Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10241995 - SD15 1 - SD.15 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 24, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Composition of the UNOCAL Safety Audit Panel Vic Westman, County Counsel, reported to the Board of Supervisors on UNOCAL's request for reconsideration of representation on the UNOCAL Safety Audit Panel. Mr. Westman stated that UNOCAL objects to the inclusion on the Audit Panel of a Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) representative. The basis for UNOCAL's objections are set forth in the October 13, 1995, letter (Attached) received from Mark A. Smith, Senior Counsel for 76 Products Company, UNOCAL's parent company. County Counsel's written report is also attached and included as part of this Board Order. Following preliminary discussion by Board members, Chairwoman Bishop invited the public to comment on the issues and the following persons spoke: Jeff Wilkes, UNOCAL, 1380 San Diablo Avenue, Rodeo; Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), 500 Howard Street, Suite 506, San Francisco; Janet Callaghan, 914 Sandy Cove Drive, Rodeo; and Donald Brown, Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW), 1801 Sonoma Boulevard, Suite 117, Vallejo. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board further discussed the issues and took the following action: DETERMINED to request a stipulation that is acceptable to UNOCAL, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), and the County relative to the representation on the UNOCAL Safety Audit Panel, and if not, obtain a nomination from CBE that would be acceptable to the three parties; if that should fail, remove CBE from the Audit Panel and appoint Supervisors Rogers and Smith to serve on the panel and to inform the other parties weekly of the actions of the Panel. 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: October 24 1995 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator ee ler, Deputy`Clerk cc: County Administrator County Counsel COUNTY COUNSEL' S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: October 19, 1995 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Silvano B. Marchesi,Ass't County Counsel Re: Unocal Safety Audit Panel On September 12, 1995, the Board approved the composition of the Audit Panel, adding four additional members. One of the additional members is a representative from Citizens for a Better Environment (now renamed Communities for a Better Environment) ("CBE"). On October 16, 1995, this office received a letter from Mark A. Smith, Senior Counsel for 76 Products Company, Unocal's parent company. A copy of the letter is attached. Mr. Smith indicates that Unocal objects to the inclusion on the Audit Panel of a CBE representative. The bases for Unocal's objection are set forth in the letter. In recent conversations Mr. Smith has confirmed that he is requesting that the Board reconsider its decision to add a CBE representative to the Audit Panel, for the reasons set forth in his letter. Since 1982 the Board's policy has required that committee members appointed by the Board be free of actual and even apparent conflicts of interest. (Resolution No. 82/574, attached) CBE's status as a plaintiff creates an obvious conflict of interest in an investigation of a defendant's (Unocal's) conduct concerning the subject of the lawsuit. Since the action against Unocal is a class action, the status of the named plaintiff class representatives creates an enhanced conflict problem. Those representatives stand for the entire class, and their adequacy as class representatives may be subject to challenge, based, among other things, on their motivations and the presence or absence of conflict among the class members. (See 3 Hoff &-Jurelc, Federal Litigation Guide [1993], Absence of Conflict, § 42.03[4--2], p. 42-27.) Board of Supervisors October 19, 1995 Page 2 The Board may wish to reconsider the addition of a CBE representative to the Audit Panel, in light of the Board's Policy for Board Appointees, concerning Conflict of Interest &-Open Meetings (Res. No. 82/574), and in light of Unocal's objection. We are available to discuss this matter with you upon request. Attachments cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Mark A. Smith Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator, CBE ,6 PRODUCTS COMPANY MARK A. SMITH October 13 , 1995 Senior Counsel Victor Westman, Esq. County Counsel OCT 1 6 1995 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez, California 94553 COUNTY COUNSEL MARTINEZ CALIF. Dear Vic: I am writing to follow up on the Board of Supervisor's suggestion that Citizens for a Better Environment, now known as Communities for a Better Environment ("CBE") , be included as an additional monitor of the proposed safety audit of Unocal' s San Francisco Refinery. As you know, with the exception of the proposed involvement of CBE, we have basically reached agreement with the County on the composition of the Audit Committee which will monitor the work of the independent contractor to be selected to perform the safety audit of the Refinery. In addition to County agency representatives, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and four community members, we have agreed that the Audit Committee will include a representative of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers ("OCAW") Union as" a monitor. However, the proposed addition of CBE raises several issues that I want to bring to your attention. First, CBE is currently in litigation against Unocal. CBE' s litigation, which is more fully described below; relates directly to the operations of Unocal's San Francisco Refinery. As a trial lawyer, I know you can appreciate our concern about having an adverse party communicating with our employees and reviewing our documents outside the context of the ongoing litigation. Secondly, CBE has compromised its objectivity and credibility as a proposed audit monitor of Refinery safety by engaging in a very public -- and we believe misleading -- public relations effort to discredit Unocal 's safety and environmental record. 1201 West 5th Street P.O. Box 7600 Los Angeles, California 90051 PH (2131 977-6191 FAX (213) 977-7827 A U n o c a I C o m p a n y Victor Westman, Esq. October 13, 1995 Page 2 The litigation to which I refer is a lawsuit entitled Citizens for. a Better Environment, et al. , v. Union Oil Company of California, No. C-94-0712 TEH (USDC-N.D. Cal. ) , No. 95-15139 (9th Cir. ) . CBE alleges that Unocal is discharging selenium in its treated wastewater in violation of its wastewater permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Although the facts and procedural posture of the case are somewhat complicated, it is CBE's position that Unocal is liable for penalties under the federal Clean Water Act because selenium concentrations exceed a "final" selenium limit which the Regional Board ordered to take effect on December 12 , 1993 . However, as part of an administrative settlement Unocal (and other refiners) paid penalties to the State because the refineries were unable to meet the "final" selenium limit by December 12, 1993, and the "final" limit compliance date was extended by the Regional Board to July 31, 1998. Until that date, Unocal must comply with "interimll , selenium limits, limits it has consistently achieved. Therefore, Unocal's position is that it is currently in compliance with its permit requirements, and that CBE's lawsuit is barred by the prior enforcement action and penalties imposed by the Regional -Board. The United States District Court denied Unocal's motion to dismiss CBE's action, but certified an immediate appeal in recognition of two contrary appellate court decisions. The case has been fully briefed in the Ninth Circuit, and we are awaiting oral argument. The pendency of CBE's lawsuit against Unocal, involving as it does issues of the Refinery's compliance record, makes it inappropriate for CBE to participate in a process intended toprovide an objective, independent audit of the Refinery's compliance with various regulatory requirements. CBE would find itself in the enviable position of monitoring an audit of a company it is suing. In addition, CBE's participation in the audit process would provide a mechanism for CBE to obtain litigation-related information from Unocal and its employees outside of the litigation process. Even though it is in litigation with Unocal, CBE would be in a position to deal directly with Unocal employees without Unocal 's attorney's knowledge or involvement. As you know, Rule 2-100 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, prohibits an attorney from communicating "directly or Victor Westman, Esq. October 13, 1995 Page 3 indirectly" with an opposing party represented by counsel. CBE's proposed role as an audit monitor would allow exactly the kind of indirect communications prohibited by California's ethics rules. In addition to the ethical and practical constraints imposed by CBE's pending litigation against Unocal, CBE's proposed role as an audit monitor is objectionable for an additional reason. over the past several months, CBE has engaged in what amounts to a campaign to unfairly discredit Unocal. CBE has distorted Unocal's environmental compliance record and authored misleading direct mail solicitations. For example, in a solicitation for funds, CBE's Executive Director accused Unocal of being among the three "worst known dioxin polluters. . . .poisoning the San Francisco Bay with dioxin. . . . " At Unocal's annual shareholders meeting, Mr. Denny Larson of CBE accused Unocal of "dumping" dioxin into the Bay. Contrary to these hyperbolic statements, the truth about dioxin in Unocal's wastewater discharges is set forth in an August 7, 1995 letter from the Regional Board's Executive Officer to CBE. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your review, but I offer the following excerpt to illustrate the unfair and misleading nature of CBE's attack on Unocal: [Unocal and other Bay Area] refineries use biological treatment, and activated carbon adsorption which are both documented to be effective at removing dioxins from the wastewater. Recent data on the effluent from the treatment plants at these refineries do not show any dioxins at concentrations of concern. In another recent example of its effort to discredit Unocal, CBE held a demonstration at Hillcrest Elementary School in Rodeo on September 5, 1995, distributing "report cards" to school children showing that Unocal had "failing grades" in health and safety compliance. About one week earlier, EQE International, an independent consulting firm selected by the Good Neighbor Agreement Audit Committee, had issued its report on its independent audit of the Refinery's Emergency Response Plan, Emergency Notification Procedures, Safety Management Program, and the results of process hazards analysis studies. Contrary to CBE's "report card, " EQE's audit report was basically favorable to Unocal, a fact Victor Westman, Esq. October 13 , 1995 Page 4 reported in the local newspapers. Significantly, EQE's audit was monitored by the Good Neighbor Agreement Audit Committee which included a representative of CBE. In summary, CBE's pending litigation against Unocal and their efforts to distort Unocal's environmental compliance record, make it practically and ethically inconceivable that CBE could participate as an objective and credible participant in the independent safety audit. If you would like to discuss this matter, or if you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, MARK A. SMITH Senior Counsel MAS:mm Enclosure W95-074 3TA-,E 6F'CAL(F0RNtA u 6V Z PETIS WLSON,Govemar CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD :5F WC, SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION -101 V&SSTER STREET,SUITE SW (-'AXLAN1:),CA 9"12 / � f'-UZIAK ' S10)2W1255 r\. L_ FAX(510)2S613W AUG Date: August 7, 1995 File Nos. 2119.1048A (LWT) 2119.1044A (MIR) 2119.1051A Mr. Greg Kan-as Senior Scientist Citizens for a Better Environment 500 Howard Street, Suite 506 San Francisco, CA 94 105 Subject: Response to Request for Oil Refinery Dioxin Monitoring Dew Mr. Kanas: In your letter of July 24, 1995, you requested the Board require source stream dioxin testing at the Unocal, Chevron and Tosco refineries to resolve monitoring problems. We appreciate your interest in dioxin discharges. We are also concerned with dioxin discharges and have been studying the matter for some time now. We considered your comments and suggestions carefully, but believe that our existing monitoring requirements on these refineries are adequate at the present time. As you are aware, there will be additional monitoring and investigation at Tosco as soon as the necessary order is in place. If new information becomes available that suggests changes are necessary to the monitoring requirements for any refinery including Unocal and Chevron, we will act appropriately at that time. The remainder of this letter addresses several points you make, in your letter. It is true, as you pointed out, that Unocal, Chevron and Tosco have reported detectable concentrations of dioxins in their discharge. We would like to clarify that of the three, only Tosco has consistently reported concentrations in excess of the permit limit. Unocal reported dioxin concentrations from three samples in 1990 and 1991 in excess of the current limit concentration which was established in 1994, but has not measured dioxins of concern in their discharge since 1991. Also, Chevron has not reported detectable levels of dioxins in excess of the permit limit to date. Chevron's current dioxin limit was established in 1992. You further point out that Unocal detected total TCDD,total HpCDD, total TCDF, and total HpCDF which is also true. We would like to clarify that it is only the 2,3,7,8 substituted congener of tetrachlorinated dibenzo- dioxin and furan which are of concern for toxicity and'for compliance with the dioxin limit, and not the total chlorinated dioxins and furans compounds. The compounds reported under the title of total CDD and/or CDFs may not include any 2,3,7,8 substituted congeners, but may actually include any number of the 193 other non-2,3,7,8 chlorinated dioxins and furans which are not of particular concern. Mr:Karras page 2 Another comment you made is that the reported detection Iimits are generally too high and thus fail to determine compliance with the permit limit of 0.14 pg/l. This again is true and we are aware of this problem. Unfortunately, there are no commercially available analytical methods which allows for measurement of dioxins at the low concentrations of the permit limit. The analytical methods used by Unocal, Chevron, and Tosco are the latest state of the art methods approved by USEPA. All the tests were performed by California Certified laboratories. Furthermore,the detection limits for 2,3,7,8-TCDD reported by these refineries range from 1.3 to 13 poll. The Practical Quantitation Limit(PQL) and Method Detection Limit (�iDT ) for dioxin analysis are 30 and 5 pg/l, respectively as reported by the USEPA (Federal RegisterNol. 57, No. 138/31802/Friday, July 17, 1992). Keep in mind that these PQL and MDL values were determined for a drinking water matrix which is expected to have less interferences than a wastewater effluent matrix. Considering these factors,the refineries are using the best analytical tools currently available. Detection limits will be one of the issues we look into as part of Tosco's studies. If you know of a test method that is capable of achieving the necessary detection limits, please let us know. The final comment you made is that we should require the refineries to sample reformer catalyst regeneration wash water and other in-plant streams suspected to contain dioxins. In 1990,we required all the refineries to study the reformer wash water. They conducted the studies in 1991 and 1992. Their reports are in our files and available for you review. For Chevron and Unocal, we believe further monitoring of this waste stream is not necessary at this time, nor is monitoring of other suspected sources for the reason described below. Data on upstream sources are already available to show that there are sources of dioxins to the process wastewaters at the refineries, so we believe there would be no additional information gained by requiring more data. Also,the refineries use biological treatment, and activated carbon adsorption which are both documented to be effective at removing dioxins from the wastewater. Recent data on the effluent from the treatment plants at these refineries do not show any dioxins at concentrations of concern. So at this time,there does not appear to be any reason to require additional sampling of upstream sources. Because of Tosco's non-compliance with the dioxin limit at the discharge point, they will be rewired to further investigate other in-plant sources if they cannot confirm that the effluent from their treatment plant have no dioxins at concentrations of concern. If you have further questions on this matter,please contact Lila Tang at(510)286-0911, or Mark Ruderrnan at(510)2$6-0657. Sincerely, wrence P. Kolb Acting Executive Officer J V • THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA.COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ' Adopted this Order on May 18, 1982 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, and McPeak. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. SUBJECT: Policy for Board Appointees, concerning RESOLUTION No. 82/5.74 Conflict of Interest & Open Meetings. ) 1. Statutes on Conflicts. Officials, Commissioners, and Committee members appointed by t s Board shall adhere to the principles and rules of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Secs. 81,000 ff.) , including the following: (a) Local government should serve the needs and respond to. the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth. (Gov.C. S81001(bl .) (b) Public officials should perform their duties in an .impar- tial manner, free from bias caused by - financial interests of themselves or their supporters. (Gov.C. §81001(bl . ) (c) Public officials should disclose assets and income which may be materially affected by their official actions, and in appropriate circumstances they should be disqualified from acting, in order to avoid conflicts of interest. (Gov.C. 581002 (d] . ) 2. Common Law Policy on Conflicts. All such officials should so conduct t e public business as to avoid even any appearance of conflict of interest. (See, e.g. , Kimura v. Roberts [1979] 89 C.A.3d 871.) 3. Brown Act on Open Meetings (a) Policy. California's "open meeting law" is the Ralph M. Brown Act. (Gov.C. 5554950 and following. ) This statute declares the general public policy of the State as follows : "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public -agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. "The people of this State do not yield their , sovereignty to 'the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain- control over the instruments they have created. " (Gov.C. 554950 .) (b) Enforcement. This policy is elaborated by requirements that local governmental bodies consider and act on public business in open meetings, which are enforceable by civil remedies and by criminal penalties. All such officials must comply with the requirements applicable to them. /hereby certify that this isatrue and correct copy of en action token and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on tho date shown. Orig. Dept.: Clerk of the Board ATTESTED: � �9 CC: Co. Administrator J.R. OLSS-ON, C14LtNTYCLERK County Counsel ex ofilclo 019rk of the Board . District Attorney All County Departments and GWM:eg Fire Protection Districts By Resolution No. 82/574 VOL"JMIVf 1'IMIVVIJIJ V,VH M YlijL"WU�UV rm Lj- TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Hon. Supervisor Jim Rodgers FR: Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator a DA: October 23, 1995 ° RE: ITEM S.D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENTPREVENTION AUDIT We urge you to refect Unocal's appeal of your September 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The m4mo-from-'-County Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. -CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxic dumping.bears no relation to your audit of accident prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite`,erid of ahe spectrum. CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as,Mr. Westman states. - y t Unocal is clearly trying to exclude.CBE becausewe are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure an audit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at the refinery If we can be of any assistance to you or your staff please do not hesitate to call Denny at any time (415-243-8373). Again thanks for your support and we look forward to.continuing to work with you. ft Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and f� Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator aV&.. OCT-23-1995 16:00 4152438980 P.002 fir`.``"- +UL-JMIVI 1'l/'11VVIJVV,1.iM YIVLYJUJUv •LIIWLUIJV V'4.V'ff IYI Lj TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulni4r.. Hon. Supervisor Jim Rodgers FR: Communities for a Better Environment (form&lyCitizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator '1 DA: October 23, 1995 RE- ITEM S.D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION AUDIT We urge you to re)ect Unocal's appeal 6f-"y- our September 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The meiiio-from'tounty Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxic dumping, bears no relation to your audit of accident prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite end ofthe spectrum. -CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as Mr. Westman states. Unocal is clearly trying to exclude.CBE because we are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure an-audit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at.the rdfinery z",: If we can be of any assistance to you or your staff please do not hesitate to call Denny at anytime (415-243-8373). Again thanks for your support and we look forward to continuing to work with you. fJ J La�'fIr IJ�fJFlLd 1d -sem Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and -Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator OCT-23-1995 16:00 415243890 P.002 r vuC-Aruv°'nnir.aar.v,r.n -r°uc-+uuauv ..u°v,caiav .v�.vtirsri Vu4 TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulniet Hon. Supervisor Jim Rodgers FR: Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator '7 DA: October 23, 1995 RE- ITEM S.D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION AUDIT We urge you to reject Unocal's appeal of:your September 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The memo from-County Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. •CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxic dumping. bears no relation to your audit of accident prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite end of;the spectrum. -CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as.Mr Westman states. Unocal is clearly trying to exclude CBE.becausp we are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure an'audit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at.the refinery ::. } If we can be of any assistance to you or yourstaff;;please do not hesitate to call Denny at any time (415-243-8373). Again thanks for your support and we look forward to continuing to work With you. f`f tit ,sr l r-L4 Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator OCT-23-1995 16:00 4152438910 P.002 vLJL'JMII-I7MIMVIJV V,VM YI JLYJUJUV -YI IV$GJIOA `l'Y.VYf IMI Lj 44 S S TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Hon. Supervisor Jim Rodgers FR: Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator DA: October 23, 1995 ` r RE: ITEM S.D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION AUDIT We urge you to refect Unocal's appeal of`'your September 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The m6m" -from`County Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. -CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxicdumping bears no relation to your audit of accident prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite-end of`the spectrum. CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as,Mr. Westman states. Unocal is clearly trying to exclude CBE.becam ewe are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure an audit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at the.refiinery If we can be of any assistance to you or your staff `please do not hesitate to call Denny at anytime (415-243-8373)- Again thanks for your support and we look forward to continuing to work with you. L4 xjrclf/ld� Alf IV— Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and Denny-Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator OCT-23-1995 16:00 4152438980 ..: P.002 fir;:, Vb{z_uHIY 1-1-IHIYVIi]v V,VH IV/G%11.7J Ll'ft.."rIYI V44 TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Hon. Supervisor Jim RodgersI 4 S tl, FR: Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator ' DA: October 23, 1995 RE: ITEM S.D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION AUDIT We urge you to reject Unocal's appeal of"your`SeOember 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The memo-from'-" unty Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. -CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxic dumping bears no relation to your audit of accident prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite end ofthe spectrum. CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as:Mr: 1_ stman states. Unocal is clearly trying to exclude CBE becauselwe are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure an"'audit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at the refinery , If we can be of any assistance to you or',your staff`= please do not hesitate to call Denny at anytime (415-243-8373). Again thanks for your support and we look forward to continuing to work with you. L . f! w Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and .,,Denny'Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator OCT-23-1995 16:00 4152438920 P.002 a VO1Z1QPAiYff'IMIYVIJ4 V,VM YI JLYJUJUV rW IVIG)/OJ vY.vYf�. Vu� TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Hon. Supervisor Jim Rodgers FR: Communities for a Better Environment (forrherlyCitizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator 7 DA: October 23, 1995 RE- ITEM S-D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENTPR EVEN TION AUDIT We urge you to reject Unocal's appeal of your'Sdptember 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The memo from-'County Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. -CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxic dumping.bears no relation to your audit of accident prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite!end of.the spectrum- -CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as Mr Westman states. Unocal is clearly trying to exclude CBE becauseiwe are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure an`audit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at the refinery , If we can be of any assistance to you or yoursta� please do not hesitate to call Denny at any time (415-243-8373). Again thanks for your support and we look forward to Continuing to work with you. f f a' ll Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator s . s. OCT-23-1995 16:00 4152439900 4 .; P.002 V OL'VMIY IflM1YVIJV V,VM � YI ULYJUJUV •LIIVILUI.7N uY.vYf 1., VuL J n �n TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop . Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnigr. t: Hon. Supervisor Jim Rodgers FR: Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator DA: October 23, 1995 RE: ITEM S.D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION AUDIT We urge you to reject Unocal's appeal of your September 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The memo-from-='County Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. -CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxic dumping,bears no relation to your audit of accident_prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite;;end of ithe spectrum. -CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as:Mr. Vl. stman states. Unocal is clearly trying to exclude CBE.k ecaus%gwe are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure an',audit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at the refinery r , If we can be of any assistance to you or"your sta ;'`please do not hesitate to call Denny at any time (415-243-8373). ti, , :.: Again thanks for your support and we look forward to.continuing to work with you. Ld _ . Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and.. s. .Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator OCT-23-1995 16:00 .4152438950 "`: P.002 d i t VI.lL-]MIYI f-1MIYVIa]V�,Vh 11"L UJUV IV1 LUlvi., U'M.v"rIYt IJ4L TO: Hon. Chairperson, Gayle Bishop Hon. Supervisor Jeff Smith Hon. Supervisor Tom Torlakson Hon. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier. Hon. Supervisor Jim Rodgers FR: Communities for a Better Environment (formerly Citizens), Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator ' DA: October 23, 1995 } RE: ITEM S.D. 15--UNOCAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION AUDIT We urge you to reject Unocal's appeal of`'your`SeOember 12, 1995, decision to appoint CBE to the Unocal Safety Audit Committee. There is no conflict of interest created by CBE's participation. The meifrom,County Counsel, Mr. Victor Westman, is in error it's two main premises. -CBE's citizen enforcement action under the Federal Clean Water Act for wastewater toxic dumping. bears no relation to your audit of accident prevention audit. The two matters are separate and are at opposite end of the spectrum. CBE's lawsuit is not a class action suit as.Mr. Westman states. Unocal is clearly trying to exclude CBE,because°we are a tough, credible community watchdog with the expertise to ensure anaudit that will get to the bottom of the frequent chemical spill problems at the refinery'i=,� If we can be of any assistance to you orour staff;please do not hesitate to call Denny at any time (415-243-8373). ,f. Again thanks for your support and we look forwaf,d to continuing to work with you. L4 xfCA116�� Nora Chorover, CBE Legal Director and -Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator CIS OCT-23-1995 16:00 4152436950 xK P.002