Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11061984 - 2.2 (2) � z The Board of Supervisors Contra Cerrkofthe�Boad and County Administrator County Administration Building Costa (415)372.2371 651 Pine St., Room 106 Coin Martinez, California 94553 Tom Powers, 1st District Nancy C.Fanden,2nd District Robert 1.Schroder,3rd District - Sunne Wright MCPeak,4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District November 6, 1984 Mr. Nathan Shapell , Chairman Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy 11th & L Building, Suite 550 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Shapell : You recently asked our County to respond to the Commission 's report entitled: "A Review of the Organization and Management of the State 'Superfund' Program for Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste Sites". On November 6, 1984, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors directed me to send you the following letter. The Little Hoover Commission Report is prefaced by an expressed position that " the safe control of toxic substances has now become one of the public 's top three concerns, along with crime and education .. . No environmental or public health issue of recent memory has reached into our communities and touched our families and children so fearsomely as the exposure to toxic substances. . . people are afraid and they are frustrated with the extremely slow pace of cleanups. California' s dismal record gives them cause to be frustrated. After nearly three years of attempting to cleanup California's worst dump sites, the data shows that we have lost more ground than we have gained. The State's discouraging performance to date is certainly due in part to the extremely complex, time-consuming, and expensive process involved in cleaning up toxic dumps." Considering the gravity of the potential public health impacts and the con- tinuing degradation and potential destruction of finite environmental resources the Commission 's prefacing remarks are not overstated. It is axiomatic that local government generally lacks the sophisticated technical staff expertise to deal effectively with the complexities of "Superfund" sites in an effective manner. It is also clear that the concerns of the citizens of a County such as Contra Costa which hosts 13 currently identified "Superfund" hazardous waste disposal sites are constantly being expressed to the local legislative bodies and the Health Services Department. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the various city councils and concerned community groups have man- dated the highest priority to assisting with the process of managing these superfund site cleanups to the extent possible. Despite this pro-active posi- tion, the accomplishment of site characterization, submission and evaluation of site mitigation plans, and mandated timetables for cleanup continues to be a painfully slow process. The apparent lack of continuity and cooperation between 000206 Mr. Nathan Shapell November 6, 1984 Page 2 the State Department of Health Services and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board in communicating their efforts to effect site cleanup and closure between each other and with the local governmental agencies has further heightened the frustrations of all concerned parties with the governmental pro- cess. As a consequence, the credibility of the State Superfund Program has been seriously impaired and the confidence of the public in the regulatory agencies whose responsibility it is to provide these essential and vital public protec- tions continues to diminish. For these reasons and those expressed in the introductory remarks of the Little Hoover Commission, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports the conclusions of the members of this Commission to the effect that "... there is no more central role for government than to protect its citizens. Today the State faces a toxics crisis that demands a rapid and effective response from our State government. Now is the time for not a bi-partisan response but rather non-partisan action by all to arrest the toxic threat." Contra Costa County concurs with any and all recommendations advanced by the Little Hoover Commission report that will yield some hope of effectively and efficiently accelerating the process for effecting site cleanup. It has been the experience of the local legislators and the local Departments of Health Services in the 3 years since the establishment of both the Federal and State Superfund Programs that the fragmented approach of the Federal and State regula- tory agencies having primary jurisdiction over the administration of the Superfund programs and Superfund sites has prevented the cooperative focusing of these governmental resources to effectively compel site characterization, miti- gation, abatement and closure. Instead, the identified parties responsible for site cleanups protract their responsibilities pending concurrence of the various governmental agencies having jurisdiction with respect to site mitigation, cleanup, and closure plans. As a consequence, the site owners and responsible parties never seem to reach a point of refusing to comply with regulatory agency mandates which is the usual trigger for litigation or commiting "Superfund" monies for cleanup purposes. The result is a continuation of the agonizingly slow process that is profiled in the Commission 's entire report and the clear failure statewide to effectively intervene the public health risks and environ- mental degredation accompanying each Superfund site. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors specifically supports the Commission's recommendations as follows: Recommendation #l : The Governor and the Legislature should create an Office of Super un Management within the Governor's Office to: immediately accelerate the cleanup of hazardous waste sites; ° centralize authority, establish accountability and improve coordination while major reorganization proposals are considered. GO 0 2 0 7 Mr. Nathan Shapell November 6, 1984 Page 3 With respect to Contra Costa County's 13 identified State Superfund sites, we concur in the finding of the Commission that: ° DHS Has No Orderly Program to Assess Sites .. . ° The Ranking System of the State Superfund Attempts to be Minutely Exact and Results in Constant and Misleading Changes in Cleanup Priorities ... ° The Department Has No Clear Policy on How and When to Notify Residents Living Near Toxic Sites About Possible Health Hazards ... ° The Department Places Inadequate Emphasis on Site Characterization ... ° The Department Has No Policy to Guide Decisions on What Security Measures to Take at Various Superfund Sites .. . ° DHS Has Not Developed Policies and Guidelines for Determining the Extent to Which a Site Should be Cleaned Up .. . ° DHS Has Failed to Develop Policies and Procedures to Force Action by Responsible Parties and Trigger Superfund Expenditures .. . ° The Department Has Failed to Develop Procedures to Track the Status of Contaminated Sites .. . ° The Office of Public Information and Participation has Been Unsuccessful in Providing Information and Participation Opportunities to Communities Affected by Toxic Dump Sites .. . ° There is Inadequate Coordination Among the State, Federal, and Local Agencies Involved in Cleanup Activities ... ° DHS and the State Water Resources Control Boards Have Failed to Allocate Adequate Staff to the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites ... ° Many Hazardous Waste Facilities Have Not Been Routinely Inspected ... ° California's Hazardous Waste Program Does Not Place Adequate Emphasis on the Reduction of Hazardous Wastes and on the Use of Alternative Waste Management Technologies ... It is difficult to comprehend how the establishment of an Office of Superfund Management within the Governor's Office would accomplish a non-partisan commit- ment considering that the regulatory agencies currently responsible for manage- ment of the Superfund Program and Site Cleanup' activities already report thrm, 2 0 8 Mr. Nathan Shapell November 6, 1984 Page 4 their administrators and managers to the Governor. However, if the composition of the Office of Superfund Management were truly non-partisan, identification and disclosure of deficiencies in managing this Program may occur more readily, which in itself would tend to accelerate correction of the extant problems. We concur that if this Office had direct responsibility and accountability for use of funds for (1) characterizing sites early and completely; (2) developing tough schedules for responsible party negotiations and cleanup work; (3) coor- dinating the approval of cleanup plans by the Department of Health Services, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Air Resources Board; (4) designating lead agencies for all cleanup projects and coordinating the activi- ties of State agencies involved in the cleanup; and (5) coordinating the deve- lopment of policies to guide cleanup decisions and to protect public health; then the result may be to cut years off the current fragmented, uncoordinated, and non-communicative approach. We would caution, however, that if the reality of this recommended new Office of the Governor is to "be established for a two- year period as an interim strategy to improve the effectiveness of the program *00 (and spends its time giving serious consideration) to major and permanent reorganization of the State's toxic's programs" then the likely outcome is to protract serious site characterization, mitigation, cleanup and closure activity by TWO MORE YEARS. We, therefore, concur in this recommendation to the extent that the office spends its time and resources effecting implementation and operationalizing those issues enumerated above. Recommendation #2: California should immediately double the resources available to cleanup toxic dumps. We support this recommendation on the premise that the additional commitment of funds will advance the Superfund Site cleanup activities . We note, however, that in the past two years, the Department has been unable to spend the entire $1O million appropriated by the Legislature previously. It would serve no prac- tical or productive purpose to commit even greater funds if they sit idle waiting for the program corrections to occur. Enhancing the Superfund as an indication of good faith commitment while protracting commitment of funds to early site characterization, mitigation, cleanup, and closure will escalate Public Health and Environmental damage occurring as a direct result of cleanup delays. To the extent that these increased funds will be committed to timely site cleanup activity, we concur in this recommendation. Recommendation #3: The Director of the Department of Health Services should create a special management task force to resolve serious management and admi- nistrative problems. 000209 Mr. Nathan Shapell November 6, 1984 Page 5 We support this recommendation based on its stated purpose to determine the number and type of staff that will be needed to carry out an expanded program; develop guidelines on when and how to conduct site characterizations; prepare a comprehensive staff training and development program for new and existing staff; develop specific policies to guide decisions on when and how to notify residents of potential health hazards; develop a computerized data management system to track the status of all abandoned sites; and to develop a special recruitment program to attract highly qualified candidates into the State's Superfund Program. We submit that, given the nature of the special management task force's charges, their effectiveness will depend to a great extent on their freedom to conduct their responsibilities without being subjected to the implied political con- siderations of the current Department. This may be accomplished by having the special management task force report to the Office of Superfund Management within the Governor's Office directly. Recommendation #4: The Legislature should amend certain State Statutes and con- sider new legal procedures to accelerate the collection .of funds from respon- sible parties. Restructuring the current legal system with respect to State Superfund Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in the manner recommended by the Little Hoover Commission may eventually streamline the remedial process. Such reform includes: 1 . Amending State statutes defining responsible parties so that the standards and scope of provisions of strict liability conform to Federal Law. 2. Amending current statutes regarding joint and several liability so that they would conform with Federal Law. 3. Establishing a bifurcated litigation procedure for Superfund cases with an initial phase of trial to determine, as a matter of fact, the amount of damages being sought and the "responsible" parties; and a second phase, within a matter of days prescribed by statute, to determine the amount of the total cleanup costs and damages to be borne by each of the liable parties of damages. Subsequently, a full trial would be held to readjudicate apportionment with greater parti- cularity. This process may prove to be more ambitious and consume more time to accomplish than either the communities or the environ- ment proximately located to the existing State Superfund Sites can withstand. The known .legislative process, with its independent time- frames, to say nothing of the certain constitutional challenges that would follow this legislative and judicial reform, should not be permitted to interfere with the use of current processes to accelerate 000210 O 2 i 0 the cleanup of State Superfund sites in the short run. Mr. Nathan Shapell November 6, 1984 Page 6 Recommendation #5: The Legislature should require that all existing hazardous waste disposal facilities meet the requirements and standards for new facilities no later than 1988. We support the intent of this recommendation to bring existing hazardous waste disposal facilities into compliance with the standards governing the operation of new facilities. Minimizing public health and environmental risk from dispo- sal of hazardous waste is a goal shared by all concerned parties. It is impor- tant, however, to be realistic when legislatively establishing deadlines for such compliance. This issue takes on an even greater importance when we consider that realistically it is essential to have available sufficient accessibly-located hazardous waste disposal sites to adequately service the needs of the industrial activities generating these wastes. It is all too easy to project statutory deadlines without realistically planning for new sites of such hazardous waste disposal facilities or providing for currently existing waste streams. One real consequence of poorly-timed legislation with statutory deadlines not consistent with the development of alternative technologies is to occasion an increased incidence of illegal disposal. Closing a regulatory loophole without providing for responsible and timely alternatives often compels greater resistance on the part of hazardous waste generators and may actually result in increasing numbers of illegal hazardous waste disposal sites. There is a lesson to be learned when we consider that the present Superfund Program was established in 1981 , and with the best intentions of the legislature and the implementing regulatory agencies, in the ensuing three years "little has been done nationwide or in California to clean up toxic dump sites". More legisla- tion with statutory deadlines without responsible planning, assessment, and alternative technology, regardless of good intentions, ,may well serve to exascerbate the current conditions. Recommendation #6: The Legislature should require the Department of Health Services to deve op regulations prohibiting the land disposal of all hazardous wastes which present serious potential risks to human health and the environment. We would concur in this recommendation with the pre-supposition that alternative technologies have been developed to assure the proper disposal of ultra- hazardous wastes. It would also seem prudent to direct staff priorities to pro- perly scrutinize those industries that generate such ultra-hazardous wastes to assure that this waste stream is finding its way into approved disposal facilities. 000211 Mr. Nathan Shapell November 6, 1984 Page 7 We appreciate this opportunity to review and comment on the Little Hoover Commission Report. We appreciate the complexities of implementing the State Hazardous Waste Superfund Program and generally support the intent of the committee's recommendations. We are committed in our local Department of Health Services' efforts to assisting in any way we are able. Very truly yours, TOM TORLAKSON Chairman TT:cbc cc: The Honorable George Deukmejian Governor of California Peter Rank, Director, State Dept. of Health Services The Honorable David Roberti , President Pro Tempore, California State Senate The Honorable Willie L. Brown, Speaker, California State Assembly The Honorable Diane Watson, Chair, Senate Health & Welfare Committee The Honorable Sally Tanner, Chair, Assembly Consumer Protection and Toxic Materials Committee Senators Daniel Boatwright and Nicholas Petris Assemblymen William Baker, Tom Bates, Robert Campbell , Phillip Isenberg 000212