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-20, 90-73.) 84-63.1406 County Hazardous Waste Management, All land use permit, variance or other land use entitlement granted for the operation or expansion of an offsite hazardous waste facility shall be consistent with the portions of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan which identify siting criteria, siting principles of other policies applicable to hazardous waste facilities. Before granting the application, the division of the planning agency hearing the matter initially or on appeal shall find that the application complies with the applicable siting criteria, siting principles and other policies identified in the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and that the proposed offsite hazardous waste facility is consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (Ords. 96-20, 90-73; Health & Safety Code, §§ 25135.4, 25135.7.) 84-63.1408 Exclusion. The requirements of this article do not apply to projects which are exempt projects under section 84-63.604. (Ords. 96-20, 90-73.) ...:..........:..:.....:..:..::::....:.:....:...F...........iij::ii:::i'•i::::':Yi'tiv}:•:ii.....<i::'.::i:. i' SECTION IV. >:::: ttc €:: :> ::::. ::::::::::;;:: :: :::;..' 72-4.010 When plans and inspection not required. In any construction otherwise subject to this title, submission of plans and inspection will not be required if the owner files a report of such construction with the building inspection department, together with G;prving : : ri the owner or a responsible agent of the owner that the construction is of such a nature that disclosure of details would pr-eju fieet ( f 21 D- 13 .::::::::::::::.:..::.::::::::.:.......:......:::::.:.. ........................ industrial seeys , a report by a certified or licensed engineer or architect in the state or a qualified person that the work has been designed and will be constructed to comply with all applicable county requirements, and, upon completion of construction, a report that all the work has in fact been completed and does comply. If the reports are submitted by a qualified person who is not a licensed or certified engineer or architect, they shall.be submitted.with an affidavit under oath that they are true and correct. The building inspector may refuse the exemption herein provided and require full compliance with regular building inspection procedures if ....:;:....... :..::':-;".:":.:..:.,:::. P es he ::�pa : >�: >:::::::> ...................................................:.............;......................................................................;.... b tt x lfinds that such noncerhfied or nonlicensed person is not qualified to determine compliance. In the event of this determination by a building inspector, the applicant may offer additional evidence of qualification or resubmit the application by a person found qualified by the building inspector. (Ords.96-_ §4, 67-70 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 1631: prior code § 7101(e): Ord. 1372.) SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. This ordinance shall be liberally construed to achieve its purposes and preserve its validity. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable and are intended to have independent validity. SECTION VI. PREEMPTION. Nothing in this ordinance is intended, and should not be deemed, to excuse or prevent compliance with any State or federal law. If any provision of this ordinance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be preempted by any applicable State or federal law, the Board of Supervisors declares that its intent is for such provision to be severable from the remainder of the ordinance, and the remainder of the ordinance is to be given effect in accordance with the provisions of Section III of this ordinance. 22 �r 13 SECTION VII, EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on , by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Board Chair [SEAL] P 23 C-0 ... .0 n. 13 6 a ORDINANCE NO. 96- DRAFT (Community Safety Assurance Ordinance) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows : SECTION I . This ordinance may be referred to as the "Community Safety Assurance Ordinance" . SECTION II . The Board of Supervisors finds as follows : A. Economic vitality and community safety are important goals of the County. Industry contributes substantially to the economy of the County. Careful monitoring and public awareness of industry operations and facilities are vital to assure that community safety is preserved, as these economic benefits are provided. It also is essential to avoid regulations that are duplicative, or do not provide appropriate protection in light of the additional government and business expenditures required. B. An effective means of providing added assurances of community safety, without creating undue additional governmental bureaucracy and expense, is for the County to monitor and oversee the implementation of sweeping ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 v1 1 8/27/96 9:30 am new Federal health, . safety and environmental requirements; under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 . C. These Amendments added requirements above and beyond existing health, safety and environmental laws, that facilities handling hazardous materials in certain processes above threshold quantities must prepare Risk Management Plans ( "RMPs") . The required contents of these plans are set forth in Section 112 (r) of the federal Clean Air Act and in regulations developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The act and regulations provide that by mid-1999, agencies will be designated to implement and enforce the provisions of .Section 112 (r) . D . This Ordinance speeds up the process for public awareness and scrutiny of RMP, by providing the County Health Services Department with immediate authority ( 1) to require facilities to report on the development and implementation of the RMP; (2 ) to conduct audits/inspections regarding RMP development and implementation for covered facilities located within the County; (3 ) to require facilities to respond in writing to the findings of the audit/inspection; (4 ) - the public shall have access to the preliminary determinations of -suggested revisions, responses, and final determinations of suggested revisions under this Ordinance . In addition, the Ordinance specifies that the Department' s final report ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 v 2 8/27/96 9:30 am on an audit or inspection is an administrative action which may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, in the same manner as other administrative actions of County departments . E . This Ordinance adds to the County' s ability to assure community safety. It does not in any way limit or reduce the authority of the County to conduct _investigations, information gathering or enforcement under other ordinances or laws. SECTION III . Chapter 450-3 is hereby added to the County Ordinance Code as set forth in Section IV below. SECTION IV. Sections 450-3 . 002 , 450-3 . 004 , 450-3 . 0061 450-3 . 008, 450--3 . 010, 450--3 . 012, and 450-3 . 014 are added to Chapter 450-3 of the County Ordinance Code to read as follows : 450-3 . 002 Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to improve community safety by providing the County with immediate authority to monitor development and implementation of new Federally- required health, safety and environmental requirements . The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 amended Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and added Section 112 (r) . The intent of Section 112 (r) is to prevent accidental releases to the air and mitigate the consequences of such releases by focusing prevention measures on chemicals that pose the greatest risk to the public and the environment . Under ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 vi 3 8/27/96 9:30 am Section 112 (r) (7 ) of the Clean Air Act, certain stationary sources handling regulated substances in excess of threshold levels are required to develop and implement a risk management program. This risk management program must be described in a risk management plan ("RMP") that is required to be registered with the federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") -and submitted to state and local authorities on or before June 21, 1999 . On June 20, 1996, the EPA caused to be published in the Federal Register regulations implementing the provisions of Section 112 (r) of the federal Clean Air Act. These regulations specifically set forth the requirements for the preparation of RMPs required under Section 112 (r) . Because numerous industrial facilities using hazardous materials are located in Contra Costa County, and because the County has applied to become a CUPA ("Certified Unified Program Agency") under the Health & Safety Code and, if certified as a CUPA, to become responsible for implementing Section 112 (r) , including the audit provisions thereof, it is in the interest of the County, the enhancement of community safety, and covered facilities that the County be provided immediately with appropriate authority regarding the RMP development and implementation process for covered facilities located in the County, so as to enhance community safety. ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 vl 4 8/27/96 9:30 am 450-3 .004 Definitions . For .purposes of this Chapter the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Department" shall mean the Contra Costa County Health Services Department . (b) "Facility" or "Facilities" shall mean any business or businesses within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County subject to the provisions of Section 112 (r) of the federal Clean Air Act . (c) "Regulated Substances" shall mean those hazardous materials designated for coverage by the EPA under Section 112 (r) of the federal Clean Air Act . (d) "RMP" shall mean a Risk Management Plan prepared pursuant to the mandates of Section 112 (r) of the federal Clean Air Act, and regulations promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency pursuant thereto . (e) "Section 112 (r) " shall mean Section 112 (r) of the federal Clean Air Act, codified at 42 U. S .C. § 7412 (r) . ( f) "Audit/inspection" shall mean the powers and procedures given to the Department under Section 450-3 . 006 hereof . ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 vl 5 8/27/96 9:30 am + �. 10. 13 _ 450-3 .006 Initial Report (a) By December 31, 1996, but not less than 90 days after the effective date of this Section, each Facility shall submit to the Department an initial report setting forth the schedule adopted by such Facility for development and implementation of RMP, and the actions such Facility intends to take for "that purpose . 450-3 . 008 Audit/Inspections . (a) Every Facility shall, at the request of the Department, meet with the Department up to two times per year to review the Facility' s progress in developing an RMP . (b) In order to provide the Department with information regarding a Facility' s development and implementation of an RMP, the Department may annually audit and/or inspect a Facility' s progress in achieving compliance with Section 112 (r) . (c) The Department may select a Facility for audit or inspection under this Chapter based on any of the following criteria : (1 ) The accident history at the Facility; (2 ) The accident .history of other Facilities with the same Source Industrial Classification as the Facility, and ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 vi 6 8/27/96 9:30 am conducting similar activities in a similar manner. as the Facility; . (3) The quantity of Regulated Substances present at the Facility; ( 4 ) The location of the Facility and its proximity to the public and environmental receptors; or (5) A plan providing for neutral, random oversight . - (d) In the absence of other compelling considerations, as reasonably determined by the Department, a Facility with a Star or Merit ranking under OSHA' s voluntary protection program shall be exempt from audits or inspections under this Chapter . (e) In performing an audit under this Chapter, the Department shall have access to the stationary source, supporting documentation, and any area where an accidental release could occur . (f) Based on the results of an .audit or inspection conducted under this Chapter, the Department may issue a Facility a written preliminary determination of suggested revisions to the Facility' s RMP development process to ensure that the RMP meets the criteria of Section 112 (r) . The preliminary determination shall include an explanation of the basis for the proposed revisions to the Facility' s RMP development process ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 v1 7 8/27/96 9:30 am reflecting industry standards and guidelines (such as, AIChE/CCPS guidelines and ASME and API standards)' to the extent that such standards and guidelines are applicable) . (g) The Facility shall respond in writing to a preliminary determination made in accordance with paragraph ( f) of this Section. The response shall state either that the Fadility *will implement the revisions contained in the preliminary determination or that the Facility rejects the revisions in whole or in part . For each rejected revision, the Facility shall explain the basis for its rejection . Such explanation may include substitute revisions . The written response under this Section shall be submitted to the Department within 90 days of the receipt of the Department' s preliminary determination. The Department may, however, by written agreement provide' a Facility subject to a preliminary determination with additional time within which to respond. (h) After providing a Facility with an opportunity to respond under paragraph (g) of this Section, the Department may issue the Facility a written final determination of suggested revisions to the Facility' s RMP development and implementation process . The final determination of suggested revisions may adopt or modify the revisions contained in the preliminary ordinance no. 96- /sf-182896 vI 8/27/96 9:30 am determination under paragraph (.f) of this Section, or may adopt or modify any substitute revisions provided in the Facility' s response under paragraph (g) of this Section. A final determination of suggested revisions that adopts a revision previously rejected by the Facility shall include an explanation of the basis for the revision.. A final determination of suggested revisions that fails to adopt a substitute revision provided by a Facility under paragraph (g) of this Section shall include an explanation of the basis for finding such substitute revision unreasonable . (i) A final determination of suggested revisions issued pursuant to paragraph (h) of this Sectionis' an administrative action, which may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors in the manner provided for the appeal of other administrative actions pursuant to Chapter 14-4 of the County Ordinance Code . (j ) The public shall have access to the preliminary determinations of suggested revisions, responses, and final determinations of suggested revisions under this Section. Disclosure of any trade secret shall be made only pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 6 . 95 of Division 20 of the Health & Safety Code . (k) Nothing in this Section shall preclude, limit, or interfere in any way with the authority of the County to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and . ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 vl 9 . 8/27/96 9:30 am information gathering authorities under any other provision of law. 450-3 .010 Replacement by Permanent Regulation. The requirements of this Chapter shall be replaced, and thereafter have no further force and effect as to a particular Facility upon the earlier of the following: (a) The delegation of the authority to implement- and enforce the requirements of the RMP program, 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 68 . 215 (e) , to another agency other than Contra Costa County. (b) The submission of -a final RMP by the Facility to the agency desi-gnated by law to receive and certify the RMP . 450-3 . 012 Fees . The Department may, upon a majority vote of the Board, adopt a_ schedule of fees to be collected from each business -subject to an audit or inspection under Section 450-3 . 008 . Any inspection/audit fee schedule shall be set in an amount sufficient to pay only those reasonable costs incurred by the Department as a result of carrying out the inspection or audit, including staff and/or outside consultant time . In no event shall a Facility be required to pay a fee under this Section in excess of $10,000 in any one calendar year . ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 v1 10 8/27/96 9:30 am 450-3. 014 . Penalties The Department may assess a penalty upon a Facility for failure to submit an initial report, for failure to participate in an audit/inspection, and for failure to submit written responses to the report of any audit, as provided in this Chapter . The penalty shall be not less than $500, but not more than $10, 000, in any one . calendar year . SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. This ordinance shall be liberally construed to achieve its purpose and preserve its validity. If any provision or clause of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of the Ordinance are declared to be severable and are intended to have independent validity. SECTION V. PREEMPTION. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended, and should not be deemed, to excuse or prevent compliance with any State or federal law. If any provision of this Ordinance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be preempted by any applicable State or federal law, the Board of Supervisors. declares that its intent is for such ordinance no. %- /sf-182886 vi 11 8/27/96 9:30 am provision to be severable from the remainder of the Ordinance, and remainder of the Ordinance is to be given effect in accordance with the provisions of Section III of this - Ordinance . In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between this Ordinance and applicable federal or state statutes or regulations, the federal or state requirements shall control . w ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 v1 12 8/27/96 9:30 am SECTION .W . EFFECTIVE DATE. . This Ordinance becomes effective 30- days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on by the following vote . AYES: NOES : ABSENT : ABSTAIN: ATTEST : PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Board Chair [SFAL] ordinance no. 96- /sf-182886 v1 13 8/27/96 9:30 am RECEIVED SEP 2 0 G96 ■ ■ ■ F3197 W. Channel Rd..m Benicia, California 94510 � 707-7 6th OE OF SUPERVISORS r■ ItifKE CONTRA COSTA CO. Imo■ September 17, 1996 5131 Alhambra Valley Road Martinez, CA 94553 Supervisor Jeff Smith 651 Pine Street, Room 108A Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Jeff and Members of the Board, As you might already know, I am not much of a political individual and an not inclined to write letters . In the case of the proposed "Good Neighbor Ordinance" I am motivated to let you know that I will be advising employees, our local vendors, non-profit organizations we' contribute to and others who will be financially hurt if the new ordinance in put in place. We will advise a vote for only persons who -will not vote for the ordinance. We are assured that installing a permit process for regular maintenance would increase cost (added time is part of this cost) and less work would be available to our company. I had called "Mayor Mike" for a copy of the ordinance, as I was telling people it could not be as bad as they say. However, after reading the ordinance draft, I can see why he is embarrassed to send me a copy. Our company relies on maintenance services for full time employment. Thirty six full time employees work for Delta Tech and daring shut-downti, we eiuploy a5 many as 75 local people. Our business is, small but does return over $5,000,000 in payroll and locally purchased items to the community. Real safety management includes all crafts and trades, professional engineers, technicians, and most important the plant operators and process engineers. who own the equipment and work with it every day. Respectfully, Info Copies: Mike Menesin Kathy Radke September 13, 1996 Supervisor Jeff Smith, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors RECEIVED Contra Costa Country 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 SEP z U [ Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board: CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. On behalf of TIMEC Company Inc., I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed amendments by the Steamfitters and Pipefitters Union, local 342, to the recently adopted Hazardous Materials Commission ordinance and to request your support for realistic alternatives developed through open discussions. These new amendments, formerly contained in the "Good Neighbor" ordinance, are being falsely promoted as a way to improve industrial safety. In reality, they are a veiled attempt by one labor union to take jobs from other represented and qualified workers. Developed without any public input or review, the Steamfitter's proposed amendments will require new and extensive land-use permit obligations on local industry for routine maintenance. In fact, their most recent proposal is so extreme it would cause hundreds of maintenance jobs done every day at industrial facilities to each get a separate land-use permit. It effectively will shut down industry in Contra Costa County. The industry is working hard, every day, to improve safety. In addition to existing federal, state and local laws, industry is actively supporting the desire of local government to be the implementing and enforcement agency of the new.federal Risk Management Program (RMP). RMP addresses a number of industrial safety issues including worker certification and training, construction, maintenance, and inspection by the administering agencies. These are the same issues the Steamfitters claim need to be addressed through their ordinance. However, the RMP was drafted by government following extensive study of the causes of industrial incidents nationwide and after public hearings, unlike the Steamfitter's proposal. The Steamfitter's amendments negatively impact the business climate and economic well-being of the Contra Costa County. They are redundant to current and upcoming regulations. They are also counter to the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's goal of streamlining regulations and retaining high-wage manufacturing jobs. Thank you for your considerations of our comments. Sincerely, cc: Coalition for Jobs& Community Safety RECEIVED• September 13, 1996 Supervisor Jeff Smith, Chair and SEP 1 8 1996 Members of the Board of Supervi %gRK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa Country CONTRA COSTA CO. 1 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board: On behalf of TIMEC Company Inc., I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed amendments by the Stearrifitters and Pipefitters Union, local 342, to the recently adopted Hazardous Materials Commission ordinance and to request your support for realistic alternatives developed through open discussions. These new amendments, formerly contained in the"Good Neighbor" ordinance, are being falsely promoted as a way to improve industrial safety. In reality, they are a veiled attempt by one labor union to take jobs from other represented and qualified workers. Developed without any public input or review, the Stearnfitter's proposed amendments will require new and extensive land-use permit obligations on local industry for routine maintenance. In fact, their most recent proposal is so extreme it would cause hundreds of maintenance jobs done every day at industrial facilities to each get a separate land-use permit. It effectively will shut down industry in Contra Costa County. The industry is working hard, every day, to improve safety. In addition to existing federal, state and local laws, industry is actively supporting the desire of local government to be the implementing and enforcement agency of the new federal Risk Management Program(RMP). RMP addresses a number of industrial safety issues including worker certification and training, construction, maintenance, and inspection by the administering agencies.' These are the same issues the Steamfitters claim need to be addressed through their ordinance. However, the PJAP was drafted by government following extensive study of the causes of industrial incidents nationwide and after public hearings, unlike the Stearrifitter's proposal. The Steamfitter's amendments negatively impact the business climate and economic well-being of the Contra Costa County. They are redundant to current and upcoming regulations, They are also counter to the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's goal of streamlining regulations and retaining high-wage manufacturing jobs. Thank you for your considerations of our comments. Sincerely, cc: Coalition for Jobs & Community Safety RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 1 8 WS CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ap 8 CONTRA COSTA Co. eptember 13, 1996 Supervisor Jeff Smith, Chair and SUPERVISOR SMITH Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa Country 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board: On behalf of TM EC Company Inc., I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed amendments by the Stearnfitters and Pipefitters Union, local 342, to the recently adopted Hazardous Materials Commission ordinance and to request your support for realistic alternatives developed through open discussions. These new amendments, formerly contained in the"Good Neighbor" ordinance, are being falsely promoted as a way to improve industrial safety. In reality, they are a veiled attempt by one labor union to take jobs from other represented and qualified workers. Developed without any public input or review, the Steamfitter's proposed amendments will require new and extensive land-,use permit obligations on local industry for routine maintenance. In fact, their most recent proposal is so extreme it would cause hundreds of maintenance jobs done every day at industrial facilities to each get a separate land-use permit. It effectively will shut down industry in Contra Costa County. The industry is working hard, every day, to improve safety. In addition to existing federal, state and local laws, industry is actively supporting the desire of local government to be the implementing and enforcement agency of the new federal Risk Management Program (RMP), RMP addresses a number of industrial safety issues including worker certification and training, construction, maintenance, and inspection by the administering agencies. These are the same issues the Steamfitters claim need to be addressed through their ordinance. However, the RAT was drafted by government following, extensive Study of the causes of industrial incidents nationwide and after public hearings, unlike the Steamfitter's proposal. The Steamfitter's amendments negatively impact the business climate and economic well-being of the Contra Costa County. They are redundant to current and upcoming regulations. They are also counter to the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's goal of streamlining regulations and retaining high-wage manufacturing jobs. Thank you for your considerations of our comments. Sincerely, �'�''? cc: Coalition for Jobs& Community Safety RECEIVED SEP 1 8 1996 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS „` S pte ber 13, 1996 CONTRA COSTA CO. Supervisor Je�Smmiith, Chair and 8 Members of the Board of Supervisors ' sel Contra Costa Country R. 651 Pine Street � �� � Martinez, CA 94553 S Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board: On behalf of TIMEC Company Inc., I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed amendments by the Steamfitters and Pipefitters Union, local 342, to the recently adopted Hazardous Materials Commission ordinance and to request your support for realistic alternatives developed through open discussions. These new amendments, formerly contained in the"Good Neighbor" ordinance, are being falsely promoted as a way to improve industrial safety. In reality, they are a veiled attempt by one labor union to take jobs from other represented and qualified workers. Developed without any public input or review, the Steamfitter's proposed amendments will require new and extensive land-use permit obligations on local industry for routine maintenance. In fact, their most recent proposal is so extreme it would cause hundreds of maintenance jobs done every day at industrial facilities to each get a separate land-use permit. It effectively will shut down industry in Contra Costa County. The industry is working hard, every day, to improve safety. In addition to existing federal, state and local laws, industry is actively supporting the desire of local government to be the implementing and enforcement agency of the new federal Risk Management Program(RMP). RMP addresses a number of industrial safety issues including worker certification and training, construction, maintenance, and inspection by the administering agencies. These are the same issues the Steamfitters claim need to be addressed through their ordinance. However, the RMP was drafted by government following extensive study of the causes of industrial incidents nationwide and after public hearings, unlike the Steamfitter's proposal. The Steamfitter's amendments negatively impact the business climate and economic well-being of the Contra Costa County. They are redundant to current and upcoming regulations. They are also counter to the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's goal of streamlining regulations and retaining high-wage manufacturing jobs. Thank you for your considerations of our comments. Sincerely' f r cc: Coalition for Jobs& Community Safet - RECE11.1ED 1 8W6 SUPERVISOR �TSeptember 13, 1996 H Supervisor Jeff Smith, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors RECEIVED Contra Costa Country 651 Pine Street SEP 18W Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board: CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. On behalf of TIMEC Company Inc., I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed amendments by the Steamfitters and Pipefitters Union, local 342, to the recently adopted Hazardous Materials Commission ordinance and to request your support for realistic alternatives developed through open discussions. These new amendments, formerly contained in the"Good Neighbor" ordinance, are being falsely promoted as a way to improve industrial safety. In reality, they are a veiled attempt by one labor union to take jobs from other represented and qualified workers. Developed without any public input or review, the Steanifitter's proposed amendments will require new and extensive land-use permit obligations on local industry for routine maintenance.-.Jn'faci, their most recent proposal is so extreme it would cause hundreds of maintenance jobs done every day at industrial facilities to each get a separate land-use permit. It effectively will shut down industry in Contra Costa County. The industry is working hard, every day, to improve safety. In addition to existing federal, state and local laws, industry is actively supporting the desire of local government to be the implementing and enforcement agency of the new federal Risk Management Program(RMP). RMP addresses a number of industrial safety issues including worker certification and training, construction, maintenance, and inspection by the administering agencies. These are the same issues the Steamfitters claim need to be addressed through their ordinance. However, the RMP was drafted by government following extensive study of the causes of industrial incidents nationwide and after public hearings, unlike the Steamfitter's proposal. The Steamfitter's amendments negatively impact the business climate and economic well-being of the Contra Costa County. They are redundant to current and upcoming regulations. They are also counter to the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's goal of streamlining regulations and retaining high-wage manufacturing jobs. Thank you for your considerations of our 6omiri6fits. SinrereY, cc: Coalition for Jobs& Community Safety .ti THE TIME TO ACT IS NO a , RECEIVED... . 2 Six Accidents in Seven Weeks ; SEP 4 CLERK BOARD OF SUPER�IfSpRiz � CO AA COSiA, . 8/1/96 (Gas Oil Release) Although the Pacific refinery had claimed that pre-startup testing would prevent problems, a pipe nipple sheared at connection to vacuum tower bottoms line and released heavy vacuum gas oil into the air and over the Rodeo community. Despite Pacific's initial claims of no offsite impacts, County Sheriffs Department notifies Health Services Department (HSD) of impacts on Rodeo community; HSD observes oil residue on vehicles, houses and plants in neighboring communities. Significant odors and oil droplets reported in the community. 8/10/96 (Extensive Flaring/Toxic Plume) Power outage requires depressuring of Chevron refinery process units resulting in extensive flaring over several hours. Chevron's backup power system was not engaged. Despite Chevron's initial claims of no offsite impacts, a large plume of black smoke travels several miles to the Berkeley hills and into Orinda. Independent testing reveals that the plume contained toxic chemicals. —� 8/15/96 (Smoke/Hydrocarbon Release) Leak in heat. exchanger at Pacific refinery requires shutdown of unit and produces smoke and hydrocarbon release which travels offsite and impacts Rodeo community. Problems in restarting the unit produce additional smoke and hydrocarbon release. Complaints registered from Rodeo residents. 8/16/96 (Sulfur Compounds/Hydrogen Sulfide Release) Odor abatement compressor at Unocal refinery malfunctions resulting in a release of sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide. Unocal also initially reported release of hydrocarbons. These materials traveled offsite and affected several communities. Complaints from as far away as Martinez and Walnut Creek. These are the same set of aging compressors that have repeatedly failed. 9/21/96 (Hydrogen Sulfide Release) Malfunctioning pressure relief and vapor r%covery system at Unocal refinery results in release of hydrogen sulfide from tank. This system has had a history of failure, causing releases which have exceeded the monitoring capabilities of Air District equipment (calibrated to measure up to 200 ppb). Health effects reported over a wide area, including the Glen Cove area of Vallejo. The reported health effects include vomiting, throat irritations, dizziness and headaches. --� 9/22/96 (Sulfuric Acid Release) Leak in a 3,500 gallon tank storing liquid sulfuric acid at Unocal refinery releases three to five gallons of sulfuric acid per minute. A mile-long stretch of San Pablo Avenue was closed for more than five hours. One worker was taken to a doctor for observation. A1065.111 FACILITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR MAJOR ACCIDENTS: 1989-1995 (Partial List) As reported by Contra Costa Health Services Department FACILITY NUMBER OF MAJOR ACCIDENTS: 1989-1995 Tosco 5 General Chemical 5 Chevron 5 Unocal 4 Shell 4 Pacific 4 Dow 2 Rhone Poulenc 1 DuPont 1 Texaco 1 Air Prod. 1 Total 33 A1065.113 "GOOD NEIGHBOR" COALITION Contra Costa County Building and Construction Trades Council Communities for a Better Environment Shoreline Environmental Alliance Sierra Club California League of Conservation Voters Communities for a Safe Environment Benicians Against Domes and Friends of Rose Drive California Communities Against Toxics Crockett Improvement Association Toxic Assessment Group Greenpeace Planning and Conservation League West County Toxics Coalition Brotherhood of Airline and Railroad Clerks Contra Costa County Women's Advisory Committee First Church of Christ, Scientist (Antioch) A1065.115 to 4Wft "JAR 1 an issue inplant � .�. �• � u. ounty PX Scofing M m �s {pm ; � 0 I ;. �^ 4�:b M dange- rs- for01 f � rel&bora By OENIS CUFF Transpotlaflon Pipellnq §teff writer ' 11 icheOzen retreated iii• „ doors and shut her win- Amount 1'16 NCreYes Aut'pf 11; ' ' dows early last summer ���': when a chemical plant spewed an 4.put of sit' :acid cloud over her block and drove this OPO front Otrrlmnurllly 24,000 people to hospitals. Ozen, a North Richmond resi- Ki +7+1)x 31+4+26.80 „dent, hasn't opened her windows since the General Chemical Co.ale- ' urn spy She doesn't feel safe enough. "It's not smart to have homes ,and chemical plants together, but- #'s been that way a long time in this ,Punty," she says. "It's scary." t, County officials say they want to „improve safeguards for neighbors such as Ozen by proposing to assess Public safety risks in reviewing in- dustrial proposals for expansions, upgrades and new plants. The county proposes a toxic-risk formula to determine if industrial projects require land-use permits and environmental reviews. It would be a first among Califor- nia cities and counties,officials say. The plan calls for scoring pro- jects according to the industrial— # ;chemical's toxicity, volume, trans- .portation method and oroximity to neighbors, r Example: Score up to 10 points a 'tor trucking dangerous chemicals ' .past homes. Drop that score to 1 paint if the company switches to pipelines for safer transportation. t Projects scoring 80 or more : 'aaints need permits. They can be -Opnied if county planners and su- pervisors aren't satisfied with safety Transportation Truck 10 out of 10 measures. Low scorers are off the hook. in- jbistry gets an incentive to came up Amount chance New fall 0 at the start., ainky 0 t� fat ism ,Dlatanae fipm community .800 feet "11if t heft." ye'�'Gm a member of count' Haf ardous Materials ((10+6+6)x 61+26+ ` 131 riot#?... ee that spent r �►o years up the formula. "We're classic risk-assess- �rent tools; and applying them in a �ffr S :ice MCCORMACK/TiM" otu+os: C C.t O�rr�rrrent tteervibea +"@fray that a person with an ordinary w ..�: end offs �Cou; don't need a , t t'S 1 t0 el>a' ® ORMO thz ares. �► The Kopod IA g9ing public now The county Hazardous Ma- next teriais Commission will hold h"e T7Sk ` ogard of S � B ' two public workshops this Cj'telYtlC �Rnts and «� The ordinance would apply just month on a proposed ordi- nan a to use public safety risks together, tt S been Q Wif a 1 "S0 Othin unincorporated areas,but the j Ommisslon will ask cities t�It in reviewing industrial projects' that Way a �. i the rules also apply within city that handle toxic chemicals. u, They begin at 7 p.m. Sept. 21 in thYS County.Itr S educadoyW irsIndustry and environmental Ind. at the George Gordon Center, praise the proposal as a creative 500 Court St., Martinez,and 10 SCaty. pne to protect the public. a.m. Sept.24 at Richmond City —MSM Orn, Ktanduse. � t Environmentalists say they want Hall, 2800 Barrett Ave. the ordinance expanded to apply to North Richmond reSident You 't need a developers who propose building j►omes near industries. success of the ordinance may be "This takes into account the real • to a t he Overall, though, environmental- what people are driven to do on risk to the community," says Sabfa Tsts say the ordinance is a big step their own to change their projects," Gocken,a Martinez chemist and en- SCQIaeS. .! toward greater safety from splils Counties and cities traditionally vironmentalist serving on the Haz- __Tom Ufldwnuth, kid,leaks in a county known as the leave it to state,federal and regional ardous Materials Comntissidn. "Ac- Hazardafs Mgtoriels ppeeirochemitx►1 capital of Northern environmental regulators to review cidents are going to happen, You falifornia. Commtl industrial projects on industrially have to plan for that in an area tthwo ifed with ploftg zoned land. where you've got peon and chemi- Five oil refineries and many Contra Costa decided those sin- cals mixed together," sties and the poor say they want ex-' Five plants line the Contra Cos- gie-purpose agencies dant always hoHfes tra risk points added it a Project is Cos- shoreline. Some of them,such as look at the big picture. _ _ __ — near people already at risk from NW Shell "oil refinery in Martinezy 01di1NMICa Some say the ordinance is seri- Cher ce � '�' { W Pacific refinery in Hercules,are ously flawed because it doesn't do "t ow-income and radal minority --. ply .a,few hundred feet from In 1986, the county broke new anything to limit homes proposed communities are atdisproportion. homes. ground with an ordinance calling near toxic chemical industries.After ately high nth risk,being­locatedt / General Chemical has a larger for the adoption of new land-use all, developers propose homes near in proximity to industries handling Mer zone,but the oleum tai*car permits for industries. heavy itrdaslriea.but r%*propose ha7anlrtier4 rrtntPd*Is_" .mtp psi' tilers;Jiilj+ 26, iiiyi, showed new chemical or oil tants. """`j'ui�, "„"” """ { ow winds Carr awes hazardous But the ordinance was too weak P SiriµanduJuUo Mendoza of the the chemicals for miles.The cloud drift- with too many exemptions, critics — ""you could propose homes right county's Public and-Environmental say.The county exempted industrial { Od from North Richmond more than projects unless they involved at up to a plant's fence line, and this Health Advisory Board. dight miles to Hercules and Rodeo. least 12,500 tons of hazardous ordinance wouldn't apply," says . County staff"advisers say it Health officials in Solano County waste or 4,000 tons of hazardous Howard Adams,a Crockett chemist. would be legally difficult to have a were monitoring it to see if they materials annually. He has been criticial of a plan to seer rule in only some parts of heeded to take action. build some Crockett houses down- the county. "We already have too many Pt9jects rarely required permits. wind of the Wickland oil terminal Plant neighbors complained when and the Unocal ail refine Williams of Chevron says ti t- amblems in this county with the refinery. � lar they saw projects going up without ening the ordinance too much could ty amount h emissions directly Count hazardous-materials into neighborhoods, as well the land-use permits. Y put a cloud over the county's job. reat of Bhopal-type commissioners agree the county rich oil industry. Qr pal-type accidents that The current ordinances, no ought to look at the issue, but say Ksuld kill people in minutes," says legal distinction between a project that is the job of the county Plan- We need to be careful not to put nny Larson of Citizens for a Bet- using dynamite within a few hun- our facilities under too man re- t (or Environment. An accidental as dred feet of homes and a project us- ring Commission — not the Hoz- Y 4 ak from a Union Carbide plant in i fuel oil miles from neighbors. ardaus Materials Commission. witrefacilentsities so they can't compete � P � 8h with facilities in other counties, Bhopal, India, in December 1984 The current laws also don't con- '"They're passing the buck,"says Williams says. ed more than 2,500) Larson. `Then'job is to protect the sider neighbors' ability to flee a Plant overhauls and expansions ,. An administrator of the Chevron public from hazardous-chemical t k� oil refinery in Richmond says the chemical release. often bring in the most modern tfrdinance is fair to industry. For example, under the new for- Comrnissianers reply that and glib' than reduces pollution "It gives industry a reward for mule, more risk points would be on a new issue would bag down an . . .riays. making their projects as risk-free as given a project if the nearest neigh- Commissioners the will con- ` ", ordinance that aMeffdy fres taken �Y Y possible, says Pete Williams, the hors are full-time convalescent yew to draft sider feedback at their workshops i pe#inery's environmegtal and safety home residents, rather than people more than two beforedping refining on the ipanager and a member of the Haz- working in a store open only during Some critics want other changes plan and-sending it on to the county ' V drdous Materials Commission. "The the day. in the fgrmula.Advocates for minor- supervisors. ^a•. ! h t *:,;: Request to Speak For ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' nostrum before addressing the Board INanme: _Tc I t,) C#4-5 N6i S-S-0 A) !hare; 2 r Ad&eu • 92s- PIq-v 1 am spealdng for emysel or . *ism of o�u�tatia� CHECK ONE _ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Qate: Mr oominents will be: general _for _agal i wish to Weak on the subject 6 Ftp do not wish to weak but leave these oommer�ts for the b��All c;sp to Co i Request to Speak Fo m ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' maxum before addressing the Board. Name: dzc A*1rew—'7-2 6' s dfiF ity: /0/ lv y 2 1 am speaking for or ' oee of orpntsatjoN CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item My C-0- is will be: Beneral �Jbrr �sp1 wish to eak on the — 1 do not wish to speak but {cave thaP comments for the Eoard to consider: Request to Speak Form , 1 ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' estrum before addressing the Board. Name: 6A ISA TWO 0 D bU L.N Phone: 229 , i am speaking for myself.or ' 6�nK of o�anisataN CHEC�C ONE 1 wish to speak on Benda Item #IJL. Oeste: 9 -I // /--I / My comments will be: general _jor-.49 t _. 1 wish to speak on the adod of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to SPeak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It lin the box near the speakers' rostrum before addre 'ng the Board. 1 am speaking for myself_or organization: omm of ) CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Age & Item Dat nst - m _ My coments will be: general _for_ _ I wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave dwse comments for the Board to consider: a Request to Speak Form t ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it In the box near the speakers' mum before addressing the Board. Name: phone: 73 7- / Aga Address: 3 w 1 am speaking for myself or organkasom (r.wm of orgLedution) CHECK ONE I wish to speak on Agm& Item My comments will be: general ,_for_aRgai . _ I wish to speak on the wbject of 1 & trot wish to speak but leave #me comments for the Board to consider. SOL Request to Speak florm ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It in the, box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: hone: Ckr�Lf J'- 0 lc� I am speaking for myself or organinflom- � of o�ntsa�tioN CHECK ONE: A I wish to speak an /agenda Item # L ,� Oates �� My comments wilt be: general _for��gair _-• I wish to speak on the subject04 & rat wish to speak but Ieaw these comments for the Board to Vo �� Request to Speak orm D< Ix' ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' mpum before addressing the Board. Name: i�A) A 7'T`R !hone: 6,2 6 y5,& wddress: l7Il �v,s 72,✓c�r uT: �itr: W A-L ti-u7- C.2 r7t 1 am speaking for myself_or �4c wee of o1w dnfin 0 C IKX ONS X� 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # -I ?-. zy- My comments will be: g+erwal Lfor..j*d eak I wish to spon the subjectof _ i do not wish to speak but leave these commesrts for the Board to corrsidec: looili Request to Speak "Form , ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It in the box gear the We+akers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: V Phone: f Af ! am speaking for myself. or organization: oww of CHECK ONE: wish to k an Atenda Item #______ e; 9 My corns will be: V n�yryra! 1 wish t✓o �pealc an the of e d R I do not wish to 1peak but leave dwse cornrrrents foal the hoard to co wide: Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Cromplete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' nostrum if addressing the Board. Name: V/"i ro Ajb 65,�F-/C o . *f IOf1e' 0 !v o/u M AJE Ckr 1 am speaking for myself_or . 4rmw of agan�dioN CHECK ONE 7�— l 7--, �- 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item f_ Oates My comments will be: general _for_ .pgain t _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers,* rostrum before addressing theBoard. Vicki 1dPess:_ t �5� C.� Yra� r9� hr Co�1C.as I am speaking for myself or organizaation: CHECK ONE: OMe Of aSanlzaiti�►N �X t wish to speak on Agenda Item #.,�, Uat Z,u 9b My co51"1Vertts will be: geseral I wish to speak on the abject of I do not wish to but leave these c e mments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form 1 ' -D, 111� ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone: am speaking for myself- or organization: K 2, ane CHECK ONE: .� I wish to s+pealc on Agenda Item OateL`�- My comments will be: General 1or'againd _ I wish to speak on the xigect of I do not wish to speak but leave these eornments for the to consider. Request to Speak Form D ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It In the box near the speakers' rostmm before addressing the Board. Name; :5c z> !"tome: ell 1 am speaking for myself_or Of . . Ow -0 of orian�tioN 011ECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # e~ My contmertts will be: gateral for nst 1 wish to speak on the subject I do not wish to speak but leave these com for the Board to consider -�-® Request to Speak Form D F I)--- ( THREE (3) MINUTE ILIMIT) L� k ` ef- CwWlete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' nostrum before addressing the Board. mum SA }� !'hone; (Yq- 0V 2. ,��II�r1�I�rw ,2241 Men 1 am speaking for myself_____or organization: *ww of organ�sat�on� CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on A w& item My oomrndnts will be: general _for, nst _r_.,,_,.. i wish to speak on the x61W of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these rorcunads for the Board o co dwe Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) (;"d- Corfiplete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. -Name: Ca-- LJZ� ' /address: 5- C– 17 —Ctra#P1:,v—n—L— I am speaking for myself`or organization: Oww of w5w1hation) CHECK ONE _ i wash to speak on Agenda Item #..— gate: My comments will be: general _for._.&ga1nst 1 wish to speak on the subject of J do not wish to speak but ve m coments for the Board to consider. e- � Request to Speak Form , ► ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 'D sem. Complete this form and place 1t In the box near the speakers' rosbw before addressing the Board. !dar C'_s , ,„ 0 !hone: e" -6 (19-6 Tess. ) 6 'x-1 1 II city. 1 am speaking for myself_or organization: erne of or�nizatan} DiEC K ONE: _ I wish to speak on Agenda Item My comments will be; general _for_._. . 1 wish to speak on the subject of 1 do root wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.--L—— I Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) P- - �� ° Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name; Thome: • .�, �M � . a I am speaking for myself_or organ - (IMM of organtutioN CHECK ONE 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Date:----. My comments will be: general _1or_aZrair�st f I wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. Request to Speak Form Dt I a---' (THREE (3} MINUTE L!Ml T) D�, "Zf Complete this farm and place it In the box near the speakers' ssntrum before addressing the Board. Nanm N'Y AL U, !hone: 13` 021 �9 ..tom. Z Zca Hz>u hA , I LLS taityt, 1 am speaking for myself-� or OJECSC ONE: �_�_,_„ ! wish to speak on Agenda ttan # Dates �. my comments will be: gaterat i wish to speak on the added of. - _� 1 do rat wish to speak but leave these c -105 is for dw Bowd Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. a I am speaking for myself_or organization: (erne of oraan�sataN CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Oate: My comments will be: general _jbr_agAn t__..�._• _ I wish to speak on the wibjed of `-1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to SPeak Form V,+ THREE MINUTE LIMI ` Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Nanw. rYr" 1 .. Phone: �.7. I am speaking for myf_ aorganization: Omm of"Pod kwo CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda stern #_ Date: My Comments will be: General _ior_vgainst t wish to speak on the abject of _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these com rents for the Board to consider. Request to' Speak Form DI � ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. I-� 63 G� r i A-M -7 S �f-- 18 Z I Name: �lwrne: Address: Cs� 43 w -7T t4 S l -S 6J+- vc L-1 1 am speaking for myself, or organization: G V u d �`'�'yti 6 � of o�nEsatioN CHECK ONE: `� 1 wish to speak on /agenda Ran #E !2 Date: Mr comments will be: general��for_againest . _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of - 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consi (-ec-/ l Gv o o f� v Oe [.✓o A Request to ,Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ug,- Complete �Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before 77= Name; ;,s iD A&Iress: iatr' I am speakirng for myself_or organhation: Name of oraanis�dioN CHECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on /agenda Item #_ Oate: My comments wilt be: general _for__; Wns-r._.- _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of - �/ 1 do not wish to but these for the Board to conwder: Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) d � -- Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: L"-J, / Oyhk-4i/ Citjr . 0 I am speaking for myself_,or organization: CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Aenda flan #L!2.- Oats ?-2y�5�v My Comments wilt be: general „_Jor,,(,,�sinst 1 wish to speak on the subject of - - V 1 do not wish to speak but leave these oannwits for the Board to Consider: Request to :Speak Form T) ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT). 711& SII AI t`- Complete this form and place 1t in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Rmni Phoney Address: ty' I am speaking for myself.or organhation: OMM of aaantsstioN CHECK ONE: I wish to speak an Agenda Item #.. Oate; My comments will be: general _J6r_,.w.WnsL_.____- 1 wish to speak on the abject of - . 1 do not wish_ but lea these for the Board to conceder Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum befUimaddressing the Board. Name; AU t-OP t 4/Z 6 - _A) 1 am speaking for myself_or organization: Oum of orsaninewo CHECK-ONS I wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Date: My comments will Im gerww ._fOr_awns f _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of v. I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: P Request to S eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name; O� lhorw - y 7� 1 am speaking for myself or organization: Oww of WNW&MCM0 CHECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on /agenda Item #=Date: Mr cornm►ents wilt be: general _Jbr agalnst r . I wish to speak on the subject of . X. 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Aq-[L.. f AGLt e �1� Request to Speak Form 1( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ► � -- ' Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rofivm before addressing the Board. NNam 1::�N ( rlwr�e: 1-49 e 64P-5 I am speaking for myself_or *mom Of CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #_1�e: i My oomn-ente will be: General _for.�ainst _ i wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to weak but leaves comments for the Board to consider m v 421 o do not wish to speak but leave these comments for tree aoara toM' 'o ' er: ' , �� / 1 Request to' Speak Form I ( ice (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) DJ Complete this form and place it In the box gear the speakers' noftm before addressing the Board. .Mame: `�"' 7 2- 313 3 JI�lidress�. �'' for nvrWf_.,or wpnlnd m.. �atne of o�gnbudion} CHE'CIC ONS ___,_„ I wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ We;. My comments will be: pxwal � f ..JWair�t_ • wish to speak on the x6jed of_ I do not wish to speak but leave these Cannctents for theBoard Request to Speak FormL, P__ ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) "4- sf-c . Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers rosbum before addressing the Board. AJAg4a2& :,�4. �QtyL UA J 1 am spealdnx for myself or ' Oww of owls d'an) CH ONS 1 wash to speak on Asenda Item #_ Date: q_2 V- !�L Mycomments wilt be; genera! _ior. nst . 1 wish to �k on the abject of -Z -1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ��- Complete this form and place It In the box near the speakers' estrum before addressing the Board. (7040Name: �vne• C) 7e 1 am speaking for myself'ar • *Mow of a N CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #` My - goer s will be; W_fbr_"Wrwt 1 wish to speak on the subject of "do not wish to but leave these comnrts for the / to consider•N== 74, Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) '7D I'd, Complete this form and place it In the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. r..// Addmw 53 u/0 1 am speaking for myself._".or orgatrisatior� � 3c/ � Omw of orjanisataN OGC K ONE 1 wish to speak an Agenda Ilan A.____ Daft My coma will Im W.�„for...pgainst_.,..._.r. 1 wish to speak on tk shied /1 do not wish to, but tfiese:+pc+m � for the � to caner S Request to Speak Form .( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 7,i d Complete this form and place it in the box near the Beakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. •�pol'EI'�iS Z �OSwe l ! on ng for nvyself-..or orgenizatim Dyne of 615Ndc lthmo CHECK oNE: 1 wish to speak an Agenda Ran # L,� Y will be: �mal��or �,,tgainst ! �toan .�.r,. s�jed O�1 - 1 do not wish to speak but Ieaw these t k"llow nts for the Board to midei , Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Phone: /address: Qrty� 1 am speaking for nnyself_or - oww of oraant ioN CHECK ONE I wish to speak an Agenda Item My oomrnents will be: general _for,_aBai t 1 wish to speak on the subject of = 1 do not wish to ambut leave these co pewits for the Board to CO alder. d d s 2 1�c� 4 0�.� ,f �� bio �4 ✓C� P Request to S eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) - Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: wt P.J ,rCk,C �j Phone; C s I o 1 -1 Y 9 - 7 3 &- E kA 1 am speaking for myself y` or organization: *ww of oraanisadtioN CHECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on /Agenda Item #_ Oate: My comments will be: general _Jor_.alyair 1 wish to speak on the subject of _ Y _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board toco QoCRA/ pug !h ro rn9.AAY C-f;� asil P-w-MtTg PMO C cT P Gnr _N / R?c4�Dcl C /,OA S r& W2 �A zA c S /elf e a^r 1A'� scA�dr,K= c�rvr i x-rJ Request to SPeak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �- Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: 22 �a � �Y`✓e Ckr. La a CA 74-41 I am speaking for myself=or organiratiom ON= of organ1"On N CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda item #L= Date: q My comments will be: general _for_"aink=. 1 wish to speak on the subject of = 1 do not wish to but leave comments forRmrd 1sSG'e is a scala sc to cove �✓ � l�a�Uwe�1IS c i �`s ✓off • d % o e Coll 6ieuclev& A Ps onSl�� °� COV ithV"feqc2Aepsat' aN� e�� i 40y�� Wd✓�i ��Vih e v SPE ,� weev-e✓��4r�k4hsa R �wq �71 . Depose to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker' s microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2 . You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. ' S . ,Limit your presentation` to three minutes . Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers . (The ��LO?I rfr: Chair may limit length of presentations so all // per ons may be heard) . IJ ou� �y�.;� area. �►►�. 1� C U�S�W2,ss an������d� m,( ! > G/ati✓�ahy kJa7• . Request -to Speak � Form. ( THREE (3) MIN UTE'LIM17) Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Nine; K"e(- -a_05 Addrew- Zo 2A 2i�k i=0 Ste" oCkt- 1 am speaking for myself_or organization+ brn�e of orpnisatioN CHECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on /Agenda Item #_ My comments will be: general _Jor_j*ainst I wish to speak on the abject of = 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to ymOR- pg "roe ©eD%rafit4Cas. A(sU pC�O05fC-D `Cfl -CSE � SMATK i1 i s t! b OT 'Tti-1 T 5 k S %,5cw Or- "ME: I��o�t� fit. A 5v E1 t5u2 ►aA2.. Request to Speak Form �( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. ' Name: 'Man �� � a,�`c� lPhone: Address: -- 1 = 1 am speaking for myself J or OrganiZabornc* Cala corA�O Jqc-�N W\aA(e omni of tioN CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #._ Oate~ My -- will be: general _for_against�_____. I wish to speak on the abject of 1 do not wi to speak but leave these for • - ���� con to `� Request to Speak Form ( THREE C3) MINUTE LIMIT) �� x:r� Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. /lddress: City 1 am for f=or kwrwn: �� o, o('s l�to nc., speakln8 myself- organ Oww of orpnintin 0 CHECK ONE: I wish to mak on Agenda Item #_ Date: My comments will be; general _for._abair ._._._. _ 1 wish to speak on the Rhied of = 1 do not wish to speak but lea these rnents for board1 • to (` k fw� Request to Speak Form D, , �- ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)spD•;� Complete this form and place it In the box near the eakers rostrum beforeadd 'ng the Board. Name: �� phone: Address: r myself on: f or izatil.tw am speak,ng for _ organ in me Of organtsatioN CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Oater My comments will be: general _Jbr_vgainsL___._. 1 wish to speak on the subjectS<*' I of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for Board to .cwtslder: S' Request to Speak Form �). -- -� ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) j L th CmVfete this form and place h in the box neare speakers' nrstrum before addressing the Board. Warne; _ ti -? � Addrew—L L-, 1 am speaking for myseif--..or organ ion: fk CHECK ONE: Owm 'f o gwdzd m) 1 wish to q" on Agenda ltern #... Qde�,__,,� My aumunents will be: general _._for,,,_, 1 wish to speak on the aibfed of . 1 do not wish to speak but 'leave these oomrrxmts for the Board o co-mMGi• i trf�A,1A S rvrw 1., ? Request to Speak Form 711 ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ��� Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers rostrum before addressin the Board Name: 1G /�� rhone• " d /lddress: �" I am speaking for myself_or orpnixation: bene Of oraantsatioN CHECK ONE 1 wish to speak on Agee #_� • My oomrnerrt geeral n _ ._agai 1 wish to speak on the subject of '�-A do not wish to but leave these for the Board to consider Request to Speak Form D, 1 -- ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMID Ck Complete this farm and place It in the box near the speakers' n�»trum before addressing the Board. Name:A I-�=� � .* _ -7cn'-�a AddreM � 1C, 46 . { 'ctr I am opeaking for myWf,�,or organhition:Clt- Omm of oraanfsjudw OiEC K ONE: 1 wish to on Agenda Item My comtnexrts will be; general I wish to speak on the K61ed � __ I do not wish to but leave these conrurnraits for the Board to Cons" S 1 OAu61V 1146 a J S �d ,ttlazt� J �y Request to Speak Form . ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Beard. Nalw. "-6r LL -,f AA 1�4LAc-JA �►� © ZSR �'�CaS�k 3023 ttot� Cihr:_� -t�oc4 1 on speaking for myself or ar$initati0� Owft of wpddsat w CHECK CINE; ..._._,_ ! Mrish to speak on Agenda ban #._� Mata; My cornmonts will be gerwW ,_,.Jar nst,.,_.._._.o.• I wish to speak an the s liklect not wish to *a* but km thaeCit�11!lllrlt8 for ft BOard to Consider.`. s�sPPoQT-, '�e_t �-c,�y p s ' ►'I c o