Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01252011 - D.3RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the report from the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission entitled, “Brownfields and Contaminated Sites Clean-up Policy in Contra Costa County, Recommendations for Improvement” and DIRECT Contra Costa Health Services to collaborate with the Department of Conservation and Development to implement the recommendations contain in the “Brownfield and Contaminated Sites Clean-up Policy in Contra Costa County” and ACCEPT the report from the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission entitled, “Household Hazardous Waste Management in Contra Costa County, Recommendations for Improvement” FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission was established in 1986 by the Board APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 01/25/2011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYES 5 NOES ____ ABSENT ____ ABSTAIN ____ RECUSE ____ Contact: Michael Kent, 313-6587 I hereby certify that this 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: January 25, 2011 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Barbara Borbon, Micheal Kent D. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:January 25, 2011 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept Hazardous Materials Commission Reports BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of Supervisors to address the management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste within the County. One of the charges of the Commission is to further develop recommendations involving hazardous materials and hazardous waste beyond issues specifically identified in their bylaws. In 2007, the Commission identified Household Hazardous Waste management and Brownfield and contaminated site management as issues they wanted to investigate to determine if there were policy recommendations they could make to the Board of Supervisors to improve the management of these hazardous wastes. BROWNFIELD REPORT: The Commission received 6 presentations from subject matter experts, conducted a survey of the jurisdictions within the County, conducted 4 detailed site histories and conducted additional background research to develop the recommendations contained in the Brownfield report. These recommendations request the Board of Supervisors to request the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board to make improvements to their websites containing information about Brownfield and contaminated sites, and to request the Board of Supervisors to direct County staff to make improvements to their own databases that would make them more useful to the general public. These recommendations are summarized below: 1. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Hazardous Materials Program to develop a complete, centralized, publicly accessible database of all contaminated and potentially contaminated sites in the County based on data available from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board and County databases. 2. The Board of Supervisors should recommend to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board that their contaminated site databases highlight when monitoring reports and five-year reviews of sites are due. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Hazardous Materials Program to develop a system to track the implementation of the long-term monitoring and site-review requirements for County sites that have such requirements in their final remedial action plans if they are highlighted on these databases, and follow up as appropriate when they discover sites are overdue for review. 3. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Hazardous Materials Programs and Department of Conservation and Development to work together to identify contaminated sites within Urban Limit Lines in the County to aid in SB 375 planning. 4. The Board of Supervisors should continue to direct appropriate County Departments to seek grants to identify, investigate and remediate potentially contaminated sites within Contra Costa County. They should direct appropriate County Departments to work with local jurisdictions, special districts and private developers within Contra Costa County to apply for these grants where applicable. The Hazardous Materials Commission has consulted with Contra Costa Health Services and James Kennedy of the Department of Conservation and Development on the Brownfield report. Contra Costa Health Services is fully prepared to implement the report’s recommendations if the Department of Toxic Substances Control takes the steps recommended by the report. The Hazardous Materials Commission incorporated substantive comments from the Department of Conservation and Development into the recommendations of the report. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORT: The Commission conducted an informational survey of the general public and two public workshops, received 6 presentations from subject matter experts, and conducted additional background research to develop the recommendations contained in the Household Hazardous Waste report. The goal of these recommendations is to reduce the amount of household hazardous waste stored in homes, and the illegal and potentially dangerous disposal of these wastes in waterways, on the ground, and in the garbage. The Commission recognizes that the Board of Supervisors does not have direct authority over the management of household hazardous wastes in Contra Costa County. The Commission has made some of these recommendations in the hopes that the Board of Supervisors can encourage the implementation of these actions by other County Special Districts that directly oversee the management of Household Hazardous Wastes, or as individual members of County Special Districts that directly oversee the management of Household Hazardous Wastes. These recommendations are summarized below: 1. Establish and support more opportunities for door-to-door collection of HHW for older and disabled residents, and for residents that do not have their own means of transportation. This may require supporting changes to current laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. 2. Conduct more one-day collection events in areas where there are high numbers of residents that do not have vehicles, and design these events so they can accept materials brought in on foot. This may require supporting changes to current laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. Also, increase one-day events in areas of the County farthest away from the permanent facilities. 3. Provide more resources to increasing public awareness of the permanent HHW facilities and other collection services to increase participation rates. This outreach should be universally done in English and Spanish, and other languages where appropriate. 4. Provide more support to existing programs that educate residents to generate less HHW by purchasing non-toxic products and by only purchasing the amount they need. 5. Encourage manufacturers to make non-toxic or less toxic alternatives to products that become HHW, promote green chemistry concepts and encourage County purchasing policies that create less hazardous waste. This recommendation is consistent with the recently adopted Board Resolution No. 2010/225 supporting the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility. 6. Establish and support programs to enable the collection of controlled substances and boat flares. This could include point-of-sale collection opportunities or point-of-sale educational information about where to dispose of these materials properly. Support changes in legislation or additional sources of funding that may be needed to enable this to occur. 7. Support increasing the number of public or private collection options for Universal Wastes such as household batteries, fluorescent tubes, mercury thermometers and many electronic devices throughout the County. 8. Support the creation of policies that would allow for the collection and transportation of HHW, and the use of HHW facilities, by entities not charging a fee for such services. This may require supporting changes to current laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not applicable. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. Brownfields and Contaminated Sites Cleanup Policy in Contra Costa County Recommendations for Improvement Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission September, 2010 1 Introduction Contra Costa County’s extensive industrial and commercial history has provided many benefits to the County, but it has come with costs as well. One of these costs is that many of these sites have been contaminated with toxic chemicals. Approximately 1300 sites in the County have been identified that have been, or could potentially be, contaminated with toxic chemicals. Approximately 485 of these sites are still currently identified as contaminated or potentially contaminated, and are in the process of being cleaned up or are potentially in need of some level of cleanup. The rest have either been cleaned up or were found not to have been contaminated. Contaminated sites range in size and complexity from gas stations with a single leaking underground tank of gasoline, up to large industrial chemical manufacturing sites covering many acres contaminated with numerous chemicals from many different sources. These sites, if not cleaned up under current regulatory requirements, could pose potential significant threats to human health and the environment. Cleaning up these sites can be costly and complicated, and a complex regulatory system has been developed to oversee the process and, in some cases, directly pay for and manage site cleanups. Some sites are still owned and operated by the company that caused the contamination, and these owners are taking responsibility for the cleanup process. Some sites are being cleaned up by the current owner, a developer or government agency, with the costs being born by the previous owners or operators responsible for the contamination. Other sites are inactive or the current occupants are not engaging in practices that are currently causing contamination. Often, the contamination at these last types of sites was caused by previous owners or tenants, sometimes many years ago. These types of sites are referred to as Brownfields, commonly defined as properties that are contaminated, or thought to be contaminated, and are underutilized due to perceived remediation costs and liability concerns. In the summer of 2006, the Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Commission began an assessment of the status of Brownfields and other contaminated sites in the County. The purpose of this assessment was to determine if policy recommendations to the Board of Supervisors were warranted that could help improve the identification and cleanup of Brownfield sites in the County. The Commission conducted this assessment by receiving presentations from local experts in the field on specific related topics, conducting case histories of selected sites in the County and surveys of local jurisdictions, and reviewing regulatory agency websites containing site-specific information. Background The Commission received six presentations by local experts on Brownfield and contaminated site cleanup to better understand the policy issues and programs involved in the process. The presenters, their affiliation and the topics of their presentations are as follows:  Jennifer Hernandez, Holland and Knight Law Firm: The use of the Polanco Act Redevelopment Agencies in Brownfield redevelopment.  Jim Kennedy, Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency: Brownfield cleanup activities by the County’s Redevelopment Agency.  Leonard Robinson, California Department of Toxic Substances Control: Overview of California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Brownfield Remediation Program. 2  Barbara Cook, California Department of Toxic Substances Control: Use of deed restrictions in Brownfield remediation.  Randy Starbuck, Redevelopment Agency for the City of Pittsburg: The use of the Polanco Act by the City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency to initiate site cleanup.  David Zarider, TRC Solutions: The role of the private sector in site cleanup. In addition, the Commission conducted a survey of all the jurisdictions in the County to determine what steps they had taken to identify known and potential Brownfield and contaminated sites within their jurisdiction. The Commission also undertook a detailed review of four Brownfield sites located in the County to determine if their case histories could point to needed changes in Brownfield policy and approach. Finally, the Commission reviewed the regulatory databases that contained information about contaminated sites in Contra Costa County to identify needed changes in Brownfield policy or approach. Findings I. Regulatory Structure Regulatory jurisdiction over Brownfield and contaminated site cleanup is shared amongst four agencies at the federal, state and local level – the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California State Water Resources Control Board and Contra Costa Health Services. At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has the primary responsibility over sites on the National Priority List, usually sites that pose the greatest risk to public health and the environment. There are only two sites in Contra Costa County where the United States Environmental Protection Agency is the lead regulatory agency – the former United Heckathorn site in Richmond, and the former Concord Naval Weapons Station in Concord. At the state level, two agencies can be the lead regulatory agency for site cleanup, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), both of which are agencies within the California Environmental Protection Agency. The State Water Resources Control Board divides the state into Regional Boards, and Contra Costa County falls within the jurisdiction of two of these Boards – the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The border between these two Regional Boards runs north/south just west of the City of Antioch. DTSC-led sites are handled through their Regional office in Berkeley, except for school sites that are handled through a special group based in Sacramento. A site designation process has been legislatively mandated that determines which of these agencies will be the lead state agency for any particular site. State law also contains provisions that allow local agencies to be the lead agency for cleanup sites. Contra Costa Health Services has not yet chosen to apply for lead agency status for site cleanups. DTSC keeps information on the sites they oversee or manage on a publicly accessible database called Envirostor. This database contains records on 161 sites in Contra Costa County. Of these sites, 53 are listed as active (including the two EPA-led sites), 60 are listed as certified as completed, 26 are listed as inactive (meaning further evaluation or action is needed), and 22 have been referred to other agencies (either to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, other departments of DTSC that manage the 3 clean-ups as part of the facility’s hazardous waste permit, or local government). These sites are also classified by how the sites came into the regulatory system. Sites are either classified as corrective actions (40), Federal Superfund sites (4), having a hazardous waste permit (12), part of the school program (9), a state response (56), or a voluntary cleanup (40). Sites on the Envirostor database in Contra Costa County are distributed throughout the County, mostly along the historic industrial waterfront corridor stretching from Richmond to Antioch. The most sites are in West County (81) with the highest number being in the City of Richmond (63). The next highest concentration of sites is in East County (55) with the largest number being in Pittsburg (24). The smallest concentration of sites is in Central County (25) with the largest number being in Martinez (15). The State Water Resources Control Board keeps information on the sites they oversee or manage on a publicly accessible database called Geotracker. There are 1177 records of contaminated or potentially contaminated sites in Contra Costa County on Geotracker. Almost half of these sites, 723, are cleaned up and closed Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) sites, mostly gas stations. The remaining 454 sites are leaking underground storage tanks or other contaminated sites where cleanup is still occurring (113), more assessment is needed or is occurring (293), or where verification monitoring is occurring (48). Sites on the Geotracker database are also distributed throughout the County, though more are in the less- industrialized cities along the I-680 corridor than is the case for the Envirostor database due to the inclusion in this database of gas station underground storage tanks. Central County has the most sites (785) with the largest number being in Concord (212). The next largest concentration of sites is in West County (507) with the largest number being in Richmond (299). The smallest concentration of sites is in East County (315) with the largest number being in Pittsburg (112). II. Programs The Commission learned from the presentations by the guest speakers that a number of programs exist to encourage and facilitate contaminated sites and Brownfield cleanup. Leonard Robinson from DTSC explained that Prospective Purchaser Agreements to limit liability have been developed to enable cleanups to occur. They and EPA also offer various grants and loans to help characterize the extent of contamination on sites and to help pay for cleanups. The Regional Boards administer several new programs called the Orphan Site Cleanup Account and the Orphan Site Cleanup Fund that provide assistance to clean up Brownfields caused by leaking underground storage tanks. DTSC has entered into Voluntary Cleanup Agreements with responsible parties to speed cleanups. Other means of promoting speedy cleanups and limiting liability for entities that clean up sites are the issuance of “No Further Action” and “Comfort” letters, agreements between the Regional Boards to accept each other’s cleanup plans, model oversight agreements, and immunity agreements to qualified innocent landowners. Other steps that have been taken to make the cleanup and reuse process work better are AB 2061, which designates lead agency status, and an MOU between DTSC and the Regional Boards which allows them to coordinate their response to a site cleanup. Both Jennifer Hernandez from Holland and Knight and Randy Starbuck from the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency spoke about how the Polanco Act was a useful tool for Redevelopment 4 Agencies to promote site cleanups. The Polanco Act allows local Redevelopment Agencies to: 1) demand information from site owners within redevelopment project areas, 2) require site owners to collect information, and 3) collect that information themselves. The Act also allows Redevelopment Agencies to conduct cleanup activities and provides cost recovery tools for Redevelopment Agencies for these activities. Redevelopment Agencies do not have to own the property to require these measures, and the law provides them some immunity from further requirements from other agencies. It is a very effective tool because if site owners are unable or unwilling to cooperate, Redevelopment Agencies can use eminent domain to acquire property and recover costs from the site owners. Mr. Starbuck gave three examples of how the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency has used the Polanco Act to move cleanup forward on contaminated sites. III. Efforts to Identify Sites in the County One of the activities conducted by the Commission was to determine to what extent jurisdictions in the County had assessed the number of potentially contaminated sites that existed within their boundaries. Each jurisdiction was contacted to determine if they had done any type of comprehensive survey of potential sites. Two jurisdictions had undertaken some effort in this regard. Otherwise, jurisdictions relied on potentially contaminated sites to be identified by property owners or other regulatory agencies. In 2002 the US EPA partnered with the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County to prepare an inventory of potential Brownfield sites in North Richmond. This investigation resulted in an inventory of 14 potential sites. In 2002 the City of Oakley undertook a comprehensive study to identify the known and potential Brownfield sites within its jurisdiction. Their redevelopment agency received a $200,000 grant from the Federal EPA to undertake this effort. They held three public meetings to let residents nominate potential sites for investigation. They identified 21 sites and conducted 21 Phase One investigations and one Phase Two investigation. Since their initial investigation they have found 10 more potential sites. After the initial identification phase, they used eminent domain to take over one site, and invoked the Polanco Act for their whole Redevelopment Project Area by resolution, about 1400 acres, which includes most of these Brownfield sites. IV. Use of Deed Restrictions to Achieve Final Cleanup Status One of the key decisions that is made about a contaminated site is how clean it must be made. This determination takes into consideration the cost of cleanup vs. the remaining risks. Rarely, if ever, are sites cleaned up to original background levels. The primary driver of the decision as to how clean a site needs to be is the end use for which the site is intended. Different intended end uses have different cleanup standards, based on a consideration of who will be at the site, their potential for exposure, how long they will be at the site, and their vulnerability to harm. Generally, heavy industrial sites have the least stringent cleanup standards, light industry and commercial sites have the next most stringent cleanup standards, residential sites have the next most stringent cleanup standards, and school sites have the most stringent cleanup standards. In certain cases, the oversight agency can approve cleanup plans that allow contamination to remain on site if the overall cleanup objectives for the site are met and restrictions are put on future uses of the site 5 to prevent exposure to, or release of, this contamination. These restrictions can limit the type of business or activity that can occupy the site as well as the type of specific actions that can occur, such as digging in certain areas. These restrictions are enforced by attaching a lien to the deed of the property that must be disclosed at sale or transfer of ownership, and followed by all future owners for as long as the restrictions remain in place. These restrictions can be removed if further cleanup is done at the site at a future date. This type of deed restriction has been commonly used in cleanup plans for sites in Contra Costa County. A review of the databases for DTSC and SWRCB sites in the county indicates that 43 sites have been cleaned up, or are in the process of being cleaned up, with deed restrictions put in place because of contamination that has been allowed to remain on-site. One observation made by the Commission about the use of this practice relates to the potential impact this could have on future land use planning and activities. Determinations as to the extent of cleanup needed on any particular site are primarily based on the site’s current land use designation or, if identified by the owner or developer, designation of the intended immediate reuse. So if a site is currently zoned for industrial use, the cleanup goals are usually set assuming the future use will also be industrial. However, the demographic and economic nature of Contra Costa County has been rapidly changing over the last 30 years. County population has been increasing dramatically, and industrial activity has been declining. Many former industrial areas have been converted to residential and commercial use, and many housing and commercial offices have been built on open space or agricultural areas near remaining industrial areas. This trend is projected to continue. Also, current efforts to address problems associated with urban sprawl and to curb global warming have promoted “smart growth” concepts that advocate infilling development into urban core areas where many Brownfield sites are located. The practice of basing cleanup levels on current land use designations (usually industrial) instead of potential future land use designations (often commercial or residential), combined with allowing contaminated areas to remain on-site governed by deed restrictions, could shift the burden and cost of converting the use of these sites to future owners or jurisdictions, and away from the parties responsible for the contamination, if the responsible parties go bankrupt or flee responsibility after the original cleanup has occurred. V. Case studies The Commission reviewed the status of four sites in detail to gain a better understand of potential policy issues that may exist. Chemical and Pigment This site, located in Bay Point on the edge of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station, was abandoned by its owners in 1998. The owners left behind considerable surface and subsurface contamination from the manufacturing of agricultural products such as fertilizers and soil amendments, including heavy metals and benzene. In 2002, DTSC took emergency actions to remove contaminants from the surface of the site and to secure fencing around the site. DTSC also issued an order to the 6 company and other potentially responsible parties that allows DTSC to oversee the investigation and cleanup of the site. In 2003, a stormwater treatment system was installed that is still pumping and treating contaminated surface water, and work began to remove all surface buildings and equipment. DTSC began a Remedial Investigation in 2004 to fully characterize the site and to ultimately be able to develop a cleanup plan for the site. The Remedial Investigation was completed in 2008 and the draft cleanup plan for the site is scheduled to be completed and submitted to DTSC in 2010. The last community fact sheet was published in July 2008, and the next one is scheduled to be published in 2010. This site was first brought to the attention of the Commission by of one of the Commissioners who received complaints from community members that children were riding their bikes through the unsecured site. Barbara Cook, DTSC cleanup program branch chief, spoke to the Commission about the site in May 2008 and affirmed her agency’s commitment to finishing the cleanup of the site. She indicated that the site will most likely remain zoned industrial and will probably require a deed restriction when the cleanup is complete. Reichelt This 3.3 acre site located along the northern side of West Gertrude Avenue, west of the Richmond Parkway in Richmond, was an auto dismantling and parts storage facility until 2001. DTSC investigated the site as early as 1997 and found evidence of contamination, and concluded that further investigation was warranted. The original property owner died in 2001 and DTSC issued an order to the new property owner in 2002 to investigate the extent of the contamination, and develop and implement a cleanup plan. That property owner removed the vehicles, debris, junk piles and numerous tires from the property. The remedial investigation was completed in 2007 and found the site contaminated with elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and volatile organic compounds. DTSC initially proposed to leave the site “as is” for development as a trucking facility, and to develop a land use covenant to restrict certain practices and to limit use only for commercial or industrial development. The proposal was appealed by a non-profit environmental group due to the intention to exempt the project from CEQA review and because of concerns that leaving the site “as is’ with a protective covenant would limit future land use options on the site. DTSC amended the proposal by eliminating the identification of the immediate land use, and approved the Remedial Investigation and Land Use Covenant in February 2008. The site was sold again in October 2008, and the first Operations and Maintenance Report was submitted by the new property owner and approved by DTSC in January 2010. Potential Hercules Middle School site This 11-acre site, on the corner of Sycamore Ave. and Willet Street in Hercules, was once part of a gunpowder manufacturing plant, and later housed a wastewater treatment plant. It is currently used by the City of Hercules as a maintenance yard. In 2004, the West Contra Costa Unified School District considered purchasing the site to use as a school site and received a grant from the US EPA to conduct a Preliminary Environmental Assessment. This was done under the supervision of DTSC’s Schools Unit, which enforces special cleanup requirements for proposed school sites. That investigation determined 7 that a more extensive site characterization would be necessary. The School District decided not to pursue further testing and the site became inactive at the end of 2005. In May of 2008 the Commission informed Barbara Cook, DTSC Regional Cleanup Branch Chief, that the site was inactive, but still being administered by the Schools Unit. She promised to look into whether the site should be transferred to the regular cleanup program. In October of 2008 the City of Hercules applied for, and received, a grant to conduct further testing of the site. The intended use of the site was stated as a school, and remained under the supervision of the Schools Unit. In January 2009, DTSC approved the work plan for the testing. The final site investigation report was accepted by DTSC in May 2009. An additional year of groundwater monitoring to determine if the site is the source of contaminants present at site monitoring wells is still needed before the investigation can be completed. Pittsburg Redevelopment Sites The City of Pittsburg invoked the Polanco Act at three sites within the Pittsburg Redevelopment Project Area. 1) Bell Gas Station – This site, at 10th and Railroad, was under DTSC jurisdiction because the School District wanted to build a school on the site. But they wanted to use Underground Storage Tank funding to clean up fuel contamination on the site, so they needed to have Regional Water Quality Control Board cooperation. As a result, they developed a joint oversight agreement. The City used the Polanco Act to require the owner to clean up the site, and then the School District used Eminent Domain to purchase the property. 2) Property at 695 E 3rd Street. They formed a Unified Development Area for several waterfront properties. They launched an investigation and used the Polanco Act to compel the owner to clean up the site. During the process, the previous owner, Cal Cement, sold the property to Marine Express. The City is in Eminent Domain proceedings over the site. The cleanup is in litigation. 3) Posco Site LA. This is a 120-acre parcel next to the Antioch-Pittsburg Highway. It has been under DTSC oversight since the early 1990s. With DTSC approval requiring specified land use restrictions, the owners were planning to clean up the site to industrial standards by placing a cap over it. Posco tried to sell the property, but was unsuccessful. For the site to be developed for commercial use, it would need to be cleaned up to higher standards. The Redevelopment Agency invoked the Polanco Act to compel more investigation into the extent of the contamination. They are working with DTSC to determine what cleanup standards are appropriate for the site so that a deed restriction won’t be needed that could hinder future overall development. VI. Site Monitoring and Review A key aspect of ensuring that sites do not pose risks to the surrounding environment or Public Health over the long-term is follow-up monitoring. This is needed because the final remediation for many sites allows some contamination to remain in place. These sites are then subject to deed restrictions, 8 covenants, and/or administrative, institutional, or engineering controls to keep them from exposing people or wildlife, or the environment. Sites with Operation and Maintenance plans are reviewed annually, and five-year reviews are conducted on other sites, such as those with deed restrictions. As sites change hands over time and institutional memory fades, systematic site reviews are needed. These reviews are important to make sure that site security measures, such as fencing and posting, are still in place, and that control measures, such as caps, landscaping and barriers, are still in working to prevent human and environmental exposures. Also, cleanup standards change over time, and reviews can determine if existing site mitigation measures are still considered adequate under current standards. Several notable examples in Contra Costa County point to why site reviews are so important:  The former United Heckathorn site in Richmond, a Federal Superfund site, was considered cleaned up in 1996 but the five-year review in 2001 found that the remediation had not achieved the clean-up goals. Additional remediation is being considered for the site.  The Richmond Townhouse Apartments on Pullman Ave. in Richmond were supposedly cleaned up for lead contamination in 1975. No further review was ever required for the site, but in 1998 samples were taken that found elevated levels of lead. An emergency cleanup was then initiated to remove contaminated soil from the site.  The Pt. Isabel site in Richmond was cleaned up under the jurisdiction of DTSC, with a 5 year review done in 1992, but oversight was turned over to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and it doesn’t appear that any 5-year reviews have been done since then. This situation is currently under investigation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Concerns have been raised that Area O of the Marian Bay Cleanup site was supposed to have had a deed restriction placed on it with requirements for five-year reviews when it was first cleaned up, but it appears neither was done. This situation is currently under investigation by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Recommendations 1. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Hazardous Materials Program to develop a complete, centralized, publicly accessible database of all contaminated and potentially contaminated sites in the County based on data available from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board and County databases. This database should combine the files in DTSC’s Envirostor database, the SWRCB’s Geotracker database, and any unique records contained in the Hazardous Materials Program’s files. This database should be designed in such a way as to utilize GIS or some other mapping system so that users of the database can visually see the location of contaminated sites in the County and determine the jurisdictions in which they reside. This database should be accessible to the public via the Hazardous Materials Program’s web page. Ideally, this database would be designed to enable users to accomplish recommendation 2. 9 2. The Board of Supervisors should recommend to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board that their contaminated site databases highlight when monitoring reports and five-year reviews of sites are due. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Hazardous Materials Programs to develop a system to track the implementation of the long-term monitoring and site-review requirements for County sites that have such requirements in their final remedial action plans, if they are highlighted on these databases, and follow up as appropriate when they discover sites are overdue for review. Long-term monitoring and maintenance plans have been developed for many sites that have been allowed to leave some level of contamination on them as part of the final remedial action. These requirements can range from continuous monitoring requirements to 5-year reviews of the site status. Long-term protection of the environment and Public Health from the contaminants left on these sites is dependant on these monitoring and site review plans being carried out adequately. Ideally, the mapping system recommended above could be used to determine when these reviews are due. 3. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Hazardous Materials Programs and Department of Conservation and Development to work together to identify contaminated sites within Urban Limit lines in the County to aid in SB 375 planning. SB 375 will require regional land-use planning efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. This Sustainable Communities Strategy will likely include smart growth provisions that will allow jurisdictions to infill underutilized land in their sphere of influence. Highlighting contaminated sites within Priority Development Areas will help focus attention on these sites for cleanup prioritization. 4. The Board of Supervisors should continue to direct appropriate County Departments to seek grants to identify, investigate and remediate potentially contaminated sites within Contra Costa County. They should direct appropriate County Departments to work with local jurisdictions, special districts and private developers within Contra Costa County to apply for these grants where applicable. Numerous grants are available from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to identify, investigate and remediate Brownfields and other contaminated sites. During the course of the Commission’s investigation, they saw four examples of where local jurisdictions received grants for these purposes, and possibly other grants have been given locally as well. Household Hazardous Waste Management in Contra Costa County Recommendations for Improvement Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission September, 2010 1 Introduction Many of the products commonly used in and around households have toxic properties. This includes such products as motor oil, paint, cleaning products, pesticides, batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, electronic products, used syringes and pharmaceuticals. These types of products can harm the environment or human health if disposed of improperly on the ground and down storm drains, or even when sent to landfills or flushed into the sewer system. As a result, laws have been passed at the federal, state and local level to encourage the proper management of these wastes, called Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW). In Contra Costa County, three regional government-run household hazardous waste collection facilities, and other public and private services, have been established to provide residents with opportunities to properly manage their household hazardous wastes. The materials collected by these facilities and services are sorted by type, and either reused, recycled, incinerated or landfilled, depending on the type of waste, regulatory requirements and existing markets. In theory, this system provides every resident of the County with at least one option for properly managing most types of the household hazardous waste they generate. One of the responsibilities of the Hazardous Materials Commission is to develop recommendations involving hazardous materials issues to the County Board of Supervisors. In reviewing the various hazardous materials issues facing the County, several members of the Hazardous Materials Commission expressed concern that this level of HHW management service may not be adequate for all county residents or for all types of HHW. As a result, the Commission chose to investigate this issue. The Hazardous Materials Commission developed recommendations for this issue by studying the current household hazardous waste management system in Contra Costa County. It also solicited input from the public through a survey and two workshops addressing potential shortcomings with the existing management system, and potential ways to address these shortcomings. The recommendations in this report are for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to consider for direct implementation by the County, or through their role as board members on other appropriate Boards and Commissions. Background In 1989 AB 939, the state’s Integrated Waste Management Act, was passed. It required the development of County-wide plans to reduce the amount of solid waste entering State landfills. It included two recommendations specific to HHW:  Create public education programs to effectively raise public awareness of HHW issues.  Create adequate/suitable accessibility and siting of HHW disposal facilities. A related bill, AB 2707, called for each jurisdiction to have a HHW element in their solid waste plan. The 19 cities and the unincorporated areas of the County all adopted elements that were similar to one another and included some combination of permanent facilities collection and/or mobile drop-off events. These were approved by the State in 1993. Contra Costa Health Services operated a mobile HHW 2 program in the early to mid-90’s as an interim step while permanent facilities were being developed. This program involved periodic collection events in different parts of the County that were funded by fees from Keller Canyon landfill, but this system was found not to be cost-effective. The first permanent facility was built by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in 1997. The next facility to be built was in West County in 1999 by West County Resource Recovery in cooperation with the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority. The East County facility was built by Delta Diablo Sanitation District in 2003. Each regional facility is intended to only serve residents from that region of the County. The cost of staffing and running these HHW facilities is paid for by garbage or sewer fees levied on the residents in the areas served by the facilities. Description of Current Collection Programs In addition to the services of the three regional collection facilities mentioned above, the following services are provided to Contra Costa residents to manage household hazardous wastes:  One-day collection events are periodically conducted by the regional facilities for the remote communities of their service areas.  Over 90 private drop-off locations for used oil and used oil filters exist throughout the county to augment collection of these wastes at the three regional facilities. These collection facilities are reimbursed the cost of collection and disposal by CalRecycle (formally the California Integrated Waste Management Board).  Used oil and oil filters are collected curbside in some areas in the County by the solid waste management company serving those areas.  Electronic waste is collected through a variety of mechanisms in the county, supported through a fee on certain electronic items that reimburses collectors and recyclers, or by a direct fee for service. There are 19 CalRecycle approved E-waste recycling facilities in the County, including the East and West County HHW collection facilities.  The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and the West County Integrated Waste Management Authority sponsor programs to collect used batteries at various retail sites in their services areas.  The Central Contra Costa Sanitation District and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District sponsor retail collection sites for fluorescent lamps and spent batteries in their service areas.  The East and West County facilities take non-controlled pharmaceuticals and the Central County facility has established 10 collection sites within their service area at local police departments for non-controlled pharmaceuticals.  The East and West HHW facilities offer used syringe or medical sharps collection and disposal. The Central County HHW facility does not offer sharps collection. There are two sharps collection points in Central County. One is at the San Ramon Regional Medical Center and the other is at the John Muir Rossmoor Pharmacy in Walnut Creek. Both are paid for by their respective agencies.  The West County Integrated Waste Management Authority offers a door-to-door HHW collection program for the elderly and disabled. 3 A comprehensive listing of all of these collection programs can be found at the County’s Waste Reduction and Recycling web page at: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/. Table 1 contains information on the amount of hazardous waste collected in the 2007/2008 fiscal year from the three HHW programs, the number of households served and the costs associated with operating their programs. Each program had some differences in the way they calculated their costs and the amount of wastes they collected, so comparing the costs and collection amounts from the facilities to each other can’t be done precisely. Also, the costs provided for the West County facility were only estimates. Some households may have visited the facility more than once during the fiscal year, so the participation rates may be slightly overestimated. Overall, approximately 3,625,906 pounds of hazardous waste were collected from 46,917 customers for an approximate cost of $2,978,668 by the three facilities in fiscal year 2007/2008. This represents an approximate usage rate of 12% of eligible households in the County for that period. State-wide, annual participation rates are 4.8%. Table 1 – Summary of Contra Costa Regional HHW Collection Results, 2007/2008 West Co. Central Co. East Co. Totals Agency WCCIWMA CCSD DDSD # of customers 9255 27,940 9722 46,917 % participation 9.7 % of 95,790 homes 14.5% of 192,280 homes 10% of 96,815 homes 12.2% of 384,885 homes Pounds per car 98 67 85 77 Cost per car @ $70 $66 $48 @ $63 Total pounds collected 912,121 1,891,363 822,422 3,625,906 Total cost @$645,000 $1,864,868 $468,800 @ $2,978,668 Cost per pound @$ 0.71 $0.99 $0.57 @ 0.82 Annual cost per home in service area (assessed through fees by the regional entities) @ $6.73 $9.70 $4.84 @ $7.74 Public Input I. Surveys The Hazardous Materials Commission collected input on people’s perception and use of the HHW management system through surveys of the general public collected at 9 public events throughout the County in 2008 and 2009. 152 surveys were conducted. The survey tool (Attachment 1) asked questions about the County’s Community Warning System and overall hazardous materials issues, as well as questions about HHW management. 4 The survey found that 55 respondents (36%) did not know the location of the nearest place for them to properly dispose of their HHW. The survey also found that 61 respondents (40%) did not think their disposal options for HHW were adequate. When asked if they knew how to tell if a product is hazardous, 84 respondents (55%) said no or they were not sure. At the same time, 128 respondents (84%) expressed an interest in learning about less-toxic alternatives for household products containing hazardous materials. When asked to describe how they disposed of specific household products, the responses varied, but notably, 50 (33%) said they put pharmaceuticals down the drain or in the garbage, and 38 (25%) said they put cleaning products down the drain or in the garbage. About one-third of residents did not answer this question, so the actual number managing their HHW improperly may be higher. In total, the number of instances of respondents indicating that they improperly disposed of their HHW was slightly more than one per respondent. The complete survey results can be found in Attachment 2. The results of the survey showed some differences in perception, knowledge and practice between regions of the County (Attachment 3). Most notably, in West County 55% of respondents did not think their options for HHW disposal were adequate, while the majority of residents in the rest of the County felt they were adequate. Also, when asked how they disposed of their HHW, the number of responses indicating improper disposal varied from region to region. West County had the lowest number of such responses (0.8 per respondent), Central County had the next lowest (1.1 per respondent), South County had the second highest (1.9 per respondent) and East County had the highest level of respondents indicating they had improperly disposed of a HHW (2.3 per respondent). II. Community Workshops The Hazardous Materials Commission held two workshops to solicit public input about Household Hazardous Waste management in 2008 and 2009. In each of these workshops, the current HHW management system was described in terms of the location and availability of the permanent facility for that area, the types of waste that could be brought to that facility, and any other collection opportunities available in that particular area. The residents were asked to discuss their questions or concerns. Below are the summaries of the comments made during these two workshops. Comments from the November 15, 2008 Household Hazardous Waste Community Forum in Richmond  HHW services need to be more convenient.  HHW services need to be advertised more.  Health providers could be used to provide information about services.  Schools should be involved in promoting the proper disposal of HHW.  Face-to-face outreach is the best form.  We need to help people see the benefits of proper HHW disposal.  Churches can be used to promote the proper disposal of HHW.  Campaigns to promote proper HHW disposal should be made part of community building.  The garbage collection company can become educators on proper HHW disposal.  Announcements could be made at City Council meetings about HHW services.  Mobile collection of HHW should be considered.  We need to think about the whole life cycle of toxic products, not just proper disposal.  One day collection events should be considered. 5 Comments from the March 25th, 2009 Household Hazardous Waste Community Forum in Concord  More needs to be done to get the word out about the facility in the community. 20 – 25 of the residents in attendance, out of about 40, had not heard of the HHW facility before this meeting.  There is a need for a community collection point in the Monument Corridor because many residents do not have cars.  There should be containers for hazardous waste at local businesses like the Food Max or at the schools.  Hazardous waste is disposed of in the trash at many of the apartments in the area. In addition to the information collected from the surveys and the workshops, the Hazardous Materials Commission received numerous presentations and reviewed extensive information concerning HHW management. They received presentations from:  The County’s recycling manager about the history of HHW management in the County.  The West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority’s HHW program manager about their HHW pick-up program.  Curbside Inc., a private vendor, about their HHW pickup programs.  A private citizen who conducts personal watercraft inspections for the Coast Guard Auxiliary on disposal options for boat flares.  Sustainable Moraga concerning battery collection.  Monument Futures about their Green Cleaning Program. They reviewed information from:  The California Integrated Waste Management Board.  The California Department of Toxic Substances Control.  The Alameda County HHW program.  The Teleosis Institute.  The annual reports of the three regional HHW collection facilities in Contra Costa County. Commission members also received input from members of the organizations they represent, and their friends and neighbors. Finally, in addition to all of this input, Commission members relied on their own experiences as members of the public utilizing these HHW management options to form their findings and recommendations. 6 Findings For the purpose of this report, the Hazardous Materials Commission has organized their concerns about the existing HHW management system into two categories, Program Utilization and Challenges to Overcome. Each is discussed below. I. Program Utilization Two issues consistently arose during the Commission’s review of the utilization of the HHW facilities and other services, these were the lack of knowledge about the availability of the facilities and services; and the lack of accessibility of these facilities and services to certain segments of the population. The results of the Commission’s survey and feedback at the two community workshops indicated that community knowledge about the HHW facilities and other services is inadequate. Approximately half of the residents that attended the Concord workshop and 36% of the survey respondents did not know the location of the nearest place for them to properly dispose of their HHW. While participation rates at the three regional facilities have been steadily rising since they began operation, participation rates still only range from 10 – 15% of eligible residents each year. The lack of knowledge about these facilities and the limited participation on an annual basis increases the chances that people may improperly dispose of the HHW they are generating in their home. As noted above, the survey indicated that the number of instances of respondents indicating that they improperly disposed of their HHW is already slightly more than one per respondent. The Commission is also concerned that some residents of the County that speak English as a second language, or don’t speak English at all, may be less aware of their options than English-speaking residents. Currently, only two of the three HHW collection facilities provide educational information in languages other than English. The Commission sees this as an Environmental Justice issue because it unfairly hinders the ability of one group of people to manage their HHW in a proper manner, and increases their risk of harm, and their neighborhood’s risk of harm from improperly disposed of HHW due to this lack of knowledge. More importantly, the Commission is concerned that certain segments of the population are limited in their ability to utilize these facilities and services. Residents of Contra Costa County must be able to drive to utilize the three HHW collection facilities. Certain segments of the County’s population, such as older and disabled people, are less able to carry heavy and dangerous materials into their cars to take to a collection facility. Many poor residents, older and disabled residents, and others don’t own cars or are unable to drive. This issue was raised at both community workshops, and the Commission feels the same concern applies for poor residents, older residents and the disabled throughout the County. The Commission believes that this is also an Environmental Justice issue. Not only has the HHW collection system been designed in such a way that certain residents are unable to use it, but these residents are still required to pay for the service year after year as part of their sewer or garbage bill. The Commission believes that the door-to-door collection program currently being offered in West County, and other door-to-door collection programs described to the Commission by a private vendor, could serve as a model for providing a way for residents that can’t use the permanent collection facilities to properly manage their HHW. The Commission also believes that more one-day collection events could 7 be conducted in targeted neighborhoods where there are a high percentage of non-drivers and designed in such a way that residents could deliver their HHW on foot. Current state law prohibits people from delivering HHW on foot, so providing for these types of services might require amendments to existing laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of policies which support the collection and transportation of small amounts of HHW from residents within the service area of a HHW facility to that facility by entities that don’t charge a fee for this service. One example of where such a policy would be beneficial was provided to the Commission by the manager of an apartment complex that used a private company to sort the recyclable material out of the garbage generated by its residents. In the process of sorting out recyclable material from the garbage, this company would occasionally find hazardous products that had been thrown out by residents of the apartment complex. However, the HHW collection facility that served the area where this apartment complex was located would not allow the company to drop off the materials as residential HHW. The only option given to them was to register as a small quantity generator of hazardous waste and pay a fee to drop off the material at the HHW facility. Policies that would support this type of practice would result in HHW that may otherwise have been thrown in the trash or disposed of down the drain to being properly disposed of. Establishing such policies may require changes to current laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. II. Challenges to Overcome While most types of HHW can be accepted at the regional collection facilities, more needs to be done to provide opportunities to manage specific HHW. During its investigation, the Commission learned that no realistic options exist for properly managing certain types of HHW, and opportunities for others are too limited. One type of waste for which no good management options exist is controlled pharmaceuticals. These are medications such as narcotics and tranquilizers. Common controlled substances include codeine, phenobarbital, and anabolic steroids. All other prescription medications and over-the-counter medications can be accepted, and are accepted, by the East and West regional HHW facilities and the 10 pharmaceutical collection sites set up in Central County. HHW collection facilities are prevented from accepting controlled substances by Federal law. No real options exist for residents in Contra Costa County to properly manage unwanted or expired controlled substances. Residents are commonly advised to throw them in the garbage. Law enforcement agencies are allowed to accept these materials if they follow specific guidelines, but none in the County currently do. Options need to be developed so residents with unwanted or expired controlled substances can properly manage these wastes. Another HHW for which no proper disposal option currently exists is aerial distress flares. Boaters are required to have specific types of flares onboard their craft. These types of flares expire after 42 months. Because these flares are considered explosive, the three regional HHW facilities do not accept them. No other options exist for a boater to dispose of these flares properly. It is thought that many boaters keep these flares onboard as backups, but this can be a hazard in itself. These flares are of concern if they are improperly managed because of their explosive nature and because many of them contain perchlorates, which can contaminate groundwater. 8 The final challenging type of wastes is what is known as Universal Wastes. These are things such as household batteries, fluorescent tubes, mercury thermometers and many electronic devices that are considered hazardous and cannot be put in the garbage. These wastes are problematic because they can be generated in large numbers, such as with household batteries, and because historically they have been thrown in the trash. Also, Universal Wastes can not be “used-up” as can most other hazardous household products, so they will always exist as long as the products exist. These wastes can be collected by facilities other than HHW collection facilities and, as described earlier, several special collection programs already exist to collect these wastes. The Commission believes these programs should be expanded so that more places that sell these products can collect them when they become wastes. Recommendations The Hazardous Materials Commission has the following recommendations concerning the management of Household Hazardous Wastes in Contra Costa County. The Commission recommends that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors can take direct action on some of these recommendations, and for others, the Commission recommends they can advocate for their implementation as members of other appropriate Boards and Commissions on which they serve. For some of these recommendations, the Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors advocate their implementation to independent agencies or public bodies. 1. Establish and support more opportunities for door-to-door collection of HHW for older and disabled residents, and for residents that do not have their own means of transportation. This may require supporting changes to current laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. 2. Conduct more one-day collection events in areas where there are high numbers of residents that do not have vehicles, and design these events so they can accept materials brought in on foot. This may require supporting changes to current laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. Also, increase one-day events in areas of the County farthest away from the permanent facilities. 3. Provide more resources to increasing public awareness of the permanent HHW facilities and other collection services to increase participation rates. This outreach should be universally done in English and Spanish, and other languages where appropriate. 4. Provide more support to existing programs that educate residents to generate less HHW by purchasing non-toxic products and by only purchasing the amount they need. 5. Encourage manufacturers to make non-toxic or less toxic alternatives to products that become HHW, promote green chemistry concepts and encourage County purchasing policies that create less hazardous waste. This recommendation is consistent with the recently adopted Board Resolution No. 2010/225 supporting the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility. 6. Establish and support programs to enable the collection of controlled substances and boat flares. This could include point-of-sale collection opportunities or point-of-sale educational information about where to dispose of these materials properly. Support changes in legislation or additional sources of funding that may be needed to enable this to occur. 9 7. Support increasing the number of public or private collection options for Universal Wastes such as household batteries, fluorescent tubes, mercury thermometers and many electronic devices throughout the County. 8. Support the creation of policies that would allow for the collection and transportation of HHW, and the use of HHW facilities, by entities not charging a fee for such services. This may require supporting changes to current laws and regulations governing the management of HHW. (check yes or no) Yes No 1. Do you know the location of the nearest place for you to properly dispose of household hazardous wastes? 2. Do you think your disposal options for household hazardous waste are adequate? If no, explain: 3. Are you interested in learning about less-toxic alternatives for household products containing hazardous chemicals such as cleaning products, pesticides, paints and stains? 4. Do you know about the County’s Community Warning system (CWS)? If Yes, What it the purpose? 5. Do you know how the County’s CWS advises people to Shelter-in-Place? If Yes, How? 6. Do you know what steps you need to take to Shelter-in-Place? List: 7. Do you know where to call when you have a complaint or question about hazardous materials? If Yes, Where? The Hazardous Materials Commission Survey Please complete the reverse side The Hazardous Materials Commission advises the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors about the safe management and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Please take this short survey to help us better understand your concerns. 8. What hazardous material issues most concern you? (pick three) ___ Improper disposal of hazardous products from the home ___ Abandoned contaminated industrial sites ___ Accidental releases from industrial facilities ___ Accidental releases from pipelines ___ Spills from railcars, ships or tanker trucks ___ Fires involving hazardous materials from sources such as industries, pipelines, commercial facilities, truck and railcars ___ Illegal dumping of hazardous materials in streams or stormdrains ___ Household use of products containing hazardous chemicals ___ Leaking underground storage tanks ___ Other, Explain: ____________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ 9. What sources of hazardous materials do you think most affect your health? (pick three) ___ Contaminated drinking water ___ Abandoned contaminated industrial sites ___ Contaminated seafood ___ Household products such as cleaning, painting, hobbies, and auto maintenance ___ Illegally dumped hazardous wastes ___ Accidental releases from industrial facilities ___ Accidental transportation-related releases from railcars, truck, ships or pipelines ___ Fires at industrial facilities, railcars, trucks, ships or pipelines ___ Other, explain: ____________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ 10. Do you know how to tell if a product is hazardous? ___ Yes ___ No ___ Not Sure If Yes, How? 11. How do you currently dispose of the following household products containing hazardous chemicals? Choose from the following list:: A–take to a proper collection facility B–trash C–sink or toilet D–curbside pickup E–dump down stormdrain or on ground Auto fluids (oil, antifreeze, solvents) __________________ Paints and cleaning solvents ________________________ Leftover cleaning products ________________________ Household batteries ______________________________ Leftover prescription drugs ________________________ Fluorescent bulbs ________________________________ Other hazardous chemicals used in the home ___________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Electronic wastes (computer equipment, TVs, cell phones, other electronic devices) ___________________________ 12. What other Hazardous Materials issues are you interested in? _________________________________ _______________________________________________ 13. What is your home Zip Code? ___________________ The Hazards Materials Commission is a 13-member appointed advisory board to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors made up of volunteers from environmental, industry and labor organizations; the League of Women Voters; local elected officials and the general public. Region Definitions  Region Zip Code City # of Surveys  East  94509 Antioch 3 94511 Bethel Island 0 94513 Brentwood 2 94514 Byron 0 94531 Antioch 2 94561 Oakley 1 94565 Bay Point / Pittsburg 10 Central  94517 Clayton 0 94518 Concord 3 94519 Concord 4 94520 Concord 1 94521 Concord 1 94523 Pleasant Hill 8 94553 Martinez 21 94595 Walnut Creek 0 94596 Walnut Creek 4 94597 Walnut Creek 1 94598 Walnut Creek 0 West  94525 Crockett 0 94530 El Cerrito 0 94547 Hercules 1 94564 Pinole 0 94569 Port Costa 0 94572 Rodeo 1 94706 Kensington 0 94707 Kensington 1 94708 Kensington 0 94801 Richmond 2 94803 El Sobrante 0 94804 Richmond 7 94805 Richmond 1 94806 San Pablo 5 94850 Richmond 0 South  94506 Danville / Blackhawk 8 94507 Alamo 2 94526 Danville  13 94549 Lafayette 2 94550 Tassajara 0 94556 Moraga 1 94563 Orinda 1 94582 San Ramon 5 94583 San Ramon 5 Other  0 ??7 925 ??1 94010 Burlingame 1 94552 Castro Valley 1 94601 Oakland 1 94602 Oakland 1 94618 Oakland 1 94705 Berkeley 1 94710 Berkeley 1 XXXXX ??20 gmFnhKYYrd ??1     1. Do you know the location of the nearest place for you to properly dispose of household  hazardous wastes?                                      2. Do you think your disposal options for household hazardous waste are adequate?                                        3. Are you interested in learning about less‐toxic alternatives for household products containing  hazardous chemicals such as cleaning products, pesticides, paints and stains?                                        4. Do you know about the County's Community Warning system (CWS)?                                        5. Do you know how the County's CWS advises people to Shelter‐in‐Place?                                        6. Do you know what steps you need to take to Shelter‐in‐Place?                                        7. Do you know where to call when you have a complaint or question about hazardous  materials?                                        8. What hazardous material issues most concern you?                      9. What sources of hazardous materials do you think most affect your health?                        10. Do you know how to tell if a product is hazardous?                                11. How do you currently dispose of the following household products containing hazardous  chemicals?