Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12301996 - D.1 Y •. T i ORDINANCE NO. 96-50 (Amending Ordinance Requiring Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. The County Ordinance Code requires land use permits for specified development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous material. This ordinance repeals Chapter 84-63, added by Ordinance No. 96-20, and adds a new Chapter 84-63 in its place. Articles 84-63.2, 84-63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10 and 84- 63.12 of Chapter 84-63, as added by this ordinance, sets forth revised criteria for land use permits for development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous material which encourages business and other entities, in planning the project, to give greater emphasis to factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community. Articles 84-63.2, 84-63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10 and 84-63.12 of new Chapter 84-63 provide for additional public safety by requiring land use permits for a broader range of development. projects which couldadversely affect public health, safety and the environment. Article 84-63.12 of Chapter 84-63, added by Ordinance No. 90-73, renumbered and readopted in its entirety as Article 84-63.14 by Ordinance No. 96-20, is unchanged. SECTION II. Chapter 84-63 of the County Ordinance Code, added by Ordinance No. 86-100 and amended by Ordinances Nos. 91-49, 90-92, 90-73 and 96-20, is repealed in its entirety, and is replaced by new Chapter 84-63, added by Section III of this ordinance. SECTION III. Chapter 84-63 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: CHAPTER 84-63 LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Article 84 ,PnPral 84-63.202 Purim. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the County by encouraging businesses and other entities, in planning and developing projects involving hazardous material or hazardous waste, to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community, and by requiring land use permits for ORD. 96-50 - 1 - 1\ ' y development projects which could significantly and adversely affect public health, safety and the environment. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-663.204 Conflict. This chapter is not intended, and should not be deemed, to prevent or preempt compliance with federal or state laws, regulations, rules or orders, or to excuse compliance with any other County ordinance, including other requirements of this code. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.4 Definitions 84-63.402 General. As used in this chapter, the words and phrases defined in this article shall have the meanings given unless the context otherwise requires. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.404 "Baseline Period." "Baseline period" means the consecutive twelve month period of time during which activity is measured for purposes of this chapter. The baseline period shall be any twelve consecutive month period within five years of the date of the submittal of the application that is reflective of a normal year of operation. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.406 "Chance-in-riskrnn_ipct." A "change-in-risk project" means a new use of an existing building, structure, or facility, not involving construction other than minor alterations, which use will involve a hazardous material or hazardous waste in a higher hazard category and which use will result in a hazard score higher than the hazard score of the previous use. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.408 "Commercial property." "Commercial property" means all properties with a commercial designation in the general plan including but not limited to the following: regional commercial, airport commercial, office, and business park. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.410 "Development promprt." (a) A "development project" means a new permanent building, structure or facility to be constructed that will manage hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or a permanent change-in-risk project. As used in this section, "permanent" when used to describe a building, structure, or facility, or the new use of an existing building, structure, or facility (change-in-risk project) means that the building, structure, facility or use is intended to be in operation for more than six months. ORD. 96-50 -2- . ti V A "development project" does not include: (1 ) Pipelines and related equipment more than 300 feet from commercial or residential property. Related equipment includes, but is not limited to, items such as valves, fittings, pipe supports, insulation, instrumentation, corrosion protection systems, heat tracing systems, leak containment systems and fire protection systems. Related equipment does not include storage tanks, storage vessels, process units or plants, mechanical rotating equipment (pumps, compressors, motors, turbines, internal combustion engines, etc.) and fired equipment (furnaces, boilers, incinerators). However, the Zoning Administrator may determine, at their sole discretion, that minor equipment defined above as not related is exempt from the ordinance. (2) Any project other than a major maintenance project consisting only of maintenance, repair, and replacement or minor modification of existing equipment provided the storage design capacity is not increased and the hazard category of hazardous material or hazardous waste handled is not increased. (3) Any transportable treatment unit that has obtained all required permits and is used solely for site remediation or waste treatment purposes, provided the transportable treatment unit will be located on site for a maximum time limit of one year. The Director of Community Development will have the authority to grant a one time one year extension if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the unit is temporary. Otherwise, a land use permit will be required if the unit will remain on site beyond the time limit specified above. (4) Any project for which permit applications have been deemed complete on or before the effective date of this chapter by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or other government agency with jurisdiction over the project. The proponent of a project described by subsection (4) of subdivision (b) of this section may elect to be subject to the requirements of this chapter in lieu of any requirements in effect prior to the effective date of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.412 "DispnsP." "Dispose" means to discharge, deposit, inject, dump, or place any hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) 84763.414 "Ent,ipment." "Equipment" means pipes, pumps, vessels and other similar types of apparatus. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) ORD. 96-50 -3- 4- 84-63.416 cilitv." "Facility" means a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels (including parcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in section 1002-2.002 of this Code) under common ownership or control. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 134-63-41R "Hazardous material." "Hazardous material" means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment, and includes any material that is listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table), as amended from time to time. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) 84-63.420 "Hazardous waste." "Hazardous waste" means any substance which is regulated as a hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services under 22 California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 30, or defined as a hazardous waste under Health & Safety Code section 25117, generally as follows: (a) "Hazardous waste" means either of the following: (1) A waste, or combination of wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristic may either: (A) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness. (B) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. (2) A waste which meets any of the criteria for the identification of a hazardous waste adopted by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control pursuant to the Health & Safety Code section 25141 . (b) "Hazardous waste" includes, but is not limited to, federal Resource Conservation and Recover Act ("RCRA") hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) ORD. 96-50 -4- 84-63.421 (a) "Serious Incident." An incident that occurred at a facility involved in the use, storage or handling of hazardous material or waste and that caused the release of hazardous material or waste that may have posed an imminent threat to the public health, the environment or property and that resulted in any of the following: (1) Activation of the CCCHSD Community Alert Network system provided that a shelter-in-place direction is issued to potentially threatened populations by the CCCHSD or other public emergency response officials; (2) The evacuation of a school, or other public facility, residential dwelling or business in response to a direction issued to potentially threatened populations by the CCCHSD or other emergency response officials or closure of an offsite street, highway, freeway, or bridge, except where such closure is solely for crowd control or emergency vehicle; (3) A large fire which was not contained for more than two hours; (4) Physical injury or physical illness affecting two persons resulting in overnight hospitalization, or physical injury or physical illness affecting three to nine persons who were seen for medical treatment by a medical doctor; (5) An explosion which results in offsite property damage from the blast pressure or explosion debris; (6) Payment of a fine or civil penalty of at least $5,000 arising out of or related to the offsite release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and (7) A release where the reportable quantity is twice the reportable quantity required under Section 304 of the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act or Section 25507 of the California Health and Safety Code, and where notification is made under Section 304 or Section 25507. (b) "Major Incident." An incident that occurred at a facility involved in the use, storage or handling of hazardous material or waste and that caused the offsite release of hazardous material or waste that may have posed an imminent threat to the public health, the environment or property and that resulted in any of the following: ORD. 96-50 -5- (1) The death of one or more persons, physical injury or physical illness affecting three or more persons resulting in overnight hospitalization, or physical injury or physical illness effecting 10 or more persons who were seen for medical treatment by a medical doctor. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.421.5 "Mainr Maintenance Project." A major maintenance project is the scheduled, periodic cleaning, inspection, repair of process units, piping, or process or storage vessels which handles hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The maintenance will also require that the unit be temporarily taken out of service for more than two (2) weeks, provided that the cost of the maintenance work is $1 million or more. The $1 million will exclude the costs of overhead, planning, engineering, and other pre-construction costs. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.422 "Manage." "Manage" means to generate, treat, store, transport, use or dispose of hazardous material or hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) U-61-491 "Process,Unit". "Process unit means any equipment or structures containing an activity involving a hazardous chemical or waste including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-site movement of such chemicals, or combination of these activities. For purposes of this definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected shall be considered a single process. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.424 "Prooect Descri tp ion." "Project description" means a written description and explanation of the construction and operation of a development project. A project description shall address all phases of and for the life of the project. The project description shall include the following information as well as any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director for the purpose of determining the hazard score: (a) A description of the facility location with respect to major freeways and immediate neighbors, and the size (in square footage or acreage) of the property on which the facility is located; (b) An area map showing the facility in relationship to the surrounding community; (c) A description of all significant operations involving hazardous material and/or hazardous waste currently being managed, and/or proposed to be managed, including a brief general history of the facility; and ORD. 96-50 -6- a d) A summary of the baseline data for all five years and a justification for the selection of the representative baseline year of data used in the calculation of the hazard score. The Community Development Director may waive the requirement of submitting any or all of the information required by paragraphs (a) through (d), above. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.425 "Public Safety AarePment " A Public Safety Agreement is an agreement between the County and a facility providing standards, procedures, and inspections to assure that the facility protects public and worker safety and the environment from accidents due to material failure, mechanical or equipment failure, failure to adhere to practices and procedures, off-site events, and human error and providing measures to promote a strong and balanced County economy. A Public Safety Agreement shall address, at a minimum, the following: (a) A commitment to use the best technology for safety improvements; (b) Permission for the County to enter the premises for inspections; (c) Specify changes in operations and facilities included in the maintenance projects; (d) Commitment to do and publicize design safety review; (e) The Public Safety Agreement should provide a range of dates for maintenance; these dates may be extended by the County for the purpose of assuring state fuel supplies; and (f) Provisions that would permit the completion of necessary work discovered to be necessary in the course of a major maintenance. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.426 "Residential property". "Residential property" means all properties with a residential designation in the general plan, including but not Limited to the following: single family residential, multiple family residential, and mobile homes. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.428 "Sensitive receptor." The term "sensitive receptor" includes schools, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, licensed child day care facilities, and similarly less-mobile populations, and detention facilities including jails, youth camps and other locked facilities. These facilities have more than twelve people. For the purposes of this section, "general acute care hospital" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1250(a), "long term ORD. 96-50 -7- health care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section ' 1418(a), and "child day care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1596.750. "School" means any school used for the purpose of the education of more than 12 children in kindergarten or any grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.430 "Rtoxe." "Store" means an act to contain hazardous waste or hazardous material for any period of time in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste or hazardous material. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 86-100.) 84-63.432 "Transonrt." "Transport" or "transportation" means an act to move hazardous waste or hazardous material by truck, rail, ship or pipeline. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) ArtirlP 84-63.6 Aonlicahility 84-63.602 ApplicabiliT Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person proposing a development project or a major maintenance project which might otherwise be allowed in any non-agricultural zoning district shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) 84-63.604 Expm tip onc• The following projects and structures are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (a) Any project built solely to comply with federal, state, regional or local agency enforcement orders under a compliance time schedule that precludes timely review under this chapter. This section is primarily intended to allow exemptions for compliance with laws, regulations, rules, or administrative or judicial orders such as nuisance abatement orders or other short-term or immediately necessary actions. This section is not intended to allow automatic exemptions for projects being undertaken to comply with changed federal, state, regional or local laws. A facility claiming an exemption under this section, must file a copy of the enforcement order and proposed project description within thirty (30) days of receipt of the order. (b) If more than fifty percent (50%) of the value of a facility is destroyed or damaged by disasters such as earthquakes, floods, fires, or an act of god or the public enemy, the building, facility or structure may be rebuilt under the following conditions: (1) The rebuilt project is used for the same purpose as the destroyed damaged project; ORD. 96-50 -8- (2) The rebuilt project complies with all environmental regulations in effect at the time of rebuilding, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or at least the same level of control that previously existed, whichever provides the greater level of protection to the public; (3) The rebuilt project has a hazard score fifty percent (50%) lower than the destroyed or damaged project (both rebuilt and destroyed or damaged project to be scored as if they are new); (4) The hazard category of chemicals used in the rebuilt project is not greater than used by the destroyed or damaged project; (5) Construction is commenced within one year unless an extension is granted by the Community Development Director; (6) The rebuilt project is at least 300 feet away from the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor and no closer to the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor than the destroyed or damaged project; and (7) The rebuilt project will not manage Hazard Category A materials in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage hazardous wastes in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage Hazard Category B materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project, and will not manage Hazard Category C materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project. (c) A development project in which both the size, as defined in section 84- 63.1012 and the monthly transportation quantity are less than: (1) for Hazard Category C materials - 4000 tons (2) for Hazard Category B materials - 5 tons (3) for Hazard Category A materials - the quantity specified as the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Materials List (Appendix A to 40 C.F.R Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended from time to time), or 500 pounds, whichever is less. (d) A major maintenance project covered by a Public Safety Agreement entered into by the County and the facility within five years prior to the time the major maintenance project application is submitted to the department. ORD. 96-50 -9- (e) A major maintenance project at a facility not covered by a Public Safety Agreement provided that the facility has neither had three serious incidents as defined in Section 84-63.421 (a) nor any major incidents as defined in Section 84-63.421 (b) within five (5) years prior to the time the major maintenance project schedule notification is submitted to the department. The major maintenance project must commence within six months of the notification. (f) Emergency repairs to or replacement of equipment damaged in an explosion, fire or other unexpected event. Such repairs and replacements must be required in order to resume operations. These emergency repairs and replacements are excluded from the provisions of section 84-63.421 .5. Emergency repairs and replacements are subject to the following conditions: (1) the repaired and replaced equipment is used for the same purpose as the damaged equipment, (2) the replaced equipment does not have a higher hazard score than the original equipment, with both the old and new being scored as new equipment, (3) the repaired or replaced equipment will not handle a higher hazard category of chemicals than the original equipment, (4) repairs and replacements are commenced within 30 days after release of the damaged area by an investigating agency. (g) A major maintenance project at a facility covered by a Risk Management Plan (RMP) in compliance with Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, its implementing regulations and State Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95, Article 2, or a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) in compliance with Health and Safety section 25536.5, provided: (1) For purposes of the RMP or RMPP, all materials and wastes classified as Hazard Category A or B under this ordinance shall be deemed to be "regulated substances," except that for materials and wastes without a threshold quantity specified in state or federal law or regulation, the threshold quantity shall be 10,000 pounds; (2) The RMP or RMPP has been reviewed and approved by the HSD within three years prior to the time the major maintenance project application is submitted to the Department; (3) The RMP or RMPP includes any measures which the HSD has determined, after at least a 45-day public comment period, are reasonably necessary, taking into account technological feasibility and cost effectiveness, to make the RMP or RMPP effective to protect the ORD. 96-50 - 10- environment and the health or safety of persons from potentially substantial risks; (4) The facility has been subjected to an annual audit by the HSD to determine compliance with the RMP and RMPP, and measures required by the HSD pursuant to subparagraph 3 above of this subsection, and the facility has implemented, or has agreed to implement within a reasonable time period, all corrective measures required by the HSD; and (5) There has been an opportunity for any member of the public to obtain review of any determinations by the HSD by the County Board of Supervisors. (h) A development project or major maintenance project for which construction has commenced prior to June 1, 1997, and is completed by January 1, 1998. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.606 Fxemption. On the effective date of this chapter, any proposed development project which is subject to the provisions of this chapter, and which has obtained all required federal and state permits and other governmental authorizations to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material including, but not limited to, permits or authorizations under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.), Hazardous Waste Control, Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7 (§ 25280 et seq.), Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances, Health and Safety Code Chapter 3.5 (§39650 et seq.), Toxic Air Contaminants, and Food and Agriculture Code Section 14021 et seq., and which has complied with the requirements of the Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act (Labor Code Section 6360 et seq.) shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.8 Standards and Procedures 84-63.802 Application for Applicability Determination; Exemption. Any person proposing a development project which may be used to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material shall apply to the Community Development Director for review and a determination whether a land use permit may be required under Article 84-63.10 or whether the project is exempt under section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606. Projects exempt under section 84-63.604(c), (d) and (f) are not required to submit an application pursuant to this section. If the hazard score of a project is 49 or less and the project does not increase the amount of hazardous waste or hazardous material ORD. 96-50 - 11 - managed as compared to the baseline of the last three years, a determination of non- coverage and an application therefor are not required. The application shall include all information necessary to complete and verify the hazard score of the project, such as chemical identification, distances to nearest receptors, transportation routes, and the five-year baseline data. The application shall be accompanied by all fees established by the Board of Supervisors. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.804 Application, Review, Determination. No later than ten calendar days after receipt of an application, or the submittal of additional information, the Community Development Director shall inform the applicant in writing that the application is complete or shall inform the applicant what additional information is required. Within twenty calendar days of the application being deemed complete, the Community Development Director shall issue a written determination of non-coverage pursuant to section 84-63.806, an exemption pursuant to section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606, or a determination that a land use permit is required pursuant to section 84-63.1002. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92.) 84-63.806 Determination of non-coverage. Upon determining that a proposed project has a hazard score up to and including 59 or that the project is exempt pursuant to section 84-63.604 or 84-63.606, the Community Development Director shall issue a determination of non-coverage or exemption. A determination of non- coverage for projects with a hazard score between 50 and 59 inclusive, means that the project is not subject to the requirements of article 84-63.10, but is subject to sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. Projects with a hazard score below 49 and projects which are exempt pursuant to sections 84-63.604 and 84-63.606 are not subject to the requirements of sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) $4-63.808 DPterminatinns - Publir. Notice. All determinations of non-coverage made pursuant to section 84-63.806 shall be summarized on an agenda of the County Zoning Administrator within ten calendar days of issuance of the determination. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.810 Determinations - Further Puhlic Notice. For projects with a point assignment between 50 and 59, inclusive, within five working days of issuing a determination of non-coverage, the Community Development Director shall mail notice on the date of the determination to all organizations and individuals who have previously submitted a written request for such notice. The Community Development Director shall publish a four-inch by six-inch advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within ten calendar days of issuing a determination of non-coverage. The notices required by this section shall state the name of the applicant, briefly describe the project, provide the names and phone numbers of a representative of the ORD. 96-50 - 12- Community Development Department and a representative of the applicant who will be available to answer questions about the project, and shall state the date by which an appeal must be filed. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92.) 84-63.812 Appeals. Any appeal of a determination of non-coverage shall be filed within ten calendar days of the date the determination is listed on the Zoning Administrator's agenda or ten calendar days from the date of publication pursuant to section 84-63.810, whichever provides the longer period of appeal. Appeals from a determination of non-coverage shall be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Except as expressly provided in this section, appeals from all decisions and determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the land use permit provisions of article 26-2.24 and are subject to the provisions of article 26-2.30. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.10 Land Use Permits - When Required 84-63.1002 Ha and Score; Permit Required. Unless otherwise exempt from the requirements of this chapter, a land use permit shall be required for a development project proposed for the management of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste if the development project obtains a hazard score of 60 or more pursuant to the formula set forth in section 84-63.1004, or for a major maintenance project, subject to the provisions of this article. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.1004 Hazard Score. (a) Formula. The hazard score of a proposed development project shall be determined pursuant to the following formula: [(T + C + P) x H I + D + A + R; where the following symbols have the following designations: "T" refers to the point assignment for "Transportation Risk"; "D" refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Distance from Receptor"; "C" refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Type of Receptor"; ORD. 96-50 - 13- "A" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Total Amount"; "P" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Percent Change"; and "H" refers to the point assignment for "Hazard Category of Material or Waste. "R" refers to the "incident record" of the facility. (b) Project Hazard Srnre_ If more than one category of hazardous material or hazardous waste is used, the formula set forth in this section will be used to calculate a separate score for each material category. The material hazard category which results in the highest hazard score for the project will be used. (c) Point Assionment. The factors set forth in subdivision (a), above, shall have the following point assignments: TRANSPORTATION RISK (T) POINTS Truck - residential/commercial 10 (>25% increase or new) Truck - residential/commercial 9 (>5 - 25 % increase) Truck - Industrial (>25% increase or new) 8 Truck - Industrial (>5 - 25% increase) 7 Rail - (>25% increase or new) 6 Rail - (>5 - 25% increase) 5 Ship - (>5% increase) 3 Pipeline - (>5% increase) 1 0 - 5% increase 0 ORD. 96-50 - 14- COMMUNITY RISK Distance ofreject from rer. .ntnr (D): 0-300 feet 30 >300 - 400 feet 29 >400 - 550 feet 28 >550 - 700 feet 27 >700 - 900 feet 26 >900 - 1200 feet 25 > 1200 - 1500 feet 24 > 1500 - 1800 feet 23 > 1800 - 2100 feet 22 >2100 - 2500 feet 21 >2500 - 2800 feet 20 >2800 - 3200 feet 19 >3200 - 3500 feet 18 >3500 - 3800 feet 17 >3800 - 4000 feet 16 >4000 - 4200 feet 15 >4200 - 4500 feet 14 >4500 - 4800 feet 13 >4800 - 5400 feet 12 >5400 - 5700 feet 11 >5700 - 6000 feet 10 ORD. 96-50 - 15- >6000 - 6500 feet 9 >6500 - 7300 feet 8 >7300 - 8000 feet 7 >8000 - 8600 feet 6 >8600 - 10,000 feet 5 > 10,000 - 11,000 feet 4 >11,000 - 12500 feet 3 > 12,500 - 14,000 feet 2 > 14,000 - 15,840 feet 1 Vpe of rer.Potor (C): Sensitive receptor 7 Residential Property 5 Commercial Property 4 FACILITY RISK• S17F OF PRO IFCT Total Amount of change, tons (Conversion to tons; 1 ton = 2000 pounds) (A): >40,000 30 >32,000 - 40,000 29 > 18,000 - 32,000 28 > 10,000 - 18,000 27 >6,000 - 10,000 26 >4,000 - 6,000 25 >2,100 - 4,000 24 > 1,200 - 2,100 23 ORD. 96-50 - 16- >750 - 1,200 22 >400 - 750 21 >200 - 400 20 > 150 - 200 19 >90 -150 18 >50 - 90 17 >30 - 50 16 >20 - 30 15 > 10 - 20 14 >6 - 10 13 >4 - 6 12 >2 - 4 11 > 1 - 2 10 >0.8 - 1 9 >0.5 - 0.8 8 >0.35 - 0.5 7 >0.25 - 0.35 6 >0.20 - 0.25 5 >0.18 - 0.20 4 >0.14 - 0.18 3 >0.12 - 0.14 2 >0.10 - 0.12 1 no change (0.10 or less) 0 ORD. 96-50 -17- r Percent Change (P) New 6 >200% 5 > 100% - 200% 4 >50% - 100% 3 > 10% - 50% 2 > 1 % - 10% 1 0% - l % 0 HAZARD C-ATECORY OF MATERIAL (H) Category A 5 Category 6 3 Category C 1 RECORD OF INCIDENTS (R) >3 5 2 3 1 2 0 -5 (d) Creditfor reductions or projects to he closed. A development project that would have a hazard score of 60 or more as determined by the formula in this section shall be entitled to a reduction credit for project closures and/or reductions in accordance with the criteria set forth in this subdivision. Reduction credit shall be given if the Community Development Director determines that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its operations and finds that all of the following criteria are met: ORD. 96-50 - 18- a (1) The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed. (2) The project to be closed or reduced is currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years prior to the date of application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule; (3) The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; (4) The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; (5) The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced; and (6) The development project will be more than 300 feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. The hazard score for the project to be closed shall also be determined by the formula set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section and pursuant to the provisions of this article. In determining the hazard score for the project to be closed or reduced, said project shall be deemed a new project. The hazard score of the development project shall be subtracted from the hazard score of the project to be closed or reduced. The resulting difference will then be subtracted from the hazard score of the development project to obtain a hazard score adjusted for the closure or reduction. The adjusted hazard score shall be the basis for determining whether a land use permit shall be required under this chapter. A determination by the Community Development Director that a project is not subject to the land use permit requirement of this chapter as a result of credit afforded for a project closure or reduction shall be reported to the Zoning Administrator pursuant to section 84-63.808 and shall be subject to the public notification requirements set forth in section 84-63.810. (e) Closure, reduction required. Projects proposed for closure or reduction for which closure or reduction credit was afforded under this section shall be closed or reduced as proposed within one year of completion of the development project. This subdivision (d) applies only in cases where a land use permit would have been required but for the closure or reduction credit afforded under this section. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) ORD. 96-50 - 19- R4-61-1006 Determination of Transportation Risk. The transportation risk ' point assignment shall be calculated based upon planned total quantities of materials in a hazard category, measured in terms of tons per year for each hazard category proposed. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated for each mode of transportation proportionally within a single hazard category. That transportation point assignment shall be compared by hazard category with the total amount of material in the hazard category transported during the baseline period in order to obtain the percent change in section 84-63.1004(b), Transportation Risk. For purposes of determining whether truck transportation is through residential/commercial or industrial areas, the shortest legal route from the closest two-lane (or larger) freeway shall be considered. If the route used in the County does not traverse a two-lane (or larger) freeway, the entire route shall be considered. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) $4-63.1008 Determination of Community Risk - Distanne to Receptnr. "Distance to Receptor" shall be the shortest distance between an exterior wall or other part of the development project and the property line of the residential property, commercial property or the sensitive receptor used to determine the hazard score of a development project. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.1010 Determination of Community Risk - Type of Receptor. A hazard score shall be developed for each type of receptor (residential property, commercial property and sensitive receptor) within three miles of the development project based upon the distance of the parcel of each type of receptor that is closest to the development project. The receptor that produces the highest hazard score shall be used to determine the hazard score of the development project. Receptors more than three miles from a development project shall not be considered. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.1012 Determination of Proi .ct Risk - See. The size of a development project shall be measured in terms of tons of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste stored as a result of the development project, based upon the fill-to-the- maximum capacity of the development project, including amounts stored in tanks; reactors; columns; process lines; tank cars, tank trucks or rail cars when connected to process equipment; or any other receptacle used for the containment of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes. The amount of material in hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project will be used to determine the total amount of change. If more than one category of hazardous material is used, the amounts of materials (A, B, or C) shall be used with the respective hazard category in the formula in section 84-63.1004. The specific gravity of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes may be required to calculate the number of tons (or pounds) of hazardous materials and/or ORD. 96-50 -20- hazardous waste managed at the development project. The standard of 2000 pounds equaling one (1) ton shall be used. The point assignment for storage of containerized material in buildings, such as labs or warehouses, shall be based upon the maximum anticipated amount of materials for each hazard category as a result of the development project. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.1014 Determination of Project Risk - Percent Chance. The percent change of a hazard category shall be determined by comparing the amounts of materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project to the total amount of all materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C handled at the site from the baseline period. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.1016 Determination of Hazard Category. (a) Method of Determination. The hazard category of a material or waste shall be determined pursuant to this section. (1) The primary method of determining the material hazard category of a hazardous waste or material shall be by reference to the Winter 1994 version of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 ("49 CFR"), Section 172.101, Hazardous Materials Tahle." From columns (3) and (5), extract the "Hazard Class or Division" and "Packing Group" information, then proceed to 49 CFR 173.2 to determine the "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to,determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. If a material is listed in 49 CFR 172.101 more than once, the rating that results in the highest hazard category shall be used. The hazard category of a mixture is determined according to its common name as defined in Title 49. (2) Where a hazardous material or waste or mixture is not referenced in 49 CFR 172.101, and the hazard category cannot be determined using the primary method, refer to the materials safety data sheet for the D.O.T. "Hazard Class or Division," "Packing Group" and• "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. (3) Where the preceding methods are not successful, the Contra Costa County Health Services Director or his/her designee shall be responsible for determining a material's hazard category. (4) Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth above, materials with the word "poison" in column (6) of 49 CFR 172.101, Methyl chloride, and the metals Antimony, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, Thallium and Cadmium and their compounds, shall be Hazard Category A materials, and denatured alcohol and methanol shall be Hazard Category B materials for purposes of this chapter. ORD. 96-50 -21 - (b) ExGlusiQm. Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth in subdivision (a), above, Hot Coke, Hot Coal Briquettes, and materials not regulated by D.O.T. or which have no D.O.T. Hazard Class or Division are not regulated by this chapter. (c) Hazard Categnries. Hazard Category A Materials I. Forbidden Materials As referenced in 49 CFR 173.21 and 173.54. II. Explosives and Blasting Agents Class 1, as defined in 49 CFR 173.50(b)(1) through 173.50(b)(6). III. Reactive Materials A. Air Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(b)(1) and (2). B. Water Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(c). C. Organic Peroxides - Class 5, Division 5.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.128. IV. Radioactive Materials Class 7 as defined in 49 CFR 173.403(y). V. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group I is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(1). VI. Poisons, D.O.T. A. Poisons, Class 6, Division 6.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.133 (applies to all hazard zones). B. Infectious Substances, Class 6, Division 6.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.134. ORD. 96-50 -22- VII. .Poison Gas Class 2, Division 2.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(c). Hazard Category 6 Materials VIII. Flammable Liquids Class 3 Packing Groups I and II as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(a). IX. Flammable Solids Class 4, Division 4.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(a). X. Oxidizers, D.O.T. Packing Group II Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group II is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(ii). XI. Flammable Gases Class 2, Division 2.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.1-15(a). XII. Corrosives, D.O.T. Packing Group I or II Class 8 Packing Groups I or II as defined in 49 CFR 173.136(a) and 173.137(a) and (b). Hazard Category C Materials XIII. Non-flammable Compressed Gases Class 2, Division 2.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(b). XIV. Combustible Liquids Class 3 Packing Group III as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(b). XV. Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials Class 9 as defined in 49 CFR 173.155. ORD. 96-50 -23- XVI. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group III is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(iii). XVII. Corrosives D.O.T. Packing Group 111 Class 8 Packing Group III as defined in CFR 49 173.136(a) and 173.137 (c). (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.1018 D .terminatinn of Incident Record. The determination of a facility's record shall be made by determining how many incidents occurred at the facility during the three years immediately preceding the project application. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) Arti .le 84-63.1 Land Use and Variance Permits 84-63.1202 Granting. An applicant for a land use permit shall submit a project description. Land use permits required under this chapter may be granted in accordance with the provisions of chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.14 Offsite Hazardous Waste Facility Compliance With County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 84-63.1402 A 't�horitvr. This article is enacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 25135.4 and 25135.7, concerning the siting of offsite hazardous waste facilities. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) 84-63.1404 Definitions. (a) General. Unless otherwise specified in this section or indicated by the context, the terms used in this article have the meanings ascribed to them in Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.). (b) "County Hazardous Waste Management Plan" means the county hazardous waste management plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 29, 1989 and amended by the Board of Supervisors on January 30, 1990, approved by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area, and approved by the State Department of Health Services on February 28, 1990, as said plan is amended from time to time. ORD. 96-50 -24- (c) "Hazardous waste facility" means all contiguous land and structures, other • appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous waste. A hazardous waste facility may consist of one or more treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling hazardous waste management units, or combinations of these units. (d) "Offsite hazardous waste facility" means a hazardous waste facility at which either or both of the following occur: (1) Hazardous waste that is produced offsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled. (2) Hazardous waste that is produced onsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled and the hazardous waste facility is not owned by, leased to or under the control of the producer of the hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) 84-63.1406 County Hazardous Waste Management. All land use permit, variance or other land use entitlement granted for the operation or expansion of an offsite hazardous waste facility shall be consistent with the portions of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan which identify siting criteria, siting principles or other policies applicable to hazardous waste facilities. Before granting the application, the division of the planning agency hearing the matter initially or on appeal shall find that the application complies with the applicable siting criteria, siting principles and other policies identified in the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and that the proposed offsite hazardous waste facility is consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73; Health & Safety Code, § § 25135.4. 25135.7.) 84-63.1408 Fxclusion. The requirements of this article do not apply to projects which are exempt projects under section 84-63.604. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) SF(-TION IV. INTENT AND EFFECT OF REPEAL. The repeal of Articles 84-63.2, 84- 63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10, and 84-63.12 of Chapter 84-63 by Section II of this ordinance does not effect the validity of any permit issued or decision made under said repealed provisions. The repeal of Article 84-63.14 concerning offsite hazardous waste facility compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, by Section II of this ordinance, and said provisions' subsequent readoption by Section III of this ordinance, are not intended to have any effect other than continuing the effect of said provisions. RFCTION V_ SEVERABILITY_ This ordinance shall be liberally construed to achieve its purposes and preserve its validity. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall ORD. 96-50 -25- o *�. not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect t, without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable and are intended to have independent validity. SECTION VI, PREEMPTION_ Nothing in this ordinance is intended, and should not be deemed, to excuse or prevent compliance with any State or federal law. If any provision of this ordinance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be preempted by any applicable State or federal law, the Board of Supervisors declares that its intent is for such provision to be severable from the remainder of the ordinance, and the remainder of the ordinance is to be given effect in accordance with the provisions of Section III of this ordinance. SECTION VII, EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on December 30, 1996 , by the following vote. AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop and Smith NOES: Supervisor DeSaulnier ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Canciamilla ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By. (L t.1-1 Deputy i Board Chair ITF:bmw:df.31.wdhz626.86f [SEAL] ORD. 96-50 -26- mCD cD z C m n r l O -I — m co I °' wo m CO Z� (n �� ;tel �z o: -0 i o O y r, t—� fJ m F _� CD I �� gm Z ro li:r q En 2 C7 Z C Cls 4 CCD 0) O `s € CO =CD 0 ;cj :fl, ': C) c cn m CDm m C. of m m (n N w n C() 0 70= ®y 41 � N �o D G� CD rt n3f GL - : Cil D l ist `;x,: '(a, oo 0 � m 0 epi W vs t� (D t-4 C 7CJ 70 :V4 �O g m m o f (1, i tom• t� m W Ci 0 O rn y < 3 �} �D N cti C7'rt G ' = i ON n w � Dm y " OwN< o cc fD m 'U w• fD > m C7 ' m A Hi 0 0 � (D . s--] Cl) m m-< i w a rn L7 W o z ." i 1 z t-+ m Cl) 0 OC to ri!. Q. O C) � O Ww<rn cn rr cr FJ- #e� ; H. � _m � p� m O 0 z m < w 0 N-o o 03! (0 cA - i u O � _cmn� 1 y .0�0� m cQ (7' r r j t._c. Z �h : (D _0 I CD O 0 � i fij �> �b ( � m ra a� 0 ri m ft— C3 ,0. I. p' G� ^� r� a z ��-�1 f�. W per• (D ; (A i�j Hyy C gppyy 0 10 0 so p a rt tom• hd z !0 `,J 't--3 M '• r �f O N° (D O O r- CO (C" ^rn 0 s 4 (3U a I Z C7 h-i C ' La '' ) I--t3 0 0 O !cc, JJ tY rt G € e I o H.10, ? O -i m C) Ocn G)m DW (n W cn 0 mm c0 Cn m z filj4L js' jfD co C)_ C 71 D m (7 D {C;gV m 00� ipn Mm p O I m0 �D m sn i O I z CO 70 m D cm mC: 0 O f s € r ( WZ r I Cl, j m = m z z ! ao O O i I 0 (� D � -0 o �m i Cit t ( _ i.. lcoEl m '-+ O m D _ 3 f G? C + t ''' m m rn I ; ® m :a 0 o � o I f r ;co is I y+.y jp`fWVw. yam, ./p Y co 6 mi ?i fD VU D + 3 z r r1a o m Z i60E S f ^ 3 5 ORDINANCE NO. 96-50 (Amending Ordinance Requiring Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION 1. SUMMARY. The County Ordinance Code requires land use permits for specified development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous material. This ordinance repeals Chapter 84-63, added by Ordinance No. 96-20, and adds a new Chapter 84-63 in its place. Articles 84-63.2, 84-63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10 and 84- 63.12 of Chapter 8463, as added by this ordinance, sets forth revised criteria for land use permits for development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous material which encourages business and other entities, in planning the project, to give greater emphasis to factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community. Articles 8463.2, 84-63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10 and 84-63.12 of new Chapter 84-63 provide for additional public safety by requiring land use permits for a broader range of development projects which couldadversely affect public health, safety and the environment. Article 84-63.12 of Chapter 84-63, added by Ordinance No. 90-73, renumbered and readopted in its entirety as Article 84-63.14 by Ordinance No. 96-20, is unchanged. SECTION 11, Chapter 84-63 of the County Ordinance Code, added by Ordinance No. 86-100 and amended by Ordinances Nos. 91-49, 90-92, 90-73 and 96-20, is repealed in its entirety, and is replaced by new Chapter 84-63, added by Section 111 of this ordinance. SECTION 111. Chapter 84-63 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: CHAPTER 84-63 LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Article R4-63.2 94-63.202 Piirpnce, The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the County by encouraging businesses and other entities, in planning and developing projects involving hazardous material or hazardous waste, to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community, and by requiring land use permits for O 50 1 l development projects which could significantly and adversely affect public health, safety and the environment. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63-204 Onnflici. This chapter is not intended, and should not be deemed, to prevent or preempt compliance with federal or state laws, regulations, rules or orders, or to excuse compliance with any other County ordinance, including other requirements of this code. (Ords. 96-50 4 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63-4 Definitions $4-63-402 ,pn -ral. As used in this chapter, the words and phrases defined in this article shall have the meanings given unless the context otherwise requires. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) $4-63-404 "Bas -lin - Perind." "Baseline period" means the consecutive twelve month period of time during which activity is measured for purposes of this chapter. The baseline period shall be any twelve consecutive month period within five years of the date of the submittal of the application that is reflective of a normal year of operation. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.406 "Chance-in-risk prniect." A "change-in-risk project" means a new use of an existing building, structure, or facility, not involving construction other than minor alterations, which use will involve a hazardous material or hazardous waste in a higher hazard category and which use will result in a hazard score higher than the hazard score of the previous use. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) $4-63-408 "Cnmmerrial prnperty." "Commercial property" means all properties with a commercial designation in the general plan including but not limited to the following: regional commercial, airport commercial, office, and business park. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63-410 "DDPvPlnpmPnt prnipt." (a) A "development project" means a new permanent building, structure or facility to be constructed that will manage hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or a permanent change-in-risk project. As used in this section, "permanent" when used to describe a building, structure, or facility, or the new use of an existing building, structure, or facility (change-in-risk project) means that the building, structure, facility or use is intended to be in operation for more than six months. - 0 (b) A "development project" does not include: (1) Pipelines and related equipment more than 300 feet from commercial or residential property. Related equipment includes, but is not limited to, items such as valves, fittings, pipe supports, insulation, instrumentation, corrosion protection systems, heat tracing systems, leak containment systems and fire protection systems. Related equipment does not include storage tanks, storage vessels, process units or plants, mechanical rotating equipment (pumps, compressors, motors, turbines, internal combustion engines, etc.) and fired equipment (furnaces, boilers, incinerators). However, the Zoning Administrator may determine, at their sole discretion, that minor equipment defined above as not related is exempt from the ordinance. (2) Any project other than a major maintenance project consisting only of maintenance, repair, and replacement or minor modification of existing equipment provided the storage design capacity is not increased and the hazard category of hazardous material or hazardous waste handled is not increased. (3) Any transportable treatment unit that has obtained all required permits and is used solely for site remediation or waste treatment purposes, provided the transportable treatment unit will be located on site for a maximum time limit of one year. The Director of Community Development will have the authority to grant a one time one year extension if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the unit is temporary. Otherwise, a land use permit will be required if the unit will remain on site beyond the time limit specified above. (4) Any project for which permit applications have been deemed complete on or before the effective date of this chapter by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or other government agency with jurisdiction over the project. The proponent of a project described by subsection (4) of subdivision (b) of this section may elect to be subject to the requirements of this chapter in lieu of any requirements in effect prior to the effective date of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) 84-63.412 "Dispnsg " "Dispose" means to discharge, deposit, inject, dump, or place any hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) 9"1414 "Equipment." "Equipment" means pipes, pumps, vessels and other similar types of apparatus. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) w w *Facility" R4-63.416 Fad. Facility means a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels (including parcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in section 1002-2.002 of this Code) under common ownership or control. (Ords. 96-50 11 3, 96-20.) A4-A-'4-41R "Ha7ardm is material," "Hazardous material" means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment, and includes any material that is listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table), as amended from time to time. (Ords. 96-50 11 3, 96-20, 86-100.) R4-63.420 "Hazardntm waste." "Hazardous waste" means any substance which is regulated as a hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services under 22 California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 30, or defined as a hazardous waste under Health & Safety Code section 25117, generally as follows: (a) "Hazardous waste" means either of the following: (1) A waste, or combination of wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristic may either: (A) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness. (B) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. (2) A waste which meets any of the criteria for the identification of a hazardous waste adopted by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control pursuant to the Health & Safety Code section 25141. (b) "Hazardous waste" includes, but is not limited to, federal Resource Conservation and Recover Act ("RCRA") hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 86-100.) M4*- e • 54-63.421 (a) "Serious Incident.' An incident that occurred at a facility involved in the use, storage or handling of hazardous material or waste and that caused the release of hazardous material or waste that may have posed an imminent threat to the public health, the environment or property and that resulted in any of the following: (1) Activation of the CCCHSD Community Alert Network system provided that a shelter-in-place direction is issued to potentially threatened populations by the CCCHSD or other public emergency response officials; (2) The evacuation of a school, or other public facility, residential dwelling or business in response to a direction issued to potentially threatened populations by the CCCHSD or other emergency response officials or closure of an offsite street, highway, freeway, or bridge, except where such closure is solely for crowd control or emergency vehicle; (3) A large fire which was not contained for more than two hours; (4) Physical injury or physical illness affecting two persons resulting in overnight hospitalization, or physical injury or physical illness affecting three to nine persons who were seen for medical treatment by a medical doctor; (5) An explosion which results in offsite property damage from the blast pressure or explosion debris; (6) Payment of a fine or civil penalty of at least $5,000 arising out of or related to the offsite release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and (7) A release where the reportable quantity is twice the reportable quantity required under Section 304 of the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act or Section 25507 of the California Health and Safety Code, and where notification is made under Section 304 or Section 25507. (b) "Major Incident.' An incident that occurred at a facility involved in the use, storage or handling of hazardous material or waste and that caused the offsite release of hazardous material or waste that may have posed an imminent threat to the public health, the environment or property and that resulted in any of the following: OM* 5- (1) The death of one or more persons, physical injury or physical illness affecting three or more persons resulting in overnight hospitalization, or physical injury or physical illness effecting 10 or more persons who were seen for medical treatment by a medical doctor. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 8463.421.5 "Mainr Maint _nan _ _ Pres=." A major maintenance project is the scheduled, periodic cleaning, inspection, repair of process units, piping, or process or storage vessels which handles hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The maintenance will also require that the unit be temporarily taken out of service for more than two (2) weeks, provided that the cost of the maintenance work is $1 million or more. The $1 million will exclude the costs of overhead, planning, engineering, and other pre-construction costs. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84.63.422 "age." "Manage" means to generate, treat, store, transport, use or dispose of hazardous material or hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 86-100.) $463.423 "Process Unit". "Process unit means any equipment or structures containing an activity involving a hazardous chemical or waste including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-site movement of such chemicals, or combination of these activities. For purposes of this definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected shall be considered a single process. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) $4-63.424 "Pry _ _t Dec _ri to inn," "Project description" means a written description and explanation of the construction and operation of a development project. A project description shall address all phases of and for the life of the project. The project description shall include the following information as well as any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director for the purpose of determining the hazard score: (a) A description of the facility location with respect to major freeways and immediate neighbors, and the size (in square footage or acreage) of the property on which the facility is located; (b) An area map showing the facility in relationship to the surrounding community; (c) A description of all significant operations involving hazardous material and/or hazardous waste currently being managed, and/or proposed to be managed, including a brief general history of the facility; and D 46 , d) A summary of the baseline data for all five years and a justification for the selection of the representative baseline year of data used in the calculation of the hazard score. The Community Development Director may waive the requirement of submitting any or all of the information required by paragraphs (a) through (d), above. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20.) R4-63.425 "Puhlic �SafptV Agreement_" A Public Safety Agreement is an agreement between the County and a facility providing standards, procedures, and inspections to assure that the facility protects public and worker safety and the environment from accidents due to material failure, mechanical or equipment failure, failure to adhere to practices and procedures, off-site events, and human error and providing measures to promote a strong and balanced County economy. A Public Safety Agreement shall address, at a minimum, the following: (a) A commitment to use the best technology for safety improvements; (b) Permission for the County to enter the premises for inspections; (c) Specify changes in operations and facilities included in the maintenance projects; (d) Commitment to do and publicize design safety review; (e) The Public Safety Agreement should provide a range of dates for maintenance; these dates may be extended by the County for the purpose of assuring state fuel supplies; and (f) Provisions that would permit the completion of necessary work discovered to be necessary in the course of a major maintenance. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) $4-63.426 "Rpcidpntial nrnperty", "Residential property" means all properties with a residential designation in the general plan, including but not limited to the following: single family residential, multiple family residential, and mobile homes. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20.) 94-RR-42R "Sensitive receptnr," The term "sensitive receptor" includes schools, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, licensed child day care facilities, and similarly less-mobile populations, and detention facilities including jails, youth camps and other locked facilities. These facilities have more than twelve people. For the purposes of this section, "general acute care hospital" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1250(a), "long term health care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1418(a), and "child day care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1596.750. "School" means any school used for the purpose of the education of more than 12 children in kindergarten or any grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.430 "Stnm." "Store" means an act to contain hazardous waste or hazardous material for any period of time in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste or hazardous material. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 86-100.) 84-63.432 "Trancnnrt," "Transport" or "transportation" means an act to move hazardous waste or hazardous material by truck, rail, ship or pipeline. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Artinip 84-63.6 ApTolicability 84-63.602 Appli .ahilit- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person proposing a development project or a major maintenance project which might otherwise be allowed in any non-agricultural zoning district shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) $4-63.604 Exemptions_ The following projects and structures are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (a) Any project built solely to comply with federal, state, regional or local agency enforcement orders under a compliance time schedule that precludes timely review under this chapter. This section is primarily intended to allow exemptions for compliance with laws, regulations, rules, or administrative or judicial orders such as nuisance abatement orders or other short-term or immediately necessary actions. This section is not intended to allow automatic exemptions for projects being undertaken to comply with changed federal, state, regional or local laws. A facility claiming an exemption under this section, must file a copy of the enforcement order and proposed project description within thirty (30) days of receipt of the order. (b) If more than fifty percent (50%) of the value of a facility is destroyed or damaged by disasters such as earthquakes, floods, fires, or an act of god or the public enemy, the building, facility or structure may be rebuilt under the following conditions: (1) The rebuilt project is used for the same purpose as the destroyed damaged project; 96 0 (2) The rebuilt project complies with all environmental regulations in effect at the time of rebuilding, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or at least the same level of control that previously existed, whichever provides the greater level of protection to the public; (3) The rebuilt project has a hazard score fifty percent (50%) lower than the destroyed or damaged project (both rebuilt and destroyed or damaged project to be scored as if they are new); (4) The hazard category of chemicals used in the rebuilt project is not greater than used by the destroyed or damaged project; (5) Construction is commenced within one year unless an extension is granted by the Community Development Director; (6) The rebuilt project is at least 300 feet away from the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor and no closer to the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor than the destroyed or damaged project; and (7) The rebuilt project will not manage Hazard Category A materials in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage hazardous wastes in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage Hazard Category B materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project, and will not manage Hazard Category C materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project. (c) A development project in which both the size, as defined in section 84- 63.1012 and the monthly transportation quantity are less than: (1) for Hazard Category C materials - 4000 tons (2) for Hazard Category B materials - 5 tons (3) for Hazard Category A materials - the quantity specified as the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Materials List (Appendix A to 40 C.F.R Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended from time to time), or 500 pounds, whichever is less. (d) A major maintenance project covered by a Public Safety Agreement entered into by the County and the facility within five years prior to the time the major maintenance project application is submitted to the department. (e) A major maintenance project at a facility not covered by a Public Safety Agreement provided that the facility has neither had three serious incidents as defined 'in Section 84-63.421(a) nor any major incidents as defined in Section 84-63.421(b) within five (5) years prior to the time the major maintenance project schedule notification is submitted to the department. The major maintenance project must commence within six months of the notification. (f) Emergency repairs to or replacement of equipment damaged in an explosion, fire or other unexpected event. Such repairs and replacements must be required in order to resume operations. These emergency repairs and replacements are excluded from the provisions of section 84-63.421.5. Emergency repairs and replacements are subject to the following conditions: (1) the repaired and replaced equipment is used for the same purpose as the damaged equipment, (2) the replaced equipment does not have a higher hazard score than the original equipment, with both the old and new being scored as new equipment, (3) the repaired or replaced equipment will not handle a higher hazard category of chemicals than the original equipment, (4) repairs and replacements are commenced within 30 days after release of the damaged area by an investigating agency. (g) A major maintenance project at a facility covered by a Risk Management Plan (RMP) in compliance with Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, its implementing regulations and State Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95, Article 2, or a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) in compliance with Health and Safety section 25536.5, provided: (1) For purposes of the RMP or RMPP, all materials and wastes classified as Hazard Category A or 8 under this ordinance shall be deemed to be "regulated substances," except that for materials and wastes without a threshold quantity specified in state or federal law or regulation, the threshold quantity shall be 10,000 pounds; (2) The RMP or RMPP has been reviewed and approved by the HSD within three years prior to the time the major maintenance project application is submitted to the Department; (3) The RMP or RMPP includes any measures which the HSD has determined, after at least a 45-day public comment period, are reasonably necessary, taking into account technological feasibility and cost effectiveness, to make the RMP or RMPP effective to protect the R - 0 -1 - environment and the health or safety of persons from potentially substantial risks; (4) The facility has been subjected to an annual audit by the HSD to determine compliance with the RMP and RMPP, and measures required by the HSD pursuant to subparagraph 3 above of this subsection, and the facility has implemented, or has agreed.to implement within a reasonable time period, all corrective measures required by the HSD; and (5) There has been an opportunity for any member of the public to obtain review of any determinations by the HSD by the County Board of Supervisors. (h) A development project or major maintenance project for which construction has commenced prior to June 1, 1997, and is completed by January 1, 1998. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) M-63.606 FxPmptinn. On the effective date of this chapter, any proposed development project which is subject to the provisions of this chapter, and which has obtained all required federal and state permits and other governmental authorizations to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material including, but not limited to, permits or authorizations under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.), Hazardous Waste Control, Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7 (§ 25280 et seq.), Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances, Health and Safety Code Chapter 3.5 (§39650 et seq.), Toxic Air Contaminants, and Food and Agriculture Code Section 14021 et seq., and which has complied with the requirements of the Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act (Labor Code Section 6360 et seq.) shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article R&M R Standards and Prnr_edurPs R463-R02 Appinatinn for ApplinahifitV Determinatinn; Exemption. Any person proposing a development project which may be used to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material shall apply to the Community Development Director for review and a determination whether a land use permit may be required under Article 84-63.10 or whether the project is exempt under section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606. Projects exempt under section 84-63.604(c), (d) and (f) are not required to submit an application pursuant to this section. If the hazard score of a project is 49 or less and the project does not increase the amount of hazardous waste or hazardous material ' Managed as compared to the baseline of the last three years, a determination of non- coverage and an application therefor are not required. The application shall include all information necessary to complete and verify the hazard score of the project, such as chemical identification, distances to nearest receptors, transportation routes, and the five-year baseline data. The application shall be accompanied by all fees established by the Board of Supervisors. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) B4-63.804 ARpli _atinn Rpyipw, Determination. No later than ten calendar days after receipt of an application, or the submittal of additional information, the Community Development Director shall inform the applicant in writing that the application is complete or shall inform the applicant what additional information is required. Within twenty calendar days of the application being deemed complete, the Community Development Director shall issue a written determination of non-coverage pursuant to section 84-63.806, an exemption pursuant to section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606, or a determination that a land use permit is required pursuant to section 84-63.1002. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92.) 54-63.8()6 Determinatinn of nnn-r_nveraaP. Upon determining that a proposed project has a hazard score up to and including 59 or that the project is exempt pursuant to section 84-63.604 or 84-63.606, the Community Development Director shall issue a determination of non-coverage or exemption. A determination of non- coverage for projects with a hazard score between 50 and 59 inclusive, means that the project is not subject to the requirements of article 84-63.10, but is subject to sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. Projects with a hazard score below 49 and projects which are exempt pursuant to sections 84-63.604 and 84-63.606 are not subject to the requirements of sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-6 _808 Determinatinns - P iblir. Notice. All determinations of non-coverage made pursuant to section 84-63.806 shall be summarized on an agenda of the County Zoning Administrator within ten calendar days of issuance of the determination. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) R4-63.810 Determinatinns - Further Public Nntice, For projects with a point assignment between 50 and 59, inclusive, within five working days of issuing a determination of non-coverage, the Community Development Director shall mail notice on the date of the determination to all organizations and individuals who have previously submitted a written request for such notice. The Community Development Director shall publish a four-inch by six-inch advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within ten calendar days of issuing a determination of non-coverage. The notices required by this section shall state the name of the applicant, briefly describe the project, provide the names and phone numbers of a representative of the Community Development Department and a representative of the applicant who will be available to answer questions about the project, and shall state the date by which an appeal must be filed. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92.) R4-63_R12 - AppEals. Any appeal of a determination of non-coverage shall be filed within ten calendar days of the date the determination is listed on the Zoning Administrator's agenda or ten calendar days from the date of publication pursuant to section 84-63.810, whichever provides the longer period of appeal. Appeals from a determination of non-coverage shall be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Except as expressly provided in this section, appeals from all decisions and determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the land use permit provisions of article 26-2.24 and are subject to the provisions of article 26-2.30. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article R4-63.10 Land Llsp PPrmitc - When Required r Pprmit Rpcluirad. Unless otherwise exempt from the requirements of this chapter, a land use permit shall, be required for a development project proposed for the management of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste if the development project obtains a hazard score of 60 or more pursuant to the formula set forth in section 84-63.1004, or for a major maintenance project, subject to the provisions of this article. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-61,1004 Ha and gr_nr _, (a) Formula. The hazard score of a proposed development project shall be determined pursuant to the following formula: [(T + C + P) x HI + D + A + R; where the following symbols have the following designations: "T" refers to the point assignment for "Transportation Risk"; "D" refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Distance from Receptor"; "C" refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Type of Receptor"; . 9 0 • PA" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Total Amount"; "P" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Percent Change"; and "H" refers to the point assignment for "Hazard Category of Material or Waste." "R" refers to the "incident record" of the facility. (b) Prniact Hazard Sr-nrP_ If more than one category of hazardous material or hazardous waste is used, the formula set forth in this section will be used to calculate a separate score for each material category. The material hazard category which results in the highest hazard score for the project will be used. (C) Pnint Assignment. The factors set forth in subdivision (a), above, shall have the following point assignments: TRANSPORTATION RISK (T) POINTS Truck - residential/commercial 10 (>25% increase or new) Truck - residential/commercial 9 (>5 - 25 % increase) Truck - Industrial (>25% increase or new) 8 Truck - Industrial (>5 - 25% increase) 7 Rail - (>25% increase or new) 6 Rail - (>5 - 25% increase) 5 Ship - (>5% increase) 3 Pipeline - (>5% increase) 1 0 - 5% increase 0 COMMUNITY RISK Distance of prniect from rpr_pptnr (p): 0-300 feet 30 >300 - 400 feet 29 >400 - 550 feet 28 >550 - 700 feet 27 >700 - 900 feet 26 >900 - 1200 feet 25 >1200 - 1500 feet 24 > 1500 - 1800 feet 23 >1800 - 2100 feet 22 >2100 - 2500 feet 21 >2500 - 2800 feet 20 >2800 - 3200 feet 19 >3200 - 3500 feet 18 >3500 - 3800 feet 17 >3800 - 4000 feet 16 >4000 - 4200 feet 15 >4200 - 4500 feet 14 >4500 - 4800 feet 13 >4800 - 5400 feet 12 >5400 - 5700 feet 11 >5700 - 6000 feet 10 O 15 • • ' >6000 - 6500 feet 9 >6500 - 7300 feet 8 >7300 - 8000 feet 7 >8000 - 8600 feet 6 >8600 - 10,000 feet 5 >10,000 - 11,000 feet 4 >11,000 - 12500 feet 3 >12,500 - 14,000 feet 2 > 14,000 - 15,840 feet 1 Type of rPnpptnr (C): Sensitive receptor 7 Residential Property 5 Commercial Property 4 FACILITY RISK' SIZE OF PROJECT Total Amount of chanoe, tons (Conversion to tons; 1 ton = 2000 pounds) (A): >40,000 30 >32,000 - 40,000 29 >18,000 - 32,000 28 >10,000 - 18,000 27 >6,000 - 10,000 26 >4,000 - 6,000 25 >2,100 - 4,000 24 > 1,200 - 2,100 23 V M6- >750 - 1,200 22 >400 - 750 21 >200 - 400 20 > 150 - 200 19 >90 -150 18 >50 - 90 17 >30 - 50 16 >20 - 30 15 >10 - 20 14 >6 - 10 13 >4 - 6 12 >2 - 4 11 > 1 - 2 10 >0.8 - 1 9 >0.5 - 0.8 8 >0.35 - 0.5 7 >0.25 - 0.35 6 >0.20 - 0.25 5 >0.18 - 0.20 4 >0.14 - 0.18 3 >0.12 - 0.14 2 >0.10 - 0.12 1 no change (0.10 or less) 0 R r"I"', Perrant Change (P) 1 New 6 >200°x6 5 >100% - 200% 4 >50% - 100% 3 >10% - 50% 2 >1% - 10% 1 0% - l % 0 HAZARD CATEGORY OF MATERIAL (H) Category A 5 Category B 3 Category C 1 RECORD OF INCIDENTS (R) >3 5 2 3 1 2 0 -5 (d) Credit for reductions nr prniPcts to he r_Inced. A development project that would have a hazard score of 60 or more as determined by the formula in this section shall be entitled to a reduction credit for project closures and/or reductions in accordance with the criteria set forth in this subdivision. Reduction credit shall be given if the Community Development Director determines that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its operations and finds that all of the following criteria are met: D 6 0 1 ` • ' (1) The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed. (2) The project to be closed or reduced is currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years prior to the date of application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule; (3) The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; (4) The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; (5) The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced; and (6) The development project will be more than 300 feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. The hazard score for the project to be closed shall also be determined by the formula set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section and pursuant to the provisions of this article. In determining the hazard score for the project to be closed or reduced, said project shall be deemed a new project. The hazard score of the development project shall be subtracted from the hazard score of the project to be closed or reduced, The resulting difference will then be subtracted from the hazard score of the development project to obtain a hazard score adjusted for the closure or reduction. The adjusted hazard score shall be the basis for determining whether a land use permit shall be required under this chapter. A determination by the Community Development Director that a project is not subject to the land use permit requirement of this chapter as a result of credit afforded for a project closure or reduction shall be reported to the Zoning Administrator pursuant to section 84-63.808 and shall be subject to the public notification requirements set forth in section 84-63.810. (e) .Ciosiirg, rpdtictinn rpniirpd. Projects proposed for closure or reduction for which closure or reduction credit was afforded under this section shall be closed or reduced as proposed within one year of completion of the development project. This subdivision (d) applies only in cases where a land use permit would have been required but for the closure or reduction credit afforded under this section. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) $4-63.1006 htprminatinn of Trannpnrtatinn Risk. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated based upon planned total quantities of materials in a hazard category, measured in terms of tons per year for each hazard category proposed. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated for each mode of transportation proportionally within a single hazard category. That transportation point assignment shall be compared by hazard category with the total amount of material in the hazard category transported during the baseline period in order to obtain the percent change in section 84-63.1004(b), Transportation Risk. For purposes of determining whether truck transportation is through residential/commercial or industrial areas, the shortest legal route from the closest two-lane (or larger) freeway shall be considered. If the route used in the County does not traverse a two-lane (or larger) freeway, the entire route shall be considered. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-63.1 OOR DPtprminatinn of Community Risk - Distance to RPCPptnr, "Distance to Receptor" shall be the shortest distance between an exterior wall or other part of the development project and the property line of the residential property, commercial property or the sensitive receptor used to determine the hazard score of a development project. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.1010 Datarminatinn of Cnmmmity Risk of Raceptnr. A hazard score shall be developed for each type of receptor (residential property, commercial property and sensitive receptor) within three miles of the development project based upon the distance of the parcel of each type of receptor that is closest to the development project. The receptor that produces the highest hazard score shall be used to determine the hazard score of the development project. Receptors more than three miles from a development project shall not be considered. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 94-63.1012 DPtarminatinn of Prniact Risk - Sim. The size of a development project shall be measured in terms of tons of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste stored as a result of the development project, based upon the fill-to-the- maximum capacity of the development project, including amounts stored in tanks; reactors; columns; process lines; tank cars, tank trucks or rail cars when connected to process equipment; or any other receptacle used for the containment of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes. The amount of material in hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project will be used to determine the total amount of change. If more than one category of hazardous material is used, the amounts of materials (A, B, or C) shall be used with the respective hazard category in the formula in section 84-63.1004. The specific gravity of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes may be required to calculate the number of tons (or pounds) of hazardous materials and/or ft� 0 r hazardous waste managed at the development project. The standard of 2000 pounds equaling one (1) ton shall be used. The point assignment for storage of containerized material in buildings, such as labs or warehouses, shall be based upon the maximum anticipated amount of materials for each hazard category as a result of the development project. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20.) 84-6 .1014 DPtPrminatinn of_PrnTect Risk - PprCent Chan�e_p__. The percent change of a hazard category shall be determined by comparing the amounts of materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project to the total amount of all materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C handled at the site from the baseline period. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) BA6x_101 B DPtprmination of Haiard Catpgorry. (a) Method of Determinatinn. The hazard category of a material or waste shall be determined pursuant to this section. (1) The primary method of determining the material hazard category of a hazardous waste or material shall be by reference to the Winter 1994 version of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 ("49 CFR"), Section 172.101, Hazardous Materials Tahle." From columns (3) and (5), extract the "Hazard Class or Division" and "Packing Group" information, then proceed to 49 CFR 173.2 to determine the "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. If a material is listed in 49 CFR 172.101 more than once, the rating that results in the highest hazard category shall be used. The hazard category of a mixture is determined according to its common name as defined in Title 49. (2) Where a hazardous material or waste or mixture is not referenced in 49 CFR 172.101, and the hazard category cannot be determined using the primary method, refer to the materials safety data sheet for the D.O.T. "Hazard Class or Division," "Packing Group" and "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. (3) Where the preceding methods are not successful, the Contra Costa County Health Services Director or his/her designee shall be responsible for determining a material's hazard category. (4) Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth above, materials with the word "poison" in column (6) of 49 CFR 172.101, Methyl chloride, and the metals Antimony, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, Thallium and Cadmium and their compounds, shall be Hazard Category A materials, and denatured alcohol and methanol shall be Hazard Category B materials for purposes of this chapter. 5 (b) Exch,sinns. Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth in subdivision (a), above, Hot Coke, Hot Coal Briquettes, and materials not regulated by D.O.T. or which have no D.O.T. Hazard Class or Division are not regulated by this chapter. (c) Haiard Csitagnripn. Hazard Cata9nry A Materials I. Forbidden Materials As referenced in 49 CFR 173.21 and 173.54. I1. Explosives and Blasting Agents Class 1, as defined in 49 CFR 173.50(b)(1) through 173.50(b)(6). Ill. Reactive Materials A. Air Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(b)(1) and (2). B. Water Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(c). C. Organic Peroxides - Class 5, Division 5.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.128. IV. Radioactive Materials Class 7 as defined in 49 CFR 173.403(y). V. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group I Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group 1 is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(1). VI. Poisons, D.O.T. A. Poisons, Class 6, Division 6.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.133 (applies to all hazard zones). B. Infectious Substances, Class 6, Division 6.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.134. -5 • - VII. Poison Gas Class 2, Division 2.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(c). Hazard Category a Materials VIII. Flammable Liquids Class 3 Packing Groups I and II as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(a). IX. Flammable Solids Class 4, Division 4.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(a). X. Oxidizers, D.O.T. Packing Group 11 Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group II is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(ii). XI. Flammable Gases Class 2, Division 2.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(a). XII. Corrosives, D.O.T. Packing Group I or II Class 8 Packing Groups I or II as defined in 49 CFR 173.136(a) and 173.137(a) and (b). Haiard Categnoy C Materials XIII. Non-flammable Compressed Gases Class 2, Division 2.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(b). XIV. Combustible Liquids Class 3 Packing Group III as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(b). XV. Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials Class 9 as defined in 49 CFR 173.155. t�.93 � XVI. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group 111 is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(iii). XVII. Corrosives D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 8 Packing Group III as defined in OR 49 173.136(a) and 173.137 (c). (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) $4-63.1018 Datarminatinn of !n _id _nt RPcnrd_ The determination of a facility's record shall be made by determining how many incidents occurred at the facility during the three years immediately preceding the project application. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) Artirle 84-6$_12 Land Una and Variance Permits R4-63.12n2 Granting. An applicant for a land use permit shall submit a project description. Land use permits required under this chapter may be granted in accordance with the provisions of chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Ar iclp 84-63.14 Dffgire Ha7ardnus Waste Facility Cnmpliance With r-nunty Ha7ardnus Waste Management Plan 84-63.1402 At ithprity: This article is enacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 25135.4 and 25135.7, concerning the siting of offsite hazardous waste facilities. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) 84-63.1404 Definitinns, (a) General. Unless otherwise specified in this section or indicated by the context, the terms used in this article have the meanings ascribed to them in Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.). (b) "County Hazardous Waste Management Plan" means the county hazardous waste management plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 29, 1989 and amended by the Board of Supervisors on January 30, 1990, approved by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area, and approved by the State Department of Health Services on February 28, 1990, as said plan is amended from time to time. V 4--5 r • (c) "Hazardous waste facility" means all contiguous land and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous waste. A hazardous waste facility may consist of one or more treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling hazardous waste management units, or combinations of these units. (d) "Offsite hazardous waste facility" means a hazardous waste facility at which either or both of the following occur: (1) Hazardous waste that is produced offsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled. (2) Hazardous waste that is produced onsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled and the hazardous waste facility is not owned by, leased to or under the control of the producer of the hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) 84-63.1406 County Hazardnim Waste Manag _men . All land use permit, variance or other land use entitlement granted for the operation or expansion of an offsite hazardous waste facility shall be consistent with the portions of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan which identify siting criteria, siting principles or other policies applicable to hazardous waste facilities. Before granting the application, the division of the planning agency hearing the matter initially or on appeal shall find that the application complies with the applicable siting criteria, siting principles and other policies identified in the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and that the proposed offsite hazardous waste facility is consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73; Health & Safety Code, §§ 25135.4. 25135.7.) 84-6 _1408 Fxnh Sinn. The requirements of this article do not apply to projects which are exempt projects under section 84-63.604. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) SECTION IV. INTENT AND EFFECT OF REPEAL, The repeal of Articles 84-63.2, 84- 63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10, and 84-63.12 of Chapter 84-63 by Section 11 of this ordinance does not effect the validity of any permit issued or decision made under said repealed provisions. The repeal of Article 84-63.14 concerning offsite hazardous waste facility compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, by Section 11 of this ordinance, and said provisions'subsequent readoption by Section III of this ordinance, are not intended to have any effect other than continuing the effect of said provisions. SECTIONV. SEVERARR 1TY_ This ordinance shall be liberally construed to achieve its purposes and preserve its validity. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall 9 f• Y , not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable and are intended to have independent validity. SECEON Mi. PREEMPTION_ Nothing in this ordinance is intended, and should not be deemed, to excuse or prevent compliance with any State or federal law. If any provision of this ordinance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be preempted by any applicable State or federal law, the Board of Supervisors declares that its intent is for such provision to be severable from the remainder of the ordinance, and the remainder of the ordinance is to be given effect in accordance With the provisions of Section III of this ordinance. SECTION 101, EFFECTIVE DATE, This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against It in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on December 30, 1996 , by the following vote. AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop and Smith NOES: Supervisor DeSaulnier ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Canciamilla ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: dA�LLa Ann Cervelli , Deputy Jeff /44, oardChair �JL'd:bn�l+d.,t.a les A -S Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) DO-3 Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. -DzaNamed *hors -yam 1 am speaking for myself_ or organization: *Mwbe Of IPA"! OIQ cHHYZoNE: �- 1 wish to speak on Agenda Ran # Date- er� My comments will be: general _for_a#ai _,. 1 wish to speak on the subject of _ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: P Request to S eak For ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place h In the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Name: L- 0 phone: Address;_. �t2- Ckr; do I am speaking for myseif�✓or organizatknu ane of orsantsatior� CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item My comments will be; general for *Wnst_, .._.. = 1 wish to speak on the abject A9 �--z I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form D< ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) � Complete this form and place it In the box near the speakers rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: —phone; "�O AP 7t/qov Cdr, 1 am speaking for myself_ or organization: �a,/�,v. 7Z®�v� Ca.N,, Owns of oraanisatioN CHECKQNE: 1 wish to eak on Agenda Item # _ Date: �? sp My will be: general _for_�gain:t . sp i wish to eak on the subject of_ _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these snments for the Board to consider. Request to Speak Form 2-0, THREE MINUTE LIMIT) c, ( (3) T) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: 6 _.Phone: �o�rnip-L 1 am speaking for mysetf.a' organization Baan-o/,—,, Oww of arswilza ioN CH15X ONE I wish to speak on iia Item #� fie• I P-30- 22_ My comments will be genwW _.for inst`.o._.• 1 wish to speak on the abed of - 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to co wider Request to Speak For D, l ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) (q Complete this form and place it in the box near the speak ' rostrum before addressing the. Board. 60q`7 7Q1�� Da�� Phone: Ifo - Address:_30� City: 1palnvA 1 am speaking for myself_,or organization: rIeo or�ntsaRioN O*O( ONS 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #= Oate: 12 30 My comments wilt be: general _Jbr_aga1fw X I wish to speak on the subject of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: 1� t NI*0111 I December 23, 1996 Pete Wilson Governor Cal/EPA ---- Mr. Russell J. Miller RECEIVED James M.Strock Secretary for California Eichleay Engineers Inc. Environmental Environmental 1390 Willow Pass Road Suite 600 DEC 3 019 Protection Protection , Agency Concord, California 94520 3aWw ® W 555 Capitol Mall Suite 525 Dear Mr. Miller: Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)445-3846 (916)445-6401 FAX Thank you for your letter to Secretary James M. Strock supporting the Contra Costa County Health Services Department as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). As Deputy Secretary for Environmental Air Resources Protection, I am leased to respond. Board P P Department Secretary Strock and I share your concerns and are committed to of Pesticide ensuring that the Unified Program is implemented in a streamlined and Regulation consistent manner, while minimizing costs and remaining fully protective of Department the environment and public health. Thus, we welcome public comments of Toxic throughout the CUPA application and certification processes. Please be Substances Control assured that your comments will be carefully considered to ensure that the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) makes the best Integrated possible decision for local employers and local government concerning Waste Management Unified Program implementation. Board Thank you again for writing. Should you have any questions or need Office of further assistance, please contact Ms. Tam M. Doduc, Special Assistant, Environmental Health Hazard Cal/EPA, at (916) 322-8284. Assessment State water Sfi�cAra y, Resources Control Board uttle I4 Regional Water Quality Deputy Secretary Control Boards cc: Ms. Tam M. Doduc, Special Assistant California Environmental Protection Agency 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 525 Sacramento, California 95814 Recycled Paper Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California Suite 600, 1390 Willow Pass Road, Concord,California 94520 0 510-689-7000 o FAX 510-689-7006 December 16, 1996 Mr. lames Strock Agency Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency 555 Capitol Mall, #235 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: CUPA Certification of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department as the sole CUPA in Contra Costa County Dear Secretary Strock: Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California has operated in Concord in Contra Costa County for over eight years, providing engineering and architectural services. Since the early 1980's the Contra Costa County Health Services Department(CCCHSD) has been a significant agency contact for inspection and enforcement of a wide variety of environmental and health regulations. CCCHSD staff we have encountered have proven to be both experienced and professional with a broad base of prior industrial or regulatory experience. Even a partial list of the department's current scope of responsibilities is impressive: • Hazardous Waste Generators (since 1983) 1,347 businesses over 2,000 inspections in the last three years • Hazardous Materials Release Response Program Release response since 1981 averaging 18 incidents and 90 notifications and complaints per month Business Plan compliance since 1986 1,561 business covered nearly 1,800 inspections in the last three years • Underground Storage Tank program 788 business with 1,756 UST's nearly 1,300 inspections in the last three years Eichleay Engineers Inc. [LINJ of California Mr. James Stock Agency Secretary December 16 Page -2- Uniform Fire Code Article 80 enforcement(since adoption) RMPP since 1989 120 business covered HSD program a model for other agencies statewide Over the past three years CCCHSD staff have been crosstrained to manage inspection and compliance for the Hazardous Waste Generation, Hazardous Materials Release Response, and Underground Storage Tank Programs, previewing a CUPA-like approach to reducing the burdens for business while maintaining good compliance. Contra Costa County was also a leader in developing the Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force approach to multi-agency inspection and enforcement activities at County large industrial sites. Neighboring counties have recognized Contra Costa County's expertise and have contracted on a regular basis with the CCCHSD to manage Household Hazardous Waste collection sites. Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California believes that a major concern in certification of a CUPA is the consistent interpretation and application of regulations countywide. If all current applications for CUPA status in Contra Costa County are approved there will be pockets of county territory isolated beyond an intervening CUPA's jurisdiction. Yet, releases in one jurisdiction will immediately impact resident of another CUPA's jurisdiction. This just does not make sense. SB 1082, which established the CUPA process, was passed to reduce the burden on business and to have only qualified agencies be certified. Balkanization of responsibility and dilution of public protection were not intended to be the end result. Contra Costa County's Health Services Department staff has extensive, broad, regulatory and industrial experience. The combined hazardous materials and RMPP staff of approximately 21 have an average experience of nearly 20 years per person. No other agency in Contra Costa County can equal that experience. Creation of multiple CUPA's with narrower coverage of geographical areas of the county will guarantee that no future agency will be as qualified. Multiple CUPA's will all be weaker technically, less experienced overall, and narrower in exposure to the variety of businesses in the county. This runs counter to the state's role of protecting the health and safety of its residents. Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California Mr. James Stock Agency Secretary December 16 Page -3- In accord with the intent of SB 1082 to reduce the burden on business and to certify qualified agencies, I urge you to certify the CCCHSD as the sole CUPA in Contra Costa County. The CCCHSD is the most qualified agency available now in Contra Costa County and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Sincerely, W"f" MJ' Ye—� Russell J. Miller, P.E. President RJM/j j cc: P Request to S eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' n m before addressing the Board. Phone: 3 3 (ky; Yn 1 am speaking for myself or organization: omm of CHECK ONE: & fiA)el;W G a I wish to on flan # ...Z� speak l�genda ._ e: My consments will be: Vneral r nsf--• 1 wish to speak on the subject of . _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: !Request to Speak Formo ( THREE r�� MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Name: ///v 7wfyc- *tone: 3/3` o 7 e?7 Address: /oZ r 1-�,dA- ,'I)r/� d4 V, Z- 1 am speaking for myself_ or aganization: 0�'t� ommw of or�ni�tion) CHECK ONE: / / 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #.= Date: �(�J r 9 My comments will be: general _for_against _ i wish to speak on the subject of _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Address: 36,SV MI, DA,-LL Alud I am speaking for myselfi a organization: Oum of or:ant Wn r) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Oate: I�- n My comrnerits will be: general _Jor,.jgal 1 wish to speak on the subject 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form � THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) T) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rosbum before addressing the Board. Name; 1,C)m WE- t -p 2 7 -042� Address: 5&a GAJ e vU-.� �-� • may; ��� AL- CA 1 am for f or nation: cC v c d � spealung myself organ 4�� Omm of o m-bade, 0 J� CHICK ONE - / I 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Date:—,2- 1'30 5& My comments will be: general _for=aching , - _ 1 wish to speak on the abject of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave dwse comments for the Board to consider. P Request to S eak For 'D, ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Uq Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Name: �,c�� 1�',�n�e w�•��� Phone; V a'7' Sq I � Addrm--f-0-L Vr --Cftr I d0��v�VVIJ NlA ff:Q' I am speaking for myself____._or organization: oism of ot�ni�atioN CHECK ONE: ,a/ I wish to speak on Agenda Item #� Oat my comments will be: mineral ._jbr_.ftains# _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of . _ 1 do not wish to speak but lwve these comnnents for the Board to consider: Request to Speak FID. I ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near thespeak m before add 'ng the Board. 7 Name- ( — Phone: �� . � i mr- I am speaking for myself V or organization: Omm of 0-- Do CHEO( ONE: _ I wish to speak on Agenda Item #, Date—LA My commer b will be: gefor nst _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of 7!:!� 44 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form , I ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 6;) Cwnplet this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: a t) 1-1) 5 phone: yS7-8- 7 a �13 i -IL 0 int�r- 1 am speaking for myselfor organization.-'',� 1 o/j s Omm of o�antsatioN 0MCK ONE: �,. 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #. Oat My Comments will be: general for Mal 1 wish to speak on the wbject of _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these Comments for the Board to Coresoder. ll Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name; Ci 1 am speaking for myself+ or organization: Omm of organisation) CHECK ONE: ...✓ I wish to speak on Agenda Item #= Oate: `I��-3b My comnKnts will be: general _.._for_"aind • 1 wish to speak on the subject of i do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider MCCLINTOCKIWESTON BENSHOOF I ROCHEFORT RUBALCAVA I MACCUISH i..Ui' E VSD A T TORN E V 5 AT t A W DEC CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. December 17, 1996 Hon. Jeffrey Smith, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Amendments to Chapter 84-63 County File #ZT 3-96 Dear Supervisors: This firm represents the Western States Petroleum Association ("WSPA") . On behalf of WSPA, we are submitting this letter with respect to your proposed adoption of the Ordinance, introduced November 12, 1996, to repeal the existing Chapter 84-63 of the County Ordinance 'Code and to add a new Chapter 84-63 (the "Proposed Ordinance") . WSPA opposes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance on the various grounds that have been raised at the hearings on the Proposed Ordinance by WSPA and other parties, and WSPA expressly reserves its right to assert legal challenges to the Proposed Ordinance on any and all -of those grounds. Very truly yours, Ed Casey McCLZNTOCK, WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, RUBALCAVA & MaCCUISH LLP EJC:js 174730 444 South Flower Street Fors?Third Floor los Angeles California 90071 Tel 213 623 2322 Fox 213 623 0824 Request to Speak Form -� D < � ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name; Oz c e - c *f10f1et 0-Q5y d I am spealung for myself_ or organization: hates of WSW-1 dan) CHl9CONE: i wish t0 Weak on Agenda Item #2 ate-ass ,\ S, My cofnments will be: gefkral _fbr`against . 1 wish to speak on the subject 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Wnsider. Request to Speak Form � � � ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: t?&1/E L Cl'keV 0 Address: 6 5( CAT" �-a--y e too I am speaking for myself_ or organization: #NOIN 6 TR o 6WA(CI L OMM of orpntzatioN cHEcic ONE: � � �/? 6, I wish to Weak on Agencla Item #_� Date: z Mycomments will be: general I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: P Request to S eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it In the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name; Phone,`J' CA 1 am speaking for myself,or organization: C urea of oraan�zatioN CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #. e~ Ibly oomn�ents will be: ✓for I �� s _ 1 wish to speak on the subject0. of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these caI nfor the Board to Col : Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name:, : G a>E L #hone: 2L q- -' ( 6 3 1 am speaking for myself;or organ 4iaft of orsantzatioN CHECK ONE 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #= Date: ,:1- - ' MY comments will be: BenwW _for_Nai . I wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form �e ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place K in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. V44 4RQ 0 Ld 0 - I.1 Phones I t, 6V) nq nA V r Address: d 3 S Y-i Q N-fb Q n LWA J 1 am speaking for myself, Or organization: s t a Co��►h,pql erne of orswnt�tioN CHECK ONE _ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #—J _ Oat 'a 101.T My comments will be: general _foragains'_-X!. _ 1 wish Ito speak on the subject of Ua ►Aj. q b - � A r, 'sw N&Vz 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: „IIE,G 27 ',96 16 : 28 FR P.MS SF 415 983 1200 TO 915102283644 P . 02 Pillsbury RECEIVED tl ATTORNEYS AT LAW 235 MONTGOMERY STREET ' 70EG01996 SAN r•RANCtsCo,cALIroRNla 94Io4 >;72.: .�; TELEPIIONL: (41S)9834000 FAX:(415)983-1200 MAILING ADDRESS:P.D.BOX 7880 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94120-7890 Madison& CONTRA COSTA CO. inre,nu: prllsbuo4a-mm Sutro LLP Writer's direct dial aumbc remail: (415) 983-1496 Telephone (415) 983-1200 Facsimile December 30, 1996 HAND-DELIVERED Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Re: Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 96-20 (Requiring Land Use Permits for Projects Involving Hazardous Materials) Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board: This letter is submitted on behalf of Tosco Corporation in opposition to the proposed amendments to County Ordinance . No. 96-20 . Not only are these amendments unreasonable and unjustified, they are contrary to the public health, safety and welfare of the County. They would also interfere with Tosco's rights to repair and maintain the Avon Refinery in a lawful and timely manner. For the reasons described in this letter, Tosco urges the Board of Supervisors to reject the proposed amendments. 1 . Introduction. Ordinance 96-20, as currently written, requires a County land use permit for development projects at facilities which SAN FRANCISCO LOS ANGELES NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO SILICON VALLEY WASHINGTON,D.C.HONG KONG TOKYO DEC '27 ',96 16 :28 FP. PMS SF 415 983 1200 TO 915102283644 P . 03 Board of Supervisors --- December 30, 1996 Page 2 handle hazardous materials or wastes. The amendments in question (hereinafter, the "proposedOrdinance") , sponsored by the. Building Trades Council, would drastically rewrite Ordinance 96-20 .1 In addition to expanding the definition of °development project, " the proposed Ordinance would subject development projects to an arbitrary 60 point "scoring" system to determine whether a permit is needed. Moreover, the proposed Ordinance would provide that existing- facilities handling hazardous materials or wastes must obtain a land use permit before - undertaking any "major maintenance project. 112 while Tosco objects to the proposed Ordinance as a whole, the requirement for a land use permit for facility maintenance raises the greatest concern. Tosco believes this requirement is manifestly unreasonable and vigorously opposes it on a number of grounds . First, and foremost:, there has been no evidence presented to the Board showing a connection between refinery maintenance projects and incidents resulting in the release of hazardous materials. Without such a "nexus, " there is no basis for the County to impose such an extraordinary measure upon normal maintenance activities. Indeed, the subject of accidental releases for industrial facilities is already heavily regulated by Federal and State laws, including PSM, RMPP, and the newly- adopted RMP process under S.B. 1889 . There has been no showing of a need for such an unprecedented requirement .in the County- 1 The amendments would delete existing Chapter 84-63 in its entirety and enact a new Chapter in its place. 2 Subject to certain exemptions, proposed Section 84-63.1002 would require a land use permit for a "major maintenance project," defined as: [T]he scheduled, periodic cleaning, inspection, repair of process units, piping or process or storage vessels which handles hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The maintenance will also require that the unit be temporarily taken out of service for more than two (2) weeks, provided that the cost of the maintenance work is $1 million or more. § 84-63.421.5 . 11384375. DEC '271.96 16 : 28 FR PMS SF 415 983 1200 TO 915102283644 P . 04 Board of Supervisors --_ December 30, 1996 Page 3 Second, requiring a land use permit for routine maintenance and repair activities is unsound policy and contrary to the public interest . Essential repair and maintenance of industrial facilities should not be compromised by the politics and delay inherent in a local land use permit process . Such a discretionary process would undoubtedly lead to substantial delays in maintenance, throwing off carefully planned refinery operation and maintenance schedules. . It would also insert the County via the permit process into the midst of business decisions concerning when and how to maintain a complex industrial facility. Third, the Ordinance is suspect because it sets up a number of arbitrary and capricious classifications . For example, although a new development project is purportedly included or excluded based on a hazard "scoring" system (see § 84-63 .802 et seq. ) , a major maintenance project receives no such scoring. Instead, it is subjected to a land use permit based solely on tests for dollars to be spent and time of repair involved. These classifications bear no rational relationship to the asserted purpose of protecting against accidental releases. Fourth, the Ordinance would unreasonably interfere with the vested rights of Tosco and others to repair and maintain their facilities. Tosco operates its Avon Refinery as a lawful use under-existing permits and entitlements. These entitlements necessarily include the basic right to repair and maintain the facility withouta requirement for land use review, Such repair and maintenance in no way changes or expands the use of the facility. The extension of a land use process to ordinary repair and maintenance activities is inappropriate and. would violate Tosco' s vested rights. Finally, Tosco is. gravely concerned about the fast-track procedures the Board has followed in considering the proposed Ordinance . Enacting the Ordinance, given its extreme and unprecedented nature, will likely involve the County in time- consuming and costly litigation. To preserve its rights in this regard, Tosco submits the proposed Ordinance is legally defective and subject to challenge for the reasons outlined more fully below- „a„mss DEC '27 ' 96 16 : 29 FR PMS SF 415 9e3 1200 TO 915102283644 P . 05 Board of Supervisors December 30, 1996 Page 4 2 . There is no evidence before the Board of Supervisors showing a 'nexus" between maintenance and any incidents or releases . Due process requires that an ordinance not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious . In order to sustain a legislative enactment, there must be a rational basis for its adoption. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. , 272 U.S. 365 (1926) ; Lockard' y'. City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal .3d 453 (1949) . This includes the requirement that the means of regulation selected must have a "real and substantial relationship" to the end sought to be achieved. Prunevard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 84- 85 (1978) . The proponents suggest the proposed Ordinance is justified in order to avoid or minimize accidental releases from industrial facilities. However, speculation on their part is not evidence . In fact, there is no evidence in the record before the Board which demonstrates any "nexus" between maintenance activities, on the one hand, and prior incidents involving hazardous materials, on the other. To our knowledge, none of the incidents cited by the proponents have been associated with maintenance activities, nor were they the result of improper maintenance. The County' s own analysis of various incidents concludes that there is no link between the incidents and maintenance practices. See Laura Brown, County Health Department, Report on Incidents. The lack of a rational relationship is also reflected in a number of arbitrary classifications in the proposed Ordinance. For example, the purported "scoring" cut-off of 64 points for development projects is entirely arbitrary. Major maintenance projects, moreover, are not "scored" at all, but are subjected to a land use permit based on dollars incurred and time spent. There is no rational basis for including maintenance projects only if maintenance and repair activities cost more than $1, 000, 000, or take at least two weeks, without regard for the nature of the work to be done or type of equipment which is to undergo maintenance. For these and other reasons, we believe the proposed Ordinance lacks a rational basis sufficient to sustain its adoption. DEC '271,96 16 : 29 FR PMS SF 415 966 1200 TO 915102269644 P . 06 Board of Supervisors _ December 30, 1996 Page 5 Given the lack of nexus to any legitimate safety concerns, one must naturally inquire as to the real purpose in -subjecting maintenance activities to a land use permit . We believe the purpose is not difficult to see. The Building Trades Council wants to put major maintenance projects through the delay and politics involved in a local land use permit process, in order to use that process as "leverage,, in negotiating for refinery work. We believe the County' s land use ordinances should not be subject to manipulation in this way. 3 . Preemption under S .B. 1889 . As County Counsel previously advised the Board, ' an ordinance in conflict with general State law is void, and an ordinance that invades a field preempted by State legislation is invalid. People ex rel Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino, 36 Cal.3d 476, 484 (1986) . We believe the proposed Ordinance both conflicts with and invades a field occupied by State hazardous law respecting accidental release of hazardous substances. S.B. 1889, enacted by the Legislature in 1996, establishes a uniform statewide -hazardous materials accidental release prevention program, based upon federal regulations adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The statewide program is detailed and thorough, and clearly contemplates statewide consistency and uniformity. Among other things, the program identifies regulated substances and threshold quantities; establishes a process for the Office of Emergency Services ("OES") to revise the regulated substances list; specifies the contents of a facility risk management plan ( "RMP" ) ; requires local administering agencies to implement statewide regulations adopted by OES; and includes many other details. The comprehensiveness of the hazardous materials risk management scheme adopted by the Legislature in S .B. 1889 fully occupies the field and preempts local regulation of hazardous materials accident risk. it would obviously conflict with the 3 See Memorandum from Victor J. Westman to-Board of Supervisors, dated October 21, 1996, 1')lYA 17] DEC 27 ' 96 16 : 30 FR PMS SF 415 983 1200 TO 915102283644 P . 07 Board of Supervisors _ December 30, 1996 Page 6 scheme if every local agency in California were free to impose its own different requirements on top of the RMP process established by S.B. 1889 . Indeed, the proposed Ordinance implicitly recognizes as much by exempting any major maintenance project covered by an RMP. See § 84-63 . 604 (g) . However, this "exemption" is inadequate because it still imposes conditions going beyond State law, thus impermissibly "invading the field" fully occupied by S.B. 1889 . The fact that the measure has been proposed as a "land use,, ordinance' in order to regulate hazardous materials accident risk does not avoid the problem of preemption. The courts will look to the substance of an ordinance, not its label, with regard to determining preemption. In other words, the County may not accomplish indirectly what it is preempted from doing directly. 4 . The proposed Ordinance would interfere with Tosco' s Constitutionally-protected vested rights. Tosco has a vested right to operate, repair and maintain its existing structures, process units and other equipment at the Avon Refinery. The Refinery was established in Contra Costa County in 1913 in a district zoned for heavy industrial use. It has been in continuous use since 1913 for heavy industrial purposes. Tosco has owned and operated the facility on a continuous basis since 1976 . In the most recent major modification of the Avon Refinery, Tosco obtained a land use permit for its Clean Fuels Project under the County' s Land Use Ordinance for- the handling of .hazardous materials and wastes . This permit allowed the construction and operation of new units and the physical modification of existing units to make cleaner fuels in reliance on the authority granted by that permit . Tosco spent hundreds of millions of dollars to modify, continue to use, and maintain the Refinery. There is no provision in. the permit requiring yet another land. use permit for repair and maintenance activities. The use and operation of the Refinery necessarily entails periodic maintenance of the units requiring operational shutdowns, referred to in the custom and trade as "turnarounds . " 1?3ft1375 DEC '271.96 16 : 30 FR PMS 5F 415 983 1200 TO 915102283644 P . 08 Board of Supervisors -. December 30, 1996 Page 7 Turnarounds have been performed on each unit approximately every twelve months to five years since the Refinery' s establishment . A unit' s turnaround schedule depends on the types of crudes or intermediates handled, occurrence of upsets or breakdowns, conditions of equipment, normal wear and tear, and sound engineering judgment. The continued operation, maintenance and repair of existing structures (both those structures that predate any permit requirement and those structures established by substantial expenditures under a conditional use permit) constitutes an existing use which cannot be unreasonably and improperly limited or denied by a land use regulation. Once a project is in place, the Country cannot later adopt new rules to prevent or require additional discretionary approvals for the maintenance of such uses . The proposed Ordinance would unreasonably interfere with this vested right and therefore is invalid. See Edmonds v. Los Angeles County, 40 Cal. 2d 642, 651 (1953) ("the rights of users of property as those rights existed at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and have always been protected") . 5 . Insufficient notice and Process. Tosco is also very concerned about the process which the Board of Supervisors has followed in considering the proposed Ordinance . The record since September is replete with short notice periods and inadequate time for review, in part due to the many revisions of the proposed Ordinance. This has prevented the County' s Hazardous Materials Commission and the Planning Commission from fully considering the issues and providing written reports . At this juncture, the Planning Commission has not been given sufficient time to prepare the written recommendation to the Board required by Government Code section 65855°, as evidenced by . the Planning Commission' s resolution and 4 Section 65855 provides, in pertinent part, that After the hearing, the planning commission shall render its decision in the form of.a written recommendation to the legislative body. Such recommendation shall include (continued...) !3384375. DEC '27 '.96 16 : 61 FP. PMS SF 415 963 1200 TO 915102263644 P . 09 Board of Supervisors _ December 30, 1996 Page 8 findings adopted at its December 23 meeting. We believe the 40- day notice purportedly given to Planning Commission members on November 13 , 1996 is invalid, in that the Planning Commission had not unreasonably delayed in any way_ The record also reflects efforts by members of the Board to pressure the Planning Commission into an untimely review, as well as the receipt of substantial campaign contributions by Board members from the Building Trades Council, calling into question the impartiality of their decision. Overall, the record appears to be one of a "rush to judgment" by the current Board. However, it is the new Board of Supervisors, to be installed on January 7, which will have the responsibility to carry out any amendments to Ordinance 96-20 that may be adopted. Both fairness and principles of sound local government dictate that it is more appropriate for the new Board to consider whether to adopt or reject the proposed Ordinance in the first instance_ As its record at the Avon Refinery shows, Tosco is keenly interested in improving facility safety. However, the proposed Ordinance has little or nothing to do with improving safety. Instead, it would have significant adverse effects on the ability of Tosco to operate and maintain the Avon Refinery contrary to 4(...continued) the reasons for the recommendation, the relationship of the proposed ordinance or amendment to applicable general and specific plans, and shall be transmitted to the legislative body in such form and manner as may be specified by the legislative body. 12364375. DEC' 27 ;96 16 : 31 FR PMS SF 415 983 1200 TO 915102283644 P . 10 Board of Supervisors _ December 30, 1996 Page 9 the public interest. For all these reasons, Tosco respectfully opposes the proposed adoption of amendments to Ordinance 96-20 . very truly yours, Ronald E. Van Buskirk CC: Victor J. Westman, Esq. P Request to S eak Form (.THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this fform and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Name; Lf a v,b Lay-s- &-)-N Phone: 1 am for f or ization: frig myself �n *mum of iwo DUCK ONE: 2._ — f� I wish to speak on Agenda item # Oate: My will be: general for_agairst . 1 wish to speak on the subject of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: aECEIvIEa COMMUNITIES FORA December 30, x996 "DEC 3 0 ETTER Jeff Smith, Chairman 80AMO su�,S R and Board Members:. NVIRQi1iMENT Contra Costa County Board of Sup `ciervisors Formertx ixens for 'BelterFnc,£;an.ment-California 65.1 Pine Street Martinez -CA94553 Re: Modifications to County,Code"-Chapter 84-63 (Land i Tse Permits for.' .; Development Projects"Involving Hazardous.Materials and/or Hazardous Wastes ; Dear Mr. Smith and Board Members: " In opposing the.Good Neighbor arnendtr�ients to the"Hazardous lvlaterials , Commission ordinance 96-20; the industry has argued"that the amendments"should not be adopted until they-have been reviewed by the Hazardous Materials Commission in the same:manner as the original ordinance: This is'clearlyan effort by the industry to derail serious safety regulation by directing the Good Neighbor amendments`to the 7industry-dominated Hazardous 1Vlaterials Commission., . Although Comrx'unities for a Better Environment and others have addressed this issue during:the hearingsbn this matter, Iam writing to ensure.that the.record includes"'aur'forinal response to this argument: The industry has requested an extended review of the Good Neighbor amendments by:the Hazardous Materials Commission because it knows that the Commission's review,process.is dominated by.industry. representatives.: The process'employed to develdo the original 96-20 ordinance guaranteed that'no regulatory measure opposed by:the industry would,be recomrniended by the .' -Commission.:"The industry`s.real objective in attempting to,transfer fhis matter to the Commission is..revealed"by the'history of.the original 96-20 ordinance recommendation: The Hazardous Materials Commission,ordin.ance 96-20 submitted to the Board of Supervisors `earlier this'year was developed by the Carnmissian's'Planning and Policy Development Committee. ' That Committee was`chaired by Tom"LindL-muth. Mr .Lindemuth is "an environmental engineer acid has worked primarily "for'the 'industrial facilities that,would be subject to.the new ordinance: In`fact; immediately after the Board adopted the new ordi' ance.on June 25, 1996,Mr; Lindemuth was hired".by Unocal to determine the hazard score of a project, at the.Unocal "Refinery in Rodeo; the first project consider ' "under:the iew ordinance.. Mr, Lindemuth"scored"the Unocal .prolect,at 61, well:below the 80-painf 0 F :threshold established under the new ordinance'he had,ju9t:drafted: A t the same tune Mr. L.indemufh,was'working for Unocal and scoring its project at 61, he was' 500 Howard Street, Suite"506 # San` Francisco, CA 94].05 (415) 243=8373 ; In Sotither-n California:605 W Olympic F31vd , Suite 850:• Los Angeles, CA�90015 •-(213)486-5114 Ch1onne+ree 100°lo post-consumer "c ,. : " recommending that the Board's Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety not lower the hazard score threshold to 60 as had been proposed'by,County staff. Mr. Lindemuth's conflict.of interest in,this matter is described in detail,in a complaint filed with the Fair.Political Practices Commission.. (See Attachment'.1.) The Planning,and Policy Development,Committee also included Commission member Marj<Leeds. •Although.Ms. Leeds holds the "Taxpayer" seat on the Commission, she is employed by Shell'Oil Company and holds a,management position.at the Shell Refinery in Martinez. Ms..Leeds has testified against.the Good Neighbor amendments before the'Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety, the Planning,Commission'and the`Board of Supervisors, sometimes identifying herself as a member of the.Hazardous Materials Commission,.other.times indicating that'she is representing Shell. The 96-20 ordinance was developed through'what the members of the Hazardous Materials Commission and industry representatives have .testified was a: "consensus.process:," They apparently mean a consensus not just of the members of the' Commission, buf of all participants in the process of-developing the ordinance The Commission did not vote,on the ordinance, but,instead-forwarded it.to the Board of Supervisors.as'a document that-represented the consensus view of all participants.in the.Committee's development of the ordinance.. The.Commission and industry representatives have argued' that the Good;Neighbor.amendments should be subjected to the same process. ' In reviewing.Planning and PolicyDevelopment Committee'and Hazardous Materials Commissionmeeting.minutes going back to 1994,,it,is clear that the. ordinance development process was completely dominated by industry representatives. In.addition to Committeemembers Lindemuth .and Leeds, the meetings were attended almost exclusively by paid representatives of the major industrial facilities in the County; inducting Shell, Unocal; Tosco, Dow Chemical and Criterion Catalyst. The meetings were also Heavily, attended by engineers and consulting firms regularly employed by:these same industrial corporations. An especially revealing.comment appears in the Planning and Policy Development Committee minutes for February 21,'.1996. A participant.questioned the value of an ordinance that appeared to "affect only a small number.of projects[;] especially given the time and work put into developing it." (Hazardous Materials :. Commission, Planning and'Policy Development Committee, February:21, 1996; p. 3.) No o one,present disagreed that the Commission's ordinance would affect only.a small,number of projects. Instead; one of the industry participants stated what has become Mr. Lindemuth's standard testimony, i.e., that the ordinance "should do a lot of good with;In government in#erference and simply gives, incentives, like RMPPs do, to.make things,safer in order to.avoid a land use„permit. (Ibid.) 2 The flaw in the industry's position is that if the ordinance establishes a hazard score threshold.that is so'high it admittedly would "affect only a small number of projects,"then industrial facilities can rest assured that most of theirprojects will escape land use review, without.any'changes in design: The:absence,of meaninful public participation in"'the"d.evelopment of the Hazardous Materials Commission ordinance is not surprising. The regular meetings : held to develop the ordinance over a two.year period were held:during,the work day; when only paid 'representatives could attend. The�Commission's process, Provided the mere"appearance" of public:participation without"offerring the real thing: Asa result, the.consensus`ordinance developed under this process. represented a consensus"among primarily indi�sirial:interests.' ; The industry unanimously supported the land use ordinanceproposed by the Hazardous Materials. Commission. Nat a single business, industrial facility or industry association testified in opposition to the Commission's ordinance at the.. Board's Julyy25, 1996 hearing. This unprecedented support by industry for new land use regulation of industrial operations demonstrates that no substantive.provision 'opposed by industry was accepted under the Commission's "consensus process." It isnot surprising that theindustry-controlled.processes employed by the Hazardous Materials Commission produced a weak ordinance; an ordinance it is acknowledged will apply to*very few projects. The.Board recognized the weaknesses in ,the Hazardous Materials-Commission ordinance when.it adopted ordinance'96 20, and directed its'Ad"Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety to`consider amendments to strengthen that ordinance. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 1) The amendments'developed.through the Ad Hoc Committee process, a process the industry could not control; are now before the Board and would provide -meaningful land .use-review of industrial projects instead of the facade of . regulation offered'by ordinance 96-20. we submit it,-is for this reason that the industry now:vehemently opposes the lend useregulation proposed'by the Good Neighbor amendments even though it unanimously-supported the land use regulation proposed by the Commission's ordinance only five months ago. . The Board of Supervisors properly.referred the amendments to ordinance 96=20 to both the Hazardous Materials Commission and .the Planning;Commission for review and recommendation. .,.Both bodies have had ample.time-to consider the amendments and make recommendations- to the.Board. .Indeed; Hazardous ; Materials Commission members and staff have, repeatedly offered the. Commission's views andrecommendations regarding the amendments to the Board. The industry's efforts to initiate another industry-controlled-process before the Hazardous Materials Commission is. a blatant attempt to delay and defeat the effort to make:ordinance 96-20.a°genuine and effective regulatory mechanism to improve safety of industrial operations.. The Board is correct to reject. such cynical ame- la in g p .Y . g. . PDennvrely; Larson Attachment . COMMUNITIES FOR A December,30, 1996 BETTER Jeff Smith, Chairman and Board Members ENVIRONMENT Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Formerly`Citizens'for a Better Environment-California 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Modifications.to County Code.Chapter 84-63 (Land Use Permits for. . Development Projects Involving Hazardous Materials and/or Hazardous Wastes Dear Mr. Smith and Board Members: In opposing the Good_Neighbor amendments.to the Hazardous Materials Commission Ordinance 96720; the industry has argued that the.amendments should. not be adopted until they have been reviewed by the Hazardous Materials . Commission in the same.manner as.the original ordinance. -This is.clearly an-.effort by the industry to derail serious safety regulation by directing the Good Neighbor amendments to the industry-dominated Hazardous Materials Commission. Although.Communities.for a Better.Environment and, others have addressed this issue during.the hearings,on this matter, I am writing to ensure.that the record includes our formal response to his argument. The industry has requested an extended review of the Good Neighbor amendments by the Hazardous Materials Commission because it knows that the Commission's review•process is dominated by.industry representatives. The process employed to develop the original 96-20 ordinance guaranteed that ino regulatory measure opposed by,the industry would be recommended by the Commission." The industry's real objective in.attempting to,transfer this matter to the Commission is revealed by the history of the original 96-.20 ordinance recommendation: The Hazardous Materials Commission-ordinance 96-20 submitted to'the-Board of Supervisors earlier this year was-.developed by•the Commission's Planning and Policy Development Committee. That Committee"was chaired by Tom Lindemuth Mr: Lindemuth is:an environmental engineer and has worked primarily for the industrial facilities that would be.subject to the new.-ordinance: In fact,,immediately after the_Board adopted the new ordinance.on June 25, : 1996, Mr: Lindemuth was hired by Unocal to determine the hazard score of a project. at the.Unocal,-Refinery'in Rodeo, the first project considered tinder.the new ordinance. Mr. Lindemuth,scored the Unocal project.at 61; well.below the 80-point threshold established.under the new ordinance,he had.just.drafted. At the same time-Mr. Lindemuth was working for Unocal and scoring its project at 61, he was q. 500 Howard Street, Suite'506 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 243-8373 . , In Southern California: 605 W. Olympic.Blvd:, Suite 850 • Los-Angeles, CA 90015 9 (213)48.6-51.14 Chlorine-Free 100%post-consumer op recommending that the Board's Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety not lower the hazard score threshold to 60 as had been proposed by.County staff. Mr. Lindemuth's conflict of interest in.this matter is described in. detail,in a,complaint filed.with the Fair Political.Practices;Commission.. (See.Attachment 1.) The planning and Policy Development Committee also included Commission. member Marj Leeds. Although.Ms. Leeds holds the "Taxpayer" seat on.the Commission, she is employed by Shell Oil Company and. holds a management position at the Shell Refinery in Martinez. Ms..Leeds has testified against the Good Neighbor amendments before the Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety, the Planning Commission'and the Board of Supervisors, sometimes identifying herself as a member of the Hazardous Materials Commission,.other times indicating that she is representing Shell. The 96-20 ordinance was developed through'what the members of the Hazardous Materials Commission and industry representatives have .testified was a. "consensus process.." They apparently mean a consensus not just of the members.of the Commission, but of all participants in the process of developing the ordinance. The Commission did not vote on the ordinance, but.instead-forwarded it.to the Board of Supervisors as a document that represented the consensus view'of all participants in the Committee's development of the ordinance. The Commission and industry representatives have argued -that the Good Neighbor amendments should be subjected to the same process. In reviewing Planning and PolicyDevelopment Committee'and Hazardous Materials Commission meeting.minutes going back to 1994,.it is clear that the ordinance development process was completely dominated by. industry representatives. In addition to Committee members Lindemuth and Leeds, the meetings were attended almost exclusively by paid representatives of the major industrial facilities in the County, including Shell, Unocal, Tosco; Dow Chemical and Criterion Catalyst. The meetings were also heavily attended by engineers and consulting firms regularly employed by these same industrial corporations. An especially revealing.comment appears in the Planning and Policy Development Committee minutes for February;21, 1996. A partici :paquestioned the value of:an ordinance that appeared to "affect only a small number of projects[;] especially given.the time and work .put into developing it." (Hazardous Materials Commission, Planning and Policy Development Committee, Minutes, February 21, '1996; p. '3.) No one,present disagreed that the Commission's ordinance would " affect-only.a small number of projects. Instead, one of the industry participants stated what.has become, Mr. Lindemuth's standard`testimony; i.e., that .the ordinance "should do a lot of good with:minimal government interference and simply gives incentives; like'RIVIPPs do, to.make things,safer in,order to avoid a land use_perrnit." (Ibid.) The flaw in the industry's position is that if the ordinance establishes,a hazard score threshold that is so-high it admittedly would "affect only a small ' number of projects," then industrial facilities can rest assured that most of their projects will escape land. use review. without.any changes, in design:, The absence of meaninful public participation in'the development of the Hazardous Materials Commission ordinance is not.surprising. The regular meetings held to develop the ordinance over a two.year period were held.during the work day, when only paid representatives could attend. The Commission's process. provided the'mere "appearance" of public:participation without offerring the real thing. As a result, the.consensus ordinance developed under this process represented a consensus among primarily industrial interests. The industry unanimously supported the land use ordinance proposed by the Hazardous Materials Commission. Not a single business, industrial.facility or industry association testified inopposition to the .Commission's ordinance at the Board's Julyy2541996 hearing. This unprecedented support by industry for new land use regulation of industrial operations demonstrates that no substantive provision opposed by industry, was accepted under the Commission's "consensus process." It is not surprising that the industry-controlled processes employed by the. Hazardous Materials Commission produced a weak ordinance; an ordinance it is acknowledged will apply to`very few,projects. The.Board recognized the weaknesses in the Hazardous Materials Commission` ordinance when.it adopted ordinance 96- 20, and directed its Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety to consider amendments to strengthen that ordinance. (See Exhibit B to.Attachment 1.) The amendments developed through'the Ad Hoc Committee process, a,process the industry could not control, are now before the Board and would provide meaningful land use review of industrial projects instead of the facade of regulation offered by ordinance 96-20.- We'subinit it is for this.reason that the industry now vehemently opposes the land use regulation 'proposed by'the Good Neighbor amendments even though it unanimously_supported'the land use regulation proposed by the Comm'ission's ordinance only,five.months ago. The Board of Supervisors properly referred the amendments to ordinance 96-20 to-both the Hazardous Materials Commission and .the Planning;Commission for review and'xeecommendation—Both bodies have had ample time-to consider the amendments and.make recommendations to the,Board. .Indeed; Hazardous ; Materials Commission members and staff have repeatedly-offered the. Commission's views and recommendations. regarding the amendments to the Board. 3' The.industry's efforts to initiate"another industry-controlled process before the Hazardous Materials Commission is a blatant attempt to delay and defeat the effort.to make ordinance 96-20 a"genuine and effective regulatory mechanism to improve safety of industrial-operations. The Board is correct to reject such cynical' game-playing: Sincerely, Denny .Larson Attachment �; Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: _� ���/fA�� 7L- Address:--L/ L phoneme o Z Z 9- /s Address: L/�?__3 0 � ��,,/r,� 1 am speaking for myself�organizfion: mune of or6an�atioN CHECK ONE 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item My comments will be: general for L ainst = 1 wish to speak on the subject of ti _ I do not wish to speak but leave these for the Board Request to Speak Form � ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMID Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Name: !Bone: Address: l/ City CJJ (t -- 1 am speaking for myself_or : x,4-7 of 911W 0 ONE 1 wish to speak on /Agenda Item # Date: Mycomments will be: Senegal _for_Mairwt I wish to speak on the subject of _ 1 do not wish to on but leave these comments for the Board to consider Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Address: /� s, f/ City: 1 am speaking for myself_or organization: /�s--� Omm of wroyeamma% of CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #. Date: 3a My comnnents will be: general _ _,tor against. . _ i wish to :p.ak on the subject I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: P Request to S eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board Name; /address: 23S -F-Scut C, LtP m m d, 4� I am speaking for myself,_,or organization: bmw of or6antsadioN CHECK ONE I wish to speak on Agenda Item 11-2L.1 Date: My comments will be: general . fo j gams 1 wish to speak on the subject - _ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to comider. Ta RECEIVED MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSEN,LLP 19% ji:0(1D SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. December 30, 1996 Direct: (510)975-5310 sskaggs@mdbe.com HAND DELIVERY Hon. Jeffrey Smith, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Amendments to Chapter 84-63 County File #ZT 3-96 Our file 01947-049 Dear Supervisors: This letter is submitted on behalf of the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety, and the members of that coalition listed in Attachment A to this letter. These comments pertain to Item D.1. on today's agenda, and in particular to the adoption of the Ordinance, introduced November 12, 1996, to repeal existing Chapter 84-63 of the County Ordinance Code and to add a new Chapter 84-63 (hereafter the "Ordinance" or the "proposed Ordinance"). The Coalition and its members object to and oppose the adoption of the proposed Ordinance. The comments contained in the letter provided to you today on behalf of Tosco are incorporated into this letter by this reference. Your agenda provides for a hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and for adoption of the Ordinance. Adoption of the Ordinance on the existing record would be unlawful and unconstitutional. The law requires that you conduct the hearing before adopting the Ordinance. As the Commission has not delivered its recommendation, the hearing cannot be held, and adoption of the Ordinance would be premature and inconsistent with the applicable law. In addition, the notice of this meeting was inadequate. Further, you have not complied with CEQA and the Ordinance is unconstitutional, in conflict with controlling State law and preempted by State and Federal law. ATTORNEYS A T L A W 1331 N. California Blvd., P.O. Box V San Francisco Palo Alto Walnut Creek, California 94596-1270 Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Tel. (510) 937-8000 Fax (510) 975-5390 San Jose Taipei http://www.mccutchen.com Walnut Creek Hon. Jeffrey Smith December 30, 1996 Page 2 A. Procedure Violates Government Code. The Government Code provides the procedure that must be followed when adopting an amendment to a zoning ordinance such as the Ordinance. In summary, it requires a referral to the Planning Commission, a public hearing before the Commission, and a written report and recommendation by the Commission. The Commission is allowed a reasonable time to accomplish its assignment. If a reasonable time has elapsed and the Commission has not delivered its report, the Board may give notice requiring it to render the report in 40 days and failure to do so within the stated time is deemed to be approval of the ordinance by the Commission. After the Commission's report is received by the Board, it must hold a public hearing on the report and recommendation. Following the hearing, the Board may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Commission. The public hearings must`be noticed in the manner provided by law'.' (Sections 65853-65857.1) We understand from Supervisor Smith's comments in the press and elsewhere, that he contends that the Commission failure to report is deemed to be approval by it pursuant to Section 65853, and that the Board now has authority to adopt the Ordinance. We disagree. While that statute does permit the Board to give notice requiring the Commission to deliver its report within 40 days of written notice from the Board and does provide that the ordinance is deemed approved if the Commission fails to do so, the law also provides that the notice may be given only after the Commission has had a reasonable time to study the proposed ordinance and render its report and has failed to do so. In this case, the Commission was not given a reasonable time to complete its work before the Board attempted to invoke the 40 day notice provision. The Ordinance was re-introduced on November 12, 1996.2 At that same meeting, and before the Commission had been afforded any time, much less a reasonable time, to consider the ordinance or to conduct the required public hearing, the Board purported to direct the Commission to render 1 Unless otherwise noted,all references to"section"are to the Government Code. 2 An ordinance on this subject was introduced on November 5, 1996. The Commission hearing required by law was noticed for that evening;however,it was continued because the text of the ordinance introduced that same day was not available and due to the delayed start of the meeting and the press of other business which caused the meeting to continue until 4 a.m. Even if the reasonable time for Commission consideration began with the introduction of the ordinance on November 5,a reasonable time had not elapsed one week later when the Board attempted to invoke the 40 day notice Hon. Jeffrey Smith December 30, 1996 Page 3 its report within 40 days. Under these circumstances the 40 day notice is not effective and the failure of the Commission to comply is not deemed to be approval of the Ordinance. We also note that today's hearing has not been properly noticed. Notice must be published and must include the date of the hearing and"a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of the real property, if any, that is the subject of the hearing." (Sections 65856(b), 65090, and 65094.) The notice given fails to meet these requirements. The Clerk has informed us that the only published notice of this hearing was on November 2, before introduction of the Ordinance on November 12, 1996. Of course, the notice contained no reference to the Ordinance that is the subject of the hearing or to the ordinance introduced on November-5.-It gave notice of a hearing to beheld on November 12 to consider an Ordinance Text Amendment. That hearing was held and the Ordinance was introduced and referred to the Commission. The agenda for November 12 noted that the Board might consider further revisions to the ordinance introduced on November 5, that would require fixing a new adoption date. That is exactly what was done. The noticed hearing was not continued as permitted by Section 65856. Instead, the ordinance was re- introduced and a new date was established triggering a new notice requirement. The law requires published notice of the hearing required after return of the Commission's recommendation. The publication that gave notice of a hearing on November 12 concerning a possible "Ordinance Text Amendment," does not satisfy the requirement for notice of the hearing required to be held after the Commission returns its recommendation on the Ordinance introduced on November 12. They are two different hearings and require separate notices. Today's hearing is the latter hearing-- a hearing on the purported approval of the Ordinance by the Commission by operation of law based upon its failure to act within the time required by the Board and on the adoption of the Ordinance. The notice also is inadequate in that it does not adequately describe the location of the real property affected by the Ordinance. The notice states: The location of the subject land is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. (A more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California) Hon. Jeffrey Smith December 30, 1996 Page 4 This notice is patently inadequate. The ordinance applies to all property in the County except that which is in an agricultural zoning district. There is no reason that the Notice could not so state. The phrasing used implies that its effect is much less extensive and is not sufficient notice to the owners of property in the county of this proposed change in zoning. As the hearing was not noticed as required by law, it may not proceed. B. Adoption of the Ordinance Without Preparation of an Initial Study Violates the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed Ordinance is a project as defined in CEQA. At its meeting on November 5, 1996, the Board determined that the ordinance previously introduced was exempt from CEQA under the Class,8 categorical exemption. In its report for today's meeting the staff suggests, without any analysis or reason, that the Board affirm its prior decision. That exemption was not applicable to the previously introduced ordinance nor is it applicable to the proposed Ordinance. If the County relies on this exemption, it will not have proceeded as required by CEQA. C. Application of the Ordinance Only to Those Maintenance Projects Involving Expenditures of$1 Million or More and to Non-Agricultural Zoning Districts Is Arbitrary and Capricious. Due process mandates that ordinances and laws not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious and "that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the objective sought to be attained." Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 84-85 (1978). The ordinance fails to comport with these constitutional requirements in that the use of a $1,000,000 threshold is arbitrary and unreasonable and bears no substantial relationship to the objectives of the ordinance. There is no rational basis from which to conclude that maintenance projects costing$1 million or more are more likely to create risk or are in greater need of regulation. Thus, there is no rational basis to regulate such activities while allowing other maintenance to escape regulation. The use of the $1,000,000 threshold also violates the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions in that it draws distinctions between similarly situated operators that do not advance the purposes of the ordinance and are not based on any Hon. Jeffrey Smith December 30, 1996 Page 5 reasonable consideration of difference or policy. See Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission of Webster County, 488 U.S. 366 (1989). Similarly, the exclusion of land within agricultural zones from the effect of the proposed Ordinance is arbitrary and unreasonable and bears no substantial relationship to the objectives of the ordinance. There is no rational basis from which to conclude that activities conducted within those zoning districts affect the public health, safety and welfare differently than similar activities conducted within other zoning districts. For these reasons, the application of the proposed Ordinance only to non-agricultural zoning districts also violates the equal protections provisions of the constitutions. D. The Ordinance Effects an Unreasonable, Oppressive and Unwarranted Interference With Existing Vested Uses and Is Invalid as to Them Unless Just Compensation Is Paid. As proposed, the requirement of a land use permit for major maintenance will affect existing uses established and operating in compliance with existing laws and zoning ordinances The right to continue those uses is vested and includes, expressly or by necessary implication, the right to perform necessary maintenance. The authority of the County to interfere with these uses is limited and does not include the right to require discretionary permits in order to continue the use. In particular, the proposed amendment to require users to obtain a discretionary land use permit in order to perform maintenance is not authorized by law and could not be enforced against the existing users. See O'Mara v. Council of the City of Newark(1965) 238 Cal. App. 2d 836, 841; McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park(195 8) 163 Cal. App. 2d 339, 348-349. A lawful, vested right to engage in a particular use of land, and uses reasonably incident thereto, constitutes a property right which cannot be eviscerated without due process and without payment of just compensation under the California and United States Constitutions. Adoption and enforcement of the ordinance in its current form would violate the due process clause and would result in the taking of property for public use without just compensation. The ordinance's adoption and enforcement would also give rise to liability on the part of the County for damages for deprivation of property rights under color of statute, ordinance or regulation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hon. Jeffrey Smith December 30, 1996 Page 6 E. The Ordinance Is Preempted by State and Federal Law. The County may not enact ordinances that conflict with general laws of the State or of the United States. Also, attempts by the County to legislate in areas that have been fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by implication, are prohibited. The Ordinance conflicts with SB 1889 and the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Management Regulatory Program required by sections 25404 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code, the State Planning and Zoning Law as well as other state and federal laws governing construction, operation and maintenance of existing and future facilities. Very truly yours, Sanford . Skaggs Enclosures: Attachment A CA963160.034 Hon. Jeffrey Smith -December 30, 1996 Page 7 ATTACHMENT A COALITION FOR JOBS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY American Instrument Services USS-POSCO Industries Apri Aviation,Inc. Imitt-Richmond California Aspen Timco Inc. Industrial Battery Services Bay Area Council Jeffco Painting&Coating Inc. Bormec Inc. Luce Forward California Contractors Association Lynn Bowers&Associates Inc. California Manufacturers Assoc. Main Stream Services Inc. Conam Pacific Coast Manning Consulting Associates Contra Costa Council Matrix Services Contra Costa Industrial Assoc. Nova Group Inc. Contra Costa Taxpayers Assoc. Performance Mechanical Corey Delta Inc. Precision Products Council of Industries R&K Industrial Products Criterion Catalyst Company,LP Shell Martinez Refining Company Delta Tech Service Inc. Sonnikson&Stordahl DuPont Sunvalley Shopping Center Eichleay Engineers Inc.of Calif. Taylor Made Office Systems ENGEO Inc. TIMEC Company Erickson Inc. UCI Construction Inc. Foster Wheeler Martinez Inc. Union Oil Company of California dba Unocal,76 Products Company Glaser&Associates R Request to � eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: _ /-A 1?7 ,8s��S Address: S"2 I am speaking for myself--.!:L�-ororganization: �� #n 6 Jam- y Y�s Oww of orgsntzatkwO CHECK ONE: t wish to speak on Agenda Item #� pate: My comments wilt be: general _foragainzt t wish to speak on the subject of t do not wish to but leave these comments for the board It 'der: A Request to Speak Form , ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name.. O d ARS FS O a c fiE5 Phone: C7v 7) 4 z S-8�7 2 1 am speaking for myself_ or organ - One of o�anizatioN CHKX ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #_._, Oate: I -3n -2L-- My comments will he general _for_,*gainst _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of = 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to cc lsi�er:SII(=�PCS R 7 Cir D O Q N E /c ER t5R a t f to N C P Request to S eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: L-LLI�- e v phone: 3 �?C> /,�-0 'y Address-.-Z—C—) 1 am speaking for myself_/,on oiganizabon: owns of zatio 0 CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ Oatvj,2-3n-� My comments will be: general _for_"ainst I wish to speak on the abject of 1 do not vvi speak "ve these or the Board • j mnlaA Request to Speak Form p i ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Address: o -7- I am speaking for myself_ or organizations owns of or6aniraltioN CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #_,_, My oommerrts will be: general ..—ior.,_nains�.___._• _ 1 wish to speak on the wbject of 1 do not wish to umiak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: , Request to Speak Form D , ( THREE {3) MINUTE LIMIT) complete this farm and place it in the box near the gx%kers" wstrurn before addressing the Board. Mame: I am speaking for myself_., or orgas�iza#ion: Esme of orysn�rstioN CHECX ONE I wish to speak on Agenda Item #„_____ Oates my commnmnits will be: genet for., .nA f - I wish to speak on the xd4ed of . ✓ 1 do not wish to Weak but ieaye co nnments for the Board t to consider, P� Request to eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: L o n and 5 I C)) 69 b-5 99() Address: )0 3 0 S har a Cr0 u r"-t ckr C o nU rd I am speaking for myself_or organiration: Omw of o fsnizdkw CHECK ONE 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ pate: My wnmerrts w111 be: general _for_againsl 77 1 wish to speak on the steed of _ i do not wish to but leave these comments for the Board It °der: - ; , Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Citys I am speaking for myself. or organization: GWw of 0SM-17AN N CHKCC ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Kan #_ Otte: my comments will be: general _for+walraL. 1 wish to speak on the subject of ✓ I do not wish tospeak but leave comment for the Board to/con��s""ider. Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this florin and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: \r w i Y. Phone.-,.(y i 0)1-13 9 --7P 1b 0 .� 1 L 1 am speaking for myself.or organization: OMM of olzwdzdkW CHKK.'!C ON 1 wish to speak on Agenda Ran #... Oates my comments will be: general.,_for.._aOnst._�,. I wish to speak on the sW*d of _ ✓ 1 do not wish tobut lea speak ve comments for the Board to consider: Request to or, Speak FMiLm-"q, ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT th Complete this form and place it in e box near the before addressing the Board. �7 x ZA c,,-I le, vk Aecis I am speaking for myself or organization: Oww of orpniratioN CH ONE: b 1 wish to :peak on Agenda Item # Oaten My cc us will be: _for_, 40nst,.,_. i wish to speak on the K6ject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board qj to consider: ORDINANCE NO. 96-50 (Amending Ordinance Requiring Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION 1. SUMMARY. The County Ordinance Code requires land use permits for specified development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous material. This ordinance repeals Chapter 84-63, added by Ordinance No. 96-20, and adds a new Chapter 84-63 in its place. Articles 84-63.2, 84-63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10 and 84- 63.12 of Chapter 84-63, as added by this ordinance, sets forth revised criteria for land use permits for development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous material which encourages business and other entities, in planning the project, to give greater emphasis to factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community. Articles 84-63.2, 84-63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10 and 84-63.12 of new Chapter 84-63 provide for additional public safety by requiring land use permits for a broader range of development projects which couldadversely affect public health, safety and the environment. Article 84-63.12 of Chapter 84-63, added by Ordinance No. 90-73, renumbered and readopted in its entirety as Article 84-63.14 by Ordinance No. 96-20, is unchanged. SECTION 11, Chapter 84-63 of the County Ordinance Code, added by Ordinance No. 86-'100 and amended by Ordinances Nos. 91-49, 90-92, 90-73 and 96-20, is repealed in its entirety, and is replaced by new Chapter 84-63, added by Section III of this ordinance. SECTION III. Chapter 84-63 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: CHAPTER 84-63 LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Artirla_R4-6'4_ GeneLal R4-63.202 Ptir�. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the County by encouraging businesses and other entities, in planning and developing projects involving hazardous material or hazardous waste, to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community, and by requiring land use permits for ORD. 96-50 development projects which could significantly and adversely affect public health, safety and the environment. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) g4-63_204 Cpnflint. This chapter is not intended, and should not be deemed, to prevent or preempt compliance with federal or state laws, regulations, rules or orders, or to excuse compliance with any other County ordinance, including other requirements of this code. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 86-100.) Article 84-63.4 DPfinitipnc M-6I_402 Gpnpral. As used in this chapter, the words and phrases defined in this article shall have the meanings given unless the context otherwise requires. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-63AQ4 "gacPlinP Pt-rind." "Baseline period" means the consecutive twelve month period of time during which activity is measured for purposes of this chapter. The baseline period shall be any twelve consecutive month period within five years of the date of the submittal of the application that is reflective of a normal year of operation. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 8463.406 "f`_hnnne-ice h risk prnj�rt." A "change-in-risk project" means a new use of an existing building, structure, or facility, not involving construction other than minor alterations, which use will involve a hazardous material or hazardous waste in a higher hazard category and which use will result in a hazard score higher than the hazard score of the previous use. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63 4nR "['_nmmerr_ial prnperty." "Commercial property" means all properties with a commercial designation in the general plan including but not limited to the following: regional commercial, airport commercial, office, and business park. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-6:4_41n "DPVPInpmPnt prnjeci." (a) A "development project" means a new permanent building, structure or facility to be constructed that will manage hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or a permanent change-in-risk project. As used in this section, "permanent" when used to describe a building, structure, or facility, or the new use of an existing building, structure, or facility (change-in-risk project) means that the building, structure, facility or use is intended to be in operation for more than six months. ORD. 96-50 - -2- W A "development project" does not include: (1) Pipelines and related equipment more than 300 feet from commercial or residential property. Related equipment includes, but is not limited to, items such as valves, fittings, pipe supports, insulation, instrumentation, corrosion protection systems, heat tracing systems, leak containment systems and fire protection systems. Related equipment does not include storage tanks, storage vessels, process units or plants, mechanical rotating equipment (pumps, compressors, motors, turbines, internal combustion engines, etc.) and fired equipment (furnaces, boilers, incinerators). However, the Zoning Administrator may determine, at their sole discretion, that minor equipment defined above as not related is exempt from the ordinance. (2) Any project other than a major maintenance project consisting only of maintenance, repair, and replacement or minor modification of existing equipment provided the storage design capacity is not increased and the hazard category of hazardous material or hazardous waste handled is not increased. (3) Any transportable treatment unit that has obtained all required permits and is used solely for site remediation or waste treatment purposes, provided the transportable treatment unit will be located on site for a maximum time limit of one year. The Director of Community Development will have the authority to grant a one time one year extension if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the unit is temporary. Otherwise, a land use permit will be required if the unit will remain on site beyond the time limit specified above. (4) Any project for which permit applications have been deemed complete on or before the effective date of this chapter by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or other government agency with jurisdiction over the project. The proponent of a project described by subsection (4) of subdivision (b) of this section may elect to be subject to the requirements of this chapter in lieu of any requirements in effect prior to the effective date of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) $4-M-412 "p8spose " "Dispose" means to discharge, deposit, inject, dump, or place any hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) $4-63.414 "Faiiipmpnt." "Equipment" means pipes, pumps, vessels and other similar types of apparatus. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) ORD. 96-50 -3- $4-63.416 "Facility." "Facility" means a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels (including parcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in section 1002-2.002 of this Code) under common ownership or control. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-A-'4-41R wHa2ardnuc material," "Hazardous material" means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment, and includes any material that is listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table), as amended from time to time. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 86-100.) R4-63.420 "Ha ardnus waste." "Hazardous waste" means any substance which is regulated as a hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services under 22 California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 30, or defined as a hazardous waste under Health & Safety Code section 25117, generally as follows: (a) "Hazardous waste" means either of the following: (1) A waste, or combination of wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristic may either: (A) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness. (B) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. (2) A waste which meets any of the criteria for the identification of a hazardous waste adopted by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control pursuant to the Health & Safety Code section 25141. (b) "Hazardous waste" includes, but is not limited to, federal Resource Conservation and Recover Act ("RCRA") hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) ORD. 96-50 -4- 64-63.421 (a) "Serious Incident! An incident that occurred at a facility involved in the use, storage or handling of hazardous material or waste and that caused the release of hazardous material or waste that may have posed an imminent threat to the public health, the environment or property and that resulted in any of the following: (1) Activation of the CCCHSD Community Alert Network system provided that a shelter-in-place direction is issued to potentially threatened populations by the CCCHSD or other public emergency response officials; (2) The evacuation of a school, or other public facility, residential dwelling or business in response to a direction issued to potentially threatened populations by the CCCHSD or other emergency response officials or closure of an offsite street, highway, freeway, or bridge, except where such closure is solely for crowd control or emergency vehicle; (3) A large fire which was not contained for more than two hours; (4) Physical injury or physical illness affecting two persons resulting in overnight hospitalization, or physical injury or physical illness affecting three to nine persons who were seen for medical treatment by a medical doctor; (5) An explosion which results in offsite property damage from the blast pressure or explosion debris; (6) Payment of a fine or civil penalty of at least $5,000 arising out of or related to the offsite release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and (7) A release where the reportable quantity is twice the reportable quantity required under Section 304 of the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act or Section 25507 of the California Health and Safety Code, and where notification is made under Section 304 or Section 25507. (b) "Major Incident." An incident that occurred at a facility involved in the use, storage or handling of hazardous material or waste and that caused the offsite release of hazardous material or waste that may have posed an imminent threat to the public health, the environment or property and that resulted in any of the following: ORD. 96-50 -5- (1) The death of one or more persons, physical injury or physical illness affecting three or more persons resulting in overnight hospitalization, or physical injury or physical illness effecting 10 or more persons who were seen for medical treatment by a medical doctor. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) E4-63.421.5 "M_Tnr MaintenanrP Prniant." A major maintenance project is the scheduled, periodic cleaning, inspection, repair of'process units, piping, or process or storage vessels which handles hazardous materials or hazardous waste. The maintenance will also require that the unit be temporarily taken out of service for more than two (2) weeks, provided that the cost of the maintenance work is $1 million or more. The $1 million will exclude the costs of overhead, planning, engineering, and other pre-construction costs. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.422 "Manage." "Manage" means to generate, treat, store, transport, use or dispose of hazardous material or hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) 84-6I_4 3 "Prncpgc Unit". "Process unit means any equipment or structures containing an activity involving a hazardous chemical or waste including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-site movement of such chemicals, or combination of these activities. For purposes of this definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected shall be considered a single process. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.424 "Prnject Desnriptinn." "Project description" means a written description and explanation of the construction and operation of a development project. A project description shall address all phases of and for the life of the project. The project description shall include the following information as well as any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director for the purpose of determining the hazard score: (a) A description of the facility location with respect to major freeways and immediate neighbors, and the size (in square footage or acreage) of the property on which the facility is located; (b) An area map showing the facility in relationship to the surrounding community; (c) A description of all significant operations involving hazardous material and/or hazardous waste currently being managed, and/or proposed to be managed, including a brief general history of the facility; and ORD. 96-50 -6- d) A summary of the baseline data for all five years and a justification for the selection of the representative baseline year of data used in the calculation of the hazard score. The Community Development Director may waive the requirement of submitting any or all of the information required by paragraphs (a) through (d), above. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.425 "Puhlin Safety AgrAament_" A Public Safety Agreement is an agreement between the County and a facility providing standards, procedures, and inspections to assure that the facility protects public and worker safety and the environment from accidents due to material failure, mechanical or equipment failure, failure to adhere to practices and procedures, off-site events, and human error and providing measures to promote a strong and balanced County economy. A Public Safety Agreement shall address, at a minimum, the following: (a) A commitment to use the best technology for safety improvements; (b) Permission for the County to enter the premises for inspections; (c) Specify changes in operations and facilities included in the maintenance projects; (d) Commitment to do and publicize design safety review; (e) The Public Safety Agreement should provide a range of dates for maintenance; these dates may be extended by the County for the purpose of assuring state fuel supplies; and (f) Provisions that would permit the completion of necessary work discovered to be necessary in the course of a major maintenance. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.426 "Residential nrnnerty". "Residential property" means all properties with a residential designation in the general plan, including but not limited to the following: single family residential, multiple family residential, and mobile homes. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20.) 84-63.428 "$pnsitive rpceptnr." The term "sensitive receptor" includes schools, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, licensed child day care facilities, and similarly less-mobile populations, and detention facilities including jails, youth camps and other locked facilities. These facilities have more than twelve people. For the purposes of this section, "general acute care hospital" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1250(a), "long term ORD. 96-50 -7- health care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1418(a), and "child day care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 1596.750. "School" means any school used for the purpose of the education of more than 12 children in kindergarten or any grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63-430 "Stole." "Store" means an act to contain hazardous waste or hazardous material for any period of time in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste or hazardous material. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 86-100.) fl4-63.432 "Trane." "Transport" or "transportation" means an act to move hazardous waste or hazardous material by truck, rail, ship or pipeline. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 86-100.) Artir_le 84-63.6 Apolir�ahi_lity 84-63.602 A,pplinahilit- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person proposing a development project or a major maintenance project which might otherwise be allowed in any non-agricultural zoning district shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) $4-63.604 6xPmptionc_ The following projects and structures are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (a) Any project built solely to comply with federal, state, regional or local agency enforcement orders under a compliance time schedule that precludes timely review under this chapter. This section is primarily intended to allow exemptions for compliance with laws, regulations, rules, or administrative or judicial orders such as nuisance abatement orders or other short-term or immediately necessary actions. This section is not intended to allow automatic exemptions for projects being undertaken to comply with changed federal, state, regional or local laws. A facility claiming an exemption under this section, must file a copy of the enforcement order and proposed project description within thirty (30) days of receipt of the order. (b) If more than fifty percent (50%) of the value of a facility is destroyed or damaged by disasters such as earthquakes, floods, fires, or an act of god or the public enemy, the building, facility or structure may be rebuilt under the following conditions: (1) The rebuilt project is used for the same purpose as the destroyed damaged project; ORD. 96-50 -8- (2) The rebuilt project complies with all environmental regulations in effect at the time of rebuilding, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or at least the same level of control that previously existed, whichever provides the greater level of protection to the public; (3) The rebuilt project has a hazard score fifty percent (50%) lower than the destroyed or damaged project (both rebuilt and destroyed or damaged project to be scored as if they are new); (4) The hazard category of chemicals used in the rebuilt project is not greater than used by the destroyed or damaged project; (5) Construction is commenced within one year unless an extension is granted by the Community Development Director; (6) The rebuilt project is at least 300 feet away from the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor and no closer to the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor than the destroyed or damaged project; and (7) The rebuilt project will not manage Hazard Category A materials in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage hazardous wastes in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage Hazard Category B materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project, and will not manage Hazard Category C materials in quantities greater than 10% more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project. (c) A development project in which both the size, as defined in section 84- 63.1012 and the monthly transportation quantity are less than: (1) for Hazard Category C materials - 4000 tons (2) for Hazard Category B materials - 5 tons (3) for Hazard Category A materials - the quantity specified as the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Materials List (Appendix A to 40 C.F.R Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended from time to time), or 500 pounds, whichever is less. (d) A major maintenance project covered by a Public Safety Agreement entered into by the County and the facility within five years prior to the time the major maintenance project application is submitted to the department. ORD. 96-50 -9- (e) A major maintenance project at a facility not covered by a Public Safety Agreement provided that the facility has neither had three serious incidents as defined in Section 84-63.421(a) nor any major incidents as defined in Section 84-63.421(b) within five (5) years prior to the time the major maintenance project schedule notification is.submitted to the department. The major maintenance project must commence within six months of the notification. (f) Emergency repairs to or replacement of equipment damaged in an explosion, fire or other unexpected event. Such repairs and replacements must be required in order to resume operations. These emergency repairs and replacements are excluded from the provisions of section 84-63.421.5. Emergency repairs and replacements are subject to the following conditions: (1) the repaired and replaced equipment is used for the same purpose as the damaged equipment, (2) the replaced equipment does not have a higher hazard score than the original equipment, with both the old and new being scored as new equipment, (3) the repaired or replaced equipment will not handle a higher hazard category of chemicals than the original equipment, (4) repairs and replacements are commenced within 30 days after release of the damaged area by an investigating agency. (g) A major maintenance project at a facility covered by a Risk Management Plan (RMP) in compliance with Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, its implementing regulations and State Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95, Article 2, or a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) in compliance with Health and Safety section 25536.5, provided: (1) For purposes of the RMP or RMPP, all materials and wastes classified as Hazard Category A or B under this ordinance shall be deemed to be "regulated substances," except that for materials and wastes without a threshold quantity specified in state or federal law or regulation, the threshold quantity shall be 10,000 pounds; (2) The RMP or RMPP has been reviewed and approved by the HSD within three years prior to the time the major maintenance project application is submitted to the Department; (3) The RMP or RMPP includes any measures which the HSD has determined, after at least a 45-day public comment period, are reasonably necessary, taking into account technological feasibility and cost effectiveness, to make the RMP or RMPP effective to protect the ORD. 96-50 -10- environment and the health or safety of persons from potentially substantial risks; (4) The facility has been subjected to an annual audit by the HSD to determine compliance with the RMP and RMPP, and measures required by the HSD pursuant to subparagraph 3 above of this subsection, and the facility has implemented, or has agreed to implement within a reasonable time period, all corrective measures required by the HSD; and (5) There has been an opportunity for any member of the public to obtain review of any determinations by the HSD by the County Board of Supervisors. (h) A development project or major maintenance project for which construction has commenced prior to June 1, 1997, and is completed by January 1, 1998. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100.) R4-63.606 Exemption. On the effective date of this chapter, any proposed development project which is subject to the provisions of this chapter, and which has obtained all required federal and state permits and other governmental authorizations to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material including, but not limited to, permits or authorizations under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.), Hazardous Waste Control, Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7 {§ 25280 et seq.), Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances, Health and Safety Code Chapter 3.5 (09650 et seq.), Toxic Air Contaminants, and Food and Agriculture Code Section 14021 et seq., and which has complied with the requirements of the Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act (Labor Code Section 6360 et seq.) shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Article R4-63.R Standards and PrncedllrP_s $4-63.803 Aprnlir_ation for Applinahility DPterminatinn; FxPmptinn. Any person proposing a development project which may be used to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material shall apply to the Community Development Director for review and a determination whether a land use permit may be required under Article 84-63.10 or whether the project is exempt under section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606. Projects exempt under section 84-63.604(c), (d) and (f) are not required to submit an application pursuant to this section. If the hazard score of a project is 49 or less and the project does not increase the amount of hazardous waste or hazardous material ORD. 96-50 - -11 - managed as compared to the baseline of the last three years, a determination of non- coverage and an application therefor are not required. The application shall include all information necessary to complete and verify the hazard score of the project, such as chemical identification, distances to nearest receptors, transportation routes, and the five-year baseline data. The application shall be accompanied by all fees established by the Board of Supervisors. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) R4-63.804 Application,. Review, Determinatinn, No later than ten calendar days after receipt of an application, or the submittal of additional information, the Community Development Director shall inform the applicant in writing that the application is complete or shall inform the applicant what additional information is required. Within twenty calendar days of the application being deemed complete, the Community Development Director shall issue a written determination of non-coverage pursuant to section 84-63.806, an exemption pursuant to section 84-63.604(a) or (b) or 84-63.606, or a determination that a land use permit is required pursuant to section 84-63.1002. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-92.) 84-63.806 Determinatinn of nnn-r_nveran . Upon determining that a proposed project has a hazard score up to and including 59 or that the project is exempt pursuant to section 84-63.604 or 84-63.606, the Community Development Director shall issue a determination of non-coverage or exemption. A determination of non- coverage for projects with a hazard score between 50 and 59 inclusive, means that the project is not subject to the requirements of article 84-63.10, but is subject to sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. Projects with a hazard score below 49 and projects which are exempt pursuant to sections 84-63.604 and 84-63.606 are not subject to the requirements of sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) $4-63.608 Determinatinnc - Ptihlic Notice. All determinations of non-coverage made pursuant to section 84-63.806 shall be summarized on an agenda of the County Zoning Administrator within ten calendar days of issuance of the determination. (Ords. 96-50 113, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100.) $4-63.RID D _terminations - Firther Puhlic Notice. For projects with a point assignment between 50 and 59, inclusive, within five working days of issuing a determination of non-coverage, the Community Development Director shall mail notice on the date of the determination to all organizations and individuals who have previously submitted a written request for such notice. The Community Development Director shall publish a four-inch by six-inch advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within ten calendar days of issuing a determination of non-coverage. The notices required by this section shall state the name of the applicant, briefly describe the project, provide the names and phone numbers of a representative of the ORD. 96-50 -12- Community Development Department and a representative of the applicant who will be available to answer questions about the project, and shall state the date by which an appeal must be filed. (Orris. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92.) R4-63_R12 Appeals. Any appeal of a determination of non-coverage shall be filed within ten calendar days of the date the determination is listed on the Zoning Administrator's agenda or ten calendar days from the date of publication pursuant to section 84-63.810, whichever provides the longer period of appeal. Appeals from a determination of non-coverage shall be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Except as expressly provided in this section, appeals from all decisions and determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the land use permit provisions of article 26-2.24 and are subject to the provisions of article 26-2.30. (Orris. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Artinie R4-63.10 Land Usp Permits - Wh _n RP_nllired 84-63.10W Ha and Srnr _; Permit Ren sir _d. Unless otherwise exempt from the requirements of this chapter, a land use permit shall be required for a development project proposed for the management of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste if the development project obtains a hazard score of 60 or more pursuant to the formula set forth in section 84-63.1004, or for a major maintenance project, subject to the provisions of this article. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-63.10f)4 Ha and S .nr (a) Enrmula. The hazard score of a proposed development project shall be determined pursuant to the following formula: [(T + C + P) xHI + D + A + R; where the following symbols have the following designations: "T" refers to the point assignment for "Transportation Risk"; "D" refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Distance from Receptor"; "C" refers to the point assignment for "Community Risk - Type of Receptor"; ORD. 96-50 -13- "A" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Total Amount"; "P" refers to the point assignment for "Facility Risk - Size of Project - Percent Change"; and "H" refers to the point assignment for "Hazard Category of Material or Waste." "R" refers to the "incident record" of the facility. (b) Prni _ _t Hazard Score_ If more than one category of hazardous material or hazardous waste is used, the formula set forth in this section will be used to calculate a separate score for each material category. The material hazard category which results in the highest hazard score for the project will be used. (c) Point Assignment. The factors set forth in subdivision (a), above, shall have the following point assignments: TRANSPORTATION RISK (T) POINTS Truck - residential/commercial 10 (>25% increase or new) Truck - residential/commercial 9 (>5 - 25 % increase) Truck - Industrial (>25% increase or new) 8 Truck - Industrial (>5 - 25% increase) 7 Rail - (>25% increase or new) 6 Rail - (>5 - 25% increase) 5 Ship - (>5% increase) 3 Pipeline - (>5% increase) 1 0 - 5% increase 0 ORD. 96-50 -14- >6000 - 6500 feet 9 >6500 - 7300 feet 8 >7300 - 8000 feet 7 >8000 - 8600 feet 6 >8600 - 10,000 feet 5 >10,000 - 11,000 feet 4 >11,000 - 12500 feet 3 >12,500 - 14,000 feet 2 > 14,000 - 15,840 feet 1 Type of receptnr (C): Sensitive receptor 7 Residential Property 5 Commercial Property 4 FACILITY RISK- SIZE OF PROJECT Tntal Amount of change, tons (Conversion to tons; 1 ton = 2000 pounds) (A): >40,000 30 >32,000 - 40,000 29 > 18,000 - 32,000 28 > 10,000 - 18,000 27 >6,000 - 10,000 26 >4,000 - 6,000 25 >2,100 - 4,000 24 > 1,200 - 2,100 23 ORD. 96-50 -16- >750 - 1,200 22 >400 - 750 21 >200 - 400 20 >150 - 200 19 >90 -150 18 >50 - 90 17 >30 - 50 16 >20 - 30 15 >10 - 20 14 >6 - 10 13 >4 - 6 12 >2 - 4 11 > 1 - 2 10 >0.8 - 1 9 >0.5 - 0.8 8 >0.35 - 0.5 7 >0.25 - 0.35 6 >0.20 - 0.25 5 >0.18 - 0.20 4 >0.14 - 0.18 3 >0.12 - 0.14 2 >0.10 - 0.12 1 no change (0.10 or less) 0 ORD. 96-50 -17- Per cant Change (P) New 6 >200% 5 >100% - 200% 4 >50% - 100% 3 >10% - 50% 2 >1% - 10% 1 0% - l % 0 HAZARD CATEGORY OF MATERIAL (H) Category A 5 Category B _ 3 Category C 1 RECORD nF INCIDENTS (R) >3 5 2 3 1 2 0 -5 (d) Credit for radltrtinns nr prniiarts to he closed. A development project that would have a hazard score of 60 or more as determined by the formula in this section shall be entitled to a reduction credit for project closures and/or reductions in accordance with the criteria set forth in this subdivision. Reduction credit shall be given if the Community Development Director determines that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its operations and finds that all of the following criteria are met: } ORD. 96-50 (1) The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed. (2) The project to be closed or reduced is currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years prior to the date of application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule; (3) The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; (4) The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; (5) The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced; and (6) The development project will be more than 300 feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. The hazard score for the project to be closed shall also be determined by the formula set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section and pursuant to the provisions of this article. In determining the hazard score for the project to be closed or reduced, said project shall be deemed a new project. The hazard score of the development project shall be subtracted from the hazard score of the project to be closed or reduced. The resulting difference will then be subtracted from the hazard score of the development project to obtain a hazard score adjusted for the closure or reduction. The adjusted hazard score shall be the basis for determining whether a land use permit shall be required under this chapter. A determination by the Community Development Director that a project is not subject to the land use permit requirement of this chapter as a result of credit afforded for a project closure or reduction shall be reported to the Zoning Administrator pursuant to section 84-63.808 and shall be subject to the public notification requirements set forth in section 84-63.810. (e) Jnctirp, redur_tinn required. Projects proposed for closure or reduction for which closure or reduction credit was afforded under this section shall be closed or reduced as proposed within one year of completion of the development project. This subdivision (d) applies only in cases where a land use permit would have been required but for the closure or reduction credit afforded under this section. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) ORD. 96-50 -19 R4-RRACMA DPtprminatinn of Transpprtatinn Risk. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated based upon planned total quantities of materials in a hazard category, measured in terms of tons per year for each hazard category proposed. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated for each mode of transportation proportionally within a single hazard category. That transportation point assignment shall be compared by hazard category with the total amount of material in the hazard category transported during the baseline period in order to obtain the percent change in section 84-63.1004(b), Transportation Risk. For purposes of determining whether truck transportation is through residential/commercial or industrial areas, the shortest legal route from the closest two-lane (or larger) freeway shall be considered. If the route used in the County does not traverse a two-lane (or larger) freeway, the entire route shall be considered. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-63.1008 DPtprminatinn of Community Risk - Distance to Rer_eptor. "Distance to Receptor" shall be the shortest distance between an exterior wall or other part of the development project and the property line of the residential property, commercial property or the sensitive receptor used to determine the hazard score of a development project. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-RI-1010 Dptprmination of Cnmmunity Risk - Tyne of Rpcpptnr. A hazard score shall be developed for each type of receptor (residential property, commercial property and sensitive receptor) within three miles of the development project based upon the distance of the parcel of each type of receptor that is closest to the development project. The receptor that produces the highest hazard score shall be used to determine the hazard score of the development project. Receptors more than three miles from a development project shall not be considered. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-63.1012 DPtprminatinn of Prniect Risk - Size. The size of a development project shall be measured in terms of tons of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste stored as a result of the development project, based upon the fill-to-the- maximum capacity of the development project, including amounts stored in tanks; reactors; columns; process lines; tank cars, tank trucks or rail cars when connected to process equipment; or any other receptacle used for the containment of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes. The amount of material in hazard categories A, 8, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project will be used to determine the total amount of change. If more than one category of hazardous material is used, the amounts of materials (A, 8, or C) shall be used with the respective hazard category in the formula in section 84-63.1004. The specific gravity of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes may be required to calculate the number of tons (or pounds) of hazardous materials and/or ORD. 96-50 -20- hazardous waste managed at the development project. The standard of 2000 pounds equaling one (1) ton shall be used. The point assignment for storage of containerized material in buildings, such as labs or warehouses, shall be based upon the maximum anticipated amount of materials for each hazard category as a result of the development project. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) 84-63.1014 DPtPrminatipn of Prniprt Risk - Percant Change. The percent change of a hazard category shall be determined by comparing the amounts of materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project to the total amount of all materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C handled at the site from the baseline period. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) 84-63.1016 DPterminatinn of Haiard Categnry, (a) Method of Determinatinn. The hazard category of a material or waste shall be determined pursuant to this section. (1) The primary method of determining the material hazard category of a hazardous waste or material shall be by reference to the Winter 1994 version of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 ("49 CFR"), Section 172.101, Hazardntic Materials Tahle." From columns (3) and (5), extract the "Hazard Class or Division" and "Packing Group" information, then proceed to 49 CFR 173.2 to determine the "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. If a material is listed in 49 CFR 172.101 more than once, the rating that results in the highest hazard category shall be used. The hazard category of a mixture is determined according to its common name as defined in Title 49. (2) Where a hazardous material or waste or mixture is not referenced in 49 CFR 172.101, and the hazard category cannot be determined using the primary method, refer to the materials safety data sheet for the D.O.T. "Hazard Class or Division," "Packing Group" and "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. (3) Where the preceding methods are not successful, the Contra Costa County Health Services Director or his/her designee shall be responsible for determining a material's hazard category. (4) Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth above, materials with the word "poison" in column (6) of 49 CFR 172.101, Methyl chloride, and the metals Antimony, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, Thallium and Cadmium and their compounds, shall be Hazard Category A materials, and denatured alcohol and methanol shall be Hazard Category B materials for purposes of this chapter. ORD. 96-50 -21 - (b) FYrrItisinns. Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth in subdivision (a), above, Hot Coke, Hot Coal Briquettes, and materials not regulated by D.O.T. or which have no D.O.T. Hazard Class or Division are not regulated by this chapter. (c) Hazard CatPnnries. Hazard Cateanry A Matarials 1. Forbidden Materials As referenced in 49 CFR 173.21 and 173.54. 11. Explosives and Blasting Agents Class 1, as defined in 49 CFR 173.50(b)(1) through 173.50(b)(6). Ill. Reactive Materials A. Air Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(b)(1) and (2). B. Water Reactive Materials - Class 4, Division 4.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(c). C. Organic Peroxides - Class 5, Division 5.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.128. IV. Radioactive Materials Class 7 as defined in 49 CFR 173.403(y). V. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group I Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group I is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(1). VI. Poisons, D.O.T. A. Poisons, Class 6, Division 6.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.133 (applies to all hazard zones). B. Infectious Substances, Class 6, Division 6.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.134. ORD. 96-50 -22- VII. Poison Gas Class 2, Division 2.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(c). Haiard Cataaery B Matarials VIII. Flammable Liquids Class 3 Packing Groups I and II as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(a). IX. Flammable Solids Class 4, Division 4.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(a). X. Oxidizers, D.O.T. Packing Group 11 Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group 11 is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(ii). XI. Flammable Gases Class 2, Division 2.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(a). XII. Corrosives, D.O.T. Packing Group I or If Class 8 Packing Groups I or II as defined in 49 CFR 173.136(a) and 173.137(a) and (b). Hazard Category C Materials XIII. Non-flammable Compressed Gases Class 2, Division 2.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(b). XIV. Combustible Liquids Class 3 Packing Group III as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(b). XV. Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials Class 9 as defined in 49 CFR 173.155. ORD. 96-50 -23- XVI. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a) when Packing Group III is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(iii). XVII. Corrosives D.O.T. Packing Group 111 Class 8 Packing Group III as defined in CFR 49 173.136(a) and 173.137 (c). (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20.) R4-63.101R D _tprminstinn of Incident Record_ The determination of a facility's record shall be made by determining how many incidents occurred at the facility during the three years immediately preceding the project application. (Ord. 96-50 § 3.) Article R4-63.12 Land t1sp and Varianc _ Permits R4-63.1202 ranting, An applicant for a land use permit shall submit a project description. Land use permits required under this chapter may be granted in accordance with the provisions of chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 86-100.) Arti .l _ R4-63.14 Dffsite Hazardous Wacte Facility Compliance With Cnunty Ha ardo m Wacte Management Plan $4-63.1402 A rtthnrity. This article is enacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 25135.4 and 25135.7, concerning the siting of offsite hazardous waste facilities. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) R4-63.1404 DOWtinns. (a) General. Unless otherwise specified in this section or indicated by the context, the terms used in this article have the meanings ascribed to them in Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (§ 25100 et seq.). (b) "County Hazardous Waste Management Plan" means the county hazardous waste management plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 29, 1989 and amended by the Board of Supervisors on January 30, 1990, approved by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area, and approved by the State Department of Health Services on February 28, 1990, as said plan is amended from time to time. ORD. 96-50 -24- (c) "Hazardous waste facility" means all contiguous land and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous waste. A hazardous waste facility may consist of one or more treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling hazardous waste management units, or combinations of these units. 4d) "Offsite hazardous waste facility" means a hazardous waste facility at which either or both of the following occur: (1) Hazardous waste that is produced offsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled. (2) Hazardous waste that is produced onsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled and the hazardous waste facility is not owned by, leased to or under the control of the producer of the hazardous waste. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) $4-63.1406 Cnunty Ha7ardntis Waste Managpmp-nt. All land use permit, variance or other land use entitlement granted for the operation or expansion of an offsite hazardous waste facility shall be consistent with the portions of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan which identify siting criteria, siting principles or other policies applicable to hazardous waste facilities. Before granting the application, the division of the planning agency hearing the matter initially or on appeal shall find that the application complies with the applicable siting criteria, siting principles and other policies identified in the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and that the proposed offsite hazardous waste facility is consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73; Health & Safety Code, §§ 25135.4. 25135.7.) R4-63.1408 Fxclusion. The requirements of this article do not apply to projects which are exempt projects under section 84-63.604. (Ords. 96-50 § 3, 96-20, 90-73.) SECTION IV. INTENT AND EFFECT OF REPEAL, The repeal of Articles 84-63.2, 84- 63.4, 84-63.6, 84-63.8, 84-63.10, and 84-63.12 of Chapter 84-63 by Section II of this ordinance does not effect the validity of any permit issued or decision made under said repealed provisions. The repeal of Article 84-63.14 concerning offsite hazardous waste facility compliance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, by Section II of this ordinance, and said provisions' subsequent readoption by Section III of this ordinance, are not intended to have any effect other than continuing the effect of said provisions. SECTION V_ SEVERABILITY_ This ordinance shall be liberally construed to achieve its purposes and preserve its validity. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall ORD. 96-50 -25- not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable and are intended to have independent validity. SECTION VI. PREEMPTION_ Nothing in this ordinance is intended, and should not be deemed, to excuse or prevent compliance with any State or federal law. If any provision of this ordinance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be preempted by any applicable State or federal law, the Board of Supervisors declares that its intent is for such provision to be severable from the remainder of the ordinance, and the remainder of the ordinance is to be given effect in accordance with the provisions of Section III of this ordinance. ISECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the CONTRA COSTA TIMES, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on _December 30, 1996 by the following vote. AYES: Supervisors Rogers , Bishop and Smith NOES: Supervisor DeSaulnier ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Canciamilla ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator i By: Deputy fioard Chair LTF:bmw:df.31.a►dhz826.96f [SEAL] ORD. 96-50 -26- - D. i THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES 560 WAVERLEY ST., SUITE 201 (BOX 880), PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Tel: 415-3277-0429 Fax: 415-327-4024 tra@igc.org December 23, 1996 A-File: LCOI :` • rE V`, Jeff Smith, Chair Wo and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County t '�o COSTA CO�sflRs 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 _ Re: Agenda Item D-1, December 30, 1996. Proposed Ordinance would easily extend to a broader list of hazardous materials than is listed only on RMP list. Dear Chairman Smith and Board Members: The new ordinance being considered by Contra Costa County contains an exemption for facilities which prepare a Risk Management Plan/Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMP/RMPP) that meets stricter County standards. The range of materials to be addressed in such an RMP/RMPP has been logically set to include the so-called List A and List B materials set forth in the proposed ordinance, those materials are defined by their hazardous properties and not explicitly named in the lists. The RMP and RMPP programs have specific lists of materials and their toxicity endpoints, but these lists do not include all materials believed to be in use at Contra Costa industrial sites which may pose a significant risk to surrounding land uses. For that reason, we have recommended that the County use List A and List B for application of the exemption for companies having completed the RMP process as provided in the proposed ordinance. Opponents to the proposed ordinance have argued that the broader List A and B cannot be used because 1) the list includes solids, and 2) the list has materials for which there is no toxicity endpoint. These objections are groundless. Broadly speaking, the List A and B approach better serves the County objectives: namely, the engagement of industrial safety assurance and the security of local land uses. This benefit comes from the County and industry looking at the full range of materials reasonably likely to pose an off-site risk and hence needing management. LCOI1223 Dr. Jeff Smith, J.D. —December 23, 1996 Page 2 Solids and non-volatile liquids can be transported off-site as airborne particulate matter State and federal ambient air quality standards and local (BAAQMD) regulations recognize fine particulate matter as a pollutant and as a means of transport of toxic substances. Fine particulate, typically with particle diameters below 10 microns, are considered respirable and enter the lung and are as effective as a gaseous substance in its capacity for toxic health effects. Larger particulate may not be directly respirable, but cansettle out on skin or environmental surfaces, and ultimately contact the eye or be ingested. Particulate matter includes small particles of solids, fumes, smoke, or aerosols of liquids. In industrial incidents, particulate matter is formed by fire, explosion, high temperature or high pressure release. Several significant incidents in Contra Costa County have involved particulate dispersal: The droplets of petroleum associated with Pacific Refinery's gas oil release (8/1/96) were technically not volatile, yet were sprayed into the atmosphere and moved off-site as a particulate cloud. The cloud of sulfur trioxide in oleum resulted from a high temperature and over pressure release which broadcast this normally viscous and non-volatile material. The toxic components of the Unocal catacarb release were similarly spread as particulate. Chevron's 1991 release of 40 tons of catalyst dust also spread beyond the refinery fence line. Releases of solids and other non-volatile substances are not rare and their exclusion from County review would ignore many of the past major incidents and would not reflect the actual effects of fire or explosion in putting the neighboring land uses at risk. Hazardous materials without established toxicity endpoints can be easily included in Public Safety Agreement analysis. The process of conducting an RMP entails establishing the management of risk of various materials to levels below a toxicity endpoint set on EPA list Appendix A to part 355 (40 CFR). While the list makes the RMP process almost mechanical in application, the list does not preclude analysis of other potential risks. Toxicity data and relevant risk information are available from many sources. As a first principle, any industry must have information about the health hazard of any chemical it uses. The information is always available in a Material Safety Data Sheet, and may be also found in listings by ACGIH. This information will address volatile and non volatile and particulate materials. The information may directly allow establishment of a toxicity endpoint, or it may allow material to be classified as to health hazard and a surrogate substance of similar toxicology can be used to establish a toxicity endpoint. Industry may express concern that the appropriate risk level of substances beyond the regulated substances of the RMP program will be subject to contention, LC0I1223 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES Dr. Jeff Smith, J.D. —December 23, 1996 Page 3 but this situation is no different than customarily encountered in a health risk assessment normally performed in conjunction with CEQA review. As an example, refer to the Shell Clean Fuels Project EIR for a comprehensive listing of materials — gaseous and solid — that were subject to health risk assessment. The same approach could be applied to industry participation under the proposed ordinance. In.conclusion, the arbitrary restriction of risk assessment to those volatile chemical substances- now subject to RMP consideration would exclude County study of materials already demonstrated to expose the public,to health risks. Approaches commonly used for health risk assessments would be applicable to include non- volatile and unusual materials. Sincerely, 1 Thomas S. Reid LC011223 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES C'on5ider WA � 1 ZI Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California Suite 600, 1390 Willow Pass Road, Concord,California 94520 o 510-689-7000 o FAX 510-689-7006 RECEIVED December 17, 1996 Honorable Jeffrey Smith, hair and 3=0 bele eyS , C Members of the Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD of SUPOR y County of Contra Costa CONTRA COSTA Co. - 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Amendments to Chapter 84-63, County File#ZT 3-96 Dear Supervisors: I am writing this letter to identify potential environmental effects that could result from delays inherent in the discretionary land use permit process established by the Ordinance introduced by you at your meeting of November 12, 1996. This Ordinance will require a land use permit for major maintenance projects. Based on prior experience, County staff has estimated that it will take a minimum of 4-6 months, and perhaps more than'a year,to obtain a Land Use Permit. I am familiar with such projects in refinery applications and wish to point out problems created by this discretionary permit process. Situation #1 Scheduled maintenance on environmental abatement devices could be delayed if Land Use Permits or Public Safety Agreements are not obtained in a timely matter. Should this delay create operational risks, a responsible operator will have to shut down the device and possibly all other affected units until the permit or agreement is obtained. Situation #2 Even where a Land Use Permit for a scheduled turnaround is issued in a timely manner,there still exists substantial potential for extended delays. Scheduled maintenance and turnarounds typically last from 15 to 60 days and cost many millions of dollars. During initial inspection of a unit following shutdown, it is common to identify additional maintenance work that needs to be undertaken that is not within the initial scope of work. Although the Land Use Permit obtained will authorize the original scope of work,there are no provisions allowing changes to this scope. Thus, a new permit or amendments to the original permit would be required. This would result in extended delays in maintaining and restarting the unit. Smith la.Doc e ZI Situation #3 When equipment is shut down for scheduled maintenance that is exempt from the Land Use Ordinance because it is under$1,000,000, again it may be common to identify additional work that could push the cost above $1,000,000 and thus require a Land Use Ordinance or Public Safety Agreement before work could continue. These delays could extend the normal shutdown of 15 to 60 days by 4 to 12+months in order to draft an application and obtain a Land Use Permit. These delays, as cited above, could cause one or more of the following adverse environmental impacts: 1. Many units normally process what are known as `residuals' (the heavier parts of the barrel of crude oil). If the maintenance work is delayed, the storage available for the residuals would be insufficient and it would be necessary to sell and transport the excess. Transportation could be by ship, rail,truck or pipeline. Any of these options may significantly increase transportation risks and environmental hazards. 2. Some units are both process units and permitted Hazardous Waste Incinerators such as CO Boilers. Any significant delay in restarting these units would result in the transportation of hazardous waste for off-site disposal with commensurate transportation hazards. 3. Some units generate low BTU gas which is burned as fuel at the facility. For every million BTU's of this gas that is burned, 0.05 pounds of oxides of nitrogen(NOx) is generated and released to the atmosphere. The alternate fuels, refinery fuel gas or natural gas, can produce approximately 2-4 times the amount of NOx Thus, delays in restarting units that produce low BTU gas units can cause an increase in NOx emissions. 4. The delay in the restart of an acid regeneration facility would force the transport of spent acid via truck or rail to other facilities as far away as Southern California and could increase risks to the environment. 5. A shortage of California reformulated gasolines may result should critical units be shut down awaiting land use permits. This could result in an operating variance, issued by the California Air Resources Board, allowing production of non-reformulated gasoline. This would increase automobile emissions and could result in increased gasoline prices. 2 Smith_1 a.Doc 00000 Situation#4 Many of the operating units in an industrial facility depend on the use of catalyst. Catalyst is a material that causes a chemical reaction to occur when other materials pass over it. In some cases when heavy fuel comes into contact -with a catalyst, gasoline is produced. In other instances, where high sulfur feed is processed over a catalyst, the catalyst cleans up the stream to reduce sulfur concentrations significantly. Many times catalysts are used to control environmental emissions. A common example is SCR catalyst which converts NOx emissions in the exhaust gases from furnaces and boilers into nitrogen and oxygen. Catalyst in sulfur plants converts hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur which is then sold as a byproduct. Catalyst changes are typically undertaken at turnarounds or scheduled maintenance of their associated plants. If the turnaround or scheduled maintenance costs more than $1 MM, it will require a Land Use Permit. A delay in replacing catalysts during the scheduled maintenance could cause the following adverse environmental impacts: 1. If the catalyst is a unit that regenerates spent sulfuric acid, a delay in the replacement of the catalyst would force the off-site transport of spent acid via truck or rail increasing transportation risks. 2. If the catalyst is in a unit that performs an environmental function, such as a sulfur recovery unit (SRU), a delay in the replacement of the catalyst, would require a shut down of all units generating feeds to the SRU. In turn, a variance would be obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to allow the unit continue operation until the Land Use Permits or Public Safety Agreement could be obtained and maintenance work completed. During this period of delay, there would be significantly increased emissions which could be tons of sulfur dioxide emissions per day. 3. If the catalyst is in a unit that produces components of CARB gasoline or CARB diesel, the unit would be shutdown resulting in shortages of cleaner fuels. Situation #5 The use of a score of 60 as a trigger to require a Land Use Permit for a new project could cause long delays in implementation of very small projects. Many of these projects are installed to reduce potential safety risks or environmental impacts. Listed below are specific examples of projects that would appear to have a score of 60 or more: 1. The installation of an ammonia tank to be used in a project to reduce emissions of NOx from a fired boiler or furnace. 2. The installation of a new catalyst bed for reduction of NOx. 3 Smith_1 a.Doc 00000 3. The installation of small pieces of equipment to reduce the risk found in a safety study of an operating unit known as a Process Hazards Analysis (PHA). 4. The installation of new equipment to reduce the risk of a failure of a piece of equipment as identified in an incident investigation following a fire or explosion. In each case, if a permit or agreement had been required,the project and the resulting benefits to the environment would have been delayed. California Environmental Quality Act. This adoption of the Ordinance should not be exempt from CEQA. Attached is an analysis of the possible impacts of this ordinance and its applicability under CEQA, as prepared for me by an attorney. I am the Operations Manager of Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California. I have worked over 16 years in the petrochemical industries and am a registered Professional Engineer in California. I authored and developed Eichleay's PRISM Program for Process Responsibility In Safety Management. In this capacity, I manage Eichleay's Risk Management services which include clients in the Bay Area, domestically and abroad. I have acted in the capacity of design engineer, project engineer and project manager for numerous heavy industrial projects. I am the past chair of the Western Council of Construction Consumers (WCCC)taskforce for Best Project Practices. I am the current Chairman for the Industry Taskforce of the Contra Costa Council (CCC) and a current member of the Construction Industry Institute's (CII) Planning for Startup committee. Sincerely, ohn M. Sakamoto, P.E. anager, Industrial Operations Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California Attachment: An Analysis of the Applicability of CEQA to the Proposed Smith Ordinance by the Coalition For Jobs and Community Safety 4 Smith_la.Doc Analysis of the Applicability of CEQA to the Proposed Amendments to Ordinance 96-20 The proposed Ordinance as introduced at the CCC Board of Supervisors meeting on November 12, 1996 should not be exempt from CEQA. The Class 8 exemption cited by the staff appears to be inapplicable on its face. It is defined in Section 15308 of the Guidelines as: . . . actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance,to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environment degradation are not included in this exemption. (Emphasis added). The County is not a regulatory agency, nor is it here taking action authorized by state law to protect the environment. Instead, it is purportedly exercising its police power to enact and enforce land use regulations,the source of which is Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution. The possibility that conditions intended to protect the environment may be attached to the land use permits to be issued pursuant to the Ordinance is not sufficient to trigger the exemption. If this were the case, all zoning ordinances and general plan amendments would be exempt from CEQA under this exemption. In McQueen v. Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1148, the court reaffirmed that categorical exemptions are to be strictly construed and may not be unreasonably expanded beyond their terms. The County's reliance on this categorical exemption for the proposed action expands the exemption far beyond its reasonable scope. In any event, even if the exemption were intended to apply to this type of activity, it should not be applied here because there is a reasonable possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Wildlife Alive v. Chickering(1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206. The action being contemplated by the Board arguably has the potential for significant environmental impacts, both favorable and unfavorable. In such circumstances, "it is particularly appropriate to apply CEQA which is carefully conceived for the purpose of increasing the likelihood that the environmental effects will be beneficial rather than adverse." Id. In particular, establish a reasonable possibility of potential significant environmental impacts that need to be evaluated. 1 HACCCWNALYSIS.DOC 9-Dec-96 Analysis of the Applicability...(con't) In summary, the evidence (including the letter from CalEPA and Air Resources Board, dated October 1, 1996,the testimony at prior hearings, and the letter from Mr. Sakamoto) shows that the process established by the Ordinance gives rise to a reasonable possibility of any or all of the following consequences: more frequent major failures at refineries; delays that likely will lead to increased transport of materials, including hydrocarbons and hazardous materials, off site; increased off-site disposal of hazardous waste; increased emissions of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide; off-site transport of spent acid; reduced production of reformulated gasoline; and delays in installations designed to reduce potential safety risks or environmental impacts. All of these could result in increased environmental impacts or delayed reductions in existing impacts that could be detrimental to the environment and public health and safety. The impacts could include increased air pollution and increased risks of release of hazardous and other harmful materials to the environment due to accidents occurring during transportation as well as impacts related to offsite disposal of various materials. Additionally,the cumulative impacts of these occurrences and events could be significant and, for that reason alone, the Board should not rely on the categorical exemption. See Guidelines, section 15300.2(b). 2 H:\CCC\ANALYSIS.DOC 9-Dec-96 FINDINGS RE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM CEQA (Guidelines § 15308) The Board finds that the adoption of the ordinance is an action to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, that the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment, and that no substantial evidence was presented that there is any reasonable possibility that adoption of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. a. Some speakers speculated that a facility might defer scheduled major maintenance in order to delay compliance with the ordinance and that such deferral would lead to equipment failure resulting in release of dangerous materials or explosions, which could have an adverse environmental impact. The possibility of such an impact occurring is not reasonable for the following reasons. (1) Substantial evidence shows that facilities would not defer major maintenance to the point of equipment failure in .order to avoid compliance with the ordinance. This evidence was presented through oral testimony and through written comments, including a written comment which was supported by numerous references to industry publications. (2) Facilities have ample lead time to comply with the ordinance, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Notwithstanding the potential application of this ordinance, major maintenance already is scheduled as far in advance as possible in order to minimize the time that equipment is shut down. A facility must coordinate plant operations so that it can operate as much of its remaining equipment as possible and maintain as much production as possible during the major maintenance. A facility must also undertake the engineering, order new equipment, parts and supplies and obtain bids from reliable contractors prior to beginning the major maintenance. It is normal for a facility to utilize substantially more than a year to plan and prepare for a major maintenance project. (3) Equipment failure as a result of an accident is costly to an industrial facility because it takes the equipment out of production and can sometimes cause an entire plant to shut down for repairs, taking the entire plant out of production. It would not be economically rational for a facility to defer major maintenance and risk equipment failure simply to delay complying with this ordinance by a few weeks ;or a few months. In particular, it would not be economically rational for a facility to complete all the other advance planning matters in order to proceed with a major maintenance project yet not apply for a permit from the County. (4) There are only three facilities at the present time which are potentially subject to the permitting requirements for major maintenance work based on their accident records. These are the Shell Refinery, the Tosco Refinery, and the Unocal Refinery. Each of these facilities is experienced in permitting requirements and understands the lead time necessary for permitting requirements. Each of these refineries represents an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. _ It is not reasonable to believe that these facilities would risk any substantial portion of that investment by undertaking all the other advance planning required for a major maintenance project but fail to apply for a needed permit in a timely manner. Arguments which have been made that delays would be caused by the permitting requirements of this ordinance which are based on the idea that facilities cannot undertake normal advance planning for permit requirements are not credible. (5) The argument has been made that there might be delays because the need for additional work might be discovered during the course of permitted work, and that a new permit would be required, causing delays. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of the ordinance. Nothing in the ordinance prevents the County from including within its permits authorization for work discovered during the course of major maintenance. (6) The further argument has been made that during the course of exempt maintenance work the need for additional work would be discovered pushing the total costs of the project over $1 Million, thus causing a delay while permits were applied for. This argument is also based on a misunderstanding of the ordinance since additional work which was genuinely unforeseen could also be exempt under the provisions exempting repairs needed because of emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. 2 (7) The testimony on this subject from industry representatives has not been consistent. A representative of a major industry coalition, the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety, testified that none of the Coalition members would defer major maintenance in order to avoid the permitting requirements of the ordinance. That same representative stated that he could not identify any particular facility which would engage in that type of deferral. The Coalition includes the Shell Refinery in Martinez and the Tosco Refinery in Avon. (8) In light of the absence of supporting evidence or analysis and in light of the inconsistent testimony from industry witnesses, the Board finds that the statements suggesting that facilities would defer permit compliance and risk significant accidents are not credible, constitute only argument and speculation, and are not substantial evidence. b. The Board also received a letter from the Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board, dated October 1 , 1996. That letter raised two concerns. First, it expressed concern that the ordinance would delay the ability of refineries to make emergency repairs which could affect the supply of gasoline. Second, the letter expressed concern about delays in routine maintenance projects. , These concerns are unfounded because the ordinance exempts emergency repairs from permitting requirements and because the ordinance does not apply to routine maintenance. C. The Board received a letter dated September 27, 1996 from the Chairman of the California Energy Commission. That letter expressed concern that the permitting requirements of the ordinance could delay the return to service of refinery facilities in the event of an unscheduled outage. That concern is unfounded. because the ordinance contains an exemption from its permitting requirements for emergency repairs; and, therefore, its permitting requirements will not cause delays in getting refinery facilities back into production in the event of an unscheduled outage. d. The Board received a second letter from the Chairman of the Energy Commission requesting revisions to the ordinance. All of the requested revisions have been incorporated into the ordinance. 3 e. No substantial evidence was presented suggesting that there is a reasonable possibility that adoption of the ordinance could cause any other possible significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances. 4 TRANSCRIPTS OF TAPE-RECORDED PROCEEDINGS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING ON REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1996 MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 1996 MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 1996 MEETING OF DECEMBER 23, 1996 1 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �I RECEIVE® ORIGINAL 3 BOARD CHAMBERS DEC 0 1996 4 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 5 CLFR CONTRA OCOSTA CO.ISORS - -000- - 6 7 IN RE : ITEM 19 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ) LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT ) 8 PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS ) WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ) 9 10 11 RECEIVED 12 Novi 13 GDW P • 14 REPORTER' S TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE-RECORDED PROCEEDINGS 15 MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5 , 1996 16 17 18 PRESENT : 19 HYMAN WONG, Chairman .� JOHN HANECAK, Vice Chairman s.y, 20 RICHARD CLARK, Commissioner f CARMEN GADDIS, Commissioner 21 KELLY LUNCHEON, Commissioner JOANN PAVLINEC, Commissioner 22 MARVIN TERRELL, Commissioner 23 24 • 25 Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoReIIa 1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 5 , 1996 • 2 3 CHAIRMAN WONG: Commissioner Gaddis . 4 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : As you all know - - can you 5 hear me? 6 As all the Commissioners are aware , we have 19 7 items on the agenda . And as you all recall , when we 8 heard the agenda previously there was only 18 items and 9 we were not able to hear all the items and we had to 10 continue some , okay? 11 We have one additional item, that ' s Item 19 . I 12 personally feel that we will not be able to hear that 13 item - - thank you . 14 I would like to make a motion to continue Item 19 15 till another date , either 11/19 or 11/26 . There are a 16 lot of people here, there are a lot of people that are 17 going to be talking. I don' t know which items they' re 18 here for, but I ' m sure the majority are here to listen 19 to Item 19 . 20 I do not think that it is fair to the citizens to 21 sit here to either 10 : 00 or 11 : 00 o' clock and for us to 22 decide at that time to continue it . So I feel that we 23 should continue that item. 24 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr. Chairman, I ' d second • 25 the motion, but what I ' d like for you to do, if you LLRqEtP0RT=INGS1E'RV10E, Certified Shorthand Reporters mdoeUa 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 would, so we have kind of a rule, is to find out how 2 many people we have tonight who are going to be speaking 3 on our Items 2 through 18 . 4 Maybe , Mr . Chairman, if you just have them raise 5 their hands , we can get an idea of - - 6 CHAIRMAN WONG: Well , it might be better to find 7 out how many are going to speak on the last item. 8 Could I have a showing of hands in terms of the 9 number of people who might be wanting to speak on the 10 hazardous materials proposed amendments . Oh, all right . 11 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Mr. Chairman? 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Clark . 13 COMMISSIONER CLARK : I think Commissioner • 14 Terrell ' s point is how many are here to speak on - - 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Right . 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK: - - 2 through 18 so we know 17 what the probability is of getting to 19 . 18 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Right , that ' s - - thank 19 you . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : How about a showing of hands of 21 people here to speak on Items 2 to 18 , would you raise 22 your hands . About the same number. 23 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Mr . Chair? 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : Carmen - - Commissioner Gaddis . • 25 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I feel that I will continue Certified Shorthand Reporters �ialadolteIla 3 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPO nNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 with my motion . I have a second . 2 MS . CHAMBERLAIN: If I can clarify, the dates 3 that Commissioner Gaddis has pointed out , November 19th 4 is the evening meeting for the Board of Supervisors . 5 The next regularly scheduled meeting for the County 6 Planning Commission is November 26th - - 7 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : That ' s fine with me . 8 MS . CHAMBERLAIN: - - which is the Tuesday before 9 Thanksgiving . 10 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : November 26th is fine . 11 MR . If I could also - - this is hearsay 12 to myself, Dennis Barry isn' t here , he' s at the Board 13 meeting next door . 14 It is my understanding that the Board directed 15 the Commission to try to deal with the hazardous waste 16 ordinance tonight , just for your information . That 17 doesn' t affect necessarily the motion, but I did want 18 that information in the record. It is hearsay to me . 19 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Okay. I appreciate what 20 you' ve just said, what you' ve just stated. But sitting 21 in the room on the other side while the Board was 22 discussing the hazardous issue, they themselves 23 discussed amendments that I feel the Planning Commission 24 should read in writing. t25 So I still would like to move forward with my Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandonella 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 motion . 2 CHAIRMAN WONG: Now, you wanted to continue it on 3 November the - - 4 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : 26th. 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : - - 26th. 6 MR . Is that acceptable to the seconder? 7 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yes . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. All those in favor of that 9 motion say aye . 10 (Ayes . ) 11 CHAIRMAN WONG: Those opposed? Your motion 12 carries . 13 - -000- - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • 25 Z,, Certified Shorthand Reporters andol adIa 5 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss . 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 3 I , JOHN A. ZANDONELLA, do hereby certify: 4 That I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 5 State of California, License No . C-795 ; 6 That the foregoing pages are a true and correct 7 transcript of the tape-recorded proceedings before the 8 Contra Costa County Planning Commission, County 9 Building, Board Chambers , Martinez , California, except 10 as noted "unintelligible" or " inaudible . " 11 I further certify that I am not interested in the 12 outcome of said matter nor connected with or related to 13 any of the parties of said matter or to their respective 14 counsel . 15 Dated this 8th day of November, 1996 . 16 17 - -000- - 18 19 20 21 22 JOH AND EL License No . C-795 23 24 • 25 Certified Shorthand Reporters .liBItdoILeIIa 6 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ f- -- Contra FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ' � DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ Costa County DATE: DECEMBER 30, 1996 SUBJECT: COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REFERRAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 84-63 (LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND/OR HAZARDOUS WASTES) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACCEPT public testimony as may be offered; and 2. CLOSE the public hearing; and 3. DETERMINE action to be taken. Possible alternatives include-the following: a. TAKE NO ACTION at this time. b. DIRECT further review of the matter as the Board may desire. C. ADOPT the Ordinance previously introduced and AFFIRM prior direction to staff to file a Notice of Exemption (Class 8) with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT Unknown. Threatened litigation could have considerable costs. Applications subject to the review requirements imposed will be subject to fees designed to cover these costs. Potential loss of property tax revenues depending on future annexation decisions of industrial properties CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE ACTION OF BOARD ON December 30, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x This matter was continued from December 17, 1996. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented a report on the December 23, 1996, meeting of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission. Following presentation of testimony (see Addendum List of Speakers attached), the hearing was CLOSED, and the Board APPROVED the actions listed in alternative 3c above, ADOPTED Ordinance No. 96-50, and ADOPTED Findings Re Categorical Exemption From CEQA (Guidelines 5 15308) (Exhibit B attached). VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYESajii.II NOES: IV AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: none ABSTAIN:_ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Dennis M. Barry (510/335-1210) ATTESTED December 30; 1996 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel D CO7_�Y' ADMINISTRATOR GMEDA Health Services Director BY , DEPUTY DMB\gms plMo\haz12-30.Rpt 'CPC Recommendations Regarding the Board of Supervisors Referral of Modifications to Chapter 84-63 (LUPs for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Materials And/or Hazardous Wastes) Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On December 23, 1996, after taking testimony, the County Planning Commission by unanimous vote directed staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 1996. The resolution is to advise the Board of Supervisors that the Planning Commission believes it has not had a reasonable time to evaluate the complex effects of the proposed amendments to Ordinance 96-20 and will strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to take no action relative to these amendments. The Commission also directed that the resolution contain the chronology of referrals from the Board on this matter. ADDENDUM LIST OF SPEAKERS FOR ITEM D. 1 DECEMBER 30, 1996 The following persons presented testimony: Tom Butt, 235 E. Scenic, Richmond; Doyle Williams, 1030 Shary Court, Concord, representing the Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 342 ; Sanford Skaggs, Box V, Walnut Creek, representing the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety; Blair Gast, 4530 Alhambra Way, Martinez; Denny Larson, 500 Howard Street, #506, San Francisco, representing Communities for a Better Environment; Ronald E. Van Buskirk, Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, 235 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, representing Tosco Corporation; Anne Bouguenner, 2825 Parkway Drive, Martinez; Craig Andersen, Anderson and Bonnefield, Box 5926, Concord, representing California Contractors' Alliance; Daniel Cardozo, 651 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, representing the Contra Costa Building Trades Council; Greg Feere, 935 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, representing the Contra Costa Building and Trades Council; Scott Folwarkow, 2300 Clayton Road, Concord, representing Western States Petroleum Association; Brian Harkins, 2850 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point, representing Criterion Catalysts; Karen Hall, 1050 Birch Court, Fairfield; Tom Lindemuth, 501 Daisy Place, Pleasant Hill, representing the Hazardous Materials Commission; Tom Reid, 560 Waverly Street, Palo Alto, representing the Contra Costa Building Trades Council; Gary W. Craft, 3650 Mt . Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, representing the Contra Costa Council; Jim Payne, 1021 Grandview Avenue, Martinez, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers; Don Gosney, 929 Lassen Street, Richmond; John Sakamoto, 3096 Bernard Avenue, San Ramon, representing Eichleay Engineers, Inc . ; John Dalrymple, 525 Green, Martinez, representing the Central Labor Council; Tom Adams, 651 Gateway Boulevard, #900, South San Francisco, representing the Contra Costa Building Trades Council; Larry Estes, 5295 Laurel Drive, Concord; Donald B. Brown, 1801 Sonoma Boulevard, #117, Vallejo. FINDINGS RE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM CEQA (Guidelines § 15308) The Board finds that the adoption of. the ordinance is an action to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment, that the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment, and that no substantial evidence was presented that there is any reasonable possibility that adoption of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. a. Some speakers speculated that a facility might defer scheduled major maintenance in order to delay compliance with the ordinance and that such deferral would lead to equipment failure .resulting in release of dangerous materials or explosions, which could have an adverse environmental impact. The possibility of such an impact occurring is not reasonable for the following reasons. (1) Substantial evidence shows that facilities would not defer major maintenance to the point of equipment failure in .order to avoid compliance with the ordinance. This evidence was presented through oral testimony and through written comments, including a written comment which was supported by numerous references to industry publications. (2) Facilities have ample lead time to comply with the ordinance, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Notwithstanding the potential application of this ordinance, major maintenance already is scheduled as far in advance as possible in order to minimize the time that equipment is shut down. A facility must coordinate plant operations so that it can operate as much of its remaining equipment as possible and maintain as much. production as possible during the major maintenance. A facility must also undertake the engineering, order new equipment, parts and supplies and obtain bids from reliable contractors prior to beginning the major maintenance. It is normal for a facility to utilize substantially more than a year to plan and prepare for a major maintenance project. (3) Equipment failure as a result of an accident is costly to an industrial facility because it takes the equipment out of production and can sometimes cause an entire plant to shut down for repairs, 1 'EK�i,'HNT 0 taking the entire plant out of production. It would not be economically rational for a facility to defer major maintenance and risk equipment failure simply to delay complying with this ordinance by a few weeks or a few months. In particular, it would not be economically rational for a facility to complete all the other advance planning matters in order to proceed with a major maintenance project yet not apply for a permit_ from the County. (4) There are only three facilities at the present time which are potentially subject to the permitting requirements for major maintenance work based on their accident records. These are the Shell Refinery, the Tosco Refinery, and the Unocal Refinery. Each of these facilities is experienced in permitting requirements and understands the lead time necessary for permitting requirements. Each of these refineries represents an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. . It is not reasonable to believe that these facilities would risk any substantial portion of that investment by undertaking all the other advance planning required for a major maintenance project but fail to apply for a needed permit in a timely manner. Arguments which have been made that delays would be caused by the permitting requirements of this ordinance which are based on the idea that facilities cannot undertake normal advance planning for permit requirements are not credible. (5) The argument has been made that there might be delays because the need for additional work might be discovered during the course of permitted work, and that a new permit would be required, causing delays. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of the ordinance. Nothing in the ordinance prevents the County from including within its permits authorization for work discovered during the course of major maintenance. (6) The further argument has been made that during the course of exempt maintenance work the need for additional work would be discovered pushing the total costs of the project over $1 Million, thus causing a delay while permits were applied for. This argument is also based on a misunderstanding of the ordinance since additional work which was genuinely unforeseen could also be exempt under the provisions exempting repairs needed because of emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. 2 D ` �� (7) The testimony on this subject from industry representatives has not been consistent. A representative of a major industry coalition, the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety, testified that none of the Coalition members would defer major maintenance in order to avoid the permitting requirements of the ordinance. That same representative stated that he could not identify any particular facility which would engage in that type of deferral. The Coalition includes the Shell Refinery in Martinez and the Tosco Refinery in Avon. (8) In light of the absence of supporting evidence or analysis and in light of the inconsistent testimony from industry witnesses, the Board finds that the statements suggesting that facilities would defer permit compliance and risk significant accidents are not credible, constitute only argument and speculation, and are not substantial evidence. b. The Board also received a letter from the Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board, dated October 1, . 1996. That letter raised two concerns. First, it expressed concern that the ordinance would delay the ability of refineries to make emergency repairs which could affect the supply of gasoline. Second, the letter expressed concern about delays in routine maintenance projects. These concerns are unfounded because the ordinance exempts emergency repairs from permitting requirements and because the ordinance does not apply to routine maintenance. C. The Board received a letter dated September 27, 1996 from the Chairman of the California Energy Commission. That letter expressed concern that the permitting requirements of the ordinance could delay the return to service of refinery facilities in the event of an unscheduled outage. That concern is unfounded because the ordinance contains an exemption from its permitting requirements for emergency repairs; and, therefore, its permitting requirements will not cause delays in getting refinery facilities back into production in the event of an unscheduled outage. d. The Board received a second letter from the Chairman of the Energy Commission requesting revisions to the ordinance. All of the requested revisions have been incorporated into the ordinance. 3 l • L e e. No substantial evidence was presented suggesting that there is a reasonable possibility that adoption of the ordinance could cause any other possible significant. environmental impact due to unusual circumstances. 4 1 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3 I DEC 0 1996 I BOARD CHAMBERS 4 MARTINEZ , CALIFORNIA -CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA_ CO. 5 - -000- - 6 -000- - 6 7 IN RE : ITEM 2 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ) ON ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ) 8 LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT ) PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS ) 9 WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ) 10 ORIGINAL 11 12 13 REPORTER' S TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE-RECORDED PROCEEDINGS 14 MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26 , 1996 15 16 17 18 PRESENT : 19 HYMAN WONG, Chairman 20 JOHN HANECAK, Vice Chairman RICHARD CLARK, Commissioner 21 CARMEN GADDIS , Commissioner KELLY LUNCHEON, Commissioner 22 JOANN PAVLINEC, Commissioner MARVIN TERRELL, Commissioner 23 24 25 Z,, Certified Shorthand Reporters alldo dick 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 It (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 26 , 1996 2 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : We ' ll move on, Mr . Barry, to Item 4 Number 2 . 5 MR . BARRY : Mr . Chairman, members of the 6 Commission, Item Number 2 is a continued public hearing 7 on ordinance text amendment , land use permits for 8 development projects involving hazardous waste or 9 hazardous materials . This is Count File ZT 3 - 96 . 10 This is a referral from the Board of Supervisors 11 to consider an ordinance which would repeal Chapter 12 84 -63 and add a new Chapter 84-63 which requires land 13 use permits for certain projects involving hazardous 14 waste or hazardous materials . 15 The proposed ordinance sets forth criteria for 16 requiring land use permits which gives greater emphasis 17 to factors involving potential health and safety risks . 18 It adds regulation regarding major maintenance projects 19 for these industries and provides for public safety 20 agreements . 21 The ordinance would apply throughout the 22 unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. 23 This is continued as a public hearing from your 24 November 5th, 1996 meeting . 25 As I ' ve indicated to you in a memorandum dated Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaltdoia6II8 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I November 19th, the Board of Supervisors has directed • 2 your Commission to report your recommendations within 40 3 days . The copies were sent to you individually by 4 certified mail . And we' ve included the correspondence 5 on your Commission' s calendar this evening as well . 6 The Board of Supervisors on November 12th 7 introduced for first reading the attached draft 8 ordinance which is included in your packet . 9 In general , there are minor changes to this from 10 the version that you' ve seen before and which you have 11 considered and heard testimony on . 12 In general , on page 5 , there are additions to the 13 definition of serious incident , paragraphs numbered 5 , 6 • 14 and 7 , which add a little bit of detail to the 15 definition of serious incident . 16 In addition, on page 8 under Section 84-63 . 602 in 17 the applicability section, the Board has determined that 18 this ordinance would apply in any nonagricultural zoning 19 district . So obviously then it would not apply in the 20 agricultural zoning districts . 21 There were some minor modifications to some of 22 the exemptions that were included, and I won' t go over 23 those in great detail . The draft that you have before 24 you is , as I said, as it was introduced by the Board . 25 And all of the changes that they have considered are now Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBIadOIa6jl8 3 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 before your Commission in this draft and the previous 2 drafts that you' ve seen . 3 We ' re recommending that you take whatever public 4 testimony is offered this evening and that you then 5 forward your recommendations to the Board of 6 Supervisors . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Thank you, Mr . Barry. 8 Before - - any questions of Mr . Barry by the 9 Commissioners , any at all? All right . 10 Before we begin, I need to make one 11 clarification . Is the gentleman by the name of Zane 0 . 12 Gresham here tonight? Sir, are you for or do you oppose 13 the amendment to the ordinance? 14 MR . GRESHAM : Oppose . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Ladies and gentlemen, 16 we ' ll begin the public testimony . The first speaker 17 will be Jeff Smith, followed by Doyle Williams , followed 18 by Donald Brown . 19 Gentlemen, please begin by giving your name and 20 address for the record, if you will . 21 MR. SMITH : Good evening . (Microphone not 22 functioning properly. ) Good evening . My name is Jeff 23 Smith . And I ' m speaking as an individual citizen 24 (unintelligible) representative on the Board of 25 Supervisors , District 2 . Certified Shorthand Reporters mudoraoIIa 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTII�TG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 I want to encourage the Commission tonight to • 2 look at this ordinance carefully and make a decision . 3 This has been a long process . We ' ve been talking about 4 this ordinance and an earlier ordinance since April . 5 We ' ve had a total of more than 29 public meetings 6 talking about this ordinance . It ' s been changed, many, 7 many times . 8 It ' s very important that a recommendation come 9 forward on this from the Commission to the Board of 10 Supervisors , (unintelligible) we will be acting on that 11 recommendation on the 2nd of December . 12 If you don' t make a recommendation, that puts the 13 County at a great legal liability . And I think that you 14 and I both, certainly as representatives of our 15 constituents, are very interested in making sure that 16 our constituents are served and that the lawyers are not 17 served (unintelligible) this to put the County at risk 18 for a lawsuit . 19 I think that to not act tonight and not send a 20 message to the Board either pro or con would put us at 21 great risk . The Board is very clear we are anxious to 22 move along with this ordinance . There ' s been 29 public 23 hearings , as I mentioned . It ' s time for us to make a 24 decision . And I hope that you will either vote yes or 25 no, but send a message to the Board of Supervisors . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaltaoItelIa 5 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Thank you very much . If you have any questions , 2 I ' ll be happy to answer them. 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 4 Thank you, Mr . Smith. 5 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : I have a question . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Oh, Carmen . 7 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Mr . Smith, can you tell me 8 how - - what kind of public liability the County will be 9 at? 10 MR . SMITH : Well , we ' ve been threatened numerous 11 times by opponents of this ordinance in terms of 12 litigation . And Mr . Gresham and Mr . Skaggs represent 13 the opponents of this litigation, that made it clear 14 that (unintelligible) . 15 If the Commission does not respond to the Board 16 and make a recommendation either pro or con before the 17 Board' s next action, that puts us at great legal 18 liability. That means that when the Board takes final 19 action, we will end up in court and the action or 20 inaction of the Commission will be the subject of 21 discussion in court . 22 I don' t think that ' s appropriate . I think that 23 we should not have a discussion in court about 24 procedure . What we need to have is discussion about i25 settlement of the ordinance . Is it a good ordinance or Certified Shorthand Reporters =R�:T:l eIIa 6 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 [R�:EICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 a bad ordinance (unintelligible) . And so that ' s why if 2 you refuse to act or postpone this , then you' ll put the 3 County at grave legal liability . 4 And I just want to make sure that you all 5 individually know that , because if there was litigation 6 and there was evidence of willful delay on your part you 7 legally would be responsible for that . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you, Mr . Smith . Any other 9 questions of the speaker? 10 ( Interruption from audience . ) 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Ladies and gentlemen, let ' s 12 have - - let ' s have some decorum now. 13 Any other questions of the speaker, please? 14 Thank you, Mr . Smith . 15 MR. SMITH : Thank you very much . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker, Doyle Williams . 17 MR . WILLIAMS : (Microphone .not functioning . ) 18 Thank you, Mr . Chair and the Planning Commission . I ' m 19 Doyle Williams . I ' m (unintelligible) . 20 We have been pushing this ordinance much to the 21 (unintelligible) Board of Supervisors (unintelligible) 22 work from the people, (unintelligile) additional jobs 23 and (unintelligible) . 24 We had 29 unions before the Board of Supervisors 25 on this , and I ' d like to give this to you . Certified Shorthand Reporters :liBltdoIteIIa 7 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPOR*nNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 I can see the delay, delay and delay on this 2 (unintelligible) Board of Supervisors on June 18th, June 3 19th, June 25th, July 15th, July 17 , July 25th, July 4 29th, August 21st , August 22nd, August 29th, September 5 17th, September 18th, September 19th, September 24th, 6 September 25th, October 1st , October 7th, October 10th, 7 October 13th (unintelligible) , October 16th, October 8 22nd, October 29th, November 5th (unintelligible) Board 9 of Supervisors , November 12th, November 20th and 10 November 25th . 11 Now, for this to be a rush to judgment 12 (unintelligible) . It ' s up to your Commission 13 (unintelligible) . I would recommend that 14 (unintelligible) . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 16 Thank you, Mr . Williams . 17 Next speaker, Donald Brown . 18 MR . BROWN: (Microphone not functioning . ) Donald 19 Brown, 1801 Sonoma Boulevard, Number 117 , Vallejo, 20 California . Good evening . 21 It ' s a privilege to here . I ' ve been in front of 22 you before (unintelligible) being put into place for 23 (unintelligible) . 24 I first got involved in this when I was working 25 for Unocal refinery. I ' m still a member of OCAW. I Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandomihk 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORnTiG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 think (unintelligible) good neighbor ordinance . And 2 what we tried to do was put something in place so we 3 could get a better handle on what ' s going to happen in 4 the future . 5 Because as I can tell you in my case , what was 6 already in place didn' t work . And it ' s no different 7 today. We need something like this to be put in place . 8 I see this whole issue turning into a big sham 9 among organized labor, a splitting device this has been 10 called . I don' t care for that because in this 11 particular instance what it ' s going to take is for all 12 organized labor and industry to work on this . 13 I ' ve seen the ads in the newspaper . I don' t care 14 for those ads at all because , one thing, personally from 15 experience , I know half of that stuff is not true . It ' s 16 not true at all . 17 And I ' m waiting for somebody from industry to 18 come up here and say, "Hey, maybe this is not too bad, 19 maybe we can do this , maybe we can meet these 20 requirements . Maybe we can stop these refineries from 21 constantly blowing up . Maybe we can provide 22 state-of-the-art mechanisms , put them in place so that 23 we don' t have to keep coming here and wondering what ' s 24 going to happen every time something blows up . " S25 What I ' m really concerned about though is the Certified Shorthand Reporters Mlmdolmdhk 9 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTTIVG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 split that this has created between organized labor 2 (unintelligible) . 3 One thing I - - another thing that I can tell you, 4 too, since you' ve been on this Commission and I ' ve been 5 coming before you, you' ve seen a lot of changes happen . 6 You' ve seen Unocal getting out of town (unintelligible) . 7 You' ve seen Shell and Texaco, you see all these 8 companies becoming bigger . You look at all the profit 9 margins , you see they' re getting bigger . 10 But who do you see making the sacrifice? It ' s 11 the consumers driving these cars and the people that 12 work in these refineries . 13 I would request that you support the 96-20 14 ordinance in the way it ' s written today. Hopefully 15 Contra Costa County will progress after this . 16 I can' t see us giving up any jobs . I ' m just as 17 concerned about jobs as anybody here . But I don' t like 18 having the subject matter twisted around . 19 And when OCAW goes in for another contract in 20 three years (unintelligible) will be behind them, 21 regardless of what ' s going on, we' re going to have to 22 stand united as organized labor . And industry is going 23 to have to come forth and say, "Hey, there ' s going to 24 have to be a time for a change . Things do have to 25 change . " They can' t remain as they have because Certified Shorthand Reporters T,aItaoIteIIa 10 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 evidently that system is not working . 2 Thank you . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you . Any questions of the 4 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Brown . 5 Next speaker, Headley Davis , followed by Zane 6 Gresham, following by James Seymour . 7 MR. DAVIS : My name is Headley Davis . I live at 8 3205 Saint Ann Court , Antioch . I appreciate and thank 9 you for this (unintelligible) really know what I ' m here 10 for (unintelligible) . I ' d like to give this to the 11 Board (unintelligible) . 12 I ' ve been in this community now for eight years 13 (unintelligible) ladies and gentlemen . And in my time 14 here , I ' ve come here to this meeting one time . And I ' m 15 sorry to say that . I worked out at Shell Oil for 15 16 years and I ' m proud of it . And (unintelligible) 17 refineries in this County. And I ' ll (unintelligible) . 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Davis - - 19 MR . DAVIS : Yes . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Davis , would you please 21 address the Commission, okay? 22 MR. DAVIS : Yes , I will . 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you so much . 24 MR . DAVIS : (Microphone not functioning 25 properly. ) I know Mr . Ryan very personally. I ' ve known Certified Shorthand Reporters itsBltdolteIIa 11 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 him for quite a few years . Me and him have argued 2 (unintelligible) has to do with safety matters . 3 Sometimes he was right . Sometimes I was right . 4 To be honest with you, I ' m just a poor boy from 5 the south and I haven' t got much of an education but 6 (unintelligible) . And this may be politically correct , 7 what they wrote , but the last time I looked 8 (unintelligible) . 9 And I don' t think you appreciate it . And 10 Mr . Terrell , I (unintelligible) any ordinance that I put 11 out . 12 I have to thank Mr . Jeff Smith, he ' s a right 13 person to be a council member, and any member of this 14 Board that I agree with (unintelligible) agree with 15 something . 16 Well , I ' ve got a letter here that states it ' s not 17 only my (unintelligible) but also the union 18 (unintelligible) . Now, I expect it from the Contra 19 Costa Times , but I don' t expect it from John Ryan . I 20 don' t expect it from the other side of the unions that 21 are (unintelligible) . And I don' t appreciate 22 (unintelligible) . I don' t like it one bit . 23 There ' s more important things (unintelligible) . 24 I elected people . And those of you, whether you were 25 elected or appointed, I don' t know which, but you' re Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaiadonoUa 12 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 here to do a job, just like I ' m here to do some work and 2 they tell me go to work, build a refinery, make sure it 3 doesn' t blow up . 4 My kids , my family, my friends in Pacheco , they 5 drive down 680 every day . I ' ve lived in the path of how 6 Unocal leaked for 21 days and finally admitted it . 7 (unintelligible) . I think the big boys went down to 8 Texas and got a raise . The rest of us are left with 9 Tosco (unintelligible) . 10 I understand Texaco may take over the Shell 11 Martinez plant if it can be worked out . I don' t 12 (unintelligible) . I don' t care who does business in 13 Contra Costa County. I don' t care if it ' s a Republican, 14 black, white or if he ' s pink . 15 All I care about is when my kids get up in the 16 morning and walk outside , they got fresh air to breathe . 17 Now, I ' ve dealt with Dow Chemical , I ' ve dealt with 18 DuPont . They lie to the city when the winds blow across 19 Highway 4 and they' ve done a lot . But they came around. 20 They talked to the commission and they joined 21 (unintelligible) and they joined and there' s been a good 22 cleanup . 23 And I ' m not telling you that Shell Oil is going 24 to blow up tomorrow, but I ' m telling you it ' s got the 25 capability. And so hopefully the people that ' s out qq,,,,�� Certified Shorthand Reporters L)Dllikone a 13 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 there will work hard enough so it doesn' t blow up . And 2 hopefully you' ll work hard to make sure - - and I mean 3 this - - your families and your friends are in the same 4 circumstances as mine are . 5 And I don' t know that you' ve blackmailed anybody. 6 And I sure have never accused you of it because I ' m a 7 union man . Every (unintelligible) . It has two years 8 (unintelligible) union blackmail . It doesn' t say 9 (unintelligible) it says union blackmail . 10 Ladies and gentlemen I ' m no lawyer . I ' m sure 11 there ' s plenty of them around . I ' m sure somebody 12 (unintelligible) . But I call this (unintelligible) . 13 But if I ' m going to be (unintelligible) , then you be 14 sure to tell me ahead of time . 15 I (Unintelligible) thinking about it in the 16 future (unintelligible) United States of America and 17 California is part of it and Contra Costa County is part 18 of it . Now, I can' t go to a newspaper and I can' t get 19 my argument printed . I couldn' t come out there and tell 20 somebody else (unintelligible) . No, I can' t tell you 21 that . 22 I can' t tell any one of you people anything . I 23 elected you to tell me . I elected you to make sure , 24 just like Shell does , that every person that comes in 25 that refinery, every company that comes in there , has to ��rr� Certified Shorthand Reporters L ndond 14 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 meet a certain safety criteria . 2 I ' m no Einstine, but I know this . Shell , 3 Chevron, Tosco and Unocal have been having some major 4 problems for quite a while . Now, maybe it ' s just 5 because they keep running the units just a little bit 6 too long to make a little bit more money. I ' ll leave 7 that up to the OCAW people . They' re the other part of 8 my union that apparently is blackmailing somebody in 9 order to make sure that they run the plant right . I 10 don' t go tell an operator how to run the plants . I 11 don' t know how to run it . I don' t tell you what to do 12 either . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Davis , let me interrupt, you 14 for a moment . Would you be so kind as to summarize your 15 feelings , if you will , please , about the amendments to 16 this ordinance . 17 MR. DAVIS : I think you should adopt the 18 amendment as it is (unintelligible) somebody has to 19 watch someone . Shell watches the people that come in . 20 Somebody has got to watch them. Somebody has got to 21 watch Chevron, somebody has got to watch Tosco . And 22 that should be the County government . 23 We elect you . I don' t elect the Board of 24 Supervisors at Shell Oil . They' re called something, I 25 don' t know . Certified Shorthand Reporters �iSItdOIt6�I8 15 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. . 2 MR . DAVIS : That ' s really all I got to say. 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . 4 MR . DAVIS : I don' t appreciate being called a 5 blackmailer . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. 7 MR. DAVIS : And I sure don' t appreciate somebody 8 (unintelligible) put their words in . I saw how Texaco 9 put their words in . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Davis , we thank you . Are 11 there any questions of the speaker at this time? 12 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman? 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 14 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : The speaker keeps on 15 referencing some papers there . Is it something that the 16 Commission should look at or some - - you keep on 17 referencing your papers about being blackmailed or we ' re 18 blackmailed or someone ' s blackmailed . Is that something 19 that the Commission should look at? 20 MR. DAVIS : If you would like to look at this , I 21 have no problem at all with it . It was mailed to me 22 kind of free gratis , I guess . I didn' t solicit it . 23 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , I just noticed you 24 kept on referencing those papers in your - - in your talk 25 and you' re referencing blackmail . Certified Shorthand Reporters ilsSIddoIt6IIa 16 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR . DAVIS : Well , the only thing I can tell you 2 is that it ' s Mr . Anthony, S-E-M-E-N-Z-A, fire chief , 3 Mr . John Ryan, Mr . Morgan Walker, and Mr . Gene 4 Rittenberg are the persons that sent this letter . 5 And in sending this letter to me , they also sent 6 in a little letter for me that was put in the Contra 7 Costa News on November the 8th, 1996 . And they were 8 gracious enough to underline the language that I thought 9 that I could - - I needed to see , which says Supervisors 10 would avoid a court battle and union blackmail by 11 delaying action on the safety measure . 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Davis , I think what we ' ll do, 13 since Commissioner Terrell has some inquiry - - 14 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , yeah, Mr . Chairman, 15 it seems as though one of the Commissioners has received 16 something in the mail that I ' ve never seen before . And 17 since he' s - - I ' m going to read through this - - 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right , fine . 19 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : - - if the speaker doesn' t 20 mind . 21 MR . DAVIS : No, help yourself . 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. Thank you, Mr . Davis . 23 Thank you so much. 24 Next speaker is Zane Gresham, followed by James 25 Seymour. Certified Shorthand Reporters [ERLE�PORMG ndolle la 17 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR . GRESHAM : (Microphone not functioning . ) 2 Mr . Chairman and members of the Planning Commission . My 3 name is Zane Gresham (unintelligible) . 4 Community safety is (unintelligible) . 5 The ordinance which is before you is not 6 (unintelligible) . It is jeopardizing safety. 7 (Unintelligible . ) 8 The big question (unintelligible) . I want to 9 focus on the role of the Planning Commission and 10 (unintelligible) . 11 You were appointed (unintelligible) . 12 (Microphone now seems to be functioning . ) I know 13 each of you takes this responsibility very seriously and 14 will of course take the time to understand these 15 questions and get the answers that you require before 16 taking any action on this matter . 17 on the legal issues , let me address first the 18 question of whether this ordinance can be adopted 19 without conducting appropriate review under the 20 California Environmental Quality Act . 21 You will recognize , of course , that the 22 environmental - - California Environmental Quality Act 23 specifically applies to the adoption or amendment of 24 zoning ordinances . And that is what this particular 25 enactment of the Board of Supervisors purports to be . Zfir,,, i Certified Shorthand Reporters aladond 18 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code specifically 2 so provides . 3 What you have been told, though, is that although 4 virtually every zoning ordinance or amendment must go 5 through review under CEQA, that somehow this amendment 6 is unique and it does not require CEQA review. 7 And staff has pointed you to Section 15308 of the 8 CEQA guidelines of the State . And they have urged that 9 this is the basis for an exemption . 10 Now, I urge you to consider this independently 11 and carefully because that particular exemption does not 12 apply to the adoption of ordinances . It applies to the 13 implementation of rules and regulations once an 14 ordinance or a statute has been adopted. 15 And I think it would be a grave error, and really 16 it would be an unfortunate circumstance if this 17 Commission were to pass an ordinance along without 18 having insisted that appropriate consideration under 19 CEQA was given to it . 20 The second point I would like to make is that 21 this proposed ordinance really does not treat all 22 similarly situated companies or businesses in the same 23 fashion . And it does not promote consistency of 24 planning regulations . 25 By requiring discretionary land use approval for A Certified Shorthand Reporters dW 19 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 G P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 ordinance maintenance , it creates a fundamental and an • 2 improper inconsistency. The true consistency, of 3 course , is assured by the County' s general plan and 4 zoning ordinance , by providing that various uses are 5 either permitted as a right , permitted as conditional 6 use or prohibited. 7 But once a business has received the land use 8 approval to establish its business and conduct its 9 business, they do not require any additional special 10 permission to operate . 11 And that is very important under these 12 circumstances because maintenance activities are 13 inherent and a natural part of the operation of any 14 business . And maintenance activities related to 15 approved uses are not subject to the local land use 16 approval process . 17 In no circumstance , to our knowledge , does the 18 County of Contra Costa or any other city or county in 19 California require discretionary land use permits for 20 the repair, maintenance or replacement of equipment or 21 structures necessary for the continuation of an existing 22 lawful use . 23 And this is only logical . It would be absurd to 24 tell a lawfully established business that it cannot 25 repair or replace business equipment essential for its Certified Shorthand Reporters 7i8U"On""a 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 continued existence without some further discretionary 2 land use approval . 3 This would be tantamount to telling a family that 4 although they had lawfully constructed and lawfully 5 reside in their home , that they cannot repair the roof , 6 replace the heater or air conditioner or fix the 7 plumbing without through a discretionary land use 8 permitting process . 9 For these reasons, the way that this ordinance 10 currently reads would introduce an unlawful and an 11 improper inconsistency in the treatment between various 12 types of businesses . 13 Despite the alleged objective of bringing 14 refineries and other industrial activities closer to the 15 standard of conduct and review for other businesses , the 16 amendments actually establish a totally discriminatory 17 standard of review than that which is applied to any 18 other land use in the - - in the County. 19 Further, the adoption of this ordinance in its 20 current form could violate the vested rights , 21 constitutionally protected rights of the people who have 22 obtained authorization to establish businesses , have 23 invested an enormous amount of money in the community to 24 establish those businesses . 25 The property owner under those circumstances has =R&EPORTING Certified Shorthand Reporters ne la 21 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 ERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 a vested right , constitutionally protected right to 2 maintain the facility. An attempt by the County in this 3 circumstance to impose the kind of burdensome additional 4 land use regulations that are embodied in this ordinance 5 on the continuation of a lawful and previously approved 6 use would violate those rights . 7 I urge you, before you proceed, to seek written 8 legal opinion on the applicability of the vested rights 9 doctrine to these - - to this ordinance and to the rights 10 of the property owners and businesses in this community . 11 If your County Counsel disagrees with our position, then 12 you will be well advised . If he agrees with it , then 13 you will know that it would be unwise to proceed . 14 In addition, the land use ordinance may cause 15 facilities to be obligated to either close or to make 16 the Hobson' s choice of operating without compliance with 17 established State and Federal environmental laws . 18 Federal and State laws , as you know, may require 19 specific action and changes in facilities as part of a 20 larger program such as OSHA' s process safety management 21 program. 22 By imposing a requirement for a - - for a land use 23 permit in order to be able to implement such changes , 24 the operator of a facility could be prevented from 25 complying with Federal or State law which mandates the Certified Shorthand Reporters Z8IadUIa6TT8 22 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 implementation of those particular changes in the 2 facility. 3 And this is made even more probable because of 4 the contentious nature of the County' s land use 5 permitting process , as we certainly have seen in the 6 course of the consideration of this ordinance . 7 In addition, the operator could be prevented from 8 carrying out the mandates of State or Federal law or 9 regulation to make changes for the benefit of the 10 community, for the benefit of safety, because of 11 conditions that may be imposed on the conduct of 12 maintenance activities or other activities at an 13 industrial facility. 14 Further, the ordinance creates a procedural 15 unfairness by discriminating between operators who enter 16 into public safety agreements and operators who go 17 through the normal land use permitting process . 18 In particular, in order to qualify for a public 19 safety agreement , a company must agree to implement what 20 is called, quote , best technology, close quote , a term 21 which I suggest to you is a dangerous term if left 22 undefined. 23 This creates a particular burden on companies 24 that may be thriving to improve their performance and 25 their conditions , but may not at that moment be in a Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIla 23 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 position to afford whatever it is that a member of the • 2 staff or a member of the Board of Supervisors may 3 consider to be best technology. 4 Under those circumstances , it would not qualify 5 for a public safety agreement , but rather would have to 6 go through the full process of obtaining a land use 7 permit . 8 In addition, there are some very serious 9 antitrust issues associated with the - - with the 10 ordinance . And I think that you again need to seek very 11 specific advice on this . 12 As you know, the United States government and the 13 State of California take a very dim view on any kind of 14 signaling or communication of the plans of companies 15 that may be able to influence the market . 16 One of the difficulties that this ordinance 17 creates for the companies , particularly the refineries , 18 is that it requires us to signal by filing an 19 application their intention to conduct a turnaround, 20 which means that they will be out of the market , they 21 will not be able to supply gasoline . 22 And this becomes very important because the 23 relatively small number of refineries that would - - in 24 Northern California have a tremendous impact on the 25 market for gasoline , and particularly the clean fuels . MR"O"'6" 2 4 Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 I think that you need to understand the 2 competitive issues and also the antitrust issues that 3 are associated with putting - - imposing that kind of a 4 requirement on the refineries . 5 Further, because of concerns for maintaining 6 competition and for protecting the competitive position 7 of any particular refinery, the timing, the content of a 8 turnaround is really a very closely guarded secret 9 because it influences the market , it allows others who 10 are competitors to enter into the market when you are 11 out of it , it influences the futures market for 12 gasoline , you can see as soon as one - - one refinery 13 starts to go into turnaround, there could be changes in 14 that market . 15 For all these reasons the timing and content of a 16 turnaround constitute a very important trade secret as 17 defined in California law of a particular company . 18 And this raises some very difficult problems , I 19 think, in trying to implement this ordinance because 20 California law provides protection for trade secrets 21 under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act , under the Evidence 22 Code , the privilege to protect trade secrets from 23 disclosure , and indeed this has been recognized as so 24 important and so valuable that under such laws as the i25 Hazardous Materials Release and Response Plans Law, the Certified Shorthand Reporters MIRdOIRCIIa 25 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Hazardous Substance Account Law, Local Health 2 Emergencies Act and the - - and the State Clean Air Act , 3 there are very specific provisions that provide that the 4 kind of important confidential business information that 5 we' re talking about here is disclosed only - - only to 6 government agencies with an absolute need to know that 7 information in order to be able to provide for public 8 health, safety and welfare . It ' s not publicly 9 available . 10 The difficulty that this ordinance creates is 11 that it requires that information to be spread out 12 publicly. It requires a company to reveal this very 13 closely guarded, very valuable trade secrets . 14 I think that is an issue that you need to seek 15 very clear guidance on as to the manner in which the 16 apparent objective of this ordinance could also be 17 squared with the need to protect the trade . secrets of 18 the regulated community. 19 This is a balance that has been struck, as I ' ve 20 mentioned, in each of these other environmental , health 21 and safety laws . It is completely absent in the 22 ordinance that is before you . 23 And I think before you take any final action on 24 this question, you really need to be advised of how this 25 balance might be struck and be able to make a Certified Shorthand Reporters MI 0116IIa 26 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 recommendation on that should you decide to make a 2 positive recommendation on this ordinance at all . 3 There is a further point , and it ' s one that 4 Mr . Barry mentioned, and that is that the draft that is 5 now before you, which is really significantly different 6 from that which was before you at your previous meeting, 7 has excluded agricultural zones entirely from its 8 coverage . 9 Now, it seems reasonable that the focus should be 10 on safety and on the regulation of facilities that might 11 have some potential to cause difficulties in that 12 regard. 13 The underlying zoning category, it would seem, 14 would have nothing to do with that . To us , this looks 15 like a - - 16 (End of Tape Side A - Beginning of Side B) 17 MR . GRESHAM : . . . which could have a serious 18 community safety implication of processing of 19 agricultural products , depending on the nature of the 20 processing, the kind of materials used, the proximity to 21 residential areas . You certainly could have a concern 22 and should have a concern about the application . 23 Cold storage plants which use various materials 24 in the refrigeration units , substantial and large 25 agricultural cold storage units would use very large Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandoild"I 27 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 F�' TTNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 quantities of potentially hazardous materials . And 2 those in fact should be considered. 3 Fertilizer plants are permitted . A fertilizer 4 plant is nothing more than a chemical plant . It just 5 happens the chemicals that happen to make a fertilizer 6 and indeed the question at least should be asked do they 7 pose a safety hazard? They should be put to the same 8 kind of consideration that any other facility might be . 9 Even hospitals , as - - as you would know, have the 10 potential because of the nature of materials that they 11 handle to impose a health risk . They are also permitted 12 uses in agricultural zones . 13 As well as , interestingly enough, oil and gas 14 drilling and production, including the installation and 15 use of equipment necessary and convenient for drilling 16 and extracting operations . 17 It is hard to understand why those kinds of 18 facilities which are allowable in the agricultural areas 19 should be excluded from an ordinance , the purported 20 objective of which is to provide uniform safety 21 standards throughout the County. 22 Now, I could understand it if what had been 23 excluded were actual agricultural operations of a 24 defined sort , a nursery for example , or a truck farm, 25 things like that that might rationally have been Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 28 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 excluded. But not all of the activities that I ' ve just 2 reviewed with you . And I think that would be a factor 3 that you should take into account and consider 4 seriously . 5 I want to close with this . Supervisor Smith said 6 that since April the Board of Supervisors has had 29 7 public meetings . And his implication then is you should 8 just move it right along because they' re going to vote 9 on December 2nd whether or not they have a 10 recommendation from you . And he went to great lengths 11 to say the County would be at great legal liability if 12 you didn' t act tonight . 13 Now, when he was asked what ' s the source of that • 14 liability, why would the County be liable, you had to 15 listen very carefully, because what he really said was , 16 well , if we don' t get a recommendation from you, we ' re 17 going to go ahead and act on December 2nd . 18 And that ' s what ' s going to put the County at 19 potential risk, not you taking the time to fulfill your 20 independent responsibility and your independent 21 judgment , but Supervisor Smith' s desire to rush this 22 through and to force this issue without giving you the 23 time to inform yourselves and to make good judgments . 24 I want it to be clear that you' re - - you are not 25 the persons who would cause the County to incur any If ri Certified Shorthand Reporters fir,,, udoned 8 29 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 exposure . It would be those who did not wish to follow 2 the legal process , those who did not want to allow you 3 the same time and opportunity to study the issues and 4 understand the issues that the Board has taken since 5 last April . 6 Others will be following me to speak on some of 7 the technical , economical vitality and impact on the 8 community that this ordinance would cause . I thank you 9 very much for your kind attention . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 11 Thank you, Mr . Gresham. 12 MR . GRESHAM : Thank you . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker, James Seymour, 10 14 followed by Leslie Stewart . 15 MR . SEYMOUR : Chairman Wong and members of the 16 Planning Commission, my name is Brook Seymour . I ' m a 17 resident of Benicia but an employee of Shell Oil 18 Martinez Refining Company. 19 I am a maintenance superintendent there and have 20 been in the maintenance business for the last 25 years , 21 10 of which I spent planning, managing and implementing 22 turnarounds . 23 I ' m here tonight to try to describe to you the 24 process that we go through, the rigid process that we go 25 through to plan and implement turnarounds and to try to ZandoIa6�j8 3 0 Certified Shorthand Reporters LK1 it 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 show to you how I do not personally believe that passing 2 this ordinance will in any way improve that process . 3 Let me start by stating that clearly there are 4 already numerous laws that govern our actions in the 5 refining business . As I look out and start to plan a 6 turnaround, the majority of the work is associated with 7 the pressure retaining equipment which is governed by 8 various laws under ASME, the API , the Boiler and 9 Pressure Vessel Codes , Piping Codes and Standards , et 10 cetera . 11 In addition to that , we have numerous standards 12 that we ' re required to follow in terms of process safety 13 management , mechanical integrity . And at the end of a 14 turnaround we ' re required to conduct a pre-startup 15 safety review. 16 I personally believe that all of these various 17 laws , codes and regulations are satisfactory to require 18 us to perform a safe and adequate performance on our 19 turnarounds . 20 Let me describe to you basically the process that 21 we go through to plan a turnaround, so that I can come 22 back and show you how I personally don' t think this 23 ordinance speaks to the concerns it is stated to being 24 adopted for . 25 The planning process for a turnaround really Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaudorad 31 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC.L11 Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 starts with the last turnaround . During that 2 turnaround, you' ve had the opportunity to make 3 observations , record data, and in the best way possible 4 see exactly what is going on inside the equipment . And 5 with this data becomes the basis for the planning 6 process for the next turnaround . 7 The durations are set again by laws . They are 8 also set by experience that we have gained on how the 9 equipment is running in this particular operation . 10 The laws I ' m referring to go back again to API 11 and ASME where our inspection requirements require us to 12 inspect the half life of equipment . For example , if we 13 note that the corrosion of a particular piece of pipe or 14 a particular vessel is corroding at a rate that it 15 should potentially fail in ten years , we are required to 16 inspect it no longer than five years . 17 In addition to that , if the corrosion is almost 18 minimal , we are still required to inspect the equipment 19 on no less than a 10-year interval . 20 Now, this planning process starts about a year in 21 advance of the major turnaround. We get input from all 22 groups , the operating departments that are running the 23 equipment so they can tell us how it is currently 24 operating . We of course involve the engineering 25 organizations , the projects group . We get the safety Certified Shorthand Reporters i rad32 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 RTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 people involved . We get the environmental groups . And 2 of course we get all the discipline people from the 3 instrumentation, electrical , machinery, and of course 4 the largest one is the pressure equipment organization . 5 We have a very rigid 40 -step process that we 6 follow that takes us from the planning through the 7 implementation process . And in this we gather this data 8 and we have meetings to make sure we understand the 9 requirements and what needs to be accomplished. 10 In addition to that , we do our planning work with 11 our contractors that will be involved in the work 12 itself . All of the turnarounds in the light oil 13 processing unit , since it has been built in 1967 , have 14 been done by the building trades . And I ' ve had on 15 numerous occasions members of the Pipefitters and 16 Boilermakers unions sitting with us , helping us to plan 17 the approach we' re going to take on the upcoming 18 turnarounds , what safety precautions we should take , 19 what activities we should do to perform the work, how we 20 can do it in an efficient and cost effective manner . 21 I will admit that not once during those 22 conversations has a safety concern that has been 23 identified by any members of the contractors or of any 24 of our other groups not been considered in the 25 implementation of the turnaround work . �.�rr,,,,�� Certified Shorthand Reporters Zalmdoneffil 33 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Now, even with this very laborious and very 2 rigorous process , I ' m still here to tell you that 3 unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you look at 4 it , when we actually open the equipment up and get a 5 chance to physically look at it , we still find between 6 10 and 12 percent work that is added to our work list 7 because it was work that could not have been 8 anticipated, we may have thought we were going to have 9 to work in a particular area of a vessel and it turns 10 out we have to work in a different area . Keep that 11 number in mind, I ' m going to come back to it . 12 Most turnarounds , once we get into them, from a 13 mechanical point of view, from the time we get the work 14 in maintenance until the time we have to turn it back, 15 typically only lasts 10 to 30 days . 16 This is a very high stress period of time for the 17 maintenance organizations . There is a lot of work to be 18 accomplished in a very short period of time . And as a 19 result , any delays are extremely of concern to us as an 20 organization . 21 If we find something that we had not anticipated, 22 we in almost all cases will start that activity within a 23 few hours . I ' m not aware of anything that we have not 24 started within at least 24 hours . Again, I ' d ask you to 25 keep those dates in - - those time frames in mind as we �r� ■ Certified Shorthand Reporters �61I8 34 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 come back and talk about this ordinance . 2 So what is - - what is my real concern as I read 3 and try to understand what I think in many cases is 4 somewhat ambiguous language in this ordinance? 5 Well , the first case is , as has been stated on 6 numerous cases , well , why don' t you just apply for a 7 public safety agreement , you can do that a long time in 8 advance . 9 Well , I guess my question is , is what is your 10 real goal . You' ve said as the stated purpose is to 11 review it from a safety, so you can protect the 12 community and public health and safety. 13 Go back to the point I made earlier, 10 to 12 14 percent of the work, no matter how good a job we do at 15 planning, is unknown . Therefore , for you to give me a 16 public service agreement that is good for some period of 17 time , and I ' ve heard anywhere from three to seven years , 18 there is no way I can tell you the work that is going to 19 be done on every turnaround over the next three to 20 seven-year period . 21 In fact , for turnarounds that are more than a 22 year in advance , I haven' t even decided what work needs 23 to be done at that point in time . So ask yourself what 24 have you really done by granting me a public service 25 agreement when we really didn' t even talk about the work Zartdt�raPsIIs 3 5 Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 RKETv I`lrir SERVICE.Il`iC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 that needed to be accomplished during the turnaround . Is 2 Now, a bigger concern as that one is what if I 3 have a turnaround that has escaped the major maintenance 4 policy of being at least a million dollars , and I get 5 into the turnaround and discover a problem and we learn 6 that it ' s going to cost more than a million dollars . 7 What am I to do, stop, come before the Board of 8 Supervisors , go through a public hearing process that 9 can take days , weeks , months , having the unit down all 10 this time until I can get an approval to proceed ahead 11 on the work that is probably being done to improve the 12 protection of the safety of the equipment , the 13 operators , the crafts people and the community. 14 Another concern I have is , if I have a public 15 safety agreement , or even if I haven' t , let ' s say I ' ve 16 applied for agreement for a particular turnaround and 17 I ' ve gone through all this process with you and 18 described the work we' re going to do, and we get into 19 the turnaround - - go back to that 10 to 12 percent 20 again - - I find work that we haven' t discussed . What is 21 the process that ' s going to be used, am I not allowed to 22 do that work until I come back to the Board of 23 Supervisors and seek their opinions on what to do in 24 terms of repairing this equipment . • 25 I hope I ' m portraying to you that even though I Certified Shorthand Reporters zalaikonona 36 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTTtVG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 think we do an outstanding job of planning turnarounds , 2 there are still things you cannot plan ahead of time . 3 And therefore , this ordinance is very vague on how to 4 handle certain situations . 5 I ' d like to make just two more comments . We ' ve 6 heard off and on that this is a pipe trades ordinance or 7 it ' s not . And that ' s pretty much dependent upon which 8 side of the coin you' ve heard . 9 But I guess what concerns me about this is if 10 there is no real value in this to the Steamfitters 11 union, why is it that Doyle Williams has pushed so hard 12 on this issue , why is it that the lawyer for the 13 Steamfitters has pushed so hard on this issue if there 14 is really no value to them in pushing this forward . 15 I have not once in the four and a half years I ' ve 16 been year, and performed something like seven major 17 turnarounds , had Doyle Williams , his attorney, any other 18 member of the Steamfitters local call me and tell me 19 that they were concerned that we were not performing our 20 turnarounds in a safe manner . 21 I have not had one of their supervisors on the 22 job during the turnaround itself come to me and say I 23 don' t think we ' re doing this job safely, we ' re not doing 24 all the things we should be doing . 25 If that ' s the case , why does it come out now Certified Shorthand Reporters 7iandomffa 37 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 through this mechanism rather than dealing with me 2 face-to-face when we ' re actually working? 3 So in conclusion, I guess I ask you to really 4 consider what is the basis for this ordinance , how will 5 it really help the safety of our organizations . And I 6 think personally it will be an obstacle and a hindrance 7 and it will tie us up and not allow us to complete work 8 in a safe and cost effective manner . 9 Thank you for your time . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 11 Commissioner Guncheon . 12 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON : Mr . Seymour, thank you 13 for your comments . I just had a couple of quick • 14 questions . 15 When doing a - - well , what are the reasons for 16 doing a major turnaround? 17 MR . SEYMOUR : There can be at least two or three 18 major reasons . First of all , from a legal point of 19 view, we are required to inspect equipment on certain 20 intervals . 21 In addition to that , there are known problems 22 that come up in the industry, that if we have similar 23 pieces of equipment in similar conditions , we want to 24 check to make sure we do not have conditions similar to 25 what others have experienced . i Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaidkoI dRa 38 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SEMCE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 And thirdly, there are reasons to simply clean 2 the equipment , because over the period of operation it 3 has fouled to the point that it is no longer operating 4 at peak efficiency. 5 So those are the three major reasons that we 6 perform unit turnarounds . 7 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: Well , would it also be 8 conducted to say upgrade some of the components of the 9 equipment in order to make it more efficient or reasons 10 other than safety? 11 MR . SEYMOUR : Certainly. During a period of a 12 turnaround, we will take that opportunity to install 13 capital projects that need the unit to be down in order 14 to do it in a safe manner . 15 Many jobs , of course , can be done while the unit 16 is still in operation, but some require the unit to be 17 out of service in order to implement the projects . So 18 we take those opportunities to do that work at the same 19 time , that ' s correct . 20 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: The reason I ' m asking is 21 that I ' m wondering if during the course of the process 22 that you are talking about , the rigid and rigorous and 23 laborious process that you were discussing, whether 24 there would be a time that management would say that 25 this is going to expose us to legal problems or slowing Certified Shorthand Reporters ItdOltPi�lB 39 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 I up of the - - of the turnarounds , let ' s put it off for a 2 certain period of time until it no longer can operate or 3 it will be borderline safe in its operations . 4 MR . SEYMOUR : I don' t believe that I have 5 personally been involved in anything where we have done 6 anything from an illegal point of view. 7 Certainly, looking at your work, there are risks 8 that you take a look at . We have criticality codes on 9 all of our equipment . Obviously, things in very high 10 pressure , light hydrocarbon service give us much more 11 concern if we had a potential leak than we would have , 12 for example , if we had a leak in a cooling water line . 13 Therefore , the level of scrutiny that we pay when 14 we observe particular situations during a turnaround as 15 to what approach or what fix to make and how fast does 16 it need to be made certainly is governed by what is 17 the - - what is the potential risk, what is the potential 18 failure mode and what is the - - and therefore , because 19 of the failure mode , just how would you approach solving 20 the problem. 21 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON : I guess that answers my 22 question . But I ' m just curious as to, in your opinion, 23 whether the adoption of this ordinance would change 24 that . 25 MR . SEYMOUR : I don' t believe so . Again, ��] Certified Shorthand Reporters .Vl R&DROI 40 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPOR'T'ING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 you' re - - you' re taking a look to say a year in advance is 2 or two years or whenever I were to apply for this 3 permit . 4 I think all the Board of Supervisors would be in 5 a position to do would be to ask for things that they' ve 6 heard about . It would not be through any technical 7 knowledge of the units . It would not be through any 8 improved laws . It would simply be I want you to do this 9 because I think it ' s a good idea . It would not be based 10 on a technical basis , in my opinion . 11 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: One of the criticisms , 12 though, of this ordinance is that it would cause 13 refineries and other industry under which - - that would 14 fall under this ordinance to delay turnarounds until it 15 was absolutely critical because , for fear of exposing 16 themselves to either litigation or a slowing of the 17 turnaround process . 18 I ' m just curious as to whether you think if 19 this - - if this ordinance were adopted, whether during 20 the course of your discussions and the procedures that 21 you outlined, whether that would enter the discussion 22 because of this ordinance . 23 MR . SEYMOUR : In my opinion, I am personally not 24 going to do anything illegal . The concern I have is 25 because, as I said before , this language in this �r,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters ndoneilB 41 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 ordinance is so ambiguous and so unknowing, there is a 2 great deal of concern about what it could mean and what 3 it might mean to various people . 4 As a result , if I were the first person to do a 5 turnaround under this new agreement , I can assure you I 6 would try and forestall it until somebody else crossed 7 those bridges , as long as I could do it legally and not 8 in any way jeopardize the health or safety of the 0 9 employees . 10 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: Thanks very much . 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 12 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : The question I have is in 13 reference to your maintenance in which - - since you work 14 for Shell . Do you have a high turnover of companies 15 that do your maintenance or do you stay with a 16 particular company to do your maintenance pretty much? 17 MR. SEYMOUR : We generally stay with the same 18 companies for extended periods of time . We currently 19 have two in-place general maintenance contractors , one 20 that ' s been in place since 1990 , and the other has been 21 in place since the mid ' 60s . 22 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : So your safety record with 23 those people then, it ' s not like I ' m going to plan 24 shutdowns and normally your shutdowns - - you mentioned 25 10 to 30 days . I thought they went 15 , 45 , 60 , 90 -day ,,,,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters MndolmdIa 42 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 shutdowns . 2 You don' t put it out to bid to anybody and 3 everybody to come in here , okay, we' re going to - - we' re 4 going to plan a 15-day shutdown, come in and give me 5 your bids and let ' s see how cheap you are? 6 MR . SEYMOUR : Different companies work different 7 ways . It has been our practice at Shell to - - to tend 8 to use our routine maintenance contractor for major 9 turnarounds . 10 It is our opinion that people who are familiar 11 with our plant , familiar with our safety procedures and 12 familiar with our people tend to be elevated to 13 supervisory roles for people who are coming into the 14 plant during the turnaround who may not be as familiar . 15 That gives us a major advantage in assuring that our 16 procedures and practices are followed . 17 Now, that ' s not to say that we don' t bid portions 18 of the work out . We certainly do . 19 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : But basically, though, 20 you' re using the exact same people to do the maintenance 21 throughout . Like you said, the one particular company 22 you have has been there since the 160s , so they' re 23 almost like a part of Shell then? 24 MR . SEYMOUR : I ' ll be a little cautious in 25 answering that way, but clearly, again it ' s the Certified Shorthand Reporters ZartdoneIIa 43 2321 Stanwell Drive*Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 contractor, you know . And you know, you' ve got to talk 2 in terms of numbers . 3 These turnarounds can get as big as 500 , 1 , 000 4 people a day, where we clearly do not have that many 5 people on site at any one time . 6 And there is no doubt that all of our contractors 7 are forced from time to time to bring people in from out 8 of the area . I ' ll give you a perfect example of that in 9 the recent turnaround we just performed in our LOP unit 10 with our building trades contractor . They had to bring 11 in something in excess of 20 percent travelers from out 12 of the area in order to supply us the resources that we 13 needed to complete the work . 14 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Could you explain that . I 15 know - - I know what you' re talking about , but I don' t 16 think the other Commissioners know what you' re talking 17 about . You might explain that . 18 MR. SEYMOUR : Well , I probably should - - 19 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , if - - 20 MR . SEYMOUR : - - ask Mr . Williams to explain 21 that . But basically the - - the halls have X number of 22 people available to send out to job sites when work is 23 there . 24 As they have a full employment where everyone is 25 out working on the site and a major turnaround or big Certified Shorthand Reporters Zand0R6Ha 44 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 project comes along, they have to or choose to want to 2 supply those people through some mechanism. And 3 generally what that is , is they go to adjoining areas 4 and ask people to come in . 5 Now, that ' s not untypical of the non-building 6 contractors as well . They do the same thing . And so 7 that ' s kind of the process . And the people tend to be 8 referred to as travelers because they are somewhat 9 transient . They come in, do these big efforts , and then 10 they leave . 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 12 speaker? Commissioner Hanecak . 13 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : (Microphone not 14 functioning properly. ) At our last meeting we had some 15 people discuss the number of incidents that occurred in 16 Contra Costa County, and some of the heavier industry 17 refineries included . 18 And we heard about (unintelligible) serious 19 incidents have been related to deficiencies in the 20 (unintelligible) in your - - in your opinion 21 (unintelligible) . 22 MR . SEYMOUR : I guess I probably should knock on 23 some wood . Fortunately, in the four and a half years 24 I ' ve been there , there has not been a single incident 25 that has occurred either during, at the completion or as Certified Shorthand Reporters : IRI&OIROBa 45 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTTNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 the result of a turnaround. 2 I think if you look back at most of the 3 incidents , the very unfortunate April lst fire that we 4 had at our facility had nothing to do with an incident 5 resulting from a turnaround . 6 I just can' t answer, but I would tell you that my 7 personal experience here has been that no incidents that 8 have hit the newspapers and everything else have been 9 the result of a turnaround that we ' ve performed at 10 Shell . 11 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : In general 12 (unintelligible) is it the equipment of Shell or is it 13 more of a human factor responsible for managing that 14 equipment , or is it something else? 15 MR . SEYMOUR : In many cases , I ' d say almost 16 everything ends up going back to human . It ' s very 17 difficult to say that it ' s equipment . 18 Certainly, our fire was the result of corrosion 19 that was not found and resulted in that failure . I ' m 20 not sure how else to answer your question . 21 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : (Unintelligible . ) So even 22 though the equipment that ' s supposed to be in some form 23 of check, human or otherwise that would check that i 24 equipment to detect any weaknesses or deterioration in 25 that equipment prior to it being the cause of a serious Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandonell8 46 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510) 685-3829 1 incident , is that generally the case? 2 MR . SEYMOUR : I think that ' s correct . Again, you 3 know, we design our plants and our equipment to use 4 materials of construction that , to the best of our 5 knowledge and engineering judgment , is the correct 6 materials for the type of process that we ' re going to be 7 operating in . 8 There may be things that occur that we ' re 9 unfamiliar with or we were not prepared for, that end up 10 causing a problem. And the question is , was it the 11 material that caused the problem or was it the lack of 12 knowledge of the person who designed it . 13 Or, for example , we' ve had welds that we found 14 that turned out to be the wrong metallurgy. They 15 thought they were welding with the right rod for the 16 right pipe . They actually had picked up the wrong rod 17 and used it . Is that a materials problem or is that a 18 human problem, so that ' s my point . 19 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : I appreciate that . I just 20 wonder in this particular (unintelligible) safety is the 21 concern of everyone here . I want to find out what the 22 problems are (unintelligible) . 23 (Unintelligible) this ordinance (unintelligible) 24 how this ordinance will help decrease (unintelligible) . 25 What has to be done? How can you assist us Z'^ Certified Shorthand Reporters BItdoItdla 47 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 (unintelligible) . 2 MR. SEYMOUR : I don' t personally believe that 3 this ordinance will in fact speak to that problem. I 4 mentioned it at the Board of Supervisors a few weeks 5 ago, that I don' t believe there ' s any employee that 6 comes to work on any given day thinking I ' m going to get 7 hurt today. 8 It is fully our intention, and it is certainly 9 mine , that I want to provide a safe work environment so 10 that the employees have the knowledge and skills that 11 they need to perform the task that they' re going to be 12 asked to do in a safe manner, and can leave at the end 13 of the workday in as good a physical condition as they 14 arrived in . 15 That doesn' t mean we don' t have mental lapses by 16 individuals . We take every incident that occurs at our 17 facility and do basically what ' s referred to as a root 18 cause analysis to try to dig down, why did this really 19 occur? 20 And in my cases , it ' s very troublesome that it 21 find - - but you find out that the employee themselves 22 simply was not thinking about what he was doing at the 23 time when he got himself hurt . 24 And I don' t believe any ordinance that you can 25 pass , any Board of Supervisors sitting three miles from Certified Shorthand Reporters itsaltaomfla 48 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 the facility, is going to be able to teach that employee 2 how to not have those mental lapses and get himself hurt 3 and/or cause an incident . 4 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any further questions of the 6 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Seymour . 7 MR . SEYMOUR : Thank you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : The next speaker is Leslie 9 Stewart . And then I think when he or she is finished, 10 we ' ll probably take a break, it will be close to 9 : 00 11 o' clock . 12 Ms . Stewart . 13 MS . STEWART : Thank you, Commissioners . My name 14 is Leslie Stewart . I reside at 3398 Wren Avenue in 15 Concord . And for the last 10 or more years I ' ve been 16 the League of Women Voters representation on the 17 Commission, the Hazardous Materials Commission . 18 Prior to that time I was the alternate League of 19 Women Voters delegate to the Hazardous Waste Task Force . 20 And that ' s where I first encountered this issue of land 21 use permits . And I ' d like to give you a little 22 institutional memory type background on this . 23 The land use permit issue surfaced when we were 24 looking at hazardous waste and the risks that it posed 25 to the citizens of the County. It was at that point ZandoneIIa 49 Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTIT�iG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 that many of us on that group became aware for the first 2 time that when an industry in the County was situated in 3 a heavy industrial zone, for example , it was there to 4 stay and it essentially was entitled to do anything it 5 wanted to with its hazardous materials and hazardous 6 waste . There were no conditions placed on its 7 operations . There were no conditions placed on it in 8 the form of permits at that point . It was there, it had 9 been granted that right . 10 There were a number of the environmental and 11 public representatives on that task force who didn' t 12 find that very satisfactory . Actually, I should give 13 credit too to some of our elected officials on that task 14 force , specifically a couple of City Council members 15 from El Cerrito and Martinez . 16 And they pushed through to the task force a 17 suggestion which the task force took to the Board of 18 Supervisors eventually, that we should investigate some 19 type of a land use permit process , if not for existing 20 industry, then for anything that they did in the way of 21 a change , when new industry was built , when they 22 expanded, when - - when we really could see that there 23 was something that was different from what they' d been 24 doing before . i25 The 56 recommendations which came from the task Zr ndoItd 5 O Certified Shorthand Reporters LK1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 945244107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 force to the Board of Supervisors passed the Board of 2 Supervisors unanimously with the exception of 3 Recommendation 56 which was the land use permit 4 recommendation . 5 The Board was not very happy with it . Industry 6 representatives testified against it . But eventually 7 there was an understanding on the part of industrial 8 people and the Board of Supervisors that changes were 9 necessary, that that time had come . It was just post 10 Bopal , for those of you who remember that hazardous 11 materials release that kind of shook the world . 12 And eventually we got essentially a negotiated 13 settlement . That negotiated settlement took the form of 14 Ordinance 86-100 . It was worked out in the wake of the 15 Hazardous Waste Task Force by a number of people who had 16 been on the task force and some additional 17 representatives . It was brought to the Board of 18 Supervisors . 19 Once again, the Board of Supervisors , having 20 asked for this , was faced with what do we do . And 21 again, we faced practically a split Board. It was very 22 difficult for them to make the decision . 23 And one of the reasons it was difficult was 24 because of the fact that there was a project that they 25 knew was pending in the County, and they were not sure �r ,� Certified Shorthand Reporters L�a.Iadoimna 51 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 how 86-100 would affect it . 2 Eventually they decided that they would go ahead 3 and adopt 86 -100 and see how it - - see how it happened 4 to affect the project that was pending . 5 The project that was pending was the USS Posco 6 steel plant remodeling . And I do have the news 7 clippings , a couple of the news clippings that had to do 8 with that case for you, which I will give to you to read 9 over at your leisure , but let me summarize what ' s in 10 them. 11 The whole point to 86-100 was that the land use 12 permits would be required unless industry could prove 13 that they were ,going to substantially reduce the amount 14 of waste that they were turning out . At that point we 15 were pegging everything to waste . 16 And we had some fairly high thresholds in terms 17 of what even got brought into the ordinance . But the 18 point was that if you reduced the waste in your new 19 project , you didn' t come in under those thresholds at 20 all . 21 In the process of designing or redesigning the 22 modernization proposal , USS Posco changed some of its 23 procedures and vouched for the fact it would come in 24 under those thresholds . 25 Because of some differences, technical Certified Shorthand Reporters Mnd®neffi' 52 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 differences in definition as about what a waste was , 2 whether or not if you produced it and then recycled it 3 within the plant , was it still considered a waste , and 4 so on and so forth, the decision got appealed from 5 Community Development Department who had decided that 6 USS Posco was exempt from our new ordinance , all the way 7 up to the Board of Supervisors . 8 And we went through something very similar with 9 the Board of Supervisors to what we have seen with the 10 proposed amendments for this ordinance . Eventually it 11 became the lawyers and the technical experts . And 12 that ' s not something that the Board of Supervisors felt 13 that was appropriate for them to be in the middle of , 14 but nevertheless the ordinance had not been sufficiently 15 specific to prevent that kind of problem when we got to 16 a major project . 17 Interestingly enough, it was the Building Trades 18 Council that appealed it all the way to the Board of 19 Supervisors . And so some of the same people who are 20 here on this issue were here a number of years ago . And 21 they probably have slightly different memories of it 22 than mine, but we have been through a major problem 23 already with the issue of land use permits for 24 industrial facilities . • 25 That ' s one reason why, after the USS Posco i Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandOXMI 53 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 modernization issue was decided by the Board, that they • 2 handed it back to the Hazardous Materials Commission and 3 said make that ordinance better, and it ' s not going to 4 do us much good if it only applies to facilities in the 5 unincorporated area, which is true of any land use 6 permit for things in the County because it ' s in the 7 unincorporated area . 8 So one of the other things they asked us to do 9 was to assist in getting that ordinance or similar 10 ordinances adopted in the cities . 11 And I have a sheet that comes from a progress 12 report from April of 1987 on Recommendation 56 which 13 spells out what we were supposed to do . And those two 14 points were two of the points on that list . 15 We took that charge and worked on 96 - - what 16 became 96-20 . And what we tried to do was to avoid the 17 fiasco we' d run into before 18 When we realized that the best approach was to 19 include hazardous materials and to do it as a risk base 20 approach, we nevertheless spent a considerable amount of 21 time running scenarios , trying to figure out how the 22 proposed ordinance would actually play out . 23 Would we have people coming back to you and to 24 the Board of Supervisors over and over again because of 25 the fact we had not given staff sufficient information �Zr,, i Certified Shorthand Reporters jandoladIa 5 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 Ik (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 on how to determine whether or not an application came 49 2 under the ordinance? 3 Would we have people coming back because of the 4 fact that nobody understood whether or not the ordinance 5 actually applied to a project? And that includes the 6 public who needs to be able to comment on this . 7 That ' s one reason we took as long as we did on 8 96-20 . And I know that you' ve heard about some of the 9 scenarios and some of the work that we did on 96-20 . 10 At this point you' ve also heard from Supervisor 11 Smith and some other secrets about the number of public 12 hearings that have taken place on the ordinance that ' s 13 in front of you . 14 A number of those hearings actually took place on 15 96-20 when the whole scope of the Board of Supervisors ' 16 interest was broadened to this industrial safety issue . 17 More of them have gone forward since with various 18 versions of the ordinances . 19 Very few of those public hearings have actually 20 taken place at the Hazardous Materials Commission, in 21 spite of the fact that this was an issue that we were 22 willing to work on and had worked on hard with 96 -20 . 23 So we have had some serious concerns about this 24 process and about what it ' s going to result in . And we 25 have not had sufficient time to look at some of the � LrCertified Shorthand Reporters andOROIla 55 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 questions that you yourselves have been asking here this 2 evening to determine, for example, if we have industrial 3 accidents occurring in the Court - - and we all know we 4 have - - how exactly will this ordinance work? Does it 5 speak to the type of actions we ' ve been having? Are 6 there other regulations at other levels that speak to 7 those incidents? If not , how do we tailor a local 8 ordinance or amendments to 96-20 to speak to those 9 accidents and to not have unintended consequences for 10 industry? 11 And I think that you' ve heard about some of the 12 possible unintended consequences of the current 13 amendments tonight . 14 Speaking just personally as a member of the 15 Hazardous Materials Commission, I am very concerned 16 about the process and whether or not it is really going 17 to result in a good set of proposals if you recommend it 18 back to the Board of Supervisors and if they adopt it . 19 I think that there is work that can be done . 20 There ' s work that can be done by the staff , by the 21 Hazardous Materials Commission, by the Planning 22 Commission and by the Board of Supervisors at the local 23 level to speak to some of the issues that have been 24 raised in this lengthy set of hearings . • 25 I ' m not sure that what you have in front of you Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaraamona 56 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 1 REPORTINGSERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 written down in black and white on paper is something 2 which is really going to be the best answer for all of 3 us at this time . 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : Are there any questions of the 5 speaker? Thank you, Ms . Stewart . 6 Ladies and gentlemen, it ' s after 9 : 00 o' clock . 7 We ' re going to take a break and reconvene in 8 approximately ten minutes . Thank you . 9 (Break taken . ) 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Ladies and gentlemen, we have 11 quite a number of people who would like to testify. And 12 so the Chair would appreciate it if those who will be 13 speaking (unintelligible) be as succinct as possible and 14 try and present your presentation in the shortest time 15 period possible , it would be greatly appreciated . 16 We are interested in your comments , we need to 17 hear your comments . We just ask that you try to be as 18 brief as you can . 19 The first speaker is Scott Folwarkow, 20 F-O-L-W-A-R-K-O-W, I believe , followed by Reg Oriol , 21 followed by James Riley. 22 MR . FOLWARKOW : My name is Scott Folwarkow and I 23 represent the Western States Petroleum Association 24 located at 2300 Clayton Road in Concord. 25 Chairman Wong and members of the Commission, I do Certified Shorthand Reporters MIRdond la 57 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 represent the Western States Petroleum Association . The 2 Western States Petroleum Association is a trade 3 association that represents a majority of the petroleum 4 related interests in the Western United States . These 5 activities include production, refining, transportation 6 and marketing of petroleum and petroleum products . 7 We continue to object to the proposed Ordinance 8 96-20 as amended by the Board of Supervisors at their 9 last meeting . Numerous credentialed safety 10 professionals have testified before the Board of 11 Supervisors over the last many months expressing their 12 view that the proposed amendments do nothing to improve 13 safety. Much of this testimony has been selectively 14 ignored with little attempt to seek the truth . 15 Further, with the stated objective of improving 16 safety, little attempt to my knowledge has been made to 17 coordinate with or seek input from governmental agencies 18 that regulate large , heavy industry within California or 19 the Bay Area for that matter . And this includes groups 20 like EPA, U. S . EPA as well as Cal EPA, OSHA, the air 21 districts , water boards and the like . 22 There are more than juris - - different 23 jurisdictional authorities enforcing health, safety or 24 environmental laws at Bay Area refineries . Many of 25 these agencies are involved when there are accidents in q,,� i Certified Shorthand Reporters ndoI ouck 58 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 helping to identify what the root causes have been . 2 These agencies can be used as a valuable source 3 of information to be considered as you formulate your 4 recommendations to the Board. 5 It is our recommendation that the Planning 6 Commission meet with these State and Federal regulatory 7 agency representatives to obtain comments and guidance 8 from them with respect to many issues , but a couple 9 might include the structure and function of current laws 10 to protect community safety, whether the major 11 maintenance provision in the proposed ordinance as 12 amended would improve safety, whether the County' s 13 permitting process would interfere with existing 14 regulatory requirements including maintenance, and how 15 the County' s process will be implemented upon adoption 16 of the State and Federal - - 17 (End of Tape Side B - Beginning of Side C) 18 MR. FOLWARKOW : . . . requirements under the 19 process safety management could produce such a conflict . 20 The request of you to seek additional information 21 is a logical progression in attempts to make informed . 22 recommendations to the Board of Supervisors . 23 Information collected will not only help in the 24 formulation of your recommendations , but also to the 25 existing and incoming members of the Board of Certified Shorthand Reporters ?ialtaoIteIIa 59 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Supervisors . 2 I ' d be happy to answer any of your questions . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 4 Thank you . 5 Next speaker, Reg Oriol . 6 MR . ORIOL : Mr . Chairman, members of the Council , 7 my name is Reg Oriol . I reside at 604 White Mountain 8 Court in Martinez . 9 I work for Chevron at the Richmond refinery. 10 I ' ve been with Chevron for approximately 23 years now, 11 13 and a half of it here , and a little less than 10 back 12 on the east coast . 13 I ' m an environmental and safety coordinator, one 14 of six that we have at the refinery, responsible for 15 assuring that the various facilities in the refinery 16 follow the safety rules and regulations that we have, 17 also the various Federal , local and State regulations 18 environmentally. 19 Our purpose is to basically, especially during 20 turnarounds and various shutdowns in the - - in the 21 refineries , go through and do inspections and review the 22 procedures and also do various drills , discuss with 23 maintenance , safety coordinators as well , and also other 24 contractor safety representatives that come in with 25 their. - - with their groups to do their various Certified Shorthand Reporters ��®�PiIIB 60 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I shutdowns - - yes . • 2 COMMISSIONER : Excuse me for a second . Would you 3 mind speaking into the microphone . 4 MR . ORIOL : Oh, I ' m sorry. 5 COMMISSIONER : (Unintelligible . ) 6 MR . ORIOL : That ' s what happens when you' re a 7 little shorter . 8 Yes , as I was saying, so basically myself and the 9 others that do the same thing in the refinery are 10 involved with coordinating the efforts of the various 11 turnarounds and so forth with the contractors and other 12 maintenance mechanics and operations folks throughout 13 the turnaround period. 14 So I think that the kind of things that we do in 15 going around and making people understand what the 16 various rules are , various requirements are in handling 17 wastes that are generated, and also the various 18 procedures that are involved in doing the various 19 shutdown work, that that ' s the kind of thing that is 20 going to prevent any sort of incidences that would occur 21 during these various turnarounds and even during normal 22 operation because turnarounds do make a big difference 23 in operating the facilities . 24 So basically, I am opposed to the - - to the 25 ordinance because I don' t believe that - - that that 7j�' iadone la 61 Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 FEPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 ordinance is going to improve any much more as far as . 2 safety-wise , what we do in the refinery . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 4 Thank you, Mr . Oriol . . 5 MR. ORIOL : Thank you . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker is James Riley, 7 followed by Tom Powers , followed by Tim Storrs . 8 MR . RILEY : My name is James Riley . I live in 9 Pleasant Hill on Oak Park Boulevard and I also work for 10 Chevron . 11 The majority of my experience of work at Chevron 12 has to do with the maintaining of equipment as an 13 equipment inspector and part of the reliability 14 division . 15 I am representing the 15 national boards of 16 boiler and pressure vessel inspectors who are deputized 17 by the State of California to look after the pressurized 18 equipment in that refinery as well as various other 19 reliability analysts and engineers who work in the 20 reliability organization . There are roughly 30 or more 21 of those people who look after the equipment . 22 There were some statements earlier about things 23 blowing up and having capability of blowing up, major 24 problems for a long time , et cetera, et cetera, which 25 are not correct . ,,,,�� Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandoned 8 62 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 In the 18 years I ' ve been in the refinery, we 2 have not had an explosion . Things did not blow up . 3 Things are pressurized . There are safeguards and other 4 protective devices that keep them from having a blowup . 5 The capability of blowing up is because they are 6 pressurized, but we maintain the equipment in a 7 satisfactory condition so it doesn' t do that . 8 There' s a lot of effort put into the refinery to 9 support that turnaround maintenance process which was 10 described by the Shell maintenance superintendent . The 11 people which safeguard the equipment , the inspectors , 12 the equipment reliability people are continually 13 assessing the quality of our equipment and the 14 suitability for service through surveillance , condition 15 monitoring, predictive and preventive maintenance, as 16 well as looking at the equipment when it is down and out 17 of service during the turnarounds , a time that ' s very 18 busy for us . 19 The equipment in its service during the 20 turnaround is looked at by the craft people doing the 21 work regardless of their union background. It ' s looked 22 at by our Chevron head mechanics who are very well 23 qualified to look at that work . Our operations people, 24 operators go down through that equipment as well as the 25 inspectors . And all those different groups agree that •� RdoiwHB 6 3 Certified Shorthand Reporters LH1 1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 that equipment is fit for the service it ' s going to be 2 put back into . 3 Mention was also made that after that , a 4 pre-startup safetyreview is initiated to look at the 5 equipment and all of the conditions that were part of 6 that maintenance turnaround . 7 Some of the concerns that I think I speak to 8 representing boiler inspectors under the California 9 boiler inspector association have to do with this - - 10 this conditional use permit process , which really will 11 distract from the true question, I think Mr . Hanacek 12 asked the appropriate question, "What causes equipment 13 degradation? " 14 And that ' s the field that our people are in all 15 the time, asking what could cause this equipment to 16 fail , what are the problems from a _ mechanical or 17 degradation standpoint that causes problems . And those 18 are the issues that we ' re constantly trying to address . 19 The PSM laws which were put into place at the 20 national and the state level address this problem by 21 giving performance standards , but not by giving lots of 22 prescriptions and putting use permits in place that 23 cause people to go through various processes that 24 detract from the real questions . ® 25 In our minds , the true safety of equipment is Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandone ri■l8 64 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 safeguarded by the national standards and the groups 2 that are worried about that kind of equipment , the 3 American Petroleum Institute, the American Society of 4 Mechanical Engineers , National Board of Boiler and 5 Pressure Vessel Inspectors , those kind of groups that 6 are intimately involved, along with the insurance 7 industry of looking after the equipment and its 8 problems , the concerns that are there . 9 We, would much rather see industrial efforts which 10 have been going on for many decades continue to go on to 11 address these kind of problems . We feel that they' re 12 effective . 13 The fact that equipment does deteriorate or does 14 have some kind of problem is what causes an occasional 15 incident , not an explosion but an occasional incident . 16 And from those we learn in many cases they are labeled 17 what are called phenomena . 18 This incident that happened in April at Shell , 19 though I have some friends up there and made a quick 20 phone call , it was to confirm that their condition 21 monitoring which was very effective and done on the same 22 piece of piping that had failed, and that the line that 23 was in service had the appropriate materials . It had 24 failed because of a very localized corrosion phenenoma 25 that could not have been predicted by any of those Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaradoRem, 65 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 paraprofessional inspectors . 2 So those are the kind of things that will occur 3 in industry that has live active processes . All of the 4 use permits and all of the boards that meet will never 5 address that problem . It has to be addressed through 6 paraprofessional people who are familiar with those 7 industrial problems . 8 So I ' m here to oppose what ' s going on, to say 9 that it will actually dilute the resources and dilute my 10 people , the engineering and the maintenance efforts that 11 are going into already effectively trying to find those 12 problems and address them. 13 I don' t think that the proposed ordinance will 14 affect our ability to find any of the degradation that ' s 15 going on in any way. 16 Does anyone have any questions? 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : Are there any questions of the 18 speaker? Commission Hanecak . 19 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : (Microphone not 20 functioning . ) In regards to the fact that there are 21 problems in the industry, I think (unintelligible) . 22 Do any of these regulatory agencies that you 23 mentioned (unintelligible) , do any of them regulate the 24 kind of people that use (unintelligible) ? 25 MR. RILEY : Let ' s get to that statement that fir,,, Certified Shorthand Reporters ladolmoi 8 66 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 human error is the significant root cause of failure, 2 and I disagree with that . In any process or 3 organization, the human factors which are through the 4 procedures , your - - your management practices , the 5 standards , the things people do things to and the way 6 they' re implemented is always a challenge . 7 But I don' t believe that there are any operators 8 or any inspectors or maintenance people that are having 9 mental lapses that are causing explosions or problems . 10 I mentioned an incident in April that was 11 unfortunate that cost that business quite a significant 12 amount of money. And they would much prefer not to have 13 that happen . 14 And it ' s the same in our industry. We ' re focused 15 on making sure our equipment is reliable , that it has no 16 incidents , very, very focused on that . That' s what 17 everybody is dedicated to doing . And playing right into 18 that weaves right into the fact that safety is of utmost 19 importance . 20 There are an awful lot of different types of 21 things that must be considered when you look at 22 equipment . The material of construction, its 23 susceptibility to different kinds of problems , 24 temperature , pressure , the types of corrosive elements 25 that are in the process . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zand®neIiB 67 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 For instance , this one line that failed in April , • 2 it wouldn' t have been appropriate to put stainless steel 3 in that line . A lot of people think that stainless 4 steel never corrodes . 5 But there are chlorides in that system, so if 6 they had put stainless steel in that line at elevated 7 temperature , it would have suffered chloride stress 8 corrodes and cracking, would have failed at a very fast 9 rate . Then you would have had an explosion . 10 So there' s just a significant amount of factors 11 that you have to consider and look for when you' re 12 trying to figure out what ' s going on in the equipment . 13 It ' s designed by people with significant years of 14 experience , by metallurgists and corrosion and pressure 15 boundary experts . And it ' s put into service . 16 And at that point we have to look for these other 17 problems that might occur that - - sometimes we use the 18 word "phenomena" that avoid us in our normal planning 19 and our normal predictive and preventive work . 20 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : (Continued microphone or 21 tape recorder problems . ) If I understand, you are 22 saying (unintelligible) as much as human factor 23 (unintelligible) . 24 MR . RILEY : That is what I would say. 25 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Thank you . Certified Shorthand Reporters ��®�Qsila 68 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTTNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 2 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Riley. 3 Tom Powers , followed by Tim Storrs . 4 MR . POWERS : Members of the Commission, I ' m here 5 to respond to some of the issues that were raised 6 earlier and to make perhaps just a few brief statements . 7 It is difficult - - a difficult issue to deal 8 with . I have been dealing with it for a long time as a 9 Boardmember, and I can' t say that I was always 10 successful , but we kept trying . 11 86-100 was something that I pushed very hard at 0 12 this Board on a split vote . It was a very difficult 13 issue . And interesting, some of the same parties are 14 here today. 15 In fact , Zane Gresham who was - - whose some of 16 the comments I ' m going to respond to, was the attorney 17 who helped Posco redesign the system, it was very clever 18 of them, to avoid the application of the Ordinance 19 86 -100 in the Posco case . Designed the system so the 20 waste material became a recycled material , and therefore 21 the waits in the ordinance made it not apply because it 22 became a recycled materials , and therefore product and 23 not waste . It was very clever of them. 24 And I think that was some of the reasons for 25 96-100 coming into existence . But unfortunately, Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaiadonoUa 69 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SEMCE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 96 -100 , a couple of the first applications of it that 2 have occurred in recent months , the ordinance that did 3 exist , 86 -100 , would have applied, however in 96 -20 they 4 would not in two - - two plants that came in to be 5 permitted here in the County. 6 The question is whether or not the amendments 7 proposed by 96 - - to 96 -20 are going to bring in more 8 permits being required in industry. That ' s the issue 9 before you . 10 With respect to the CEQA exemption, I think your 11 staff can defend that well . This is an existing 12 ordinance and there are amendments to it . And it ' s not 13 too dissimilar to the CEQA exemption that was processed 14 through this Commission when 96 -20 was adopted earlier 15 this year . And I ' m sure your staff will be able to 16 explain why they have recommended to you the CEQA 17 exemption . 18 Turnaround shutdowns , I think there needs to be 19 an explanation of that . They are not just repairs like 20 to your kitchen, remodeling and things of that nature . 21 They are significant revisions and rebuilding of 22 equipment that has never been heretofore permitted . 23 As a matter of fact , one of the experts that came 24 up from industry indicated very clearly that even things 25 in it that they don' t know about , 10 to 12 percent have Certified Shorthand Reporters ndondfl'l 70 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 [�#��NGERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 to be put in . And also they do improvements . 2 So what can happen without the application of 3 turnaround shutdowns above a million dollars , a company 4 can rebuild their entire plant that has never heretofore 5 been permitted. That is the issue that is significant . 6 And that is why turnarounds are being proposed . 7 Turnarounds would probably - - inspections on 8 turnarounds , government overseeing of turnarounds would 9 probably have prevented the catacarb incident in Unocal . 10 Now, let me explain because one of the gentlemen here in 11 the audience filed the catacarb release . 12 The workers at the Unocal plant saw the material 13 coming out of this high pressure, high temperature • 14 vessel escaping into the atmosphere , reported it to 15 their supervisors , went all the way up to the plant 16 manager . 17 And the plant manager said, "This is the best run 18 we have ever had . We are making more profits on this 19 run than we have in a long time . We ' re not shutting it 20 down . " There was an intentional continuation of that 21 plant operation . 22 Now, what would a shutdown, turnaround, 23 inspection program do in the case of the Unocal 24 situation? 25 Number one , there would be required best Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandorad 71 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 available technology. This same piece of equipment at 2 Unocal had been subject to a problem in another state in 3 a Unocal plant . Subsequent inspection of that unit 4 showed substantial cracks . Had there not been a 5 pressure leak, many of the people believe there would 6 have been a major explosion at the plant . Better 7 technology is why turnarounds need to be supervised by 8 government . 9 Also equipment , as the experts have testified, 10 has a certain life . That would be known to the people 11 in this County permitting this , people hired who are 12 people good in their field who know the business . What 13 they would do would be place limits of time operation on 14 this equipment . And they would require testing towards 15 the end of the natural life of this . So you could 16 prevent a catacarb release . 17 Coincidentally, the Shell fire that was talked 18 about in the cracker unit had been scheduled for an 19 11-day turnaround at the time that the fire occurred . 20 Corrosion in pipes , you say, oh, we don' t know 21 anything about corrosion in pipes . These folks are 22 experts in this business . They are supposed to know how 23 their equipment operates . 24 Now, human error, why is - - is human error a 25 manager who says we ' re not going to shut this down and Certified Shorthand Reporters Za]R 'R"IIa 72 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 we ' re going to leave 40 , 000 tons of catacarb blow into 2 Crockett? I mean that ' s a - - that ' s a significant human 3 error . 4 Now, the difference , the significant difference 5 between government should be involved when we have two 6 and a half - - every two and a half months a major 7 explosion, fire or release in the last five years , is 8 that nobody would be here complaining about the problems 9 were that not the record . 10 Now, if there are some plants who do not explode , 11 have fires and releases as much as others , wouldn' t it 12 be nice to be able to have those people , those fine 13 workers , those fine inspectors be able to work at the 14 other plants and keep them in the same kind of condition 15 and avoid the serious problems that occur because of 16 management . 17 Management is motivated by profit in addition to 18 safety . Government supervises the safety issues only 19 and not the profit . That ' s the difference and that ' s 20 why we need to be involved in this program. 21 Land use permits are not discriminatory. Contra 22 Costa issued land use permits on every clean fuels 23 project that came before it , and somehow those clean 24 fuel projects met the deadlines that were scheduled in 25 the law. i Certified Shorthand Reporters 7i8Ita0ItPl'8 73 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 They were not delayed either by complaints about 2 CEQA or because of jobs or because of anything else , 3 although the public did have the kind of scrutiny over 4 it that they should. 5 Virtually every other county and city having 6 major industries have land use permits . Contra Costa 7 is unique , Contra Costa County is unique among its 8 cities in that it is the only county that does not 9 require land use permits in industrial districts . It is 10 special in its own right because industrial districts 11 are the only zoning districts which do not require land 12 use permits . 13 And you say why exclude agricultural districts? • 14 Well , in many cases they' re already subject to land use 15 they' re already subject to land use permits for the 16 activities that are discussed . 17 Moreover, it is also important that the chemicals 18 in - - in agricultural areas are not subject to high 19 pressure , tremendous high pressures and high heats . 20 They don' t cook gasoline and other chemicals in 21 agricultural districts . They do it in refineries . 22 Best available technology is a term of art that 23 is well known to the industry. I sat on the Air Board 24 for five years . We talked about it . It ' s well defined . 25 It isn' t discriminatory. It is not vague . It is very Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaiadondIa 74 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 well defined. 2 And all of the industry know what best available 3 technology is because they apply it and have been for 4 many years , as a result of Air Board and other 5 regulatory agencies . 6 Time and content of trade secrets are well 7 protected by the County already and would probably 8 continue to be done in the same fashion as it is done 9 today by the Health Department when the RMPs are being 10 prepared . 11 Turnarounds are nothing very unusual . These 12 folks do it all the time . It isn' t something that 13 somebody dreamed up . It is - - it is very well known in 14 the industry how these occur . They aren' t all secret 15 things . There are some secret elements to them. Our 16 County has been able to protect that to their 17 satisfaction, industry' s satisfaction . 18 I ' d like to close by saying safety would be 19 improved because best available technology would be used 20 and required by the government . So the gentleman who is 21 an expert here says , well , sometimes when there ' s a 22 risk, sometimes we do it and sometimes we don' t , we make 23 a judgment on the risk . 24 And frankly, there are good people who make 25 judgments on risks and there are people who don' t make Certified Shorthand Reporters TzaxadonenaL, 75 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 good judgments with those risks . 2 The answer to that in an industry that explodes , 3 releases and burns at the rate that this one does is 4 that somebody else besides self-policing has to occur 5 and it has to be government because they' re not 6 motivated by the profit as well as the safety. 7 The safeguards of national standards , another 8 expert from industry said great thing, we should follow 9 them, PSMs , RMPs , and that ' s - - he quoted the American 10 Petroleum Institute who happens to have filed suit last 11 month against those very regulations . 12 And all of the industries here today complaining 13 about this standard are now a part of a lawsuit 14 complaining about the national standards . You can have 15 it one way or the other . And frankly, they don' t want 16 it either way in those cases . And frankly, I don' t 17 blame them. Why should somebody have to be regulated 18 when they think they do a good job . 19 Well , only one reason . I wouldn' t have any 20 credibility here today nor would anybody else supporting 21 the ordinance were it not for the fact that the rate of 22 explosions documented, the rate of fires documented and 23 the rate of releases documented in this County makes 24 this the 11th worst county for chemical releases in the 25 nation . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaradoReIIa 76 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTII`(G SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 And, frankly, I don' t think it ' s right . Land use Is 2 permits should be required. This ordinance is a good 3 one . 4 And also building permits , you know that this 5 County does not require building permits for anything 6 except a habitable structure on a refinery. You can 7 build a process unit without getting a building permit . 8 No other county, no other city does that either . 9 Don' t be fooled. Thank you . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions? Commissioner 11 Hanecak . 12 Mr . Powers . I have a question for you, 13 Mr . Powers . 14 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : Only just - - just a couple 15 of quick things right here . Inside the language of the 16 ordinance, it distinguishes between a change in the 17 risk, which is one thing that kinds of kicks it in, and 18 a maintenance project or major maintenance - - 19 MR . POWERS : Yes . 20 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : - - turnaround . 21 Let me - - let me share my concerns . The change 22 in the turnaround or whatever function is done is 23 increasing risk, I can see a very valid reason why we 24 need to get a process here where we could take a look at 25 that increased risk to determine whether that change be Certified Shorthand Reporters adomflhk 77 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 CRAEP0RTIEN:G:S:E—RNV10E.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 approved or not . 2 MR. POWERS : Uh-huh . 3 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: If the risk through these 4 changes decreases - - 5 MR. POWERS : Uh-huh . 6 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : - - because of that change , 7 is that headed in the direction we ' d like it to? And if 8 they spend more than a million dollars decreasing the 9 risk, is there any payback for them in doing so or will 10 they still be - - are they still under - - with that 11 million dollar cap, for whatever reason it ' s at a 12 million dollars , do they still have to come before for 13 the permit process? 14 MR . POWERS : Well , I think, you know, these are 15 issues that have to be worked out at the staff level in 16 terms of how the exemption is handled . And those are 17 things that are done very commonly. 18 I think the question is really who' s going to 19 make the judgment of risk, is it going to be staff or 20 are you going to ask the industry to judge it for you . 21 And some do it very good and some are lousy. 22 So I think these details are often worked out by 23 staff at the Air Board, at the - - at the staff level 24 here . And I think those could be worked out very 25 reasonably. zfir,,,aCertified Shorthand Reporters ndonol 8 7 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORnNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: All right . Thank you very 2 much . 3 MR . POWERS : Thank you . 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any further questions of the 5 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Powers . 6 Next speaker, Tim Storrs , followed by Tony 7 Semenza, followed by Margaret Reed. 8 MR . STORRS : I ' m Tim Storrs . I live in Mill 9 Valley. I work for Chevron at their Richmond refinery. 10 I ' m the process safety management coordinator and the 11 risk management prevention program coordinator at the 12 Richmond refinery. 13 I believe that the proposed amendment to the 14 ordinance is unnecessary because the existing 15 regulations that are in place when rigorously apply will 16 adequately ensure the safety of the people within the 17 refinery and the surrounding communities . 18 What I ' d like to do is hand you a copy of our 19 refinery instruction on an overview of the PSM process , 20 touch briefly on the elements of the PSM process so that 21 you get a sense of what this regulation does encompass 22 in terms of making changes in the refinery. And 23 hopefully you will see then that those issues do address 24 the safety of the work that is conducted in the refinery 25 both during normal routine maintenance and during major ,� i Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaladUItPilIB 79 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 turnarounds . 2 First of all , I ' d like to give a little bit of 3 background on the PSM regulation . When it was passed in 4 1992 , we put together a team of people who worked for - - 5 25 to 30 people who worked full-time for almost two 6 years to understand the regulation, to assess the 7 programs that we had in place that already addressed 8 those elements , and to develop new programs where they 9 were - - where we didn' t have an existing program, where 10 we wanted to scrap one rather than modify it . 11 So we put significant effort into understanding 12 the regulation and implementing these various elements 13 of PSM in the refinery. 14 Subsequently, today we' ve got approximately 60 to 15 70 people working full-time on various elements of 16 process safety management in the refinery . The bulk of 17 them are involved with training and manual writing, 18 operating procedures and such . 19 There are six environmental and safety 20 coordinators in the refinery, like Reg Oriol who was up 21 here earlier . There are six, what we call work process 22 improvement assistants , one in each of the business 23 units , whose sole job is to track the elements of PSM, 24 particularly management of change, incident 25 investigation and the corrective actions that come out Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaIMOROI 80 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 of those . 2 So we ' ve got a significant effort going on to 3 make the elements of the Cal OSHA process safety 4 management program work in the State of - - or in the 5 Richmond refinery . 6 I ' d like to run you just very quickly through the 7 elements of PSM that are in the document in front of 8 you, talking about , first of all , process safety 9 information . 10 We maintain a complete set of what is described 11 in the law as process safety information . And it covers 12 three basic areas , the hazards of the process itself , 13 the technology of the process and the equipment in the 14 process . 15 The next item is the process hazard analysis . 16 We ' re required by the law to do an initial plant 17 assessment of the hazards of the existing plants that we 18 have . That ' s a four-year program to go through the 19 entire facility, 25 percent each year . We will be 100 20 percent complete in May of 1997 . 21 That assessment , the law identifies a half a 22 dozen different methods to use for process hazard 23 analysis . We use primarily two, the Hazop method and 24 the what-if checklist method . 25 In those - - in that process , we identify the Za'^ x i Certified Shorthand Reporters imdUI dhk 81 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 engineering and administrative controls of the hazards , 2 any consequences of failure from the hazards , issues 3 surrounding facility siting, human factors , health and 4 safety impacts , previous incidents in the - - in that 5 particular plant within the facility. 6 We use a team of people that are knowledgeable 7 both in the method that ' s being used to analyze the 8 process and also who are familiar with the operation and 9 the technical aspects of the process as a team. They 10 develop a set of corrective actions out of that Hazop, 11 that we have a process in place for prioritizing and 12 incorporating those corrective actions into the rest of 13 the work that we ' re doing in the refinery. And that 14 process hazard analysis will be revalidated once every 15 five years , according to law. 16 So there ' s a significant effort in there to 17 understand the risks associated with the facilities that 18 we currently are operating . 19 So the next element of process safety management 20 is operating manuals , procedures , safe work practices . 21 That ' s where a lot of our effort is going right now to 22 not only update the procedures and make sure they' re 23 accurate , but put them in an electronic format so that 24 it is readily accessible for all the employees , and it 25 is much easier to keep up to date in the electronic Certified Shorthand Reporters 7ialtdoIaeIIa 82 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 format than the old paper versions . 2 Training, the next element , again there ' s a 3 significant ongoing effort in there . We did not do a 4 lot of changing to our existing training program because 5 that training program has been in place and functioning 6 reasonably well for a long period of time . 7 We ' ve made some - - some efficiency and 8 effectiveness improvements as a result of the process 9 safety management regulation . But a significant amount 10 of effort goes into that . 11 The contractors element of process safety 12 management basically says that the contractors that we 13 employ need to know as much about the equipment and the 14 facility in which they are working as company employees . 15 And there are a number of things in the regulation that 16 specify how we are to go about doing that . 17 Pre-startup safety review . We do those on all 18 new and modified facilities that we - - in the refinery, 19 both in normal maintenance , small projects , major 20 projects and plant turnarounds . 21 The idea behind the pre-startup safety review is 22 to make sure that the new and modified equipment meets 23 the design specifications , that the procedures are in 24 place and adequate , that some kind of a process hazard 25 analysis has been completed, and that the training is Certified Shorthand Reporters 7aildo elia 83 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 completed and that we involve experienced operators and 2 engineers who are familiar with that process in doing 3 the pre-startup safety review. 4 Mechanical integrity, Jim Riley spoke quite a bit 5 about some of the elements and mechanical integrity, so 6 I won' t go into the details of that particular one . 7 Hot work permits , again that ' s the process of 8 making sure that when we do a hot work, which would be 9 welding or burning within a process unit , that all fire 10 hazards have been assessed and that we have protection 11 in place to make sure that the work does not cause a 12 fire . 13 That ' s again an established process that has been 14 in place for a long time . We didn' t modify that as a 15 result of the PSM because we felt what we had was 16 adequate . 17 Management of change is the next process . And 18 that ' s the one in which I think we have the best bet for 19 maintaining the safety of the workplace and the 20 community. And that ' s the one whereby we make sure that 21 all the changes that we make in the facility, where 22 we ' re replacing something other than in kind, are 23 properly monitored. 24 And specifically what we do is we assess the 25 technical basis for the change , we assess the safety and Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandoraena 84 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPOMNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 health impact of the change . If it requires modifying 2 procedures , we do so . 3 we have authorization requirements for who can 4 authorize work and who can authorize the startup of the 5 work once this has been completed. And we update the 6 process safety information and the procedures as part of 7 the management of change process . 8 And that ' s the process which I believe is , when 9 rigorously applied, is what ' s going to prevent incidents 10 from occurring in the future . 11 Last - - or the next couple of items , incident 12 investigation . Again, that ' s a process where we learn 13 from the mistakes that do occur . Hopefully we limit 14 those to relatively small things that don' t impact 15 anyone outside the refinery and that we don' t hurt 16 people . 17 But we do - - there are lessons to be learned from 18 those . And we ' ve got a process in place where we try to 19 capture those and make sure that we share that 20 information with the people within the refinery. And 21 not only within our own refinery, but we also share that 22 information with other refineries . 23 Emergency planning and response is - - Tony 24 Semenza will talk a little bit about that . 25 The injury and illness prevention plan is an Z,, Certified Shorthand Reporters andoROI 8 85 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPOIMNG SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 established plan that ' s been in effect for quite a while 2 that we use to make sure that people are aware of the 3 safety program within the refinery. 4 And Section 3 . 13 talks about the law requires us 5 to have a place participation in the development and the 6 execution of the various elements of process safety 7 management , which we have . 8 And in addition to the PSM regulation there is 9 also the State of California' s risk management and 10 prevention program. And I ' m the coordinator in the Ill Richmond refinery for that program also . 12 That ' s been in effect since 1986 , and it ' s got a 13 specific list of hazardous or what they call acutely 14 hazardous list of materials , which the various 15 industries are required to prepare a risk management and 16 prevention plan for those . 17 The risk management prevention plan essentially 18 says do a process hazards analysis just like the one 19 that ' s required for process safety management . When you 20 do that PHA, then you need to manage the corrective 21 actions that come out of that . That ' s a public record 22 document . 23 The County Health Services Department administers 24 the RMPP program, and they do periodic site inspections . 25 So I think that ' s another program that focuses a little Certified Shorthand Reporters MudoraoIIa 86 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 bit more on things that could have off-site 2 consequences , whereas the PSM regulation is focused 3 primarily on workplace safety, but it has the effect , if 4 it works , it ' s also going to prevent impacts on the 5 surrounding community. But the RMPP program supplements 6 that . 7 I know I talk pretty fast , but I wanted to get 8 through this and at least give you a sense that in my 9 opinion these are the programs that are going to assure 10 that we do not have negative impacts on the surrounding 11 communities and the workers . 12 We will - - when you rigorously apply these , I 13 believe that you' re going to significant reduce 14 implements . We may not have seen the total effect yet 15 in Contra Costa County because these programs we have 16 been developing . It ' s really been only three years 17 since the law was put into effect . And perhaps we 18 haven' t gotten as good as we ought to be about these 19 particular activities . 20 But my contention is , is that the way in which we 21 are going to get better by reducing incidents is not by 22 having another law which is duplicative or redundant and 23 diverts our attention, but if we focus on these core 24 issues for process safety management , we will in fact 25 reduce the number of incidents in Contra Costa County. Certified Shorthand Reporters 7ialadoIteIIa 87 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Are there any questions of the Is2 speaker? Commissioner Terrell . 13 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : A question, I don' t know 4 whether it would be for you or one of your other 5 representatives from Chevron . And it ' s nice to see 6 Chevron here . But aren' t you located within the City of 7 Richmond or - - 8 MR . STORRS : Yes , we are . 9 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. But you' re here 10 concerned as a refinery here in the County. Now, 11 didn' t - - 12 MR . STORRS : I - - 13 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Excuse me . But didn' t the 14 City of Richmond also review this particular amendment 15 that we ' re working on here tonight? 16 MR. STORRS : I understand that they did and that 17 they tabled that issue in the City of Richmond . 18 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. Now, a question I 19 wanted to ask you too was that in your refinery, do you 20 have a high turnover of contractors doing your 21 maintenance work or is it basically the same contractors 22 doing the work all the time? 23 MR . STORRS : I ' m not the best person to answer 24 that question - - 25 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. ,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandUIad 88 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR . STORRS : - - because I ' m not directly involved 2 in the day-to-day contractor activity 3 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay . 4 MR . STORRS : So I shouldn' t , because I don' t 5 know. 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. Thank you very 7 much . 8 MR. STORRS : All right . 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any further questions of the 10 speaker? Commissioner Hanecak . 11 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: You used the term 12 rigorously applied - - 13 MR. STORRS : Yes . 14 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : - - at the beginning and at 15 the end, once right in the middle there . 16 MR. STORRS : Okay . 17 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : What if a company decides 18 not to rigorously apply their PSM, is there potential 19 there - - Mr . Powers spoke about the motivation of a 20 company being bottom line profit . 21 And it seems like some companies are going to 22 take this and rigorously apply because they see the 23 benefit long term for the company and its community. 24 It seems like this points to the fact that if a 25 company doesn' t and we get these accidents every two and Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItdolteIIa 89 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 a half months on average as was stated, that there may . 2 be some involvement of government because of the people 3 that aren' t doing - - rigorously applying a standard . 4 I ' m sure you understand that as a response - - 5 MR. STORRS : Uh-huh . 6 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : - - back to the industry. 7 How would this ordinance - - again we ' re looking 8 at one ordinance this evening . The recommendations on 9 how this ordinances helps make sure that every company, 10 even those that don' t want to rigorously implement or 11 apply their PSMs , somehow could be forced to do so . 12 MR . STORRS : Well , I believe that the State of 13 California has the capability of making people 14 rigorously apply the PSM standard through compliance 15 audits . 16 So an industry or a company or a facility that 17 had bad history, they could be targeted for an audit by 18 the State of California . And if they were found not to 19 be rigorously enforcing these elements of PSM, they 20 could be cited . That would be an enforcement technique 21 that would work under the existing law. 22 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: What group from the State 23 would be responsible for that? 24 MR . STORRS : Cal OSHA. 25 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : Cal OSHA. Okay. Certified Shorthand Reporters 7iandondkk 9 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTIl`iCr SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR. STORRS : Uh-huh . 2 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : Thank you very much . 3 MR . STORRS : Okay. 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any further questions of the 5 speaker? Commissioner Guncheon . 6 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON : Mr . Storrs , just to 7 follow up to Commissioner Hanecak' s question . Aside 8 from the audits that may emanate from an incident , are 9 there regular routine inspections by Cal OSHA to ensure 10 that these policies are in force? 11 MR . STORRS : Not to my knowledge . I think the 12 provision is there for them to do that , but I believe 13 that they have a resource limitation . And they don' t do 14 the routine audits because , I think, they' ve got their 15 hands full doing audits for cause, but that ' s - - I ' m not 16 an expert in that . That ' s just what I ' ve heard 17 secondhand. _ 18 We do our own facility audits on a three-year 19 cycle as required by the law. And the way in which we 20 carry those out is we bring in two people from outside 21 our own Richmond refinery . They' re other Chevron 22 people . 23 To my knowledge, we have not used an outside 24 consultant so far, but we ' ve taken people from another 25 refinery or from our corporate fire safety staff and �A � Certified Shorthand Reporters ZalmdOI ffa 91 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 brought them in, in addition to our own personnel , • 2 conducted the first of the three-year annual facilities 3 audits . The second one, we ' re due to do next year . 4 So we do have a process for doing some soft water 5 things , but not with an outside agency. 6 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON : Thank you . 7 MR . STORRS : Uh-huh . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any further questions of the 9 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Storrs . 10 MR. STORRS : Okay. 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker, Tony Semenza, 12 followed by Margaret Reed . 13 MR . SEMENZA: Thank you very much. My name is 14 Tony Semenza . I ' m the chief of emergency services at 15 the Chevron Richmond refinery. I also reside at 983 16 Morello Avenue here in Martinez and have resided there 17 for the last 14 years . 18 I really want to address three issues today. 19 First , my responsibilities at the refinery, what I do as 20 the chief of emergency services , what my organization 21 does , how we interact with the City of Richmond, because 22 you asked a very important question and I want to 23 address that . 24 I do want to make mention that when Tim talked 25 about inspections or unannounced audits , last year we Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandolmd 92 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 had 90 unannounced audits by Cal OSHA. So we do have 2 unannounced audits . 3 I also want to speak about my experience in the 4 municipal fire service . And then finally I want to 5 address how regulations are adopted, because one of the 6 things I do for the refinery, I serve on the 7 International Fire Codes Institute which addresses the 8 Uniform Fire Code for the State of California . 9 First let me tell you a little bit about myself . 10 I ' ve been in the fire service for 33 years . And I 11 haven' t worked for Chevron for 33 years . I ' ve been a 12 fire chief for them for 19 years in several different 13 facilities . 14 More importantly, I spent ten years of my fire 15 service career working in the municipal fire 16 departments . Five of those years I spent in the fire 17 prevention bureau . And my job there was to take the 18 Fire Prevention Code and the regulations and to work 19 with industry in enforcing those regulations , first in 20 making sure that I understood the regulations , and then 21 making sure that industry understood them and we worked 22 together to implement those requirements of the code . 23 And we did that without any problems . We did 24 that in a community that didn' t have a land use 25 ordinance, but we did that enforcing the Fire Prevention Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandorwI 93 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Code and other regulations . 2 My point there is that we have numerous 3 regulations . Part of my responsibilities in the 4 refinery is to manage 40 to 50 OSHA regulations as they 5 relate to fire safety, the Uniform Fire Code , some 600 6 pages , as it relates to fire safety, and Title 19 of the 7 California regulations as it relates to fire safety. So 8 there are literally thousands and thousands of pages of 9 regulations that we now conform to . And that ' s very, 10 very important . 11 I can' t express how gratifying it was as a member 12 of the Fire Prevention Bureau when I was a municipal 13 fireman in working with industry and getting industry to 14 buy in and working together to resolve any issues that 15 we had . 16 Now, the other issue I want to address is the - - 17 some of my responsibilities . I have a full-time fire 18 department in Chevron' s facility . We have 32 full-time 19 fire service professionals . These individuals are 20 responsible for working with the rest of the refinery to 21 enforce the Fire Prevention Code and all of the 22 regulations - - 23 (End of Tape Side C - Beginning of Side D) 24 MR. SEMENZA: . . . fire prevention officer . 25 That fire prevention officer works with the fire Certified Shorthand Reporters Mndondh% 94 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 department in Richmond to make sure that we are indeed 2 following all the rules and regulations that we have to 3 as they relate to fire safety . 4 We have at least 30 to 40 visits from the 5 Richmond fire department in which the fire prevention 6 officer comes in, works with my fire prevention officer 7 to review anything that ' s going on in the refinery, to 8 ensure that we were following those rules and 9 regulations . 10 And finally I want to talk about how as a member 11 of the Uniform Fire Code Committee , or the International 12 Fire Code Institute, we work to put codes into effect 13 and how we adopt codes . 14 First of all , we look at all the regulations that 15 are currently in place, and there are numerous 16 regulations . Our job then is to decide if there are any 17 gaps in those rules or regulations . And the way we do 18 it is we look at case histories of incidents that have 19 happened, we meet twice a year to review the current 20 code and look at and work with people who want to 21 implement changes in the code . 22 This is a long process , but it ' s the right 23 process . It ' s a process that you really try and 24 identify if there ' s any gaps in the existing rules and 25 regulations and then work very carefully with numerous Certified Shorthand Reporters Zazad�zaeIIa 95 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 organizations . 2 I ' m talking about design engineers , I ' m talking 3 about industry representatives , I ' m talking about 4 building code officials , I ' m talking about fire 5 prevention officers , I ' m talking about fire chief 6 associations , to make sure that a gap does exist . It ' s 7 not a rush to judgment . It ' s a very, very tedious 8 process that really tries to understand that gaps exist . 9 I ' m telling you here tonight that the ordinance 10 that is proposed and the amendments that are proposed do 11 nothing - - do nothing to provide additional safety . 12 It ' s a rush to judgment . 13 And what we need to do is step back and look at a 14 process that is being used across this country by 15 professionals in the business of fire safety and 16 implement or look at incorporating that process into the 17 process here this evening . 18 I ' m available to answer any question you have . 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : Are there any questions of the 20 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Semenza . 21 MR . SEMENZA: Thank you . 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : The next speaker is Margaret 23 Reed, followed by Ron Lathrop, followed by Kevin Smith . 24 MS . REED : I ' m Margaret Reed . I ' m the manager of 25 planning and economics at the Shell Martinez Refining za�[aao� dkk 96 Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Company. 2 My department programs the refinery operation . 3 As such it ' s responsible for scheduling the maintenance 4 turnarounds during the best time of year to minimize 5 supply demand disruption and is responsible for covering 6 product commitments when operating units are down for 7 maintenance . 8 I ' m concerned with any ordinance that would cause 9 last minute changes to our turnaround plans so that 10 could reduce flexibility and scheduling a turnaround. 11 Since Shell Martinez Refining Company represents 12 about 10 percent of California' s gasoline production, a 13 disruption to our production plan could ultimately be 14 felt by the consumer . Let me give you a couple of 15 examples to illustrate my concern . 16 First of all , I ' m concerned that a delay in a 17 turnaround caused by a holdup in permitting could cause 18 a significant supply disruption that could be very 19 costly and would ultimately impact the consumer . 20 A cat cracking unit turnaround is normally 21 scheduled outside of the period of peak gasoline demand 22 because it is a large gasoline producing unit . 23 In winter, not only does demand for gasoline drop 24 off , but supply increases because butane can be blended 25 into gasoline . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaradoraella 97 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 I can picture a scenario in which permitting . 2 issues could delay a cat cracker turnaround from say 3 late winter into early spring . we may not be able to 4 meet the higher product demand without securing product 5 at a higher cost . 6 In fact , it ' s possible that supply of the unique 7 California reformulated gasoline will need to be 8 imported with added transportation cost and a delay of 9 10 to 14 days . And this could impact gasoline 10 consumers . 11 I also have a concern about the inability to make 12 alternate cost effective arrangements for crude or other 13 raw material on short notice of a change in turnaround 14 timing . Let me give you an example . 15 Crude sales were made well in advance of the 1996 16 crude unit turnaround to ensure that this large volume 17 of crude could be diverted into the marketplace since we 18 don' t have facilities to store this volume of crude for 19 the period required to do the maintenance work . 20 If the turnaround date had been delayed due to 21 some permitting issue , we could have been faced with the 22 prospect of a. significant shortage of crude since it had 23 been sold, and there would not be much hope of being 24 able to secure enough crude to run anywhere near 25 capacity. And this unplanned slowdown of the refinery Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItdolteIIa 98 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 could result in a tightness in gasoline , jet an diesel . 2 There are also times when we must have 3 flexibility in our turnaround timing to prevent supply, 4 demand imbalances due to unplanned unit shutdowns . 5 Let ' s say that we have a unit planned for turnaround 6 that is key to our ability to produce diesel , for 7 example . And what if just before we take this 8 turnaround another major supplier of diesel has an 9 unplanned and extended shutdown . 10 Depending on the situation, we might be in a 11 position to delay our turnaround to prevent making the 12 diesel supply situation worse, but we would need 13 flexibility to do so . 14 The bottom line of all these examples is that the 15 Shell Martinez Refining Company should not be hindered 16 in its effort to schedule maintenance turnarounds in a 17 manner that minimizes supply and demand imbalances and 18 allows us to cost effectively meet consumer demands . 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : Are there any questions of the 20 speaker? Thank you, Ms . Reed . 21 Ron Lathrop . 22 MR . LATHROP : Chairman Wong, members of the 23 Commission, my name is Ronald Lathrop . I am a resident 24 of unincorporated Martinez . I ' m a graduate chemical 25 engineer . Certified Shorthand Reporters LRMLIISIIG� onoiia 99 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 I ' ve worked in the industry for 35 years in • 2 almost every possible role . I worked in maintenance , in 3 project engineering, in process design, in inspection, 4 in unit supervision of a large catalytic cracker . And I 5 was operations manager of the Avon refinery for five 6 years . My current position is technology manager of the 7 refinery. 8 This proposal to use land use permits to control 9 a problem with refinery behavior will do nothing to 10 control what you want to control . 11 To get into a little background of the efforts 12 that have been made by professional organizations to 13 increase safety of plants following some of the well 14 known disasters in the early 1980s , the American 15 Institute of Chemical Engineers formed committees to 16 attempt to bring together the most learned people in the 17 engineering circles to decide what could they do to 18 increase plant safety and eliminate the kind of Bopal 19 incidents , et cetera, that hit the headlines , the 20 burning of large amounts of people in Mexico and some of 21 the things that you' ve all seen over the years . 22 They met and they met and they met , and they 23 finally wrote a fairly small book in about 1988 or that 24 vicinity that describes the steps that they felt were 25 necessary to eliminate loss of safety in plants . i Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaildonella 100 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 This was ultimately used by the Federal and the 2 State OSHA to develop their regulations and their 3 step-by-step program of enhancing safety for the 4 neighbors of the plant as well as the people in the 5 plants . 6 Now, I started in the oil industry back when 7 there were far less regulations than there are today. 8 And I think that since we' ve incorporated these new 9 concepts which are really just beginning to be fully 10 implemented, there' s been a marked increase in the 11 professionalism in the way that refineries are operated 12 such that we should see great benefits and reduction of 13 incidents that we all don' t want . But we are really 14 just in the very earliest of years of implementation of 15 these regulations . 16 The way to correct problems in - - when one does 17 have incidents , I feel , is to get an investigation 18 committee , team together and to delve into the situation 19 that occurred and to get to the root causes of the 20 incident . 21 Preferably this will be done before the incident 22 could ever happen by the implementation of other steps 23 of a safety program, but surely we want to do this in 24 every case where we have a major incident . 25 And after the fact we would determine the root MndoraeIIa 1 01 Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPOIMNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 causes , be they management , personnel training, 2 equipment , procedures , or any of the other elements of 3 the safety plans . And then we would try to formulate a 4 corrective action plan and to implement that plan . 5 What I think we need to have is not a land use 6 permit which would be essentially like trying to prevent 7 dogs from barking by making them have a land use permit 8 for where they reside . I don' t think you could do that . 9 The dogs wouldn' t understand it and it wouldn' t do any 10 good . 11 What would be more important would be to have a 12 program that took into consideration the things that 13 make dogs bark . Hence , we go in and find out what is it 14 that made this happen . And once we ' ve decided, we go in 15 and correct the root cause of what made it happen . 16 This kind of a regulation certainly could be 17 drafted by this County, although I personally do not 18 think that it is necessary because the Federal and State 19 has rapidly jumped into the picture and are implementing 20 very well thought out plans . And we should at least 21 give it a short year or two to see how that pans out . 22 But if we determine that we need to add tougher 23 enforcement to those current regulations or - - what I 24 would suggest is that we have a plan that is 25 administered by a department like County Health which ZattdotaeIls 102 Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 has already called on me in the last couple of weeks to 2 determine how well I ' m doing since I have the team that 3 does incident investigation of processing incidents . 4 And they found that our approach is very good and they 5 found that they would like to know more about it just 6 for their own professional interest . And we are of 7 course growing as we learn to do these things by the 8 new - - these new plans . 9 There is no rush to get poorly thought out 10 ordinances into place . I ' m a taxpayer in this County, 11 and I can tell you that the rush will only create cost . 12 It will create cost for the County. It will create cost 13 for the industries . 14 Instead we should go back and decide what it is 15 that we want for an ordinance that would really increase 16 safety . And we should use citizen, environmental , 17 union, professionals in the industry to determine that 18 in an orderly fashion and to present then as time goes 19 along what they feel after sufficient technical study of 20 the problem would really benefit the County. 21 I ' m approaching retirement . I have a number of 22 grandchildren . I ' m not really motivated by my 23 employment at this stage in life since I could have 24 retired several years ago . And so I ' m looking at it 25 from the standpoint of many years in this industry . Certified Shorthand Reporters Z ndoneIIa 103 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 And I can tell you that we ought to sit down and 2 formulate a better ordinance , which essentially I ' m 3 suggesting to you that you reject this particular 4 proposal as not having anything to do with land or 5 permits or anything else , because there ' s another 6 vehicle that would accomplish the goal of increasing 7 safety for the citizens surrounding the large plants of 8 any nature . 9 And I am very concerned that I see too much 10 unemployment still in this United States . I see that 11 it ' s possible to drive our industries out of the United 12 States . I could - - you could see many of them have 13 moved to Mexico in attempts to get around regulations . • 14 And it doesn' t make any sense to me why we would want to 15 put unnecessary regulation in place , especially when it 16 would accomplish nothing but line the pockets of the 17 people that are in the bureaucracy that have to enforce 18 something that makes no sense . 19 That money also comes away from the profits that 20 any company would make . And I know all of you are in 21 one way or another stockholders of companies . It would 22 amaze me that there is even one person in this whole 23 audience that is not a stockholder of some company or 24 another in some indirect or direct way. And they need 25 to think to what it is that is in their future . Certified Shorthand Reporters Mndmd 104 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Because if we make no money in this country, we 2 have no money to use for any other purposes like schools 3 or the things that we value . And we do not want to 4 drive out industry, because every person employed in an 5 industry supports four or five or six people in the 6 community at large . 7 Thank you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 9 Commissioner Terrell . 10 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, I just 11 wanted to add - - to let the speaker know there are some 12 young people in the audience . They don' t know where 13 Avon is located is . 14 MR. LATHROP : Okay. This is - - 15 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : You might want to tell 16 them it ' s Tosco Oil . 17 MR . LATHROP : When I started it was the Tidewater 18 Oil Company. 19 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Right . 20 MR . LATHROP : And before that it was the 21 Associated Oil Company. But it ' s a spot on Highway 4 at 22 Solano where there are some large things sticking up in 23 the air that do processing . 24 And I worked for a number of successive owners , 25 Phillips and then Tosco . And it was called Avon because Certified Shorthand Reporters mndoneIIa 105 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 there was a post office there which was the Avon post 2 office . And it ' s still essentially - - we shut the post 3 office down in an efficiency move in the postal system, 4 but that was the name of the spur on the railroad and 5 the post office , which I think was still there when I 6 first came there . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 8 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Lathrop . 9 MR. LATHROP : You bet . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker, Kevin Smith, 11 followed by John Cheater, I believe, followed by Emmett 12 Miller . 13 Mr . Smith, your name and address for the record . 14 MR. SMITH : Yes . My name is Kevin Smith . I 15 reside in Vacaville . I ' m a member of Carpenters Local 16 152 and Laborers Local 324 before that , for the last 22 17 years . 18 I ' ve spent approximately 11 years of those 22 in 19 the building trades working inside the refineries . And 20 I ' ve logged several years in each of the four major 21 refineries in Contra Costa County_. 22 At the present time I ' m a field superintendent 23 for Overaa Construction and I administrate our alliance 24 contract at the Tosco refinery. • 25 I ' m involved and my crew' s involved in doing work rr Certified Shorthand Reporters Tzallikon6i 106 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 in every operating unit within the refinery boundaries 2 every day . And I just wanted to touch on a few points 3 that I think refine - - reflect the refinery' s philosophy 4 on safety. 5 As a company, we are responsible for 6 prequalifying many subcontractors that work in the 7 refinery. They have to go a prequalification process 8 that reviews their safety records . 9 Many of the contractors that Overaa does business 10 with outside the refineries cannot qualify to work for 11 us inside . Their safety records aren' t good enough. So 12 that ' s a major element . If they don' t have a safety 13 record, they can' t work in the refinery. 14 When we came to Tosco a couple of years back, we 15 had our own safety program, our own company safety 16 program audited by Tosco' s health and safety department . 17 We had to spend quite a bit of time to upgrade our 18 safety program, to bring it up to refinery standards . 19 And after that program was developed and met all 20 the refinery standards , it was adopted by our company, 21 companywide on every job . It was an improvement over 22 what we had before . 23 We ' re a pretty large contractor, one of the 24 largest if not the largest contractor in Contra Costa 25 County. And we still learned and grew from our Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 107 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTII`iG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 relationship with the refinery safety people . 2 The training that our people go through to work 3 in there , we go through the Bay Area Training Trust . A 4 lot of us are hazardous materials trained . We ' re DESA 5 drug tested, we ' re - - we have achieved site specific 6 training . And there' s - - the list goes on . 7 As far as the refinery' s philosophy is concerned, 8 their personal protective compound is open to anybody 9 that works in the refinery. Whenever my people , even 10 though they work for an outside contractor, need safety 11 equipment , they can go to this equipment compound and 12 they can procure safety belts , any type of safety 13 equipment , personal safety equipment they need at no 14 cost . 15 This is I think an example of the refinery 16 putting their money where their mouth is . They say they 17 want safety and they spend the money to make sure it 18 happens . 19 Our accident rate , Overaa' s accident rate 20 companywide is about 2 . 0 . Inside the refineries over 21 the last several years it ' s zero . We wish as a company 22 that we could achieve the type of safety record outside 23 in private works and public works that we achieve inside 24 the refinery. 25 The other thing is , I mean, I care about the ii Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBILaUItPi�'a 108 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 environment and I care about safety. And I think that 2 over the last 10 or 12 years that I ' ve been involved in 3 this business and in this industry, that there ' s been a 4 great deal of progress made . And I think we ' re on the 5 right track and I think that I ' d like to see - - I ' d like 6 to see you vote this thing down . 7 I don' t see what it ' s going to do to improve the 8 safety program. And I oppose it , and I hope you will , 9 too . 10 Thank you . Any questions? 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker . 12 Thank you, Mr . - - thank you, Mr .. Smith . 13 Next speaker is John Cheater . 14 MR. CHEATER: My name is John Cheater . I ' m area 15 manager for Air Products and Chemicals . Been in the 16 chemical industry about 25 years . I ' m presently 17 responsible for two facilities here in the Martinez 18 area . 19 We operate two facilities within the Shell and 20 Tosco refineries which supply hydrogen to those 21 refineries . And as a global industrial gas and chemical 22 company, Air Products operates in nearly every state . 23 Many facilities like our Martinez operations are 24 run by a small team and supported by environmental 25 health and safety engineering and other specialists from Certified Shorthand Reporters ZacaaOR61111 109 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 our headquarters in Pennsylvania . • 2 To the degree possible, we implement uniform 3 safety and environmental systems to achieve the highest 4 level of safety and performance in a cost effective 5 manner . In fact , Air Products was recently recognized 6 for our safety leadership by receiving the Lamont Dupont 7 safety award which is given to only the very best 8 performing companies in the industry . 9 We believe our ability to implement uniform 10 practices across the County, State and national 11 boundaries is a key element to our success . 12 Our safety and environmental systems meet or 13 exceed the vast array of Federal and State requirements . 14 We are concerned that this proposed ordinance would, at 15 the very least , impose an additional layer of 16 regulations which are inconsistent with the oversight 17 schemes in every other Federal and State program. 18 What ' s more , the proposed discretionary land use 19 permit process could actually hinder industry' s efforts 20 to improve safety in the following ways . 21 First , facilities would be forced to redirect 22 resources away from existing programs and commit them to 23 fulfilling unique County requirements for what appear to 24 be questionable results of improving safety. 25 It is not unlikely that the compliance activities Certified Shorthand Reporters mRdoIaeIIa 110 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107 Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 at the State and Federal level versus the County 2 ordinance process would result in facilities being out 3 of compliance during instances when a facility would be 4 unable to conduct maintenance activities because of the 5 need to first obtain a County permit . 6 Third, the County level red tape could hinder 7 industry' s ability to conduct necessary repairs and 8 maintenance when and as needed by holding these 9 activities hostage until a permit is granted . And that 10 any - - should any rebuild be necessary, the entire 11 production process could be shut down and the work force 12 laid idle until a permit is obtained . 13 And finally, because a permit would be required 14 for maintenance , the ordinance would hinder industry' s 15 ability to upgrade equipment and units to comply with 16 Federal and State programs as they evolve . 17 Thank you . 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 19 Thank you, Mr . Cheater . 20 Next speaker, Emmett Miller, followed by Robert 21 Short . 22 MR . MILLER : Mr . Chairman, members of the 23 Planning Commission, good evening . My name is Emmett 24 Miller . I ' ve lived in Lafayette for 45 years . I ' m 25 speaking as an outsider in this business , but as one who Certified Shorthand Reporters Zanikolman 111 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 has spent a large part of my career as an insider . • 2 I ' ve worked in refineries and chemical plants in 3 this County for 40 years , 37 of those at Shell . And 4 since I ' ve retired in 1991 , I ' ve been working as a - - as 5 a consultant . I ' m a chemical engineer, I ' m a mechanical 6 engineer . 7 My activities have involved the design of 8 equipment , the operation of equipment , the inspection of 9 equipment and the maintenance of equipment . I ' m 10 familiar with all those areas . 11 Now, this measure that you' re looking at would 12 interject the County into major maintenance which 13 includes planning, work scope , material selection, 14 equipment selection and procurement , manpower 15 scheduling, craft qualifying, and finally inspection of 16 the work . 17 And needless to say, these activities are time 18 related. And any delay in any one of these can throw 19 havoc into the whole process . 20 I ' d like to digress for a minute . Five years ago 21 I had a family of skunks that adopted my place . . And I 22 was told that I could call the County and arrange to 23 have a trap brought out or I could pick one up, and when 24 it was successful in capturing one of the animals that 25 the County would come out and retrieve it . I was told Certified Shorthand Reporters T ,^nikoneiia 112 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 that the equipment was in use right now, but I would be 2 called when it was available . 3 Some three months later, after nobody called, I 4 called back, couldn' t find the person I talked with . 5 Nobody knew or could find any record of my message . 6 Another three months down the road, I did the 7 same thing, same result . Every year for five years I ' ve 8 made those calls and with the same result . 9 Now, needless to say, I don' t have total 10 confidence in a County agency in responding - - in the 11 ability or desire to respond to my needs . And how does 12 this apply to the relationship between this ordinance 13 and industry? Well , just this . Everybody has his 14 priorities . . And obviously, I wasn' t real high on the - - 15 on the Animal Control business priority list . 16 The people that you would have attempting to 17 respond to industry' s needs , I think just the very 18 nature of that would preclude them from responding in a 19 timely manner . 20 Certainly, the County at this point does not have 21 anybody that would be qualified in addressing the issues 22 that are at stake . Who' s going to say what materials 23 are required in this service? Who' s going to say how 24 thick they have to be? Who' s going to say where do you 25 put the inspection point to determine what the - - what Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandOraerIIB 113 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 the metal thickness is at any given time? 2 Now, this expertise might be acquired or 3 developed, but I doubt it . And to have it available 4 when it is needed and respond to the time requirements , 5 I don' t see it in the cards . 6 And if it could, it would - - it would require the 7 acquisition of a considerable staff . And as a taxpayer, 8 I don' t think I would want to support that staff . 9 There ' s a - - there ' s a gross difference between 10 determining the use of a land use permit and determining 11 if a proposed use for a parcel is appropriate and in the 12 best interest of the community, that ' s one thing, as 13 compared to reviewing and approving activities that go 14 on on an ongoing basis in terms of maintenance 15 activities . 16 And I submit that this is not appropriate , it is 17 not needed, it ' s workable , and I respectfully request 18 that you disapprove this move . 19 Thank you . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 21 Thank you, Mr . Miller . 22 Next speaker is Robert Short , followed by Bruce 23 Linn . 24 MR . SHORT : My name is Robert Short . I live in 25 Concord . I ' ve been in Contra Costa County now for Certified Shorthand Reporters MudoReIIa 114 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTITiG SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 about , since 1994 , three years with Chevron, 10 years 2 with Shell Chemical , 15 years with Shell Oil , and five 3 years with Jacobs Contractors doing considerable amount 4 of work at Shell . And it ' s been my experience through 5 all that time that Shell has a remarkable record of safe 6 work . 7 This suggestion by the union that they need a 8 little more control over the maintenance work I think is 9 unnecessary, a redundancy. They have land use permits 10 on equipment when it goes in . Then when it comes down, 11 it ' s a matter, still the equipment that ' s in, the 12 maintenance work is performed by very trained, 13 experience people, both Shell Chemical - - Shell Oil , 14 rather, personnel and contractors that have many years 15 of experience at it . 16 And the adding of another layer of work permits , 17 land use permits on maintenance would be just an 18 additional expense that would not be really worthwhile . 19 That ' s my opinion . Thank you . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 21 Thank you so much, Mr . Short . 22 Next speaker, Bruce Linn, followed by Nathalie 23 Jones . 24 MR . LINN : Good evening, Chairman Wong and 25 members of the Planning Commission . My name is Bruce Certified Shorthand Reporters Mndonofla 115 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Linn . I am the owner of Business Office Services 2 Company. One of my offices is over in Antioch. It 3 handles Dow, Gaylord and Shell Oil . 4 I have employees in Shell Oil . They' ve been in 5 there for many years . They work approximately 2 , 000 6 hours a year . And I find that in comparison to the 7 other companies that I overview, they are safer there 8 than they probably will be on Thanksgiving when they' re 9 out with their own families . 10 My business in Walnut Creek is Project Management 11 Associates . We do work for close to 45 companies in 12 Contra Costa County. In working with their process 13 paperwork, I am able to compare and see the differences . 14 I am impressed with both Chevron and Shell 15 documentation and the quality of people and the level of 16 involvement these people have . 17 I personally out of my own pocket purchased a 200 18 horsepower Towani boiler, a 70 horsepower air 19 compressor, a Marley cooling tower . 20 Now, to the people in this room, these are toys . 21 They could build them in their backyard for their 22 children to play with instead of jungle gyms . For me , 23 it was $82 , 000 in cash . I went to Ocean Shore Boiler 24 Works to install it for me . I was told that four and a 25 half weeks after permit it could be up and running . Certified Shorthand Reporters LE�::::' ItP, B116 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 : `NG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 This system, by the time I had it turned on in 2 five and a half months , cost me out of pocket $153 , 000 . 3 Take that number and multiply it times thousands plus , 4 and you' ll get somewhere into what you' re talking about 5 here in a few months . The people that I dealt with, 6 someone mentioned that you' d had 29 meetings , I had 35 7 or 40 . 8 I don' t feel that the problem that you' re working 9 with, from the point of view that you' re working with, 10 especially when Mr . Tom Powers said that you' re not 11 involved in profit motive , you' re only in control . As 12 an owner of a company, I have to pay the banks , I have 13 to pay my employees , I have to make a living, I guess 14 that ' s my point of view . 15 It wouldn' t hurt to have 35 meetings on this or 16 40 meetings . I wish that you would consider the best 17 choice , turning this down . My preference would be to 18 take it under advisement and professionally work with it 19 until you really can help the situation . If it takes an 20 extra few months , so be it . It ' s worth it . 21 Thank you . Any questions? 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 23 Thank you, Mr . Linn . 24 Next speaker, Nathalie Jones , followed by Winton 25 Jones . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaiaaorteIIa 117 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR. JONES : Can we go together? 2 CHAIRMAN WONG : That ' s fine , Mr . Jones . 3 MR . JONES : Thank you for your consideration . 4 We ' ve had 50 years of married life . Even though she ' s a 5 rebel devil and I ' m a damn yankee , we split our - - we 6 split our votes at the ballot box, but we ' ve been 7 business partners and bedroom partners for a long time . 8 We have no particular problems . 9 I ' m a proud union member since 1931 , a proud 10 contractor family since 1923 . And we ' re here to say why 11 should we tamper with something that ' s good right now. 12 The ordinances are good. The refineries are working . 13 We ' re working people . I ' m only 82 , trying to get it all • 14 together . But I think we should leave everything the 15 way it is . 16 Do you have anything to say, Nathalie? 17 (Laughter and applause . ) 18 MS . JONES : Well , I ' m the other half of this . 19 Nathalie Jones . And we work as partners in everything 20 we do . And it ' s a pleasure to work for the - - for the 21 refineries . We ' ve worked for all of them. 22 And I believe in improving things when - - when 23 they need improving . But sometimes you can - - think you 24 can improve when you don' t , you go the opposite way. 25 And I too think if everybody if every business Zalmlone**8 Certified Shorthand Reporters (1 lj 118 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SEMCE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 was run as well as the Shell and the different 2 refineries are run, and we ' ve worked in all of them, our 3 business world would be much more successful . 4 And we don' t need any - - I don' t think they need 5 any - - to let people improve on them for they have - - 6 they're open-minded . And we ' re lucky to have people 7 like that , and who share so much of their - - do so much 8 good for communities . They share their wealth . 9 So I ' m proud of - - I ' m proud of them and I object 10 to changes . Thank you . 11 MR . JONES : I shared my first nickel and she says 12 she ' s going to keep it . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speakers? 14 Thank you, Mr . and Mrs . Jones . 15 Next speaker is Gary Miles . 16 (Applause . ) 17 Gary Miles . 18 MR . MILES : I ' m Gary Miles . I live in Walnut 19 Creek on 844 Meander Court . I work in Martinez . 20 I ' m the vice president of administration of Albay 21 Construction Company. We ' ve been in business since 22 1961 . We ' ve been working in refineries for over 30 23 years . We are signatory to the unions , the 24 Steamfitters . 25 And I ' m here to speak against this ordinance for Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaradmeIIa 119 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 two reasons . The first is that it ' s a silly idea . The 2 second is that I think it ' s bad for union labor . 3 To get back to the first part , you know, one of 4 the worst thing you can do in a refinery, the best way 5 to get kicked out of one is to have one of your people 6 as a contractor turn a valve . You cannot interfere with 7 the refinery' s operations or how they go about things . 8 That is the most dangerous thing you could do in there . 9 An ordinance like this would interject somebody 10 in the refinery telling them how to do something and 11 when to do it and how to do it safely . The only people 12 that can say that are the refinery experts . 13 You' ve seen mechanical engineers , chemical 14 engineers come up here, PSM experts , fire safety 15 experts , production experts , hundreds of people that 16 know the refinery and are trained specifically for that 17 particular spot . And to . try to tell them how to do 18 something safely would just make the situation worse . 19 It would make it more dangerous and therefore silly. 20 And the second part is that being a union 21 contractor, some - - there ' s thoughts going around the 22 room that , hey, maybe this would be good for union labor 23 and we ' d get more work out of it , and that I would 24 benefit being a union contractor . 25 That ' s not the case . Should this ordinance pass , * Certified Shorthand Reporters RANG 120 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.-INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 the refineries are going to do three things that I see 2 right off the hand . First they' re going to sue the 3 County 100 ways to Sunday. 4 Then if they' re forced to implement it , they' ll 5 try to implement it , they' ll do the best they can, 6 creating the confusion and the danger I talked about . 7 Third, they' re going to do their darndest to make 8 sure there isn' t any union labor in their refineries , 9 period . It ' s happened before in the past . They can do 10 it . 11 So I believe that this ordinance would hurt union 12 labor . And that ' s it . Any questions? 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 14 Thank you . 15 Okay . Ladies and gentlemen, it ' s almost five 16 minutes of 11 : 00 . I mentioned in my opening statement 17 that the Commission would stop at 11 : 00 p . m. unless 18 there was a unanimous consent to continue . And I ' d like 19 to hear from my colleagues at this time as to their 20 desire . 21 We have heard 24 speakers , and there are 22 more 22 speakers that would like to speak . And as I mentioned, 23 it is five minutes of 11 : 00 . So what is the desire of 24 the Commission? 25 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : I - - Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaladolujj8 121 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Oh, Commissioner Gaddis . 2 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I would like to discuss 3 continuing the hearing . 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . 5 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : December 10th. 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : December 10th? 7 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I , myself cannot afford to 8 sit here much longer (unintelligible) three days , and 9 I ' m here just because the hearing (unintelligible) . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . 11 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) And I 12 personally would like to go home (unintelligible) . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. That ' s a motion that a14 you' re making . Is there a second to that motion? 15 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, I ' ll second 16 to get discussion amongst the Commissioners . I know in 17 my view of this , you say you have 22 people left? 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : Correct . 19 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : I know this Commission has 20 already been chastised once because we continued our 21 hearings to get some of our workload down . And we were 22 here till 3 : 30 in the morning trying to unload our 23 calendar . 24 And then we - - in my opinion, I thought we were 25 doing a good thing for you, the citizens , because that ' s Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaradomfla 122 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 what we ' re here for . Then we got chastised for it , 2 saying that we worked too long, we weren' t making 3 correct decisions and things like that . 4 But we had a Commissioner come on our Board, she 5 came on last year, the year before last , came on and 6 made this motion to us that we would stop our meetings 7 at 11 : 00 o' clock so that she could get home at a decent 8 hour . 9 And under - - you know, for me it ' s easy because I 10 and Carmen are retired, but the rest of the these people 11 have to go to work . And you can realize for yourselves , 12 working at one job and coming here at 7 : 30 and then 13 working till 3 : 30 in the morning and then having to go 14 to your job again, how unsafe is that? 15 (Applause . ) 16 I know that - - that this Commission has been 17 pushed here lately. There ' s a lot of things going on 18 out there in our particular County right now. 19 I mean, I don' t mind sitting here again, because 20 again, I ' m retired. It - - it didn' t bother me here to 21 be 3 : 30 because I was able to sit on my deck that 22 afternoon and take a nice, long nap and recoup . But for 23 the people that work, I can' t say that for them. 24 But you know, ' cause the last time I said to 25 myself , well , we only had - - I forget how many speakers , Certified Shorthand Reporters ze►ztao�taeIIs 123 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 it wasn' t that many speakers . And I said, oh, yeah, we 2 can get through at 2 : 00 o' clock, 1 : 30 . Well , 3 : 30 in 3 the morning, we ' re going home . 4 Well , again I ' m seeing 22 speakers , and all of 5 you have some concern . And what I - - what I ' m looking 6 at tonight is that a lot of you are bringing up 7 different subjects than what we ' ve heard in the past . 8 We ' ve had different meetings and, yes , there are some 9 times we can get in meetings to where they' re continued, 10 they' re continued, they' re continued, and we start 11 hearing the same things at each meeting . And it doesn' t 12 do us any good as Commissioners to make decisions as we 13 hear the same thing each time . 14 But as I come here and I listen to you speak to 15 us , and I ' m taking notes , I have reading material , and 16 once I get new information, it gives me more thought . I 17 mean, I ' m creating more notes here in front of me to 18 digest . 19 So as long as that proceeding is happening that 20 I ' m getting new input , then I ' m willing to accept the 21 new input . 22 Now, if I was sitting here since 7 : 30 and I ' d 23 gotten the same input that I ' d gotten before , then I 24 would say to the Chairman, no, let ' s just finish off and 25 go because we ' re not - - we ' re not catching new dialogue , * Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoraPiII$ 124 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 we ' re just hearing the same old arguments . But I ' m 2 hearing something new tonight . 3 It ' s the first time we' ve heard from Chevron . 4 You know, wow, you know, where were they? I ' m wondering 5 how come I don' t hear from PG&E . Where' s Dupont , 6 where' s - - you know, where ' s these other chemical 7 companies that we - - where ' s the company out at Nichols . 8 I always call them Nichols , I don' t know what company 9 that is out there , but I always call them Nichols 10 because that ' s the town of Nichols . Where are they in 11 this process? It ' s a chemical plant . 12 So I ' m willing to put this over to another night 13 to get more input . As long as I ' m getting new input - - 14 (End of Tape Side D - Beginning of Side E) 15 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : . . . different changes , 16 are we - - is it possible for us to make amendments to 17 this proposed ordinance based on the testimony we ' re 18 hearing? 19 MR . BARRY : Certainly. You can make whatever 20 recommendations on the ordinance to the Board that you 21 wish to based upon all of the testimony and evidence 22 presented to you . 23 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Okay . The next question I 24 had, just in response to this , and to the general 25 audience , regardless - - to me, even with the testimony Certified Shorthand Reporters MIRdolm a 12 5 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 involved with the next 22 speakers , I have a number of 2 questions related to things I discovered . 3 For example , Cal OSHA is now regulating PSS as an 4 example of some of the new information received this 5 evening . I don' t know what Cal OSHA' s auditing program 6 is for this County. They' re the ones responsible - - if 7 the County isn' t responsible and Cal OSHA is and they' re 8 going to be , how does this ordinance dovetail and work 9 together with Cal OSHA' s ordinance . 10 We had a gun - - we had a gun control issue come 11 before us as well . And the ATF and some other Federal 12 regulations were coming in at that same time . We 13 decided should we wait slightly to see if it was going 14 to work, and then how tough should our ordinance be . 15 On one hand, that ' s the way I felt . 16 On the second hand, I felt that I had a number of 17 companies talk about how many stacks of paper and how 18 many regulatory agencies . And I don' t like regulation, 19 I ' m from the private industry. 20 I ' ve lived here for 30 years , two and a half 21 years a severe accident , these are riskiest companies in 22 our County. You compose the most potential problems 23 since we don' t have a nuclear reactor out there . 24 And because of that , I think the expectation for 25 safety and the emphasis on safety is even more for this Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 126 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 industry than for many of the others , like somebody • 2 mentioned earlier about - - about public works or 3 something else . I think the issues here are critical 4 and something is going to be done . And obviously, the 5 industry hasn' t reacted quickly enough in our government 6 agencies , Cal OSHA, or more local control here in the 7 County is coming on now to make sure something is going 8 to change . 9 With regards to the chemical engineer book, one 10 of the gentlemen recommended that was the basis for a 11 lot of the regulation . I ' d be interested in finding 12 out - - I don' t know if I could read it coherently, but 13 it would be interesting to see how our ordinance might 14 be based from that book . It may already be included. 15 The public safety agreement , that would be the 16 option to the land use permit option of this ordinance . 17 I don' t understand if the public safety agreement is 18 possible since it may require information that currently 19 a number of the companies under the ordinance couldn' t 20 provide anyway, so the public safety agreement may not 21 even be a plausible alternative to the land use permit 22 option . That ' s a question if it is or if it isn' t . 23 The question about the land use permit itself , 24 the question comes up can it be used for something other 25 than increasing safety . In other words , there ' s a Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoRe 11 127 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 balance there . Can it be used for leverage at a very 2 critical time in a refinery which is this down time or 3 this maintenance time . 4 At that critical time can an organization or a 5 company that has a difference of opinion come in and use 6 this land use permit ordinance as a leveraging tool 7 against whether it be a chemical company, whatever it 8 might be . And if it can, are those costs outweighed by 9 the benefits of increased safety . So therefore , should 10 we just allow that to take place . 11 Another question, the prequalification of 12 contractors and the procurement process itself that 13 takes place . Tonight was the first night I ' ve heard 14 from a contractor that works in one of these refineries 15 about what they do internally . 16 Best available technology, what is that? I know 17 in our industry we ' re just high tech . And what ' s best 18 for one company isn' t always best for the other company. 19 But I think that there are technologies out there that 20 have a better track record than other technologies . 21 If that ' s how it ' s measured and if that can be 22 measured, I think that ' s a very good idea for the 23 industry to consider . And this may require the sharing 24 of some information which otherwise may not have been 25 possible . �r r Certified Shorthand Reporters Z8IadUIt6IY8 128 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 As far as the million dollar threshold, I don' t • 2 know why it ' s a million dollars . That ' s just a 3 question . 4 As far as root cause, I think the people that 5 work for the industry say it ' s either people or 6 equipment . I tend to go towards the people argument , 7 since with the equipment argument it was based on 8 phenomena . 9 And I believe that the engineers that are working 10 at these plants are probably - - probably aren' t seeing a 11 lot of new things happen with the materials they' re 12 using that hasn' t happened unless they' re using again 13 new materials , in which case those problems shouldn' t be 14 the - - those should be pretested, operationally tested 15 prior to be used in our refineries , anyway. 16 Those are some of the questions , some of the 17 specific new information received that I would have . 18 Regardless of hearing the speakers , I had a number of 19 specific questions that I would like to address because 20 I think some amendments may be needed to this ordinance 21 in order to make it - - to make it address the concerns 22 of safety, and so it is a good neighbor ordinance . 23 Anyway, those are my comments . 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other comments by any of the 25 Commissioners? Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandomfla 129 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 There ' s a motion on the floor and it was seconded 2 that we terminate this meeting supposedly at 11 : 00 p . m. 3 and that we continue the public hearing until December 4 the 10th - - 5 MR. BARRY : Point of order . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : - - 1996 . 7 MR . BARRY : Point of order . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Smith . 9 MR . SMITH : You know, it has become very clear 10 that the Commission has a number of questions , and there 11 are a number of people that represented that more 12 information needed to be obtained. 13 I would suggest that the Commission, rather than 14 putting everybody through this process again in 15 December, consider the possibility of putting this over 16 until the new Board takes office in January at the first 17 meeting in January . 18 There certainly is no evidence that I can see 19 here that the Commission is likely to make a decision on 20 December 10th, so why don' t you think about putting it 21 over till January. 22 MS . BULGANIK : (Unintelligible . ) 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : Yes , ma' am. 24 MS . BULGANIK: (Unintelligible . ) I just want to 25 ask a question . My name is Ann Bulganik . And right Certified Shorthand Reporters onofla 130 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 C&:R:T,,Gl--- SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 here in communications it says direction from the Board . 2 of Supervisors , report on Agenda Item Number 2 within 40 3 days . 4 Also they are going to vote , from what I gather, 5 on Monday, the Board of Supervisors , on this . 6 Now, why - - what are you going to do in 40 days , 7 that ' s my question . If you' re not going to make a 8 decision tonight to give this report to the Board of 9 Supervisors , then what are they going to do on December 10 the 2nd, because that is Monday. And they was wanting 11 to get it finished because Mr . Smith, Mr . Torlakson and 12 Ms . Bishop are leaving . 13 And I would like to know then what ' s happening 14 December the 2nd . Are they going to leave - - if they' re 15 going to let you go and talk - - and put your report in 16 40 days , are they going to continue theirs until the new 17 Board takes over? That ' s my question . 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : Well , ma' am, I don' t know what 19 the Board will do . I do know that we are going - - 20 MS . BULGANIK : This is what was the last Board 21 meeting . 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Uh-huh . I don' t know what the 23 Board of Supervisors will do . 24 MR . SMITH : (Unintelligible . ) 25 MS . BULGANIK : I ' d like you to answer . Certified Shorthand Reporters mlmdomIla 131 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR . SMITH : Well, the Board asked you to come up 2 with a response in 40 days . And I don' t see any 3 evidence that that response will be forthcoming . So if 4 you don' t come up with a response in 40 days , it ' s 5 deemed an approval . 6 ( Interruption from audience . ) 7 MS . BULGANIK: Then why - - then why are we - - why 8 have we wasted time - - why have we wasted time tonight , 9 your time and everybody else ' s time in this room. 10 MR . SMITH : That ' s the law . I didn' t write the 11 law. That is the fact (unintelligible) . 12 MS . BULGANIK : You - - 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Ma' am - - 14 MS . BULGANIK : You do not - - 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Ma' am - - ma' am - - 16 MS . BULGANIK: Then that - - 17 MR . BARRY : Mr . Chairman - - 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : We - - 19 MR. SMITH : (Unintelligible . ) 20 MS . BULGANIK: No, I am - - I am not with either 21 side . I want to know why then if you' ve got 40 days to 22 give your report , but if you don' t give it before 23 Monday, then they consider your report as approved when 24 you might not be approving . 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Barry, do you have a - - M�r,� i Certified Shorthand Reporters ndUndkk 132 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR . BARRY : Mr . Chairman, just to clarify the 2 facts as I understand them. 3 The Board of Supervisors has scheduled a meeting 4 for Monday at 8 : 30 . This item is agendaed for, I 5 believe , 9 : 00 o' clock . 6 Supervisor Smith is correct that the Government 7 Code provisions on referrals of this nature require that 8 your Commission report within 40 days . And if you have 9 not reported at the end of that 40 -day period, it is 10 deemed that your Commission approves of their 11 recommended changes . 12 It does not mean that if you don' t report by 13 Monday, that you are recommending an approval . 14 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: When does the 40 days 15 start? 16 MR . BARRY : It ' s arguable as to when it starts . 17 There ' s no case law that I ' m aware of where it ' s been 18 litigated . This - - I believe this went in in 1977 or 19 thereabouts . And there ' s no case law that I ' ve - - that 20 I ' ve been able to find or been advised of . 21 Some would argue that , the same way that notice 22 that is required for a public hearing, for example, 23 doesn' t have to be received by the people within 300 24 feet , it merely has to be sent to comply with the law. 25 Others would - - would argue that until it ' s received by Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaladoneHa 133 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 the Commission on your agenda, you haven' t been given 2 notice in writing . 3 That ' s a point of litigation . That ' s not 4 something that I think that your Commission, you know, 5 really needs to be too concerned about . I think you 6 need to be concerned about what the substance of your 7 recommendations is going to be more than what the timing 8 of them is going to be . 9 COMMISSIONER : Mr . Barry, are the only two 10 recommendations that the - - the only two recommendations 11 that we can make to the Board are to approve or 12 disapprove? 13 MR. BARRY : No . Certainly you have wide latitude 14 in terms of modifications that you might propose to the 15 Board of Supervisors . You may recommend that they take 16 no action, that they take an approval of what ' s before 17 you as has been introduced, or that they amend and 18 reintroduce the ordinance according to some other 19 criteria which you feel are more appropriate based upon 20 all of the evidence and testimony presented to you . 21 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Hanecak . 22 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : Just a point of 23 clarification . Excuse my - - this is just due to me not 24 knowing . When - - point of ignorance . 25 When would the people - - when would the Board of Certified Shorthand Reporters zalmdonallB 134 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Supervisors - - when would this current Board of 2 Supervisors lose - - what ' s the soonest they would lose 3 any one of their members? 4 MR . BARRY : It ' s not - - 5 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Is that December 3rd. 6 MR . BARRY : The soonest that they would lose any 7 one of their members would be if Supervisor Torlakson 8 is , as scheduled, sworn into the Assembly on the 2nd of 9 December . 10 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : Okay. On the 2nd . 11 COMMISSIONER : Next Monday. 12 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Okay . Okay. Thank you 13 very much . 14 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 15 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) If this 16 continues to January, then the ordinance, because we 17 have (unintelligible) . 18 MR . BARRY : If you continued it late enough in 19 January, then your recommendation could be deemed 20 approved after 40 days from today, for example . It 21 could be argued by some that it would be 40 days from 22 the date that a notice was sent to you registered mail . 23 Others will argue, no, it has to be received by the 24 Commissioners . And as I say, there ' s no case law to 25 guide me in giving you advice about that . So it ' s a �r,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters �( andoIaPiTT$ 135 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 �FEPORnNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 difficult sort of point . 2 But certainly, at the latest , since it ' s on your 3 agenda today, you' ve all received it , acknowledged 4 receipt , et cetera, 40 days from today, if you have not 5 reported, I think it ' s unarguable that it would be 6 deemed a recommendation of approval at that point . 7 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : 40 days from today is 8 January what? 9 MR . BARRY : I believe it ' s January 6th or so . I 10 haven' t counted it off . 11 (Unintelligible from audience . ) 12 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, before we 13 get - - 14 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 15 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Before we get the audience 16 here involved in our discussion and I don' t - - you might 17 ask the lady to sit down - - we need to discuss this 18 amongst ourselves . 19 MS . BULGANIK: Okay, fine . Thank you . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : I ' m sorry. Thank you . 21 Commissioner Terrell . 22 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, I seconded 23 the motion that - - and I think the intent of the motion 24 was to continue this to our next meeting in December . 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : Uh-huh . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItaOIteIIa 136 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : And I would support that 2 motion to continue this hearing to our next meeting in 3 December . 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : December the 10th. Motion has 5 been made and seconded . 6 All those in favor please say aye . 7 (Ayes . ) 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : All those opposed? 9 (No . ) 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay . One opposition . The 11 motion carries . 12 MR. BARRY : Mr . Chairman, members of the 13 Commission - - 14 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Barry. 15 MR. BARRY : - - since there is not a quorum of the 16 Board of Supervisors present , the Board of Supervisors 17 meeting for today is adjourned to 8 : 30 on December 2nd 18 when the Board will meet in these chambers . - 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Thank you, Mr . Barry. 20 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) 21 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 22 COMMISSIONER GADDIS: I ' m sorry. That ' s the 23 question that I have to ask (unintelligible) . I was 24 surprised when I attended the Board of Supervisors 25 meeting (unintelligible) as I was going through the Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaladondia 137 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 agenda, at the end of the agenda I read "Adjourn to 2 attend" - - this is the Board of Supervisors meeting : 3 "Adjourn to attend the meeting of the Contra Costa 4 Planning Commission on November 26 , 1996 at 7 : 30 p . m. in 5 the Board Chambers , Room 107 , 651 Pine Street , 6 Martinez . " Okay. 7 And I was really surprised because I couldn' t 8 quite understand why the Board of Supervisors would want 9 to adjourn to meet here . 10 So if someone could explain that to me , please . 11 MR . BARRY : Well , if - - 12 MR. SMITH : I ' ll explain it . 13 MR . BARRY : Since it is a Boardmember . 14 (Unintelligible from audience . ) 15 MR . SMITH : She just mentioned that this is a 16 Board meeting of the Board of Supervisors , so since I ' m 17 a Board - - member of the Board of Supervisors , I ' ll take 18 the floor . 19 (Unintelligible from audience . ) 20 MR . SMITH : Excuse me . She asked me a question . 21 This is a meeting of the Board of Supervisors . 22 (Unintelligible from audience . ) 23 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I was directing my question 24 to staff . 25 (Unintelligible from audience . ) Certified Shorthand Reporters LE:�R�NG aladoiadhk 138 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 ERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107 Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Smith, I ' ll have to call you 2 out of order . 3 Dennis , would you please respond to Carmen 4 Gaddis ' question, please . 5 1 MR . BARRY : At the Board meeting, the issue of 6 whether the Board should continue its hearing to be 7 contingent with your meeting or whether it should 8 closely follow thereafter your meeting for the purpose 9 of a second reading of the ordinance was discussed by 10 the Boardmembers . 11 Certain of the members indicated that they would 12 like flexibility to attend your meeting, to hear the 13 testimony and to hear the Commissioners ' comments and so 14 forth. 15 In the event that more than a majority of the 16 Board of Supervisors attend the meeting at which 17 business before the Board is to be discussed, 18 considered, et cetera, they cannot do so without either 19 adjourning to that meeting and having it be a meeting of 20 the Board of Supervisors or going through a whole 21 different noticing process again . 22 In this case it was deemed that the most 23 efficient way to allow the Boardmembers to attend, and 24 if they wished to for a quorum of the Board to do so, • 25 was to adjourn to the meeting . And so that ' s what we Zq,, Certified Shorthand Reporters aladondkk 139 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTIlTG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 did. 2 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. 3 MR. BARRY : To allow the Board of Supervisors to 4 attend this meeting . 5 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : A Board of Supervisors 6 member could on his or her own recognizance attend a 7 Board meeting and say stuff about how it has to be 8 noticed? 9 MR . BARRY : Certainly if one member or the other 10 of the Board wanted to come and attend and speak, they 11 would be - - there would be no problem with that . 12 When we know beforehand that there ' s a 13 possibility that a quorum of the Board may attend and 14 that business is before the Board is to be conducted at 15 that meeting, then the appropriate thing to do is to 16 adjourn to the meeting so that it is an officially 17 sanctioned meeting of the Board of Supervisors as well 18 as the Planning Commission . 19 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I just want to state here 20 that when I read that statement on the bottom of the 21 agenda, I read it as a point of intimidation for 22 Supervisors to appear here at the Planning Commission 23 when they have never attended one before . 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : Do you have your answer, 25 Commissioner Gaddis? Do you have your response? Certified Shorthand Reporters 7i8ILd�It6II8 140 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : I just wanted to make my 2 comment . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Okay. Ladies and 4 gentlemen, it ' s quarter past 11 : 00 . We voted earlier to 5 adjourn the meeting . This meeting stands adjourned . 6 - -000- - 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBIadUIad 141 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss . 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 3 I , JOHN A. ZANDONELLA, do hereby certify : 4 That I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 5 State of California, License No . C-795 ; 6 That the foregoing pages are a true and correct 7 transcript of the tape-recorded proceedings before the 8 Contra Costa County Planning Commission, County 9 Building, Board Chambers , Martinez , California, ,except 10 as noted "unintelligible" or " inaudible . " 11 I further certify that I am not interested in the 12 outcome of said matter nor connected with or related to 13 any of the parties of said matter or to their respective 14 counsel . 15 Dated this 2nd day of December, 1996 . 16 17 - -000- - 18 19 20 21 G 22 JOHN A. ZANDONELLfA, CSR License No . C-795 23 24 25 Certified Shorthand Reporters (] lj 142 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION y• RECEIVED 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYORIGINAL 3 E 3 O 1996 BOARD CHAMBERS 4 CLERK BOAR®OF SUPERVISORS MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA CONTRA COSTA CO. 5 - -000- - 6 7 IN RE : ITEM 2 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ) ON A REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ) 8 ON AN ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ) LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT ) 9 PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS ) WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ) 10 11 12 T 13 14 TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE-RECIRDED PROCEEDINGS 15 MEETING OF DECEMBER 10 , 1996 16 17 18 PRESENT : HYMAN WONG, Chairman 19 JOHN HANECAK, Vice Chairman RICHARD CLARK, Commissioner 20 CARMEN CADDIS , Commissioner KELLY GUNCHEON, Commissioner 21 JOANN PAVLINEC, Commissioner MARVIN TERRELL, Commissioner 22 23 24 • 25 Certified Shorthand Reporters Zalmdolld1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 10 , 1996 2 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : We ' ll go on to Item Number 2 . 4 MR. BARRY : Mr . Chairman, members of the 5 Commission, this is a continued public hearing on 6 referral from the Board of Supervisors to consider an 7 ordinance which would repeal Chapter 84 -63 and add a new 8 Chapter 84 -63 , which requires land use permits from 9 certain projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous 10 materials . 11 The proposed ordinance sets forth criteria for 12 requiring land use permits which gives greater emphasis 13 to factors involving potential health and safety risks . 14 It adds regulation regarding major maintenance projects 15 for those industries and provides for public safety 16 agreements . 17 The ordinance would apply throughout the 18 unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. This is 19 zoning text amendment ZT-3 -69 . 20 The staff has previously provided you with copies 21 of the ordinance that has been introduced by the Board 22 of Supervisors and indicated to you the Board has 23 directed you to make your report within 40 days . 24 At the last meeting you were given a written • 25 statement by the firm of Adams & Broadwell . And I �QsI�? Certified Shorthand Reporters B 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 wanted to just comment that in making your 2 recommendation to the Board of Supervisors , you will 3 need to comment on the relationship of the ordinance to 4 the applicable specific plans . 5 We ' ve reviewed Adams & Broadwell ' s letter . If 6 you are going to make recommendations supporting the 7 proposed ordinance , we believe that the relationships as 8 laid out in that letter are correct , that of the five 9 operative specific plans the Shell Ridge is all 10 residential and agricultural and there ' s no 11 applicability there . 12 There may be limited applicability in the 13 Pleasant Hill BART station area specific plan and 14 that - - in that area . 15 In the North Richmond specific plan, Shoreline 16 specific plan, there are industrial areas where this 17 would be applicable and the relationship would hold 18 there . 19 So we just wanted to make sure that you 20 understand that your recommendation will need to at 21 least comment on the relationship to the applicable 22 specific plans . 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you, Mr . Barry . 24 The first speaker on Item Number 2 , Thomas Adams , 25 followed by Donald Brown . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandora d 3 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, before we 2 get started - - 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 4 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Since we have so many 5 speakers , could you limit them to three minutes and have 6 the vice chair help you monitor the three minutes . I 7 mean that ' s up to you, Mr . Chairman, but I ' m thinking 8 with so many speakers - - 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Let ' s give it a go . 10 Mr . Adams , would you kindly begin at last with 11 your name and address for the record, please . 12 MR. ADAMS : My name is Tom Adams , 651 Gateway 13 Boulevard in South San Francisco . I ' m an attorney 14 representing the Contra Costa Building Trades Council . 15 We ' re supporting the ordinance . 16 The Board of Supervisors has requested your 17 expertise in your report . Under State law, if you don' t 18 provide that report to the Board within a 40-day time 19 period, it will be deemed that you will have approved 20 the ordinance . 21 If you wish to state some other views , we would 22 hope that you would do so and provide the Board of 23 Supervisors with your report as quickly as possible . 24 I ' m concerned that there have been repetitive • 25 speakers . Several people have testified before you more i Certified Shorthand Reporters 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 than once in the two prior hearings that you' ve had . I • 2 think there ' s an effort to try to filibuster this 3 ordinance and to prevent the Commission from responding 4 to the request from the Board of Supervisors . 5 I ' d urge you to try to control the testimony 6 tonight and to go as long as you need to so that the 7 Board can hear your views , whatever they are , and so 8 that the Commission can play the function that has been 9 assigned to it under the State planning law . 10 I won' t go into any more details about the 11 ordinance . My colleague , Dan Cardozo, has previously 12 testified before you . 13 If you have any questions for me , I ' d be glad to 14 answer them. 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker, 16 Mr . Adams? Thank you, Mr . Adams . 17 MR . ADAMS : Thank you very much . 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : Donald Brown . 19 MR. BROWN : Good evening Boardmembers , Chairman 20 Wong . Donald Brown, 1801 Sonoma Boulevard, Number 117 , 21 Vallejo, California . 22 For the ordinance, I ' ve previously spoken on 23 this , and for the time factor here, I would like to say 24 I ' m in favor of the ordinance . Thank you . • 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? A'11:i:G:::S�ERV10E. r* Certified Shorthand Reporters donei"' 5 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Thank you, Mr . Brown . 2 Next speaker is Brian Harkins , followed by 3 Dr . Henry Elker, followed by Mike Morelli . Brian 4 Harkins . No Brian Harkins . 5 Dr . Henry Elker . 6 MR . ELKER : Thank you . I am here representing 7 the Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce . I ' m chair of their 8 government affairs committee . Their address is 2010 9 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg, California . We' re an 10 organization of some 400 businesses . 11 This is going to be the first time we testify 12 before your Planning Commission . I ' ll do my very best 13 to keep this to three minutes , if I can . 14 Our particular concern about this issue evolves 15 from our experience as a chamber in two areas . One , we 16 have worked very hard and very long with our local 17 Planning Commission in Pittsburg dealing with the 18 permitting process , dealing with standards for issuing 19 conditional use permits , dealing with the necessity of 20 having those permits . 21 We have experienced pain and passion on both 22 sides of the counter, dealing with those issues . We 23 take that issue very seriously, and our concerns in that 24 area will be expressed here tonight in the position I . 25 will relate to you . rr����NG t"On"IIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 6 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 ERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Secondly, we are unusual as a chamber in having a • 2 substantial involvement of both major heavy industry of 3 the sort - - not the same sort , but of a similar sort to 4 what you have here in the focal case before you, but 5 also very substantially well organized and well 6 represented in our chamber are members of the real 7 estate community of which I am a member that deal with 8 building, developing, managing, selling, financing 9 residential real estate and commercial real estate . 10 So we know the issues that you' re dealing with 11 about having neighbors and housing that live near major 12 industrial facilities and the kinds of conflicts and the 13 kinds of communication that is helpful in dealing with • 14 those issues . We have a long track record of working 15 constructively on those problems , and I hope you can 16 benefit from our experience in that area . 17 Now, turning to the matter at hand, the proposed 18 ordinance for land use permits , particularly as it 19 applies to major maintenance, is one that disturbs our 20 chamber and our board, as well as the governmental 21 affairs committee . 22 We anticipate that this issue could lead to 23 paralysis and polarization of your decision making . And 24 we' ll give you one, just one example of why we think • 25 this is a serious issue . 'r, udoROI 8 Certified Shorthand Reporters LL�� ■ '7 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 Issues that evolve from the central conflict • 2 between labor and management have a very bad track 3 record in getting clear efficient regulation . The one 4 example I ' ll give you from my experience , and which I ' ve 5 worked on for years , is the issue of defining 6 independent contractors . That ' s an issue which is very 7 central to the small business community of which I ' m a 8 part . 9 It ' s indirectly involved in this conflict here 10 because you have contractors coming and doing 11 maintenance work and so on . But it ' s one that for 12 example is right - - heavily expresses contrary interests 13 of management and labor . Management wants to have lots S14 of independent contractors , labor wants everybody to be 15 an employee, to put it very simply. 16 That has led to three separate definitions of 17 independent contractor applicable here in the State of 18 California . One by the Franchise Tax Board, one by the 19 Internal Revenue Service, one by educational , EDDS , 20 about when you' re classified as unemployed and qualify 21 for insurance and so on . 22 That issue has not gotten resolved in spite of 23 intense political effort on both sides of the aisle, 24 bipartisan, to get resolved . And it ' s an example of 25 what kind of paralysis and polarization you can get when �r Certified Shorthand Reporters �. andoILPillB 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 you have an issue coming from a labor/management • 2 conflict such as the one you have here . 3 That ' s why we want you to not approve this 4 ordinance . We want you to not create situations where 5 the length of - - 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Can you summarize? 7 MR. ELKER : Yes . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : It ' s three minutes . 9 MR . ELKER : - - the length of the appeal or the 10 severity of the mitigating conditions are a function of 11 political controversy of this kind or sort . We think 12 that ' s better handed administratively. And we think it 13 will be better for the decision making process if you do S14 it that way. Thank you very much . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions for the speaker? 16 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman? 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 18 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Excuse me , sir . I wanted 19 to - - coming from Pittsburg, what you' re saying is that 20 you - - at the chamber of commerce I ' m sure you' re 21 involved with all the different projects . 22 MR. ELKER : A lot of them. I won' t - - 23 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : And in the City of 24 Pittsburg you have PG&E - - 25 MR . ELKER : That ' s right outside the city limits , Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItdoIaeIIa 9 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 yes . • 2 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : - - and Posco - - 3 MR . ELKER : Major steel mill . We have - - we have 4 Union Carbide, now Praxair, Destec , a range of major 5 industrial facilities , yes . 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. And all those - - 7 MR . ELKER : Dow Chemical . 8 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : And Dow Chemical . 9 And looking at PG&E, it ' s upwind from a fairly 10 brand new housing project on - - 11 MR . ELKER : Yes , I ' m very familiar with that 12 situation . 13 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : And it didn' t - - it • 14 didn' t - - 15 MR . ELKER : There' s been a very good established, 16 ongoing communication through a chamber committee 17 actually that involved communication of the elected 18 representatives , the people in the housing development 19 there with industry, the chamber has facilitated and 20 organized that kind of communication - - 21 (End of Tape Side A - Beginning of Side B) 22 MR. ELKER : (Continuing) . . . the same with the 23 carbon black plant that ' s on the other side of the new 24 housing development downtown . • 25 We' ve also had very serious concerns about the . i Certified Shorthand Reporters �7pandOROUCk 1 0 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 dirt and the contamination and so on there . And we 2 worked through extensive, detailed, long standing 3 concerns about this as well as many other projects like 4 that , without going to a hearing on public , you know, 5 land use permit sorts . 6 I mean there are other ways you can handle this , 7 and I think we have experience that suggests that we' re 8 trying . 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you very much. 10 MR . ELKER : Thank you . 11 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : I have a question . 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 13 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Who are the members of the 14 governmental affairs (unintelligible) governmental 15 affairs committee? 16 MR. ELKER : Actually PG&E is a member . There ' s 17 about 12 members there . A lot of them are in real 18 estate like myself , and there ' s small business like 19 insurance agents , a lot of different companies . 20 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Small business 21 (unintelligible) . 22 MR . ELKER : We have a lot of small business , the 23 majority of our members are small business , I am. I ' m a 24 member of the small business committee of the State . 25 Chamber, for example . ZandoraeIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 11 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : And how long have they been 2 in existence? 3 MR . ELKER : They' ve been - - I ' ve been head of 4 that committee for ten years , it ' s very unusual . But 5 some of my committee members have been there for a long 6 time , maybe five , six, seven years . 7 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Thank you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 9 speaker? Thank you, Dr . Elker . 10 Next speak is Mike Morelli , followed by Lyle 11 Sims , followed by Nancy Begis (phonetic) . 12 MR . MORELLI : My name is Mike Morelli . I work - - 13 I live at 2828 Lucena Way in Antioch . I work for 14 Interstate Insulation and Specialty Contractors . I ' m 15 the one who carries the contractor' s licenses for the 16 company. I also have certifications in asbestos work 17 for a competent supervisor, asbestos inspector, project 18 designer and management planning . 19 We all deal with a lot of different agencies , but 20 I deal with Cal OSHA, Fed OSHA, NISHAPS , BAQMD, EPA. 21 All these agencies govern us on the hazardous waste 22 issue . And we all know that these - - these government 23 agencies are already out there policing us and doing 24 these kind of things . • 25 What are we doing as a county by accepting this Certified Shorthand Reporters MR&OR6rr8 it 12 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 ordinance? Are we going to accept being another agency 2 and are we going to come forward? And where are we 3 going to get the money from to pay for this? These are 4 my concerns . 5 I ' ve lived in this County for 16 years . I don' t 6 see where the money is going to come from. Has anybody 7 done any studies whatsoever on what the costs for the 8 implementation of this project - - or this ordinance is 9 going to be to the County taxpayers? 10 These are real big concerns of mine . I pay 11 enough taxes as it is in this County. I don' t want to 12 see them go up . And you know, I think we ' re actually 13 just bringing ourselves down because we' re going to - - 14 we ' re going to accept the responsibility I think that 15 another agency' s already got in accepting that money. 16 So I want you to - - I urge you to vote against 17 this ordinance . 18 CHAIRMAN WONG: Any questions of the speaker? 19 Commissioner Terrell . 20 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : In your job in doing 21 scaffolding out there in the refineries - - that ' s 22 basically what your job is? 23 MR. MORELLI : Insulation . 24 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Insulation? • 25 MR. MORELLI : Insulation and asbestos abatement . ZandoraeIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 13 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. In doing that type 2 of work, do you feel that if that manufacturer had gone 3 through a process that is being proposed to us , it would 4 make your job any safer? 5 MR . MORELLI : No . I think that they knew about 6 asbestos a long time ago, and I think they chose to 7 ignore it . I don' t think that any ordinance would have 8 helped this situation . 9 I don' t think this ordinance is going to do 10 anything for safety, if you want to know the honest 11 truth. I think we ' re just accepting a lot of 12 responsibility that we don' t need to as a county. 13. I don' t know - - I really don' t see any studies on 14 it done, what it ' s going to cost us to implement this 15 ordinance, and are we creating another government agency 16 by doing so, are we becoming a county - - or a government 17 agency, the County, in accepting that responsibility? 18 I think there ' s other agencies that already have 19 that responsibility and they govern these things 20 already. 21 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you for your comments . 22 MR . MORELLI : Uh-huh. 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 24 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Morelli . • 25 Lyle Sims . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandnlaenck 14 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 [jE�PORTTNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR . SIMS : Good evening . My name is Lyle Sims . 2 I ' m the vice president of operations for Shell Martinez 3 Refining Company. I live in Alamo . 4 Before you start timing me , I have a question . 5 When we put in those cards last time , did you keep those 6 too? 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Yes , sir . 8 MR . SIMS : Okay. I wasn' t sure how that process 9 worked . 10 My background is I ' ve got a bachelor' s degree in 11 chemical engineering. I ' ve worked extensively in 12 refining and chemical plants , in safety, environmental 13 operations , a variety of jobs . 14 The operating, maintenance and health and safety 15 organization report to me at this organization, I came 16 about four years ago from our Wilmington refinery which 17 was shut down due to over-regulation . 18 I think as you contemplate this ordinance, one of 19 the things you should consider is the portrayal of 20 industry is massly hysterical needlessly from the 21 building trades ' point of view. I think the way to best 22 deal with this is that you should all look at a video 23 called Blueprint for the Future which was put out by the 24 Building Trades , they' re quite proud of it . I ' m sure 25 Mr. Adams could get you a copy of it . M,,,,,,� xx Certified Shorthand Reporters IRIA01ROUR 15 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 dREPORnNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 6 Fax(510)685-3829 1 It shows how they use the environmental processes • 2 to force labor agreements . And quite cynically, in my 3 view, if you make a labor agreement with them, then all 4 of your environmental problems look okay to them. 5 That ' s the kind of thinking and the kind of films 6 we ' ve seen that make us very nervous about the ordinance 7 and people ' s alleged statements around it . 8 We ' re very serious around safety and 9 environmental reasons . We ' ve been - - a lot of people 10 have talked here about management being kind of loose 11 cannons , crazy people . 12 The fact is , is I go out into that refinery 13 almost every day. If there ' s a fire, an event of any 14 kind, my position is out in the field at the event along 15 with our health and safety manager, Marj Leeds . 16 I ' d like to invite you to come out and talk to 17 our people who do turnaround and maintenance planning, 18 our pressure equipment inspectors , our safety 19 inspectors , our Oil , Chemical and Atomic Worker union 20 leadership, and look at the process and understand what 21 we do now and the amount of regulation and oversight 22 that currently exists , that this ordinance won' t help . 23 It won' t help safety and it won' t help these processes 24 at all . • 25 We have very vigorous programs around safety and Zndond�8 Certified Shorthand Reporters (�a ■ 16 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 every aspect of it , everything from awareness to 2 auditing, problem solving, investigations , joint union 3 and company involvement in all aspects of safety. 4 There have been people that have said, "Oh, my 5 gosh, if we would have had this ordinance , the evil 6 catacarb incident wouldn' t have happened . " And you 7 heard a guy stand up last time and tell you he was an 8 operator there and reported to management . 9 What I don' t understand is all you' ve got to do 10 is call the Air Resources Board or OSHA and they' ll have 11 people down there instantly to shut you down . It ' s not 12 like there ' s not plenty of capability to respond to 13 those kinds of activities . 14 It ' s kind of interesting to hear Mr . Adams talk 15 about repetitive speakers , since they had a lot of 16 speakers like Mr . Smith who jumped up and down about six 17 times last time I was here . And he and his friend or 18 business associate or whatever, Mr . Powers , went on at 19 great length . 20 I wish I had time to address all of the items 21 Mr . Powers had there . I think that there ' s a lot of 22 misunderstanding . I ' d be glad to give him a tour of the 23 place as well . 24 In closing, I would like to say I was very proud 25 last time I was here watching you folks deal with the za�• ItdOItP,�lB Certified Shorthand Reporters 17 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 outrageous political pressure that you were under and 2 seeing the behavior of Mr . Smith, jumping down, 3 haranguing you, attacking a really sweet couple here , 4 Mr . Winton Jones , getting in their face . 5 I come from Louisiana which has a reputation for 6 somewhat unsavory politics , but I called my family the 7 next day and told them we can hold our heads up proudly, 8 there are places that have worse displays of power abuse 9 around . 10 Any questions? 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 12 Thank you, Mr . Sims . 13 Clancy Heathcliff , followed by Jim Richie, I 14 believe . Clancy Heathcliff present? No Clancy 15 Heathcliff . Okay. 16 Jim Richie , I believe . Is that Tim, Tim Richie? 17 You' re up . Followed by Jim Jaeckle . 18 Tim, if you' d begin by giving your name and 19 address for the record. 20 MR. MICHIE : Chairman Wong, members of the 21 Planning Commission, my name is Tim Michey . I reside in 22 Contra Costa County. 23 I ' m here representing Interstate Scaffolding . I 24 have been working in many different refineries 25 throughout the past 12 years , seven being in the Bay Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 18 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I Area . 2 Being a contractor, I know how difficult it is to 3 get your foot in the door to work in the refinery. Each 4 plant requires the contractor to submit a 5 prequalification package prior to working in the plant . 6 Most of these packages require a copy of our 7 experience modification rate , advice - - used to measure 8 our safety record. Our corporate safety manual , our 9 process safety management , a documented training program 10 for all protection, and all of our employees must be 11 tested and put on a random program for drugs and alcohol 12 before they even start work . 13 After our prequalification package is reviewed 14 and accepted by the refinery, all employees must go 15 through an eight-hour BAT class , Bay Area training 16 class , then through plant indoctrination, which is 17 usually another four hours of training . 18 I feel that when we start a job in each refinery, 19 each employee has gone through an intensive safety 20 course before they ever - - before they' re issued their 21 first job . 22 Once an employee has started, he must attend a 23 daily safety meeting, five to ten minutes per day, and 24 once a week 45 minutes to an hour. • 25 Every scaffold that is built also must have a Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaltb®IdeIia 19 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 hazard analysis filled out which the whole crew 2 completes at the job site to make themselves more aware 3 of any specific hazards on the job . 4 After they must obtain the appropriate permit - - 5 after that , they must obtain the appropriate permit for 6 the - - from the refinery. 7 All of this work is either allowed by or required 8 by each refinery in order for us to do our work . Our 9 company builds scaffolds on a daily basis , not for 10 maintenance in the - - on the equipment , but for refinery 11 safety, for personal safety of workers . 12 Over the past few years our company has worked 13 approximately 300 , 000 manhours without any incidents to 14 speak of . This is an average of 72 people working 40 15 hours per week for - - for two years for safety. 16 We' ve built hundreds of scaffolds for the 17 inspection department who are inspecting piping in 18 various parts of the running units daily to make sure 19 the plants are running safely. 20 When the plants are shut down, we build massive 21 scaffolds for inspection, which result in many 22 modifications and extra scaffolds being built for 23 maintenance repairs . 24 I feel that the refineries provide a safe 25 environment to work in and they are very serious about �qr,,,,,�� ■ Certified Shorthand Reporters LKl����6118 20 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 improving safety, training and process safety 2 management . 3 I do not feel that a land use permit will improve 4 safety. If anything, the delays required for these 5 permits will hinder the safety of maintenance projects . 6 I see the local refineries having more problems with 7 equipment maintenance in the future if this process is 8 implemented. 9 Interstate Scaffolding currently employs 75 10 craftsmen from the carpenters union . By the end of 11 January we predict it will be over 200 . That ' s 200 . 12 employees working at a majority of the industrial plants 13 in Contra Costa County. 14 We see this ordinance affecting more than just 15 the refineries . It will have an effect on everyone 16 working in the - - in the County. 17 Our company and employees oppose this land use 18 process - - 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : I ' m going to have to ask you to 20 sum up . 21 MR . MICHIE : Okay. I ' ve got about 30 seconds 22 left . 23 - - oppose this process and do not see how it has 24 anything to do with safety. It is only a negative 25 impact for the construction industry and the community Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBIadoIa6jl8 21 2321 Stanwell Drive*Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 and we do not want to see it passed. 2 Interstate Scaffolding has sent a letter to the 3 Board of Supervisors , the Planning Commission and the 4 Hazardous Materials Commission opposing this ordinance . 5 Our employees have all signed this letter 6 agreeing and supporting the opposition of the land use 7 permit process . I have 70 of these signed letters that 8 our employees have asked me to submit to the Commission 9 tonight . 10 I hope that you will consider this ordinance and 11 also agree that it is not in the best interest of the 12 community to pass it . It will not improve safety . 13 Process safety management should be the 14 responsibility of the refineries and other industries 15 affected by this ordinance . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 17 Commissioner Terrell . 18 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : One question . Do you work 19 in more than one refinery or chemical plant , or are you 20 at just one plant? 21 MR . MICHIE : No, we ' ve pretty much built 22 scaffolds in all the refineries in the Bay Area in the 23 last two years . 24 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : All of them, so you' re 25 not - - you just don' t stick with one , you - - Certified Shorthand Reporters Zando ad 22 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR . MICHIE : We have worked - - we have worked in 2 all the refineries . 3 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Do you work outside of the 4 refineries also? 5 MR. MICHIE : I work outside of the refineries . I 6 work in cement plants , small cogens , worked all 7 throughout the whole area . 8 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Thank you . 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 10 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Michie . 11 A couple of quick comments , ladies and gentlemen . 12 As you come up to speak, and if you have about one 13 minute left , I ' m going to ask Commissioner Hanecak to ' 14 kind of hold up one finger just to give you an idea that 15 you' ve got a minute to summarize or make a closing 16 statement if you don' t mind . 17 The next speaker, I don' t believe we ' ve heard 18 before, but in going through these speaker slips some of 19 these names are very, very familiar . I would ask that 20 in the interest of consideration, kindness and courtesy, 21 if you would not be repetitive please in your testimony. 22 Next speaker is Jim Jaeckle, following by Paul 23 Bornstein, followed by Eric Hillsland Is Jim Jaeckle 24 here? All right . Paul Bornstein . 25 MR . BORNSTEIN: Good evening, Mr . Chairman and Mq ,� Certified Shorthand Reporters 11410raella 23 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 members of the Planning Commission . I ' ve spoken 2 previously to the Commission and I have some additional 3 comments to make . My name is Paul Bornstein . I ' m the 4 health and safety manager for the Tosco Refining 5 Company. 6 My main purpose tonight is to clarify a 7 misconception regarding industry' s acceptance of process 8 safety regulations . A few speakers have remarked that 9 the petrochemical industry is challenging the Federal 10 risk management program, the RMP, and therefore has no 11 real interest in safety at the refineries . 12 Before I directly address those remarks , I ' d like 13 to give you a little bit of history. The petrochemical 14 industry has had a mixed record of safety during this 15 industrial and high tech revolution of the last few 16 years . 17 Unfortunately, almost exactly 12 years ago, it 18 was December 4th, 12 years ago, a chemical release in 19 Bhopal resulted in the deaths of approximately 2 , 000 20 people and untold numbers of injuries . 21 The following year at an institute in West 22 Virginia, a release occurred resulting in 135 injuries . 23 EPA at that time initiated the chemical emergency 24 preparedness program, CEPP, focusing on community 25 emergency planning . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoiteIIa 24 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 OSHA also began special emphasis programs looking 2 at facilities and their safety programs . 3 During this period, the petrochemical industry 4 under the umbrella of the Chemical Manufacturers 5 Association began the community awareness and emergency 6 response program, you' ve heard - - this is the CAER 7 program you' ve heard about . This started about 1985 as 8 a result of some of these things where the chemical 9 industry decided we have to start doing something . 10 At about the same time , in 1985 , the American 11 Institute of Chemical Engineers formed the COPS, which 12 is the Center for Chemical Process Safety. This group 13 has been the leader in developing recommended practices 14 in technical and administrative approaches to process 15 safety. 16 Its very document , a challenge to commitment , 17 introduced the concept of the 12 elements of chemical 18 process safety management including accountability, 19 incident investigation, training, et cetera . 20 So basically what I ' m trying to say with regard 21 to the history was industry started these processes 22 looking at this way before OSHA actually started its 23 process in 1990 . API also put out its recommended 24 practices 750 before that . 25 Regarding the API challenge - - that ' s what I Certified Shorthand Reporters FZ:a::nlkm d 25 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 RVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 really want to talk about . We keep hearing about the • 2 challenge of API to the RMPP - - the RMP - - excuse me . 3 And if you give me a few extra minutes , I ' d like to read 4 what they are and explain real briefly what the 5 challenges are, to make sure you understand what ' s going 6 on . 7 The first one has to do - - there' s only six 8 challenges and they' re very short . 9 The first one has to do with they' re worried 10 about arbitrary parameters for the worst case scenario . 11 And basically they' re saying that some of the scenarios 12 are so improbable that it doesn' t make any sense to use 13 for the dispersion modeling. 14 They' re saying the liquid falling on the ground 15 can' t disperse into a gas and gas the community right 16 away. It ' s just physically impossible . And so EPA has 17 to look at some of these things because they don' t make 18 any sense . 19 The second one has to do with the applicability 20 of transportation vehicles and containers in 21 transportation, does DOT have jurisdiction or does EPA 22 have jurisdiction . API wants to know, that ' s what 23 they' re challenging . 24 The next piece has to do with the RMP is going to • 25 be over the internet and available to just about anyone . �r nikoneHa Certified Shorthand Reporters LH'1 2 6 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 So they' re worried about confidential and trade secret 2 information . They want a clarification on that . 3 The next piece is they' re worried about the 4 dup - - the duplicative enforcement of OSHA and EPA at 5 the same time . They want a clarification who' s going to 6 enforce those very similar types of regulations , they 7 need to get that clarified. 8 And finally, the last of all these big issues 9 that you keep hearing about , about the RMP challenge by 10 API , is its - - the RMP requires at this point , if you do 11 an analysis , a hazard analysis , and you find any kind of 12 change , you have to change your whole RMP document . 13 Well , we go through a management of change ' 14 process where we can be looking at little changes in a 15 refinery, but we feel it ' s important to look at the 16 little changes and we ' ll do a hazardous analysis even on 17 a little change . 18 So if we do a small hazard analysis and we make 19 this little change , we ' re going to have to change the 20 whole RMP document . And API says this is kind of 21 ridiculous , we need to get a better clarification of 22 when the RMP has to be modified. 23 Now, that ' s the entire extent of the API 24 challenge to the RMP . So when you hear about the 25 outrageous attack by API trying to knock down the RMP Certified Shorthand Reporters Zalmdolaoi 8 27 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 and not make it effective, that ' s the whole challenge . 2 They' re trying to get clarification to make sure it 3 works , and that ' s the whole issue . 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker, 5 Mr . Bornstein? 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , Mr . Chairman - - 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 8 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : I keep looking through 9 here to get the explanation on your API . Would you 10 explain that so I - - I ' m getting ready to look through 11 here to find what your API stands - - 12 MR. BORNSTEIN: Oh, I ' m sorry. The API is the 13 American Petroleum Institute . 14 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Thank you . 15 MR. BORNSTEIN : And they represent many of the 16 refining companies . 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 18 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Bornstein . 19 Next speaker is Eric Hillsland, followed by 20 Sabiha Gokcen . Is Eric Hillsland here? 21 All right . Sabiha Gokcen . Hurry up, Sabiha . 22 Your time is going. 23 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON : Mr . Chairman - - 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Guncheon . 25 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: We did put a three-minute A M=E. Certified Shorthand Reporters RItdO2$ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 S . P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 cap on testimony this evening . And I appreciate the 2 fact that some of you have important information to 3 relay . And there is a way for you to speak longer than 4 three minutes , and that is to have someone else who has 5 submitted a speaker slip to give their time to you . 6 But in fairness to the other speakers , I really 7 must insist that we hold it at a three-minute limit , 8 strictly out of fairness to others . Thank you . 9 MS . GOKCEN: I have handouts for the Commission . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay, Sabiha . 11 MR. GOKCEN: Good evening, Mr . Chairman, members 12 of the Commission . My name is Sabiha Gokcen . I reside 13 at 2407 Olympic Drive, Martinez . ' 14 What I ' m going to talk about tonight is I ' m going 15 to talk about the fact that throughout the process of 16 the fast tracking of these amendments , we have not spent 17 any time talking about the impacts on other businesses . 18 We have been focusing solely on the refineries . 19 And I think that there are some very interesting 20 things that you need to look at in terms of the 21 amendments . 22 First of all , we ' ve had no analysis on the impact 23 of small businesses such as auto repair shops , paint 24 shops , research laboratories , wineries and breweries , 25 all of which carry materials that are regulated by the MialkoRd*$ Certified Shorthand Reporters ll 2 9 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Department of Transportation and are therefore included 2 in 96-20 . 3 Secondly, there has been no impact of analysis on 4 the biotechnology area or pharmaceutical firms . Most 5 importantly, what I think you need to look at there is 6 that because in the biotechnology area they require such 7 extremely sterile conditions , more sterile than in 8 operating rooms and less particles than in the high tech 9 microchip manufacturing area, that they may very easily 10 trigger that million dollar maintenance threshold . 11 And we really should have our Health Department 12 staff look at that and analyze it and see if that ' s the 13 case . Because if it is , what will happen is we reduce S14 the ability for our County to effectively compete for 15 those jobs of that industry . They will not consider our 16 County in the Bay Area and will not come here . So those 17 things we should look at . 18 Secondly, I think what ' s important to look at is 19 the definition of accidents in the ordinance . And 20 really quickly, I think what I want to point out is on 21 page 5 , the definition of accidents included shelter in 22 place and evacuation . 23 And where I am concerned about this , I have 24 worked on the community warning system for three years 25 in this County. And we have been pushing industry to - - Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaiadoneIIa 30 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I to err on the side of caution and to call a shelter in 2 place whether or not they know something is being 3 released or not . 4 And if you count this and they don' t have a 5 release , what will happen is they won' t order a shelter 6 in place as a precautionary protective measure to the 7 community. And I would much rather have the community 8 protected from that , to err on the side of caution . 9 Secondly, we did not , when we expanded the 10 ordinance to all zones , we had very arbitrary decision 11 making on the expansion to all zones . We did not 12 closely look at the impacts on some of the small 13 businesses . 14 We also did not realize the impact on 15 agricultural zones which was then later removed 16 arbitrarily by the Supervisors , yet pesticides are much 17 more toxic than most of the materials we use in the 18 industrial zone . So those are something we need to 19 think about . 20 And if you don' t , how - - how incredibly powerful 21 the farm lobby is , the EPA was originally going to 22 regulate the farms under the RMP rule and they were not 23 allowed to do so . 24 So just quickly in closing, what I would like to 25 say is I ' ve given you this handout and I have not had a Certified Shorthand Reporters MndonoH8 31 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 chance to go through most of it . And I really want to 2 urge you that I ' ve highlighted the parts where you need 3 to ask for staff ' s input . And I would very much like to 4 urge you to have that staff person be Laura Brown, she 5 would be the best person to give you the input on that 6 issue . 7 Thank you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 9 Thank you, Sabiha . 10 Next speaker, John Sakamoto . 11 MR. SAKAMOTO : Good evening, Chairman Wong, 12 members of the Commission . My name is John Sakamoto . I 13 live at 3096 Bernard Avenue in San Ramon, California . S14 I am the operations manager at Eichleay Engineers 15 of California . I manage the risk management and the 16 safety group at Eichleay Engineers of California . I am 17 also the chairman for the industry task force for the 18 Contra Costa Council . 19 In our duties at Eichleay Engineers , we get 20 involved with many of the safety issues and risk issues . 21 I ' m not here as a paid consultant but I ' m here as an 22 advisor of what we think this materials ordinance is 23 actually coming down to . 24 First of all , if the end game is true public 25 safety, we do not believe that this proposed ordinance Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandonena 32 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 does increase public safety. Safety is not something 2 that comes from an ordinance . Safety is very hard work 3 by all the refineries . All the refineries have very 4 thorough programs , very methodical programs to increase 5 safety . 6 And you' ve heard many of the speakers speaking 7 from everything from contractor safety to operation 8 safety, doing very detailed analysis , some required by 9 the PSM, or the process safety management rule, but many 10 of them which far exceed any of the posted regulations 11 from internal practices from each of the major 12 refineries and petrochemical plants . 13 At the risk of oversimplifying the process - - no 14 pun intended here - - if you were really looking at a 15 discretionary use permit process , the discretionary 16 use - - discretionary permit process by itself does not 17 increase safety. All it does is it creates a regulatory 18 road block in order to go ahead with needed maintenance 19 projects and needed development projects in a facility. 20 For example, if you' re going to increase safety, 21 what is one of the biggest killers out there? I can 22 tell you it ' s our 680 corridor freeway. Are you going 23 to increase safety by requiring a discretionary permit? 24 And if you' re going to do that , is that the equivalent 25 of getting a driver' s license? I don' t believe so . �r"'Itd®IteIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters LLKH11 l 3 3 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTII`iG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 What we ' re really talking about is you have to 2 have - - you have to take a look at the basics , 3 everything from operation of the car, competence of the 4 operator, competence and the safety of the road, 5 enforcement capabilities of the highway patrol , it ' s 6 very, very hard work to increase safety. 7 Lastly I ' d like to point out one additional thing 8 that has been brought up by other speakers saying that 9 it is ridiculous that we as a County do not permit the 10 refineries . The refineries are very permitted. They 11 are regulated by many, many agencies in very - - in a lot 12 of different categories . 13 When we take a look at permits , it was brought up 14 that a refinery can actually build an entire process 15 plant without getting a permit from the County. This is 16 a ridiculous statement . The refineries , the 17 petrochemical plants get the very same building permits 18 that everyone else gets , from residential to 7-Eleven 19 stores , they still get - - they still get foundations , 20 they still get building permits . 21 To ask the County to get involved in regulating a 22 process unit like a distillation unit , FCC, I can tell 23 you it is rocket science . When we talk about what is 24 required to permit , to actually go through a hazards 25 analysis in a refinery, we ' re talking metallurgy, we' re Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaRiNormil8 34 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 11 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 talking distillation, we ' re talking about process • 2 operation, things that take years and years of 3 experience and expertise to do . 4 The County is not equipped to do this kind of 5 thorough review. Many - - a lot of the thorough reviews 6 are done in-house by the - - by each of the refineries 7 and by specialized consultants . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 9 Thank you, Mr . Sakamoto . 10 MR. SAKAMOTO : Thank you . 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker is Russ Miller . 12 MR. MILLER : Mr . Chairman and Commission members , 13 my name is Russ Miller . This is the first time I ' ve 14 addressed you . I ' m the president of Eichleay Engineers 15 of California . 16 Just a little background on us . We' re very 17 heavily involved in the design of major industrial 18 facilities of all kinds , which includes refineries but 19 is not limited to refineries . 20 We ' re also involved with other industries like 21 biopharmaceutical and some of the high tech industries . 22 We' re also very heavily involved in process safety 23 management for all of these types of facilities . 24 We' ve also been involved with incident 25 investigations , forensic analysis and root cause Certified Shorthand Reporters Mildone 11 35 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 analysis of major industrial accidents . In fact we ' ve 2 done that kind of analysis on some of the accidents here 3 in the County that you' re concerned about . 4 The point I ' m trying to make is that we ' re very, 5 very familiar with all aspects of industrial design of 6 these kinds of facilities , of the safety of these kinds 7 of facilities and the process and operation of these 8 kinds of facilities . 9 Now, with that background I ' d like to make two 10 very concise points here . One is that it is highly 11 improbable that this ordinance is going to have any 12 effect on safety whatsoever . 13 Now, I ' m a detail kind of a person, I ' m an 14 engineer . By nature , I want to know how something is 15 going to work, as you should, and that ' s what you' re 16 doing here . 17 How is this ordinance supposed to improve safety? 18 I ' ve heard nothing in all the testimony that I ' ve been 19 involved in here that connects safety to this ordinance . 20 What I ' ve heard is some vague references to things like 21 best available technology, we ' re going to make the 22 refineries use the best available technology. 23 I ' m assuming that that ' s a reference to the Bay 24 Area Air Quality Management District ' s best available 25 control technology, this was the manual for that . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaildorad 36 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 That ' s kind of a misrepresentation of what that ' s all 2 about . This is very specific to one pollution control 3 issue and selection of pollution control equipment . To 4 take that kind of philosophy and apply it on a global 5 basis to all the technology in a refinery is ludicrous , 6 it just doesn' t make sense . It ' s a gross 7 oversimplification of the issues . 8 I ' ve also heard that we' re going to hire experts , 9 the County. Someone said, well , we ' ll hire - - we' ll 10 hire some corrosion experts . At least we ' re on the 11 right track there . Corrosion is a very big deal . 12 But if you' re going to hire , you know, think 13 about hiring several because it ' s a very big issue . And 14 what about vibration, what about rotating equipment , 15 what about pipe stress analysis , what about seismic , 16 there ' s a very big one . 17 Are we going to hire all of these experts , the 18 County? Am I going to pay taxes for that? 19 How is this - - what I ' m asking you is how are 20 these details of implementation, how is this going to 21 work? I ' ve heard no connection whatsoever . 22 What I hear is a lot of dialogue about how we' ve 23 had a lot of accidents , we' ve had a lot of fires and we 24 have to stop that . I agree . This doesn' t do that . • 25 Even if you assume that we ' ve got a situation ,,,.,� Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandor lick 37 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 where these refinery people are totally irresponsible 2 and suicidal and that they need to be controlled, you 3 still need something that does that . This ordinance 4 does not do that . 5 Dig into the details . Ask those questions . How 6 exactly does this improve safety? It doesn' t . Thank 7 you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you . Any questions of the 9 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Miller . 10 Ladies and gentlemen, we ' re going to take a 11 10-minute break, reconvene at 9 : 10 . Thank you . 12 (Break taken . ) 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Ladies and gentlemen, please take 14 your seats . 15 Ladies and gentlemen, for those who have already 16 given their testimony and those who are about to, I want 17 to thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation 18 in terms of trying to limit your comments to three 19 minutes . Thank you so very much . 20 Next speaker is Robert Cope , followed by Jim 21 Cannon, followed by John Wolfe . Mr . Cope , Robert Cope , 22 if he is present . 23 All right . Mr . Jim Cannon . 24 MR . CANNON : Good evening . My name is Jim • 25 Cannon . I live at 801 Tampico in Walnut Creek . I ZBIadUIa6Tl8Certified Shorthand Reporters ■` 38 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORUNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 represent the Levin-Richmond Terminal , which is a marine 2 terminal in Richmond, California, part of the Port of 3 Richmond . 4 We handle more than a million tons of dry bulk 5 materials per year . Some of these materials that we 6 handle come from different countries and some come from 7 refineries right here in Contra Costa, materials which 8 are now or may in the future be considered hazardous 9 materials . 10 We ' ve been watching the work of the Hazardous 11 Materials Commission for the last five years . And we 12 thought that the ordinance that has been presented to 13 you for public hearing and future adoption fits all of 14 the criteria and the needs of the County and the 15 business people therein . We understood the 16 ramifications not only to the refineries but to our 17 business . 18 Suddenly that process has been revised and an 19 amended ordinance 96-20 appears , is modified, remodified 20 so many times , we are confused about which ordinance is 21 being discussed and how it will impact our businesses . 22 No evidence , no data, no analysis of any data has 23 been provided to demonstrate the alleged benefits of the 24 land use ordinance, nor has any analysis or data been 25 provided regarding the need for, the purpose of and Certified Shorthand Reporters Tataa®paella 39 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 especially the effects of the ordinance on exist - - on 2 existing industrial and business facilities . 3 We believe that this ordinance was proposed by a 4 special interest group in what appears to be an effort 5 to extort work from the refineries to the detriment of 6 workers and others unions . 7 We ' ve been told - - we have not been told the 8 possible costs of the ordinance in the - - to the 9 affected businesses or even which businesses will be 10 affected. No information has been provided regarding 11 the number and types of additional businesses and 12 construction or maintenance projects that will be 13 affected by this new ordinance . 14 How can the Planning Commission possibly act 15 without at least that basic information in their hands , 16 let alone not having the projected costs not only to the 17 affected businesses but to everyone in the County 18 through higher prices and cost of goods . 19 Even if this land use permit only affected the 20 refineries , how would it interfere with the refinery 21 operations and cause extended refinery shutdowns , 22 impacting the supply and cost of available gasoline, jet 23 fuel , diesel fuel for trucks and trains that move 24 materials to and from Contra Costa County, and bunker 25 fuel for the ships that call in the area ports . Zaltd®neIlaCertified Shorthand r8 40 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-48520-48 08 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 If the Bay Area gets the reputation of being an 2 unreliable source of high price bunker fuel , it will 3 have a chilling effect on the shipping industry and will 4 affect consumers statewide . 5 How will the amendment affect shipping costs , 6 what will be the cost to shippers , and how will it 7 affect other industries and what will be the total cost 8 to consumers . 9 This could cause business closures , drastic 10 downsizing, loss of jobs and the accompanying loss of 11 taxes for the County and an increased tax roll . 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions for the speaker? 13 Thank you, Mr . Cannon . 14 Next speaker, John Wolfe . 15 MR . WOLFE : Chairman Wong, members of the 16 Planning Commission, my name is John Wolfe . I am the 17 executive vice president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers 18 Association . I appeared before this Commission early on 19 in its testimony. 20 I do have a handout that I would like to submit 21 for your perusal at your leisure . It has a number of 22 questions that I feel need to be answered . 23 The Taxpayers Association has been concerned from 24 the outset about the process that is being followed 25 here . �r� Certified Shorthand Reporters Zand®neffB 41 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 I won' t read through the handout . I ' ll let you 2 read that yourself . I have to raise the biggest 3 question in my mind . what is it about community safety 4 that is so urgent that if the Board of Supervisors does 5 not have it before the end of the year, the opportunity 6 to act will be forever lost? 7 This has been rushed through so fast and there 8 are so many different iterations to this ordinance that 9 I don' t think anyone here in this room could agree on 10 what amendments are being proposed to 96-20 or could 11 answer the question why the reduction of the threshold 12 score from 80 to 60 will improve public safety or will 13 be better than what was originally enacted . 14 Mr . Russ Miller, I think very effectively earlier 15 asked the question how does this ordinance , these 16 amendments to this ordinance improve safety. That 17 question has not been answered. And I would urge you 18 tonight not to feel that you are under any pressure to 19 act one way or the other . 20 I don' t know what kind of pressure the Board of 21 Supervisors seems to feel that they have over this 22 entire process and the people associated with it . If 23 safety is worth doing, it is worth doing well . 24 And I think all of us should stop and consider 25 and use our very best judgment to come up with something Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaildOItd 42 2321 Stanwell Drive*Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 that is in the best interest of all the people here in 2 Contra Costa County. And I don' t think this will be in 3 any way furthered if we compromise this in our haste to 4 get something done before the end of the year . 5 I thank you very much for your attention . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 7 Thank you, Mr . Wolfe . 8 MR. WOLFE : (Unintelligible . ) 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you . 10 Next speaker is Cecily Fedo, followed by Chuck 11 Fletcher . Is there a Cecily Fedo, F-E-D-O, is that how 12 you say it? (Unintelligible . ) Cecily, right? 13 MR. FLETCHER : No, Chuck Fletcher . 14 AUDIENCE : She ' s not here . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : You' re Chuck . Okay. No Cecily. 16 MR . FLETCHER : Good evening, Mr . Chairman, 17 members of the Commission . My name is Chuck Fletcher - - 18 sorry. 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : (Unintelligible . ) 20 MR. FLETCHER : Okay. Well , that ' s the process of 21 paramount importance . 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Hanecak . 23 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Dennis , we had a great 24 suggestion by one of the audience members of turning on 25 the box . How do we - - is this a three-minute clock? Certified Shorthand Reporters MiRdone lk 43 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 REPORTING (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR. BARRY : (Unintelligible . ) 2 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : Okay. Well , I appreciate 3 the comment . And I don' t like looking at it either . 4 Thank you very much . 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Fletcher, I ' m sorry . 6 MR. FLETCHER : That ' s okay. 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Can you give us your name and 8 address for the record. 9 MR. FLETCHER : No problem. My name is Chuck 10 Fletcher . I ' m here representing the Associated General 11 Contractors of California . The AGC of California is the 12 largest construction industry trade association in the 13 State representing over 1 , 000 member firms . 14 In my capacity as the chairman of the safety, 15 health and environment committee of that organization, 16 I ' m here to address you with regards to the amendments 17 to 96 -20 . 18 Now, you' ve heard a lot of detailed testimony 19 tonight , and I was prepared to give you more . But in 20 the interest of time , I just wanted to summarize for you 21 the fact that our committee reviewed this ordinance in 22 great detail . Our paid consultants , environmental 23 consultants have reviewed it . 24 In our - - in our opinion, it does not have any 25 correlation with safety, the discretionary land use Certified Shorthand Reporters �iBIad®IaOM , 44 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 process - - permit process . 2 On a personal note, I ' ve lived and worked in this 3 County for over 18 years . And my view is that this is a 4 document of opportunity for one trade union and their 5 paid advocates to create an ordinance to abuse the CEQA 6 process , to enable them to - - what I will use the term, 7 extort project labor agreements . 8 I remember back 10 or 12 years ago another 9 attempt of a similar nature in the - - on the issue of 10 prevailing wage ordinances . 11 Thank you . 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 13 Thank you, Mr . Fletcher . 14 Next speaker is Ron Espinosa, followed by Jim 15 Braden, followed by Brent Babo . 16 MR . ESPINOSA: Thank you, Chairman Wong and 17 Commissioners for giving me the ability to speak here 18 tonight . 19 I ' d like to tell you, my name is Ron Espinosa . I 20 live here in Martinez at 305 Sunnyslopes Drive . I am a 21 Shell employee and a member of OCAW Local 1-5 - - excuse 22 me . 23 A couple of things I think have not been 24 considered here that I think you definitely need to 25 consider . We have proposed an amendment to the 96-20 M,, x Certified Shorthand Reporters udoned 45 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 from the Oil Workers union, the people that do the work 2 in the plants , that merely received a cursory thanks for 3 your input from the Supervisors . 4 We would really like you to consider it because 5 with people that work there full-time, we ' re not - - I 6 don' t care which contracting group you' re talking about , 7 I don' t care which association you' re talking about , 8 they work there periods of times . If it ' s turnaround 9 work, they do it once every three to five years . 10 We' re there in all the time , day in, day out , 24 11 hours a day. We man all the turnarounds . We write all 12 the permits . We set up everything that ' s done . There 13 is nothing done in that plant that we don' t do . 14 When there' s an incident or a problem, 15 contractors and others head for the gates . In fact , 16 years ago, we had some drive right through the gates 17 while we ' re running towards the problem to mitigate it 18 and stop it . 19 Now, I find it totally preposterous that we will 20 listen - - we ' ve heard doctors , we ' ve heard lawyers , 21 we ' ve had - - we ' ve heard former Supervisors , we ' ve heard 22 union - - 23 (End of Tape Side B - Beginning of Side C) 24 MR . ESPINOSA: (Continuing) . . . if there ' s a 25 release , we ' re the first ones to be affected. Thank Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 46 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 you . • 2 The fact that we don' t even get considered in 3 this process is unbelievable to me . If I were to go to 4 some of the lawyers that have talked here and tried to 5 tell them how they should run their law business or how 6 they should litigate , they would laugh me off because I 7 don' t have that expertise . 8 If I were to go to a doctor and tell them how to 9 do their procedures or how to run an operation, they' d 10 laugh me out again because they know nothing about it . 11 I talked to the Supervisors and other people and 12 I ' d like to know how many of them have ever worked in a 13 refinery and know anything about how to stop or mitigate 14 and make these places safe . 15 The people that do are those that work there , 16 those that are in the industry. It makes no sense to 17 want an unsafe situation . That ' s absolutely crazy. I 18 mean it takes very little brain power to understand 19 that . 20 I ask you to - - to turn your back on this 21 ordinance that ' s presented and clearly consider the one 22 that ' s put out for the real reason, for safety by the 23 OCAW, and to suggest to the Supervisors that they do 24 more than just give it a glancing nod . 25 Thank you . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zazadomfla 47 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions for the speaker? 2 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yes . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 4 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : In what part of this 5 testimony do we have your amendments , do you know? 6 MR . ESPINOSA: It should be in there at one point 7 or the other . 8 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Does it - - 9 MR. ESPINOSA: I mean - - 10 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Does it have your logo on 11 it? I mean, we have your safety book but it - - in this 12 document that we have in here , is it a document with 13 your name on it? ' 14 MR . ESPINOSA: I ' d have to look at them all , but 15 it ' s - - at one point we called it the good doctor - - 16 some alternative, the good doctor amendment or whatever 17 it was . 18 It was presented both with the - - first with the 19 OCAW, we tried to come together with all members and put 20 that across . But we have one that comes strictly from 21 us , that deals with making the places safer . That ' s 22 truly what we' re after . That ' s our only intent , no 23 other intent , and people can talk all other sides of 24 this . 25 But it should be in there . If not , I can Certified Shorthand Reporters Z'iandolgaIIa 48 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 guarantee it gets to you . But it needs to be 2 considered . We are the people that do the work . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you . Commissioner - - 4 MR . ESPINOSA: To just give us a glance makes no 5 sense . 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. But it ' s here , but 7 it doesn' t - - it ' s not on your letterhead or anything 8 from your - - from your union . 9 MR. ESPINOSA: I ' ll ask - - I ' ll refer to some of 10 my other members , if they know for a fact . I don' t know 11 exactly what the heading looks like , it may be that , but 12 it - - it should be there . If not , I will see to it that 13 it gets to you . 14 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Thank you . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 16 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : In response to your 17 (unintelligible) . 18 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , thank you for saying 19 that , because I ' m trying to remember all of our 20 documentation that we have here , and I - - 21 MR . ESPINOSA: Yeah, that truly, Commissioner 22 Terrell , that doesn' t surprise me . Because if we were 23 only given a cursory thanks for your input , then they 24 probably didn' t pass it on to you . And that , I find is 25 a travesty . fi�rr,,,,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters l� ildoIt6Y49 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , then I would ask - - 2 I would ask for that input tonight as soon as you can 3 get it to the Commissioners and myself, I will 4 appreciate it . 5 MR . ESPINOSA: I will make sure that it ' s in your 6 hands tomorrow. 7 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Thank you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 9 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Espinosa . 10 Next speaker, Jim Braden . Mr . Braden . 11 Commissioner Hanecak . 12. COMMISSIONER HANECAK: We have Tim Carnes , do you 13 know him, Tim Carnes? ' 14 MR. BRADEN: (Unintelligible . ) 15 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: (Unintelligible . ) 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : Are you aware of that , 17 Mr . Braden? 18 MR . BRADEN : I ' m not aware of it , but I ' ll 19 certainly accept it . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Go ahead, Mr . Braden, 21 your name and address for the record, and begin . 22 MR . BRADEN : Good evening . And thank you for the 23 opportunity to speak here this evening . My name is 24 James Braden . I live at 217 Village Gate in Orinda, 25 California . I ' m employed by Chevron and I ' m the manager Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItdolteIIa 50 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 of services at the refinery in Richmond, California . is2 I ' m a new speaker here, by the way. I did not 3 speak at the last meeting, although I was in attendance . 4 Just to give you a little background, my 5 responsibilities include engineering, construction, 6 maintenance , inspection, laboratory services , 7 environmental compliance, safety compliance, industrial 8 hygiene , among others . 9 I will try to be as brief as I can this evening, 10 but there were several questions that were asked by the 11 Commissioners in the last meeting of folks in my 12 position that I might be able to answer . 13 . Commissioner Terrell , for example , asked some 14 questions about Bay Area Training Corporation and about 15 the root cause of incidents , if I ' m not mistaken . And 16 if it ' s - - if you folks see fit , feel free to ask any of 17 those questions , I ' ll be happy to address those for you . 18 I ' d like to bring to you a little bit different 19 perspective on the issue before you this evening . And 20 let me just say that the real point that I ' m trying to 21 make here this evening is that the successes that have 22 been realized in Contra Costa County so far have been 23 realized through cooperation of different groups working 24 together, not necessarily by legislation. • 25 In the last meeting in particular, you heard from Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandol iia 51 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 many employees of the oil companies , the refineries here 2 locally, and they came from inspection and they came 3 from safety and they came from environmental . 4 The point I ' m making there is that it takes a 5 very diverse group of persons to make safety and 6 excellence in operation of work . There is no silver 7 bullet . 8 In fact , most refineries , I think you' ll find, 9 have up to at least 60 people who work full-time 10 dedicated exclusively to these particular functions , 11 safety, environmental , inspection and so forth . 12 One prime example I would like to bring to your 13 attention that you asked about is the example of the Bay 14 Area Training Corporation . The Bay Area Training 15 Corporation is an inclusive institution . And by that I 16 mean that what that institution tries to do is to bring 17 the players in the game . 18 And in this instance we ' re talking about the 19 refineries , we call the owner companies , we ' re talking 20 about the contractor firms that work in the refineries , 21 but we ' re also talking about the various labor groups 22 that also work in the refineries . The Bay Area Training 23 Corporation incorporates the input and participation of 24 all of the players . 25 Again, in the interest of time , rather than go Certified Shorthand Reporters LL@&I:iG� domiia 52 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808•Concord,CA 94524-4107 SERVICE.INC, (510) Box 4107. (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 I through a great deal of detail about the Bay Area • 2 Training Corporation, if you' re interested you can ask . 3 And I can save some time by - - by skipping over maybe 4 some of the excruciating details . 5 But let me say to you that in 1991 , contractors 6 and the refineries came together and formed a trust 7 called the Bay Area Training Trust . It has since been 8 changed to a nonprofit corporation . 9 The reason that was formed was because the 10 refineries and the contractor firms as well as labor 11 recognized that we were not doing as good a job as we 12 could do in applying safety in refineries , particularly 13 as it applied to contractor workers . 14 So through the Bay Area Training Trust , and 15 eventually the Bay Area Training Corporation, those 16 parties got together and created processes that made the 17 safety training of contractors a much better process 18 than it ever was before . That ' s an inclusive process . 19 Being an inclusive process , the Bay Area Training 20 Corporation has had success in dealing with the very 21 sensitive issue of drug and alcohol screening and random 22 testing, a very, very difficult issue to deal with . 23 But by virtue of an institution where the players 24 in the game work together to solve problems , we are - - 25 we have been able to institute a process by which ZaItdolteIIaCertified Shorthand Reporters 53 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 1k (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 contractor employees that are working in the refineries • 2 are screened, drug and alcohol screened before they 3 enter, and they' re also random tested while they' re on 4 the job . That has been accomplished through cooperation 5 of the parties involved, not through legislation . 6 when we developed the safety training process , 7 we - - we introduced or ran that process by Cal OSHA. 8 And I would just say to you, even though they' re not 9 able to officially endorse processes like ours , 10 you' ll - - you should feel free to contact them because 11 they will tell you that this is the kind of cooperation 12 and the kind of processes they like to see work to make 13 safety and regulations be complied with. You' ll find S14 they are very supportive of Bay Area Training 15 Corporation in that kind of process . 16 Just to give you some very - - some very - - some 17 statistics there very briefly, in 1991 when the - - when 18 the trust was originally formed, the contractor safety 19 OSHA recordable incident rate for 200 , 000 manhours was 20 over ten . That means there were over ten recordable 21 incidents every 200 , 000 hours worked in the refineries . 22 In 1995 , that number is 1 . 6 , 1 . 6 . Now, it ' s 23 through cooperative efforts like Bay Area Training 24 Corporation that this kind of thing has been achieved . 25 By the way, that number is significantly better Certified Shorthand Reporters A o54 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 II`tG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 than the construction industry in general . And in fact , 2 you probably heard this comment before , and in fact it ' s 3 been said by prior speakers , the facts are it ' s safer 4 working in a refinery than it is off the job . 5 Okay. One last comment about Bay Area Training 6 Corporation is that it ' s recognized nationally as a 7 model for how to set up and operate such a cooperative . 8 And again, why has it been so successful? Not by 9 permitting, not by inspection or trying to legislate how 10 things get done, but by creating an environment where 11 the folks who are the players in the game work together 12 to solve their problems and operate with excellence . 13 Now, the last topic I ' ll get into is some 14 questions , some speakers have already mentioned what 15 questions have been asked, what kind of studies have 16 been done to justify the creation of such an ordinance . 17 I hope that questions are being asked and answers 18 are being found, because the questions that are obvious 19 are there gaps or flaws in the existing and very 20 comprehensive laws like process safety management laws . 21 Process safety management , I ' m sure you' re aware, 22 is something that is currently being promulgated . In 23 fact , there are check steps that have already gone by, 24 but there are check steps in PSM that go on into the • 25 future , so we ' re still complying with those . Have they Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItdOlteIIa 55 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 been given an opportunity to do their job? 2 Another question . Incidents - - any incidents in 3 recent years , have they been analyzed as to the 4 connection between such an ordinance and the prevention 5 of such - - of such incidents? 6 I don' t know the answer to that , but I can tell 7 you that we have at Chevron made studies on that issue 8 of the incidents that we are knowledgeable of, and we 9 cannot make that connection . 10 Is the objective of the ordinance one of the 11 County taking an active role and ensuring compliance? 12 That ' s understandable , but CUPA on the scene , that - - 13 that vehicle is there , that tool is there for you to ' 14 use . 15 Lastly, is the objective one to create a punitive 16 measure? I guess that leads to the question of this 17 ordinance has many qualifiers in it and thresholds , and 18 it ' s really on a permitting process , so the connection 19 is not very clear to us . 20 One of the concerns that we really have here on 21 this issue too is this . People have said to me, Jim, 22 what ' s your beef , Chevron has had a good record, it ' s 23 not going to fall under, it ' s going to be able to be 24 exempt under this thing . Well, that may or may not be 25 true . Za�taUIt6jl8 Certified Shorthand Reporters ` 5 6 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 But I have a concern because Shell , who is • 2 regarded by the refineries = - thank you - - regarded by 3 the refineries in the area as one of the - - one of the 4 excellent players in the game , having just had a fire , 5 would not be exempt under this . And here we have one of 6 the best performers , not only in the area but in the 7 country, who all of a sudden find themselves burdened 8 and impeded by this particular process . 9 Okay. I think lastly, at a time when government 10 is realizing that counter productive regulation cripples 11 the economy and jeopardizes jobs , this particular 12 amendment is unclear, subjective , unjustified and 13 redundant , and certainly is going the wrong way. 14 Our efforts should be focused on creating an 15 enabling environment where the players create the 16 solutions for mutual benefit . 17 Let me leave with you this one thought in 18 closing . I have a real appreciation for the challenge 19 before you, not only because I ' m a player in the game , 20 but because I ' m a past Planning Commissioner, I ' m a past 21 two term City Councilman herein Contra Costa County, and 22 I know how difficult your job is . 23 But let me just say to you, out of the many 24 lessons that I learned, probably one of the most 25 important ones was let the process run its course . Certified Shorthand Reporters Z a ndoILd 57 2321 Stanwell Drive a Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Quick decisions that are ill-founded and rushed very 2 often come up as bad solutions and certainly don' t serve 3 the community well . 4 Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 6 Thank you, Mr . Braden . 7 MR. BRADEN: Thank you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker is Brent Babo, 9 B-A-B-O-R, I believe . And Brent , Toni Vanderbrook has 10 given you her time also . 11 MR . BABO : Thank you . Chairman Wong, 12 Commissioners , thank you for the opportunity to speak . 13 My name is Brent Babo . I ' m here as vice president of 14 the California Contractors Alliance, which is a 15 nonprofit corporation of contractors . The common thread 16 is that we all provide services to the refineries and to 17 industry here in Contra Costa County among other places . 18 In addition, I am the director of professional 19 services for Timec Company, an industrial contractor who 20 provides maintenance and repair services to oil 21 refineries . We have approximately 300 employees working 22 in all the refineries in Contra Costa County at this 23 time . 24 And in my capacity individually, my 25 responsibility is safety, risk management , training for Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaraboraeIIa 58 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 our people . My job and my success depends on keeping O2 our people healthy, completing jobs successfully and 3 avoid potential risk, liability to our employees , to the 4 company, to the clients we serve . 5 One thing I ' ve learned over the five and a half 6 years I ' ve been working in the refineries is that you 7 improve safety at the point of impact , at the point a 8 decision is made , at the point action is taken . 9 We can sit in an office and write policies and 10 programs and issue memos of do this and don' t do that , 11 but unless the people out in the field at the moment of 12 impact , the moment of decision are thinking, are doing 13 their jobs properly and paying attention, safety is not 14 improved . 15 And if you take that a step further, I would 16 submit that the decisions made about a project months 17 earlier in a government office several miles away from 18 the actual valve or flange or tower vessel have even 19 less impact on the actual safety of that worker of that 20 incident . 21 As an example , if we step away from this 22 particular process and look at an ordinary small 23 business person who comes to you for a permit to build 24 an office building or a small facility and they seek 25 their land use permit , is there anything in that land fir,,, Certified Shorthand Reporters ndUILdha 59 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 use permit process two months before construction begins is2 that is going to ensure to that their plumber doesn' t 3 install pipe that perhaps has pinhole defects in it or 4 that one of the workers building that office is not 5 accidentally going to drop a fixture on their toe and 6 break their toe . 7 Those issues do not come up in the permit 8 process . That ' s - - that ' s actual at the job site work 9 going on . And those are the issues that need to be 10 addressed, not whether the project is built according to 11 design or specifications , how the work is performed . We 12 don' t see how a permit process months earlier will 13 affect those decisions . 14 I think going through your analysis , you need to 15 ask yourself would there have been a permit process 16 prior to the particular incident which would have 17 disclosed the underlying cause of the incident so as to 18 prevent that incident . 19 There' s been some talk here tonight and at the 20 last session regarding the Shell fire as an incident 21 under consideration or the catacarb release . And you 22 need to ask yourself those root cause questions . Would 23 there have been a permit process if this ordinance was 24 in place and would that permit process have prevented 25 the underlying causes? Z� `1' Certified Shorthand Reporters almdoReHa 60 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTTI�iG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 If you don' t know the answer to those questions , 2 then you don' t know whether the land use permit process 3 is a solution to those safety issues . And if you look 4 at the root cause and determine that the permit process 5 would not have prevented those incidents , then it has no 6 bearing on safety. 7 Looking within the ordinance itself , the 8 ordinance distinguishes between projects and major 9 maintenance . Projects require the analysis of a 10 threshold risk cutoff . The threshold number has been 11 the subject of dispute . 12 However, major maintenance does not , and we find 13 this curious . If the issue is risk and the level of ' 14 risk on a project , why isn' t major maintenance subject 15 to the same risk analysis , is the risk on this project 16 above or - - on this maintenance project above or below a 17 threshold . 18 Maintenance is thrown in, blanketed, it ' s all 19 maintenance , there ' s no risk analysis to that , whereas 20 projects do have a risk analysis . That seems somewhat 21 inconsistent . Either it ' s all projects and all 22 maintenance or everything should be subject to the same 23 risk analysis , which leads to the question of why is 24 this ordinance here if there' s these inconsistencies , if 25 it doesn' t necessarily affect safety where does it come Za„���0�61`**$ Certified Shorthand Reporters 61 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPOR'T'ING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 from . 2 We ' ve looked at the - - this ordinance originally 3 started in April of 1996 before the Richmond City 4 Council . And in that ordinance that was originally 5 drafted that started this whole process that now is 6 before you, the requirements in Subpart 5 . C . 2 was that , 7 quote , " In order to recommend the project for approval 8 by the City Council , the Planning Commission shall make 9 the following findings . " 10 And Subpart 2 is , "That the workers who will be 11 employed to perform the steamfitting, pipefitting and/or 12 welding on high temperature , high pressure installations 13 have obtained worker certification . " 14 And in the worker certification section, it 15 defines that certification as having passed the PIPE 16 certification, which is the steamfitter/pipefitter test . 17 So the original iteration which started this 18 entire process contained a provision that the work had 19 to be done by the steamfitters and pipefitters . That 20 was removed as time went on and we ' ve gone through 21 various' iterations and revisions and we ' re where we are 22 today. 23 As I believe, as Lyle Sims , an earlier speaker 24 mentioned, there ' s a - - there ' s a video out there called 25 Blueprint for the Future and he recommended that you see Certified Shorthand Reporters ZB�d�Ia6jI8 62 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 that . What does that have to do with this permit 2 process? 3 Ell , in that video, the steamfitters come out and 4 state that when a project goes into a permit process , 5 they will look for the opportunity to object or 6 challenge the permit until they obtain until , what they 7 quote - - and I ' ll read the quote . 8 The quote from the transcript is a quote from 9 Mr . Tom Adams : "When we become aware of a project that 10 is in the permit process, we examine it to determine 11 whether or not there are environmental or planning or 12 other regulatory problems with the project . And if 13 there meritorious objections that could be raised to a 14 nonunion project , we raise them" - - that ' s a nonunion 15 project . 16 And I quote - - back to the quote : "And a lot of 17 times in this process we , by virtue of the objections we 18 raise , we get concessions from the developer or the 19 governmental agency imposes conditions on the project 20 which make the project better for the community . And 21 also a lot of times we convince the developer that , you 22 know, he should enter into an agreement with the unions 23 to make the project a union project . " 24 And further on in the videos there ' s testimonials 25 by several different business managers - - Certified Shorthand Reporters MadolmeljB 63 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPQRMG SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Brent - - . 2 MR . BABO : Yes . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : - - I ' m going to have to ask you 4 to make a closing statement . 5 MR . BABO : Okay. The closing point is that I 6 believe it was Commissioner Terrell who asked the 7 question at the last session whether the permit process 8 could be used for some other purpose . 9 And the purpose is , as stated by the 10 steamfitters , that they will seek concession to have 11 nonunion jobs or jobs that are not done by them 12 converted over to union projects in exchange for 13 releasing the challenge to the permit . S14 Thank you for your time . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG: Any questions of the speaker? 16 Thank you, sir . 17 Next speaker is Tom Lindemuth, followed by S . M. 18 Skaggs . 19 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Mr . Chairman? 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 21 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : May I ask - - may I ask a 22 question of Mr . Babo - - I ' m sorry. 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : Brent? 24 MR . BABO : Yes . 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : A question for you . �►^ Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItdondhk 64 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORnNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I ' m sorry. 2 MR . BABO : Yes , I ' m sorry. 3 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : You mentioned the video, 4 Blueprint for the Future . 5 MR. BABO : Yes . 6 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Do you have a copy of the 7 video? 8 MR. BABO : I do not currently have a copy. They 9 are - - 10 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : But - - 11 MR . BABO : They are available . 12 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Could you get a copy - - 13 MR. BABO : Yes . 14 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : - - and give a 'copy to each 15 of the Commissioners? 16 MR. BABO : I ' m sure we can make arrangements to 17 have that done promptly. 18 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Thank you . 19 MR . BABO : Sure . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Lindemuth. 21 MR . LINDEMUTH : Thank you, Chairman Wong, members 22 of the Commission . I have a letter that I want to give 23 to all of you, which I ' ll read from part of it and 24 paraphrase part of it . 25 For the record, my name is Tom Lindemuth. I live ZBIadUIa6TlaCertified Shorthand Reporters LK1 `i 65 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Bax 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 at 501 Daisy Place in Pleasant Hill . I ' m speaking to 2 you tonight as a member of the Hazardous Materials 3 Commission, this is not a commission report , but as a 4 member . 5 You' ve heard a lot about the genesis of the land 6 use planning ordinances that have come before you, both 7 this spring when we were working together on - - I think 8 on the same page, and now with many pages that we ' re 9 arguing about . 10 Aside from the basic concern about - - that I have 11 about the really lack of safety involved in the proposed 12 amendments to Ordinance 96-20 , I also have some concerns 13 about implementability. ' 14 When 96-20 was drafted, its primary objective was 15 to encourage industry to locate and build or modify for 16 long term safety. In other words , the objective was not 17 to issue permits . The issue was really to convince 18 industry and to help guide them into - - into changes in 19 their basic activities which would provide long term 20 safety. 21 And I ' ve said to many people that I - - my fondest 22 hope that it would be that a permit under 96-20 - - that 23 no permits would ever be issued, because the permit 24 wasn' t the vehicle by which safety would be improved, 25 but rather by the changes that an - - that an Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoraoIIa 66 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 ordinance - - or that an applicant would have in how they 2 would design and build and operate a facility . 3 The proposed amendments that have been drafted by 4 several Boardmembers and the building trades 5 representatives , especially the proposed requirements 6 for permits for major maintenance , do not have the same 7 clarity as far as what we' re looking for an applicant to 8 do . They don' t have that clarity. 9 And without a clear knowledge of what I would 10 call anticipated permit conditions , it seems to be very 11 unreasonable to expect that some sort of change in 12 position is going to change the way safety is achieved. 13 What I ' ve done - - and you' ll see it in the 14 letter - - is I ' ve put together a table . And I have to 15 tell you that I really don' t propose that you follow 16 this . 17 But if indeed permits for major maintenance 18 really are required, then I would submit that all of 19 these issues in the area of process design, structural 20 design, design standards , personnel qualifications , 21 especially for people who will not only design and build 22 but also who will inspect and approve , as well as review 23 protocols , need to be built into the definition of the 24 permitting process for maintenance . 25 And I think clearly that is an exercise that * Certified Shorthand Reporters Z8Itd®ItFi�lB 67 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 would be far below what the County' s expectations are 2 for improvements in safety. It would take a lot of time 3 to do, the payoff would be poor . And I think rather we 4 ought to be looking at the other kinds of issues that 5 have been proposed such as the document the Oil , 6 Chemical and Atomic Workers have put together . 7 Thank you . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions for the speaker? 9 Thank you, Mr . Lindemuth. 10 Next speaker is S . M. Skaggs . 11 MR . SKAGGS : Mr . Chairman, members of the 12 Commission, my name is Sandy Skaggs . I ' m representing 13 the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety. 14 As you know, the law gives to you a 15 responsibility to make a recommendation on this 16 proposal . And it also provides that your recommendation 17 shall be in writing, include the reasons for the 18 recommendation and the relationship of the proposed 19 ordinance or amendment to applicable and general 20 sp [ecific - - I ' m sorry - - applicable general and 21 specific plans . 22 I would suggest to you that one thing that you 23 might want to do is ask your staff for a report on how 24 this ordinance relates to the general plan and all 25 specific plans in the County since this ordinance Z��] `1' i■ Certified Shorthand Reporters andoiwIT 1 68 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 applies to all land in the County except for 2 agricultural lands , so it implicates all specific plans 3 that have been adopted by the County. 4 As you know, the coalition opposes the adoption 5 of this ordinance . And you' ve heard much testimony 6 about that which I ' m not going to repeat . I do want to 7 address two concerns which I think have not previously 8 been posed to you . 9 First of all , with regard to the proposed 10 reduction in the threshold from 80 points to 60 points , 11 I would ask you what is the result of that proposal , 12 what projects are included within this ordinance if the 13 threshold is lowered that were not included before? 14 When this ordinance , the Ordinance 96-20 was 15 being adopted, representative projects were scored so 16 that the Hazardous Materials Commission and this 17 Commission and the Board of Supervisors had some sense 18 for what the ordinance would do when it was adopted . 19 I would suggest to you that that should be done 20 again so that you have a sense of what the additional 21 scope and breadth of this ordinance will be, otherwise 22 you have no idea of the consequences of it . 23 Secondly, as you know, one of the big concerns of 24 many, many people is the delays that are inherent in the 25 land use permit process . And as you know, land use Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaIN&ORCHEk 69 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 permits are ordinarily used with regard to the 2 establishment of a use . The County zones have permitted 3 uses and conditionally permitted uses . 4 As far as we know, no other jurisdictions require 5 such a permit for maintenance . And I want to ask you to 6 think about your experience, and I ' ll think about mine 7 with you a bit , with regard to the processing of land 8 use permits . 9 I think the staff has said that they take a 10 minimum of four to six months . You might reflect on 11 your experience . Mine has been that ' s a very optimistic 12 time frame . There are no effective timelines in the 13 ordinance , and obviously processing can establish much 14 longer . 15 I ' ve heard estimates that this may increase the 16 number of land use permits processed by the County by 30 17 to 50 per year . What impact is that going to have on 18 the staff , and does the County have the staff to process 19 those? What impact is that going to have on this 20 Commission? 21 And I will try to wrap up . I had my card in last 22 week when there were no time limits , and I would like to 23 just finish these points . 24 Also there are simply ad hoc requirements for 25 what applications - - for what needs to be included in an r Certified Shorthand Reporters .Zi8IdaUI ffa 70 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 ��mEPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I application for a land use permit . And my experience 2 has been staff thinks about it as it goes along, you put 3 your application you, think, well , we' d like to have 4 this , we' d like to have this , all of which creates 5 delays . 6 I would suggest to you that you might ask your 7 staff to set out the requirements that they intend to 8 impose and consider including those in the ordinance, 9 that is what is going to be necessary for an 10 application . Lay it out in the ordinance so that there 11 is certainty of what needs to be brought in for the 12 application . 13 Similarly there are ad hoc requirements for 14 conditions of approval under a land use permit which 15 creates uncertainty and which is very, very difficult to 16 deal with . 17 I ' d ask you to consider some amendments to this 18 ordinance if it were to go forward - - and I underscore 19 again that we oppose the ordinance . But ask your staff 20 please to draft and return to you for consideration the 21 following amendments : 22 Setting out what will be required for the 23 application . 24 Number two, establishing timelines for the • 25 processing of the application, timelines that the staff �� �'^ Certified Shorthand Reporters ,8IadUTB 71 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 RWIE�PO�R:I:nl:T:Ni��G:SER�MVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 i 1 is willing to commit to and to meet , and setting forth • 2 that if these timelines are not met , that the permit 3 will be deemed to be approved . Let ' s ask staff to put 4 it on the line and tell you how long it ' s actually going 5 to take and live by that . 6 And also establish the standards that are going 7 to be used for issuing those permits instead of leaving 8 it to an ad hoc determination each time a permit comes 9 before the staff or Planning Commission . 10 Now, if you do that and you receive a staff 11 report , I think you' ll have two benefits . The detail 12 will assist you in rationally determining what the 13 consequences of this ordinance are . ` 14 When the staff tells you how long it ' s going to 15 take , what they' re going to commit to, when they tell 16 you what the standards are going to be, you' ll know what 17 the ordinance is going to do . It ' s not there now. And 18 it also may lead to amendments that you could propose 19 that will alleviate some of the most adverse 20 consequences of this ordinance . 21 Lastly, if you would indulge me - - and you don' t 22 have to, but I think it may be to your benefit - - I 23 would like to respond briefly to Supervisor Smith' s 24 comments to you last time when he said that if you don' t 25 act promptly you do two things , you place the County at Certified Shorthand Reporters zaItdolteIIa 72 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 legal risk and, secondly, you incur personal liability 2 for yourselves . 3 I think at the last meeting it was clear that the 4 only risk the County will incur is if the Board acts 5 without your recommendation, the Board would create the 6 legal risk, not you . And I think that threat was 7 dispelled at the last meeting . 8 But nobody addressed the question of personal 9 liability of this Board, which Supervisor Smith said 10 would occur if you, quote , willfully delayed the 11 ordinance . 12 The statute allows you a reasonable time to 13 consider this ordinance and then says if after a 14 reasonable time you haven' t delivered your report , the 15 Board may give you 40 days ' notice within which time 16 you' re to hold a hearing and deliver the report and 17 recommendation . 18 And if you don' t , the only consequence is that 19 the Board is free to move forward on its own without 20 your recommendation . That ' s the only consequence . And 21 if you have any doubt about it , I ask you to look to 22 Mr . Marchesi and ask him whether you have personal 23 liability. I think that threat was unwarranted and it ' s 24 certainly not true . 25 The coalition asks you only to hear the testimony Certified Shorthand Reporters zmdoneIIa 73 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 and to gather the information you believe will help you . 2 And when you' re satisfied that you can make a thoughtful 3 and considered recommendation, then we ask you to do so, 4 not sooner and not later . When you' re satisfied that 5 you' ve done the job that ' s necessary to deal with this 6 subject , then you should render your report . 7 And we hope that you' ll do that , we have every 8 confidence that you will , and we appreciate very much 9 the time and effort that you' re putting in on this 10 ordinance . 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 12 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Yeah, I have questions . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Clark . 14 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Mr . Skaggs , as a well known, 15 well respected attorney in the land use field, I ' d be 16 interested in your forecast of what will be the scenario 17 or the sequence of events should this ordinance be 18 adopted, recommended by the Planning Commission or not 19 recommended, as the case may be , and then adopted by the 20 Board of Supervisors . 21 MR. SKAGGS : What will result if the Board of 22 Supervisors adopts this ordinance? 23 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes . 24 MR. SKAGGS : I believe there will be litigation 25 over it on many fronts by many property owners . Is that Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandond 74 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 what you' re asking? ' 2 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Well , I ' m asking what ' s 3 going to - - what you think is going to happen . What do 4 you think the cost would be to the litigants? Are we 5 talking thousands of dollars , ten - - 6 MR. SKAGGS : We ' re talking hundreds of thousands 7 of dollars easily. And it really depends how many 8 lawsuits are brought , which I think there will be many, 9 because many of the issues are unique to particular 10 properties as well as the issues which are general to 11 all . 12 And I know that the people who are predominantly 13 affected by this are seriously considering litigation 14 because this ordinance would have such a devastating 15 effect on their operations . 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Thank you . 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other - - 18 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I have some . 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 20 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : You mentioned amendments . 21 You said application requirements is one, timeliness for 22 applications and if they' re not met (unintelligible) and 23 you said establish standards , and I didn' t get the last 24 one . 25 MR . SKAGGS : Well , there were really three ��r,,� rr Certified Shorthand Reporters andope la 75 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 things . And I think they' re important to understanding • 2 the time frames that this ordinance would adopt and in 3 controlling those time frames . 4 So the first would be to establish in the 5 ordinance what it is that will constitute a complete 6 application for a land use permit for major maintenance . 7 And that would have the benefit of inducing - - 8 making certain what needs to be included and preventing 9 delays at the beginning of the process , which is 10 commonplace now that staff on kind of an ad hoc basis 11 asks for more and more information, and it just extends 12 the time . 13 Secondly, I suggested that you ask staff to bring S14 to you a draft that could be included in the ordinance 15 which set up time frames for processing . And they 16 should be time frames the staff is willing to commit to . 17 And in my mind the ordinance should say if those time 18 frames are not met the permit would be deemed approved . 19 And I think this will tell us how long this 20 processing delay is going to be if it ' s done that way . 21 It won' t just be pie in the sky because you' d be asking 22 the staff to commit to delivering . And it would cause 23 the process to work, which is difficult in making 24 application for planning entitlements in this County and 25 everywhere . ��rr,,,,�� it Certified Shorthand Reporters L andonella 76 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA,94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 There are fiscal problems , there are lots of • 2 problems which cause delay in processing these things . 3 And particularly in these instances with major 4 maintenance , those delays could be very crucial for the 5 reasons that many people have testified to . 6 Thirdly, the uncertainty of knowing what the 7 conditions are going to be , what the standards are going 8 to be is a very serious concern . And that also creates 9 delays while you' re formulating ad hoc conditions and 10 criteria and requirements for each project . . 11 So I suggest that you ask staff to lay out what 12 are the standards and criteria going to be against which 13 these applications for major maintenance will be judged. ` 14 That will benefit the applicants , that will speed the 15 process , and it will provide you with a glimpse as to 16 how this is actually going to work . 17 You know, all it says now is , hey, these guys 18 have to come in for a land use permit , we ' ll figure it 19 out when they get here . You know, I mean that ' s 20 essentially what the ordinance says now. And I don' t 21 think that ' s fair and I don' t think it allows you to 22 look and see what the consequences are going to be . So 23 those three things I think will be very helpful - - 24 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Thank you . 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner - - i Certified Shorthand Reporters MndUItPsTlB 77 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 MR. SKAGGS : - - as would amendments to • 2 incorporate them. 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : You had a question, Commissioner 4 Clark? 5 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Yeah . You shouldn' t give me 6 time to think about it . 7 If this litigation is undertaken as you forecast , 8 is it your anticipation that the plaintiffs in this 9 litigation would ask for and get some sort of injunctive 10 relief? 11 MR . SKAGGS : Injunctive relief against a 12 legislative act is very difficult to get . And so 13 whether they would ask for it or not , I don' t know, but i14 it would be problematic to obtain it , I believe . 15 COMMISSIONER CLARK : So then the ordinance would 16 go into effect and remain in effect probably during the 17 litigation . 18 MR . SKAGGS : I think that would be the result . 19 COMMISSIONER CLARK : And how long does litigation 20 like this normally take? 21 MR . SKAGGS : That ' s hard to say. It ' s faster 22 than litigation that most people are familiar with 23 because it generally does not include discovery and 24 those types of pretrial proceedings , but it is , you 25 know, dependent on the court ' s calendar and lots of �iBltdoIteIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 7 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I other things . 2 And you know, so I would think the fastest that 3 you would likely see it get through would be four to six 4 months . It could be beyond that . Obviously the people 5 on this side would be trying to move it , and I would 6 hope that the County would - - as the defendant would 7 cooperate in that effort . 8 However, as I say, there are indications there 9 will be many, many suits . And that in and of itself 10 will create difficulties and problems . 11 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Is it correct to assume that 12 one of the biggest delays in getting into a courtroom is 13 the amassing of the public record? ' 14 MR . SKAGGS : That is definitely a problem, and 15 that ' s in the hands of the County, although people do 16 try to assist in that process . 17 But putting this record together, transcribing 18 all of the hearings and so on will not be an easy 19 process . And it just depends how much staff time and 20 effort and money is put behind the effort of assembling 21 the record. I mean it ' s really directly proportional to 22 that as to how fast you can get it out . 23 And obviously - - 24 COMMISSIONER CLARK: What do you think - - 25 MR . SKAGGS : - - we would be doing everything and Z'^ .^ Certified Shorthand Reporters andOROITB 79 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTII`iG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 we ' d be asking the County to - - at least if I were doing 2 the case , the case that I ' m doing, we ' d be asking the 3 County to allow us to assist them, to gather these 4 things together and get it done , because we would want 5 to move the litigation . 6 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Would you care to hazard a 7 guess as to what you think the legal fees would be for 8 the County? 9 MR. SKAGGS : No, but I think, you know, overall 10 you' re definitely talking in terms of hundreds of 11 thousands of dollars in legal fees overall . And you 12 know, I don' t know, it could well go into seven figures 13 without half trying, given what is at stake here . 14 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 15 speaker? Thank you so much, Mr . Skaggs . 16 MR . SKAGGS : Thank you . 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : Is Carol Youngman present? 18 FROM THE AUDIENCE : (Unintelligible . ) 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. I just wanted to check 20 that she waived, she did waive her right to speak . 21 Thank you . 22 Next speaker, Roger Ballou, followed by Ann 23 Bouguennec , followed by Jack Bouguennec . Roger Ballou, 24 please . 25 MR . BALLOU: Chairman Wong and members of the Certified Shorthand Reporters ZartdoraeIIa 80 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 Commission, my name is Roger Ballou . I reside at 9719 • 2 Whalen Road, Wallis , California, and I ' m speaking as an 3 individual . 4 I ' m against the proposed ordinance . I have been 5 employed by the Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company 6 at the Tosco Avon refinery as a project manager in 7 charge of construction since 1990 . I am also a member 8 of the Boilermakers Local 549 and have been working in 9 the local refineries and other plants in Contra Costa 10 County since 1977 . 11 Babcock and Wilcox is a building trades 12 contractor and I hire on a regular basis steamfitters , 13 boilermakers , laborers and operating engineers . We ' 14 perform an average of over 100 , 000 maintenance hours per 15 year at the Tosco refinery. 16 I would like to confirm to you that safety and 17 quality are the first priorities of the management of 18 the refineries in this area . It is stressed to us as 19 construction managers that no matter how well we 20 perform, we are first judged by our level of safety 21 performance including our ability to follow all OSHA 22 regulations and procedures as outlined by the refinery. 23 I fail to understand exactly how this ordinance 24 would enhance the overall safety of the plant . General 25 procedures for all phases of maintenance work including J� Certified Shorthand Reporters .ZalmdorwIi B 81 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 the handling of hazardous materials could be reviewed, 2 but how would this review help to guarantee the proper 3 execution . 4 Does this ordinance propose to have teams of 5 qualified personnel on site during the maintenance 6 activities , the police , the contractors and plant 7 personnel? 8 It takes approximately three months to a year to 9 plan a turnaround valued at over a million dollars . To 10 review and approve all the details of such a plan by the 11 public in a timely manner is not practical . 12 I do understand that this ordinance could be used 13 to promote the hiring of building trades contractors , 14 but I believe that if it ' s passed it would have the 15 opposite effect , and the refineries would be forced to 16 try and find ways to cut operating costs . The easiest 17 way would be to import labor from other areas . 18 As we - - we as building trades contractors 19 currently earn our share of the work at these refineries 20 by safety, quality and production . And I would like to 21 continue to earn my share of the work . 22 Thank you . 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 24 Thank Mr . Ballou . 25 Ann Bouguennec , followed by Jack Bouguennec , ZSIadoRdUB Certified Shorthand Reporters $2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 followed by Bill Quinn . Is2 MS . BOUGUENNEC : My name is Ann Bouguennec - - 3 sorry. 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : That ' s all right . 5 MS . BOUGUENNEC : And I live at 2825 Parkway 6 Drive , Martinez . 7 I ' m not going to take very long because all the 8 speakers ahead of me have expressed my views . I ' m 9 against the ordinance, and I ' m sorry about the clock . 10 Thank you . 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you . Any questions for the 12 speaker? Thank you . 13 Jack . 14 MR . BOUGUENNEC : Chairman Wong, members of the 15 Commission, my name is Jack Bouguennec . I live at 2825 16 Parkway Drive, Martinez . I also work at the Tosco 17 refinery at Martinez , or Avon, however you want to 18 consider it . 19 I really - - the main thing I wanted to say is 20 I ' ve been at the Board of Supervisors meetings and I ' ve 21 been at the meetings here . And I will say this , I ' d 22 like to commend you for the respect that you' ve given 23 all the speakers , which is not done at the Board of 24 Supervisors meeting . 25 At the last meeting here , Supervisor Smith got up dZ'^ Certified Shorthand Reporters andUI oUa 83 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 EPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 and made a few different speeches and threats and 2 everything else . 3 When they had their last meeting - - I don' t 4 believe any of you were there , I didn' t see you if you 5 were, I saw you after when we left - - one of the other 6 Supervisors made the comment about , I guess this 7 Commission does not think this is an important issue 8 because you did not vote last time and you did not stay 9 till after 11 : 00 o' clock . 10 Mr . Smith sat there like a bump on a log, 11 shrugging his shoulders , going, he didn' t tell you that 12 you could wait till January, he sure as heck didn' t tell 13 the other - - the other Supervisors . ' 14 I think that ' s wrong . I think he ' s trying to 15 railroad this . I think he might be trying to railroad 16 some of you . I think that ' s unfair to this Commission . 17 That ' s all I have to say. Thank you . 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 19 Thank you, sir . 20 Next speaker, Bill Quinn, followed by J . Seymour . 21 MR . QUINN : My name is Bill Quinn and I live in 22 Vacaville , California . And I - - 23 (End , of Tape Side C - Beginning of Side D) 24 MR . QUINN: (Continuing) . . . not correct , but 25 if you look at a turnaround, there are two activities Certified Shorthand Reporters MIRdORCIIII 84 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 going on . One activity is the major maintenance 2 activity, which is inspection, cleaning and repair . 3 And the other piece of that is what ' s classified 4 as a development project in the ordinance . You have 5 a - - probably a typical turnaround, 90 percent of the 6 work would be major maintenance and 10 percent would be 7 this development project . 8 So if you look at the - - the criteria for the 9 development project is the scoring system, that stands 10 alone , so if we ' re going to do the turnaround, the way 11 to exempt yourself from this ordinance is to get 12 yourself a public safety agreement . 13 So I want to address a little bit the public 14 safety agreement as it applies to major maintenance 15 only, not the development project , because I think 16 that ' s covered in a separate piece of the ordinance . 17 So first of all , there were six - - six minimum 18 standards when you talk about a public safety agreement , 19 one being to use the best technology for safety 20 improvements . 21 I guess when I talk about maintenance, I don' t 22 know what that means . If you talk about safety 23 improvements , a new plant or development project , that 24 means to make sure you put the right technology in, the 25 right instrumentation, you know, the latest technology Certified Shorthand Reporters '^ M IadOIR60% 85 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTTl`iG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 to make sure that they play it safe in maintenance , I 2 just don' t know what that means . I have a hard time 3 understanding that . 4 Second, minimum is the permission for the County 5 to enter the premises . I ' ve got no problem with that . 6 I mean the doors are open, if anyone from this 7 Commission or the County would like to come in and see 8 how we run turnarounds , we' re more than happy to have 9 that happen . 10 It says specify changes in operations at 11 facilities included in the maintenance projects . With 12 that - - that I think also applies to the development 13 project , not major maintenance . 14 If you talk about changes to facility or your 15 operation, that wouldn' t happen in maintenance . That 16 happens in development projects . So that , to me doesn' t 17 apply to this . 18 There are three more , and I guess I ' m running out 19 of time . But basically, I think if I look at these six 20 criteria, what it comes down to, to sum up, is that the 21 only two things that I think would happen differently 22 would be , one , the doors are open for the County to come 23 in during the turnaround, which I think is fine with me , 24 you can do that without this ordinance . 25 And the second thing would be a schedule of i Certified Shorthand Reporters MIadondIB 86 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SEMCE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 turnarounds . So you get - - basically you get a public 2 safety agreement , I ' d have to give you a schedule of my 3 turnarounds and permission to come in and inspect the 4 facility. I don' t see how that is going to drastically 5 improve the safety of the plant . Those are the things 6 that - - that won' t apply. 7 So I guess in looking at this ordinance and from 8 it impacts me in my job, I don' t think that - - I don' t 9 think that a public safety agreement is going to - - 10 going to make the plant any safer . It would be 11 something that would apply more to a - - to a development 12 type project and that - - that ' s why hopefully you' ll 13 consider this and oppose this ordinance . ` 14 Thank you . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 16 Thank you, Mr . Quinn . 17 Next speaker, J . Seymour, following by Nancy 18 Cook . 19 MR . SEYMOUR : I did have two other individuals 20 that had - - one other individual - - excuse me - - that 21 had relinquished their time . 22 Chairman Wong and members of the Planning 23 Commission, my name is Brook Seymour . I ' m the 24 maintenance superintendent at the Shell Martinez 25 Refining Company. I live in Benicia and work here in Certified Shorthand Reporters M adOrad 87 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 Ilk (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Martinez . . 2 I spoke to you at your last meeting and tried to 3 describe in a fair amount of detail the turnaround 4 planning process , the level of rigor that we go through . 5 And with even all the efforts that we make , the fact 6 still happens that when you get into the turnaround 7 itself , there are some 10 to 12 percent of the work that 8 we did not know was going to exist and we had to do it . 9 And I tried to explain at that time why I felt 10 like the ambiguity of this ordinance was very difficult 11 for me to see how I could conduct my business the way it 12 is currently written . 13 What I ' d like to do tonight is kind of describe ' 14 to you - - and I ' ll try not to dwell on the same points 15 that Bill Quinn did, on the public safety agreement and 16 on the fact that I really don' t know how to implement it 17 if I had to do so . 18 First of all , I guess I ' d like to start off by 19 saying I take exception to the comments in the Contra 20 Costa Times yesterday by Supervisor Rogers where he 21 indicated that one of the concerns that he has never 22 gotten a feedback on is that we ' ve spent three years on 23 this and why we can' t get it approved in a more quick 24 fashion . 25 Just let me state that the major maintenance LL���NG O��rrB Certified Shorthand Reporters l` 88 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I/ 1 portion of this was only added after the original • 2 document , the original ordinance had been approved . And 3 that has only been within the last several months . And 4 it is a major diversion to what was being considered for 5 the past three years . 6 One of the first questions I ' d have is if this 7 goes into effect when it ' s approved, basically if my 8 turnaround starts on June the 2nd of 1996 , I have to 9 come to someone and apply for a permit . 10 My first question is , it says this safe - - public 11 safety agreement will be between the County and the 12 facility . Well , who in the County? Is it yourselves , 13 is it the Board of Supervisors or the County attorney? ' 14 Is it the Department of Health Services? Is it someone 15 else? Is there a form that I fill out? How long will 16 it take? 17 If I have a turnaround that ' s going to start June 18 the 2nd, this gets adopted right after the first of the 19 year, can you literally get it done in six months or am 20 I going to have to break the law, which I have certain 21 pieces of equipment that must be inspected and have to 22 try and defer them because you wouldn' t have been able 23 to respond within a six-month period of time . 24 Later down in this same opening paragraph, you • 25 indicate that the purpose is that the facilities will Certified Shorthand Reporters L,oItdUi86jT8 89 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 RP.O.REPORTING SERVICE.INC. Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 protect the public and worker safety from numerous 2 things like mechanical and equipment failures , failure 3 to adhere to practices and procedures , and off-site 4 events . 5 What off-site event are you going to try and 6 adopt into this procedure , something that happens at the 7 Ace Hardware Store that I ' m going to have to figure out 8 how to handle? I ' m not sure I understand what off-site 9 events are being referred to . 10 It was previously mentioned about best available 11 tech - - or excuse me - - best technology for safety 12 improvements . That ' s a very difficult one for me to 13 understand . Is it you' re asking me to do a better S14 process about the way I do my work, do my work more 15 safely, try and improve the safety performance of the 16 employees? 17 In most cases during a maintenance turnaround, as 18 Bill has described, we are simply repairing what is 19 currently there . And if it ' s something new, then it is 20 a project and it will be handled under the other portion 21 of this ordinance, not under the maintenance 22 agreement - - excuse me - - the major maintenance portion . 23 Specify changes in operations and facilities 24 included in the maintenance projects . Let me give you a 25 small example . In a typical turnaround, we will Certified Shorthand Reporters LOMIG domflck 90 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 probably perform something on the order of 50 , 000 • 2 individually separate tasks . 3 Now, if I do on average two of these a year and 4 there are at least three counties that will be - - excuse 5 me - - three refineries that will be immediately impacted 6 and maybe others later, you' re looking at potentially 7 reviewing - - let me get my math straight - - 50 times 8 two, a hundred times three - - 300 , 000 specific 9 individual tasks a year that you are going to try and 10 make a recommendation on, I assume each and every one of 11 them, as to how you' re going to improve the safety. 12 In here you also indicate - - excuse me , not you . 13 It is indicated that we will supply you a range of dates 14 on our turnarounds . That range is left open . I ' m not 15 sure if I tell you I think I will do it in 198 - - - or 16 1998 and for some reason it was scheduled for November 17 and it has to be done in January of ' 99 , have I - - have 18 I voided my agreement and I ' m going to have to come back 19 and do it all over again? 20 And then it says the dates may be extended by the 21 County. In other words , I can go through all this work, 22 all through this effort , I get all the contractors 23 prepared, I ' m all ready to go, I ' ve spent thousands of 24 dollars getting them on site, and somebody in the County 25 says , oh, no, never mind, we want you to move your Certified Shorthand Reporters zaildol leIIa 91 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 turnaround three months . I think that would be a major, is2 major mistake . 3 So I think the point that was made earlier by 4 Mr . Skaggs is that this particular agreement as it ' s - - 5 ordinance as it ' s currently written has so much 6 ambiguity that it is very difficult for me , even if I 7 wanted to apply for it next week, I haven' t the foggiest 8 idea how to approach it . 9 And then I guess lastly is what recourse do I 10 have if any, there ' s nothing spelled out as to what I 11 can do if - - in order to sign this public agreement , 12 public safety agreement , the County asks me to do 13 something that I think is totally ridiculous , do I have 14 a choice? 15 If it has been inferred the only way I can get an 16 agreement is to agree that the building trades perform 17 the work, do I have a choice? 18 If you tell me , gee , the instrumentation that you 19 have in this unit is not best technology, you must spend 20 $10 , 000 , 000 to reinstrument , do I have a choice? 21 There ' s nothing in here that tells me what 22 recourse I have . Therefore , I feel like this is a bad 23 ordinance and would heartily recommend that you follow 24 Mr . Skaggs ' action, which would be to ask for some 25 additional input , some additional guidance , and that Certified Shorthand Reporters ZartboRena 92 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 offer a different way of presenting this material so 2 that it would really perform what you' re ask - - what 3 you' re trying to accomplish, which is improve safety. 4 Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 6 Thank you, Mr . Seymour . 7 Next speaker is Nancy Cook . No Ms . Cook . Next 8 speaker is Joseph Mancino who has waived his right to 9 speak, I believe . 10 FROM THE AUDIENCE : I ' d like to give my time to 11 (unintelligible) . 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : You are, sir? 13 FROM THE AUDIENCE : (Unintelligible . ) 14 CHAIRMAN WONG : You' d like to give your time to? 15 FROM THE AUDIENCE : (Unintelligible . ) 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker is Scott Anderson, 17 followed by David Snyder . 18 MR . ANDERSON : We ' ve been here a long time, 19 ladies and gentlemen . I ' ll try and make my remarks 20 brief . 21 We ' re going through a similar process with this 22 ordinance as - - well , first of all , my name is Scott 23 Anderson . I ' m employed by the Dow Chemical Company in 24 Pittsburg, have been there for 23 years , have lived in 25 Antioch for 23 years . And I ' m currently the president Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoladI8 93 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 of the Industrial Association of Contra Costa County. ' 2 About five years ago, the issue of community 3 safety inspectors was raised at the Air District . There 4 was a question regarding is there enough oversight of 5 industry, are there gaps between regulatory agencies , if 6 there are gaps can we identify them, can we assign them 7 to an agency or can we address or give an individual 8 responsibility for being up to speed and to regulate 9 those gaps . 10 Let me just summarize a couple of reports that 11 the Air District came up with at that time . This one is 12 dated January the 5th, 1993 . I ' m going to take them out 13 of order, this one is , as I said, January the 5th, 1993 , 14 signed by Milt Feldstein, the air pollution control 15 officer . 16 And it summarizes all of the regulatory agencies 17 that have oversight . In this particular case it says 18 that - - that have oversight of environmental laws at 19 refineries . There are ten Federal agencies . There are 20 five Cal EPA agencies . There are an additional 13 21 California agencies after Cal EPA. There are about 22 eight Contra Costa County agencies including Health 23 Services Department . There are fire departments . There 24 are city agencies , et cetera, et cetera . 25 I have a copy of this report for each one of you ZatiB�dUIa6lT8 Certified Shorthand Reporters 9 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 to look over at your leisure . • 2 The second half of this report talks about the 3 frequency of the site visits of these various agencies 4 into the refineries , keeping in mind that this is only 5 the refineries . 6 Let me just give you a couple of examples here . 7 The EPA in 1992 made 13 visits into Chevron . Chevron is 8 the largest facility so obviously they get the most . 9 The other facilities get somewhere between two and five . 10 Well , to make make it short since time is short 11 and we ' re getting very tired, there are basically about 12 150 to 250 visits , regulatory visits into each refinery 13 each year . 14 The second report from the Air District - - let me 15 just summarize by reading the last paragraph. This 16 talks about the different programs that are enforced by 17 the different regulatory agencies . Again this is by 18 Milt Feldstein, the air pollution control officer : 19 " In summary, there are numerous agencies which 20 have the authority to regulate safety of refineries and 21 chemical plants in the district . Also there are many 22 programs designed to improve the safety of facilities 23 and to advise the legislature how to improve on the 24 same . 25 "Based on our review, we see no gaps in the 50- Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandUIad 95 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 existing refinery regulatory safety program. However, 2 we recommend that the communities surrounding the 3 district petroleum refineries be informed of the 4 existing programs . " 5 And I think the refineries and the chemical 6 facilities and industrial facilities have endeavored to 7 do that . 8 Let me just - - give me 30 seconds to wrap up 9 here . As I mentioned, I work for Dow Chemical in 10 Pittsburg . If you look at this report that was put out 11 by Contra Costa Building Trades Council , Communities for 12 Better Environment , Shoreline Environmental Alliance, 13 there ' s a list of 35 or 37 incidents that have taken 14 place in this County since 1989 . 15 Three of them took place or four of them took 16 place in Pittsburg . There are about 12 industrial 17 facilities in Pittsburg . There hasn' t been a major 18 industrial accident or incident in Pittsburg in five and 19 a half years . 20 There are about eight industrial facilities in 21 the City of Antioch . There are no incidents , major 22 accidents or incidents listed in this report that took 23 place in Antioch. 24 So if there hasn' t been one in Pittsburg in five 25 and a half years and there ' s never been one in Antioch Certified Shorthand Reporters MIadOROU8 96 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 since 1989 , what are Antioch and Pittsburg doing, what • 2 ordinance are they administering that you should pattern 3 or the County should pattern its ordinance after that 4 would protect its citizenry the way the City of Antioch 5 and Pittsburg are protecting them? 6 Well , I think you know the answer to that . There 7 is no ordinance in the City of Antioch. There is an 8 ordinance in the City of Pittsburg, it ' s two pages long, 9 basically says if you' re going to handle hazardous 10 materials in substantially increased quantities over 11 what you already do, you need a land use permit . 12 Does that mean that those industries in East 13 County are much safer than the industries that are 14 clustered around Central County and West County? I 15 don' t think you can leap to that conclusion either 16 because they' re very different industries , they handle 17 different commodities , they handled commodities in 18 different quantities . 19 To summarize then, let me just say that I think 20 that an ordinance, if we' re - - if we ' re going to say 21 that an ordinance will be the savior for safety in the 22 community, we ' re taking a real wild leap . And I think 23 we ' re going to Abilene - - for those of you that know the 24 analogy of going to Abilene where everyone thinks they 25 want to go to Abilene, and when they get there nobody Certified Shorthand Reporters Zando]ROIIa 97 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 really wanted to . • 2 I think the good neighbor ordinance is taking us 3 all to Abilene . We all think we want to go there . 4 Let ' s look around and find out what the causes of 5 incidents are and let ' s work on them. Let ' s not come up 6 with an ordinance that everyone has to live with and 7 none of us want to live with and doesn' t do anything for 8 us in the long run. 9 Thank you . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 11 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Scott - - 12 CHAIRMAN WONG: Commissioner Terrell . 13 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : In referring to the 14 documents that you have here, it states here that , in 15 examples of major incidents , it says Dow 10/23 , 1990 , 16 Dow 2/1/91 and 5/91 and 6/91 . Were those just everyday 17 happenings or were they major? 18 MR . ANDERSON: No, they were major incidents . 19 They involved - - as you can see there, they involved in 20 some - - in a couple of instances hundreds of pounds of 21 commodities . 22 There are some differences in the Dow facility 23 from other facilities , though. We have about a thousand 24 acres of property there that surround our small 25 production facility. The refineries don' t have the Certified Shorthand Reporters ZarabonoUll 98 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 benefit in all cases of having large acreage surrounding • 2 their facilities . 3 So you have to take a look at what physical 4 circumstances there are, what commodities you' re 5 managing, what kind of programs are used or are not 6 being used or are being misused to come up with a - - to 7 come up with a decision is an ordinance appropriate or 8 what is this facility doing that ' s better or worse than 9 any other facility . 10 Those were major - - they were major in that there 11 were workers involved that went to the hospital with 12 respiratory problems . They were major in that they 13 excited the community. There were no outside 14 consequences , however, thanks to God. 15 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Thank you very much . 16 MR. ANDERSON : Uh-huh . 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 18 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Anderson . 19 MR . ANDERSON : Shall I leave these here for you? 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : Please . Next speaker is David 21 Snyder, followed by Phillip Talley, I believe, followed 22 by Mark Evans . 23 MR. SNYDER : Mr . Chairman, members of the Board, 24 my name is David Snyder . I live in Vacaville, 25 California . Certified Shorthand Reporters M12dolt d 99 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 I work - - I ' m here as a private citizen . I work 2 for SW Industrial who is a general contractor in the Bay 3 Area, position of project superintendent . I ' ve been a 4 journeyman steamfitter for 20 years out of UA Local 85 , 5 Saganaw, Michigan . I ' ve worked here in California for 6 six years , five years mainly in the refineries . 7 We , my staff and I , currently are planning six 8 turnarounds and executing two turnarounds , one of which 9 is an unscheduled turnaround . That is a key phrase 10 here , unscheduled, as I will address this issue later . 11 I ' ve worked at Shell and I ' ve done major 12 turnarounds in Chevron, Unocal and Tosco as a project 13 superintendent . ' 14 Eight months ago Tosco SWI on board to plan their 15 turnarounds for them with their assistance . We have six 16 planners and two engineers at a rough cost to Tosco of 17 $62 , 000 a month . This is a significant financial 18 commitment by Tosco to assure that the turnarounds are 19 run safely, on time and properly done . 20 We work on piping, vessels , exchangers and all 21 associated equipment . We bring in subcontractors either 22 by Tosco or ourselves for specialty items . These 23 subcontractors are not necessarily based picked - - based 24 on dollars but on quality of work and quality and 25 expertise of crews . ZaltdolaeIIaCertified Shorthand Reporters 100 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REP�JRTIr(G SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 I My current turnaround I ' m doing has one item, 2 repair valves , out of spec for emission . There ' s a 3 total of 87 valves to be replaced at a total cost of 4 $103 , 000 alone for just this one item to stay in 5 compliance with the law and protect people from harmful 6 emissions . 7 After the first of the year, SWI will undertake 8 four major turnarounds , employing up to 400 people 9 directly. During those turnarounds the financial 10 commitment by Tosco to SWI will be very apparent . SWI 11 in conjunction with Tosco' s inspection, metallurgy, 12 engineering and operations will be repairing or 13 replacing defective equipment , piping and exchangers . 14 During the eight months of preplanning with all 15 the parties mentioned, we have come up with and 16 identified all known problem areas . The key word here 17 is known . As with all refineries , there are miles and 18 miles of pipe used. 19 A thinning of a specific line could be - - have 20 only spot , one-sixteenth of an inch in size on a 12-inch 21 pipe that runs 2 , 000 feet . That is not unheard of . To 22 identify that one spot is not easy, but most . if not all 23 are found. 24 Safety in the refinery would not be increased by 25 this ordinance, due to in part that the fact that an :lialtd®ItelIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 1 01 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 unknown problem would still be unknown . • 2 Where it would affect the safety that the 3 refineries , any and all of them, would not be able to 4 shut down prior to obtaining a permit . Why? Maybe a 5 major turnaround is planned for January 21st and they 6 have a problem on January 2nd . Rather than 7 repermitting, they might make a band-aid repair to keep 8 running rather than a permanent repair as an unscheduled 9 early turnaround, which we are currently doing, were 10 they allowed to . 11 I therefore state that I ' m against this 12 ordinance, as I see it endangering myself , my assistants 13 and my workers more than it protects them. 14 Thank you very much. 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions for the speaker? 16 Commissioner Terrell . 17 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yes . You say your company 18 is SWI? 19 MR. SNYDER : SW Industrial . 20 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Is it - - 21 MR . SNYDER : Formerly Swinerton and Walberg . 22 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Oh, okay. All right . And 23 that ' s a - - Swinerton and Walberg is - - 24 MR . SNYDER : Ten western states . 25 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : And they do industrial and JJ�� Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBIt konolri i8 102 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 commercial? is 2 MR . SNYDER : They do everything from skyscrapers 3 in San Francisco and L .A. to power generation to 4 petrochem. 5 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Thank you . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 7 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Snyder . 8 Ladies and gentlemen, we' re going to take a 9 10-minute break at this time . 10 (Break taken . ) 11 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Mr . Chairman - - 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker is Tom Seymour . 13 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Mr . Chairman - - 14 Mr . Chairman, if I may. 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Clark . 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have several concerns . I 17 think at this time we should find out whether we' re 18 going to stay past 11 : 00 . And if we are , fine, let ' s 19 go . I ' d need two minutes to call my family and tell 20 them when I ' ll be home . 21 But if we aren' t , then I think we need to 22 consider the question of when and if we' re going to meet 23 again on this issue . 24 If we simply postpone it to January, I believe 25 that it would be reasonable for the Board to say to Certified Shorthand Reporters 7jandone l8 103 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 themselves that we' re not scheduled to meet within the 2 40 days , therefore we ' re not possibly going to be able 3 to develop a recommendation for them and they would be 4 able to and probably would act without any input from 5 us . And I would hate to think that I have sat here 6 through all of this , and that you also have sat through 7 all this and staff has sat through all this, and that we 8 are not going to have any input in it . 9 So with the certainty that the Board is going to 10 act and with the certainty that I would like my views on 11 the matter to be reflected somehow in our recommendation 12 to the Board, I would suggest that we take the next few 13 minutes , since it ' s almost 11 : 00 , to find out if we have 14 unanimous consent to go forward . 15 And if we don' t , to then discuss the possibility 16 of another meeting within the 40-day limit . Since the 17 County has provided us with a brilliant attorney, we can 18 ask him when those 40 days are up so that we don' t 19 inadvertently schedule outside the 40 days . 20 Because some of you already informally mentioned 21 that you have vacation days and things like that , so 22 that ' s my suggestion . I think if we don' t do that , 23 we ' re going to run amok here . 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : For the audience and the 25 Commissioners , here is - - here ' s what my plan was . I LL@Z1:iG: Certified Shorthand Reporters 104 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 was going to hear Mr . Seymour, Tom Seymour, because he 2 is the only one now who did not have the opportunity 3 last time , and speak roughly about three minutes , if you 4 don' t mind . 5 And then I was going to interrupt any further 6 testimony and tackle the question (unintelligible) . 7 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Okay. 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . 9 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Thank you . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : So if there' s no objection by the 11 Commission - - 12 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : No, go ahead, that ' s fine . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : - - Mr . Seymour, if you would give 14 us your testimony, please . 15 MR. SEYMOUR : Chairman Wong and members of the 16 Planning Commission, my name is Tom Seymour. I live at 17 2818 Kay Avenue in Concord, California . I represent the 18 OCAW and the workers at Shell Oil . 19 My topic that I want to bring up, and I haven' t 20 really heard too much of except with Chairman Espinosa 21 tonight , and that was the workers within the workplace . 22 Currently I ' m the health and safety rep that has 23 been appointed out in the Shell facility and speaks on 24 behalf of the represented people jointly with the 25 committee . Certified Shorthand Reporters zaladolli1 a 105 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPOR'T'ING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 I ' ve also been a member of the joint health and 2 safety committee for approximately six years . I ' ve been 3 employed out there for 23 years . That starts off my 4 employment and the deep concern of the work force . 5 When I first was employed at Shell Oil , it was 6 just following a strike of 123 days over health and 7 safety within that workplace . That was taken on by the 8 OCAW and the workers . That shows the concern of the 9 workplace and the people that work there . As 10 Mr . Espinosa said, right now we have 150 people out 11 there that are working while we are in board. 12 The joint health and safety committee which came 13 out of the strike has been very workable . And it ' s S14 where the company and the union sit down and discuss 15 safety issues that go on inside the workplace . 16 One of the other items that came out of that set 17 of negotiations is no employee will ever do any work 18 that he is not satisfied that is safely done . That is 19 including conditions of equipment out there that is a 20 hazard to himself , the community, which is another 21 matter that I ' ll speak on very shortly . 22 We can bring that to direct attention of the 23 company and resolve in the issue . In the past we have 24 done that , and including plant shutdowns to repair and 25 fix the unsafe item. ,,,,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters ZalmdonQsjlB 106 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 I ' m in opposition of this amendment because I do 2 not see how this ordinance or the amendments to this 3 ordinance will help out in the health and safety within 4 that workplace . 5 The one other issue that I have seen is the 6 community. Not very members of the community have been 7 able to approach this Planning Commission . They have 8 had the opportunity, but I have not heard many community 9 members here to speak to you on this issue . 10 Within the Shell organization and many of the 11 other locations , they have CAP committees . If it ' s 12 community input , that should be worked at that committee 13 and not dropped. And that ' s with the environmental 14 groups , the community and everybody working together . 15 I know the evening is long and I ' ll close off . 16 Do you have any questions? 17 CHAIRMAN WONG: Are there any questions of the 18 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Seymour . 19 MR . SEYMOUR : Thank you, Chairman Wong . 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : (Unintelligible . ) 21 Commissioner Clark (unintelligible) interrupt the 22 proceedings and (unintelligible) . I guess the first 23 issue is whether or not the Commission will proceed 24 after 11 : 00 o' clock (unintelligible) . 25 COMMISSIONER : How many speakers do we have? Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaItd�ItP,IIa 107 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss . 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 3 I , JOHN A. ZANDONELLA, do hereby certify: 4 That I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 5 State of California, License No . C-795 ; 6 That the foregoing pages are a true and correct 7 transcript of the tape-recorded proceedings before the 8 Contra Costa County Planning Commission, County 9 Building, Board Chambers , Martinez , California, except 10 as noted "unintelligible" or " inaudible . " 11 I further certify that I am not interested in the 12 outcome of said matter nor connected with or related to 13 any of the parties of said matter or to their respective 14 counsel . 15 Dated this 30th day of December, 1996 , at 16 Concord, California . 17 18 19 20 21 JOHN A. ZAND014ELLA, CSR License No . C-795 22 23 24 25 Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBradorad 136 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 CHAIRMAN WONG: Well, we have 19 plus five who I • 2 called earlier who did not respond who may be here now. 3 So we ' ve got 19 - - 24 possibly speakers . Five more 4 (unintelligible) . 5 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : (Unintelligible . ) 7 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : (Unintelligible . ) 9 MR . MARCHESI : Can' t get much more direct than 10 that , Commissioner . 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Dennis , (unintelligible) . 40 12 days from the day (unintelligible) which was on November 13 12th . That would make it December 22nd, but that ' s a S14 Sunday, so I would imagine (unintelligible) back to 15 Friday which is the 20th . 16 The benchmark is the day that we received the 17 directive from the Board . I received mine on the 14th 18 of November . 40 days hence would make it December 25th 19 which is Christmas . 20 If it ' s a question in terms of when the majority 21 of the Commission received, on what date, I don' t know 22 the answer to that . 23 And then lastly, if it ' s 40 days from the day of 24 the first reading after receiving the directive, that 25 would take us to January 5th which is a Sunday, move it Zqq,,,,,�� i Certified Shorthand Reporters andOX QsIIB 108 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 back to Friday, and that would make it January 3rd . 2 COMMISSIONER GADDIS (Unintelligible . ) 3 MR. MARCHESI : With the permission of the Chair, 4 I ' m Silvano Marchesi from the County Counsel ' s office . 5 It ' s a very reasonable question, or pair of 6 questions , and unfortunately very difficult to answer 7 for a couple of reasons . 8 The first reason is that the law that provides 9 for this referral to the Commission and report back to 10 the Board simply does not say when that time period 11 starts . 12 The second reason is in the 43 years that that 13 law has been in effect , I ' m not aware of any court ' 14 decision that has interpreted that question to give us 15 any guidance . 16 So we have neither express words that ordinary 17 people can understand gives us clear guidance as to when 18 that time period starts , nor do we have any court case 19 that was litigated and that was - - that resulted in a - - 20 in a published opinion . 21 The Chair listed some - - some possible dates , and 22 that ' s really all I can give you too is a menu of 23 possible dates . However, I calculated them in a 24 slightly different way. 25 The first difference is that it ' s customary in Certified Shorthand Reporters MudelaeIIa 109 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 the legal world that when you have a time period within 2 which an act must take place , you generally exclude the 3 first day and include the last day. So instead of 4 counting it from November 12th, the day that the Board 5 acted to refer this matter to the Commission, one would 6 skip that day and start on the 13th . 7 The second milepost during that period of time 8 would be the date that the notice was mailed to the 9 Commissioners . And that would be the next day, 10 November 13th. Calculating it from - - I ' ll just go down 11 the other mileposts and then go back to the dates . 12 A third possibility is the date that a majority 13 of the Commissioners received the notice . Looking at 14 the return receipts that were received by the staff , 15 that date would be November 16th . And so you could 16 calculate starting on the 17th under that system. 17 And finally, in my view, the last reasonable date 18 that would be the beginning of the time period would be 19 the date, as the Chair indicated, that the entire 20 Commission met for the first time after receiving the 21 notice individually and upon which date it was set as an 22 agenda item. 23 So I think it ' s a bit of a tossup, unfortunately, 24 as to which date within that range is the proper one to 25 start counting. "00eIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 110 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 F����WGERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 1 If you use the first date we mentioned, that is 2 the date of the Board of Supervisors ' referral and count 3 40 days , you get December 23rd. 4 If you take the date that the Board mailed or the 5 secretary mailed the referral to the - - to the 6 Commissioners , that would be December 24th, 40 days 7 later . 8 If you took the 16th of November, which is the 9 date that the majority of the Board - - of the Commission 10 members received the notice , according to the evidence 11 that was received by the staff , that would result in 12 40-day period ending on December 27th . 13 And the farthest one out , starting on ' 14 November 26th, 40 days after that would be January 6th . 15 Any day after December 23rd, that first ending 16 date , gets riskier in terms of the 40 days running out 17 and you running the risk, that is , of having a 18 recommendation or the proposed ordinance deemed approved 19 by the Commission . 20 So it ' s very difficult for me to give you any 21 guidance, certainly any firm guidance as to what date is 22 the right one . But as I indicated, a couple of likely 23 ending periods would be the 23rd or the 24th, and the 24 most aggressive would be January 6th . 25 I ' ll try to answer any other questions that you Certified Shorthand Reporters �ialaa�Id6II8 11 1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 may have . 2 COMMISSIONER : Well , Mr . Chairman, I don' t want 3 to get into the 40-day notice because as a Planning 4 Commissioner I ' m not here to play politics . But it 5 seems as though there ' s this thing about 40 days , if you 6 do - - yakkety-yak . But now, you just mentioned a lot of 7 dates , and you' re the lawyer and you' re the lawyer for 8 the County. So as a plaintiff , which one of those dates 9 would you think you' d have a better argument towards a 10 judge to get it decided in your favor . 11 MR . MARCHESI : Now, who am I in answering this 12 question? 13 COMMISSIONER: In your legal opinion . 14 MR . MARCHESI : As a lawyer for? 15 COMMISSIONER: The County. 16 MR . MARCHESI : It ' s hard to say there, too . A 17 lawyer for the County as well as a lawyer for anybody 18 else takes the facts as he or she finds them and then 19 makes the best arguments he or she can to try to defend 20 their position . 21 COMMISSIONER : Okay. 22 MR . MARCHESI : So whatever happens in this 23 situation, I would try to defend the County' s position 24 as best I could. ' 25 I must say that every one of these dates has some Zarad�rteIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 112 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 410 •Concord, 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(5(510)685-38293829 1 arguments in support of that date and some arguments . 2 that undermine that date . There are various factors . 3 There are similar statutes that have a little clearer 4 language that might help to support a particular date 5 and not another . 6 I realize that that ' s a completely evasive 7 answer, but it ' s really - - I could try to do something 8 with any one of these dates . 9 COMMISSIONER : Yeah, well , I - - you know, I don' t 10 want to put you on the spot . 11 COMMISSIONER : Can I interrupt for a minute . 12 COMMISSIONER : No, just a second. I didn' t want 13 to put you on the spot because I know, you know, you' ve 14 got recordings and so when you go before a judge , you 15 know, you don' t want to offer an opinion now and have to 16 argue a different opinion before a judge . 17 But what - - what I ' m getting here is that - - is 18 that as a Commissioner, I don' t care if we have 60 days , 19 40 days , 90 days , I want to make a decision on this 20 project . 21 The length of time that I ' ve been a Commissioner, 22 we ' ve had problems where we' ve had to go to great 23 lengths to make decisions . And so far, I think we ' ve 24 made proper decisions . I don' t think we ' ve been 25 overridden that many times in my eight years or seven Certified Shorthand Reporters �saltdolaP,IIa 113 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 years or five years , how long I ' ve been here . 2 So I would like to make a decision, what we have 3 tonight , and again, Mr . Chairman, you' re saying now that 4 the cards that we had to go forward are previous 5 speakers . And I don' t care for repetitive testimony. 6 I ' ve had a lot of new information now, and am I 7 ready to make a decision? No, I ' m not . I cannot make a 8 decision tonight . 9 I even asked the OCAW workers for some of their 10 documentation to further see that . Maybe there' s some 11 amendments that could be made to the amendments to give 12 to the Board of Supervisors . 13 I ' d like to have a report from staff in reference 14 to the one handout that was given with the problems that 15 are outlined. I ' d like to get some recommendations from 16 staff . 17 I ' d like to have recommendations from staff in 18 reference to this fax that we have from concerned 19 employees in Contra Costa County in reference to - - 20 there ' s five different items that they have here in 21 this . I ' d like to get some input on that . 22 There ' s some other things I ' d like to get some 23 input before , as a Commissioner, I can make a proper 24 decision on this particular amendment to the ordinance 25 that we' ve already passed . qq,,,,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters .[)QUdoR6ll$ 114 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 But in looking at days right now, I would - - I 2 would be in favor of choosing that - - that first date to 3 make a decision . And I realize that would be a special 4 meeting for us , but I have no problem as a Commissioner 5 going on different days than the second or fourth or 6 third Tuesday, whenever we meet . If it does take an 7 extra day, fine . 8 In fact , I ' d be more than glad to - - on future 9 items to meet every single night , as long as we shut it 10 off at 11 : 00 o' clock . Being here till 1 : 00 , 2 : 00 , 3 : 00 11 o' clock in the morning doesn' t make sense , even though 12 it was just that one time - - well , we' ve done it before 13 on different issues . We ' ve tried to get the issues 14 concerned that night so everybody can go home and know 15 what ' s going on . 16 But in this case, one of our Commissioners made 17 the objection to us going that long, because at that 18 time that Commissioner felt that that going that long we 19 weren' t making proper decision. I agreed with that and 20 I ' m going to stick with it . I think 11 : 00 o' clock is 21 late enough . 22 Unfortunately we don' t meet during the day. But 23 fortunately we meet during the night so we can have 24 public testimony because during the day everybody works . 25 But during the day, you can go from 9 : 00 o' clock in the �andon6lT8 Certified Shorthand Reporters ,L(��1, ■ 115 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 morning till 9 : 00 o' clock at night . I mean that ' s a 2 long time to go . But for us , 7 : 30 to 11 : 00 , I feel is a 3 proper time . 4 So in saying that , I would - - I would hope that 5 we could schedule a meeting with input from staff on 6 some of the items I brought up on the - - on the 23rd. 7 And right now I don' t know what day that is . 8 COMMISSIONER CLARK : It ' s a Monday. 9 COMMISSIONER : Is that - - is that a motion? 1-0 COMMISSIONER CLARK: No, wait a minute . 11 COMMISSIONER : Well , I want everybody to speak so 12 we can get on different items here . But I ' m suggesting 13 that right now and I don' t know what day that - - 14 COMMISSIONER CLARK : That ' s a Monday. 15 COMMISSIONER : Monday? 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah . 17 COMMISSIONER: Okay . 18 COMMISSIONER CLARK: If I may. 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Clark . 20 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Given what counsel has told 21 us , it seems to me obvious that we don' t want to run the 22 risk of giving ourselves a schedule that , because 23 somebody chooses to count differently means that we ' ve 24 wasted our time and the time of the public in giving us 25 input . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zan dOR""" 116 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 So I think we should accept as the given that the • 2 order was given on the 12th and that 40 days expires on 3 the 23rd . Because if we' re wrong and we have a decision 4 by then, then we ' re wrong in the right direction . 5 So I mean, I think that actually Mr . Marchesi ' s 6 response to us was very useful , and that we now know 7 that we have a no risk alternative, which is to meet on 8 or before the 23rd. I think it ' s foolhardy to meet on 9 the 23rd but , you know, reasonable men can differ, 10 right - - reasonable people can differ . 11 I ' ve made a list of dates . And it turns out , at 12 least by my calendar, to only be four, given weekends 13 and holidays and Christmas . And important as I believe 14 this is , I ' m not coming in on Christmas Eve , you know, 15 things like that , or a Sunday, you know? 16 But Friday the 13th - - how appropriate, Monday 17 the 16th, Thursday the 19th, Friday the 20th. I ' ll 18 repeat those , and there is - - there' s only four numbers 19 so there ' s no bingo possibility. Friday the 13th, 20 Monday the 16th, Thursday the 19th, Friday the 20th. 21 Under the theory that staff ought to be allowed 22 to go home on Fridays and Friday the 20th I believe is a 23 staff non-workday anyway, is that right? Yeah . At 24 least he ' s awake . 25 Why don' t we see if the 19th works for at least Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 117 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 It REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 enough of us that we could get some business done and - - • 2 well , I ' m getting ahead of ourselves , you know. I ' m 3 personally in favor, I would vote tonight to continue 4 going tonight . 5 Of course , from what you' ve just said that would 6 be futile , but why don' t we do that one step at a time 7 and see . I move that we continue to meet tonight until 8 we have heard all of the speakers , close the public 9 meeting at that time, and either make a decision or come 10 back later to make a decision . 11 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Second the motion . 12 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Is that a motion? 14 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes . Now, it ' s got to be 15 unanimous as I understand our rules . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG: (Unintelligible . ) 17 COMMISSIONER : On the question there, 18 Mr . Chairman, if I may, in asking staff , gain not 19 trying - - I guess I would be denying other speakers 20 since we do have the cards . 21 But is there - - I mean, I don' t want to get into 22 another meeting again, and I know when you' ve spoken to 23 us once, you need to speak to us again because there ' s a 24 new idea that freshly came in, sometimes the light bulb 25 doesn' t turn on until the second or third time and you Certified Shorthand Reporters mimiko oiia 118 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 bring us new information . But repetitive - - • 2 (End of Tape Side D - Beginning of Side E) 3 COMMISSIONER : . . . late evening, or can we say 4 we ' ve had enough testimony, let ' s close the testimony 5 and have a meeting - - have a meeting here to where we 6 discuss the issue and make a motion and go - - go that 7 direction . 8 And I guess that ' s a question to you, Dennis? 9 MR. BARRY : Well , it ' s certainly possible for you 10 to take all testimony that ' s offered, then close the 11 hearing and continue to a date to make a decision . That 12 is a possibility. 13 I understand that you have a number of speakers 14 left who have not yet addressed the Commission on this 15 issue . So it would be up to you whether - - whether you 16 want to continue at this point or whether you want to 17 hear the testimony and then close it and continue for 18 decision . 19 COMMISSIONER : Actually, we don' t have anybody 20 left who hasn' t spoken at least once, is that correct? 21 (Unintelligible from audience . ) 22 COMMISSIONER : Never mind. 23 COMMISSIONER : Dennis - - I ' m sorry. 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 25 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I would like to amend the ZatadoReIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters ],19 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 19th to the 23rd, simply - - • 2 COMMISSIONER : But we don' t have a motion on the 3 floor . 4 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I know, but I ' d like to 5 speak towards (unintelligible) . And the reason I would 6 like to make my comments is that Commissioner Terrell 7 stated himself that there were other things that he had 8 questions about that were brought up . 9 And I specifically do have questions that Sabiha 10 Gokcen listed on her paper that I have not had a chance 11 to read, but she did specify specific analysis . 12 Also Ron Espinosa mentioned the amendments that 13 they had presented, that we have not seen, that we ' ve ' 14 not had a chance to view . 15 Also Mr . Babo - - and I know I ' m probably 16 pronouncing the name incorrectly - - did mention about 17 the Blueprint for the Future . Someone did hand me a 18 transcript , a partial transcript of that , but I still 19 would like to see the video . 20 Mr . Lindemuth also gave us a document that I 21 think needs to be reviewed, and we need to get input 22 from staff on it also . 23 And then Mr . Seymour made some procedural 24 questions that probably should be addressed. 25 And that is a lot in the cup right now that I Certified Shorthand Reporters mnaoia6Ija 120 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPCIMNG SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 don' t think staff has had the opportunity to review. fa 2 I might be speaking out of turn, but I think the 3 23rd would be a better date to give them more time . 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other comments? 5 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : I just have a question on 6 the - - 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Pavlinec . 8 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : The amendment was to hear 9 the voice of - - 10 COMMISSIONER : It ' s an amendment to a nonexisting 11 motion . 12 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : No, no, I mean - - oh, 13 it ' s not an existing motion but - - oh, okay. ' 14 The motion on the floor 'is -to hear the rest of 15 the public hearing tonight and then close it for 16 decision on another date . And we would have to do that 17 within ten days , is that correct , is that correct? 18 MR . BARRY : No . 19 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : Oh, okay. 20 MR. BARRY : No, that would only pertain to a 21 subdivision map . 22 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : Okay. Thank you . 23 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON: Are there - - 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Guncheon . 25 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON: I have a couple of ��NG ]A1 Certified Shorthand Reporters "OIZPs"a 121 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 ERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 questions , Dennis . Are there notice problems with 2 having it any quicker than the 19th, or the 18th - - 3 MR . BARRY : I ' m not sure I understand the 4 question . 5 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON: - - or the 16th? 6 Are there any notice problems for the - - giving 7 notice to the public of this hearing . 8 MR . BARRY : Well , since it ' s a continued public 9 hearing, we will not be providing additional notice . 10 Anyone who' s here and interested or who cares to look 11 into it will be able to discern when it ' s continued to 12 and where . 13 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON : My inclination would - - 14 would be to work in the other direction, only because I 15 have a feeling that there may be new information 16 presented at the next meeting, and I would want to hear 17 some comments from the public necessary to rebut 18 whatever information may come up . 19 And I also have the feeling that if we do keep 20 the public testimony open, that before this is over with 21 I ' ll have met every - - or heard from everybody who works 22 for Shell , and that we may not finish at the next 23 meeting either . 24 And if we - - if the next meeting is on the 23rd, 25 then that gives greater impetus to have more people here dOraeIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 12 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 kEE�;;�;'NG SERVICE.Fi—CflP.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 to testify and we ' ll never get to the point where we Is2 make a decision in a timely fashion, so - - 3 COMMISSIONER CLARK : You can, I think - - and 4 Mr . Barry can correct me , or Silvano can - - have as your 5 next meeting a condition that if there ' s additional 6 testimony at a subsequent meeting, nobody can - - who has 7 already spoken can speak at that meeting . 8 So I mean, we could for example say tonight , I 9 think, that we - - if we' re going to meet on the 19th, 10 that we will accept testimony only from those who have 11 not already spoken . 12 MR. BARRY : Well , I would just caution you that 13 if there is material that is relevant to the analysis 14 that is presented to the Commission and the public , that 15 the public should probably have the opportunity to 16 comment . 17 COMMISSIONER : I hope that cleared things up . 18 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other - - any other comments 19 from Commissioners? 20 Would you agree? 21 MR . MARCHESI : Yes , Mr . Chair, I would concur 22 with that . And the problem is that if you decide to get 23 more restrictive , you might to tend to build in a 24 procedural issue that might find its way into court 25 pleadings . And to the extent that you can avoid J� i Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandondU8 123 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 creating issues , all the better . is 2 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Oh, go ahead, John . You 3 have - - 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Hanecak . 5 COMMISSIONER HANECAK : Question of legal counsel 6 (unintelligible) wonderful process , told us last meeting 7 of personal liability. Can you explain the process in 8 which (unintelligible) personal liability 9 (unintelligible) . I didn' t quite understand that . 10 MR. MARCHESI : Well , I won' t speak for anyone 11 else who talked about that . However, I can tell you 12 that when ordinances are adopted, ordinances that are 13 categorized as zoning ordinances or any other ' 14 legislative actions that are taken by the Board of 15 Supervisors , they can be challenged in Court . 16 And the typical challenge is , as Mr . Skaggs 17 described it , where people will file a petition for a 18 writ of mandate which basically asks the Court to set 19 aside a decision on certain legal grounds . 20 People who are named as respondents - - and that 21 kind of a lawsuit does not result in a jury trial 22 typically. 23 The people who are named as respondents in that 24 type of suit typically are the Board of Supervisors and 25 the County. I have not seen it , other than perhaps ItdoIdPrTlB Certified Shorthand Reporters 12 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 rarely, that an advisory body or the members of an 2 advisory body such as yourselves would be named in such 3 a legal challenge . 4 So it ' s not been in my experience that individual 5 Planning Commissioners would be named or subjected to 6 monetary liability in such a suit . The most that money 7 might come into play in such a challenge could be if 8 someone alleged that there were some monetary damage and 9 they could develop a theory that this kind of action 10 would give rise to a claim for damages . 11 And the other monetary implication might be that 12 if the County lost - - if the challenge were successful , 13 the petitioner might be able to obtain an award of ' 14 attorney' s fees which would be paid by the County. 15 But those would be the typical kinds of monetary 16 factors in such a lawsuit . 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 18 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, for the sake 19 of argument then, what I would like to do then is to - - 20 is to continue this hearing tonight , get rid of these 21 speakers that we have, close the public hearing, and 22 then continue our hearing to the 23rd of December . That 23 gives staff plenty of time and also the - - the other 24 information that Carmen mentioned to get to us and give 25 us time to review. Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandonella 125 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 I think if we had it any earlier than that , then 2 we would be reviewing it on the same night that we' re 3 here trying to make a decision . And I ' d like to have a 4 few days to review my information . 5 So if we - - if we listen to these speakers that 6 we have tonight - - and again, you' ve spoken - - those 7 that have spoken to us before , you know, it ' s almost 8 11 : 30 . If you don' t really need to speak, don' t speak, 9 just , you know, just tell the Chairman that , you know, I 10 put a card, I ' m in favor, I ' m against . 11 And the ones that haven' t spoken to us , you know, 12 stay in the three minutes so we get out in a reasonable 13 time . And then close the public hearing and then ' 14 continue our hearing to the 23rd to make a decision . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Guncheon . 16 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON : Just to reiterate, I 17 think that with the information that you' re requesting, 18 I believe that that ' s going to be some - - there will be 19 some new information in those materials that the public 20 ought to have the right to comment on . 21 And I would really have a problem with closing 22 the public hearing at this point and conferring again 23 with just the Commission deliberating over information 24 that they may not have had a chance to offer differing 25 opinions on . So for that - - Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoRoUa 126 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) 2 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: Excuse me . 3 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I ' m sorry. 4 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON: For that reason, I would 5 oppose closing the public hearing, first of all . And 6 secondly, I would move that we - - not move, but I would 7 suggest that we meet earlier . 8 Several weeks ago, we met on a thousand pages of 9 documentation regarding some development projects two 10 days after we received it . I don' t see us getting a 11 thousand pages of documentation on this - - these 12 particular amendments in the next week and a half and 13 needing more time to review those . 14 It would seem to me that we will have plenty of 15 time if we ' re given four or five days , unless staff has 16 a problem producing those materials in that limited 17 time . 18 But I think that we need to meet earlier than 19 that just for the possibility of having to meet again 20 after that , it seems to be that ' s the pattern . 21 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 22 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) I think 23 we should continue . 24 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other - - any other comments? 25 (Unintelligible from audience . ) Z�►^ Certified Shorthand Reporters SIZaoItPilTB 127 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON : Well , I believe , 2 Mr . Clark, you were making a motion that we adjourn at 3 11 : 00 o' clock and continue this public hearing to a date 4 set forth. 5 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I believe my motion was to 6 hear all the remainder of the speakers from whom we had 7 cards tonight , to continue past 11 : 00 , get as much done 8 as possible . 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Clark, is that 10 motion? 11 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Well , that is a motion 12 that ' s been made and seconded . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Any discussion? All 14 right . All those - - 15 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , you know - - 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK: You know, we could discuss 17 this until 3 : 00 . 18 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yeah, I know. 19 COMMISSIONER CLARK : And then - - 20 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : And what if - - and again, 21 if you set a deadline again for us - - because I don' t 22 want us to have the speakers here , then meanwhile , while 23 these people are speaking, we get more green cards . 24 And again - - I will state - - 25 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I don' t know how to Certified Shorthand Reporters MItd®I CHA 128 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 handle - - I don' t know how to handle that , Marvin . I 2 don' t know that there' s any way to handle it . 3 But I ' d like to take it one step at a time . If 4 we ' re not going to stay past 11 : 00 , let ' s decide that 5 now and then talk about dates . 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Well , what I - - 7 COMMISSIONER CLARK: If we are going to stay, 8 then let ' s get on with hearing people speak . One way to 9 thin them out is to go to 5 : 00 a .m. 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other comments or discussion? 11 Dennis , would you call the roll so we can vote on 12 this . 13 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Commissioner Pavlinec . 14 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : (Unintelligible . ) 15 MR . BARRY : Commissioner Clark . 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes . 17 MR. BARRY : Commissioner Pavlinec . 18 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : Yes . 19 MR . BARRY : Commissioner Terrell . 20 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : No . 21 COMMISSIONER CLARK: That ' s it . There ' s no sense 22 going - - 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : The next question is when do we 24 meet again? 25 COMMISSIONER CLARK : How about the 19th, q,, r* Certified Shorthand Reporters adUlad 129 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Thursday. And let ' s meet at 6 : 45 instead of 7 : 30 . 2 CHAIRMAN WONG : Second. 3 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I - - 4 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Dennis is rubbing his eyes . 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 6 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Merry Christmas , Dennis . 7 You get another public - - 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 9 COMMISSIONER CLARK : We haven' t made a motion . 10 We ' re just asking . 11 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : May I - - I haven' t made my 12 comment yet . I still do not feel that ' s sufficient time 13 and it ' s unfair to the staff to (unintelligible) . 14 COMMISSIONER CLARK : I agree completely. 15 COMMISSIONER GLADDIS : That should be the 23rd . 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I agree completely. The 17 problem is that I want my time that I ' ve put into this 18 and your time and the public ' s time and the other 19 Commissioners ' time to have result in some input into 20 what the Board does . 21 And if we meet on the 19th and we hear 24 22 speakers and close the public hearing at that time and 23 either make a decision or, if we can' t , come back on the 24 23rd and make a decision, and we meet the Board' s 25 deadline . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaild®I aUck 130 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 1 Frankly, I don' t like the Board' s deadline , but 2 it ' s there and let ' s honor it to the best we can . So we 3 have - - otherwise let ' s just - - let ' s postpone it to the 4 14th of January and let the Board do what it ' s going to 5 do and save ourselves a lot of hassle . 6 But if you come in here on the 23rd and take 32 7 speakers , then you' re going to be sitting here on 11 : 00 8 o' clock again . 9 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : (Unintelligible . ) 10 COMMISSIONER CLARK : All right . I mean that ' s my 11 (unintelligible) . Let ' s see if we can go home by 12 midnight . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Hanecak . 14 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: I ' d just ask the 15 Commission to consider the only two nights in 16 December - - I will fly back on the 23rd . The 19th and 17 the 20th are the only two days towards the end of 18 December where I ' ll be out . 19 I ' d like to attend the meeting as well for the 20 same reasons . 21 COMMISSIONER : All right . How about the 20th? 22 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: The 19th and 20th, 23 Thursday and Friday are the only two days that I ' ll be 24 out , before that or immediately after for me . 25 Otherwise - - Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoraeIIa 131 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER: Well , we don' t need you . 2 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: I appreciate the concern . 3 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Well , let ' s do make a 4 decision here . Let ' s move forward. 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER CLARK : How about the 20th . All in 7 favor raise their hand, signify by saying I ' m awake , or 8 something . 9 Anybody opposed to the 20th? 10 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : Yes , I - - 11 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I ' m sorry. Anybody opposed 12 to the 16th? That ' s a Monday. 13 COMMISSIONER : (Unintelligible . ) 14 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I still propose the 23rd . 15 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : Let ' s take a vote . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG: Let ' s go with the other dates . 17 Rich, what were the other dates you had? 18 COMMISSIONER CLARK : The 13th, which is a Friday. 19 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Too soon . 20 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Monday the 16th. 21 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Too soon . 22 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Thursday the 19th. 23 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Too soon . 24 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Friday the 20th. 25 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Too soon . _ � Certified Shorthand Reporters z ��®�gr*a 11 132 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 It (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Monday the 23rd . 2 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : The 23rd (unintelligible) . 3 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Pavlinec . 4 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : I would like to ask staff 5 a question . How much time would staff need to get this 6 information back to us that has been requested? 7 MR. BARRY : Well , I just don' t know. I really 8 don' t know without , you know, reviewing the materials 9 that you' re asking me to review and comment upon . I 10 can' t guarantee that you' re going to be satisfied with 11 what I give you, in any event , I suppose . 12 Many of the things that I did look at , I think a 13 very terse and unsatisfactory, you know, Commission 14 reply is the best we ' re going to be able to do, to say, 15 well , we just don' t know. 16 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : Uh-huh . 17 MR . BARRY : So much of the staff ' s reply is 18 unknowable at this point . Therefore, how long it will 19 take to do is unknowable . So I really can' t answer the 20 question . 21 I can say that whatever materials we ' re going to 22 put together for you will have to be submitted to you 96 23 hours ahead of time . 24 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I still maintain the 23rd Zaimlk a6Tl8 Certified Shorthand Reporters ■■ 13 3 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 (unintelligible) . ie 2 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Mr . - - 3 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : You know, we ' re going to 4 quibble about dates and be here forever about - - 5 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Mr . Chairman, a question . 6 When we' re rescheduling a meeting, does the vote have to 7 be unanimous? 8 MR. BARRY : No . 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : No . 10 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Well , I ' d move we meet on 11 the 23rd, Mr . Chairman . 12 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I - - 13 COMMISSIONER CLARK : And also too, to meet on the 14 23rd at 7 : 00 o' clock . You know, let ' s get things going 15 here so just in case we get more cards , we can make a 16 decision . 17 Because I want to make a decision on this thing . 18 I ' m not here - - I ' m not here to postpone this thing 19 until who knows when . I want to make a decision on this 20 thing . 21 But , you know, as Commissioner Guncheon said we 22 did have a document . But for me , that document was four 23 years old so I - - I kind of know what the document was . 24 In this case, we had one document that was three 25 years old and this Commission acted on that document . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaI 1101msila 134 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 Now we have a document that ' s April something - - so 2 anyway, the 23rd - - 3 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : I second it . 4 COMMISSIONER CLARK: - - I ' d like for us to meet 5 at 7 : 00 p . m . 6 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I second - - 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Was that a motion? 8 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Yes , it was . 9 Wasn' t it , Marvin? 10 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yes , it was . 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : A motion' s been made to continue 12 the public hearing to the 23rd of January - - of 13 December . It ' s been seconded by - - 14 COMMISSIONER CLARK : At 7 : 00 p . m. 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Right . 16 COMMISSIONER : 7 : 00 p .m. 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : 7 : 00 p . m. Any discussion? All 18 those in favor please signify by saying aye . 19 (Ayes . ) 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : Opposed? 21 (Nos . ) 22 COMMISSIONER : It ' s four to two . 23 CHAIRMAN WONG : Four to two . Motion carries . 24 Meeting on the 23rd at 7 : 00 . 7 : 00 o' clock . 25 - -000- - Z,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters andol ella 135 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss . 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 3 I , JOHN A. ZANDONELLA, do hereby certify: 4 That I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 5 State of California, License No . C-795 ; 6 That the foregoing pages are a true and correct 7 transcript of the tape-recorded proceedings before the 8 Contra Costa County Planning Commission, County 9 Building, Board Chambers , Martinez , California, except 10 as noted "unintelligible" or " inaudible . " 11 I further certify that I am not interested in the 12 outcome of said matter nor connected with or related to 13 any of the parties of said, matter or to their respective 14 counsel . 15 Dated this 30th day of December, 1996 , at 16 Concord, California . 17 18 19 20 21 JOHN A. ZANDO ELLA, CSR License No . C-795 22 23 24 25 .r�►� Certified Shorthand Reporters Iadone la 136 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTITIG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 2 1 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2 'fCONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED 3 _ BOARD CHAMBERS j OEC 0 X996 _ 4 "fix.. a MARTINEZ , CALIFORNIA CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS- 5 -CONTRA-COSTA CO. - -000- - O AL6 7 IN RE : ITEM 2 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ) ON A REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ) 8 ON AN ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ) LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT ) 9 PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS ) WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ) 10 11 12 13 • 14 TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE-RECORDED PROCEEDINGS 15 MEETING OF DECEMBER 23 , 1996 16 17 18 PRESENT : HYMAN WONG, Chairman 19 JOHN HANECAK, Vice Chairman RICHARD CLARK, Commissioner 20 CARMEN CADDIS , Commissioner KELLY GUNCHEON, Commissioner 21 JOANN PAVLINEC, Commissioner MARVIN TERRELL, Commissioner 22 23 24 25 Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaradoualla 1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 2 1 PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 23 , 1996 • 2 3 COMMISSIONER GUNCHEON: Mr . Chairman? 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Guncheon . 5 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: Before we begin - - or 6 continue the public hearing, I would like to move that 7 we waive the 11 : 00 o' clock cutoff point for tonight ' s 8 meeting . The reason being that my understanding is that 9 unless we decide upon this matter tonight , that it will 10 be tacit approval of the ordinance . 11 And if we at 11 : 00 o' clock decide by unanimous 12 vote whether or not to continue it , it could be one 13 person' s vote that essentially approves the ordinance by 14 not agreeing to continue the meeting . 15 So for that reason I ' d like to move that we waive 16 the 11 : 00 o' clock deadline . It may not be necessary. 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : There' s a motion on the floor . 18 Is there a second to that motion? Okay. All those - - 19 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Question . How many speaker 20 cards do we have? 21 CHAIRMAN WONG : There' s quite a few, Commissioner 22 Clark . I would say 30-odd. I didn' t count , just 23 giving - - 24 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Does that include the ones • 25 left over from last time? ,,,,,� ii Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandondIS 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INL] P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 2 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Yes , sir . • 2 Pretty close , Commissioner Clark . 29 as of this 3 moment . 4 COMMISSIONER CLARK: All right . Thank you . 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : So a motion on the floor, 6 seconded, that we continue past the 11 : 00 o' clock p .m. 7 hour . All those in favor, please say aye . 8 (Ayes . ) 9 CHAIRMAN WONG: Opposed? It ' s unanimous so we 10 will continue after 11 : 00 o' clock on this item. 11 Item 2 , Mr . Barry. 12 MR. BARRY: Mr . Chairman, members of the 13 Commission, this is a continued public hearing on a • 14 referral from the Board of Supervisors on an ordinance 15 text amendment , land use permits for development 16 projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous 17 materials , County File ZT-3 -96 . 18 This referral from the Board is to consider an 19 ordinance which would repeal Chapter 84-63 and add a new 20 Chapter 84 -63 which requires land use permits for 21 certain projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous 22 materials . 23 The proposed ordinance sets forth criteria for 24 requiring land use permits which gives greater emphasis 25 to factors involving potential health and safety risks . qq,,,,�� i Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandone§c 3 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 2 1 It adds additional regulation regarding major 2 maintenance projects for these industries and provides 3 for public safety agreements . 4 The ordinance would apply throughout the 5 unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. This is 6 continued from the 10th of December 1996 . 7 At your last meeting, your Commission asked that 8 some of the materials that were submitted be reviewed 9 and responded to by staff . We ' ve prepared in our staff 10 report written comments on those submittals . Unless you 11 have particular questions on them, I won' t go over them 12 further than to indicate that they are covered in the 13 staff report . 14 We have included along with your staff report the 15 three letters that are referred to . And in addition, 16 the Board of Supervisors Board order from December 17th, 17 1996 , which includes in it a correction to text in the 18 ordinance which was directed to be introduced by the 19 Board last week . 20 This material is not new to your Commission . It 21 was previously supplied to you . There was a line that ' s 22 shown in strikeout which was left out by clerical error, 23 but it was in the materials that had been previously 24 submitted to your Commission so it ' s not new and it ' s • 25 not on - - specifically on referral from the Board . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandOROI 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 2 1 In addition, you had - - at least some of the 2 Commissioners had expressed an interest in looking at 3 the process safety and risk management ordinance which 4 was submitted before the Board of Supervisors on 5 October 22nd, 1996 , and that is included in your staff 6 packet as Attachment E . And this is the ordinance that 7 was prepared by the Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers 8 Union representative . 9 In addition, we were asked to forward to you a 10 memorandum of September 6th, 1996 from Andersen, 11 Bonnifield & Stevens , attorneys at law. And this is a 12 memo to the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety. 13 And attached to that memorandum is a partial 14 transcript of the videotape entitled Blueprint for the 15 Future , District Council Number 51 , Northern California 16 and Northern Nevada Pipe Trades . And that was included 17 at the request of representatives of Andersen, 18 Bonnifield & Stevens . 19 In addition, we have included under Item 20 Number 3 , although it ' s related, a shell of a resolution 21 for your Commission' s consideration . And we will take 22 that up separately, but I did want to make mention that 23 if your Commission is inclined to make a recommendation 24 to your Board this evening, we are recommending that you • 25 request the staff to prepare and the secretary to attest Certified Shorthand Reporters mmaomona IL, 5 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 2 1 to the resolution which puts down in writing and 2 transfers to the Board your recommendations on the 3 matter before you in Item Number 2 . 4 So with that , if there are any questions , we 5 would recommend that you ask whatever questions you 6 might have and that you then take whatever public 7 testimony is offered, close the public hearing, and 8 decide what recommendations you would like to supply to 9 the Board of Supervisors . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of staff? 11 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Yes . 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 13 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Can you hear me? r14 Dennis , excuse me . Did you say that the OCAW 15 proposal was attached and sent to us? 16 MR . BARRY : Yes . 17 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Which attachment is it? 18 MR. BARRY : In your staff packet - - 19 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Right . 20 MR. BARRY : - - Attachment E, process safety and 21 risk management ordinance . 22 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Okay. 23 MR . BARRY : Draft of 10/22/96 . 24 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Thank you . • 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of staff? ZBIaaUla6jl8 Certified Shorthand Reporters 11 6 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 2 1 Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin to • 2 receive public testimony this evening, let me again 3 remind you that we would really appreciate it if you 4 could keep your testimony to three minutes . 3 5 And I ' m going to ask again Commissioner Hanecak 6 on my left to keep track of the time . And when you' ve 7 got about a minute to go, he will hold up a little piece 8 of paper that says one minute to go, and if you could 9 and would stop when you see the zero numeral we ' d 10 certainly appreciate it . We have a number of people to 11 again give testimony this evening . 12 So without further ado, let ' s get right with it . 13 And the first speaker tonight is Phillip Talley, or 14 Tolley. Mark Evans follows him. And Mr . Evans is 15 followed by Brian Coleman . 16 Mr . Talley. Mr . Talley, would you begin by 17 giving your name and address for the record . 18 MR. TALLEY : I ' m Phillip Talley from San Ramon, 19 California . I ' m a member of Union 16 , Local 16 , Heat 20 and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers . 21 And I don' t agree with this ordinance . I ' m also 22 the health and safety representative for plant 23 insulation at the Tosco Avon refinery. And I can' t see 24 how this ordinance has anything to do with safety. • 25 And I was asked not to speak for too long . I Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaitdoILeIIa 7 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 3 1 just wanted everybody to know that I don' t agree , and a • 2 lot of the people that we work with don' t agree with 3 this ordinance . And they' re all union people and 4 registered voters . 5 Thank you . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 7 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Yes . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 9 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Mr . Talley, what 10 organization are you affiliated with? 11 MR . TALLEY : Heat and Frost Insulators and 12 Asbestos Workers , Local 16 . 13 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Okay. Thank you . • 14 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 15 speaker? Thank you, Mr . Talley. 16 Mark Evans . No Mr . Evans here? No Mr . Evans . 17 Sir, are you Mark Evans? 18 AUDIENCE : No . 19 CHAIRMAN WONG: Okay. Brian Coleman . 20 Mr . Coleman . 21 MR . COLEMAN: Good evening . My name is Brian 22 Coleman . I work at 6000 Bridgehead Road in Antioch, 23 reside in Brentwood. 24 I am the environmental manager for DuPont . I 25 understand that a couple of meetings ago, that one of Certified Shorthand Reporters ZalmdDneffil 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 3 1 the Boardmembers asked a representative of DuPont to • 2 come , and so I am here to give our view on this 3 potential ordinance . 4 At our site we manufacture titanium dioxide white 5 pigment which is used in manufacture of paint , paper and 6 plastics . It ' s also used as the whitener in toothpaste, 7 Oreo cookies , so it ' s a fairly benign substance , I think 8 you can see from that . We also blend and package 9 refrigerants for air conditioning and applications such 10 as that . 11 The DuPont Corporation was started in -- in 1802 12 as a black powder manufacturer for firearms . And we 13 have a letter in the corporate files from Thomas 14 Jefferson complimenting us on the quality of our powder . 15 But besides being known for the quality products 16 that DuPont has made over a long history, the other 17 thing that we' re known for is our safety. Obviously 18 mistakes in manufacturing of gunpowder can have dire 19 consequences . 20 The DuPont family committed early on to have a 21 safe operation by building their family homes right next 22 to the powder mills . Thus , they put their business - - 23 more than their business at risk, they put their 24 families at risk because their wives and children live i25 right next door . Certified Shorthand Reporters MiRdOXMI1B1 9 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORT II�1G SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 3 1 This continues to be seen by our corporate safety • 2 statistics . And I think there was a request for where 3 the chemical industry stacks up in terms of safety 4 statistics versus other different industries . And I 5 have a handout for the Board that shows basically where 6 that - - where that stands . 7 It lists lost workday cases and total recordable 8 cases which are the two things that industry tracks . 9 These are the number of cases for 2 , 000 worker hours . 10 You can see that the industry number for lost workday 11 cases as 1 . 64 . So out of 200 , 000 manhours , that ' s 12 approximately 100 people working for one year, they have 13 an accident rate of 1 . 6 . 14 DuPont ' s rate is 60 times less than that , 18 15 times less than the chemical industry as a whole . And 16 so I think you can see that we have established a safety 17 record and continue to do that . 18 We' ve done such a job with safety over the years 19 that we sell our safety technology. And, in fact , many 20 of the companies in this room have bought and purchased 21 and trained their people through DuPont safety 22 technology. 23 I ' m somewhat perplexed at this ordinance . I 24 don' t see where it is going to provide any additional 25 safety to the County. For us , our turnaround time, Za,,�a��eii8 Certified Shorthand Reporters 10 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 3 1 which is our major maintenance projects which happen 2 every two years are, in our opinion, the safety time 3 because all of our facilities are deinventoried and 4 purged to scrubbers where any residual hazardous 5 materials are scrubbed and rendered nonhazardous before 6 the facilities are open . And certainly, this is not a 7 time for, in our opinion, a need for oversight . 8 Since my time is very quick, I think one of the 9 topics that was asked, obviously we ' re one of the five 10 in the County that this ordinance would touch. We will 11 never have a maintenance project that exceeds a million 12 dollars , so you' re down from five to four because we 13 will not ever trigger that . • 14 And I guess I ' d like to close with one more 15 statistic . When I transferred here in 1990 , DuPont had 16 seven manufacturing facilities in California of which we 17 were the largest . Though we have shut down some 18 operations and reduced the number of people at our 19 Antioch facility, we ' re still the largest . That ' s 20 nothing to brag about because there ' s only two of us 21 left out of those seven . 22 I guess I ' d like to close by saying that 23 California does not have a reputation for being friendly 24 to manufacturing industries . The County appears to be • 25 trying to compound that . And I dearly hope that our A'—NC- adUlaelGIN Certified Shorthand Reporters 11 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 SERVICE. C. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 3 1 plant doesn' t become the sixth out of seven statistic of • 2 the DuPont facilities in the State . 3 If you have any questions , I ' d be happy to answer 4 them. 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yes . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 8 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Unfortunately you answered 9 my question by saying you came to DuPont in 1990 . 10 MR. COLEMAN: I came to this facility in 1990 . 11 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. In this facility. 12 My question was going to be, that the group of homes 13 that were built real close to DuPont were built there 14 during the late 180s . 15 Was there a public outcry not to build those 16 homes next to your plant because your plant was going to 17 deposit things on those homes where those people 18 shouldn' t live there? 19 MR . COLEMAN: I ' m not familiar with any public 20 outcry. I think DuPont came out and said it was not a 21 wise idea . 22 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : You' re absolutely correct 23 on that . I ' m just trying to get to the point here where 24 we do have a chemical plant that ' s been in operation for •, 25 as long as I ' ve been here in Contra Costa County . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZartaoraeII'1 12 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 3 1 And the building trades supported building those • 2 homes right next to your plant , which you argued not to . 3 And I can understand your concerns with them downwind. 4 It ' s just something here that I ' d like the- other 5 Commissioners to understand, that here ' s a situation 6 where the building trades said build the homes next to 7 this plant , we don' t care because there' s nothing coming 8 out of it anyway, and they got their homes built . 9 MR. COLEMAN : Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Thank you 11 MR . COLEMAN: Okay. 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other questions of the 13 speaker? Thank you, Mr. Coleman . • 14 MR. COLEMAN : Uh-huh . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker is Ronald Sigorney. 16 Ronald Sigorney? No Mr . Sigorney . 17 James C . Johnson . Mr . Johnson, James Johnson? 18 Bill Duncan? No Mr . Duncan . All right . Mark Leeds - - 19 or Marj Leeds? 20 SPEAKER : (Unintelligible . ) 21 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Thank you . 22 Randy Mull , M-U-L-L . Randy will be followed by 23 Pat Leiser or Leiser, followed by Craig Anderson . 24 Mr . Mull . 25 MR. MULL : Chairman Wong, ladies and gentlemen of ��rr,,,,,�� Certified Shorthand Reporters L>b'2"ORPiIla 13 2321 Stanwell Drive*Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 4 1 the Commission, thank you . My name is Randy Mull , and I 2 live at 183 Woodview Terrace Drive in San Ramon . I ' ve 3 been a resident of Contra Costa County for approximately 4 15 years . 5 I ' m a licensed California civil engineer . And 6 since graduating from college , I ' ve worked in and around 7 the oil refineries for approximately 20 year.s . Part of 8 this time has been an engineer in one of the local 9 refineries , and the last ten years has been as a - - 10 working for a mechanical contractor doing both new 11 construction and maintenance work in the refineries . 12 It has been my experience over these years that 13 legislation of laws by local governmental agencies is • 14 required when industry is not adequately policing 15 itself . The reasoning behind this is twofold. 16 Typically, the local agencies do not have the resources 17 to police these industries any better than the 18 industries themselves . And secondly, I do not believe 19 in this case that the local refineries are doing that 20 bad a job of policing themselves . 21 Perhaps I am biased in my view, but I ' ve spent 22 nearly all of my adult life working in and around 23 refineries . The emphasis on safety within these firms 24 is on everyone ' s minds . And the people working within • 25 these facilities are continually striving to do a better ^ Certified Shorthand Reporters In d01a4IIa 14 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 4 1 job . 2 As an example , I would request the Commission 3 look at the safety records of those firms doing work in 4 the refineries and compare them with other firms in the 5 area . It is my belief that they would find that the 6 safety records for these firms - - for those firms 7 working in the refineries is not only well below the 8 industry averages , but also among the lowest in the 9 area . 10 This is not an accident . Over the last five to 11 ten years the refineries have continually been at the 12 forefront of making conditions within each of their 13 facilities as safe as possible . 14 The refineries working with local contractors 15 have implemented BATC, initiated mandatory drug testing, 16 have been instrumental in assisting local contractors in 17 the implementation of safety programs that contribute to 18 these statistics , not only contribute to these 19 statistics but also reward the employees for working 20 safely. 21 I would challenge the Commission to identify any 22 other industry in the area which has not only done as 23 much for its own employees , but has also done as much 24 for employees of contractors working at their facility. 25 Secondly, I would ask the Commission to seriously Certified Shorthand Reporters Zando m la 15 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 4 1 consider the ramifications of requiring the refineries 2 to obtain permits for doing maintenance on the 3 facilities . Either the permitting process would be a 4 rubber stamp or the County would have to make a serious 5 investment in time and personnel to enable itself to 6 adequately evaluate each permit request . 7 The art of boiling oil has been around for nearly 8 a hundred years , but the refineries are learning new 9 things each day that enable them to understand what they 10 are doing . Still today, the entire process is a 11 succession of proprietary processes , each with its own 12 unique traits depending on the type of oil being used as 13 feed in the desired end product . 14 It is this complexity that would make it 15 difficult at best to understand what work was to be 16 performed and how this work was to be performed . 17 Each of the refineries in the Bay Area contains 18 hundreds if not thousands of miles of pipe , tubing and 19 electrical cable . In addition, each refinery has 20 hundreds of pressure vessels operating at temperatures 21 well below zero to nearly a thousand degrees Fahrenheit . 22 And yet , with all of these pipes and pressure 23 vessels , it ' s the state-of-art-seal which was recently 24 installed in an existing pump that failed causing the • 25 next accident . Certified Shorthand Reporters ' redox ffa 16 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 CE�; TING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 4 1 In conclusion, I do not see where this ordinance 2 will help the community . And I believe it ' s going to 3 put unnecessary restrictions on the local facilities . 4 Thank you . 5 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 6 Thank you, Mr . Mull . 7 Next speaker is Pat Leiser, L-E- I-S-E-R, followed 8 by Craig Andersen, followed by Gary Kraft . 9 MR . LEISER : My name is Pat Leiser . I live at 10 1408 Harris Court in Antioch . I ' m a contractor . I ' ve 11 been doing business in the County now for 22 years . 12 I just want to make this short and sweet . I ' ve 13 been at all these meetings , and I know you guys want to 14 go home . I ' ve been opposed to this amendments from the 15 beginning, and I just want to put it on the record . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG: Any questions of the speaker? 17 Okay. Thank you, Mr . Leiser . 18 Okay. Craig Andersen, lives in Concord . No 19 Mr . Andersen . All right . 20 Gary Kraft , Lafayette resident . No Mr . Kraft . 21 All right . 22 Julia May from CBE . No Julia May. All right . 23 Andy Meckling . No Andy Meckling . All right . 24 Dan Hall . All right . 25 Scott Edsel . No Scott Edsel . All right . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandOROU11 17 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 4 1 Peter Derichko, I believe . Derichko . All right . 2 Kevin Smith . All right , Kevin . Kevin will be • 3 followed by Bob Harmon, and then Tim Fitzpatrick . All 4 right . 5 MR. SMITH : Hello . I have a couple of items , 6 handouts for you here . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Kevin, please give your name and 8 address for the record, okay? 9 MR. SMITH : Okay. My name is Kevin Smith . I 10 live at 890 Granada Lane, Vacaville . I ' m a member of 11 Carpenters Local 152 and I ' ll be as brief as I can 12 because I think we all want to go home . 13 This issue has been addressed as a union/nonunion 14 issue . It ' s not . There are many people , union and 15 nonunion alike, that are standing up in opposition to 16 this thing . 17 I have a letter here that I ' ve handed out to you 18 that was presented by the vice president of Overaa 19 Construction from the Construction Employers 20 Association . This was presented a couple of meetings 21 back to the Board of Supervisors . I don' t know whether 22 you' ve seen it . 23 Basically it just says 100 of the major 24 unionized - - unionized contractors performing building • 25 and industrial construction work in Northern California, II8 Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaiadone 1$ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 4 1 $3 , 000 , 000 , 000 public and private construction volume • 2 annually, they oppose amending the ordinance . 3 There' s a sentence in here that I think really 4 condenses what we ' re talking about , the second sentence 5 in the third paragraph says , " It would create a negative 6 business environment , resulting in continued curtailment 7 of refinery activities . " That pretty much says it all . 8 And also sent , there ' s a letter from the Bay 9 Counties District Council of Carpenters . This letter 10 was sent to Greg Feere of the Building Trades Council . 11 People from the Building Trades Council got up here and 12 said we represent the building trades . No, they don' t , 13 not all of them for sure . • 14 It says here , "The carpenters union does not 15 support the above noted ordinance . You should know that 16 in all places where testimony is given, the carpenters 17 are in opposition . When you speak for the building 18 trades , you' re not speaking for the carpenters , lathers 19 or millwrights . " 20 And last , some testimony was given up here about 21 the permits that were given on the clean fuels projects . 22 It was stated that these permits were not delayed . 23 That ' s not true . 24 I am one of the craftsmen - - people who sat idle 25 at home waiting for those permits . At Chevron, I was :lialtdoIteIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 1 9 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTII`iG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 4 1 one of the people that worked on the clean fuels • 2 project . At Unocal that permit was delayed for months 3 while people sat at home with no work . 4 So I just wanted to clarify on those issues and 5 encourage you to do what I think is the right thing for 6 the community, and that ' s to vote this thing down or do 7 what you can to stop it . 8 And thank you, and you all have a Merry 9 Christmas . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any - - 11 MR . SMITH: Anybody have any questions? 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any - - thank you, Mr . Smith. Any 13 questions of the speaker? Thank you, Mr . Smith. 14 Next speaker is Bob Hdrmon . 15 MR . HERMON : Commissioner Wong, members of the 16 Commission . I ' m Bob Hermon . I ' m the maintenance 17 superintendent for the Tosco Avon refinery. 5 18 I ' ll save most of what I had to say and just say 6 19 I ' m opposed to this and I ' m available for any of your 20 questions later on when you deliberate . 21 Thank you . 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. Any questions right now of 23 the speaker? All right . Thank you . Thank you, 24 Mr . Hermon . • 25 Tim Fitzpatrick . Certified Shorthand Reporters AiLFEP:O�RTITNG: aora a"4 20 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 6 1 MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr . Chairman, members of the 2 Commission, my name is Tim Fitzpatrick . I live in Yolo 3 County. I work at the Tosco Avon Refinery. I am 4 currently employed there as the turnaround planning 5 superintendent . 6 I ' m going to be very short tonight . I ' m here to 7 answer any questions you may have . I have a background 8 in refinery engineering and a background in refinery 9 maintenance . 10 As I said, I am currently employed and have been 11 for approximately six years as the turnaround planning 12 superintendent at the Avon refinery. 13 I ' m opposed to this amendment and I ' m here for 14 questions . 15 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of Mr . Fitzpatrick 16 at this time? Thank you, Mr . Fitzpatrick . 17 Next speaker is Nancy Peloski . Nancy here? 18 John Huber, I believe . 19 FROM THE AUDIENCE : (Unintelligible . ) 20 CHAIRMAN WONG : I beg your pardon? 21 FROM THE AUDIENCE : (Unintelligible . ) 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Joseph Mancino . John 23 Jolly. Norm Hattich, H-A-T-T- I-C-H, I believe . 24 Sabiha Gokcen . • 25 MS . GOKCEN: (Unintelligible . ) qq,,,,� Certified Shorthand Reporters ZalmdonoHa 21 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 6 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Thank you, Sabiha . • 2 Rick Bonner . Again, Rick Bonner? 3 FROM THE AUDIENCE : (Unintelligible . ) 4 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . Jim Jaeckle . 5 MR. JAECKLE : Good evening, members of the 6 Commission . My name is Jim Jaeckle . I ' m the executive 7 director of the Contra Costa Council . We ' re located at 8 2694 Bishop Drive in San Ramon . 9 Tonight I ' m speaking to you not only as executive 10 director of the council , but I ' m speaking as a member of 11 the Coalition for Jobs and Community Safety, an 12 organization that was formed at the inception of the 13 discussion of this ordinance . 14 Tonight , as you can see a number of speakers are 15 passing . We ' ve limited ourselves to three speakers from 16 the coalition, myself first . I would ask that you would 17 next call Russ Miller, the president of Eichleay 18 Engineers, and then Mr . Ron Banducci , the president of 19 the Shell Martinez facility. I think with that you' ll 20 have a good feel for where the coalition is coming and a 21 sense of industry. 22 The Contra Costa Council is a business 23 organization of roughly 400 members located in this 24 County. Prior to my service as executive director - - 25 and you' ll find out why this is important - - I served as �iBltdoIteIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 2 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 6 1 the City Manager of Martinez for six years and am • 2 familiar with the regulation of industry at Shell and 3 Rhone Poulenc . 4 Prior to that , I spent 15 years working in 5 economic development in Contra Costa and Alameda County. 6 I have a bachelor' s degree in economics and a master' s 7 degree in urban planning . Tonight I ' m going to talk to 8 you about economic issues and general administrative 9 issues related to the ordinance . 10 To propose requirement of discretionary permits 11 seems to target petrochemical industry. However, I 12 continue to be concerned and have been concerned from 13 the first day the other businesses what will potentially 14 be captured by these amendments , businesses that we may 15 not think of , businesses that haven' t been studied . 16 The proposed requirements could have very severe 17 economic impacts in this County. I would ask that the 18 Commission ask the staff and the Board of Supervisors to 19 retain a competent economist to study the potential 20 impacts . 21 That analysis should include questions with 22 respect to investments, decisions not being made to 23 invest in this County, the expansion of employment , the 24 potential loss of jobs , and the impacts on the operating 25 costs of businesses in this County with respect to ,� Certified Shorthand Reporters MladolmeUa 23 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 6 1 competition . 2 There should be a very detailed analysis of the 3 number of businesses captured at whatever the point 4 score threshold is , the potential impact on the County' s 5 own budget since the large industries in the 6 unincorporated area contribute 16 percent of the total 7 property tax revenues . 7 8 In addition, the multiplier effect should be 9 considered, and probably most important , the future of 10 this County, that is the businesses that are not here 11 today. This ordinance and the amendments have a very, 12 very strong anti-business message . 13 This County is squarely in competition with 14 Alameda and Solano County for attracting the growing Bay 15 Area economy. If this ordinance ' s anti-business message 16 is as loud and clear as I believe it is , this will be an 17 extreme competitive disadvantage for this County in the 18 future . 19 I ' m running out of time . I ' ll quickly run 20 through . Let me speak as the former manager of 21 Martinez . Martinez regulated Shell . We required 22 building permits . We regulated Rhone Poulenc . We 23 required building permits . 24 But I can tell you as the former manager in the • 25 years and including some relationships with our Zafir,,, Certified Shorthand Reporters lRdoRdIa 24 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 7 1 industrial people in the incorporated areas which were • 2 not always good with me, we never would have considered 3 discretionary permits for maintenance activities . 4 There is no nexus in this ordinance between 5 maintenance and avoiding incidents . And I urge you in 6 the strongest terms do not recommend this to the Board 7 of Supervisors . 8 Thank you . 9 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you, Mr . Jaeckle . Any 10 questions of the speaker? Thank you, Mr . Jaeckle . 11 The next speaker is David Farabee . David 12 Farabee . 13 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Weren' t we going to take 14 them in order? 15 COMMISSIONER : Yeah. (Unintelligible . ) 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : Oh, is that right? Okay. 17 Mr . Farabee - - 18 MR . FARABEE : Certainly, I can wait . 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : I kind of went out of order. 20 Would you mind? 21 MR . FARABEE : That ' s fine . 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. Russ Miller, followed by 23 Ron Banducci . I ' m sorry. 24 MR . MILLER : Mr . Chairman, members of the 25 Commission - - excuse me . My name is Russ Miller . I ' m Certified Shorthand Reporters L=R��EhPORT=INGSIERVICE mfla 25 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 7 1 the president of Eichleay Engineers , also here speaking 2 on behalf of the coalition . 3 Last time I spoke to you I made a couple of real 4 quick points . One was that it was highly improbable 5 that the ordinance you' re considering would have any 6 positive effect whatsoever on safety. 7 Number two, that it had - - it ' s highly probable 8 that it could have severe negative effects in a lot of 9 areas . 10 With that as a backdrop, I would just like to add 11 some additional information that I think you should 12 consider before moving forward with an ordinance of this 13 nature . 14 We ' ve got ordinances , regulations and permits in 15 this County that are so numerous that it takes 12 pages 16 of punch list items here to list them all . I just 17 wanted to leave you with copies of these . This is a 18 comprehensive list of all current and pending permits 19 and ordinances relative to repair maintenance work in 20 these types of facilities . 21 We really don' t need any more , particularly the 22 kind of ordinance that this is . It really adds nothing 23 to the equation . So some additional information for you 24 to consider . 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you . Any questions of ,,,.�� Certified Shorthand Reporters MudolmeHa 26 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 7 1 Mr . Miller? Thank you, Mr . Miller . is 2 Ron Banducci . 3 MR . BANDUCCI : Good evening, Chairman Wong and 4 members of the Commission . My name is Ron Banducci . 5 I ' m the president and CEO of the Shell Martinez Refining 6 Company. 7 I ' ve spent 30 years in the refining industry as 8 an engineer, a manager, the vice president of refining, 9 and now as president and CEO of a refining company . 10 Throughout those 30 years , I ' ve gained the reputation of 11 being a person who sets very high performance standards 12 and who' s committed to achieving them. 13 I believe I ' m also recognized within my own 0 14 company and within my industry as a person who is 15 uncompromisingly dedicated to safety in the workplace 16 and to minimizing the impact of our refining operations 17 on our surrounding communities . 18 I take this business of safety very seriously. 19 And I stand on my record in that regard . Because of 8 20 that , I don' t take very kindly to those people who stand 21 behind the safety banner in order to camouflage the true 22 objectives and motivations . 23 Unfortunately, in my opinion, many of the 24 proponents of this ordinance fall into this precise • 25 category. Few if any of them have ever worked in a Certified Shorthand Reporters EA'IN�G�SEIRMCE. konIIa 27 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 INC. M.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 8 1 refinery. And those few who have show very little sign 2 that they know anything about safety in a refinery, how 3 to promote it and, frankly, how to deliver it . 4 If this ordinance is truly about refinery safety, 5 I ask you to ask yourselves why is it opposed by the 6 union that represents refinery workers , the Oil , 7 Chemical and Atomic Workers Union? 8 If this ordinance is truly about safety, why is 9 it so strongly opposed by those companies that would 10 stand to gain the most from safe operation in terms of 11 their reputation, their relationship with the community 12 and, yes , frankly, their financial bottom line? 13 The answer, of course , is that this ordinance is 14 not about safety. It ' s about pure power politics , 15 period . You know that , I know that . In fact , this 16 ordinance will have potentially serious adverse impact 17 on the ability of industry to maintain safe operations . 18 My experience of 30 years tells me that when it ' s 19 time to undertake major maintenance , that maintenance 20 should be performed and it should be performed promptly, 21 not with the imposition of a drawn-out , often 22 politically charged, discretionary land use permitting 23 process , not with the involvement of a cumbersome EIR 24 process . 25 We ' re not talking about building new facilities H Certified Shorthand Reporters MIZI&ORO 11 2 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 8 1 here now with respect to this ordinance . We' re talking • 2 about conducting routine maintenance work, the aim of 3 which is to return existing facilities to peak and 4 efficient operation . 5 To put it very simply, safety is not served by 6 the delay or postponement of necessary maintenance work, 7 an outcome that is a virtual certainty under this 8 ordinance, unfortunately. 9 Chairman Wong and members of this Commission, I 10 ask that you send a firm and unequivocal message to the 11 Board of Supervisors regarding this ordinance . This 12 ordinance is incredibly bad public policy. This 13 ordinance does not promote or enhance safety of 14 industrial facilities within this County. 15 This County should not tolerate using safety as a 16 smokescreen to achieve political and other objective . 17 This ordinance deserves to be resoundly and convincingly 18 defeated so that its proponents receive a very clear 19 message , don' t mix safety with politics . 20 Chairman Wong and members of the Commission, I 21 thank you for your patience and attention during the 22 many hours of public testimony on this issue . The 23 decision that you and the Board of Supervisors will make 24 on this ordinance will have a very profound impact on • 25 the long term viability of heavy industry in this County Za'r �d��QsIIB Certified Shorthand Reporters l 2 9 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 rREPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 8 1 and on our near term ability to compete with others in 40 2 this State , in this country, and even in other parts of 3 this world. 4 In concluding, I wish each and every one of you a 5 very joyous holiday season and a safe , healthy and 6 prosperous year in 1997 . 7 Thank you for your tolerance of my going over my 8 time . And I ' d be happy to try to respond to any 9 questions that you might have . 10 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? 11 Thank you, Mr . Banducci , very much . 12 MR . BANDUCCI : Thank you . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Next speaker is David Farabee - - 14 sorry, Dave . 15 MR. FARABEE : No problem. 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : We ' ll try one more time . 17 MR. FARABEE : Chairman Wong, members of the 18 Commission, my name is David Farabee . I ' m an attorney 19 with the firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro at 235 20 Montgomery Street in San Francisco and I live out here 21 in Walnut Creek . I ' m here this evening representing 22 Tosco and Chevron . 23 The concern was expressed earlier this even - - in 24 fact , it was probably the very first thing expressed . 25 this evening - - that today is the 40th day, or in fact Zq^ Certified Shorthand Reporters almdolmd 30 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTITiG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 8 1 may be the 40th day from the date that the Board of • 2 Supervisors gave the 40-day notice for the Commission to 3 finalize the recommendation on the proposed ordinance . 4 The reason that ' s a concern is because if this 5 Commission does not act , the Board may treat a lack of 6 action as approval by the Commission of the proposal . 7 The reason I ' m here is to say that it is not in 8 fact clear that the Commission must act tonight in order 9 to be heard on this issue . The Government Code sections 10 that are operative here require . that there be 11 unreasonable delay in order for the Board of Supervisors 12 to give a 40-day notice . 13 At the time when the Board issued that directive, 14 there had been no unreasonable delay. The Board had not 15 even adopted a single version of the ordinance until the 16 immediately preceding week . This Commission had not yet 17 had an opportunity to act on that because of other 18 matters that were on your agenda . 19 In addition, it is not clear under the law when 20 the 40 days begins , whether it - - when the Board of 21 Supervisors determines to issue the 40 -day notice, when 22 it ' s - - whether it ' s the date that the notice is in fact 23 mailed, whether it ' s the date members of the Commission 24 receive the notice, or perhaps the first time that the 25 Commission has an opportunity to meet after receiving Certified Shorthand Reporters Zalmdonalla 31 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORUNG SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 8 1 the notice . So the time period we ' re talking about here • 2 is not at all clear under the law. 3 What is clear, though, is that any 4 recommendations made by this Commission must be 5 supported by analysis that ' s in the record and written 6 by the Commission or by staff but approved by the 7 Commission . A recommendation alone with no supporting 8 analysis is insufficient . 9 We encourage the Commission to continue its full 10 deliberations on this issue , that it take any additional 11 testimony that you feel is necessary and provide a full 12 opportunity for yourselves to consult with other 13 regulatory agencies and any other bodies that you may 14 deem appropriate , and that you have an opportunity to 15 obtain and review such other analyses as you may deem 16 appropriate . 17 Just to illustrate some of the range of potential 18 issues that there may or may not have been an 19 opportunity for you to consider, I ' ll just run through a 20 few questions that you might ask yourselves . 21 Have you had an opportunity and sufficient time 22 to fully review the specific legislation or proposed 23 alternative legislation in the Commission' s opinion? 24 Have you had an opportunity to fully prepare 25 recommendations for the Board on matters relating to ZaradoneIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 3 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 8 1 planning which in the Commission' s opinion should be 2 studied and considered by the Board? 3 One of the statutory requirements is that the 4 recommendations specify how the request is consistent 5 with and will further the goals and objectives of the 6 general plan, and has there been a fully opportunity for 7 you to do that . 8 Have you determined that the ordinance will not 9 adversely affect policy and goals of the County as set 10 forth by the general plan? 11 Have you had an opportunity to address the 12 critical issue of safety? 13 Probably the final and most important , have you 14 addressed all the concerns that are out there that would 15 make this truly a good ordinance for the County? 16 We suggest that if you do not have an opportunity 17 to consider all issues appropriate this evening, that 18 you continue this matter to your next regular meeting . 19 And that if you do not make the decision tonight because 20 of the scope and the importance of issues that you don' t 21 have an opportunity to fully consider, that the 22 Commission prepare a resolution to be delivered to the 23 Board of Supervisors which would memorialize the 24 Commission' s views on these issues . • 25 I ' d be happy to take any questions . Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandonellII 33 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 8 1 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any questions of the speaker? • 2 Thank you, Mr . Farabee . 3 Ann Bouguennec . Did I massacre your last name, 4 Ann? 5 MS . BOUGUENNEC : My name is Ann Bouguennec , and I 6 live at 2825 Parkway Drive in Martinez . 7 First off , I would like to congratulate the 8 Commission for spending the time investigating the land 9 use ordinance . You' ve listened to everyone and have 9 10 asked more input of various articles . 11 I personally think that there is discrimination 12 in this ordinance as it only affects certain refineries . 13 This ordinance is not about safety as speakers from 14 outside contractors to workers in the refinery have 15 testified to the safety requirements in the refineries . 16 We have agencies that have trained personnel to oversee 17 the safety regulations . We do not need big brother to 18 monitor more . 19 I also personally think the ordinance is 20 politically motivated . In conclusion, I think I can 21 speak for everyone in the room, I would like to thank 22 the Commission for being so considerate and attentive to 23 this ordinance . 24 Also, I would like to wish you all a very happy • 25 holiday. Thank you . Certified Shorthand Reporters L� GOSEMCE. 34 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 9 1 CHAIRMAN WONG: Thank you so much. Any questions 2 of the speaker? Thank you . 3 Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair has no more 4 speaker slips , and there' s none in the box. 5 (Applause . ) 6 COMMISSIONER : That ' s correct . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : That ' s correct . Now, does the 8 Commission want to take a break or do you want to go 9 right on? 10 COMMISSIONER : Why don' t we take our break at 11 9 : 00 o' clock if we' re still here . 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. All right . Is there - - 13 last opportunity. Is there anyone in the audience who 14 would like to speak on Item 2 on tonight ' s agenda . 15 COMMISSIONER : Mr . Chairman, I move that we close 16 the public hearing . 17 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . 18 COMMISSIONER : Second. 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . All those in favor 20 say aye . 21 (Ayes . ) 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Opposed? All right . The public 23 testimony portion is closed as of this moment . And now 24 the Commission will discuss this item. • 25 Oh, Commissioner Terrell . I ' m sorry. Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoReUa 35 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 9 1 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : First of all , Dennis , on • 2 the videos that we received, who were they supplied to 3 us by, by whom? One is an HBO special excerpt , Death on 4 the Job and (unintelligible) do you know, those 5 particular videos . 6 MR . BARRY : They were given to me by a 7 Mr . Patrick Powers , I believe on behalf of the 8 Construction Trades Council . 9 He ' s indicated by nodding his head that I ' m 10 correct in my presumption . 11 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : First of all , 12 Mr . Chairman, I ' ll have to apologize to the 13 Commissioners - - 14 (End of Tape Side A - Beginning of Side B) 15 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : apologize to our 16 house representative for putting him in a bind at our 17 last meeting for asking the question that I did. I 18 realized as soon as I asked him that I put him on the 19 spot as far as (unintelligible) a policy, and I do 20 apologize for doing that . 21 Secondly, there was some comments made in 22 reference to our former Supervisor, Tom Powers . I have 23 a lot of respect for Supervisor Tom Powers and he did a 24 lot for this County, and I still have that respect for 25 him. Certified Shorthand Reporters ZalmdoIt6IIe► 36 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 9 1 This particular issue , again I look at the 2 audience, and looking at it on TV and watch the 3 Supervisors take up the same issue, it seems as though 4 some were sitting there and some were sitting 5 (unintelligible) this must be industry' s side and that 6 must be the building trades side by the way it ' s looking 7 lately. 8 But in the next issue , Mr . Powers may be sitting 9 on this side, so some of the comments made his way I 10 didn' t take them too kindly because I have a lot of 11 respect for Mr . Powers . 12 Getting on with this issue , we ' ve had quite a 13 numbers of meetings on it , and you' ll have to understand • 14 that this Commission took on originally this task after 15 a Hazardous Waste Commission took three years to bring 16 something to us , not 28 meetings , not 29 meetings or 17 how - - someone mentioned that we' ve gone on some-odd 18 meetings and we should be making a decision . 19 And I know this particular Commission took a look 20 at that , I know I did . I have a lot of respect for that 21 particular commission that took so long to bring us an 22 ordinance . And I for one for this Commission voted aye 23 for that because I thought it was correct for this 24 community. And then this amendment pops up, • 25 unfortunately. ZSIadU�6�T8 Certified Shorthand Reporters 11 3 7 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 10 1 Where - - why it didn' t pop up within that three • 2 years - - I do know why. I do know why it is before us . 3 Some of the comments that have been made here, some of 4 you have been on target , some of you have been off 5 target , but in my profession - - and again, let me 6 explain to you that I ' m not a - - I don' t have a 7 doctorate degree, I don' t have a master' s degree, but I 8 do have some type of degree in common sense . 9 And when you reach into this issue , you get back 10 to what I ' m very familiar with. I retired in 1994 with 11 33 years in as a union carpenter . Of those 33 years , I 12 spent 17 of those 33 years as a ' business representative 13 for the carpenters union . Of those 17 years , I ' ve spent 14 nine years as a business representative responsible for 15 Contra Costa County for the carpenters union . And 16 again, we see a letter here tonight from the carpenter' s 17 union, where was it umpteen months ago? 18 It just kind of disturbs me a little bit that 19 here we are Christmas Eve and it shows up . 20 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Hopefully we' ll be out of 21 here before Christmas Eve . 22 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yeah, (unintelligible) we 23 will . 24 And again, I look at this ordinance . And I have • 25 to remember back, you know, one thing about being zfir,,, Certified Shorthand Reporters andonalla 38 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 10 1 retired is you get to look back during the old days . In • 2 the old days , I look back and I read through these 3 things . And I said to myself if Tom Butterfield, 4 representative of the Operating Engineers was still 5 here , retired; Wayne Whitehurst , electricians , retired; 6 Charlie Evans of the laborers union, retired; Marvin 7 Terrell of the carpenters union, retired . 8 This would have never gotten to us . I will tell 9 you, as members of the building trades , this would have 10 never gotten to us because we - - and I can speak for 11 them because I worked with them from 1968 to 1994 so I 12 know how we felt . This would have never gotten out of 13 building trades . This would have never gotten because • 14 it ' s not - - it ' s not right . In my opinion, it ' s not 15 right to me as a citizen of this County, it ' s not right 16 to me as a Planning Commissioner, it doesn' t make sense . 17 I was reading through - - I tried to find 18 something that was right , how can this produce safety. 19 Every time I looked at it , I tried and find how does 20 this produce safety? And I have to go back to my 21 experiences . 22 This Commission, the former Commission all passed 23 planning issues . People come in here every day to get 24 permits . There are large projects that there is built • 25 in this County that get land use permits . Did it make Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaxadUItPsjla 39 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 10 1 those jobs any safer with them getting those land use 2 permits? No . In fact , I will tell you that as a union 3 business representatives , the job on the outside are 4 more unsafe than the jobs inside the refineries . That ' s 5 how I learned this system. 6 And it just - - I tried to find something here 7 that could produce safety. It doesn' t . Land use 8 permits does not produce safety. We produce safety. 9 We , the workers , with work programs that say "Work 10 safe . " 11 Now, I mentioned to someone the other day that in 12 my experience in refineries that I ' ve had the 13 opportunity to work with - - and I don' t know if it ' s 14 right to mention you by name , I don' t - - I don' t think I 15 should . 16 But in the past there was always something out 17 there , which one was safer than the other . And there 18 was one that was noted that wasn' t - - you know, wasn' t 19 as safe as the rest of them. 20 But here , at the time , I don' t know if it was 193 21 or 192 or 194 , I forget when the program started up, 22 that all the refineries put together the same safety 23 program so that when people went to work there they had 24 to sit down and go through the exact safety program. 25 Because before that , if I went to this refinery, Za�• ItdOIt6�T8 Certified Shorthand Reporters 1 4 0 2321 Stanwell Drive*Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 10 1 I spent four hours going through their safety program . 2 Then I went over here and spent two hours with their 3 safety program. Then I went over here and spent one 4 hour with their safety program. 5 Today it ' s the exact same safety program, so no 6 matter what refinery I go to work in, I know the safety 11 7 program and I don' t - - and it make take them an hour to 8 explain their procedures , but at least I know the safety 9 program that the refineries and chemical plants are 10 there for me to work in . 11 And I think that has brought safety to our 12 industry. And again, it ' s industry, because it ' s not 13 just the oil refineries , the chemical plants and, you • 14 know, I even mentioned PG&E people , what PG&E with 15 hazardous waste . Well , ask those of you who have boats 16 in the - - in the Pittsburg harbor who get their covers 17 replaced once a year if that ' s not toxics coming out of 18 the stack, wind, whatever, and eats away their covers on 19 their boats and they get replaced, you know, that could 20 be a safety hazard . Whether it is or not , I don' t know, 21 but I know it eats up the boat covers . So you know, 22 there ' s in - - there' s PG&E . 23 Again, I cannot support this - - this amendment at 24 all because I cannot find one issue in here that brings 25 safety to the industry. Z„� � ��gIB Certified Shorthand Reporters adI4 1 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORMG SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 11 1 COMMISSIONER CLARK: May I make a brief comment? 2 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Clark? 3 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I will save my longer 4 comment for later, but one of the joys of being on this 5 side of here is that we seldom are limited to three 6 minutes . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : All right . You' ve got one 8 minute . 9 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Now can I do my longer 10 comment? 11 CHAIRMAN WONG : Go ahead, Richard. 12 COMMISSIONER CLARK : I ' m going to say some things 13 that are maybe not - - maybe going to get me in some 14 trouble here , but so what . 15 First of all , I ' d like to echo Marvin' s comments 16 about former Supervisor Powers . He ' s somebody who I 17 would like to call a friend, certainly has had an 18 enormous , positive impact on the County. And it 19 troubles me that he and I are on the opposite sides of 20 this question, but we clearly are . 21 It also troubles me that I have thought about my 22 position on this Commission since I joined it in 1988 as 23 being an employee of the Board . And I would like to 24 think that I have never done anything to consciously or 25 unconsciously thwart the will of the Board. �d®�QsiIB Certified Shorthand Reporters 4 2 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 11 1 I think the Board has put me - - and I can' t speak • 2 for the rest of you, but at least has put me in a 3 position where I feel that it ' s very awkward for me to 4 try and support the will of the Board. 5 First of all , the procedures that we ' ve been 6 going through and the time we have spent have been 7 largely rendered meaningless by comments from at least 8 one of the Supervisors that it doesn' t make any 9 difference what we do, that they' ve already decided what 10 they' re going to do and they' re just sort of stuck with 11 us and they want us to get on with it . As one 12 Supervisor said to me, approve it , disapprove it , just 13 get on with it so we can do what we want to do . 14 Secondly, the nature of the top-down style of 15 this amendments processing has focused the debate at 16 this Planning Commission on the proposed ordinance , not 17 on how the underlying substantive issues should best be 18 dealt with . 19 I think there is - - I think there are several 20 issues relating to refinery safety. If there ' s anyone 21 in the room from Unocal who was here when Unocal came 22 through for their clean fuels project application, 23 perhaps you will know that I think at least that my 24 credentials in that area are well established . • 25 And I ' m more than willing to look a refinery Z ndoraeIIa Certified Shorthand Reporters 4 3 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPOMNG SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 11 1 manager in the face and tell him that if he doesn' t run 2 a good refinery and a safe refinery and one that isn' t 3 poisoning the air around it , that we will have to shut 4 it down . We would do it reluctantly, but we would shut 5 it down . So I ' m not some apologist for industry. 6 But the nature of the top-down style of this 7 amendment has focused on the ordinance and not on 8 refinery safety . I agree with Commissioner Terrell that 9 there ' s nothing in this ordinance that would lead me to 10 believe that adoption of these ordinance - - or the 11 amendment to the existing ordinance , would in any way 12 whatsoever increase safety. And there are several 13 issues , or aspects of this proposed ordinance which 0 14 would, I think, have a serious deterrent effect on the 15 increase of refinery safety. 12 16 Now, perhaps I ' m overstepping my boundary and 17 getting into a little political area, I don' t know . I 18 believe that the 40-day notice which we were given 19 wasn' t valid. Because the reference in the Government 20 Code statute that outlines the procedure for the 40 -day 21 notice says that if we have not acted within a 22 reasonable time , the - - the Board of Supervisors can 23 give us a 40-day notice . 24 I believe, and staff can correct me if I ' m not 25 right on this , that the 40-day notice decision or the RdoXQillB Certified Shorthand Reporters 4 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 9 Fax(510)685-3829 12 1 decision to give us a 40-day notice was made on the same 2 day that the Board reached final agreement on the 3 wording of the amendment . And up until that point , we 4 did not have copies of this amendment before us . 5 So I don' t see how no time at all could be 6 considered to be reasonable time . We ' ve not had a 7 reasonable time period to study the issues , both because 8 the issues have been focused on the amendments rather 9 than on the underlying substantive issues , and because 10 frankly 40 days is not enough time . 11 Talking to some of the substantive issues rather 12 than the political issues , I believe that these 13 ordinances , if they' re adopted, would probably be , in my • 14 humble opinion, unconstitutional under the Federal 15 constitution in that they would represent a taking . 16 Secondly - - and I feel very strongly about this . 17 I have sat over at the Unocal refinery and told those 18 refinery managers that I felt that their maintenance 19 schedule was inadequate . And I think this ordinance , if 20 it ' s adopted, will not encourage maintenance , but will , 21 in fact , discourage it . 22 In addition, the definition of incident 23 discourages industries , particularly refineries , from 24 giving public notice about precautionary shelter in • 25 place or evacuation orders because they will be counted Certified Shorthand Reporters Zand®noffil 45 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 12 1 against them later in the scoring methodology. 2 There ' s been no consideration, at least at this 3 Planning Commission' s level , of the interaction of the 4 proposed ordinance with the current and future 5 regulations from U. S . EPA, California EPA, Cal OSHA, 6 U. S . OSHA, Bay Area Air Quality Management District , and 7 I think the list goes on and on and on . We have had no 8 data before us about the impact of these proposed 9 amendments on the existing rules and regulations for 10 industry. 11 I believe that these proposals , if they' re 12 adopted, will do more harm than good by quite a margin . 13 It may very well result in enormous legal bills for the 14 County. It also will probably result in enormous legal 15 bills for the numerous plaintiffs who will line up down 16 the street at Superior Court to file suit against the 17 County. 18 There is a very serious possibility of loss of 19 jobs , loss of tax revenue when industry that is here 20 closes and industry that ' s thinking of coming here 21 decides to go somewhere else . There will be the 22 poss- - - the very real possibility of an increase in the 23 demands for economic assistance for those who are 24 negatively impacted when it comes to their employment 25 and their income . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandoudhl 46 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 12 1 It ' s been most notable to me that in all the • 2 times we' ve been meeting on this , there ' s been no 3 testimony in support of the proposal as a reasonable way 4 to increase refinery safety. 5 There has been significant testimony about how 6 unsafe refineries are, but there' s been nothing to time 7 an improvement in that situation to this ordinance . 8 There' s no data before us to support the change 9 in the scoring methodology from 96-20 to the proposed 10 amendments as well as the levels and types of projects 11 to be regulated. 12 I believe that if we in any way whatsoever put 13 our fingerprints on this , that we will be part of the • 14 County sending a message to industry that ' s here and to 15 industry that may come that - - that is in fact a 16 disincentive to future investment for new companies 17 locating here, and we will show clearly that this County 18 has an anti-industry bias . As such, I think it ' s 19 inconsistent with our general plan . 20 I recommend that we tonight enter into a 13 21 dialogue, brief I hope , that leads to a seven-oh vote in 22 favor of a motion to recommend to the Board that they 23 take no action at this time , that they do not adopt the 24 proposed amendments to 96-20 , that they allow some sort • 25 of mechanism for continued study of the underlying '^ Certified Shorthand Reporters lzdone l8 47 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 13 1 substantive issues as opposed to the political issues , • 2 to evaluate the best possible next - - next step . 3 And that in doing so, that the County take the 4 lead in trying to get all of the stakeholders to 5 participate in that process , in a constructive , positive 6 way, rather than the current process which is leading 7 inevitably to long, painful , expensive, wasteful 8 litigation . 9 So I would be very interested in hearing the 10 views of the other members of the Commission because I 11 would like to make a motion consistent with the comments 12 I ' ve just made . 13 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you, Commissioner Clark . • 14 Anyone else with comments? Commissioner Hanecak . 15 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: I ' d like to agree with 16 both Commissioner Terrell and Commissioner Clark, 17 particularly in the substantive issues of this amendment 18 rather than the political . 19 In regard to the substantive issues , to even go 20 further, as Commissioner Clark had mentioned as well as 21 Commissioner Terrell , I think there are built-in 22 disincentives to the amendments to the ordinance that 23 did not exist in the original ordinance . 24 And I believe - - and please correct me, Dennis , • 25 if I ' m wrong here - - Mr . Barry. In regards to the :SSELMCE. Certified Shorthand Reporters 4$ 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 13 1 original 96-20 , was that - - I believe that was passed • 2 unanimously by the Board of Supervisors - - 3 MR . BARRY : Yes , it was . 4 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: - - a couple of months ago . 5 We have amendments to an ordinance that has not 6 yet - - I believe had not yet taken effect , an ordinance 7 that had been spent , as was mentioned three years , in 8 the process of which involved everybody in making the 9 best decision to provide that proposal that finally came 10 before us . 11 As Commissioner Clark recommended, that process 12 may not be a bad one to follow for the amendments , as it 13 was a good process to follow for the original ordinance • 14 in the first place . So I strongly support that as well . 15 In regards to some of the incidents that click 16 off and make whatever might be - - whatever company might 17 be involved, if they hit an incident , those incidents 18 are defined of course in the ordinance . 19 Some of those incidents are voluntary safety 20 measures . We ' ve asked the companies to voluntarily 21 provide the community this information to assist in 22 providing safety. This amendment seems to now penalize 23 companies for providing that information to the general 24 public by using it as a mark against (unintelligible) • 25 rather than as has been encouraged in the original Certified Shorthand Reporters Zaraaonoffa 49 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 i 13 1 ordinance as something that will only lead to help 2 benefit in order for the safety of the public . 3 So I think that there' s a very strong likelihood 4 that these amendments if passed would decrease safety. 5 I don' t think it ' s even neutral . i 6 And I think that if there is some - - that if some 7 of the results - - I can just imagine now if somebody 8 said, well , yeah, that turnaround, maybe that would have 9 been a good idea, however because of the process that 10 would have been involved it took a little more time than 11 we might have expected . 12 If there was any delay caused by a land use 13 permit for a turnaround which then resulted in an • 14 incident , then we could tie it right back to this 15 amendment , this amendment was one of the causes , one of 16 the root causes of potentially an incident at one of our 17 refineries . 18 Therefore, I ' d strongly - - as the other 19 Commissioners have - - I cannot find the analysis 20 required to support even a part of this . I thought 21 there were some good ideas . 22 I thought the idea of best technology, if it were 23 further defined, further developed, if we could get the 24 best ideas out there and shared among all refineries , I 25 think that ' s a good direction . None of that evidence Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandolmUB 50 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 11 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 13 1 was provided to us on what that was and how it would be 2 determined . 3 But other than that , that ' s about the only thing 4 I could see that might have helped with the goal being 5 safety. I think this might be a detriment . 6 That ' s all I have to say. Thank you . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other comments by the 8 Commissioners? Commissioner Gaddis . 9 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : I would say ditto to what 10 the three Commissioners have stated. And I ' m not going 11 to repeat what they have stated already, okay? 12 The only thing that I - - no, there ' s two things I 13 do want to discuss . First of all , this weekend as I was • 14 reviewing all the packets and all the papers and all my 15 notes regarding this issue , I was getting a little bit 16 angrier and angrier . 17 And the reason that I was getting angry is 18 because this issue became a political issue . And I 19 believe that everyone was putting a lot of stress on the 20 Board - - the Commissioners , I think that was totally 21 unfair . Something was put on the fast track for 22 political reasons and it was not for safety. And I 23 personally resented that . 24 I think they were taking unfair action against a • 25 Commission that is voluntary. And I don' t feel that the Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaltdOiteill8�rl 51 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 �ME-PORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 13 1 Supervisors should have done what they have done , okay? 2 The only other thing that I could mention about 3 96-20 to what Marvin and John and my friend to the left 4 have made is that maybe within a year' s time we should 5 come back and see what ' s happened with 96 -20 and maybe 6 think about making changes . 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you, Commissioner Gaddis . 8 Commissioner Pavlinec . 9 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : I ' ll be very brief also . 10 I ' m completely in support with what Commissioner Clark 11 has said . I want to say that I really respect what the 12 Hazardous Materials Commission did initially. I believe 13 they spent three or four years , they did a wonderful , • 14 methodical study, they did a lot of analysis . 15 And I didn' t see that in any of the amendments . 16 And that ' s what I would like to see if this goes on 17 further, for further study. I don' t see the 18 relationship between a discretionary land use permit and 19 safety. 20 And I would also like to see studied the 21 redundancy between the new EPA regulatory conditions 22 that are coming up, the RCM, and how this would overlap . 23 Anyway, that ' s about all I have to say, and I would 24 support Commissioner Clark' s recommendation . • 25 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you . Certified Shorthand Reporters A=TiG ndondh% 52 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 RVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 ij (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 13 1 Commissioner Guncheon . 2 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: I too will try not to 3 repeat what others have said and echo the comments of 4 most everyone that ' s spoken previously, even those of 5 Commissioner Clark . 6 I think though that it ought to be pointed out , 7 one of the issues - - the major issue here is safety. 8 And I have - - I have to believe that those who are 9 supporting the proposed amendment , most of them had it 10 in their hearts that they wanted to improve safety in 11 the community. And I ' m - - I ' m in support of that . 12 I think if that were the effect of these proposed 13 amendments , I would be in support of them. But in this 14 case , I don' t think that either the end justifies the 15 means nor do the means have anything to do with the 16 proposed end. 17 If I could see any way that this would increase 18 safety, I would be in support of at least those portions 19 of the proposed amendments , but I can' t see it . 20 I wish that there were as much focus put on 21 increasing safety, doing something about the incidents 22 that we ' ve had recently, and the last several years *is 23 recent , of those who have testified before us in the 24 past months , if they could focus on somehow finding a • 25 way to make things safer . I believe that efforts are Certified Shorthand Reporters ZBladoneIIB 53 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 13 1 being made . 2 But there ought to be an effort to unify the 3 government and the industry and the people to focus on 4 increasing safety and to come up with something that 5 will work and achieve what these - - this ordinance was 6 meant to be . 7 I ' m supportive of - - as the Commissioners before 8 me had said, I ' m supportive of the Hazardous Materials 9 Commission' s work . They worked long and hard on what 10 they put together . And although I wasn' t here for the 14 11 deliberations , I saw the quality of their work with the 12 amount of deliberations and out of this Commission . 13 I would suggest that there be a tri- 14 (unintelligible) body, be it that commission or some 15 other type of mechanism, as Commissioner Clark has 16 suggested, that would have all the representatives of 17 all the unions , of all the community organizations of 18 the industry and of government , including Cal OSHA and 19 EPA OSHA and the like , to talk about how best to come up 20 with what ' s trying to be achieved with this ordinance . 21 I think that you can' t have too many good laws 22 regulating industry. And I stress the term "good law. " 23 If this were something that were to promote safety, I 24 would be all in favor of it , regardless of the number of i25 laws and rules and regulations that refineries and other Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandUI aUa 54 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 14 1 industry have to follow. 2 If we could come up with something that would 3 meet the goal of these - - of this ordinance and these 4 amendments , I would be in full support of it . I ' m not 5 supporting these amendments . 6 CHAIRMAN WONG : Thank you, Commissioner Guncheon . 7 Let me just say that I too do not want to belabor 8 the item before us this evening . I have read the 9 proposed ordinance at least four times that I can 10 remember, very, very slowly, with a fine tooth comb . 11 I ' ve read all of the written testimony that we 12 have received . I have heard all of the public testimony 13 that you, the public gave us and considered it in all 14 sincerity. 15 I have visited the Shell refinery, specifically 16 the library, and that happened to be today . And ladies 17 and gentlemen, I saw - - I saw shelves and shelves of 18 loggings , notebooks , just the shelves were just replete 19 with regulations including boilerplates regarding - - 20 pertaining to safety, oversight in the refineries . 21 And referring again to the proposed ordinance and 22 going through it very meticulously, I really couldn' t 23 see that the ordinance had - - would have any effect on 24 safety as it proposed that it would because it ' s - - it 25 would emphasize safety. But I couldn' t - - I couldn' t Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandondU8 55 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 14 1 find that in the ordinance , in the proposed ordinance . 2 It didn' t even specifically address , in my 3 opinion, specifically address worker or safety in the 4 community. It gave no specific guidelines or 5 implementation requirements , if you will , for companies 6 to follow. 7 So at this point , like the rest of the 8 Commissioners here , I am ready to vote . And the Chair 9 stands ready to entertain a motion . 10 COMMISSIONER CLARK : With the Chair' s 11 permission - - 12 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Clark . 13 COMMISSIONER CLARK : - - I would - - I move that 14 the Planning Commission send to the Board of Supervisors 15 the following resolution. 16 The Planning Commission believes it has not had a 17 reasonable time to evaluate the complex effort - - 18 effects - - let me start over again here . I have three 19 degrees and I can' t even read my own handwriting . 20 The Planning Commission believes it has not had a 21 reasonable time to evaluate the complex effects of the 22 proposed amendment to Ordinance 96-20 ; 23 Resolved that the Planning Commission strongly 24 urges that the Board of Supervisors take no action 25 relative to these amendments as they have not been Certified Shorthand Reporters ZaradolmUck 56 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORnNG SERVICE,INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 14 1 sufficiently studied and may very well not represent the 2 best solutions to the issues raised by refinery safety 3 and may in fact create disincentives to those steps 4 necessary to promote industrial safety; 5 Resolved the Planning Commission respectfully 6 expresses its opinion that the 40-day notice given to 7 this Commission was not consistent with the best 8 operation of the Planning Commission in that it did not 9 allow for sufficient time to make reasonable analysis 10 and recommendations . 11 That ' s it . 12 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, I ' d like to 13 second it . But I ' d also like to amend that if that - - • 14 if that report could be brought to us at our next 15 meeting, that we review it and adopt your findings . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : Mr . Barry? 17 MR. BARRY : Well , Mr . Chairman, the Board of 18 Supervisors has scheduled 9 : 00 o' clock on the 30th - - 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : The 30th. 20 MR . BARRY : - - of December to receive your 21 report . 22 CHAIRMAN WONG : Right . 23 MR. BARRY : In our report we ' ve recommended that 24 you give direction to the secretary to attest to your 25 resolution . We ' ve given you on your next item sort of rr Certified Shorthand Reporters Za1%d0R6Il8 57 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 14 1 the outline of a resolution. 2 And it is important , as you' ve heard testimony 3 this evening, that you include comment upon the 4 applicable general plan and applicable specific plan, 5 that you make your recommendations to the Board and that 6 you state your reasons for them. 7 COMMISSIONER CLARK: All the more reason why 8 perhaps staff should take those few simple 9 straightforward words that I ' ve just suggested and 10 incorporate them with the appropriate parts of the draft 11 resolution that you presented to us , and in so doing 12 show us the appropriate formalities which we must 13 undertake . • 14 But we are even in the formalities here being 15 rushed . And I think that the wording of this resolution 16 is in effect to say to the Board that the 40-day notice 17 is not the appropriate way for this kind of business to 18 be done . 19 And of course, if staff wants to verbally relate 20 to the Board what we' ve talked about tonight , I ' ll be 21 glad to give them my copy of the notes , but I think we 22 should do this the way we do every other piece of work, 23 which is that it comes back to us in the form of a 24 suggestive finding and we review it to make sure it ' s • 25 actually what we say it is , not that we - - and I ' m 100 Al�'NG * Certified Shorthand Reporters &0116Il8 58 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 RVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 11 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 14 1 percent certain here , not that anyone on this Commission 2 has any doubt that the secretary to the Planning 3 Commission would - - would get this right in his 4 representation to the Board of what we' ve done . 5 I think we should bring it back to this - - when 6 is our next meeting? 7 CHAIRMAN WONG : January 14th . 8 COMMISSIONER CLARK: 14th. 9 CHAIRMAN WONG: January 14th. 10 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Then bring it back on the 11 14th, and we ' ll adopt it the way we do everything else . 15 12 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : That ' s my - - 13 COMMISSIONER CLARK: And so - - 14 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : - - amendment to the motion 15 and my second. 16 COMMISSIONER CLARK : I accept the friendly 17 amendment to my motion from the seconder . 18 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : I just want to make - - 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Gaddis . 20 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : Mr . Chair, I ' m sorry. I 21 just want to make a comment . 22 I personally feel - - and I don' t know how the 23 rest of the Commissioners feel , but I feel that the 24 proposed resolution that was given to us is also on the 25 fast track . Certified Shorthand Reporters Zand®Itd 59 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 15 1 And I would be more comfortable having it come • 2 back to us on the date that was mentioned - - the 16th, 3 is that the - - 4 COMMISSIONER CLARK : At our next - - 5 COMMISSIONER GADDIS : - - the 14th, at our next 6 meeting. I would be more comfortable reviewing it , 7 reading it . 8 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Mr . Chairman, a comment 9 that I might want to make , and it ' s one I was going to 10 make earlier, that in reviewing this document , again 11 trying to find some substance to it , a commercial came 12 on TV the other night that I tremendously enjoyed. It 13 was a commercial of IBM, if I may mention the product . 14 And it was Santa Claus , and I guess it was 15 something to do with, you can help me out with these 16 computers . It had something to do with laptop computers 17 and - - and I was reading and I said to myself , that ' s 18 what this is . 19 This is where - - part of that commercial was 20 Santa Claus was having problems with the laptop 21 computers , getting laptop computers . And he ' s there at 22 Johnny' s house , and so, Johnny, you only get one piece 23 of coal . And his laptop computer came up real fast and 24 said, oh, you' ve been a good boy, you made up your room. 25 That ' s kind of the way I feel this is . It ' s got fir,,, Certified Shorthand Reporters ndolmI 8 60 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 15 1 substance to it , it just - - you know, it ' s - - it ' s here 2 and it ' s gone , it ' s here, let ' s hurry up, let ' s hurry 3 up, let ' s hurry up . And I don' t think this is 4 appropriate for this . 5 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : We call that fast track . 16 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Okay. 7 MR. BARRY : Mr . Chairman, just a clarification to 8 the maker, if I might . 9 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I ' m still trying to figure 10 out Santa Claus here . 11 MR. BARRY : I ' ll tell you, but you won' t be 12 happy. 13 In either case, it ' s my understanding that the 14 motion is to direct staff to prepare a motion to prepare 15 a resolution for your consideration at your meeting of 16 January 14th, but not to transmit it and attest to it to 17 the Board of Supervisors for its meeting of 18 January 30th - - 19 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Until we ' ve approved it . 20 MR . BARRY : - - sorry, December 30th . 21 And I just want to be clear that it ' s the opinion 22 of our department as well as County Counsel that it is 23 likely that the Board of Supervisors , not having had a 24 recommendation from you at that time , will deem that you 25 have not made your report and will take that as Certified Shorthand Reporters A'I'T:C�SERVICE, dondIa 61 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 16 1 approval . 2 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Well , I understand . The 3 Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is in the chamber 4 at the moment , so it would be hard for him to say that 5 he doesn' t understand what this Commission is doing this 6 evening . 7 We don' t believe that we ' ve had a reasonable time 8 to evaluate the complex effects of the proposed 9 amendment and we strongly urge the Board not to take any 10 action . 11 If you wish to tell them that , that ' s fine with 12 me . But since they have told us , first of all , that our 13 recommendation is meaningless because they already know 14 what we ' re going to do and we ' re just a technical hurdle 15 in their way, and I think we should do this piece of 16 business the way we do every other piece of business , 17 which is that we pass a motion, staff prepares findings 18 to bring back to us - - in this case , the findings would 19 be a resolution which will take the very short comment 20 that I made , will tie it in with your draft Resolution 21 34 -1996 , and in reference to those specific comments 22 that have to be made on relationship to the proposed 23 ordinance , to the general and the specific plan . 24 In my comments before , I ' ve already said I 25 believe that the proposed ordinance is inconsistent with qq,,,.�� Certified Shorthand Reporters ZalmdUIad 62 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. (510) sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222 0 Fax(510)685-3829 16 1 the general plan . 2 You know, they' ve got to do what they' ve got to 3 do what they' ve got to do . We ' ve got to do what we' ve 4 got to do . 5 I think the 40-day notice is invalid . I think it 6 is inconsistent with the direct prima facie wording of 7 the Government Code section that authorizes it . 8 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any other comments? Any other 9 comments . Okay. We ' ve heard the - - oh, Commissioner 10 Hanecak . 11 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: On the draft resolution, 12 it says here on October 1st the Board of Supervisors 13 request the County Planning Commission to consider a 14 report on the ordinance . 15 At what time did we have the final wording on 16 that ordinance , the complete ordinance? As I remember, 17 in November? 18 MR . BARRY : Well , it would have been after 19 November the 5th when the final wording was introduced 20 by the Board . There were prior drafts that you are 21 making a judgment and the Board will make its own 22 judgments about whether it was substantially the same as 23 the ordinance that they introduced ultimately. 24 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Right , I understand that . 25 I just wanted to know if there was a way to include that Z�� Certified Shorthand Reporters a d®n6*r8 fl 63 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 16 1 in addition to the October 1st date , whether it ' s Is 2 substantial or not , I know that will be a judgment call 3 on their part . 4 But just being - - as all the hearings are 5 (unintelligible) November 5th and three hearings prior 6 to that , I think - - I think was our testimony was that 7 part of it was continued because we hadn' t had a chance 8 to review the changes made just prior to our meeting . 9 And so I think it was - - that was one of the 10 reasons for a couple of these continuances , so that that 11 be clear (unintelligible) if the dates are being - - 12 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : Another reason for it to 13 come back to us . 14 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, make sure that those 15 dates and things are right . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : I stated that ' s another 18 reason for us to come back to us on the 12th - - 19 CHAIRMAN WONG : Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : - - or whatever, to clarify. 21 CHAIRMAN WONG : Any further comments by the 22 Commissioners? 23 You' ve heard the motion and the second. Call the 24 roll , Dennis . 25 MR. BARRY : Who was the second? ZaZSIadUIa6Tl8 Certified Shorthand Reporters 6 4 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 16 1 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Marvin Terrell . 2 CHAIRMAN WONG : Commissioner Terrell . 3 MR . BARRY : Commissioner Clark . 4 COMMISSIONER CLARK : Yes . 5 MR. BARRY : Commissioner Terrell . 6 COMMISSIONER TERRELL : Yes . 7 MR . BARRY : Commissioner Pavlinec . 8 COMMISSIONER PAVLINEC : Yes . 9 MR . BARRY : Commissioner Guncheon . 10 COMMISSIONER LUNCHEON: Yes . 11 MR . BARRY: Commissioner Gaddis . 12 COMMISSIONER CADDIS : Yes . 13 MR. BARRY : Commissioner Hanecak . 14 COMMISSIONER HANECAK: Yes . 15 MR. BARRY : Chairman Wong . 16 CHAIRMAN WONG: Yes . 17 MR . BARRY : Motion passes . 18 - -000- - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Certified Shorthand Reporters Zandonefla 65 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 16 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss . 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 3 I , JOHN A. ZANDONELLA, do hereby certify : 4 That I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 5 State of California, License No . C-795 ; 6 That the foregoing pages are a true and correct 7 transcript of the proceedings before the Contra Costa 8 County Planning Commission, County Building, Board 9 Chambers , Martinez , California, except as noted 10 "unintelligible" or " inaudible . " 11 I further certify that I am not interested in the 12 outcome of said matter nor connected with or related to 13 any of the parties of said matter or to their respective 14 counsel . 15 Dated at Concord, California, this 28th day of 16 December, 1996 . 17 18 ! 19 20 JOHN A. DONELLA, CSR License No . C-795 21 22 23 - - -000- - - 24 0 25. ZaZBIadUiaelj8 Certified Shorthand Reporters it 6 6 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-4808 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.sox 4107•Concord,CA 94524-4107 (510)685-6222•Fax(510)685-3829 ✓, � THOMAS REI D ASSOCIATES 560 WAVERLEY ST., SUITE 201 (BOX 880), PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Tel: 415-32770429 Fax: 415-327-4024 tra@igc.org RECEIVED ' - DEC 2 7 WIS December 26, 1996 TRA File LCOI CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' CONTRA COSTA Co. Jeff Smith, Chair ' and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street ' Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Agenda Item D-1, December 30, 1996. ' Proposed Ordinance would enhance public safety by regulating major maintenance turnarounds as a source of accidents and public health risk. ' Dear Chairman Smith and Board Members: Industry representatives have claimed that there is little potential benefit to public safety from the application of the proposed ordinance to major maintenance, so-called turnaround projects. The claim is based partially on the purported ' adequacy of existing maintenance and partially on the assertion that the planning process under the ordinance is inferior to a root cause analysis of accidents. ' The claim that planning under the ordinance wouldn't improve public safety exaggerates industry's present involvement in reducing risk and ignores what the ordinance can accomplish. This letter refutes the claim with two points: First, ' turnaround projects pose special problems that are not addressed by routine maintenance and thus routine industry procedures can never address the full scope of public risk as can the ordinance. Second, root cause analysis cannot substitute ' for land use review since it is narrowly focused on individual cases of failure and failure only in existing equipment and procedures. The recent record of major incidents in the County show that the industry approach has not worked. The magnitude of accidents documented in "Neighborhoods at Risk" show that greater scrutiny of public safety and ' accountability is needed.' Contra Costa Building Trades Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and Shoreline Environmental Alliance. "Neighboorhoods at Risk, A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989 — 1996". July 29, 1996. Attached as Exhibit 1. LCOI1226 ' Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 2 1. Turnarounds pose special problems that are not addressed by routine maintenance and existing industry procedures. ' The proposed ordinance targets major maintenance projects which are beyond the scope of routine plant safety. The bulk of testimony by representatives of ' industry and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union has stressed the emphasis on safety in routine plant work, however existing industry safety procedures address only existing facilities and routine operations. The ordinance is intended to anticipate ' the special conditions that arise during major maintenance due to the installation of new technologies and due to the stresses of shut-down/start-up on both old and new equipment. ' Established routine maintenance procedures are limited to existing facilities and deal with past accidents. They obviously do not automatically extend to new ' processes and new technologies that often motivate a turnaround. Turnarounds in Contra Costa County have usually been opportunities for industry to add new processes or make significant modifications to existing processes. The ability to ' improve the plant and meet new markets is a major benefit of a turnaround that offsets the economic loss from plant down time. ' The changes introduced during turnaround directly affect the potential public safety risk. They may entail new catalysts or process chemicals with different hazards than those previously in use or involve new processes, new equipment, and ' instrumentation that has yet to be tested in actual use. The ordinance offers the public an opportunity to see how industry plans to ' deal with the new safety problems posed by new technologies. The plans will address such factors as the physical proximity of new equipment to off-site land uses (e.g. residences and schools), and the introduction of new materials that require new ' safety equipment and new incident response procedures in the surrounding community. ' For both new and old equipment, there are peculiar problems associated with shut-down/start-up for a turnaround. The shut-down/start-up process poses a ' particular risk to plant operations. Shutting equipment down means depressurizing and cooling units and re-introducing oxygen (air) into flammable atmospheres with the associated risk of worker injury and fire. Starting up entails increases in ' temperature and pressure that puts stress on piping, tanks, valves and puts control and monitoring equipment to the test. Engaging planning prior to turnaround could identify ways the plant can shut equipment down with a specified protocol to reduce ' risk, establish a reasonable level of testing for new piping, and putting equipment on stream after safety monitoring equipment has been shown to be in working order. Turnaround may entail instigation of new procedures that have not been tested or subject to regulatory approval. The General Chemical oleum release occurred because of temporary use of a rail car for storage. The absence of any advanced ' LCOI1226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 3 ' planning to deal with this new procedure is highlighted in Congressional investigations conducted under by Representative Miller.2 The shutdown/startup risk is significant because of the potentially large scale of resulting accidents. Industry itself reports that maintenance activity is associated ' with major accidents. One study examining 14 major incidents from 1987 to 1991, cumulatively amounting to over $2 billion in damage, over 79 deaths, and nearly one thousand injured observed that most of the incidents occurred around a maintenance t activit .3 Smith documents the peculiar problems of managing maintenance and the general deficiency of industry in integrating projected maintenance needs into plant planning. ' Contra Costa's own experience includes examples. Most recently, Pacific Refinery restarted a gas oil vacuum tower and a failed pipe connection resulted in an ' off-site release. Maintenance shut-down was associated with the General Chemical oleum spill (1993) because the modernization project had oleum, a mixture of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, temporarily stored in rail tank cars. The catastrophic Chevron isomax fire and explosion (1989) occurred while the unit was being shut- down for cleaning. Even the Unocal catacarb release (1994) is related to major maintenance planning — the unit failed because it was being run longer than ' originally planned in order to defer repairs to a major scheduled turnaround. 2. Root cause analysis cannot substitute for land use review. Root cause analysis is a useful exercise and would be valuable as County follow-up after any incident, but it has been difficult to get industry to conduct the ' analysis and publish results, and often results have been inconclusive due to multiple causes or other one-of-a-kind circumstances. Few of the major incidents have been examined through root cause analysis, and overview surveys like the recently completed Unocal refinery audit are done rarely and reluctantly by industry. The current analysis and reporting practice does ' not contain the kind of information that would be provided under the ordinance. The database maintained by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) includes information "regarding the type of incident that occurred, but rarely the ' initiating, contributing, or root cause of an incident'.4 The only required reporting is ' z Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Natural Resources, George Miller, Chair. "Living with Risk: Communities and the Hazard of Industrial Contamination". December ' 9, 1993. Attached as Exhibit 2. s Paul Smith. "Using Maintenance Management Systems as an Aid to OSHA and EPA ' compliance", Annual Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical Industries Environmental and Safety Conference, 1993. Attached as Exhibit 3. Contra Costa County Health Services Department, "Preliminary report on Hazardous Materials ' Incidents and Other Notifications in Contra Costa County, 1989 — 1996", August 29, 1996. Page 14. Attached as Exhibit 4. ' Lcoi 1226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES ' Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 4 ' descriptive and does not allow the County to see patterns or trends that could be used to encourage a company to take preventive action. ' Even when HSD conducted specific incident follow-up surveys of industry in August 1996, the response fell well short of root cause analysis that could lead to ' prevention. Although specifically asked for the "initiating cause, the contributing causes, and the root cause"5, the industry response letters generally reflect only a shallow investigation. In reviewing the industry response, HCD concluded "Root ' causes were not available for the incidents scrutinized." e According to HSD, "A good deal of information regarding root causes and contributing causes of incidents is not available for review because most facilities do not yet conduct root cause analysis."' (Emphasis added). One limitation to relying on obligatory root cause analysis is the inherent complexity of refinery and industrial systems and the difficulty of discerning among multiple causes. In most reports to the County, cause is often listed as "human or procedural" error — a catch-all term potentially masking fundamental deficiencies in ' instrumentation or management oversight. Root cause analyses may not be applicable to the special problems associated ' with major maintenance. Root cause analyses usually reflect "normal" operating conditions and do not prepare a plant to deal with the potential for failure on aged equipment as the run nears the scheduled turnaround date. ' Further, root cause essentially requires case-by-case review of accidents after they have happened and does not foster broad-scaled planning that could reduce ' potential for major classes of accidents before they happen. It is obviously important to prevent recurrence of a specific type of accident, but the record of the past in Contra Costa County shows a wide diversity in the character of incidents and ' suggests that relying on after-the-fact study would not give the public the level of preventive protection it needs. ' Industry response to past root cause analyses have been limited. Turnaround projects offer a public safety opportunity that should not be ignored. The history of ' smaller accidents leading to larger incidents points to the need for major plant modifications that cannot practically be accomplished while the facilities are in routine operation. For example, many past toxic releases have resulted from correct operation of safety valves that vent to the atmosphere. During a major maintenance ' 5 Contra Costa County Health Services Department, series of letters to industries "Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents" , August 10, 1996, and responses from industry. Attached as Exhibit 5. e Contra Costa County Health Services Department, "Incidents at Facilities— Contra Costa County", undated, circa August 1996. Attached as Exhibit 6. ' 7 Contra Costa County Health Services Department, "Preliminary report," supra, August 29, 1996. Page 14. LC011226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 5 ' on an existing process, there is an opportunity to add better instrumentation to safety valves and piping to convey the release to containment and treatment. Industry has resisted making the necessary changes due to cost and impact on existing operations. While it may be true that these changes may be costly on a piecemeal basis and may interfere with operation of safety equipment in use, it may be ' economically practical if integrated in a larger maintenance project. During turnarounds, it is essential that the history of accidents and ' maintenance problems be addressed to determine what fundamental changes can be made to protect the public. This allows the public to share in application of the principle of "Inherent Safety", meaning measures to "reduce or eliminate the ' possibility of an accident through the redesign of production systems or the substitution of hazardous chemicals with less hazardous substances at the facility".8 Finally, root cause analysis as conducted by industry focuses on the plant engineering aspects of failure and does not reflect the sensitivity of surrounding land uses and the possible need for changing or relocating potentially dangerous process ' units. The main benefit to the ordinance is the focus on land use in relation to planned major maintenance. This focus extends beyond the plant boundary to the surrounding community which bears the risk form incidents inside the plant. The evolution of the ordinance, including the structure of the point system and the definition of incident illustrate the intent to consider the surrounding land uses in addition to the engineering focus of root cause analysis. ' 3. Conclusion ' The proposed ordinance offers the County an opportunity to consider the safeguards for new equipment and new processes not then in use and to examine the relationship between plant and surrounding land uses. Land use review would also take into account past problems and address ways to ameliorate them, taking a more comprehensive look than has traditionally been available through industry-run root cause analysis. In this way the ordinance offers a more direct way of ' considering prevention of accidents. Sinc rely, r- r Thomas S. Reid ' e California Public Interest Research Group, "Accidents Do Happen, Toxic Chemical Accident Patterns in the United States". December 1996. Page 5. Attached as Exhibit 7. ' LCOI1226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES 1 ,� 1 -- E ;, �, �; ,, �, .. �� 1 ' NEIGHBORHOODS AT RISK • A REPORT ON INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS IN ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: 1989-1996 • 1 4 1 • Prepared by: CONTRA COSTA BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL. ' COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE • 01 July 29, 1996 i' I. INTRODUCTION Contra Costa is a County in harm's way. One of the most heavily industrialized • counties in California, Contra Costa workers and residents have suffered from 35 major ' industrial accidents since 1989. Although industry',';claims that major accidents are very rare, on average there has been a major accident every 21h months in the County. Clearly accidents are preventable, but regulatory gaps must be addressed in order to reduce the increasing number of major incidents in our industrial belt. In just the last few years, industrial accidents in Contra Costa County have killed workers, injured thousands of people, closed schools and freeways and required evacuation of workers and residents of surrounding communities. Smoke from fires and ' explosions has rained potentially,toxic ash on many neighborhoods and communities. • There have been over 1700 incidents at ten major facilities in Contra Costa County between 1989 and 1995. These include the notorious General Chemical release in 1993, when more than 20,000 people sought medical care, and the infamous catacarb release in 1994, where the Unocal refinery over a '16 day period allowed over 100 tons of catacarb to pollute nearby neighborhoods despite the fact that refinery officials knew the release was occurring. There have been 17 accidents (more than 2 per year!) that have caused injuries. Most often workers have been the victims, but nearby residents have also suffered. Four accidents have caused schools to be closed. Two accidents have closed freeways because ' of toxic clouds. Four accidents have forced residents to evacuate their homes or be confined inside. ' Existing programs have unquestionably failed to protect the public. Industrial accidents are increasing rather than decreasing. There were 358 accidents in 1992 when ' reporting requirements improved, and there were 507 accidents in 1995. Incident ' 'Despite industry claims that the increase in accidents is due to their improved • efforts at reporting even small spills, the steep climb in serious incidents can not be ' explained away. Industry's inherent admission that they have not always reported toxic releases should surprise no one. A refinery emergency response plan audited by a community/worker panel plainly discouraged reporting off-site impacts by claiming that such reports could "cost" the company more than releases of which the public was • unaware. ' A1065.043 1 records show that these accidents have been repeatedly caused by companies that have .failed to implement safety recommendations. These companies presently store more !, than 123 million pounds of toxic chemicals in Contra Costa County, an indication of the horrible potential for future disasters. ' It is time for fundamental change. The citizens of the County deserve land use standards that will make these facilities compatible neighbors. It is time to end a bizarre double standard where a homeowner must get a building permit for a deck remodel while a billion dollar industry with a track record of injury and death needs no building permit at all for industrial equipment. Developers of shopping centers and subdivisions must get land use permits under public review from the Planning Commission, while ' industries that have polluted our neighborhoods with toxic gases and injured our friends and family members are not subject to any Planning Commission review. • ' II. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: 1989-1995 ' A. Numbers Of Accidents • Contra Costa County is the eleventh worst County in the nation with regard to toxic accidents with over 1,900 incidents reported at the major industrial facilities in the County between 1989-1995. (Table 1.)2 The ten industrial facilities reporting the largest number of incidents accounted for over 1,700 of the total incidents at the major facilities in the County. (Table 2.) ' Almost 90 percent of the reported incidents occurred at refineries and chemical plants. Among refineries, Unocal reported the largest number of incidents with 474 reports between 1989-1995. Among chemical plants, Dow reported the largest number !' of incidents, with 235 reports. (Table 2.) The number of incidents reported to the County has increased from 68 in 1989 to ' 507 in 1995, or by over a factor of seven (Figures 1-3). The increase in total number of accidents can not be explained by the often repeated industry claim that companies have ! started to report even small releases due to public pressure. Even assuming a modest ' percentage of the increase is due to better reporting beginning in 1992, a steep increase in toxic releases would still be evident. Since 1992, there has been a 140.per+cent increase in the number of incidents. z There have been 226 incidents reported at these facilities in the first six months of 1996, raising the total number of reported incidents since 1989 to 2,140, and indicating i that the increasing trend of accidents and releases is continuing unabated. ' A1065.043 2 Table 1 Number of Incidents by Year at Major Industrial Facilities in Contra Costa County Industry 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 Total Air Products Co. - i - 1 - - - - 1 ., American Color - _ - 1 = - 1 Arco 1 4 1 6 Bay Area Environmental 1 5 - - - - - 6 Bay Cities Paving &Grading , - _ - - - - 1 - 1 ' C&H Sugar 2 1 2 2 1 - 8 California Oils Co. - 2 - - - - - 2 Chevron Refinery/Chemical 14 11 35 72 37 76 59 304 ' Concord Naval Weapons Station 2 2 1 1 5 3 14 Cooper Drum Co. 1 - - - 1 Criterion Catalyst 1 - - - - 1 1 3 ' Dexter Hysol Adhesives 1 2 2 1 1. 7 Diablo Chemical 1 1 Dow Chemical 9 8 47 67 32 34 38 235 Dupont 1 3 1 2 3 6 14 30 Exxon 2 4 1 2 1 10 Feralloy West Corp. - - 1 2 - - - 3 Foster-Wheeler Cogen Plant - - - - - 1 - 1 General Chemical 9 4 6 8 19 12 9 67 GWF Power System - 4 - 2 2 8 ' Harbor Plastics - 2 - - 2 - - - ICI Americas/Zeneca 2 2 1 4 9 Imperial West Chemical 2 4 5 - 2 1 1 15 IT Corporation 1 3 - 1 - 1 1 7 Kaiser 2 2 2 6 z 14 Marvais Steel 1 - - 1 - _ 2 Monsanto - - - - - 2 1 3 ' O'Brien Iron Works - - 2 - 2 Ozol 2 1 2 1 6 Pacific Bell 2 - - 2 1 - - 5 Pacific Refinery 1 2 3 25 23 19 13 86 PGandE 2 2 3 3 2 9 11 32 Pinole Point Steel/Colorstrip - 2 1 2 4 - - 9 ' Poly-Cal Plastic - - 1 - - - 1 Rhone Poulenc 2 3 2 1 2 1 11 Richmond Machine & Fab. - - 1 1 - _ - 2 t' RMC Lonestar - 1 1 1 - 1 4 Santa Fe Pacific 1 1 1 1 7 2 13 Sheldon Oil - - - 1 _ _ 1 Shell Refinery/Chemical 2 12 17 35 38 59 55 218 1 Southern Pacific 1 5 3 1 - 1 11 Standard Oil 1 - - _ - 1 Texaco - 1 1 2 1 - - 5 ' Tosco Refinery/Chemical 3 4 7 47 46 83 63 253 Tracor Aerospace Z 2 Unocal Refinery/Chemical 12 6 11 60 58 107 220 474 USS Posco 1 - 1 4 2 - 1 9 t Varian 1 - - _ _ _ _ 1 Wickland Oil - - - - 2 3 1 6 Witco - - - - 1 - - 1 Total 68 81 167 358 295 438 507 1,914 A1065.043 3 Table 2 TEN FACILITIES REPORTING LARGEST NUMBER OF INCIDENTS: 1989-1995 FACILITY NUMBER OF INCIDENTS: 1989-1995 Unocal 474 Chevron 304 ' Tosco 253 ' Dow 235 Shell 218 ' Pacific 86 General Chemical 67 ' PG&E Power Plants 32 Dupont 30 ' Imperial West Chemical 15 Total: Top Ten Facilities 1714 4 Total: All Reports to County 7045 It is also safe to assume that a significant number of chemical spills go unreported due to a variety of reasons, including the remoteness of certain potential sources, such as pressure relief valves. In addition, a recent community/worker audit of the emergency 01 response plans at a Contra Costa refinery revealed the corporate policies which discourage reporting toxic releases. During the initial stages of an accident, managers must refer to a chart to rate the seriousness of the event according to what the potential costs are to the corporation. The plan clearly indicated that toxic releases will hurt the company less if the public is unaware of them. • 1 The most troubling aspect of the number of accidents is that most occurred at ten large industrial sites. These facilities include corporations that are reported to be among ' industrial leaders in improved safety and community relations: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Chevron and Shell. Others have checkered records, such as Pacific and General Chemical. If large numbers of releases are occurring at an increasing rate at both the 1 "safest" and the 'worst" facilities, then more effective regulation and oversight is clearly required. County officials have given the petrochemical industry a chance to put their house in order. This approach has clearly failed, and a rapid response before the next accident strikes is required. ' 4 1► - N r r let N o V � N O 1 5 1� h 1 •~ U � � ON — C4 O� v � M N •� 0 w U a � U ' U � o U - co 8 S M 8 N N h h Aunoo umo EAU03 of Paco&,%sluappui 3o 12gmm 6 os CA .................._.............. ......................................................................_........._............................ ..................................................................._...... a c u c y ......................:..................... .......................................................................................<....................................... ............................... •r r W w T7 ......... .. ......._.... ........._, ....... .. ....__. ............. .... .. ............................................................................ C �• 7 U �.. .. . .... .. .- _ ................. U. t' *0 t- 0 H � dU ........................:.:..... ........... ............. . .......f... . _ ami O U ' I rn ........ . .._..... Z _ as co .......................................................... ■...... ............. rn 0 M N C !� f4unoo e4so3 ailuoo o4 pap,odaa sjusp oul jo aagwnN 7 0 .g r � N F" r N r r v» 0 g N � N r � a 1r r B. Types Of Accidents ' The most common types of accidents in the County are spills and leaks, toxic gas releases, flaring, and fires. Between 1992 and 1995, 1,598 incidents occurred at major industrial facilities in Contra Costa County. Among these, 274 or 17 percent of the total were spills and leaks, 265 or 17 percent were toxic gas releases, 135 or 8 percent were flaring events at refineries, and 90 or 6 percent were fires. Derailed tank cars, explosions, releases of smoke, odor, and breakdowns of pumps, compressors, valves and ' other fugitive components were also reported.' (Figure 4.) The types of accidents posing the most significant risk to public health and safety ' are the toxic gas releases. Even small toxic gas releases will typically travel beyond the confines of the plant, contaminating the air breathed by the public. The release of catalysts compounds, such as Chevron Dec. 1991 and Unocal •, Catacarb 1994 has also been a significant risk to the public. Catalytic compounds contain heavy metals, particulates, and other chemicals known to pose a danger to public ' health even in small quantities. Catalysts are not considered acutely hazardous, although exposure can cause immediate health problems and may result in long term impacts. Chemical releases through pressure relief valves that vent toxics directly to the air, rather than to containment systems, have resulted in serious accidents. Although the Bay Area Air District has considered a regulation to prevent these releases for years, no action has ' been taken and no date for adoption has been set. Flaring, in which accidental releases of gases are only partially combusted (depending on various limiting factors including the temperature, time, and turbulence of ' winds) can be a major source of smoke, soot, odor, noise and vibration into surrounding neighborhoods. Fires release large quantities of smoke, soot, and hazardous chemicals ' such as cyanides, dioxins, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. These materials can leave unsightly deposits on personal property and cause adverse health affects. Most of the spills and leaks occurred at oil refineries. The most commonly spilled substances were hydrocarbon materials, including diesel, gasoline, and various oils. Other commonly spilled materials include sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid. These spills and leaks may impact on-site workers or contaminate surface waters and groundwaters, which may, in turn, jeopardize public health and safety if the contaminants travel off site. 9 ' C. Toxic Gas Releases •' Contra Costa County stores about 123 million pounds of toxic, explosive, and highly corrosive chemicals (Table 3), often in close proximity to population centers, and is second only to Los Angeles County in the quantity stored. The majority of these ' chemicals are stored at ten chemical plants and refineries. (Table 4.) •, Table 3 TOXIC CHEMICALS STORED IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • ' CHEMICAL USES AMOUNTS Pounds Sulfuric Acid Used to make fertilizers, metal cleaners, 82,791,024 explosives; and in refining and manufacturing • Oleum (fuming Used in the soap and electronics industry ! 15,840,000 ' sulfuric acid) Carbon Disulfide Used as a solvent for waxes and resins; as a 8,100,810 disinfectant, an insecticide; and in •, manufacturing rubber and artificial fibers Ammonia Produced as a byproduct of refining; used as 5,921,797 ' a feedstock in fertilizers and in pollution control equipment • Nitric Acid Used to make fertilizers and explosives 4,826,426 ' Chlorine Used in solvents and cleaning agents 2,411,947 Hydrogen Fluoride Used in the petrochemical, glass, porcelain, 1,290,000 ' chemical manufacturing and semiconductor industries as a catalyst or etcher • Phenol Disinfectant; corrosive; used in refining i 1,050,215 Sulfur Dioxide Combustion byproduct of',burning 669,109 petrochemicals; used to make sulfuric acid ' Hydrogen Sulfide A byproduct of refining 617,434 • TOTAL 1234189762 ' 10 •' Table 4 CHEMICAL STORAGE LOCATIONS COMPANY POUNDS • Rhone-Poulenc (Martinez) 39,045,475 ' Tosco Refinery (Avon) 30,905,748 ' General Chemical (Richmond) 17,260,000 Zeneca (Richmond) 8,190,000 Chevron Refinery (Richmond) 7,894,115 ' General Chemical (Bay Point) 4,913,000 Chevron Chemicals (Richmond) 4,000,000 Shell Refinery (Martinez) 3,352,457 DuPont (Antioch) 2,537,000 ' Unocal Refinery (Rodeo) 1,516,734 TOTAL 119,614,529 ' Accidental release of these chemicals is the li second most common type of accident that occurs in Contra Costa County. Between 1992 and 1995, 265 accidental releases of • toxic gases were reported to the County. Most of these were from Dow Chemical and the refineries. The most commonly released chemicals were hydrogen sulfide, chlorine, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and sulfur trioxide. (Table 5.) All of these chemicals ' are acutely hazardous materials. 1 • ' 11 �1 Table 5 CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN TOXIC GAS RELEASES AT MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES NUMBER OF RELEASES SUBSTANCE 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOTAL FRACTION Hydrogen Sulfide 11 5 9 11 36 0.14 Chlorine 16 5 5 7 33 0.12 ' - Sulfur Dioxide 4 7 10 5 26 0.10 _ Hydrochloric Acid 7 6 3 5 21 0.08 Sulfur Trioxide 0 6 7 8 21 0.08 ' UnImown 5 5 2 4 16 0.06 Hydrogen 5 2 4 3 14 0.05 Hydrocarbons 8 3 1 2 14 0.05 Ammonia 3 2 5 4 14 0.05 . Nitrogen Oxide 2 1 1 8 12 0.05 Propane 5 2 1 2 10 0.04 Carbon Tetrachloride 2 2 0 4 8 0.03 Natural Gas 0 4 1 2 7 0.03 Perchloroethylene 3 2 0 1 6 0.02 = Butane 2 2 1 0 5 0.02 Hydrofluoric Acid 5 0 0 0 5 0.02 Ethylene Oxide 2 2 0 0 4 0.02 Chlorinated Pyridines 0 0 0 4 4 0.02 ' Freon 0 0 0 3 3 0.01 Butadiene 1 0 0 0 1 0.00 Phenol 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 Catacarb 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 Dimethyl Disulfide 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 Chloroform 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 ' Monomethylamine 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 Titanium Chloride 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 Gasoline 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 ' TOTALS 81 57 S2 75 265 1.00 ' Hydrogen sulfide is a byproduct of refining,'and most of the hydrogen sulfide releases were from refineries. Hydrogen sulfide is:a malodorous gas that smells like rotten eggs and is a common source of odor complaints around refineries. Exposure of ' the general population to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide causes headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, shortness of breath, choking, coughing, sore throat, chest pain or heaviness, burning eyes, fainting, nervousness, fever, awakening ' 12 ' at night, loss of sleep, acute asthma attacks, anorexia, and weight loss. Exposure to high concentrations paralyzes the respiratory center and is instantly fatal. Chlorine is used for water treatment and in chemical manufacturing. It is extremely irritating to the mucous membranes of the eyes and the respiratory tract and ' in moist air or fogs, it combines with water to form hydrogen chloride. Most of the chlorine releases were from Dow Chemical. Exposure to low concentrations causes burning eyes, scratchy throat, coughing, and shortness of breath. Exposure to high concentrations causes respiratory distress, pulmonary edema, and death. Sulfur dioxide is a byproduct of refining and is also used to make sulfuric acid. ' Sulfur dioxide is corrosive and poisonous and in moist air or fogs, it combines with water to form sulfurous acid. Low concentrations of sulfur dioxide cause irritation of mucous membranes, throat, esophagus, eyes and skin, chronic cough, constriction in the chest, ' fatigue, altered sense of smell, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, bronchial asthma, prolongation of common colds, and breathing difficulties including shortness of breath. Exposure to high concentrations may cause edema of the lungs, respiratory paralysis, and ' death. • ' Hydrochloric acid is moderately irritating to the mucous membranes of the eyes, the respiratory tract, and the throat. High concentrations result in pulmonary edema, laryngeal spasm, and death. Sulfur trioxide combines with moisture in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid. It is a corrosive poison that is!'highly irritating to skin, eyes, and •, mucous membranes. ' D. Health Impacts Exposure to any one of the toxic gases described above could cause serious health effects, however, industrial communities do not risk exposure to just one chemical or ' even one toxic release. Rodeo/Crockett/Tormey',residents may have been exposed to 474 chemical releases from the Unocal refinery and 86 spills from the Pacific refinery, involving dozens of chemicals over a six year period. ' Although we know some of the health effects of exposure single chemical, xp to a gl very little is understood about the impact of repeated exposures to a variety of harmful ' toxics. When exposure to daily pollution coming from industrial plants is added to 0 constant accidental releases, fires and explosions, there is little doubt that it is undesirable. Children, in particular are at risk from toxic releases because of their ' smaller size and developing bodies. ' 13 ' The information produced by the Pacific Refinery Health Survey Review (August • 5, 1992) is illustrative of the kind of impacts industrial operations have on surrounding neighborhoods. In a formal survey of neighbors, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District took legal declarations of the neighbors under penalty of perjury. Dr. Walker, ' Medical Director of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, reviewed the material and found good evidence that the neighbors' health problems were being caused • by the refinery's air pollution. 'There is striking consistency among the types of acute health effects complained of by the declarants. Many of the declarants complain of ' headaches, sore throats, coughing and nausea resulting from the odors and • emissions from Pacific Refining Company. Some, who have pre-existing ' asthma conditions, complain of exacerbation of those symptoms due to the refinery's emissions. These are exactly the kind of acute symptoms which one might expect to result from significant odor and emission releases from an oil refinery. ... " • ' Dr. Walker also evaluated the reliability of the data based on the representiveness of the sample group of declarants: •, "Even thou the group of declarants constitutes a self-selected group, 8h 8r P gz' P, there is a remarkable specificity, consistency, and time-relatedness in the ' declarations taken as a whole. For this reason, I believe that these declarations provide credible and reliable evidence that the periodic odor and emission releases from Pacific Refining Company are causing acute ' health effects in the Rodeo community. People do not generally present in these large numbers in a single community this specific range of health complaints unless there is a common inciting factor, which in this case I ' believe is environmental:' ' E. Examples of Major Accidents ' Since 1989, a substantial number of accidents have occurred in Contra Costa County that have resulted in significant impacts to ;either workers or surrounding ' communities. These impacts have included deaths; injuries, illnesses, school closures, bridge and highway closures, evacuations or other significant releases of hazardous materials or wastes. These accidents and their impacts are briefly summarized in Tables ' 6 and 7. Six of these accidents are discussed in more detail below. • 14 Chevron Isomax Fire (4110189). While the Isomax Unit was being shutdown for •' steam cleaning, a pipe carrying highly flammable hydrogen developed a leak, and the resulting hydrogen cloud ignited. Two large explosions and a fire resulted, causing the 100-foot high reactor in the rsomax Unit to collapse. Over 150 firefighters from Chevron, other refineries, and the City of Richmond struggled to keep the blaze under ' control, which burned for six days. A Cal/OSHA'',report concluded that Chevron had knowingly endangered workers by failing to provide protective fire gear and had not •' inspected the leaky pipe for 23 years despite an industry-wide tendency for pipes to corrode. ' Nine workers were injured and sent to local hospitals, three of whom were severely burned. Dense black smoke was visible as far away as San Francisco and • Martinez and drifted into nearby neighborhoods and east across the hills of El Cerrito ' and Berkeley. Hundreds of people, primarily from El Sobrante Valley, San Pablo and North Richmond, complained to Richmond city offices and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District about odor, smoke, and soot. About 275 children were evacuated ' from Verde Elementary School. ' Shell Catalytic Feed Hydrotreater Fire (9/5/89). A vapor line in the Catalytic Feed Hydrotreater leaked hot hydrogen and hydrocarbon gases, which ignited almost immediately. The fire caused liquid lines in the area to fail, resulting in ground fires. A •, major explosion, about a dozen minor explosions, and a fireball erupted in the midst of the conflagration. The fire burned for two days. ' Two contract workers were sent to a local hospital with second-degree burns over about 25 percent of their bodies. The blast from the explosion was heard up to 7 miles away in Benicia. The blaze released a thick black cloud, which drifted east over parts of ' Martinez, Avon, and Pittsburg. Some residents evacuated the area, and numerous odor. and smoke complaints were lodged with local agencies. Chevron Catalyst Release (12/5,/91,), A malfunctioning microprocessor caused a ' valve, which should have remained open, to shut inadvertently, causing pressure to build up inside a refining unit. The pressure forced about 60 cubic yards of nickel-laden catalyst to be emitted through the unit's exhaust stack. Winds carried the resulting dust clouds south over Point Richmond, where the catalyst dust settled onto cars, roads, and homes and throughout a 16 square mile area. Over 500 people responded to a community health survey complaining of respiratory problems. The County used the Community Alert Network (CAN) emergency notification system for the first time in an effort to protect the public. However, timely warning was ' hampered by the company's delay in acknowledging the harmful toxic dust clouds had crossed the fenceline. ' 15 Community outrage over the incident resulted in numerous heated public meetings, including one on Chevron's Risk Management and Prevention Program 0' ("RMPP"). At that meeting County health officials generally agreed with Chevron management that the company's accident prevention measures were adequate, despite strong objections from community groups. County Health staff, however, publicly ' admitted that gaps existed in the RMPP process, which did not cover chemical releases involving toxics not classified as "acutely hazardous" 01 Twice in 1992, hundreds of local residents 'marched to the main gate of the refinery demanding stronger regulations and community oversight. Neither Chevron or. government agencies took significant action to prevent future accidents. Instead, industry ' and agencies focused on improving emergency notification systems, rather than focusing 0 on preventing them in the first place. Rhone-Poulenc Acid Fire (61221921 An estimated 135,000 gallons of sulfonation acid sludge spilled from a broken valve on a 5-foot-deep storage tank. The sludge, a highly flammable mixture of sulfuric acid and up to 25 percent petroleum products, 0 caught on fire. ' One worker was killed, another was seriously injured, and 15 firefighters were treated for sulfuric acid burns and smoke inhalation. Black smoke and an acid cloud r' covered parts of Central County, closed local freeways, caused residents to complain of headaches, nausea, burning eyes and sore throats, and damaged the paint on vehicles. ' Despite the widespread impacts of the release, the plant manager told a special meeting of the Martinez City Council the next day that there were "no off-site impacts." Following a series of public protests led by Communities for a Safe Environment, the •, company abandoned a controversial plan to operate a commercial hazardous waste incinerator at the site. ' General Chemical Oleum SFill (7.126.12Z. In late June of 1993, the General Chemical plant in Richmond shut down to modernize its facility. During modifications, ' oleum, a mixture of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, was temporarily stored in tanker rail cars. Workers had never unloaded oleum from a,tank car at this facility before and received no special training prior to the Bay Area's worst chemical disaster to date. Ole which freezes at 84 F must be heated to liquify it before it can � �, quify be unloaded. The oleum was heated with steam in preparation for unloading. However, the railcar overheated because workers were not properly trained and the railcar was not equipped with gauges and thermometers needed to monitor temperature and pressure inside the tank. This caused a pressure vent on the car to rupture. ' 16 ' About 4 tons of sulfur trioxide were emitted from the pressure vent into the air over a 3 hour period. A cloud of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid drifted northeast of the •' plant along the Interstate 80 corridor from Richmond to Crockett. More than 24,000 residents and commuters were sent to local hospitals complaining of burning eyes, sore throats, and respiratory ailments. Twenty people were hospitalized. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Contra Costa County • Health Services Department fined General Chemical 1.18 million dollars for the accident, which included $600,000 for a health clinic and $200,000 for a mobile health van for North Richmond. More than 45,000 plaintiffs have filed 54 lawsuits seeking compensation for injuries suffered during the spill. Unocal Catacarb Release 8/22/94). About 100 tons of catacarb escaped from a small hole near the top of a 150-foot regenerating tower in the Hydrogen Plant of the Unicracker between August 22 and September 6, when the unit was shutdown. Catacarb is an alkaline solution used to purify hydrogen and contains potassium carbonate, potassium borate, diethanolamine, and a trace amount of potassium metavandate and • polyhydroxy alcohol. Government investigations revealed that Unocal kept the equipment operating despite worker warnings of the risks. Unocal also failed to adhere to ' Company policies regarding accident response and notification. Unocal had delayed repairs to the unit until a scheduled turnaround in October, running the equipment six ' months longer than originally planned. • Airborne catacarb fell over the town of Crockett, unincorporated Tormey and the Wickland Oil Terminal, forming a sticky brown residue on exposed property, including ' vehicles and lawns. Over 1500 people sought treatment at a local Good Neighbor Clinic for symptoms which included more serious health Problems. These people were •, diagnosed with diarrhea, vomiting, headaches, allergies, brain damage, memory loss and cognitive disorder. Many are still sick a year and,a half later. • • ' 17 ' Table .6 EXAMPLES OF MAJOR ACCIDENTS •' IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: 1989 - 1996 ' DATE FACULM INCIDENT • 4/10/89 Chevron A major fire and explosion occurred in the Isomax Unit due to a ' hydrogen leak. Nine workers were injured and 3 seriously burned. 275 children were evacuated from Verde Elementary. Black clouds of ' smoke poured into surrounding community for 6 days. 9/5/89 Shell A major fire and 3 explosions occurred in the Catalytic Feed • Hydrotreater. Odor, smoke, and fallout was experienced in the surrounding community. Two contract workers were severely burned, and windows rattled up to7 mi from the refinery. ' 10/23/90 Dow A cloud of hydrochloric acid was released from an overflow of a tank. • 1/4/91 Shell The LDU Lube Crude Heater had a tube failure. Some 700 gal of oil leaked into the firebox and burned for over 2 hrs. Dense smoke and odor invaded parts of Martinez. 2/1/91 Dow 40 lbs of chlorine and 300?,lbs of liquid pyridines leaked from a faulty gasket, causing odor in the surrounding community. •� 5/5/91 Dow 400 lbs of chlorine and 880 lbs of carbon tetrachloride gas were released from a tank, injuring 6 workers. ' 6/25/91 Dow 700 lbs of liquid chlorine leaked from a faulty valve, sending 30 workers to hospitals and clinics. High winds dissipated the cloud offsite. 10/29/91 Chevron A fire in the Catalytic Cracking Unit sent black clouds of smoke over • much of the Bay Area and forced toll takers to evacuate the Richmond- San Rafael Bridge. 12/5/91 Chevron 40-tons of catalyst dust was released from the Catalytic Cracking Unit ' and blanketed Pt. Richmond and surrounding areas, requiring massive • cleanup. Additional catalyst was released while restarting the unit on ' 1216/91. 1/30/92 Tosco A refinery tank spilled 1,894 barrels of diesel, which was trapped in a containment ditch. Tosco paid a$20,000 penalty to the county for ' failing to immediately report the spill. • 5/29/92 Pacific Refining While the refinery was shut down due to a leak in the cooling tower, the ' flares overloaded and were unable to burn off all of the released material. As a result, water, soot and chemicals spewed onto homes in 6/22/92 Rhone-Poulenc A faulty valve leaked 135,000 gal of sulfuric acid sludge, which caught on fire killing one worker and severely injuring another. An acid cloud • covered parts of Concord, West Pittsburg and Martinez. 18 •' Table 6 (continued) ' DATE FACILITY INCIDENT •' 6/23/92 Chevron A pump failure in the Catalytic Cracking Unit released a foul-smelling cloud. Yellow smoke engulfed parts of Richmond. 7/29/92 Texaco One worker died and another was seriously injured when a high-pressure ' hose burst and sprayed them with crude oil. 8/13/92 Tosco A refinery fire triggered an explosion heard for miles. One worker was • treated for burns at a hospital and released. ' 8/22/92 Electro Forming A leaking nitric acid tank send a plume of acid over Richmond, sending 100 people to hospitals. ' 9/20/92 Tosco A power failure caused flaring, which sparked a small grass fire. Smoke and odors were experienced in West Pittsburg. 12/11/92 Tosco A flare released a nauseating odor that irritated people in a large area of ' Concord and prompted Pine Hollow Intermediate School to send students home. ' 3/7/93 Tosco A butane leak created a brown cloud of unburned hydrocarbons that • covered parts of Martinez. No health problems were reported. 4/1/93 Shell An explosion in a sludge storage tank rocketed the metal lid onto power ' lines, causing power outages to about 1000 PG&E customers 6/18/93 Tosco 300,000 lbs of hydrocarbons and 1,600 lbs of H2S were released from a pressure relief valve, causing odors throughout Clyde, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch and Oakley. 300 people complained of odors, nausea, headaches and eye and respiratory irritation. ' 7/26/93 General Chemical About 4 tons of SO3 (oleum)was released from an overheated rail car. A large plume of sulfuric acid formed over Richmond sending about 24,000 people to local hospitals 10/7/93 Tosco 2000 gallons of oil were dumped into Hastings Slough. EPA fined Tosco $125,000 10/8/93 Shell An acid tank exploded and sent a fireball into the sky. The explosion and fire were caused by water that leaked into an acid storage tank. 2/10/94 Chevron A power outage in the Sulfur Recover Unit resulted in the release of many tons of sulfur and other compounds. 3/10/94 Chevron An instrument failure caused the release of large quantities of hydrogen sulfide from the flares. Residents as far away as El Sobrante complained ' of illness. 8/22/94 Unocal 100 tons of catacarb was released over a 16 day period from a regenerating tower in the Unicracker Complex, resulting in a ' sticky/greasy fallout throughout the Crockett area and causing hundreds of residents and workers to become ill. 9/15/94 Unocal A compressor failure released hydrogen sulfide, causing 80 school children at Hillcrest Elementary to seek medical attention. 19 Table 6 (continued) DATE FAC XrY INCIDENT 6/17/95 Unocal A tank fire lasted 3 hrs, causing the evacuation of about 200 families in ' Crockett, many for over a week due to ongoing fumes. 9/25/95 Tosco Pollution control equipment was bypassed when a boiler malfunctioned, ! releasing a large cloud of coke dust, carbon monoxide, and ' hydrocarbons. 9/27/95 Pacific Faulty shutdown cleaning procedures resulted in the release of naphtha ' and sulfur compounds. Disabled children were evacuated by ambulance from schools. • 2/1/96 Shell A powerful explosion in the new Hydrogen Unit operated by the Shell ' contractor Air Products results in worker evacuation, houses being rattled several miles away, and a huge cloud of burning hydrogen visible for miles. ' 4/1/96 Shell An explosion and major fire that burned out of control for 3 hrs ! occurred in the Catalytic Feed Hydrotreater. A large smoke cloud blanketed the surrounding community. 4/20/96 Shell A fire and explosion occurred while draining oil from a process unit into the sewer. Workers report that "hot" sewers have been an ongoing risk for several months in the area causing the cancellation of"hot work" permits. 5/17/96 Unocal A major fire in the Coker lasted 3.5 hrs and was caused by workers ' switching the wrong valve, sending hot oil into the coke pit. Workers claim that Unocal repeatedly rejected recommendations for simple «1� engineering changes made during internal safety review over five years before. r Y 20 Table 7 •' EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING INJURIES OR ILLNESS, SCHOOL OR BRIDGE CLOSURE, EVACUATION OR CONFINEMENT ' OR OTHER SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING INJURIES OR ILLNESS • ' ■ Chevron Fireball 4/10/89 (nine workers injured, three seriously burned) ■ Shell Light Oil Process Explosion 9/5/89 (Two contract workers severely burned) • ' ■ Dow Chlorine and Carbon Tectrachloride Release 5/5/91 (Six workers injured) ' ■ Dow Chlorine Release 6/25/91 (Thirty workers sent to hospitals and • clinics) ' ■ Chevron Catalyst Release 12/5/91 (people ill with diarrhea, breathing problems, rashes) ■ Pacific Flare Overload 5/29/92 (Water, soot and chemicals spewed onto Rodeo homes. At least three citizens sought hospital treatment) ' ■ Rhone-Poulenc Sulfuric Acid Sludge Release and Fire 6/22/92 (one worker killed, another severely burned) ■ Tosco Fire and Explosion 8/13/92 (Explosion heard for miles, one worker sent to hospital for burns) ' ■ Electro Forming Acid Release 8/22/92 (Over 100 people sent to hospitals) ■ Tosco Pressure Relief Valve 300,000 lbs. Release 6/18/93 (Several people sent to hospital with burning eyes, shortness of breath) ' ■ General Chemical Oleum Release 7/26/93 (20,000 people sought hospital • treatment) ' ■ Chevron H2S Gas Release 3/10/94 (people as far as El Sobrante complain of illness) ■ Unocal Catacarb Toxic Chemical Release 8/22/94 (Over 1,500 people •, treated over following year) ' 21 Table 7 (continued) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING INJURIES OR ILLNESS (continued) ■ Unocal H2S Release 9/15/94 (80 nearby schoolchildren sought medical ' attention) ■ Pacific Refinery Naptha, Sulfur Release 9/27/95 (Disabled children from ' nearby school evacuated by ambulance) ■ Shell Hydrogen Unit Explosion 2/2/96 (Resulted in worker evacuation; two workers suffered minor injuries) ■ Shell Explosion and Fire 4/1/96 (Large smoke cloud blanketed surrounding community) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING SCHOOL CLOSURES ■ Chevron Fireball 4/10/89 (275 elementary school children evacuated) ■ Tosco Flare Release 12/11/92 (Nauseating odor in large area of Concord resulting in Pine Hollow Intermediate School sending students home) ■ Pacific Refinery Naptha, Sulfur Release 9/27/95 (Evacuation of disabled children by ambulance from nearby school) ■ Unocal Coker Fire 5/17/96 (Prompted schools to close; residents warned to stay inside) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CLOSING BRIDGES OR FREEWAYS ' ■ Chevron Oil Leak Fire 10/30/91 (Richmond-San Rafael bridge evacuated) ■ Rhone-Poulenc Sulfuric Acid Sludge Release and Fire 6/22/92 (freeway ' temporarily closed) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING EVACUATION OR CONFINEMENT ' ■ Chevron Catalyst Release 12/5/91 Coun residents warned to stay � Y (County Y ' indoors) ■ Chevron Pump Failure Release 6/23/92 (County residents warned to stay indoors-Same unit as 10/31 and 12/5/91 events) 01 22 s' 1 •' Table 7 (continued) ' ■ Unocal Tank Fire 6/17/95 (200 Crockett families forced to evacuate area for over a week) �' ■ Unocal Coker Fire 5/17/96 (Prompted schools to close; residents warned to stay inside) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT RELEASES ■ Dow Hydrochloric Acid Release 10/23/90 (Cloud of hydrochloric acid released from overflow of tank) ' ■ Shell Heater Fire 1/4/91 (Dense smoke invaded parts of Martinez) • ' ■ Dow Chlorine Release 2/1/91 (40 lbs. of chlorine and 300 lbs. liquid pyridines leaked causing odor in community) ■ Tosco Diesel Spill 1/30/92 (Trapped in containment ditch; Tosco failed to immediately report to County) ' ■ Pacific Flare Overload 5/29/92 (Water, soot and chemicals spewed onto Rodeo homes. At least three citizens sought hospital treatment. r' ■ Tosco Flaring Incident 9/20/92 (Caused small grass fire, smoke and odors experienced in West Pittsburg) ' ■ Tosco Butane Leak 3/7/93 (Butane leak created brown cloud which covered parts of Martinez) •, ■ Shell Sludge Tank Explosion 4/1/93 (Caused power outages to about 1000 PG&E customers) ' ■ Tosco Oil Spill 10/7/93 (2000 gallons oil dumped into Hastings Slough) • ■ Shell Fireball 10/8/93 (fireball in sky could be seen for miles) ■ Chevron Power Outage and Release 2/10/94 (Power outage resulted in release of many tons of sulfur and other compounds) • 23 Table 7 (contieued) ■ Tosco Release 9/25/95 (Boiler malfunction causes release of large cloud of coke dust, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) ' ■ Shell Fire and Explosion 4/20/96 (Small fire and explosion while draining oil from process unit into sewer) ' III. PROPOSED "GOOD NEIGHBOR" SOLUTIONS TO EXISTING REGULATORY GAPS A. Need for Effective County Land Use Review of Industrial Construction, Repair and Maintenance Projects Involving Hazardous Materials or Hazardous Wastes The accidents at major industrial facilities reviewed in Section II dramatically ' demonstrate that the current regulatory framework has not been effective in minimizing accidents and hazardous materials releases from industrial facilities in Contra Costa County. Indeed, the statistical evidence shows that the number of accidents and releases is dramatically increasing. (Figure 3.) • The petroleum refineries, chemical plants and other heavy industrial facilities handling hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are subject to a patchwork of existing regulatory programs. The gaps and limitations in these programs, however, combined with problems of compliance and enforcement, have undermined the effectiveness of the •' current regulatory structure in reducing major accidents and releases of hazardous materials. ' Industry often cites the Risk Management and Prevention Program ("RMPP") and process safety management ("PSM") standards to argue that additional County regulation ! is unnecessary. However, both RMPP and PSM standards are limited to acutely hazardous materials, and do not apply at all to a wide range of facilities handling extremely toxic chemical compounds. Even with respect to acutely hazardous materials, the RMPP requirements apply only if the Administering Agency determines that there is a significant likelihood that the facility's use of the material poses an acutely hazardous materials accident risk. Even then, a facility may still apply for exemption from the RMPP process. The PSM standards also apply only to the handling of acutely hazardous ' materials. No effective compliance or enforcement of either program currently exists. Other state and federal regulatory programs have also proven ineffective. (See Tables 8, 9 and 10.) • ' 24 ' Table 8 •, LIMITATIONS ON RISK MANAGEMENT PREVENTION PROGRAMS (RMPPs) AND HAZARD AND OPERABILITY STUDIES (HAZOPs) ' ■ Onlyapplies to acute hazardous materials e. . catacarb hazardous waste not PP acutely � 8> > •, covered). ■ No review of RMPP and HazOp at public hearing. ■ RMPP and HazOp need not evaluate risks to on-site persons. • ■ RMPP is certified as in compliance by the facility operator and a privately employed expert. ■ Local agency review of RMPP is limited to whether it is deficient. Its ability to impose additional safety measures on facility is severely restricted. ■ According to County Health Department, HazOps are not available to public. ■ No effective program for enforcing or monitoring a facility's compliance with the RMPP -- County has only reviewed 30 RMPPs since program enacted in 1986. Table 9 LIMITATIONS ON PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ' ■ Only applies to acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals (e.g., cataca.rb, hazardous waste not covered). •' ■ Need not consider risks to off-site persons. ■ No review of PSM at public hearings. ■ Facility has broad discretion to determine appropriate level of hazard analysis ' based on factors such as system "complexity," number of employees exposed, extent of hazards, and operating history. ■ Facility performs the pre-startup safety review and determines whether safety procedures are adequate. 25 Table 9 (continued) ' ■ Facility Performs inspections and testing. ■ Facility organizes the incident investigation team and reports results to Cal- OSHA. ' ■ Hazard analysis need only be updated every 5 years. ■ Cal-OSHA has planned inspections only 20 facilities statewide. Other inspections ' by complaint only. ' Table 10 LIMITATIONS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT - EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS ' ■ Only applies to extremely hazardous substances. ■ Focuses on community's response to hazardous chemical emergencies, not •, prevention of such emergencies. ■ Facility merely submits list of hazardous chemicals used to local emergency ' planning committee and identifies an emergency coordinator; the committee develops the response plan. i, ■ Local government agency coordinator is designated by the state emergency response commission (Le., could be the Fire Department, County Health ' Department, etc.). ■ Facility has 60 days after using a new extremely hazardous substance to notify relevant agency. ' 26 ' Table 10 (continued) •' LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT - RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS ■ Only applies to extremely hazardous substances and certain regulated hazardous pollutants. ■ Risk Management Plan requirements have not yet been established. U.S. EPA ' published proposed regulations in October, 1993 and again in March, 1995 -- still not final. ' ■ Proposed requirements similar to California's RMPP program. ■ Enforcement mechanism is EPA (or Bay Area AQMD) audits and safety r inspections; no local enforcement. Until recently, oil refineries and other major industries in the County were not subject to any local land use permitting requirements. While a three-foot retaining wall ' in a residential backyard requires a County permit and inspection, a billion-dollar refinery modernization could be carried out without even a local building permit. Although the new Hazardous Materials Ordinance enacted by Contra Costa County is a ' step in the right direction, the Commission had been working under a limited charge and the Ordinance fails to address a number of operational issues that have led to recent accidents, and would leave important gaps in the regulation of these facilities. The proposed "Good Neighbor" amendments to the Hazardous Materials Ordinance are intended to reduce the risk of accidents and toxic releases by making ' existing safety programs more effective, and by filling gaps in the current regulatory structure. The "Good Neighbor" amendments would: 1) expand the range of projects made subject to review and regulation;2) increase public disclosure of risks from facility accidents and releases; 3) improve incident reporting and investigation in order to facilitate accident prevention planning; 4) require special safety measures and inspections to reduce hazards associated with high pressure and high temperature operations; and 5) require findings based on specific health and safety criteria prior to project approval. r The deficiencies and gaps in existing regulation and the proposed "Good Neighbor" solutions are discussed in more detail below. 27 ' B. Need to Expand Range of Projects Subject to Review •' 1. Restricted definition of"development project" would leave major projects unregulated ' The definition of"development project" under the new Ordinance would allow major projects to go unregulated. For example, the Ordinance does not cover any r facility modifications, replacement, repair or maintenance projects unless the project results in an increase in design capacity. The Ordinance also exempts pipelines and related equipment more than 300 feet from residential or commercial property. ' The narrow project definition in the new Ordinance would exclude a broad range of projects and would allow major industrial projects to be carried out without any County land use review. As we know from the recent retooling of refineries to produce cleaner fuels, modification and modernization projects can involve literally billions of dollars in work and can subject workers and surrounding communities to potentially ' significant risks. These risks are present whether or not the work results in an expansion of facility design capacity. ' The "Good Neighbor" amendments would extend review to major repair, replacement and modernization projects whether or not the project would increase facility capacity. The amendments would also delete the current exemption for pipeline •' projects. Finally the proposal would repeal the special building permit exemption for projects at industrial facilities. ' 2. Failure to include "turnaround maintenance" leaves a major gap in current regulations •� The Coalition believes that the exemption of major maintenance work in the new Ordinance leaves a critical gap in the current regulatory framework. 'Turnaround maintenance" refers to the shutdown of oil refinery operating units to perform periodic ' inspection, maintenance and repairs. • The operating schedules for the various refinery units are typically developed a ' year or two in advance and will specify the shutdown periods for turnaround maintenance. The length of the shutdown period will depend on the maintenance work ' scheduled during the turnaround, which can vary from cleaning, inspection and minor repair to a comprehensive safety check and preventative maintenance, equipment • overhaul and construction of new facilities. Because refineries cannot keep a permanent staff large enough to handle major turnarounds, outside contract labor is typically ' brought in for this work. Increased competition and marketing demands have created significant tension between refinery operating and maintenance schedules. Unit shutdown for regular 28 ' inspection and preventative maintenance is essential for safe operation of the facility, however, taking units off-line means less product for sale. These factors have led to !' longer and longer operating runs of process units. (Bland and Davidson, Petroleum Processing Handbook, McGraw-Hill 1967, pp. 7-14, 7-32.) In addition, the shutdown and startup of process units for inspection and maintenance is one of the most dangerous periods in refinery operations, and must ! follow careful procedures in order to ensure the safety of plant personnel and adjacent ' communities. The reports on a number of recent accidents in Contra Costa County demonstrate a link between accidents and turnaround projects or other maintenance activities, including inadequate inspection and maintenance, increasing demands on ' refinery equipment and mishaps during unit shutdown or startup. (See Table 11.) • TABLE 11 EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY INADEQUATE ' MAINTENANCE/CORROSIONAND/OR INADEQUATE INSPECTION •' 4/10/89 Chevron Isomax Fire. OSHA reportindicates that leaky pipe had not been inspected for twenty-three years and workers were not provided with ' adequate protective fire gear. Two injured workers blame faulty equipment, and an emergency switch that had been out of order for at least a year. 10/7/93 Tosco Acid Leak. Pipe segment had been repaired and replaced after a leak three years prior. Tosco had problems with same pipe three years ' earlier as welder was preparing to finish a weld seal. 2/2/96 Shell Hydrogen Unit Explosion. Air Products state pipe burst due to stress ' corrosion cracking. 4/1/96 Shell E losion and Fire. Company officials indicate cause was pipe failure and failure to inspect all similar pipes. According to Contra Costa Times, pipe corrosion led to fire. ' 29 ' Table 11 (continued) �I EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS RELATED TO MAINTENANCE/REPAIR WORK ' 5/29/92 Pacific Release. Fire caused while workers trying to repair leak in tubing. Company had shut down unit for repairs. County and BAAQMD criticize Pacific for failure to notify earlier of potential problem. ' 6/17/95 Unocal Tank Fire. Unocal stated fire started when maintenance crews installed new roof seal on tank. Unocal documents indicate that Unocal became aware of problem with seal allowing odors to escape on June 9. 9/27/95 Pacific Release. Workers were cleaning pipeline as part of efforts to shut- down plant. County officials questioned whether Pacific was following safety regulations for shutdowns. ' In order to address these issues, the "Good Neighbor" amendments would authorize the County to review major maintenance projects at industrial facilities. The County would be able to impose minimum standards on scheduled maintenance •' turnaround projects to address health and safety and environmental concerns. For example, the County could require a safety inspection of facility equipment within a ' specified time period after the completion of the turnaround project. The "Good Neighbor" amendments also ensure that County review of major maintenance projects would not interfere with refinery operations or maintenance decisions. The amendments would prohibit the County from denying a permit for maintenance work, and would require action on permits within 60 days of a completed 1 application. The amendments would also allow otherwise planned maintenance work to be carried out without a permit on a unit or units shutdown due to an emergency. •' 3. Current hazard score formula would exclude major industrial projects from review Under the hazard score formula established in the new Ordinance, massive projects with potentially significant health and safety risks would escape County review. For example, the $800 million clean fuels modernization project at the Chevron refinery would not have triggered land use review had it been subject to the new hazard score system. The Hazardous Materials Commission has acknowledged that the Chevron ' project would not have met the threshold for review under the new Ordinance despite the fact that the project involved the construction and remodeling of huge process units ' 30 �1 1 handling thousands of tons of hazardous materials under high temperatures and pressures. The current formula emphasizes the change in existing risk levels rather than the overall risk presented by a proposed project. The formula also understates the risk to ' the communities living in the area around an industrial facility. For example, in order to receive the highest point for distance from receptor, a person would have to be living within 300 feet of the project. The formula also fails to take into account at all the ' potential risk to on-site workers, and assigns no points for persons at industrial sites who may be exposed to accidental releases of hazardous materials. Finally, the formula offsets a project's hazard score by providing substantial credits for closures or reductions ' in operations by the facility. The "Good Neighbor" amendments would make several adjustments to the hazard ' score formula in order to ensure that all projects with potentially significant risks are subject to County review. ' First, two revisions are made to shift the focus from change in amounts of hazardous materials or wastes to total amounts of hazardous materials or wastes involved ' in the project. The transportation risk factor is revised to examine the total amount of hazardous material or wastes transported rather than only the increase in transported levels. The facility risk factor is revised to consider the total amount of hazardous materials or wastes that moves through the unit or units involved in the proposed project rather than the amounts added by the project. ' Second, the community risk factor is amended by revising both the "distance of } the project from receptor" and "type of receptor" considerations. The "distance of project from receptor" consideration is adjusted to assign the highest point score to receptors within 0-1500 feet from the project, which the Coalition believes represents the area of significant risk in the event of an accidental release of toxic materials. For example, the town of Crockett is over a mile from the D409 tower which sprayed catacarb on the area. Clearly large amounts of toxic chemicals under high pressure and temperature in large industrial facilities can seriously impact neighbors at many times 300 feet. The "type of receptor" consideration is revised to include workers and other persons who may ' be exposed at industrial properties in the event of a toxic release. Third, the credits for reductions or projects to be closed is deleted. A project ' may present significant risks to on-site workers and the surrounding community even if an applicant will close other units or reduce operations. ' Fourth, the calculation of the amounts of hazardous wastes or materials involved in a project is changed from a "fill to capacity" measure to a "throughput" measure. The ' throughput_of materials through process units is an accepted measurement in the ' 31 ' industryand is readily available while a measurement of all equipment filled to capacity Y � qmP �P tY would have to be calculated and would be virtually impossible to verify. Finally, the overall point score required to trigger County review is lowered from 80 to 70 based on the Chevron modernization example and to better reflect the scope of ' projects presenting substantial risks. Projects with a hazard score between 70 and 79 would be considered by the Community Development Director and projects with scores r of 80 or above would be considered by the Planning Commission. ' C. Need For Additional Risk Management, Reporting andSafety Requirements - 1. Risk Management ' Current law includes various requirements intended to reduce the risk of accidental releases of hazardous materials, including the RMPP/hazard and operability ' study and process safety management requirements. However, these programs apply only to the handling of acutely hazardous materials. In addition, an RMPP and hazard and operability study are only required when the administering agency determines that ' there is a significant likelihood that the facility's use of the material may pose an acutely hazardous materials accident risk. (See'Tables 8, 9 and 10.) ' In addition to their limited scope, existing risk management programs suffer from a lack of effective compliance monitoring or other enforcement measures. While compliance with RMPP, hazard and operability study recommendations and process safety management standards could go a long way toward reducing catastrophic accidents, there is currently no effective enforcement of compliance with such programs and standards. The reports on a number of recent accidents show a consistent failure to follow risk management and other safety procedures. (See Table 12.) TABLE 12 1 ' EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MANAGEMENT STANDARDS/TRAINING . 6/22/92 Rhone-Poulenc Sulfuric Acid Release. Cal-OSHA determined that release and fire caused by defective, older valve that had been modified. Inspectors found workers not properly trained to handle valve. 6/23/92 Chevron Release. Post-incident inspection report indicates accident could have been avoided with proper planning and installation of equipment. 32 ' Table 12 (continued) 6/18/93 Tosco-Hydrocarbon Release. BAAQMD officials cite deficiencies in training and operating procedures as causes for spill. Accident caused by ' improperly calibrated instrument. 7/26/93 General Chemical Oleum Leak. Workers turned up heat too high to ' unload rail car. Air District report states company had no written instructions for unloading oleum and workers only received verbal instructions. Company admits workers had never unloaded oleum from ' cars before. BAAQMD and Cal-OSHA both found inadequate training and monitoring equipment contributed to accident. ' 8/22/94 Unocal Catacarb Release. Reports filed with County show Unocal first detected leak on 8/22/94 but decided to keep operating despite worker ' warnings. Company officials failed to adhere to company's policies regarding accident response and notification of problem. Unocal had delayed repairs to unit until scheduled turnaround in October, running unit ' six months longer than originally planned. Refinery set record for amount of material produced. ' 5/17/96 Unocal Coker Fire. Workers started fire by turning wrong pipeline valve. There may not have been clear explanatory marks on the valves. Workers claim that Unocal repeatedly rejected recommendations for simple engineering changes made during internal safety review over five years before. ' The "Good Neighbor" amendments include a number ofP rovisions intended to improve the management of hazardous materials and reduce the risk of accidental ' releases by expanding the scope and content of current requirements. For example, the amendments require that all applications for a permit under the Ordinance include an ' updated hazard and operability study. Such studies are currently required only for facilities handling acutely hazardous materials. t The "Good Neighbor" proposal also requires that a hazard and operability study ' identify hazards due to material, mechanical and safety failure or personnel practices, which are not required to be identified under current law. The proposal requires the ' hazard and operability study to identify accident risks to on-site personnel and present a quantitative analysis of any significant human health risk, neither of which are currently 33 required. An updated RMPP would also be required for facilities handling acutely •' hazardous materials. The "Good Neighbor" amendments attempt to improve compliance with risk ' management programs through two measures. First, all applicants would be required to submit the results of an independent audit of compliance with process safety management standards related to the project. Second, the County would be required to •� make specific findings that the applicant will comply with hazard and operability study recommendations, process safety management standards and the RMPP, if applicable, before approving the project. ' 2. Investigation and Reporting Requirements • Determining the causes of accidents, explosions, fires and releases is critical to the design and implementation.of safety measures to prevent a recurrence of the conditions that led to the facility upset. Currently, however, the investigation and information related to the accident is usually controlled by the facility. In those cases where the • County does assemble a review team, the team typically does not include workers, who are often in the best position to identify problems in facility operations. Similarly the impacted community is seldom involved in reviewing accidents, despite their undeniable stake in determining causes and preventing future accidents. Under current law, it is also virtually impossible for the public to obtain meaningful information regarding accidents and releases. Reports are filed with multiple ' agencies with no consistent format or any central clearinghouse of information. The information provided by the facilities is also typically cryptic and of little help in determining the causes of the accident. •' The "Good Neighbor" amendments address these problems with several provisions. First, in the event of an accident or upset involving the release of hazardous ' materials or wastes, the facility manager would be required to personally present a report of the incident to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest feasible Board meeting following the incident. Second, the County would be required to establish review teams ' comprised of County staff, facility management, workers and the public to investigate all serious accidents involving the release of hazardous materials or wastes. Finally, the County Department of Health Services would serve as a clearinghouse for all reports of ' accidental releases of hazardous materials or wastes that are required by law to be filed with any local, state or federal agency. These reports would be available to the public upon request. ' 3. Safety Measures ' The risks from oil refineries and other industries managing hazardous materials and wastes result primarily from the processing and handling of these materials under 34 f high temperatures and pressures. The timing and quality of the welding and other repair and maintenance work performed on the process equipment and vessels containing these materials is often critical to the safe operation of the facility. (See Table 11.) ' The "Good Neighbor" amendments include several provisions intended to ensure that this work is done by qualified workers and is properly inspected. The amendments require that workers who will be employed to perform welding on high temperature, high pressure installations pass specified tests administered by an independent agency. The applicant would be required to assure the professional independence of all certified welding inspectors who will work on the project. All prefabricated high temperature/high-pressure installations would be required to have 100 percent of their welds tested by x-ray inspection. ' D. Need For Meaningful Public Review and Project Approval Based on Specific Criteria and Findings •' The existing RMPPs and PSM standards do not require public hearings or establishing any public process for decisions. In addition, the new County Ordinance ' does not establish criteria for project approval or set forth specific findings related to the review of hazardous material and hazardous waste development projects. By contrast, the "Good Neighbor" amendments require specific findings designed to ensure careful ' review of the potential health and safety and environmental impacts of the proposed project. ' Under the "Good Neighbor" proposal, the County would be required to make specific findings that the proposed project will not significantly adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the County or the local economy, and will not impose a significant risk to human health or the environment from an accident involving hazardous materials or wastes. If these findings could not be made, the County could approve the project only by making specific findings of overriding ' considerations. These include findings that all feasible measures to reduce or minimise the significant risks of the project have been imposed, and that specific benefits of the project override any remaining unmitigated risks or effects of the project. The "Good Neighbor" amendments also require findings intended to ensure compliance with risk management and safety measures. The County would be required ' to find that the applicant will comply with measures specified in the updated hazard and operability study, process safety management standards, any updated RMPP, and all other feasible measures required by the County for the protection of health and safety or the environment. The County would also be required to find that the workers performing welding on high temperature and pressure installations and performing the ' asbestos-related work have been properly certified. The County would also be required to make other findings to ensure proper welding of high temperature and high pressure installations, including x-ray and independent inspections. 35 ' The "Good Neighbor" proposal would require meaningful public notice and hearing on all projects subject to land use review. 'Ibis would include a right to appeal all decisions to the Board of Supervisors. ' E. Need for Meaningful Penalties and Sanctions Current law does not include any meaningful penalties or sanctions for non- compliance with permitting requirements or for corporate negligence that causes injury or death. The "Good Neighbor" Ordinance would impose civil fines of up to $25,000 for each separate violation of the Ordinance. A portion of the funds from such levies would ' be earmarked for a special Community Technical Assistance fund for various efforts including: independent community-based air sampling by industrial neighbors, establishment of a Industrial Neighbor Ombudsman position that reports directly to the Board with broad investigatory powers and technical experts to assist community groups in reviewing industrial projects needing county permits. ' In addition, the proposal would make it a criminal misdemeanor for any person to • discipline a worker who refuses to perform a task that the worker believes would create an unreasonable risk of injury or death to facility personnel or to offsite persons. The ' "Good Neighbor" amendments would also make it a criminal misdemeanor for any manager who has committed gross negligence in the management of hazardous wastes or ' materials that results in injury or death to workers or offsite persons. • ' IV. CONCLUSION There may have been a time when we could allow industry to police itself. In the old days, when tight-knit communities were made up of workers and bosses, companies had more of a relationship with the towns surrounding their plants. Now, with multinational corporations in far flung parts of the world, we need to bring the control ' back to the local jurisdiction. The "Good Neighbor" proposal will not prevent all accidents, but it will go a long ' way toward reducing the risk to workers and adjacent communities of an almost daily threat of fires, explosions and toxic releases. It is time for the County to reassert itself as the watchdog over industry. The workers and residents of the County deserve no less. ' 36 �1 ' REFERENCES American Industrial Hygiene Association, Emergency Response Planning_Guidelines for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, 1988-1990. ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Historic Settlement in General Chemical Oleum Release, Air Currents, February 1994. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Memorandum from Air Pollution Control Officer to Chairperson Hilligoss and Members of the Board of Directors, Re: General ' Chemical Incident of July 26, 1993, September 15, 1993. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Public Nuisance Notice of Violation Summary: 1989-1996. Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division, ' Hazardous Materials/Occupational Health, Incident Reports: 1989-1996. • Denis Cuff and Amy Snider, Chemical Catch-22, Water Spurred Acid Fire, Contra Costa ' Times, June 24, 1992. D.C. Glass, A Review of the Health Effects of Hydrogen Sulphide Exposure, Annals of •' Occupational Hygiene, c. 34, no. 3, pp. 323-327, 1990. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Emergency Response Division, Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Reports, EPA Region IX: 1989-1995. •, Robert B. Jewett, General Chemical: Letter to William B. Walker, Contra Costa County Health Services Department Re: Written Follow-up Notification of July 26, 1993 Incident, August 4, 1993. Jane Kay, Deadly Neighbors, San Francisco Chronicle-Examiner, August 10, 1993. Kathleen Maclay, Rhone-Poulenc Given Two Weeks to Prove Fatal Fire Unavoidable, Contra Costa Times, August 4, 1992. ' Willy Morris, Crockett, Rodeo Residents Upset Over Unocal Release, Contra Costa Times, October 2, 1994. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Criteria for a Recommended Standard — . . Occupational Exposure to Hydrogen Sulfide, DHEW (NIOSH) ' Publication No. 77-158, May 1977. ' A1065.058 ' National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Diseases. A Guide to their Recognition, June 1977. G.A. Poda, Hydrogen Sulfide Can Be Handled Safely, Archives of Environmental Health, v. 12, pp. 795-800, 1966. ' N. Irving Sax, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York, 6th Ed., 1984. Shell Oil Co., Breakdown Report #1674, October 8, 1993, Spent Sulfuric Acid Tanks ' 1114 and 1115 Vapor Recovery System, October 29, 1993. Shell Oil Company, Martinez Manufacturing Complex, Risk Management and Prevention Program Report, December 1990. Edward J. Shields, Analysis of What Caused the SO3 Release at General Chemical ' Corporation's Richmond Facility on July 26. 1993, General Chemical Report, August 13, 1993. ' Times Staff, Rhone-Poulenc worker, 44, Dies of Bum Injuries, Contra Costa Times, July 6, 1992. U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides, Volume 1, Report EPA-600/8-82-029aF, December 1982. U.S. Public Health Service, The Air Pollution Situation in Terra Haute. Indiana with Special Reference to the Hydrogen Sulfide Incident of May-June 1964, 1964. •' Unocal Corporation, San Francisco Refinery, Rodeo, CA, Risk Management and Prevention Program, August 1992. ' Unocal Good Neighbor Audit, CBE, 1995. Unocal, Unocal Incident Fact Sheet (9-06-94), September 12, 1994. ' Unocal Update of Incident Report of September 12 1994. P P P ' A1065.058 2 I Legal Tabs Co. 1-800-322-3022 Form#DO25-SS The Committee on Natural Resources December, 1993. 1 1 1 LIVING 1 WITH 1 RISK: 1 Communities & the 1 Lazard of Industrial Contamination Majority Staff Report ' Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Natural Resources 1 George Miller, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 (202) 225-2761 i . i EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 1 THURSDAY AM EDITIONS, DECEMBER 9, 1993. 1 ! ' LIVING WITH RISK: Communities & the Hazard of Industrial Contamination Table of Contents ' The Chairman's Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 II. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 A. COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 1. ACCIDENTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 General Chemical Accident; July 26, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 ' 2. PREVENTION . Page 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Federal Prevention Programs . Page 14 b. State Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16 c. Industry Prevention Programs . . . Page 17 d. Computer Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20 3. EMERGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22 B. ABSENCE OF SYSTEMATIC REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24 C. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 28 1. CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY LAWS . . Page 28 2. POSSIBLE PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30 a. Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws . Page 30 b. Challenge to California Hazardous Materials Storage Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31 c. Preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act . Page 33 D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35 ' III. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 38 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41 A. Policy Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 41 B. Spocific Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 43 Page i Living With Risk December, 1993 , V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 44 ' VI. APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 46 Accidents to which Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Unit Responded 1980 to 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 47 Map Showing Density of Hazardous Materials Accidents in Contra Costa County and Surrounding Area 1980-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 51 , Agencies Responding to the Rhone-Poulenc (6/22/92) and General Chemical (7/26/93) Hazardous Materials Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 52 ' Agencies Responding to the Dunsmuir Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 55 Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force Inter-Agency Matrix (Summary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page.56 Page ii ' 1 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 ' LIVING WITH RISK: -Communities & the Hazard of Industrial Contamination The Chairman's Summary 1 The story of industrial development worldwide has been one of substantial benefits derived from industries that often use highly dangerous and toxic chemicals. But communities where these factories are located have a different story to tell; the people in these communities live constantly with the presence and threat of hazardous materials releases. Some releases of hazardous materials are permitted under federal and state environmental statutes; others result from accidents. The health and environmental effects of these releases are still largely unknown. While industry is vital to these regions, industrial growth must not be achieved at the expense of public health and safety. Contra Costa County in Northern California is one example of a densely populated ' community coexisting with heavy industry. Accidents are commonplace; since 1980 the County's Hazardous Materials Unit has responded to 35 accidents,` and there have been . several more less serious incidents. One of the most dangerous accidents occurred on ' July 26, 1993 when oleum leaked from a tank car during unloading at General Chemical's Richmond facility. A toxic sulfuric acid cloud measuring several miles in size passed over ' the area, causing alarm, panic and fear. Following the accident, the Committee on Natural Resources conducted an investigation to examine how this and similar accidents might be avoided. The report of the investigation, "Living with Risk: Communities and the Threat of 1 Industrial Accidents" makes recommendations for reducing the risk of accidents and for improving accident response. "Living with Risk" finds that governmental accident prevention and emergency response are most effective when developed locally, but warns that Contra Costa County's existing programs are threatened. An industry petition pending before the federal Department of Transportation argues that California state laws governing hazardous material management should be superseded by less stringent federal laws. Such preemption, the report concludes, might deprive local communities, including Contra Costa, of the ability to protect themselves. A complete list of the accidents to which Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Unit responded 1980-1993 appears in the appendix. Page 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 , The report finds that communities have a fundamental "right-to-know" about ' hazardous materials in their backyards. Although Congress has recognized this right-to- know, the report recommends it be expanded. The report also recommends that computer technology play a major role in disseminating this information. 1 The report criticizes government at all levels for failing to develop a coherent plan for hazardous materials management. Federal, state and local responses have often been ' piecemeal creating serious regulatory gaps, which have sometimes hampered effective accident prevention and emergency response. For example, the report criticizes the absence of reporting requirements in California for railroad tank cars used for storing hazardous , materials for less than 30 days. The report also notes that many industries fail to report tank cars used for storing hazardous materials beyond 30 days, although required to do so by state ' law. Another regulatory.loophole identified in "Living with Risk" is that industrial facilities can start up new operations without providing advance notification to County authorities. The General Chemical leak occurred during the unloading of a tank car, a procedure that had not previously been performed by the Richmond facility, and about which ' local authorities had not been notified. The report also notes that government had failed to act promptly to prohibit the use of this type of tank car for transporting dangerous chemicals, even though its shortcomings had been described more than two years earlier. , "Living with Risk" notes that overlapping jurisdictions create further problems when multiple agencies take action following accidents. According to California's Office of Oil ' Spill Prevention, at least 58 agencies responded to the July 1992 Dunsmuir spill when a tank car carrying the pesticide metam sodium derailed above the Sacramento River. In June 1992, at least 20 agencies took action following a fire at the Rhone-Poulenc facility in , Martinez, California. At least 18 agencies were involved following the General Chemical oleum spill.' The report recommends that federal, state and local authorities work together to reduce overlap. Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) must provide strong ' leadership to coordinate response; LEPCs should also initiate prevention and emergency response programs year-round. Congress should provide additional resources for these programs. "Living with Risk" criticizes General Chemical for failing to provide its employees with adequate training for unloading tank cars, and emphasizes the importance of training in all aspects of industry operations. Accident prevention is primarily the responsibility of 1 A list of agencies responding to each incident appears in the appendix. The list of agencies responding to the Rhone-Poulenc accident was compiled by Contra Costa Office of Emergency Services. The list of , agencies responding to Dunsmuir was compiled by the state Office of Emergency Services. . Page 2 Living with Risk December, 1993 industry,-the report finds, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should require prompt compliance with workplace review requirements approved by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Public health is inextricably linked to the condition of the environment; the report recommends that additional research be performed to determine the cumulative and ' synergistic impacts of exposure to permitted and unpermitted releases of dangerous chemicals. "Living with Risk" finds that the neighborhoods most frequently affected by hazardous materials are disproportionately minority communities. The report recommends that Congress and the agencies act to mitigate and to redress-these environmental injustices. In addition, science has been slow to recognize that exposure to toxics affects men, women, and children differently. Affected communities, including Richmond, have a high proportion ' of female-headed households. ' The report recognizes that the hazardous materials industry plays a vital role in the U.S. economy and manufactures products considered essential to modern American life. However, the use of dangerous chemicals must be reduced and increased effort made to identify safe alternatives. Government intervention has encouraged industry to lessen its dependence on hazardous materials through such mechanisms as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which mandates industry reporting of routine releases. Since the TRI was introduced, ' industry has consistently reduced these releases. Contra Costa County has the highest concentration of hazardous materials per square ' mile of any-county in California. The region's residents live daily with the threat posed by these materials. Although the risk of accidents can never be eliminated, all possible steps must be taken to reduce this risk. Steps must also be taken to improve current emergency ' notification and response procedures. The recommendations outlined in this report should be followed to help achieve these goals. GRGEM Chairman Page 3 Living with Risk December, 1993 I. INTRODUCTION In 1984, a deadly chemical leak at the Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India focused world attention on industrial accidents involving acutely hazardous materials.' More than 3,800 people died and hundreds of thousands were injured following exposure to the deadly cloud of gas,4 Thousands more have died or continue to suffer adverse health effects in the years since the accident. Many viewed Bhopal as an isolated tragedy that could never have occurred in the United States. However, a 1985 report on the accident by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions concluded: Our investigation revealed ... that none of the factors that caused or contributed to the .' Bhopal accident were unique to the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. Indeed[,] the causes we identified are common to many chemical manufacturing and other industrial processes throughout the world.' Bhopal prompted a flurry of federal and state initiatives, as well as industry and community efforts aimed at improving worker and public safety. Many of these were ' advocated by the environmental community, which has been instrumental in improving hazardous materials management. In 1986, the U.S. Congress recognized the need for communities to be informed about hazardous substances handled by local industrial facilities with passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).' ' 3 The term "hazardous materials" has a number of different statutory definitions. Most are based on relative toxicity, the cancer-causing properties of the substance and the safety hazards associated with the ' material. The term is used broadly in this report to describe substances that pose a threat to public health and safety. This report discusses the storage and transportation of hazardous materials, and the accidental release of these materials. It does not address oil spills, which are regulated separately under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Coon, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 4 Fatal Hazardous Materials Accidents in Industry, Domestic and Foreign Experience from 1945 to 1991. ' Resources for the Future; June L. 1993. s The Trade Union Report on Bhopal: The Report of the ICFTU-ICEF Mission to Study the Causes and Effects of the Methyl Isocyanate Gas Leak at the Union Carbide Pesticide Plant in Bhopal, India on December 2-3, 1984. 6 Also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 or "SARA." 42 U.S.C. §§ 1 100 1-1 1050(1988) Page 4 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 , In 1990, Congress approved amendments to the Clean Air Act' (CAA) requiring industrial , facilities to develop emergency response plans. Many states and cities have approved additional safety measures. The result is a complex patchwork of legislation and regulation ' at federal, state and local levels. Despite this heightened awareness of the dangers of hazardous materials, the risk of accidents persists. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 7,000 accidents involving hazardous chemicals have been reported in the U.S. over the past five years. These accidents killed 136 people, injured some 1,500 others and led to the ' evacuation of an additional 217,000.8 The San Francisco Bay Area, with more than 60 industrial facilities lining its ' waterfront, is particularly susceptible to serious accidents. Since 1988 Contra Costa County, on the east side of San Francisco Bay, has been the site of at least sixteen major accidents involving hazardous materials. In Martinez, the county seat, a fire at a Rhone-Poulenc ' sulfuric acid recycling facility in 1992 killed one worker and seriously injured another. The most recent incident.occurred on July 26, 1993, when the valve on a rail tank car filled with oleum9 ruptured'during 'unloading at the General Chemical facility in the city of Richmond. , Escaping oleum created a sulfuric acid cloud several miles long. Several thousand people sought medical treatment following exposure to the toxic cloud.'' The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on August 10, 1993 in Richmond to examine industry and local community initiatives to improve hazardous materials management. The Committee heard testimony from federal, state and local officials as well as from Richmond Pub. L. No. 101-549(1990). 8 "Enhancing the Public's Right-to-Know About Environmental Issues" by Gary D. Bass, Ph.D., and Alair MacLean, p 6. The article appeared in the Vol. 4 No. 2 (Spring 1993) issue of the Villanova Environmental Law Journal. Oleum, also known as "fuming sulfuric acid," consists of sulfur trioxide dissolved in sulfuric acid. , When released into the atmosphere, the sulfur trioxide combines with moisture in the air to form more sulfuric acid. Oleum is a ha=rdous material. 10 On October 5, 1993 a smaller oleum release at the Tosco Refinery in Martinez occurred when a pipeline developed a thumb-sized hole. Local residents were advised to remain indoors for approximately three hours while Tosco closed the valve and emptied the pipeline. On October 8, 1993 an acid tank at the Shell Oil facility in Martinez exploded, starting a fire that burned for about 45 minutes. No one was injured by the explosion or the fire. On November 7 an ammonia-filled rail car at the Chevron agriculture chemical plant in Richmond ' leaked while being emptied. Approximately 100 pounds of ammonia spilled, but there were no injuries. Page 5 ' Living With Risk December, 1993 ' residents affected by the General Chemical spill. Although this report cites testimony from the hearing, Contra Costa County is not exceptional in its juxtaposition of industry and large ' population centers. As West County" Supervisor Tom Powers observed at the August 10 hearing: ' [W]e are not unique in Contra Costa. Industrial facilities handling hazardous materials exist throughout the state and country and often border residential and commercial districts. Hazardous materials are routinely transported by railroad and truck through countless more communities. We are all potentially at risk and all have a responsibility of finding a safer way to handle these toxic compounds. (Tr- 231 1)12 Tr.2311)12 ' Communities that experience problems similar to those in Contra Costa County include: ' • "Cancer Alley," Louisiana where approximately one hundred oil refineries and chemical manufacturing plants line the Mississippi between New Orleans and ' Baton Rouge. • South Central Los Angeles, which is sometimes called California's "most toxic ' neighborhood." Resident Juanita Tate describes her community: "We've got no drug rehabilitation centers, no treatment center, no jobs ... . But we've got ' toxic industries[.]-13 • The "Toxic Doughnut" in Southeast Chicago, where steel mills, factories, landfills, contaminated lagoons and incinerators surround a community of ' 10,000 people. While most citizens may presume that federal and state laws protect Americans from the risks associated with hazardous materials used in industry, this presumption is overly optimistic. In fact, far from prohibiting all releases of toxic materials, routine industrial "West County" is the western portion of Contra Costa County, and includes the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El-Cerrito, Kensington, Hercules, Pinole, Rodeo, Crockett and Port Costa. ' 'Z "Tr." cites to the stenographic transcript of the August 10, 1993 hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Natural Resources, entitled "The Community and Toxics: Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials." ' 3 "Fighting Toxic Racism: L.A. minority neighborhood is the `dirtiest' in the state," Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1991. ' Page 6 Living with Risk December, 1993 , emissions are currently permitted under the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and other federal statutes. According to the 1991 Toxic Release Inventory,14 19 million tons of chemicals were released or transferred off-site. In 1989, the , latest year for which figures are available, 197.5 million tons of hazardous waste were generated, of which 2.28 million tons were landfilled, 1.28 million tons were incinerated and 28 million tons were injected into underground wells.ls In addition to federal statutes, many states, including California, have instituted their own laws that govern the management of hazardous materials. But these state provisions , may at times be challenged on the ground that federal law pieempts them. California's program, one of the most advanced in the country, is now facing such a challenge. An industry petition currently pending before the federal Department of Transportation argues , that California's state laws should be superseded by less stringent federal laws. If this preemption application is approved counties in California, including Contra Costa, might be deprived of the ability to protect themselves. , Frequently, racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by planned and ' unplanned releases. The landmark 1987 United Church of Christ report "Toxic Waste and Race"16 first drew public attention to the issue. Although the EPA has set up an Office of Environmental Equity, little action has yet been taken by either the Congress or by the , executive agencies to redress or prevent inequities. The purpose of this report is not to side with industry or with local residents; rather, , it is to examine broader questions relating to the coexistence of communities and contaminants. It identifies regulatory gaps, but also suggests strategies for a unified approach to the problem of living with toxics. The balance between these interests will be ' difficult, but must be achieved for the overall health of our communities. 14 'the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) was set up under SARA Title III and mandates reporting of ' chemical releases. See page 14 for a more complete description of the TRI. Is 1989 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report; February 1991, Office of Solid Waste and , Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 16 "Toxic Waste and Race in the United States; a National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites," Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ, 1987. Page 7 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 ' H. DISCUSSION ' A. CONaViUNITY AND INDUSTRY I Contra Costa County, to the east of San Francisco, is representative of many other heavily industrialized communities in the United States. Residents have reluctantly become accustomed to living with the risks posed by industry; most will continue to live with the threat. Many are employed by industry, and these jobs are critical to the county's economic base. Gary Brown, Director of Contra Costa County's Office of Emergency Services plans to remain in the area: "I was born and raised in this county, lived here all my life. I am not going to move out of the county because there are chemicals present.""' Other residents may not be able to afford to move. In Contra Costa, as in other communities, coexistence is the goal. Much of the testimony cited in this report concerns the General Chemical oleum spill in Richmond. While this was a serious accident that affected the entire community, it should ' not be viewed as an isolated incident. Rather, it is an example of an accident involving hazardous materials that might have occurred in other industrialized regions of the U.S. Each affected community faces similar problems: how to achieve the best prevention possible, and how to respond to an accident when one occurs. ' Both Congress and the states have approved measures that require community and industry to plan for potential accidents. Although federal and state measures address prevention and emergency response, loopholes persist within the maze of regulation. For example, in California, rail tank cars used for storage of hazardous materials are insufficiently regulated at either the federal or state level. Industry also can play a major role in reducing incidents through voluntary actions such as effective worker training. Although federal and state agencies must be prepared to lend their expertise, accident response must be primarily a local responsibility, because each accident is unique and regional factors determine the appropriate response. It is local authorities who are most familiar with weather conditions, traffic patterns and evacuation procedures. ' This report discusses ways in which Contra Costa County, and to some extent California, have sought to provide effective prevention and accident response to their residents. Other communities may have taken different approaches, but they all are striving 17 Tr. 462. ' Page 8 Living with Risk December, 1993 to achieve the same goal--safe, productive communities in which residents and industry can , coexist. 1. ACCIDENTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ' Industry came to Contra Costa County around the turn of the century, attracted by , cheap land and a plentiful water supply. The region prospered; the Richmond shipyards once employed over ninety thousand people. Although the shipyards are now closed, a strong manufacturing presence remains in the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules, , Pittsburg and Martinez. Industrial facilities line the coast, including Chevron, Shell and Tosco oil refineries as well as major chemical producers such as Dow Chemical, Du Pont and Zeneca. Richmond Councilwoman Rosemary Corbin described the region: ' The industrial rim of Contra Costa County is loaded with industry, railroad lines, and housing; and it is next to San Francisco Bay. Much of it is on alluvial soil, and earthquake faults run through it. (Tr. 3829) Contra Costa has the highest concentration of hazardous materials per square mile of , any county in California, and is second only to Los Angeles in the total amount of dangerous chemicals stored in the county." Michael Belliveau of Citizens for a Better Environment , listed the hazardous materials stored in Contra Costa: Nearly 127 million pounds of 50 different acutely hazardous chemical are in storage at any one time in the county, at 129 different separate industrial plants and public facilities[.] Mhis does not include the same materials that are located in rail cars, pipelines, trucks, ships or barges. These are just on site at industrial facilities. (Tr. ' 2816) Unplanned chemical releases and spills have long been part of Contra Costa's history. Henry , Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition described his childhood, "I can recall chemical accidents when I was growing up, the periodic explosions that rocked our house and broke windows... ."19 Since 1980 there have been more than 35 serious accidents in and around Contra Costa County.20 On June 22, 1992 a major spill and fire at the Martinez Rhone- Poulenc plant killed one employee, Louis Torres, and seriously injured another. Rhone- is "Deadly Neighbors," San Francisco Chronicle, August 8, 1993. ' 19 Tr. 1530. 20 A complete list of the accidents to which the County Hazardous Materials Unit responded 1980-1993 ' appears in the appendix. Page 9 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' Poulenc is the region's leader in the storage of dangerous materials, with over 39 million pounds of extremely dangerous chemicals on site." ' The frequent accidents in Contra Costa County have led to the widespread community outrage and anger that were clearly evident at the August 10 hearing. Henry Clark voiced some of these feelings: We are the ones that were chemically assaulted ... we are the ones whose human dignity was trampled on ... . (Tr. 1891) However, local residents were also aware that they must find answers to the question of how to live with industry. North Richmond community activist Donald Watts described problems associated with coexistence: ' Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this situation is the fact that these industries are going to continue to be our neighbors whether we like it or not. With that in mind, it is imperative that we find ways to ensure the safety of everyone living and working near these facilities. (Tr. 1763) General Chemical Accident; July 26, 1993 The most recent serious accident occurred at General Chemical in Richmond which recycles sulfuric acid, primarily for the nearby Chevron refinery. The facility had shut-down June 14 to June 26, 1993 while undergoing modernization. The company stored oleum in rail cars for a month before the closure so that it could continue to meet customer demands.22 Once full operation resumed, the company returned the stored oleum to the production process. ' The company completed unloading one tank car July 22, and on July 26 began unloading a second. At approximately 7:15 am, a disk on the pressure vent of the rail tank car ruptured. Thousands of gallons of oleum escaped, creating a toxic sulfuric acid cloud several square miles in size. Donald Watts described how he fust learned of the spill: On the morning of the accident, at approximately 7:40 am, I was driving my two children, ages three and five, to their preschool on Carlson Avenue in Richmond. I heard on the radio there had been a small toxic spill at the Chevron refinery. I thought to myself, should I keep the kids in the car and bring them in to work in San 21 "Deadly Neighbors," San Francisco Examiner, August 8, 1993. a Tr. 692. 1 Page 10 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' Francisco: no, I decided to go ahead and take the children to school because these ' things happen all the time and I didn't want to overreact. No sooner had I arrived at work than I realized the news stories had been wrong on , two accounts. It wasn't Chevron, and it wasn't small. (Tr. 1737) At 7:45 am Contra Costa County dispatched its Hazardous Materials Unit to General Chemical Corporation and initiated emergency response procedures. The General Chemical tank car had a vent system, which remained open, permitting ' continued oleum emissions. Had the car been fitted with a valve system, the valve would have closed automatically once pressure had been reduced. Jack Kroeger, Production , General Manager for General Chemical Corporation described how the leak was plugged: Employees began contacting the appropriate response agencies, including the Contra , Costa Health Services Department, the City of Richmond Fire Department, and Chevron's Mutual Aid. Subsequently, the Office of Emergency Service and the National Response Center also were contacted. ' Through the efforts of these agencies and General Chemical employees, a new rupture , disk was installed at about 10:15 am, and the release was stopped completely by approximately 11:00 am. The company estimates that roughly 3.9 tons of sulfur trioxide was expelled from the rail car into the air. (Tr. 339) , As many as twenty thousand people sought medical treatment following exposure to the toxic cloud caused by the oleum leak.' Hospitals in the immediate spill area were so ' overwhelmed that buses shuttled patients for treatment to hospitals in neighboring Oakland and Vallejo. Visibility in the vicinity of the General Chemical Plant was greatly reduced. As the chemical fog spread, firefighters closed Interstate 80 and shut down commuter trains, , bus services and mail delivery. Dr. Wendel Brunner called it, "the most serious release that has occurred in my ten years as public health director in the county."' Many industrial facilities in Contra Costa County are justifiably proud of their safety , records and advertise the number of accident-free days on billboards at their entrances. General Chemical had erected one that, ironically, congratulated the workforce on the safe ' On Jul 29, General Chemical announced it would a for initial medical treatment for residents ' Y PY following the accident. Tr. 378. u Tr. 2593. , Page 11 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 ' start-up of the sulfuric acid reactor.' Jack Krueger, General Chemical General Manager, expressed his commitment to the safe operation of the Richmond facility: I am personally, and I think the company is personally, committed to not having accidents. We are committed to running safe plants. (Tr. 786) ' Following the July 26 leak, Robert Jewett, plant manger for General Chemical, told the press, "Let me assure everyone, this is an isolated incident."I ' However, in April, 1993 the California Occupational'Safety and Health Administration (CAL-OSHA) fined General Chemical $127,425 for 57 health and safety violations.27 CAL-OSHA carried out the inspection following the accident at the Rhone- Poulenc facility, which also reformulates sulfuric acid. General Chemical is currently appealing the fine. Also in April, California EPA fined General Chemical $137,500 for 34 ' violations of hazardous waste laws.2s The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) issued ten notices of violation against General Chemical's Richmond plant over the last five years." Krueger defended General Chemical's safety record in light of these fines: [P]rior to the CAL-OSHA visit this year, I think the only fines that had been initiated ' against the site were less than $3,000 since General Chemical has managed the facility. (Tr. 77) ' Unloading oleum from rail tank cars was not a routine procedure at General Chemical's Richmond facility. The company had, however, unloaded oleum from tank cars at its Delaware facility. Jack Krueger also suggested that unloading rail tanks was similar to unloading tank trucks, a procedure with which the Richmond facility was experienced. Under questioning from Chairman Miller, Jack Krueger defended the company's training for employees involved in the unloading process: ' 'S Tr. 3304. 26 Sacramento Bee, July 27, 1993. n San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 1993. 28 rbid. m Chemical Regulation Reporter, July 30, 1993. ' Page 12 Living with Risk December, 1993 , Mr. NE LLE : Let us start with the question of whether or not the training took ' • place. Was there training? Mr. KROEGER: Yes, there was. ' Mr. NIII.T—FR: And that was based upon the experience the company has with the handling of oleum at another facility you have? Mr. KROEGER: With that and also we handle oleum at the facility in trucks, ' which is not all that different from loading into a rail car. So the facility has a lot of experience handling oleum. (Tr. 728) Yetrts b both the BAAQMD and the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) , � y found that operators had received insufficient training. The PUC report concluded that "[General Chemical Corporation] failed to have in place a training program which included a ' check system for unloading oleum from tank cars.X30 According to the BAAQMD, "The operation was commenced without providing the operators with training and/or experience in loading/unloading railroad tank cars with fuming sulfuric acid."" The report also ' commented on the unloading of the first rail tank car: It took all of two weeks to unload the first car due to a number of difficulties ' encountered by plant personnel, including a spill. Plant operating personnel had previously indicated that they were concerned about the potential for an accident. ' The operation was continued. In fact, during the loading of this same tank car in June, plant records indicate an earlier release. The BAAQMD further criticized General Chemical for unloading the tank car without the ' requisite permits from the District. According to the BAAQMD, unloading procedures would have been reviewed during the permitting process. , 30 Public Utilities Commission, State of California, Commission Staff Report 93-0715,Hazardous Materials Accident/Incident Investigation , General Chemical Corporation. Richmond, California, July 26, , 19093; Prepared by Dennis L. Biggs, Associate Transportation Operations Supervisor, Railroad Operations and Safety Section. 31 Memo from Air Pollution Control Office to Chairperson Hilligoss and Members of the Board of ' Directors re General Chemical Incident of July 26, 1993. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Page 13 ' ' Living with Risk December, 1993 ' Following the July 26 release, General Chemical decided not to use rail cars again to transport oleum in the Richmond facility.32 Mark Lindsey of the Federal Railroad Administration questioned the wisdom of this policy: ... I would like to suggest that perhaps the people that decision might wish to reexamine it because a tank truck is not quite as sturdy as a tank car. (Tr. 1228) 2. PREVENTION All industrialized communities seek to minimize accidents through prevention programs. Acquiring information about the potential dangers is vital to the planning of an effective prevention program. Information by itself does not reduce risk; it must be used to identify threats and to develop strategies to minimize hazards. a. Federal Prevention Programs Congress' concern about the potential for widespread impacts from industrial accidents was heightened by the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Despite opposition from the Executive Branch in the 1980s, Congress took several steps that increased community ability to collect information and to identify risks. In 1986 Congress passed the "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know ' Act."" The law required each Governor to set up a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). In turn, each SERC established Local Emergency Planning ' Committees (LEPCs) to evaluate local chemical hazards, plan for accidents and develop emergency response plans. Local businesses are required to notify the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department if hazardous chemicals are present in their facilities and to provide the groups with any information they might require to facilitate emergency planning. Any release of an extremely hazardous substance must be reported to both agencies. SARA Title III also set up the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which mandates annual reporting of ' routine releases of some 320 toxic chemicals into the air, water, land and deep injection wells. TRI data is sent to EPA and to a state-designated agency. LEPCs do not, however, automatically receive the information. 92 Tr. 814. ' 33 "EPCRA" is also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 or "SARA." Page 14 Living with Risk December, 1993 , Although the TRI program is widely viewed as a success and has prompted many ' companies to reduce releases, the program has its shortcomings. Only some 320 chemicals must be reported, and the list omits several known or suspect human carcinogens.' In addition, polluters are allowed to monitor their own emissions and methods for estimating releases are not standardized. There is also no indication of when pollutants are released. Releases may be spread throughout the year, be concentrated in a much shorter period or ' occur in a single accidental spill.35 Furthermore, in 1991 EPA received reports from only 23,719 facilities, although the General Accounting Office calculated that 29,000 should have provided information.16 ' In 1990, Congress approved amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), which required industry and federal agencies to take steps to reduce chemical accidents. The law required FPA to establish a list of regulated substances and to promulgate accident prevention regulations, including risk management plans to be developed by industry.37 The CAA amendments further called for a Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to review , accidents. A presidential study was also mandated to clarify and to coordinate responsibilities among federal agencies involved in chemical release prevention, in order to identify any omissions and regulatory overlaps. r In addition, the CAA amendments called on the Occupational Safety and Health ' Administration (OSHA) to adopt a Process Safety Management standard for handling highly hazardous materials in the workplace. OSHA adopted the standard on February 24, 1992. Its requirements include a workplace process hazard analysis, periodic audits, standard operating procedures, training, maintenance, pre-startup safety review, emergency response, and accident investigation. 3 "The Toxic Release Inventory excludes over 500 chemicals listed as toxics under various environmental laws ... ." "The Right to Know More," researched and written by Deborah A. Sheiman, Resource Specialist, Natural Resources Defmse Council, May 1991. 's TRI data from "Enhancing the Public's Right-to-Know About Environmental Issues" by Gary D. Bass, Ph.D., and Alair Maclean. The article appeared in the Vol. 4 No. 2 (Spring 1993) issue of the Villanova Environmental Law Journal. U.S. General Accounting Office. EPA's Toxic Release Inventory is Useful but Can Be Improved, r GAO/RCED-91-121. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991, p.49. 37 EPA published the proposed list of regulated substances January 19, 1993, and published the proposed Risk Management Program rule October 21, 1993. Page 15 I Living with Risk December, 1993 ' b. State Prevention Programs ' California legislators were prompted by the Bhopal incident to adopt state measures reducing the risk of industrial accidents. Industries handling acutely hazardous materials must submit business plans that identify inventories of these materials. In 1986, the State added the Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) under which industrial ' facilities must provide county authorities with a comprehensive hazards evaluation for acutely hazardous materials. RMPP variously refers to the state program or to each facility's ' program-33 Information collected under these statutes is effective only when used to identify risk. ' Many RMPP plans overwhelm local planners in heavily industrialized areas. For example, Contra Costa County lacks adequate resources to review them in a timely manner. Dr. Brunner described an RMPP plan: These are enormous plans ... The Chevron plant, just the hazardous) op[eration]s and all the documentation for it fills ten filing cabinets. (Tr. 3486) Despite budget constraints, Contra Costa is further ahead with the RMPP process than any other county in California.39 Chairman Miller questioned Dr. Brunner about the length of ' time required for county review of General Chemical's risk management plan: Mr. MILLER: Where are we with respect to General Chemical's plan? Dr. BRUNNER: We are currently in the process of reviewing that now. Mr. M1 -T E : That was submitted in 1991; is that correct? ' Dr. BRUNNER: Yes. (Tr. 3478) All agencies at the federal, state and local levels contend with problems posed by inadequate resources. Contra Costa County has three engineers40 working on prevention; the Federal 38 A more complete description,of the Risk Management and Prevention Program and other state laws may be found on page 28. 39 Tr. 3455. ' 40 Tr. 28%. Page 16 1 Living With Risk December, 1993 Railroad Administration has only 358 inspectors nationwide, supplemented in California ' by 124 state inspectors.al California has taken a more proactive response to adopting prevention plans than ' many other states. However, its RMPP still does not identify all risks. For example, unloading oleum was not procedure included in General Chemical's RMPP. The company had 60 days following start-up of the new procedure in which to notify the county. -Dr. ' Walker voiced his concern about this gap in prevention notification: ('I']he use of a rail car for unloading at General Chemical is not part of their normal ' operation and, therefore was not part of their RMPP. And that is an area of major concern to me, the fact we can have regulatory programs and yet have the opportunity , for a company to put into place an unusual kind of procedure without proper notification of anyone, the health department, the air district and surrounding communities, or anyone else. That is a major loophole that needs to be addressed. (Tr. 929) Action may soon be taken to close the loophole; Assemblyman Bob Campbell, who , represents Central Contra Costa County, plans to introduce legislation in the new session of the state Assembly requiring facilities to notify local officials before undertaking new procedures. , c. Industry Prevention Programs The consequences of an accidental 1 far-reaching d costl . In March ' seq tal re ease are an y 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. The disaster has, by Exxon's own estimates, cost well over $2 billion in clean-up costs,42 plus a $1 billion settlement for civil and criminal claims.43 Thousands of private damage claims against Exxon remain outstanding. These estimates do , not include the company's intangible costs of the spill, such as adverse publicity. While the Exxon Valdez was the largest oil spill in U.S. history, less serious industrial accidents can also be expensive. Chairman Miller commented on the costs of accident prevention:41 ' Tr. 1117. 42 "Judge OKs oil-spill settlement," Anchorage Daily News, October 9, 1991. ' 4 "Natural Resources Restoration: Use of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement Funds," U.S. General , Accounting Office, August, 1993, GAO/RCED-93-206BR. Page 17 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 [I] think each and every time we review an industrial accident ... for the most part we ... find that where you have untrained people or you don't have procedures in place, that the costs of putting procedures in place, of training individuals to carry out that particular function, would have been far cheaper than the resulting accident. (Tr. 3236) Several witnesses expressed their conviction that industry must be responsible for safe operation. While county, state and federal agencies all have an oversight role, it is not their job to ensure that industry complies with legislated safety measures. Industry has taken several steps to improve safety in the handling of hazardous materials. In Massachusetts, industry and environmentalists supported passage of the Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989, which aims to achieve a 50% reduction state-wide in the use of toxics by 1997.44 The Chemical Manufacturers Association sponsors the Responsible Care rprogram to promote safety; all member organizations must participate as a condition of association membership. One Responsible Care initiative is the Community Awareness and Emergency Response code of management practices, which aims to assure emergency preparedness and to foster community right-to-know. At least one industry in the region, Clorox, had already recognized the risks associated with tank cars before the General Chemical leak. The company constructed a cement rail enclosure for loading and unloading tank cars in order to reduce the threat of toxic leaks to the community. Although any accident has multiple causes, perhaps the single most important factor in risk prevention is worker training. A 1986 Office of Technology Assessment report on the Transportation of Hazardous Materials found that: More often than not it is people problems--inadequately trained personnel, poor coordination and communication--or lack of information and advance planning that cause accidents, injuries, or environmental damage. The same report found that 62% of reported hazardous materials spills are caused by human error. Greg Feere of the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council recalled growing up in Contra Costa County and how he learned of the importance of training: w Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. ' U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Transportation of Hazardous Materials, OTA-SET-304(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1986). Page 18 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' My father was an oil and atomic worker. And I sat across the dinner table when I ' was growing up and got firsthand accounts of the accidents, the explosions, the near misses. And when I was younger, I really didn't know exactly what my father did in ' these refineries. But as I got older, I got a firsthand understanding of the every day risk of these workers, that have to stay there after the work and construction is completed. And if that is not done right, their health and safety and livelihood of the , people who maintain it, as well as the people of the community, are all at risk. (Tr. 3204) While communities can become involved in many aspects of accident prevention, , worker training is exclusively an industry responsibility. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 required industry to develop a comprehensive management plan for handling acutely hazardous chemicals. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) developed a Process Safety Management Standard for Highly Hazardous Chemicals; Explosive and Blasting Agents; the final rule was published by OSHA on February 24, 1992. , One requirement of the standard is that selected industries perform Public Hazards Analyses (PHAs), to identify potential risks in the workplace from improper handling of hazardous chemicals.' Although OSHA allows up to five years for PHAs to be completed,47 industry witnesses testifying on the proposed rule indicated that they had , already conducted these analyses or similar reviews: "The process hazard analysis shall address: (i) The hazards of the process; ' (ii) 'The identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace' (iii) Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such ' as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases. (Acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control instrumentation with alarms, and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors.] ' (iv) Facility siting; (vi) Human factors; and (vii) A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls on employees in the workplace." 29 CFR §1910.119(e)(1)(1992).47 ' "The process hazard analysis shall be conducted as soon as possible, but not later than the following schedule: ' (i) No less than 25 percent of the initial process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1994; (ii) No less than 50 percent of the initial'process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1995; (iii) No less than 75 percent of the initial process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1995; (iv) All initial process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1997." 29 CFR §1910.119(e)(1) (1992). Page 19 ' Living With Risk December, 1993 In January of this year, the American Petroleum Institute issued our industry's standard fbr the very subject we address here today. Developed in consultation with ' [OSHA], it closely parallels your proposed regulation.48 The Dow minimum requirements state that: "Each location shall have an appropriate and active program for reactive chemicals testing and reviews. Regular reviews of process reactive.hazards shall be required for existing processes, new processes, and whenever key personnel or a process changes, as well as a thorough review of laboratory or pilot plant data prior to scale-up.n49 'The enforceability of the workplace risk standard has been the subject of ongoing dispute among OSHA, industries and labor unions. d. Computer Technology ' Computer technology has become increasingly important in prevention efforts and in disseminating information to affected communities. Toxic Release Inventory data is available ron computer disk and numerous other databases carry information on hazardous materials useful in developing prevention programs. The Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations software package developed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in conjunction with EPA is designed to manage industry-supplied data. It includes mapping capability and response information, and is available to emergency planners ' at minimal cost. The INTERNET system provides an effective and efficient means of disseminating information. ' One of the.networks that has proven most valuable to residents of heavily industrialized communities is the Right-to-Know NetworkSO (RTK-NET). RTK-NET was developed by non-profit organizations to provide the public with information about pollution ' in communities throughout the United States. It carries Toxic Release Inventory data, information about the health effects of chemicals, regulatory reporting requirements, data on civil suits brought on behalf of EPA and census results. The network plans to add OSHA 's Testimony of American Petroleum Institute on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Process Safety Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, D.C., December 5, 1990. 49 The Dow Chemical Company, Testimony of John R. Gallamore on OSHA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Proposed Rulemaking Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals; March 6, 1991. w RTK-NET is operated by OMB Watch and the Unison Institute in Washington, DC. Page 20 Living with Risk December, 1993 inspection information, emissions permit data,51 health trends and credit practices. , Although this information has been made public in various forms, it has not been brought together before on a single database that can be accessed easily anywhere in the country. Technologyalone, however, cannot tee effective accident response. In , �n Congress, Representative Douglas Applegate (D-OH) has argued for the creation of a national agency to track hazardous materials shipments. In 1990, Congress called upon the National Academy of Sciences to study "a central reporting system and computerized telecommunications data center that is capable of receiving, storing, and retrieving data concerning all daily shipments of hazardous materials"" Although the Academy's report recommended improvements to the existing system for providing information to emergency responders, it recommended against implementing a national tracking system since the system would not rectify the most serious failures in existing procedures. In addition, it determined that such a system would fall short on setting standards and on making good use of industry capabilities. However, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recently set up a pilot project in the Houston area so that emergency response units may access the FRA computer system in the event of an accident. r si Permits that must be obtained by facilities to comply with Clean Air Act, the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act and other statutes. ' I Hazardous Materials Shipment Information for Emergency Response, Committee for the Assessment of a National Hazardous Materials Shipments Identification System; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1993. Page 21 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 3. EMERGENCY RESPONSE Prevention does not always avert accidents. Industry and communities must therefore ' develop emergency response systems to minimize the public health impacts of unplanned releases of hazardous materials. Under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, industrial facilities will be required to develop emergency response plans. In California, this is already required under the state's ' Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP). As with accident prevention, computer technology can also be useful in emergency response. The Chemical Manufacturers Association set up CHEMTREC, a computerized electronic data storage system, to provide responding agencies with information and technical assistance on chemicals involved in accidents. In July 1991, was used by emergency teams responding to a rail car derailment that spilled 19,000 gallons of metam sodium into the Sacramento River near ' Dunsmuir in Northern California. Effective accident response must, however, primarily be a local responsibility since it ' is residents who are most familiar with area conditions. A key element in response is notification. In Contra Costa County, the principle mechanism for alerting county residents is the Community Alert Network (CAH a computerized telephone system that can ' automatically call houses affected by the spill. Following the Richmond oleum leak, the system made 1,569 calls in 48 minutes to homes in the immediate vicinity of the General Chemical plant. However, only 857 of these calls got through S3 Dr. Walker believed that the CAN system functioned, "as best as the CAN system can work,"' but emphasized that CAN was only part of the notification network that would be necessary to alert residents.ss Two shortcomings of the CAN system have already been addressed. Governor Wilson authorized the release of previously inaccessible unlisted phone numbers to ' emergency response agencies in a bill signed October 5, 1993. As of January 1, 1994 the CAN system will double the number of calls made simultaneously from fifty to one hundred. ' Other notification systems currently being implemented in Contra Costa County include establishing a low-power radio station to warn residents of chemical.releases or emergencies. Industry will contribute $20,000 toward the low-wattage transmitter, which is ' S3 Tr. 622. 54 Tr. 626. Tr. 629. ' Page 22 Living with Risk December, 1993 , expected to begin broadcasting early next year.S' At the August 10 hearing, many t witnesses suggested installing a siren alert system. However, a siren system might create confusion since each accident is unique involving different hazardous chemicals and , conditions. Dr. Walker described some of the problems: Mstablishment of sirens sounds like a simple approach. It is ... complex ... and ' requires an ongoing commitment to community education to make sure that people understand what to do when the siren goes off. I, nonetheless, believe that we can do that. , We have been in discussion with the Community Awareness and Emergency Response group, which represents industry agencies and the public in Contra Costa County, over the last several months on the siren issue. A current proposal is now being looked at to establish county-wide standards for establishing a siren system. (Tr. 638) ' Although Contra Costa County enjoys one of the most effective notification systems in the country, it is also clear that no notification system will ever meet every demand. Again, Dr. ' Walker described its limitations: Will it ever be good enough? No. It will never be good enough in that not every , citizen will either hear the sirens or get a phone call. (Tr. 658) Despite Contra Costa's experience in accident response, many were still uncertain about how to react following the General Chemical accident. Firefighters favored evacuation but were overruled by county health officials, who believed it was safer for residents to remain indoors with windows closed rather than risking increased exposure outsides' ' Another factor that can hamper effective emergency response is the enormous overlap among federal, state and local agencies that have a statutory mandate to respond to accidents. , Fifty-eight agencies took action following the July 1992 Dunsmuir spill. At least 20 agencies responded to the June 1992 Rhone-Poulenc accident, and 18 agencies were involved following the July 1993 General Chemical spills$ This overlap contributes to coordination The total cost of the project is unimown at this time. San Francisco Chronicle, August 4, 1993. ' A list of agencies responding to each incident appears in the appendix. The list of agencies responding ' to the Rhone-Poulenc accident was compiled by Contra Costa Office of Emergency Services. The list of agencies responding to Dunsmuir was compiled by the state Office of Emergency Services. Page 23 t ' Living with Risk December, 1993 ' and leadership problems, which make it difficult for community and industry leaders alike to obtain information necessary for improving local safety. Following the General Chemical spill, Contra Costa County formed the "Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force" to improve emergency response. The task force is ' currently developing a planning document,S9 which will illustrate how regulatory authorities are involved following an accident. Once mechanisms for response are understood, the county will be able to streamline them. B. ABSENCE OF SYSTEMATIC REGULATION Overlapping federal and state statutes regulate hazardous materials. These laws have created a complex regulatory patchwork that can be burdensome to both the regulator and to the regulated industry. In some cases, federal and state laws have lead to preemption conflicts discussed later in this report. Congress took steps to reduce the overlap when, in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, it called for a presidential study of "release prevention, mitigation and response authorities of the various Federal agencies." The purpose of the review is to "clarify and coordinate agency responsibilities to assure the most effective and efficient implementation of such authorities and to identify any deficiencies in authority or resources which may exist." ' The findings of the mandated report, currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget, will be critical to reducing statutory and regulatory overlap. ' One area in which the impacts of this patchwork approach can be seen is in federal and state laws governing the use of rail tank cars for transport and storage of hazardous materials. Each year about four billion tons of regulated hazardous materials are shipped, with more than 250,000 shipments entering the transport system daily.60 Many of these shipments are'by rail. In a 1991 study the National Transportation Safety Board found: ' In 1989 ... more than 1.52 million carloads of poisons, chemicals, pesticides, and other hazardous materials were transported by rail in about 107,000 tank cars in other 59 A summary of the planning document appears in the appendix. 6D Testimony of Mr. Bernard S. Loeb, Director, Office of Research and Engineering, National Transportation Safety Board before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives regarding Hazardous Materials Reauthorization; September 22, 1993. ' Page 24 Living with Risk December, 1993 , types of containers. ... This volume represent a 66 percent increase over the 0.92 million carloads of hazardous materials transported by rail in 1985 Rail tank cars can hold as much as 35,000 gallons,62 so accidents involving tank cars carrying hazardous materials can have potentially catastrophic consequences. One such accident occurred on July 14, 1991 when a Southern Pacific train derailed above the ' Sacramento River. One of the cars fell into the river, spilling 19,000 gallons of the pesticide metam sodium. Congresswoman (now Senator) Barbara Boxer, who chaired a congressional investigation into the accident, described the impact on the river,. "This pesticide flowed ' down the river for 45 miles, killing every living thing ... along that stretch. The Sacramento River was one of the foremost trout fishing rivers in America; now it is a virtual graveyard." 63 Both the Dunsmuir and General Chemical spills involved the DOT-111 tank car. Before the July 26 Richmond accident, there had been growing concern about the safety of the DOT-111A tank car, the type involved in the General Chemical leak. The NTSB had noted in May 1991, "The inadequacy of the protection provided by DOT-111A tank cars for ' certain dangerous products has been evident for many years in accidents investigated by the Safety_Board." (emphasis added)` Between 1988 and 1992 there were at least 317 disk failures on the DOT-111A.' There may have been more, but disk failure is not a listed accident for DOT reporting purposes. ' Before the General Chemical spill, the Federal Railroad Administration had already announced that as of October 1, 1993 the DOT-111A tank car could no longer be used to carry certain types of hazardous materials, including oleum. The DOT-111A has been replaced by a new design more resistant to puncture with an improved valve system to ' 61 National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594. Safety Study; Transport of Hazardous Materials by Rail. PB91-917002; NTSB/SS-91/01. ea Hazardous Materials Shipment Information for Emergency Response, Committee for the Assessment of ' a National Hazardous Materials Shipments Identification System; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1993. 1 Adequacy of Laws and Regulations Governing Rail Transportation of Hazardous Chemicals. Hearing ' before the Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, July 31, 1991. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594. Safety Study; Transport of Hazardous Materials by Rail. PB91-917002; NTSB/SS-91/01. Tr. 219. Page 25 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' reduce the possibility of a leaks during loading or unloading. However, according to testimony submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer, General Chemical was unaware that the DOT-111A was to be phased out: I learned in talking to General Chemical's chief counsel that the corporation believed it could still use the model IIIA tank car, involved in the recent incident after 1 October 1st, with some modifications. That is not true. (Tr. 180) Industry has also demonstrated its unfamiliarity or reluctance to comply with the law ' in other areas. Under California state law, industries in Cogtra Costa must file business plans` with the county to report certain hazardous materials stored for more than 30 days. Reports must be made whether the chemical is stored in a fixed facility or in a rail tank car on private or leased tracks, such as the tank car involved in the General Chemical spill. Thus, during the 30-day grace period, county authorities do not know what is stored in the ' area at a given time. Furthermore, according to Barbara Masters of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, industry frequently fails to report rail cars used for storing hazardous materials beyond 30 days. Even though State law does require reporting of materials stored for greater than 30 days in a rail car, as a matter of practice, it doesn't occur very often. There are a ' couple of companies that do routinely report to us rail cars that come in and out and that are storing for greater than 30 days. But that is not a common practice, and it is very difficult for us to get a handle on what is occurring if it is not reported to us. (Tr. 4138) Failure to report tank cars used for storage beyond 30 days is a violation of state law. Following an anonymous tip in December 1989, California Public Utilities Commission Railroad Safety Division and the California Highway Patrol conducted an investigation into the use of rail tank cars for storage of hazardous materials. The investigation found unreported tank cars storing liquid petroleum gas in many East Bay cities. Although the A more complete description of Business Plans and other state laws may be found on page 28. Page 26 Living with Risk December, 1993 , majority of tank cars did not exceed the 30-day threshold above which the tanks must be ' reported, the following violations were confirmed: Tank Cars Gallons Days in Violation Benicia 19 570,000 448 days Tosco/Avon 25 750,000 1485 days Oakland 26 780,000 844 days 67 Before the August 10 hearing, Chairman Miller wrote to every major facility in Contra Costa County requesting information about tank cars used to store dangerous chemicals. Most companies responded promptly and Committee staff estimated that at least ' 555 tank cars were present in the county on August 3, 1993. It is not known how many of these had been reported to the county. Chairman Miller summarized the gap in available information on tank cars: , Federal Department of Transportation regulations cover hazardous materials in transit, but do not extend to these same tank cars when in storage. Although the State requires reporting of tanks used for permanent storage of hazardous materials, few companies apparently comply. Reporting of tank cars used for storage of dangerous ' chemicals for less than 30 days is not required. (Tr. 84) Laws governing the use of tank cars for storage are complex, but they illustrate how regulation has failed to provide the maximum possible prevention. But as Congress and the state seek to eliminate these loopholes, there is a danger of splintering and fragmenting the process still further. 67 Report of Investigation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Case Number: F225-301-89, Violation Data: Continuous thru 1989. California Highway Patrol, Golden Gate Division, Environmental Crimes Unit. Investigator, M.M. Mueller. Page 27 Living with Risk December, 1993 C. FEDERAL PREII1WnON OF STATE LAWS 1. CALMORNIA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY LAWS ' To supplement federal law, several states have approved measures to improve public and environmental safety. California has passed legislation to reduce the likelihood of chemical spills, and to protect the public when such spills occur."' Such statutes necessarily 1 lead to tension between industry's need for consistency and the state's desire to protect residents. Preemption law attempts to resolve these conflict's by determining when federal law should supplant state law. 1 One such preemption issue is currently pending before the federal Department of Transportation; the swimming pool chemicals industry has submitted a petition arguing that ' California's hazardous materials management laws are superseded by less stringent federal requirements. If the federal government approves this application, the entire state program might be in jeopardy. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safe Code CHSC requires businesses �P Safety (CHSC) handling hazardous material to submit a business plan, and establishes emergency response procedures to protect the public in the event of a major chemical spill. The California Public Utility Code (CPUC) establishes a separate set of safety regulations for railroads and railroad safety investigation and enforcement.69 Chapter 6.95 includes the Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP), which is aimed at reducing the accidental release of hazardous materials that might threaten public safety and health. The legislation is predicated on the belief that, "programs designed to prevent [the release of hazardous materials] are the most effective way to protect the 1 community health and safety and the environment.n70 1 °" CHSC §25531 states, "The protection of the public from uncontrolled releases or explosions of hazardous materials is of statewide concern. There is an increasing capacity to both minimize and respond to releases of toxic air contaminants and hazardous materials once they occur, and to formulate efficient plans to evacuate citizens if these discharges or releases cannot be contained." CPUC § 765.5. 7° CHSC § 25531. Page 28 Living with Risk December, 1993 The RU PP requires all owners or operators of facilities that handle "acutely hazardous materials to register with the administering agency.72 The focus of the RMPP is on reviewing and evaluating each facility's plans and programs for reducing the risk of a chemical accident. Facilities must identify the hazardous substance and its location, and describe the processes and equipment used in handling the material.73 The agency may waive the registration requirement if, after a preliminary determination, it concludes that the likelihood of an acutely hazardous materials accident is remote.74 The CHSC also aims to minimize the impact of releases of hazardous materials when they do occur. Businesses that handle hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan.for emergency response to a release or a threatened release of a hazardous material." As with the RMPP registration requirement, the implementing agency may waive the business plan requirement upon a showing by the facility that the material does not pose a significant or potential threat to either human health and safety or the environment.16 The CPUC includes provisions intended to reduce the threat to public health and ' P safety posed by the transportation of hazardous materials by railroad. "The California Legislature's interest in the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail was strongly influenced by the derailments near Dunsmuir and Sea Cliff."" Following these accidents the California Legislature created a Rail Accident Prevention and Response Fund7° and required improved staffing to regulate railroad safety." 71 "Acutely hazardous material" is defined by reference to a federal standard. CHSC §25532(a) defines "acutely hazardous material" as "any chemical designated an extremely hazardous substance which is listed in Appendix A of Part 355 of Subchapter J of Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations." n CHSC § 25533. 73 CHSC § 25533. The County is the administering agency. , 74 CHSC § 25533. 73 CHSC § 25503.5(a). 76 CHSC 125503.5. 77 Written testimony of William H. Well, page 7. Sea Cliff refers to a July 28, 1991 accident when a Southern Pacific train derailed in Sea Cliff, 75 , miles from Los Angeles, spilling hydrazine, a highly toxic chemical. 78 CPUC § 7713. 79 CPUC § 421. Page 29 1 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 2. POSSIBLE PREEMMON OF STATE LAW Under the doctrine of preemption, federal law may displace state law in some circumstances. While legislators and enforcement officials in California have tried to integrate state and community standards with federal law, many parties have asserted that state and local requirements conflict with federal transportation laws. a. Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws The primary authority for issuing federal regulations and developing and implementing federal programs regarding transportation of hazardous materials rests with the Department of Transportation (DOT). A number of other federal organizations including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) all regulate specific aspects of hazardous material transportation.80 Congress enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) in 1975 to ' "improve the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation to protect the Nation adequately against the risks to life and property which are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials.""' In 1990, Congress amended the HMTA by ' enacting the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA). Congress concluded that the release of hazardous materials posed a serious threat to public health and 1 safety. Congress found that some states' laws conflicted with federal law and created confusion among shippers attempting to comply with both sets of requirements.82 Therefore, Congress sought to increase the uniformity of federal, state, and local regulations. Under the HMTUSA, state and local laws are preempted if: (1) compliance with both the state or local requirement and the HMTA is not possible (the dual compliance test); or (2) the state or local law as applied or enforced creates and obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the HMTA (the obstacle test); or 8° United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Transportation of Hazardous Materials," July 1986, page 7. 81 49 U.S.C. § 1801. 82 Pub.L. 101-615, § 2, November 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3244. ' Page 30 . I 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 i (3) the state or local law concerns a "covered subject" and is not substantively the i saihe as any provision of the HMTA or a regulation under the HMTA.83 b. Challenge to California Hazardous Materials Storage Regulation DOT has received comments on a combined Preemption Determination Application (PDA) filed by the Swimming Pool Chemical Manufacturers Association (SPCMA) to determine whether the HMTA preempts all the provisions of Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, and a number of other state and local regulations, including a regulation regarding storage of hazardous materials incidental to transportation.` The statutory jurisdiction of the HMTA includes "transportation" of hazardous , materials, including "any loading, unloading, or storage incidental thereto"(emphasis added)." HMTA jurisdiction does not extend to storage of hazardous waste. Case law and DOT administrative decisions have not yet clearly defined the meaning of the term incidental. The issue thus remains open: how long must a hazardous material be stored after or before transportation for it to be outside of the HMTA definition of "storage ' incidental" to transportation, and thus outside of HMTA jurisdiction? In contrast to the HMTA's exclusive focus on the risks posed by hazardous materials during transportation, Chapter 6.95 of the CHSC was enacted to reduce health and environmental risks during storage and handling by preventing chemical spills and by insuring effective emergency response when spills occurred. The focus of Chapter 6.95 is , not on transportation of hazardous materials, but on the public health risks associated with handling and storing hazardous materials.' In amendments to Chapter 6.95, the California Legislature took s�P s to define the meaning of "storage" as opposed to "storage incident to transportation." Acting consistently with all applicable DOT regulations and rulings, and in the absence of a comprehensive , statutory scheme, the legislature enacted section 25501.2 and section 25503.7, which establish that if hazardous materials are left in the same container at the same facility for 83 49 app. U.S.C. § 1811. The "dual compliance" and "obstacle" tests are not new tests, but were the criteria actually used to determine preemption under regulations promulgated pursuant to the HMTA. DOT, "Implementing the HMTA," 1992, page 10. " 58 FR 6170, Dec. 31, 1992. 58 FR 8480, 8488, 8490, Jan. 26, 1993. 49 U.S.C. § 1802(6). SPCMA concedes that "Chapter 6.95 of the H&SC, as originally enacted by the California Legislature, ' neither addressed nor regulated "transportation." 58 FR 8495, Feb. 12, 1993. Page 31 , Living with Risk December, 1993 more than 30 days, the materials are no longer being transported, they are being stored. These amendments did not invade the "transportation" jurisdiction of the HMTA, but rather placed a conservative benchmark on the meaning of "storage" and the scope of the jurisdiction of the CHSC. SPCMA asserts that these amendments change the focus of Chapter 6.95 to include transportation including storage incidental thereto. Since the focus of Chapter 6.95 allegedly now includes transportation, SPCMA claims the entire Chapter is preempted by the HMTA. Such an argument, however, stretches the regulatory intent too far. Section 25501.2 and section 25503.7 identify a point at which, as a practical matier, hazardous materials are being stored, not transported. Neither invades the realm of "storage incident to transportation", nor defines the meaning of that term. The focus of Chapter 6.95 remains on protection of the public from the dangers of stored hazardous materials. Even if it is determined that Chapter 6.95 as amended extends into the realm of transportation, only those provisions that ! are determined to deal with transportation, not the entire Chapter, would be subject to possible preemption by the HMTA. ' SPCMA further argues that many of the requirements of Chapter 6.95, including the business plan for emergency response discussed above, are preempted with respect to transportation because they are obstacles to the enforcement of the HMTA." This issue focuses on whether the California statute requires parties to meet requirements or to take actions that make it more difficult or impossible for them to comply with the requirements of ' the HMTA. But this argument ignores the express policy stated in the HMTUSA. State and local programs, such as the business plan requirement in Chapter 6.95 ' designed to improve response to hazardous materials spills, are expressly encouraged in the HMTUSA's Congressional Declaration of Policy." Such programs are consistent with the goals of the HMTA and tend to facilitate rather than impede its enforcement. The RMPP is ' also compatible with the goals of the HMTA, since it provides the public and the State of California with information concerning the presence of hazardous materials. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, the HMTA specifically encourages states to collect data and information to develop and improve emergency pians to r a SPCMA asserts that the "requirements contained in Chapter 6.95 are in addition to and different from ' requirements contained in the HMTA and regulation thereunder and stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Act." 58 FR 8496, February 12, 1993. 49 app. U.S.C. $ 1801 states in pertinent part "in order to provide reasonable, adequate and cost- effective protection from the risks posed by the transportation of hazardous materials, a network of adequately trained state and local personnel is required." ! Page 32 Living with Risk December, 1993 prevent hazardous waste spills during transportation.8' The efforts of the RMPP to gain , information regarding the risks posed by handlers of hazardous materials appear to compliment rather than impede related HMTA data collection. , Furthermore, while there is a potential for local requirements to conflict with the HMTA, most of the requirements of Chapter 6.95 do not pose such an obstacle. The majority of provisions cited by the SPCMA apply to "handlers" of hazardous materials.90 ' The definition of "handler" in Chapter 6.95 does not include "transporters." These provisions are not an obstacle to the enforcement of the HMTA, because they are outside of ' the statutory jurisdiction of the HMTA.1 c. Preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act , Under Chapter 13 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has statutory authority over all areas of railroad safety, including HMTA provisions affecting rail transport of hazardous materials. The FRA also has the authority to investigate railroad accidents. Although this regulatory scheme may in some cases preempt state hazardous materials laws, it is intended to complement rather than , supplant state regulation. Federal and certified state inspectors work together closely in both prevention and response efforts." The FRSA permits states to "adopt or continue in force any law, rule, regulation, order, or standard relating to railroad safety until such time as the Secretary has adopted , a...regulation... covering the subject matter of such state requirement," and even thereafter, to adopt safety standards more stringent that the federal requirements "when necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard" if those standards are compatible with °9 49 app. U.S.C. § 1815(a)(1)(A). 90 Eg. CHSC 125503.5. M 91 CHSC § 25501. 91 For discussion of the meanie of "transportation' and "incident to transportation" in the HMTA, lease 1 8 �Po �Po P see above. 97 Written testimony of Mark Lindsey, page 3. Page 33 , ' LiVM9 with Risk December, 1993 federal law and do not unduly burden interstate commerce.% Under this standard, there is a presumption against preemption." Under the FRSA standard, preemption challenges to state and local laws focus carefully on whether a FRSA regulation or provision covers the particular subject regulated by the state or local regulation. In a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court suggested that "local hazards" are those whose "application depends on each case's facts."" The exact meaning of "essentially local safety hazard" remains to be settled by the courts, and will likely be a subject of future litigation.' Although federal standards set minimum levels for hazardous materials storage, these need to be supplemented by the states to address specific local requirements. As discussed above, accidents involving hazardous materials demand local responses. California's RMTP is designed to encourage local response and is consistent with federal laws governing ' hazardous materials storage. Federal determinations of preemption would set an unfortunate precedent and send a signal to local communities that the federal government does not recognize their legitimate need for local regulation of hazardous materials. r 94 45 U.S.C. 1434. CSX 1rao103Mtion Inc. v. Easterwood, 113 S. Ct. 1732 (1993). % Id. This definition is logically consistent with the definition of"local safety hazard" applied by the Sixth Circuit: "manifestly, this local safety hazard exception cannot be applied to uphold the application of a statewide rule." Norfolk& western Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 926 F.2d 567 (1991). w For example, the California Public Utility Commission is currently pursing an investigation of the Dunsmuir accident that implicates the meaning of "local safety hazard." CPUC investigation 191-08029. ' Page 34 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE i Over 64% of Richmond residents are members of minority groups; community activists testifying at the hearing expressed anger at local environmental injustices. Michele Washington Jackson, Executive Director of the North Richmond Neighborhood House and Dorothy Olden of the North Richmond Advisory Committee provided powerful descriptions , of environmental injustice: We are here today to speak to environmental racism. This racism is deadly, insensitive, dehumanizing, and economically deficient for the residents of ... the entire City of Richmond. This racism is symbolic of the racism experienced during slavery whereby a few benefit and the majority suffers. , Michele Washington Jackson (Tr. 1453) No matter what we are labeled, we are alsoP art of America. We deserve clean air. We have the right to live not in fear of our lives or for our children's lives. We realize that the industries and the communities must coexist together. We have long , done our part, but why should we suffer as we do? Dorothy Olden (Tr. 1706.) Communities similar to Richmond exist throughout the United States. Approximately one hundred oil refineries and chemical plants line "Cancer Alley" between Baton Rouge and New Orleans in Louisiana. In Southeast Chicago, Illinois, some 10,000 people live in the "Toxic Doughnut" surrounded by steel mills, factories, landfills, contaminated lagoons and , incinerators. Both communities are predominately African-American. The underlying issue of environmental justice was first raised to widespread public , attention by the landmark 1987 study by the United Church of Christ.'a The report found that environmental hazards are not distributed equitably but fall disproportionately upon minorities. According to the study, 15 million African-Americans--three out of every five-- live in communities with one or more abandoned toxic waste sites. Subsequent studies have identified other risks to minorities from environmental hazards. A June 1991 report by the Argonne National Laboratory found that higher percentages of African-Americans and Hispanics live in areas where the air is too dirty to "Toxic Waste and Race in the United States; a National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites," Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ, 1987. Page 35 , MLiving with Risk December, 1993 meet federal air quality standards.99 According to the National Law Journal (NIJ), the Superfund program takes 20% longer to place sites in minority communities on the priority list for clean-up than sites in white neighborhoods. The NLJ study also found that EPA consistently imposes considerably weaker penalties on those who pollute minority neighborhoods than on those who pollute white communities.100 Although research demonstrates that neighborhoods hosting locally undesirable land uses tend to be poorer and have more minority residents than other neighborhoods, studies have not examined local demographics at the time of siting or subsequent factors that may have contributed to the correlation in their findings. So, it remains unclear whether the initial siting process was affected by race or whether market dynamics may have contributed to the inequitable distribution pattern now evident.101 Several factors may lend to disproportionate health risks to minority communities where industrial facilities are sited. Less obvious than the immediate health impacts of accidental chemical releases are the cumulative consequences of sustained exposure to both unplanned releases and permitted releases. Witnesses before the Committee emphasized their concern that each accident was represented as not having a health impact. According to Henry Clark, "What they (industry) tell us mainly ... the community really wasn't affected because the toxic smoke went up in the air and over your community so you really weren't raffected. It has basically been an effort to minimize the chemical exposure to residents in North Richmond."102 Dr. Brunner shared this skepticism, noting that although single ' accidental releases may have no health effect, there was no consideration of the long-term cumulative or synergistic health impact: ' We also need to remember this is not an isolated occurrence. That this has happened again and again and repeatedly over the last few years in this community and throughout Contra Costa County, and we issue the same bulletin on no long-term health impacts. (Tr. 2658) Research into the long-term adverse health impacts that may be caused by sustained exposure to toxic and hazardous chemicals is both costly and difficult to perform. The Wernett, D. and L. Nieves. 1991. "Minorities and Air Pollution: A Preliminary Geo-Demographic Analysis," presented at the Socioeconomic Research Analysis Conference - Q, June 27-28, 1991. 100 "The Minorities Equation," September 21. 1992; The National 1.aw Journal. 101 Vicki Been, Professor of Law at New York University, is conducting research in this area. ' 102 Tr. 1872. ' Page 36 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' principal federal agency for conducting research into the long-term impacts of exposure to hazardous wastes,.is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry whose budget for Fiscal Year 1993 budget totalled only $60 million. Although research is also performed by EPA and the National.Institute of Environmental health Sciences (NIMS), which conducts mostly basic research, efforts are generally fragmented and hampered by lack of funding. Science has also been slow to recognize that exposure to toxics affects men, women, and children differently. Affected communities often have a high proportion of female- headed households; in Richmond the figure is 34.2%, of whom 91.7% are minority. A recent NIERS study found that women were uniquely susceptible to some toxins, including pesticides and lead, in the environment. According to Kenneth Olden, director of NIERS, "Although there are many principles of health research that are the same for males and , females, there are special susceptibilities experienced by women (and children).n103 For example, there is growing scientific evidence that pesticides are linked to breast cancer.10` The government's efforts to develop a coherent response to the health hazards of toxics encounter the same problems of information management described in the discussion of risk evaluation above. EPA's inability to develop a system for managing information has , handicapped the agency's efforts to set priorities for assessing the risks posed to people and the environment from toxic chemicals." Following the Dunsmuir spill of metam sodium, EPA was unaware of information in its files showing that the pesticide could cause birth , defects. It was weeks before the agency warned pregnant women and workers in the area of the pesticide's hazards.106 Although such anecdotal evidence points to the fact that environmental hazards are distributed inequitably, the impact of these hazards is still largely unknown. Insufficient research has been performed to understand how cumulative exposure to hazardous materials can affect health. Women and children appear to be more vulnerable than men, and minority groups appear to be subject to higher exposures by virtue of their neighborhood locations. ' More must be learned about the consequences of environmental degradation and public health, since the two are clearly linked. 10° Washington Post Health Section, June 29, 1993, p. 5. 10` "Studies Give Pesticides Role in Breast Cancer," The Washington Post, October 12, 1993. i 103 "EPA's Acts to Improve Longstanding Information Management Weaknesses," Testimony by the , General Accounting Office before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, and the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. March 29, 1993. 106 [bid. Page 37 , ' Living with Risk December, 1993 M. FINDINGS 1. Public health is inextricably linked to the condition of the environment. Failure to protect the environment can cause far-reaching and damaging consequences to public health. 2. Environmental risks fall disproportionately on minority populations. Benjamin Chavis, in the landmark 1987 study "Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States" by rthe United Church of Christ, defined environmental injustice: [R]acial discrimination in environmental policymaking and the enforcement of rregulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities, and the history of excluding people of color from leadership in the environmental movement. 3. While maximum effort must be taken to reduce the risk of hazardous materials accidents, risk cannot be eliminated entirely. Industries that handle dangerous chemicals and affected communities must work together to minimize risk and to develop adequate emergency response plans in the event of an accident. Industry bears primary responsibility for safety, but the community must acknowledge the risk and work with industry to minimize it and to develop emergency response plans. Trust is an essential element to successful programs; each accident erodes trust as industry and the community are polarized. 4. Just as communities want to avert accidents involving hazardous materials, so does industry. Those responsible for industrial accidents may face civil, criminal and other penalties. A San Francisco judge recently approved a $15.5 million settlement in response to the July 14, 1991 Dunsmuir spill, in* which a Southern Pacific rail tank car spilled 19,000 gallons of the pesticide metam sodium into the Sacramento River. General Chemical in Richmond will be facing the consequences of the July 26, 1993 oleum leak for many years. Several investigations are already underway and myriad lawsuits have been filed. 5. Communities have a "right-to-know" about hazardous and toxic chemicals handled by local industry; community empowerment is critical to successful accident prevention. Page 38 LiVmg with Risk December, 1993 , This right was acknowledged by Congress in 1986 with passage of the Emergency ' Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.107 6. Worker training is essential to the safe and successful operation of an industrial , facility. Training is also vital for handling hazardous materials in transit. A 1986 report by the Office of Technology Assessment on the transportation of hazardous materials concluded: More often than not it is people problems--inadequately trained personnel, , poor coordination and communication--or lack of information and advance planning, rather than technological shortcomings, that cause accidents, injuries, or environmental damage." ' 7. Multiple federal, state and local agencies share jurisdiction over response to hazardous materials spills. According to California's Office of Oil Spill Prevention, at least 58 , agencies responded to the Dunsmuir spill. In June 1992, at least 20 agencies took action following a fire at the Rhone-Poulenc facility in Martinez, California. At least , 18 agencies were involved following the General Chemical oleum spill.109 Witnesses at the August 10 Committee hearing called for better coordination of accident response by overlapping regulatory authorities. ' 8. Goverment has been slow to develop a coherent strategy for managing hazardous materials; during the 1980s the executive branch actively blocked initiatives to increase worker safety and to protect the environment. Since passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which required both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop , comprehensive management plans for hazardous materials, both agencies have missed statutory deadlines. 9. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) failed to act promptly to prohibit the use of the DOT-111A type tank car for transporting certain types of hazardous materials, including oleum. In May 1991, the National Transportation Safety Board found, "Mhe inadequacy of the protection provided by DOT-111A tank cars for certain dangerous products has been evident for many years in accidents investigated by the 107 "EPCRA" is Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 or *SARA." ' t0B U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Transportation of Hazardous Materials, OTA-SET- 304 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1986). tO9 A list of responding agencies appears the appendix. Page 39 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 Safety Board."10 However, the FRA did not forbid the use of the tank car for carrying these products until October 1993. ' 10. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 called for a Presidential review of "release prevention, mitigation and response authorities of the various federal agencies." The ' findings of the EPA-led review will be essential to new coordinated, government-wide management initiatives for hazardous materials. The report is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget. 11. General Chemical Corporation failed to take adequate steps to prepare for unloading of the tank car containing oleum at its Richmond facility on July 26, 1993. The ' report of the incident prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District"' criticized the company for "corporate stupidity." i ' 10 National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594. Safety Study; Transport of Hazardous Materials by Rail. PB91-917002; NTSB/SS-91/01. "' Memo from Air Pollution Control Office to Chairperson Hilligoss and Members of the Board of Directors re General Chemical Incident of July 26, 1993. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. ' Page 40 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' IV. RECONaWMATIONS , A. Policy Initiatives r 1. As the U.S. overhauls its health care system, special attention must be given to the health impacts of environmental degradation. Greater resources should be devoted to research into the impact of long-term exposure to both permitted and unpermitted releases of hazardous materials. Particular consideration should be given to the health , effects on women and children; many affected communities have a high percentage of households headed by women. 2. Congress should take further steps to prevent, mitigate and redress environmental , injustices. The "Environmental Justice Act,"12 introduced by Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), seeks to ensure environmentally equitable enforcement of a wide ' range of environmental, health and safety standards. Alternatively, Congress should include environmental justice language when it reauthorizes major environmental statutes, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and , Liability Act,11' the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act11" and the Clean Air Act 115 However, Congress should not ask EPA and other agencies to carry out environmental justice programs without allocating adequate resources to perform the ' work. 3. The Administration should foster a comprehensive government-wide approach to the ' management of hazardous materials. Multiple agencies regulate hazardous materials, including EPA, OSHA and the Department of Transportation, and a government-wide ' coordination strategy is required if risks from hazardous materials and bureaucratic overlap are to be minimized. 4. Federal, state and local governments must similarly work together more closely to streamline accident response and to implement health, safety and environmental protection legislation to eliminate existing loopholes. However, new initiatives should ' H.R. 2105 was introduced in the 103rd Congress on May 12, 1993. "' 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050(1988) ' 114 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k(1988 & Supp. H 1990) 13 42 U.S.C. §$ 7401-7671q(1988 &Supp. H 1990) ' Page 41 r ' Living with Risk December, 1993 not fragment the regulatory process further or add unreasonable burdens to the operations of industry. ' 5. Each accident is unique, requiring Local Emergency Planning Committees (L,EPCs), the agencies most familiar with regional conditions, to coordinate response and provide effective leadership when an accident occurs. LEPCs should also work year- round to educate and involve the public in prevention programs. r 6. Both the states and federal government should allocate additional resources to the approximately 3,800 L EPCs, which are critical to effective accident response and community involvement. r7. Federal OSHA should require swifter completion of workplace safety reviews required by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. These reviews will rhelp identify potential risks in the workplace and reduce the risk of accidents. 8. Industry should devote additional resources to the development of safer alternatives to ' the acutely hazardous materials currently used in industrial processes. Reducing use of hazardous materials is the most effective long-term policy to improve community safety. r 9. Congress and the federal agencies should improve public access to information and gre ag P should consider expanding reporting provisions under the Emergency Planning and ' Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. EPA should initiate pilot programs using newer information technologies, like the "Right-to-Know" Network and INTERNET, to disseminate environmental and public health data to the public. The pilot schemes ' should focus on addressing environmental injustices. 10. The federal government should improve its management of information. According-to the General Accounting Office, "EPA is an agency with hundreds of information systems that are mostly separate and distinct, with their own structures and purposes. This plethora of systems impairs EPA's ability to easily share mutually beneficial information across program boundaries, fosters data duplication, and precludes more comprehensive, cross-media assessments of environmental risks and solutions.""' r 1 16 "EPA's Acts to Improve Longstanding Information Management Weaknesses," Testimony before the ' Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, an the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. March 29, 1993. rPage 42 i Lh ing with Risk December, 1993 B. Specific Actions , 1. The Department of Transportation should rule against the preemption petition , submitted by the Swimming Pool Chemical Manufacturers Association (SPCMA). SPCMA and other industry groups argue that California's stringent laws for hazardous materials are preempted by the weaker federal statute. If.this preemption ' holding were made, it might have an adverse impact on public health and safety for California and other states with strict environmental laws. 2. In California, industry and the state should work together to improve the Risk ' Management and Prevention Program (RMPP). They should eliminate current loopholes in laws governing the storage of hazardous materials in rail tank cars. Industry should also be required to provide advance notice of new operations, in addition to complying with all RMPP requirements. 3. EPA should assist Local Emergency Planning Committees in obtaining Toxic Release Inventory data and other information available on database including EPA's Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations software and the Right-to- ' Know Network. 4. In Contra Costa County, industry and the county should work together to improve ' public health care in Richmond by providing a local primary health care clinic. 5. The Administration must move swiftly to find qualified candidates to fill the five- ' member Chemical Safety Board created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Chemical Safety Board will investigate accidental releases of hazardous , chemicals. Members of the Board should be selected for their public safety expertise, not for their political aspirations. Page 43 SLiving with Risk December, 1993 ' V. CONCLUSION Economic advancement should not be pursued to the detriment of worker and public safety or public and environmental health. Congress has acknowledged the role of the government in protecting employees and the public with passage of worker safety laws and environmental legislation. Although industry bears primary responsibility for the safe management of hazardous materials, communities cannot be passive. They must develop ' public health education programs and cooperate with industry in developing emergency response plans. Accident prevention and emergency response must be ongoing efforts to be successful. Industries handling hazardous materials are vital to the U.S. economy; they provide thousands of jobs and are critical to the nation's tax base. Many of these industries ' manufacture products taken for granted as essential to modern American life. Until safer alternatives are developed, hazardous materials and dangerous chemicals will continue to be used widely in manufacturing. While the use of these chemicals is necessary to society, modern society also demands that unnecessary risks in the handling of these materials be eliminated. For the most part, industry strives to avoid the costs of unsafe facilities and accidental releases of hazardous materials. Federal environmental programs such as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) have had an additional impact on how industry operates in the United States. Many facilities had not identified emissions before required to do so by the TRI. Since reporting was introduced, industry has routinely reduced its emissions. Aggressive community efforts have also had a major impact. In Contra Costa County, Dr. Walker described the impact of risk management in the county's major facilities, "The major effect of those efforts so far has been ... to reduce the total amount of acutely hazardous materials ' on-site in the county. ,117 Yet accidents continue to occur. Since the Richmond General Chemical spill there have been several less serious incidents in Contra Costa County, all of which have frightened residents and reminded them of the risk with which they live daily. While industry has improved, and continues to improve its prevention programs, the stakes are too high for ' compliance to be voluntary. The government has a role in both prevention and accident response, but that role must be streamlined to avoid onerous regulatory overlap. Tr. 917 Page 44 Living with Risk December, 1993 , Government and industry must also consider new approaches to the problems of , coexistence. Minority communities have borne the brunt of both planned and accidental releases of hazardous materials for too long. The health impacts of cumulative exposure are ' largely unknown. As Congress looks to the reauthorization of major environmental protection legislation, it must include steps to mitigate environmental injustices. It should also devote additional resources to scientific research that will explore more fully the link ' between environmental pollution and health. Public access to information is essential to a democratic society. One element is the ' right of communities to know who and what hazardous materials are polluting their neighborhoods. New information systems, including the Right-to-Know Network and INTERNET, will play an important role in giving the public access to information. The relationship between community and industry is often antipathetic. Each accident decreases public acceptance of the dangers of living close to an industrial facility. Each failure in prevention efforts tests emergency response systems and strains already overburdened local authorities. Yet communities and industries must learn to work together to advance their common interests in public health and a viable economy. ' Page 45 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 r N r M tjl W A N N S 7 O O Q •�C O C C CA a r S N 3 a G � g r s G G a .Sod © N •ty r NS,, 2 fib°d N ac 3 0 '•``�' 0 v U G N lgi a0 cA 04 00 Q� d i i G� 1 itlr~ldj •� � �i" � � r y 4� � rte+ � � � ar _ .c N o v' G U U 4. !'"" G1 ,4: 'p O 00b to AS e o c tag = r •� a 3 0 .= y y cn .r 00 00 [ oil 'C 0 to i Q E i a� u i00000000 0000 C\ C\ O 00 %n0`O 00 N N N N N � N t/'1 � V1 M o as o too 45 sj a U U call aN ell 7 7r, ek o5k ISO .0 os id 00 ° 3 � a `� � � Hsi C4 A VA s 7G � wT 40 Call, ra" aA —C4 0% 00 M a 1 4 C 1 � 'Q M GS w wM Y U � 1 � CIO 0 c w 1 � O w y u� ao 1 " 0 a co ` EZ, CD own � T osoft • a o m • amme -OE a Q alum `. ` : . . mm `N%. ,m ca c LL v 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' Agencies Responding to the Rhone-Poulenc (6/22/92) and General Chemical (7/26/93) Hazardous Materials Incidents 1 Information supplied by Contra Costa County 1 Office of Emergency Services Rhone-Poulenc Contra Costa County Health Services Department (County Health Officer and Hazardous Materials Response Team) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services Regional Water Quality Control Board Bay Area Air Quality Management District State Department of Fish and Game CAL TRANS CAL OSHA CAL EPA State Department of Toxic Substance Control California Highway Patrol r U.S. Coast Guard Page 52 Living With Risk December, 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Shell Oil Company Safety Division (Mutual Aid) Santa Fe Railroad Police City of Martinez Police Department American Red Cross Regional Ambulance General Chemical , Contra Costa County Health Services Department (County Health Officer and Hazardous Materials Response Team) Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services City of Richmond Fire Department City of Richmond Police Department CAL OSHA State Department of Fish and Game �. CAL EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control Regional Water Quality Control Board � ty Bay Area Air Quality Management District ' California Highway Patrol Page 53 , 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Federal Railway Administration U.S. Coast Guard ' American Red Cross 1 Regional Ambulance California Public Utilities Commission"' i 1 1 1 f t This agency was identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as responding to the incident. Page 54 Living With Risk December, 1993 Agencies Responding to the Dunsmuir Incident Federal Shasta County Private Environmental Protection Agency Bella Vista Water District Southern Pacific Railroad Federal Railroad District Attorney's Office OHM National Weather Service Environmental Health Office Terra U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Executive Office Fire Camp Commercial U.S. Coast Guard Fire Department Mt. Shasta Ambulance ' U.S. Environmental Health Health Services U.S. Fish&Wildlife Public Works U.S. Forest Service Sheriffs Department , U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Offices U.S. National Oceanographic & Health Department Atmospheric Administration County of Sisldyou State Administrative Offices ' Health Department Air Resources Board Sheriffs Department California Conservation Corps Environmental Protection Agency ' Highway Patrol Cal-Ostia City Department of Conservation Department of Corrections Dunsmuir City Offices Fish&Game Dunsmuir Fire Department Forestry & Fire Protection Dunsmuir High School ' General Services McCloud Fire Department Health Services Mt. Shasta Fire Department Health Services Office of Drinking Water Redding Fire Department Health Services Parks &Recreation Weed Fre Department Department of Transportation Office of Emergency Services Public Utilities Commission Volunteer Water Quality Control Board Department of Forestry Volunteer in Fire Prevention Shasta Cascade Amateur Radio Society Shasta Lake Volunteer Fire Company (PS4) Siskiyou County Sheriffs Search and Rescue Shasta County Sheriffs Search and Rescue Red Cross Salvation Army Information Supplied by California Department of FFsh & Game Offrce of Oil Prevention & Response. Page 55 Living with Risk December, 1993 Contra Carta Caw?8auwdouf Materials Interagency Tach Force Inttr Agency Mattis (Swnmwy) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ' INTER-AGENCY MAT-RIX FOR MORE INFORMATION. CONTACT: BARBARA MASTERS (510) 370-5014 SANDY HOLLENSECK (510)646-2286 November 29, 1993 Page 56 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE INTER-AGENCY MATRIX INTRODUCTION As stated in the Mission Statement, the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force was formed to enhance the efforts of regional, state and ' federal agencies in overseeing major industrial activities. In order to achieve enhanced coordination and cooperation, it is necessary to understand the role that each agency plays in the realm of hazardous materials regulation. and response. Once this is understood, efforts to identify "gaps" and "overlaps"in the overall regulatory system may be identified and appropriately addressed. For this purpose, the following "Inter- Agency Matrix" has been developed by representatives from each agency. The Matrix has been divided into two distinct sections. The first section, "Bay Area Haz Mat Inter-Agency Matrix - Prevention Responsibilities", describes the role that each agency plays in preventing accidents involving hazardous materials through regulatory programs and inspections. The second section, "Bay Area Haz Mat Inter- Agency Matrix - Emergency Response", describes the role that each agency may play in the event of a hazardous materials incident which may impact public health, property or the environment. In order to enhance the matrix as a reference tool for public and business audiences as well as internal use, a narrative document has been developed. This narrative includes information about each agency, including contact person(s), mission statements, regulatory authority, organization structure, and explanatory notes in reference to information provided in the matrix. Please note that this document is not fully comprehensive because not all agencies involved in hazardous materials regulation are represented. Efforts are underway to expand agency participation in this effort. Therefore, this document is considered a working draft. Furthermore, as additional legislation and regulations are promulgated, the matrix be revised to reflect these changes. , November 29, 1993 1 ' HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE MISSION STATEMENT ' There exists within the Bay Area, and principally within Contra Costa County, a coalition of federal, state, regional and local public health, safety and environmental agencies who have joined together in a cooperative and voluntary effort to enhance the level of service that these agencies provide both separately and collectively to the communities within their jurisdictions. The member agencies recognize the need to coordinate and enhance their activities in the areas of: 1. Emergency Response to hazardous materials incidents which may have on-site and/or community impacts on the public health, public property and the environment. 2. Accident Prevention by reviewing and coordinating programs to identify and reduce potential causes of hazardous materials incidents. 3 Communication, Outreach and Public Participation by effectively communicating prevention program efforts, providing comprehensive and timely emergency response and other program information, and seeking public comment and participation. ' The member agencies agree to develop a workplan to carry out this mission. November 29, 1993 ii DRAFT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER-AGENCY MATRIX GLOSSARY 11/29/93 , HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY MATRIX - GLOSSARY OF TERMS TERM DEFINITION Emerg ncy Resoonse. On-scene incident mitigation or assistance. ' Emissions ' Pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, total suspended particulated, sulfur dioxide, lead and nitrogen oxide, released into the air . Generator Facility which generates hazardous waste. Hazardous Materials , H&SC (25501(j,k)): Any material thatr because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Include hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material for which there is a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health & safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released. Hazardous Substance (1)MSDS is required. (2). Substance is radioactive. (3) Substance is listed in 49CFR Parts 172 and 173. (4) Material is listed in section 6382(b) of Labor Code. Hazardous Waste CCR Title 22 (66261.20 et seq.): A waste which exhibits the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, or which is listed as a RCRA hazardous waste. , Inspection On-site field review and verification of documentation. Notice of ' discrepancies which require resolution to achieve compliance. Inventory Listing of all hazardous materials handled at the facility, along with the , maximum quantities on-site and the locations of those materials. Monitoring Sampling for and measuring of hazardous materials in the environment (e.g. air, water and soil). Notification Release incident information provided by the responsible party to the affected agencies. Permit A document authorizing an activity associated with hazardous materials , handling when the handier meets all of the regulations and standards required by the permitting agency. M f 11/29193 v ' DRAFT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER-AGENCY MATRIX GLOSSARY 11/29193 TERM, Continued DEFINITION Public Partidoation There is formal opportunity for members of the public to review and comment on an issue before approval is granted by an agency. This may ' entail written comments and/or public meetings. Reoulations Principles, rules and/or laws designed to govern hazardous materials handling. Regulations are developed and authorized through a formal promulgation process. Release H&SC (25501(nil Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, disharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment, unless permittedor authorized by a regulatory agency. ' Training Training documentation reviewed should include training plan, course contents, and records of training completed. TSO Facili y Facility which treats; stores, or disposes of hazardous waste. 11/29/93 vi DRAFT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER-AGENCY MATRIX GLOSSARY 11/29/93 ' HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER AGENCY ABBREVIATIONS , Local Agencies CCCHSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department ' FIRE(Richmond) Richmond Fire Protection District D..A. Contra Costa County District Attorney AG Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture , SAN(Central Contra Costa) Central Costa costa sanitary District Regional Agendas BAAQMD Bay Area Alt Quality Management Distrix RWQCB Rpional Water Quality Control Districts LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee State Agencies • Cal/OSHA California occupational Safety and Health Administration , DFG Department of Fish and Game OSPR/DFG Op spill Prevention and Response Branch of Department of Fish and Game CBI/OES California Office of Emergency Services SFM California State Fire Marshal eDTSC(R) Department of Toxic Substance Control(Regional) eDTSC(HQ) Department of Toxic Substance Control iStato Headquarters) SLC State Lands Commission PUC Public Utilities Commission *Branch of California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL-EPA) Federal Agencies USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency , USCG United States Coat Guard DOT-FHWA United States Department of Transportation-Federal Highway Adminstration i r 11/29/93 vii w v�+too= N ' Won= vdasn`x x x x I Ondm N , W OlS' J m fON10S1O' x x ' Z x x x x x - oo. aasla_ x x x N W ¢ Nis 1 Z O sao1FO F= Z W > flda/tldSO= W Iq a' oia�x x x x x x x x ' X vNSon•O: c F" Oaar L cm loomm-xxxX x x x x xxx I � Z awowe x x it x is Q 1. 09-+ 9 P+ �lN1IS'x x x x x x x x Z - F. ov ' .a� x N ti Q OSH= Q - } m - a = Its N IA us UA � � O ' Ha Z 3 s w �_ o. �_ v _ QQ • 1 1 rn vniuittoa N o�rw vasn-XX x x x x , Ond N N , J C13 MNIOS10 X x r N z mos10 X x x x x x , N W M Cti S- z ,0 S30/PO z W y O:fO/Mdso cc 1W a' Od0 X vmsol" x x , ~ � _ m � �r W • • • • • • • • • • ;c • • • • • �� X X X X X x X X X X XXX X X X (.woo•moo pausoms z , F- ov- (PUOUNIONNUMAalw= '� c W a a -X x is x x 4 • . m # . G s E E x � � 3 � � � y . • �0. 3 3 T•i i a < • � � .Q 4 WC G Qi= C 3 EEa a jE oC p Is — Q r m ' rn vNWt10Q- N ' tY.mL vd3&M x x x OAd- X x jCxXXXX jc xx N W 01s- t � J m mmmip= x xxxxxxxxx xxx x x x ' z 0 ptggip- x X X X N Q w K XXX x xx xx ' z 0 F= SM x x x xxx xxx x W ' W Odp/HdSO- x X X X x x x x cc tL pip= x x X X xxx xxx x X vNson"� x x x x x x x x x ac "' � �, x m yp y; xx x xx z • Q GNIOWe± XX x X K K X X X cc H (03"9� 9 POIM/S� x X x X x ' Z F, pvx x j� j� x x X j� X Q 1 ~-p' Xxx N = (P—M�ldl3did� x x x j x x j� !C X 1C XXX C y • Q t�H000- x x X X X x m p o O E icc e • C V � N la go a- 46y 6 r m V = O W h �0 F _ Vy �► N a ti Com£ � � z • O ` _Oul _� OG d CL C N W V V d rn N vMH.+ioa: x x Oos� vd3sn-* x xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx x xx OAd x ' N m MHMS1G Vf C amStGgxXXXxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X Xxxx x X ' CL IA W wn- z , Z 2301" x H 2 W , > OdGMdSO W cc OdG VNSOARO -C x x ' F a } � m CL V Z 'W Gw0v" Q W (•l.•O•auw0 p4+•9(NvS x X X x X X x x X x X X x z Z Ov Q ti.G x N = IP�+•�W�l13Wi j( c a cc ;CXXxj xxxj x x X;C;c xX X Q � c } ca wE CM 4 = z 3 s y H � � , o rcaofE � 8 3 � � •- v� : o � $ $ r4� d to Q� vi � cg3oa � � � � 4 a 0 d u, i Q1 Qf ' vtjpa XXXXXXXX N r fin• ' vdmn X x x x x X and x x x x x x X x x x x N W air- J m MRIOSla x x x x x x N 0 (WOSIC x X x XXX x x x x x N • cc Nis ;Cxxxxxxx 2 0 S301.O X X X X X X X H Z W > OdQllldSO W cc CL Oda x x x x x x x VHSOIPO Q a H �d3i m a v rpww( x x x awovva X X x X x x x at x x x x x Q LU (•woo•a-3 pausow s 1 z � Ov Q v.a x is ' N _ (PY ku4c 11311M o e 1 QWHO= a � s Q m � 3 a a M • • n c : ce d ! • • • r 'j _d c d co rn rn 'v~ioc cc$- xxxxxxx xxxxxx x x xx vd$n X x X , and , • • • • • • • • • W au x X X x x x x X X •X X •X x J m (OHMS1p X x X x t/N z d music x x x x ' 0 LUx x x x x cc His- z ' G S30/.3 X x x P z W W GJGrddSO XXX x XXX x x x x I O: a pip x x x x x x x x x x x ' vNsoma x x , x or d. m Q adal m } X x x x v LLI amvd l x x x x x x x x x ' a LLI (n•aa 64UO3 P4ue3lNvs F. ov Q v.p x X , N a W a OBM= C m � C c i 4 : e cc IL (A � a s � .i i � pp � e z_� O to W W C d� 1jV 6,1 H W y a � 3 � r co rn m N ' YMHt1o0� Oaff�- ' xxxxxXxxxx ;� Xxxx X X ond- W 3� N - , rJ m (DH13S10. Zd � 4• Z xXXXXX XXXXX X X xxx ' d AlklS10'X N w w rZ 0 S301103 x x x z W LU ojcvu so- X x rcrW 4' pi0� X X X VHSOIP3 ac � t•- N31 4. o ' ' A v soomm xxxxx IL z u awawax d = 44 X0 x x r � c H (w"03.aw03 PMmOI NMS i Z - f- ov- Q r y.0 x N ZIPw«W�lN13Wi x 4 XXX x X X X Q W a OBH= x ddC6Z xxxxx xxxxxx x x x a m q � E r z a I-- s ' W cc 0 � _ Z zcz a liLU s IL o � e W r � r M v�toa 1 CI) rvnwttoa- oasn- vasn x Xxx Xx xxxxxxxxx xx x x r una{ N W 1 ~ J m tON10S1C K X XXXX xx xx xxx x x N ' Z Q x xxxx xx xx xxx x x � (�IIJSIC. N LU M K rZ G 930n•o-x x x x xx xxxxxxxx xxx x x x Z r > W oiaueso o: CL ora r X, vNsa"-K xx xxxxxxxx Q CD F- o. � - a d )- womki, V rZ � awovve� o• rnwsl x x ov' Q N xU u6uRf !U13HU C W Q 4511���:K x x x x�CX xx�CxxX�CXXxxx xx x X �( ! m CL. r - o a z o sc Ell acs " x od. v3 v �e i a—c►�—o—a—gin � «—g F:a cc C7 a` a` O ate. Z p :u r ' 1 co vNu(fioa x x x x x x xx x r 0=1 X X x x x x xX X X XXX - - - x r va3sn X xxxxxxxx xx xx x xx x x and x x x x x xx x x x W 0w- • • • • • • • • • ' x X xx x x x x J m MRIOslp X XXXXXXXX xx XXX x X xxxx X N , Z CL mmsjp x xxxxxxxx xxxoxmxx x xx x N LU IMS x x x , Z C 9301PO X X XX XXX x XXX xxxx X X P Z W • 'W OdpAldsp X XXXx xx X X xx X X X x 0: CL pip x x x X x x x xx x xx x x x X vNSplPO x xxxxxxxx XxxxXX x xxX x r 0 zdm m m G*tmm xxxxxxxx XX xx x X a Z 'W pYI1pW9 x xxxxxxxx xx XXx X XX X C7 Q W IWW03•awo0 Pa+•olmvs X x x x X X X x x x x x X xxxx x X , F- Z pv X XXX x x Xx X o xxxxx Q o ar ' N Cc _ (PUWAM N13U X xxxx X xx xx X X XXX X � e 0 Q Gem= Xxxxxx X0 XjCXXXX X xxxx x $ `o � e m v ' it � o s • o s � l _ � o a � a o r a a `o ass O � x St = � � � 3 � o � � W t w '� • � W i • • V Q d Zr 4• O to f oC C 75 p o o a a 3 o • • d a o s • • • ag m f '� ti ti W $ .31 �•ss • cd r Q C C J. O. Ci— C • G Q a m O z 4 C7 a OC c W - r ch N r VMHtIOp f`' �snx x x x x x xx vd3sn x x x x x x x x X � and F- ' LY WHlaslax X x xxxxxx xxx N ' z IalaSlax is x x x xxxxxx xxx CL W Wds x x x x ui } 8301190x x X x XK x x xxXxxxx X xx V Wdsolado x x x x x x x x x x x x x z (WU piax x it x x x x x x x x x x x Q L" vM801193 x x x x x x 2 LV 3d3l x X ' x saDMaX x x xxxx x x x x is r Qawovve x xx x W Vp } Z flux x x xxx xx xx x LU 183.Oa 64UOa I.auOOINVS X X x x x x x CC a W IPUOW4wla13atd X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x z m000x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x Sal x X _ - Q 2 ' E Q cuj cc a W3 3 Q E N c • Z c - c E O } z • m 0 c C ~ O +n • O • c a O H e L N e e os e«0 C a ` O s a f� a ui d O d V S Gtr:_ o p a d W F a C a � c �o �. : c �. � 5 « Zao3 E E E � 2 • . • a } d o C O O C ° O O O O : : W A s p V .. C. • • 2 M- Z F- M� 1- u. u. u. • V • o ' W v *A cL EZ = SS2 = o. o o e o E a . o . • • . • • E Z • C7 Z S V W fair IL�o Gl IC 0: S 0: C C W � O. a A W ~ c o c 1.: o C O G V O O .r H W i Q CC Q W • co an vnN�-toa_ ' vasn x x xxxxxxx x x xx Vd3sn x xx x xxxxxx x x xx ' and i— � W (OHIOSla x x �C x x x x x x x x xx Z (wona xx x x xxxxxxx x xx ' a 0 yVIS X x W � 3301100 x X x it X X X X X V Z Wdso/Oda x x x X x X X x X X x x x W a Oda x X x X x x x x x X xxxx cc uj VHSO/l•o x j( X x x X•x W Od31 x >bDMa x x x x x H • N Q aWOvvB x x x x x va W V oy x x Xxxx xxx W (� ("903•nuoo IRAUSOINVS x x x Q W MUOM !UMIJ x X ^' X x xxxXxxx x Xxxx H Z asNaaa XXXXX X xxxxx x x XXX x x X X X x x x c 0 E N o E Q - > E w (Ac 5 Q - T o € S V v C Q`uj C e 10O L 8 Q Wv'A- 3 ' a cG E C • E , q W 4 O Z- cc m is a i • C O c O • y � • aC a e � � - � o m o c d LU a v W a o o c do a V § i d V c � IfQA c • T1s c E CEEp o v • 4 °a v d • x 5 `o r v c U Q e � � � � a o � � aoF- oo ; o c u oS I W- a a -ic � �• Occ < 003 0 0 o am 0 2 V x c � � � o v 3 e u of E 0 0 0 0 0 C7 _� yca � � ro _ cv - � au. u. iiuss - a_ C_ o' ao 0 W p1 v� a :2 E a Wo r v O o o :£ O 0 C y U e f i c� N r open x x vd3sn x xxxxxx xx x xxxxx X and H a18 W (DHIOSIG ;� Xxxxxxxx X x XXX x N lalasla ;, Xxxxxxx x x x x x x NYIDS X x x W i � >. 830,,.0 x x X z W801910 x xx xxxxx z W ' 0 via x xx xxxxx cc W VHSO/IWD 2 W ad3l x soumv x x F I? QaYrovva X x ac W v0 } ' z Od W C7 (01900•AUO3 I•+Iu•OINVS Q ' Q W (puow4prd)3at:i X XXX XX xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx z OSHOOO x XXX xx xx QSOIX x x x xxxxx ' c 0 V W c p` ' E Q W° c Z O e � i IL s c C13 -4 O a 3 4 r Z r a tq 3 = a ^ � • � a O a • ° r h p r c .a V. O P o «, 4 O a O ; C ; • r — LII ' z C u o v u a < �w 3 E E E ° a E � _•• ; a G W P y a i c E .. i o 0 0 E t a n �o : • v o (' � p`� ow aa 001 oto. wu. wOmacu'� Cd � < o a Lu— cc0 0 0 0 E c o H W � V a W c D CV) Q N ' V~IOQ o3sn x x x x x xxxx ve3sn x xxxxxxxxx XxxxxxxX xxxx X � and Q Ms W (MOSla xxxxxxxxx x x xx x xxx ' N Z Mosta xxxxxxxxx x x xxxx XXX 0 ' CL N wis W S30/193 x x x x x xxx xx V Z aaso/oea x x x x xxxxxxx xxx W C� oea x x x x xxxxxxx xxx a= 'tIHSO/1.3 X X ? xx X X )C X X W U31 X 8310mv x x xxx r Q aowa x x X w • • • a X XX Q W ,vG } V ev x x x j� x Z , W C7 161903•lw03 1•nu•OINVS x xx x x x x x x Q (PUCLU42!al3ald xxxxxxx W , F- Z aSH333 XXX xxj x xxxxxx xx QSol x x x x x N � = '0 �o - c W - T `_c C ° . E Q W "' a : o ` Z20 o c V w ' m C • 0 3 a W C 2 °C "R e �d • 0 o W � • � • ._ � v n e � E a� '• v C c a E Q ' • •C •' o c 'cc V Ea n v . C o } r • • a o • o. = E C « o 0 C o W = E o E to " v v o i ° « W v -a • O «. ! z—y o. Usf- *AO 3a3xmo. � d5cx ,� a � E— 4 o � WE a a v w g Wy a: • ch w C) N r" ' V~IOG oasn x vd3sn x X and H ' Q ass W IDHIGs1G x N ' Z IalaslG . O CL W YIDS X x } S30/IQO V Z adso/oiG x W 'JdG x W VHSO/If0 2 W ' , Od3l Ct La ' Q GWOvvB vG W } ' Z Ov W C7 In9O3 64uo0 IFRAun)NVS cc Q ' (PYOYj4*!al3alj W F- Z GSHGGG QSOI X X x x X N _ Q `. C Q � O W = C cc 0 ' Q W • a Q Z 8 c m O IL S a W U cc O } N Z 'Ac E c c V ; « a ; a C W e Q N_d d 3 4 to 4 to z {L 4 ' O W r in W 2 O • 3 i I 1 i I i I i t a agal Tabs Co. 1-800-322-3022 Form#X025-SS ' USING MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AS AN AID TO OSHA AND EPA COMPLIANCE 1 ' By: Paul Smith Applications Consultant ' EDS 1 1 ' 245 From the end of October, 1987 to June 17, existing governmental regulations. To ' 1991, the American Petrochemical Industry comply with these regulations, and safe was involved in at least fourteen serious guard against major upsets, many accidents and/or major upsets. The resulting companies will have to make fundamental ' explosions, fires, and upsets killed at least changes in how maintenance is performed, 79 people, injured 923, and caused in excess or provide access to an new form of of$2,000,000,000 in property damage. Most maintenance information system, or both. ' of these incidents occurred around a maintenance activity. The companies that The purpose of OSHA's 1910.119 is to were involved in these incidents were often prevent or minimize the consequence.of a ' heavily fined, and embroiled in law suits, catastrophic release of highly hazardous where the number of litigates often chemicals. It is a holistic approach to numbered into the thousands. process safety management that is ' performance oriented. Although it could be. Federal and state regulatory agencies have costly to implement, this regulation will lead responded to, these dramatic events with to more reliable equipment and a safer work ' legislation such as OSHA 1910.119 and the place. Most companies who handle 1990 clean Air Act. Legislation in this area hazardous chemicals already have systems in mandates formal systems, clearly defined place that promoted process safety roles and responsibilities, written procedures management, but probably don't have the ' and audit trails. means to produce the necessary documentation. This regulation will These regulations are being introduced into formalize the process, and encourage ' a maintenance environment that is rapidly companies to review maintenance procedures moving in the opposite direction. Recent instead of just document them. The trends in maintenance management have regulation closely parallels recommendations ' stressed: from organizations such as the American • De-centralization Petroleum Institute and the Chemical • Reduced supervision and technical Manufacturers Association. This regulation ' support covers 14 areas of process safety • Multi-skilled craftsmen management: • Contracting of maintenance ' • Operator involvement - in • Application maintenance • Definitions • Self-directed work crews • Employee participation 1 • The elimination of the maintenance • Process safety information department entirely. • Process hazard analysis • Operation procedures ' These changes have resulted in a work force • Training of generalists who are having to make • Contractors decision and take action without having • Pre-startup safety review enough technical expertise to be aware of the • Mechanical integrity consequences of their actions. Many of these • Hot work permit incidents were caused by being unaware of • Management of change _ or failure to follow simple procedures, or by • Incident investigation ' making unauthorized substitution of parts • Compliance audits and material. Today I would like to limit the discussion to ' There is bound to be a conflict between this the two sections of OSHA 1910.119 that type of maintenance environment and most impact maintenance organizations and ' 246 _computerized maintenance management . maintenance is performed and who performs tsystems (CMMS). These sections are: it. • Mechanical Integrity Since the regulation is concerned with ' • Management of Change process safety management, the maintenance aspect is often overlooked. Those charged We will also discuss how computers can be with insuring that their company is in ' used to document environmental monitoring. compliance often have no maintenance Federal and state environmental regulations experience.. In a rush to comply, existing will require that petrochemical companies computer systems are overlooked, and many monitor fugitive emissions and maintain stand-alone system are implemented. These them below a specific level, and that leakage systems often duplicate much of the rates continue to decrease. When leakage functionality found in a Computerized ' exceeds this rate, repairs must be make and Maintenance Management System(CMMS). a history kept. At a large site, there may It is not unusual to find different systems for have to be 1,000,000 readings a year taken work order control,preventive maintenance, and recorded, and repairs tracked. There instrument documentation, inspection, ' may be 30 - 50 work orders a month raised equipment history, and project management. to deal with leakage that exceeds the The same data fields may appear in more minimum amount. than one system, and there is usually no ' process in place to keep the information in Computer systems are well suited be used as multiple systems in agreement. Records tools to help companies comply with these entered into these systems can become legal regulations. The amount of documentation documents admissable in a court of law. ' that is required, and the requirement that it Corporations should establish corporate be made available to large numbers of standards for systems and insist that all people with different job titles, can only be documents that relate to mechanical integrity accomplished economically with computer are accurate and consistent. Individuals systems. Even though this has not should not be allowed to develop PC based ' historically been the role of a CMMS, they systems that do not comply with these can be successfully applied. It will require standards, and are not included in site wide however, that the CMMS move up in the management of change procedures. ' "importance"hierarchy of plant systems,and that interfaces to drawing, docupient Nlechanicallntegrity management, and human resources systems be established. This new role for CMMS "Employers will need to review their ' will require changes in attitude and a maintenance programs and schedules to see reappraisal of computer security. TJfe ability if there are areas where 'breakdown' to view data will have to be given to many maintenance is used rather than an on-going ' people, but the ability to change data will mechanical integrity program. Equipment have to be tightly controlled. used to process, store, or handle highly hazardous chemicals needs to be designed, Since the penalties for non-compliance of constructed, installed and maintained to these minimize the risk of releases of such regulations can be severe, many companies chemicals. " Appendix C to 1910.119 ' - seem. to have placed more emphasis on quickly meeting the letter of the law, instead Mechanical Integrity has six parts: of the spirit of the law. To comply with the ' spirit of the law, many companies will need • Application to make fundamental changes in the way • Written Procedures 247 ' • Trainingfor Process Maintenance The requirement for written maintenance activities procedures that affect the covered equipment • Inspection and Testing may be the most difficult and time Equipment Deficiencies consuming section for the maintenance Quality Assurance organization to deal with. Since these procedures must be made available to We will discuss each of these areas and how employees, the use of a , computerized a CMMS can be used to advantage to systems will make maintenance of these ' implement a mechanical integrity program. procedures much easier than relying on paper based systems that require updates to Application be mailed out and inserted. A CMMS will ' allow maintenance procedures to be ; 'The first step of an effective mechanical documented and related to pieces of integrity program is to compile and equipment. The system should allow ' categorize a list of process equipment and equipment specific procedures and generic instrumentation of inclusion in the program. procedures to be related to the same piece of This list would include pressure vessels, equipment. This greatly reduces the amount ' storage tanks,process piping, relief and vent of maintenance for generic procedures if systems,fire protection systems components, they can.,be entered, and related to many emergency shutdown systems and alarms and, pieces`-of equipment. Front-ending the interlocks and pumps. For the CMMS with a word processor and up- categorization instrumentation and the listed loading a file for insertion will decrease the equipment, the 'employer would prioritize effort required to enter and maintain the which pieces of equipment require closer procedures. scrutiny than others. Appendix C to 1910.119. Since the procedures may be very voluminous, and there may be a desire to The heart of a good CMMS is the equipment have drawings embedded in them, there may records section. Equipment can be be a need to interface a CMMS with a documented, categorized, prioritized, and document management system. Decisions ' printed list produced on demand. All future will have to be made on how much data will transactions such as technical specifications, reside in a CMMS for estimating purposes bills of materials, drawing references, work ' orders, inspection schedules, job standards, Training for Process Maintenance Activities and repair. history will depend on the accuracy of the equipment section. It is The regulation requires not only that ' important that a methodology be developed employees be trained in the procedures to categorize and enter data into the mentioned above, but also requires equipment section. There should be a central certification that the employee understands ' equipment data base for engineering, the procedures. This will require an corrective maintenance, inspection, and employee tracking system to record names, condition monitoring. Many companies that dates, and the means used to assure have implemented a CMMS may find that understanding. This information will need to ' they will have to perform a substantial re- be taken into consideration whenever work of existing data in order to provide employees are assigned to maintenance employees an accurate equipment safety tasks. This requirement extends to contractor ' information system. employees as well. This type of information has not historically been part of a CMMS, Written Procedures and may require interfaces to human resources systems. The effort required to 248 ' train everyone who does maintenance work Management of thickness readings and will affect the use of contractors, multi- deciding when to take action is an important skilled craftsmen, and operator involvement part of an inspection program. Interfaces to in maintenance. hand held data collectors will greatly ' simplify the task of gathering, storing, and Inspection and Testing analyzing large amounts of data. ' The regulation requires that equipment used Equipment Deficiencies in critical processes be inspected in accordance with good engineering standards. Equipment deficiencies that are outside ' Applicable codes and standards could acceptable limits must be corrected before include: further use, or in a timely manner when • American Society for Testing and necessary means are taken to assure safe ' Material operations. The basic work order cycle of a • American Petroleum Institute CM vfS is adequate documentation of • National Fire Protection Association deficiencies that are found, and corrective ' • American National Standards action that was taken. Work that is safety Institute related can be categorized and prioritized. A •_American Society of Mechanical CMMS can provide an on-line listing of Engineers outstanding jobs. ' Documentation is required that captures the Quality Assurance serial number of the equipment, the name of ' the person performing the inspections or "A quality assurance system is needed to test, and the results. If as a results of these help ensure that the proper materials of inspection or test, corrective action is construction are used, that fabrication and ' required, there must be documentation that inspection procedures are proper, and that it was achieved. A CMMS allows installation procedures recognize field inspections and testing schedules to be installation concerns."Appendix C 1910.119 ' established that are time, service, or event driven. A work order is generated for each A CMMS can contribute to this process in discrete inspection or test. Computer security several areas: ' should be such that only elected personnel will be able to mark an inspection work • A formal work order system can order completed. A written procedure that assure that work is reviewed and describes the inspections or tests, and the that if it constitutes more than desired outcome can be printed with each "replacement in kind" that work order. Equipment history,`sections management of change procedures provide a means to document the results. If are invoked. ' corrective action is required, a corrective work order can be generated, and corrective • Maintenance procedures can be r job history, attached to it. If temporary printed with each work order. patches or repairs are made, a note can be attached to the equipment that will be printed • Bills of material can be attached to with each subsequent work order as a each piece of equipment. ' reminder. This can also be viewed in equipment history. A CMMS allows • Materials systems can force documentation of inspections and corrective inspection and certification of ' work to be presented that outlines the total material when received from life cycle of each piece of equipment. vendors. 249 • A materials catalog assures quality "replacement in kind. "Appendix C 1910.119 ' control and consistency. Many companies do a good job of keeping • Maintenance systems can be process procedures current, but often do not ' interfaced with drawing systems to keep maintenance procedures or equipment give rapid access to the latest records current. One recurring problem is drawings. that during the implementation Stage of a ' CMMS, equipment data is loaded, and then Material purchasing standards will have to there are no procedures to keep the data prevent material from being purchased using current. As mentioned earlier, having a vague generic descriptions, and prevent work order approval process is a good way purchasing agents from freely making to make sure that management of change substitutions based primarily on price and procedures are invoked with each change. ' delivery. Maintenance procedures, equipment documentation, bills of material, and Implementing a mechanical integrity material catalogs will have to be updated. program could include the following steps: There may also be a requirement that employees, both company and contractors, • Identify which equipment is are re-trgined on the new procedures. covered ' Temporary repairs that have been a Review existing equipment undocumented have been a problem in the documentation past. These repairs are often forgotten and become "permanent". A CMMS is an • Develop a criticality ranking excellent tool to track these temporary scheme and rank equipment repairs and make permanent repairs in a ' timely manner. • Review and evaluate existing maintenance programs Environmental Monitoring ' • Review maintenance training A CMMS is a natural choice to catalog points to be monitored, establish intervals, ' a Identify inspection and testing store readings, select points that are above a requirements threshold, and issue work orders to take corrective action. The points to me • Analyze equipment condition and monitored should be part of -a central decide what is outside the norm equipment data base. This will allow the life cycle of a piece of equipment to be • Evaluate quality assurance presented. procedures The use of hand held data collectors and data Management of Change loading utilities will automate the process of gathering and analyzing hundreds of ' "To properly manage changes to process thousands of readings. chemicals, technology, equipment and - facilities, one must define what is meant by Client Server change. In this process safety management standard, change includes all modifications Modern client server technology will allow to equipment,procedures, raw materials and data to be accessed from several sources and processing conditions other than presented graphically. Data from drawing 250 systems, document management, process knowledge. This can be accomplished by ' control, and condition monitoring can be presenting data in graphical formats such as presented on a single screen. A graphical charts,drawings,and different-colored status plant model can be displayed that allows icons. Client server technology can ' branching to equipment specifications, work accomplish these goal, but there will have to orders, and equipment history.Drawings and be a change in management philosophy in documents can easily be attached to work what should be in these systems, and who orders. The use of colored icons to denote should be using them. These systems will be status will make decision making much a valuable tool to aid in implementing and easier. The goal is to turn data into managing a comprehensive equipment ' information, and information into integrity program that can dramatically knowledge. This will encourage employee reduce the risk of safety and environmental empowerment and will move decision catastrophes. making to lower levels. Employees will then be able to make decisions based on knowledge, instead of chance.These systems will be access by employees with many job titles: engineering,operations, maintenance, contractors, stores, purchasing, and human resources. Many of the major safety and environmental incidents in the petrochemical industry could ' have been prevented had the employees that were involved known the status of equipment, the dangers of certain actions, or the proper procedures. Computer systems are the best medium to convey this information to process, maintenance,and ' contract employees. ' Summary Companies may have to assume that those who are performing maintenance have ' limited technical expertise and will have to have access to accurate equipment documentation,- and detailed: written procedures for performing work. Much of this functionality can be found in a conventual CMMS. But,re to the massive amounts of data that must be resented, and . the need for graphical pr entations, the CMMS will have to be aug ented by data that resides in other systems. There must be a plan as to how this data wi be integrated, presented to employees, and kept accurate and consistent. Every effort should be made to present data in a format that aids decision making by people with limited technical ' 251 i Form#DO25-SS Legal Tabs Co. 1-800-322.3022 I PRELIMINARY REPORT ON 1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS i AND OTHER NOTIFICATIONS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 1989 - 1996 ' Sue Loyd Dena Hutchin ' Laura Brown Contra Costa County Health Services Department August 29, 1996 ' INTRODUCTION ' Contra Costa County has one of the highest concentrations of industrial facilities among California counties, and the largest number of major facilities outside of Los Angeles County. It ' is located on the northeastern edge of the San Francisco Bay and is ideally situated for heavy industry. The Delta's deep water channel provides an important commerce link between the West Coast and Pacific Rim countries. A large industrial base is located along the shoreline of ' the Sacramento River, Carquinez Straits, San Pablo Bay, and San Francisco Bay. Contra Costa County is home to five refineries, a half dozen chemical plants,two power plants and numerous smaller facilities. Recent hazardous materials industrial incidents have prompted the Board of Supervisors to initiate a policy discussion about the need for and nature of a new or revised County policy that would improve safety. This report was prepared to document the data which will assist in that discussion. ' The report is a preliminary review of the County Health Services Department database of incidents, notifications, and complaints concerning hazardous materials incidents that were ' received by the County between January 1989 and July 1996. This `report will show that many of the notifications received by the County are related to training, small spills into containment ' areas, minor releases below specified reportable quantities, and changes in equipment status. Before discussing the data, however, it is important to understand the hazardous materials ' regulations now implemented by the County, including the Notification Policy that prompted the reporting of industrial incidents and notifications. 1 The industrial community in Contra Costa County must adhere to federal and state as well as local hazardous materials laws and regulations. California statutes are some of the most ' restrictive and safety-oriented in the nation. Considering the amount of hazardous materials stored and used in the county, safety requirements and environmental standards are imperative ' for a secure workplace and community. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the five federal, state, and local laws and policies governing hazardous materials handling and storage that are implemented by County agencies primarily the Health Services Department. Numerous ' other regulations are implemented by other agencies, notably the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,the Regional Water Quality Control District,the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cal/OSHA, the State Fire Marshall (which regulates pipelines), the State Lands Commission, the US Coast Guard, and others. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 1 8/29/96 Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Program The California hazardous materials emergency planning and community right-to-know law(also known as the Business Plan Program or the Hazardous Materials Release, Response and Inventory Program) covers some 1200 businesses in Contra Costa County, including the oil refineries and chemical plants. The purpose of the regulation is to protect the health and safety of the public and of emergency responders, as well as to ensure the community's right to know about chemical use in the County. This regulation requires the training of all employees who may come into contact with hazardous materials. Training consists of hazardous materials storage and handling procedures, spill prevention, emergency response procedures, and clean-up procedures. All businesses storing more than specified quantities of hazardous materials must report an inventory of chemicals and submit an emergency response plan to the Health Services Department. Risk Management and Prevention Plan (RMPP) Program The goal of the California RMPP is to prevent the accidental release of acutely hazardous materials and to prepare for public protection in the event of a release. The RMPP evaluates potential off-site consequences of the worst credible accident scenario for emergency response planning. Contra Costa County is one of the leading jurisdictions in implementing the RMPP. ' As of August 1996, forty-six RMPPs are on file with the County. Federal Risk Management Plan (RMP) Program The Federal RMP evaluates flammable hazardous materials as well as acutely hazardous materials. Under this program,the worst-case (rather than worst credible case) scenario for off- , site consequences must be assessed. The Health Services Department anticipates responsibility for implementation of this program beginning in 1997; it will augment the current RMPP. Process Safety Management (PSM) The Federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration(OSHA) adopted PSM standards in ' 1992. Whereas the RMPP and RMP regulations are concerned with off-site impact to human Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 2 8/29/96 ' health and the environment,the PSM standards consider employee safety. This federal regulation, and its more stringent state Cal/OSHA counterpart, establish procedures for process ' safety management that protect employees by preventing or minimizing the consequences of chemical accidents involving highly hazardous chemicals. A key provision of PSM is process hazard analysis - a careful review of what could go wrong and the safeguards that must be implemented to prevent releases of hazardous chemicals. Employers must identify those processes that pose the greatest risks and evaluate those first. Figure 1 shows the overlap of the RMPP,RMP, and PSM regulations. FIGURE I Regulatory Overlap ' Cal-OSHA PSM Fed -OSHA PSM Cal-"PP Fed-EPA RMP 1 County Notification Policy In addition to the state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials, Contra Costa ' County maintains a strong notification policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1992. The policy requires a facility to immediately notify the Health Services Department of a hazardous ' materials release or threatened release that poses a present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. The importance of this notification policy cannot be overestimated. The policy results in industry reporting very small spills, in addition to the required reporting of releases above federally-specified reportable quantities. This policy is critical to the effectiveness of the Community Warning System, which is one of the most advanced alert and ' notification systems in the nation. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 3 8/29/96 County Land Use Permit for Development Projects for Hazardous Waste or Materials This ordinance encourages businesses and other entities to consider potential health and safety r risks to the surrounding community in planning projects involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Land use permits are required for development projects which score above a specified threshold. COUNTY DATA ON INCIDENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, AND COMPLAINTS The County's hazardous materials "incident files"are comprised of three distinct types of reports: Incident - An incident is an event involving the release or threatened release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County, which may pose an imminent threat to the public health, the environment, or property, and would require immediate action. For the purpose of this report, incidents have been subdivided into Level I and Level II events. These levels will be described later in the report. Notification- Under the County's Notification Policy, a notification is a report (usually made by a company) that a release may occur, or that a release has occurred but did not go off-site, injure anyone, and was contained, or an activity will occur such as flaring or on-site emergency drills that could cause concern to citizens observing it. This notification would not require a response other than documentation and internal notification of the County's Incident Response , Team. om laint- A complaint is information received by the County, usually from a private arty, � P P that involves past activities or activities which would be completed by the time an inspector could arrive on-scene, and which are thought to violate the hazardous materials handling, storing, processing and removal laws. Based on the information received,the activity does not present an imminent threat to the public health,the environment or property. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 4 8/29/96 Methodology ' Health Services Department staff reviewed the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Incident Report Database for January 1, 1989 through July 31, 1996. Over 7,000 database ' entries were examined. These entries were further screened for selection of reports by the following industrial facilities: Chevron, Dow, DuPont, General Chemical (Bay Point and Richmond), Pacific, Rh6ne-Poulenc, Shell, Tosco,.and Unocal. The two Pacific Gas and Electric Company power plants (Antioch and Pittsburg) and KemWater, formerly Imperial West Chemical (Antioch and Pittsburg)were also included because they were included in a report ' presented to the Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety by the Contra Costa Building Trades (July 29, 1996). The total number of reports for the selected facilities was 2020. Of this total, 1854 were ' notifications, 115 were incidents, and 51 were complaints. The data presentation below evaluates the incidents and notifications in more detail for the time period January 1989 through July 1996. The remaining 5000 database entries consisted of complaints,referrals, and clean-up requests about non-facility events such as illegal discharge of waste onto public property, drug labs, and neighborhood complaints. Incidents, Notifications, and Complaints Concerning Hazardous Materials Chart 1 shows the number of incidents, notifications and complaints for the selected facilities from January 1989 through July 1996. Overall, the number of incidents has declined since 1989, with the exception of 1994. In contrast, notifications have steadily increased,which is expected 1 as a result of the 1992 County Notification Policy. Chart 1 indicates that between 1991 (no Notification Policy) and 1992 (the first full year of the Notification Policy), notifications increased over 200%. The trend for increased notifications continues. The following sections ' discuss incident and notification data in more detail. ' The 51 complaints shown in Chart 1 are specific complaints relating to facility activities. None of the complaints relate to Level I incidents but some may relate to Level II incidents or notifications. ' Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 5 8/29/96 Z N tgiEmi a v a �g "tea r a a fi -:�- a S 3 w8 m "al m' f +` 'a yg'x" � F .$ 3a- - �� F b 3 Yw zf' ��� k�r"F '�z�wp " �r � 'd' r"9+'S y � �,'✓12 f �' sir � .:�� ;' a •� 12 llol-11,107 "7rf1 y _ k fi' rr_."•rat-a�, ,k� '4i �' 2e c�� '''r ' aW-�r i �. �, .� Yrsa, 'a ft px w - L 0 -� z � � x m > - m a MI, :>t,� • : ndv�'"�- � �� �� �'� � a�� •`���`��wr1,� � "k�w'w;i��� ss`" f �%r �*`aa '� f� ��.. r. CJ r �i � a i u -•'*o z� a r � 1 � �W` w:u'a,.��:.zg:°._ 3� .,� .,�=.o ..�,^x�.,. 'C _ � cl G £:: - r r w M Uf O .moi ..� } ON u ` �� ON W a e ° ' ,� y " N � a t �d� ar rhu a Y ep „ ..n : w; G� a '` a r,. >�e f ti.� ,� - ✓ . Qr r•-s� � "�� _ w"' �, .Fr m. 1a 3a b v _ §� 41i t0 z .d � 2p.�. �' y n'•' 3='^k r " '4 �".', f a a .i�fix n �T' a ,� k" ^1E f �n+X. f t `,a. vf�F r -''°wa'�,� f� �, f' '"� •C V (� q£.,'�^., 3.•,�a- ,��frF'z^ k �.-haL`gfi"AIR 514" rf`tn `" 3r, >� M WN C U r �,!m 00 2 r. Z rn rn + ION U V Al O O O O lu 3 jagwnH � N L � aea ' Incidents ' As mentioned previously, an incident is an event involving the release or threatened release of �j hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County, which may pose an imminent threat to the public health,the environment, or property, and would require immediate action. For the purpose of this preliminary study we reviewed each file for content. As a result, incidents have been further divided into two levels to differentiate the ' severity of the incidents. ' Level I- These are incidents/events involving the release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County which may have posed an imminent threat to the public health.the environment.or propM,, and required immediate action by Health Services. These events may consist of explosions,large fires, releases of toxic or hazardous substances creating off-site impacts, or occurrences that resulted in serious worker ' injuries. ' Level H- These are incidents/events involving the release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County, which did not pose an imminent threat to the public health. the environment, or propefty. These events may include small ' fires, releases of toxic or hazardous substances that may cause an odor impact but did not pose an imminent threat to the public health and safety, and occurrences that resulted in non- volatile spills to the environment. ' Chart 2 presents the distribution over time of incidents reported in the County from January 1989 through July 1996. It includes the 115 incidents for the selected facilities as well as 19 additional events either not recorded in the database or that occurred at facilities other than the selected facilities. Examples of these additional incidents are as follows: the 6/22/92 incident at Rh6ne-Poulenc, the 7/29/92 incident at Texaco Pipeline,the 2/1/96 incident at Air Products, the 3/25/89 incident at Tosco, and the 4/1/93 incident at Shell. Chart 2 shows that there is no apparent trend in the occurrence of either type of incident during the years for which we have ' data. 'Two 1994 incidents included in Level II did not involve hazardous materials but are included here because they are in the database,were responded to by staff and were reported by an industrial facility. One involved algae in a rainwater puddle,and one involved pollen on cars. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 7 8/29/96 a r t 00 01, NIP wm— , �a� 'ya ! !3 �p �C.�"�-- Vo 4 d C1 4� $df �i rta # L 6nx � u S� .7 r ii W Q k } ' 00 x o sa, �ix ..� e ` N C1 ^v fi,r. uv nia.wA-` rl 5 k r Man, RM v CL 0.4 NR y-W!�•' (•y „C ��.' 55,3 :. u=� s � � REP baa wo ism i. r � A a� •`. �� � �'� ate+ rn O 00 01 a r N N jagwnN a ' Causes of Incidents Attachment 1 offers a closer look at Level I incidents. For each incident,the date, initiating cause, category of incident, and chemical(s)involved are presented, as well as some additional ' descriptive details. A good deal of information regarding root causes and contributing causes of incidents is not available for review because most facilities do not yet conduct root cause ' analysis. From Attachment 1, no single cause or trend can be identified as responsible for the Level I incidents that have occurred in our County since 1989. Notifications Contra Costa County received a total of 1854 notifications from the selected industries for the ' reporting period January 1989 through July 1996. A notification as defined in the County's notification policy is: ' "a report usually made by a company that a potential release may occur; or a release has occurred but did not go off-site, injure anyone, and was contained; or an activity such as ' flaring or on-site emergency drills that could cause concern to citizens observing it. This would not require a response other than documentation and Incident Response Team notification." Documentation of notifications began in 1990. However,companies were not required to ' notify until the policy was adopted in the fall of 1991. A review of the incident files for. 1989 showed that thirty-four would have been notifications under the Notification Policy. As Chart ' 3 shows, most of the notifications listed in the database were releases. Please note that 1989 notifications are not included, as they were not documented. The types of events reported in Notifications are described below. ' Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 9 8/29/96 . I . 1 ID , ­_­` ' 'I" " � ,,", ,�­,", , ` " �� �_" It", 1�,-, __.".,",_ , "- ",," . I - _,1. � .", 2', .�-,"i"., ,11 I'll-'7`11 _ '' `,_­tllll�lll"_,m i11- 11-1111`-, "'i__,­��_lll ,�,.,3,��",�,��,�,�"","�"''I, �� ��_ ,, "i, � '�,k,__ ----- _ __,t__', i,� �, ", , �i�w,....� � I �'"' --, ",,__ 1"g_,",, _ , a , ,_t...._� � " R,_I �1,-��", _� ,, � ,, - ?. , ,. ,,, " i ,,___..... "� __., _i I�ki , , "" ,, ,,,-, , -, _ ,�,�. ,,! , M, _ ,"",� 1"I'll -,,,I .l. '_. -, _'_. ,� '_,f�_....�.__ , I 111T___E�1�111__,; , 111- -----1111-- __m � " � 2,_, �'?`� * wt-,� �%, � , , , "Ill �,� '. �3a 34.a 3'k - 'M_,l � x �� 3-.1.1, _ _ ___ ......,,'�,�m'l ­ _ — ,. v A.-'tea _o- a 1U2W1[EI2Q - �'33 k ��� -, " � r� d' s l s� - ;k $'a s gra19-1 In � - ,,,,ll, �"", !M 70,51 R BLUE- la "' V-11yid '� .z' '�..� s w .� r r e-m a } r a u`a �, adv t:� '' P »a � � 3Y �€ n^3' ,x � i c p 00, �, ''�, I33 _ -.s ."€ } � a p� �'� a'j'� 11 ,, �ca,�;, _ 11 .sAp 3 4 �k =�'' - ar & � y `pis - r $"5 ��3 a " - '� " il� "I g''' � ,s-fin^. °° .� m�-k,,�s a.,'+ „�' �*..11,A *�.,.. Z r -?,�, '" �.� a. - .fi--� y - r ak vq, s �a 6 `maw �' w a �- Al .3 3 'NU i-�9 � � 'll'u 11 f�" r� Y T ta`"�'st'^ SaIJnfU[ ' a'� IN gg, "INIM s a � x�*s g,, l-I����-s-�Z"'� s n a a� � ' q n- , �. k .� „ aWO w k3� r .r na _111tr k wll - - �'� `,11 �' 4�a ��� 33 " �� Awami, - S .cI'll '�,g^ }�', 3� d Otl 1,111 Y s �, s1I -1:' s %I ­1­11 �" �" W�Id 1- I ffi`3,511r �� r r, EJ­3 '� ,Mwl1e y 3 e 3? klkl„.2 x'r } ,r3ca IN td�! 111,11 K IN ON , n :4a T t !lM �. . s 3 a 'Aew r s � �3 +� a 5 y s 7a 3s� '� 3 'zx� sa a r 11 A � , .�,,... � t 3I i � -- ,,� � a 'as1'1�f�a �,'ll ���� 'Y.......... '' �,a 9`a' Yf�"Y�. .-s} v ' s, 1.�-� w V k` ” �-n t N a=- UMO II �R ��� � n �.. "A x r e 5 '�UR,:+ ,�*ol"a tl sir�,K.;,'� n �+rq p 'ed s, n' ,11 m 3 z u p .y yr �"` I 1, �' IN '' x d ,'-`,° r�" �"��« �" `- ' '^- "NW4,�rye{W *, tt ` E e50 �,sj.: sa a x.�-� x z Y .� Y elkur '� Y - ;�I", -k',� M �'°'� I.1 ' I p ft,,tt­-,�i;,?"i�kv�.:,;�'m � - ON, '3 u `' t.- z a� llvi� .0 �" 111 T � F � ioPO ��// h M. ,, 1 ,� r % o hil tH C s AF 3 s �(5a a M'l , '� , Y �' 9, .� '� � � "c a,,r r` � , � d 1 �I IN �,tt g..c r �, F . . 1 N,�x �T, , y as6a.. lii U �.I ,��,_.M y p a d j! L �� 4 �� c1 rlotpo .+ �117 y nw ksx - 3 } _d a "' s., g 3 ':�' Oill 11, *.b �.. � ' ., t ,��. - t"N�� 4 '�'�« E , 6> : - ,� xagg 3 i..� x1. xn �3 i § roi "$. b "` ik s�4 lll '"x .tea �' ,�- a�' ,m a+ M�,RIP, .ry 3Tt � s �q"xi. �MP" - I'll ., 3y s 3 i �s Pqt�'a m a' sr �a ill """'i 4 `k ,�" ` da'.ai Sr R .,�PT ib A"4 5, . "I",ra v -fit An� ? �P av =� - 1.�;- "' s ->r �1' T f r.rx% '^sem a gy'� 3itle'' 3 S U z �," fi k x a "* y� '- ear 0I0� U y s � x1. 7uauidmbg 5"� 3d'b aa. 5 r u � � � � 'aq ^, -1�vx 3x C �s v �, ;cs r,� �n3 �. d ,ik y - ,.- ;3'' ml� s Z,ll3 r', y 3 ,y r k. lgr 3 f a e �s B :'� s `� rg S..111 13� k 3, ' $ x �rnF r� 0.i k 3? 1,;" au I a o `> Lcl .. O q. sasealmd r tU Z U °U'. A �. ..� , _ .,. ""ROM . , , a w— U O O O O O O O O O O O - T OCD O, 000 C- � h 'T M N Or 'R 0. ^� .--� U. � s d A E jagmnK E y d i. &nada. exposure to hazardous materials ("Injury"). Please note that the County Notification Policy does not require notification of worker injuries to Health Services. Derailments A review of notifications regarding derailments at the facilities selected for review, reveals ' that the derailments involved rail cars that derailed or jumped the tracks, and were not associated with chemical releases. Summary of Notifications Figure 2 shows the subject of notifications by percentages for the selected industries. Of all ' notifications from January 1989 through July 1996, 50% involved on-site releases. Reports of flaring comprised 16% of all the notifications. Reports of equipment issues and drills respectively, were 10% and 7%of the total. The remaining 17% involved fires, odors on-site, ' and other. In Figure 2, other includes alarm, derailment, worker injuries associated with exposure to hazardous materials, worker injuries not associated with exposure to hazardous ' materials, other,power, and unknown. FIGURE 2 Notifications by Percentage Selected Facilities Releases ' Drill 50% 7% Odor 4% Other 7% Flare Equipment 16% Fire 6% 10% ' Figure 2-Other Includes: Alarm, Derailment, Injuries/Rel., Injuries, Other, Power, and Unknown ' Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 13 8/29/96 DISCUSSION Contra Costa County_has one of the most advanced policies with regard to environmental reporting. The County's Notification Policy requests reporting of releases that are often well below regulatory thresholds. The County's notification policy is administered with the voluntary cooperation of industry, who legally could report fewer events. About 2000 of the 7000 reports reviewed concerned industrial facilities. Of those 2000 reports, 37 were classified as Level I and as such may have posed a threat to the public health, the environment, or property; 97 were classified as Level II incidents which include events such as small fires or releases that may have caused smoke or bad odors. o Of the 1854 notifications from selected facilities for January 1989 through July 1996, 50% involved releases that did not go off-site and caused no worker injury. Reports of flaring comprised 16% of all the notifications. Reports of equipment issues and drills respectively, were 10% and 7% of the total. Even one incident that has the potential to cause harm is one incident too many. Since 1989,the County has experienced from three to nine such incidents each year(apart from 1990, when there was only one). Overall the number of incidents has declined since 1992, but there are not enough years of data to declare a downward trend. Other events that do not threaten to harm the public are still of concern because they may be alarming or odorous and may represent problems at the facility that need to be addressed to prevent the same, or worse events from happening again. ' An important way to prevent recurrence of accidents is to closely examine the causes of those , that have occurred. The County's database includes information regarding the type of incident that occurred but rarely the initiating, contributing, or root causes of an incident. The Health , Services Department has requested information from the facilities about initiating, contributing, and root causes of the Level I incidents. From the initial responses, it appears that many facilities have not conducted root causes analysis on past incidents. Further, many facilities are , not yet conducting root cause analysis on recent incidents. Review of the 37 Level I incidents demonstrates that no single initiating cause is responsible. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 14 8/29/96 , ' Releases ' The most common type of notification is a release. For the purposes of this report the term "releases" includes small spills, leaks, and potential releases. Most of these releases occur on the industries' property, have no off-site impact, and are mitigated by trained crews. These releases result in negligible risk to the general public. The quantity/volume of most of these ' releases are below federal guidelines for reportable quantities but are reported to the County under the Notification Policy. ' Flaring Flaring is the second most common notification and includes normal flaring and the potential for greater than normal flaring. ' Flaring is a controlled and regulated safety mechanism designed to manage excess gas production by the complete combustion of the flared gasses to form primarily carbon dioxide ' and water. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established strict limitations on the contaminant levels in the gasses, such as sulfur and particulates. Industries maintain ' continuous stack analyzers to monitor compliance and are required to report exceedence to the Air District. ' Equipment ' Notification with regard to equipment issues is the third most common type of notification. It includes changes in equipment condition(e.g., a piece of equipment or unit being shut ' down or started up, equipment failing to operate, new equipment or unit being put into service), demolition of equipment, and equipment malfunctions with no associated ' consequences. Drills The fourth most common type of notification is the report of drills, including site.drills, fire training, and site alarm testing. ' Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 11 8/29/96 Fire Fire notifications include small process and non-process fires such as insulation fires, electrical fires, grass fires, control room fires, and cafeteria fires. The major facilities maintain their own fire-fighting personnel for responding to these situations. Other "Other" includes notifications of steam leaks, cooling tower plumes, potable water leaks, and other items generally not associated with chemical releases. ' Odor , Sixty-four notifications of odor were reported to the County between January 1989 and July , 1996. These notifications were related to on-site odors with no identified associated source. Unknown This category includes notifications for which the report was incomplete and did not state the , nature of the notification. Power , Notifications with regard to power outages with no associated release were reported. Power ' outages may affect the process units or process equipment. If the power outages resulted in an associated release,the notification was counted as a release and not as a power outage. , Alarms The County also receives notifications for alarm activation not associated with a release or upset, such as false alarms. , Injury Notifications of injury have been subdivided into those associated with worker exposure to hazardous materials releases ("Injury/Rel." on Chart 3) and those not associated with worker Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 12 8/29/96 , ' Once root cause analysis begins to be an industry practice, valuable information will be created. The Health Services Department,would like to receive additional follow-up incident investigation results regarding the initiating, contributing, and root causes of an incident. The County's Notification Policy, which resulted in the bulk of information used to prepare this report, is the most advanced such policy that we are aware of. It requires a call to Health ' Services about events for which no other agencies require reporting. When the policy was developed in 1991,the industrial community expressed concern that the number of notifications would be used inappropriately to suggest a level of risk to the community that was not present. ' In addition, they were concerned that the policy would have a negative impact on their ability to conduct business. Nevertheless, industries have voluntarily complied. The policy has proven extremely beneficial to county residents and to people who work and go to school here, as it provides our department with an early"heads-up" of any events that might be of public health or ' community concern. We believe this preliminary report provides an accurate portrayal of the notifications we have received and urge that the notification data not be used in a way that discourages continued voluntary compliance. ' Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 15 8/29/96 Attachment 1 �r Preliminary- Do Not Quote 8/29/96 a . � U «• u o to° :' 3 c °"' R c 3 O 3 p' G07. .✓ G ai °'r. 6 0. on� � E .c � � c � � � r C .� 0 4 d � � 8 0 " o G -yo e ` ,,r, c`r•, eRi s en G N '�40" P- G N ai di s �0 .0 N s N � G O O ' 'v .>G R O G N N ou on R T E flu Vf " v •G �' R N G .Q w v 'ia u d o• o o. d U 0 � a• .a ° r y o � y ° y N N d .Gp r--. ! N J v J R G 1::i R N 'n 41 SYR•. p ami ai :•• 'r n°3i R yT ° �' � ✓ +R+ � Q > N o w ie � •�n o � o- ei ai '" �••• � c C c o w 7 A 1 0 tv J x Q Q 170 G o0 ap v� ca N d' C3 M c N to 3o y N� Np w r J G `C. 6 r oo s "ry G g v o r" 'a ✓ N G O G E G Cs, y � «• as o �, � ;° d °� c- .. E � G•o .a o � N G G •t3 O•'�.. O J C' � "C '7� O ce G Z �„ •� N :� G '✓ •4 'J '1 � c�♦'" ,Q N N N J Jf 'O „f 6Y N .�♦ t✓ I A �O N N G' ✓ •pp v ✓ 'Gr'S „Q °� � N N 7 .Gr N J d y 0 a> y '' v �". d oRi 'o O ' `" N G ✓ p. O N v ✓ 3Op a� N N 7 G 'n u G N O Gv. ✓ v .• � N d e� � Ovi �.,, dam,,, .. ry, O .fl -- �G y 7 y, v N �. v ✓ 1""' � O i y Q'ca N � � G i v w ai N t6 ^O G N Q G W O✓ d Rj " ✓ * 3 •� � G � N N� N � � N v '� r J � �3 0 N O c4 ♦ .O 4 � S• N N V w C N ✓ a Y R Op y N O r G N C i �, � �.+ p. O• G ^d N 6> O i0 j J O ✓ y G A O RS y y J J .♦ d y J 3 G'." Af i �"�' 4'' Jr'3 �f♦ JO G G y O � E id y G O tb p ✓ O O .G 7 Rd Q O to. ✓ J ... O ✓ .. a� R -t� G (A :� o N y ✓ fl N %d G ^d O O d KS J o G y .p 0+ d : %O ✓ Gj ^D 3' J ',a J 0. G J O ai OD i N r O .I �' d �' G v N •O i' ?f N Ci � 4" N v 00 N O w J r r. U r o —I- ca', e`a Un °' soro r- 7� � tr N a` N r d lT r A � a� c T N � U O d C y U N 7 p t2 �s a O a� � o •3 � o � O 0 ,a a a r U 1 � . •� x v U � m 1� Ir P Q d a � y N ea U R � x L P64 c 0 U = � w c3^ o G � O x a A c o N C o� A v, i i �, i 5 �. i 1 - - Contra Costa County Department Health Services De P ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS!OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 Shell Oil Company ' P.O.Box 711 Martinez,CA 94553 ' Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Eric Brink ' Dear Mr.Brink: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building 1 Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for ' the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, ' 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- , 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincer Lewis .Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake G ...Wr �a m rnc d) CL LL. L. 2, 0 (A CD CL t 0 41 -00 r) -Y, -40) CL. c a cc �6 U) o 1. 0 m X (A C .0 cu 0 CL m .2 -14 .2 m - -a 0 0 4-) — U) r- 9 - tm 'n -6 m .2 cc co 4) x 0 0 0 = m — . 1 .0 �h -�a w 0 C) U- o 0- �o Ln CD CA V V- ro- 0 .9 (D 0 0 0 -e co > -e o E CY) V v co to O 'D p T >1 SIC, CJ 0 tm CL c .01 iy- C: 07 D to r- rm- .9- (D P- = Eto 0 (D 0 — 0 r- lu 4) *S .2 > .90 E IM r_ 3 -e LL cn to LL r. to (0 C') 2! 0) (M co 00 CD Co 4 � ' . � ■ CL U) � � CO g . � �7 g . � C Irl_ n in 2 U) CD 2 v7 0 (D § �k 7 ca § n § § 2 2 2�� k $ / � x � S R / 2 ° v 2 0 C . �� $ c $ 0 S__.02 3 @ C" 2 C 3 ' ` C k eco . � k2 % ■ � e k / � � k � ■ k U 0 � � k � � � ' V L=° Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION c�srAcoiir't'i �~ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS!OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ' August 10, 1996 Tosco Refining Company Avon Refinery Martinez,CA 94553-1487 ' Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Dick Halford Dear Mr.Halford: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, ' and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council, Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. ' We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so ' that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, ' 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. ' Sincerely, t 1 Lewis .Pascalli,Jr. ` Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake 01r (00 tz: 0 vo (8 Ln co 0 3� y aai 0 00 w 0 7-- 0 r- -�4- 010 a 0 0 to 15. opC).u1 a; 1 (0 Sr—A 0 03 o 'oC6 ¢ . 0) 0 0 ,0 tn t"0 0 -0 0) to -00 130 !a os- I I - -E 1:6 % e (0 0 too 0 0 0 ell e- ul 31 0 O �6. CL. rn 0 0), 0 -0 —o 0 % P- 0 - C: .1a 0 0 3; 00 00 3 0 71 'lop to ipN --to 1 f-", W� CD bo co ttt ch Oct CD C) C4 m M cli CY) 00 ul LO 0 0) cr) cri 0) CD 0 m cn 20 co 00 co 0-1 0 cn 0) c t 0 ch 0 cx 01) 0 E C*4 aR co M cu 10 10 0 C14 wa m ul —M E o_ co w4) 0 0 RICHARD F.HALLFORD Manager Environmental,Health&Safety Community Relations ' Tosco Refining and Marketing Company T O O A Division of Tosco Corporation Avon Refinery Martinez,California 94553-1487 Telephone:510 372-3106 Facsimile: 510 372-3021 File: 1280 ' August 23, 1996 Lewis G. Pascalli,Jr., Deputy Director k E(`r i1, r) Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Boulevard AUG 1996 rMartinez, CA 94553 �. . Subject: Request of August 10, 1996 vvV Dear Mr. Pascalli: In response to your letter of August 10, 1996, enclosed we have provided the following information for Tosco's Avon Refinery: ' • Table 1 - Descriptions of incidents occurring at Tosco since 1989. Incident descriptions provided are for those incidents requested by the County. ' • Table 2 - Maximum Business Plan Inventories - 1995 • Explanatory Notes to Table 2 ' Should you have further questions regarding an of this information, lease contact me at Y q g g Y P ' (510) 372-3106. Sincerely yours, Richard F. Hallford, Manager Environmental, Health& Saf ty d Community Relations ' RMJ/V Enclosures ' 0356.rmj 1 • r d r _ cu c a � a) 4) m c q c) umi � w >, � aimi C.) CD CDn � o 00 � ..t- vm oc cm o r ma) Lsc N ` ° Lm � s wa tna) U .. 0 LM ON. aD w' ° °� m m m ami (LD c co ca o f X E a) a� a0. . o f o2 y- am N O ++ N 0 0 � m E cE v>ion ca o 3 'CL a� m > w E o m ate :° 3 a) A? `� T8" �' om '� mX m c a) m W — U- . r- - I- G N U 0 C_ � M � r Q � Q > > r = a a »< �. 0 d n n n .0 c .0 .0 N m m m m m m m ' 2 >- 1 U U U U rn U U 0 c 0UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 C1 Z ,� _ = s s i= i = 14 -2 vv Z Wr O _ r_cr LU 0 CL 0 CL (D a� W m aD oa 0 _� a � ° ° a 0. 0 = o w = z w w ro = o cm 0 cu 0 >% O EO . U O C a m m m O O c y t m N Ui Lo 2 cmt5 C C O w O « N > O C OQ C 0 cm a) C m a) ami 2 3 .� aci > > c o (Mc o w w oc 0n x o cmdCOmc O a W - .9 m CD Se LO co CN r - r • r rTABLE 2 TOSCO AVON REFINERY rMAXIMUM BUSINESS PLAN INVENTORY- 1995 MATERIAL LB HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: HYDROCARBON TANK INVENTORY 3,486,211,525 PURCHASED CHEMICAL AND 322,622,130 PROCESS UNIT FILL ' HAZARDOUS WASTE: 704,560 TOTAL 3,809,538,215 r r r r r r r r r r r r r . r Explanatory Notes to Table 2 1 Maximum Business Plan Inventories - 1995 Tosco Refining Coml2= Your letter asked us to confirm the maximum hazardous materials inventories from our AB 2185 Business Plans for the years 1989 through 1995. Tosco retains only the latest hazardous materials inventory on a spreadsheet. We therefore are unable to provide or confirm previous ' years' inventory totals. Our 1995 inventory is summarized in the attached Table 1. The inventory consists of three parts: (1) Hydrocarbon Tank Inventory (the"Tank List"), (2) Purchased Chemical and Process Unit Fill Inventory, and (3)Hazardous Waste Inventory. rPlease note that, per the Business Plan rules, these inventories are "maximum possible" inventories. They are meant to provide the worst case condition which may be encountered by emergency responders at a particular location. For example, the numbers on the hydrocarbon tank inventory are tank capacities. Obviously, the total tank inventory shown would not be reached unless every tank in the refinery were simultaneously filled to capacity, a condition ' which never occurs. The figures therefore significantly overstate actual refinery inventories. Similarly, the purchased chemical inventories are the greatest amounts expected to be on hand at each process unit any time during the year. We therefore urge caution in using our Business Plan inventories and those of other facilities to attempt to provide any kind of representative county- wide "snapshot" of actual hazardous materials inventories That is not the p=ose for which Business Plan inventories were developed. We are unsure of the source of the previous years' inventories which you provided in your letter. ' The inventory for 1990 looks low and appears to include only the purchased chemical and process unit fill inventory. The inventories for 1994 and 1995 look high. The inventory for 1994 appears to include the fresh water reservoir,which does appear on the tank list. We are unsure of the source of the 1995 figure. If estimates are required for previous years, we would recommend using the attached 1995 rinventory. Since some new process equipment and tanks have recently been built, the inventory likely somewhat overstates previous years. However, it is probably better than the estimates rshown in your letter. r 1 r i e = Contra Costa County Health Services Department ,40 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION �OST'a COUN'� � HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH iAugust 10, 1996 General.Chemical,Richmond Plant 525 Castro Street Richmond,CA 94801 iSubject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Valerie Gray Dear Ms.Gray: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building i Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. i As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996, if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 1 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerely, ' iLewi G.Pascalli, r. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake 1 ins 4, 8 r_ 179 W ' a C R a 1 7 d U p N Cco w U Q ` N V C � S tC a� `0 m c U O p� E 5 ` Q d y t0 •. + H N O o m cif 0 N � N 10 Cl) N w, N Cl) N ch 04 VJ C N d ��• .� t03 � O =3 au), p C t r ELL E C 7 O 'O UL) 0 O O O CN l4 7 N O Omo C a CL U N cr. IT coS co '41 o aCD ^ r' o °'o_ C/) v o o E o $ 0) is 0 ..q0x o co U? VI ` U C G 7 C c CD E ayi E w a 2 a a co N to Co O L "i Nm w7 w Oj rn UN mN Oy, Y'oH `� ?a p L N N O .0 t LD Tom. o � > oLn m w o m d d o o ani E E.c O ED a; E E E E E LL r r t r t m acr- c i ro s - ci ori ao 00 CD 0 LO co cw rn co y d r � � o t= r cfl., N r -Cli 4 G N � � � G � G o t � � G O e rn rn Cl- 7 � N V �• r N r V v � W M 7 tG is r d tt N a� N % r em�c®rl August 19, 1996 P.O. Box 1712 ' Richmond, CA 94802-1712 TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE FAX(510)193 232-7629 ' Mr. Lewis G. Pascalli, Deputy Director Hazardous Materials Section RFC''-IVEo Contra Costa County Health Services Department ' 4333 Pacheco Blvd. AU1� ?21996 Martinez, CA 94553 ' Re: General Chemical Corporation -Richmond Works Hazardous Materials Inventories and Incidents ' Dear Mr. Pascalli: Please find attached information you requested for the incidents occurring at General Chemical ' Richmond Works from since 1989. The hazardous materials inventory information for 1991 (maximum total pounds on-site) is 17,293,140. See attached. The following was totalized from ' each year's Business Plan submittal: 1989 17,285,240 ' 1990 17,285,240 1991 17,293,140 1992 16,898,500 ' 1993 16,967,264 1994 16,924,064 1995 17,169,664 ' If you should have any questions regarding the above inventory quantities or the incident histories, please do not hesitate to contact me at(510) 237-3869. tSincerelyours va&II't d46�� Y Valerie A. Gray ' Mgr EHS attachments cc: T. Brafford ' K. Meashey cAfi1es\rc1md1081996.ccc Extracted from the 1996 RMPP: ' SULFUR DIOXIDE & SULFUR TRIOXIDE RELEASES ' 1) Accident Description On May 18, 1989 at 2:50 am and at 9:05 pm, two separate power failures caused ' unknown quantities of unburned hydrocarbons and sulfur dioxide to be release from the decomposition chambers. The second release resulted in a vapor cloud that dissipated in approximately 20 minutes. The Richmond Fire Department and ' the Chevron environmental field representatives were notified on both occasions. Castro Street was closed to traffic during both incidents. ' Underlying Causes The magnetic breaker in switch room 5 failed. Measures taken to avoid a similar accident ' A new magnetic breaker was installed and the system was interlocked between switch room 3 and 5 and the prover circuit. A power loss to any switch room will ' activate the prover circuit and remove all raw materials feeds from the decomposition chambers. An emergency stop switch was installed in the control room that allows manual activation of the prover circuit that then allows the turbine and 800 hp blower to operate for one minute before total plant shutdown. 2) Accident Descri tp ion ' At about 9:45 a.m. on November 3, 1992, the main steam driven turbine tripped, causing the entire plant to be shutdown. An operator quickly reset the manual trip ' and restarted the plant. At about 9:55 a.m. the turbine again tripped. An operator again reset that turbine and restarted the plant. During both startups, gasses were ' released from the decomposition chambers. During the second plant startup, the wind direction caused the gasses to drift towards Castro Street. Castro Street was briefly shut down to vehicular traffic until the release stopped, and the gasses ' dissipated. Underlydng_Causes ' The cause of the turbine trip was the failure of the governor. Gasses were released from the decomposition chambers as a result of the failure of a 30" valve to properly close, and thereby prevent air from blowing from the 800 HP blower to the decomposition chambers. The air going to the chambers caused the gasses inside of the chambers to be forced out. Measures taken to avoid a recurrence ' The governor and attached oil pump were replaced. The position switch associated with the 30" valve was interlocked with the 800 HP blower so that the ' 800 HP blower could not start unless the position switch indicated that the 30" valve was closed. ' The system has been redesigned so that the 800 HP blower is no longer required Accident Description On June 10, 1994 ata approximately 11:35 am PDT, the main as blower shutdown pp Y g causing approximately 831 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 20 pounds of sulfur ' trioxide to be released from the B &W decomposition chambers. The apparent cause of the release was due to an electrical problem to the blower. The amount of fugitive emissions was found to be reported incorrectly due to a flaw in the calculation. The correct amount emitted was 199 pounds of SO2 and S pounds of SO3 . 13nderlyine Cause The high temperature oil gauge sensor is believed to have tripped the shutdown. Measures taken to avoid a recurrence The oil sensor was replace with a more reliable sensor. ' OLEUM & SULFUR TRIOXIDE RELEASES 1) Accident Description ' On July 26, 1993, approximately 3.9 tons of sulfur trioxide were released to the atmosphere from a railcar during off-loading. The pressurized air and sulfur trioxide in the vapor space exploded through a safety rupture disc installed in the dome are on top of the car, and poured through the opening for approximately three hours until the disc was replace. The Community Alert Network was ' activated by the Contra Costa County Health Service Department. Castro Street and neighboring streets were shut down to vehicular traffic until the release was stopped, and the gasses dissipated. Underlying Causes The sulfur trioxide release was caused by a sudden and rapid increase of pressure in the vapor space inside the railcar. ' Measures taken to avoid reoccurrence ' The facility will no longer store oleum in railcars. The facility has chosen to eliminate the storage and transport of oleum by rimplementation of the Oleum Risk Reduction Project. The Project consists of manufacturing electronic grade su furic acid on site instead of storing and shipping oleum to General Chemical's Bay Point Works. r BUSINESS PLAN ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Business Plan Title III Submissions Hazard ' Communication Program. Attachments: ' (a) List of Hazardous Chemicals (b) MSDS Request Letter (c) MSDS Evaluation Form (d) Employee Training Record Revisions: Date Updated Plan January, 1990 Updated Plan February, 1991 z h t o O 1 p N cv .., d N W u to p in W 1 . __ -. > F3? o d ' uj .�. _ ¢ .- ccn NN V cis fist"u<ii%^::Y�>iii::%i:.'•$::::.; � M t-i4::ti:+<::i.ii:L:: ii'•':ij'•::•::iYii i- < cc r Q W ':+::aafi:?}<•i;;:9;.:.;:;i:%-;::ic;'�c�:'' (3' QS } y a >+` z . c a ?:_h:;•Y:_i:::;•:a:;::;::•a.; ::t::= <s<:z- z 1. IY C Q C? 02 ce C CN cis CY .L o LO c� ;< U ` rt :'5.a• ;i:�y:;.- H U y� iIi a+ C '� 'ON cis '^ ZU. m 93 cis cr. LU uj ccl #= W y it U : i'%•� "::>''`<:4 ''i'^LSA;#:�ii�pi..... ui Qcc Q Z cf Ln Z O .� o u Q CC: _ Ln > a L y CC u u m X14:>.a:::>:•.14 � LU ', ::::<:«• G V O a (Y C !3.r U- C0 U Zi Qy LL .. _i•Y'u.'f.Viiia.;.>•�;%''���'>:+.::.`�}�i':�#.,... � y � F+ �r •r�1 � 60 z W V "C C u .0.. sU __:fit..:.. LU {_ •� u M 03 ....k:' rn 1+� - cn z ¢ J � �► J u W = LLI �.,ts 00 cm C •= o o o Ln cJ LLJ z C o� 04 CR vo a, U IM co h y w V CO W, O N N b Op r.•G '0 ..�. pi Rf y .. cr) 113 Q G U U U .R �' m t!! . cis N � C6 O •^ !�9 C r a a 0 ao rte, � c .tr R w o 3 Uasw 1 -xi cn • m x i vim'. c •� .r o as u c c � e4 C •� O •� L R = C*) Cr7 (n CO r. ip a' •� ! N (+� N O u j3 F Z cn N N N M t O l a � H o 2 � O � � �' o o •`-' � 3 � m ' • C � h > .3 H O H � �j ff�� .� V V � Z7 � y •� � •� � V V = � r cw uj nQ 'qu 3 Z o o 0o E V V O H 72 - c E asS c .Sa •C � � y CIS rA u cU c7S v eo•� t c e`a � Emm � ' m cc m Ul cc a0 �t N FO t- C 60 - N1y � ceQn v, ¢ s i i i i i I 'i i Y iii-._--- YY * O J ^ J J 8 � C i � s a s z.= z r x � P d 8 a r G a r e w r Iz y 4 Y a b Y � S � r � • r jib zi 3 x N � e � t < $ g 4 r _ tJ E t i� f i , i t E C f i I'I r� t I e f i R f i !!f 1 Y I 0 x a K �rH ps i �: n� O pp w C � « 'm < o ` �3a s 2 a e •7� �y w y y ^? . _ c � o « - M : C _ u `v Y s Y � ! e e . K 7 Y ol 3 o o � eY �C N N N O J ! Jam• e. e < N s z �- — � . _.. . . � } . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . ! . . . � Y}� . k . \ § k k - ._.. � ! ! |! � ■ } j . 13 . . � 2 = ■ . k � _ � . . � f . _ ƒ 2 ! a ■ 22 § 4 ! ! � � I I � ■ �3i - - I . # o I � !{ . _ . _ !|\ ® - � • � . . 1 816 1 S _ g �zd s s x s s s x x 5 S •. a a w w w 8 a. id 10 2 M1 t � • N •r C - •5. � O � N � M- II • - - g r - a 0 8 8 3 8 $ 8cc gSS6 } f o C C o z�� 61 z S' ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FORM 1 THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF EACH BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA WHICH AT ANY TIME HANDLES ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN OUANTiTiES GREATER THAN ' 300 POUNDS,55 GALLONS OR 200 CUBIC FEET OF.GAS AT STP. SUBMIT THIS FORM TO YOUR LOCAL ADMINISTERING AGENCY.(§25533& 25536 Health&Safety Code) Note instructions an reverse . Business Name GENERAL CHEM I CAL CORPORATION ' Business Site Address 525 CASTRO STREET, _ RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94802 ' Business Mailing Address Of different) Business Phone (415) 232-7193 Business Plan Submission Date 1 SENT 2/91 Process Deslgnatlon2 ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLED3 -USE ADDITIONAL PAGES iF NECESSARY- (MAX AMT. CHEMICAL NAME QUANTMY ON HAM ANY ONE TIME. ) SLLF1 JR D i OX I DE 5,000 LBS ' SLLFLR TRIOXIDE 2,500 LBS SLLFLR I C AC I D ( I NCLLDES OL ELM & SPENT SLLFLR I C AC I D) 16,200,000 LBS 50 000 LBS VANAD I Uri PE(fOX I DE GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSES AND PRiNCIPAL EQUIPMENTS; SEE ATTACHED SHEET SIGNATURE -�-`"��� TITLE PLANT MAS ' PRINTED NAME RCeERT MAEU DATE 02/05191 California Office of Emerpency Services FORM HM 3777(8.25.87) ' GENERAL DESCRIPTION ' This facility manufactures sulfuric acid using fuel gas, sulfur and spent sulfuric acid as raw materials. Spent sulfuric comes to the plant through pipeline and tank truck, is stored in tanks ' and fed to the decomposition chamber where it is burned to S02 and H2O . The system is under a negative pressure of 1-10" . Temperature in the decomposition chamber is 18000F. 4 The S02 gas then enters the waste heat boiler which lowers the temperature to 5000F. The SO2 then enters the gas cooling tower ' where it is cooled to 1000F. It then enters the precipitator where acid mist and particulates are removed. The S02 gas then enters the gas drying tower where excess moisture is removed. The SO then enters the gas blower at a pressure of 70" H2O and 1200F. The SO2 then enters the reheat chamber where it mixes with a hot (19000F) S02 stream. IThis mixture exits the reheat chamber at 8000F. The SO2 goes into the converter where at ' 8000F, it contacts the vanadium pentoxide catalyst and is converted to S03 . From here, the S03 enters a waste heat boiler to cool it to 4500F. It then goes to the absorbing tower where ' the S03 is stripped to make sulfuric acid. The remaining gas goes to the abatement unit and then exits through the plant stack. The acid is stored. in tanks and shipped by truck, rail _ and pipeline. ' To make oleum, the gas exits the converter and goes to the oleum absorbing tower, which strips a portion of the S03 to make oleum. The balance of S03 returns to the sulfuric absorbing tower. The oleum is stored in tanks and is shipped by tank truck. ' This is a continuous process with a rated capacity of 219, 000 tons per year. : = `= Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION spA.coJK`t'[ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ' August 10, 1996 DuPont,Antioch Plant 6000 Bridgehead Road Antioch,CA 94509-7301 rSubject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents ' Attn: Brian Coleman Dear Mr. Coleman: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet ' discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file'for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for, the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. ' As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. ' Sincerel , U►1� Lewi G.Pascalli,Jr. ' Deputy Director c: Laura Brown ' Elinor Blake ' knnoe � & � . � \ k . � 2 G \ co C)0) � ° / � a §coo - £ e � � w § k 8 k k m � E CL J u . o ' \ L / IF, ~\ � Cl) . � rn ca a- 40 00 04 q to ch V! 00 act C-4 vi c cv) C:) (1) CCL CV) .2 C14 C14 0 0. a ( Ct LO � , Co CV Ul) 0 Lci CD CN CD 0) 0) m o 0 co CD 0 0) CD 00 0 0) 0) w d) cn to x CC) > (A W 17i 0 0 C) M CL 0 CL SO C:) 0Ct (30 17 Go T 0) CN C1.4 UtXi CD E p :3 to tC CL) a) a) 0 cc (D z aUPONT ANTIOCH PLANT `? n X996 6000 Bridgehead Road Antioch, California 94509-7301 (: (510) 779-6100 August 21, 1996 Ms. Laura Brown Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Blvd. ' Martinez, CA 94509-7301 ' Dear Ms. Brown: I am responding to your August 10, 1996 letter requesting verification of Business Plan inventories and additional information concerning our release on March 24 , 1994 . ' Our records show the following for the Business Plan inventory numbers: 1992 24 , 325, 810 1993 23 , 149, 810 1994 22,402, 200 1995 24 ,368, 860 A summary of our March 24, 1994 incident including causes and actions taken subsequently to prevent recurrence are shown below: Summary A failure of the Inconel 601 oxygen preheater coil at DuPont's Antioch titanium dioxide plant occurred on 3/24/94 . The coil ' had a major rupture at the third turn from the bottom, leading to a release of process gas. Rupture of the coil was attributed to third stage creep from over temperature in ' service. Failure of the control thermocouple caused the furnace to be fired harder and run hotter until the coil failed. Similar coils in the same service at sister plants ' have operated for a combined 114 years without a failure such as this. Better Things for Better Living Initiating Cause: Failure of thermocouple. rContributing Cause: Interlock scheme was not designed for failure of a single thermocouple. Root Cause: Failure of thermocouple. ' Upgrades Since Incident: 1. Lowered temperature of coil to extend life. ' 2. Interlock scheme redesigned to look at differential temperatures between different thermocouples. 3 . Redundant thermocouple added at outlet to preheater If you should have questions regarding this, please call me at (510) 779-6260. Sincerely, Brian R. Coleman Environmental Manager 1 ° Contra Costa County s Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION .cdsrA'c"iiN� �y HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ' August 10, 1996 Dow Chemical P.O. Box 1398 ' Pittsburg,CA 94565 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents ' Attn: Mike Krup Dear Mr.Krup: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled ' "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996, if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerely, ' L is .Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake 4333 'ach`o ou`evar at iaez; a1i� �n�a 9455 1:0) � 86 v a r r � � v m O G t ✓ CO y O N O r •� G t} � d N U N N iL o : O v G N G OAU r 'y ¢ � O) p U 7 R v V N r = t0 O � � Som 1,a V � 0 N r). o o co 'iki s G � rto 00) ( C 7 O to N � � t 1 r Q? J d; i r � � rn N t � � ' v N chi c) V M T Cric N �"— c th O N O� C !" cCO o t (n , FL O M C) a) MN N Gs o N t. C C t[1 ao � LO `' O 3 C7 m CC CD O C co O� G N > r O rn N QC3 T- 4 a V- Dt0 c 'G to m O } ~ 0 C N C Qt CL (9 N O N N c d1 3 It, p Q rn W e- OCD w a 00 M G 3 0- c V- coo F— co N � U N N U C� ro V �0.• �' o C c > co C m � c c� E o � m .N.. Co M ias O O .°c o "p v v .0 U) V) T (1) = C. a. = Contra Costa County ,s Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ��SrA CO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemicals 100 Mococo Road Martinez,CA 94553 ' Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Gary Amideneau ' Dear Mr.Amideneau: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by.the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. ' We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerel , wis .Pascalli, r. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake r '-;Y€du=:.1"g CD CP co a r - � � Oc. ,) ISO oc r � .0 1 i7 7Fp 1101, wi t3� a r � r r a r � • r -- r � rn o co 7 N N G i � a r � •O O ss / cO 1 c z O N V O/ � T � o i �tS9 rO v G s r > "t� - a r � N f C%4 r... v C1.0 w0 V; a o co Z3 o s`3 � Y y a loo 00 •- 3 c Z r o a � � N d N � r i SG Gp . t6 J v G r � N N m a r Contra Costa County Health Services Department t 40�•'•� w' _ •;> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 General Chemical,Bay Point Plant 501 Nichols Road Pittsburg,CA 94565-1098 rSubject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Jim Craig Dear Mr.Craig: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. ' I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996, if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. ' Si e y, Lewi G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake r_, Wim Rlifirn a o� m o- r r r r a So. m � G U r o.� N r G d o ,rte p � r co r � 1 d 'w y G r r w U F � -. dG t, ✓a r Q rn a 0.) u� m co T- ori 03 as LO � (D rn c*i 0), Oct T- o CN U e- M M C Ri O C. a) N N � m co N �N cit w O rn m o ao w o ds � � � o w °' c co O cts cs LO > w w a r o W d co Fa- 0 b 4 !L C m Z3 .� 0) � a C a rn O CL CD_ 00 � O ?' N F co c" 04 N Co U .0 Q U t) dco C c i ° �0 � M Co Co Cc _j aUi c U V L) m as C c�4 (V CU = a --��c �o• i-1-11 rrtulru11141 L_ucu-L.cn lu 'zb4beo'?3 P.01 C .0�i_ ._. _ L_`11_Y....� .. _...___ i_.._• _._ __ _._! IJ -- •-I �;.__...��---- '��"----- ';CKs:_ .::��:rt�.c���.�.o�s�r►�s.�—.�-�'-...�_- 077• MA ... i Z 1 1 1 I • I � ' i i TOTAL P.01 --= Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION rq-c-U�:ci HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ' August 10, 1996 ' Pacific Refinery 4901 San Pablo Avenue Hercules,CA 94547 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Guy Young ' Dear Mr. Young: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, ' and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, ' 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. ' Sin Lew . Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake 1 4 ,. -�...�,_,. _ u a) rn m a 1 O 3. Q. N c w� _ N 2 0 O h U w 0 0 U N p o 'fl _ Q C N O) O C C 2-' U N - O p C cv o m p Q IlOd N M C NpNm No ENy O y 0= ppp 0 O O NN U O C m7 O O WJ Ou) d 'pU O M O W op c N � Co o c c C) 0 o o o C) 0o C co v o v v C) y d ' N (� C c cc c c o cn °c a c c aCL m U W > > W C7 C N d C y c p N U y V ,7p U CL x 0 0' x 2 V 4) d w 7 d 7 t VU a a a a f° a d CD rn � n ONi A ' '� r � CO O) 1� co I �` i� I 1 'i 'l ,� i I i E I �` i` �, ,' i I, k �1 ��' ' �1 I I i o� rn co a LO - r rr � <z .z r ui r G � � d G � Q o CP cl r O � CU3 M .•.% N rG r .to CL1 .v X10 cts ..S G Q U v+ .a N on r = a a- r . vo.,t4 ao ib.4z 14:2510 788 8042 EMPLOYEE REL 0001/()01 PACIFIC REFrNTING COMPANY A Subsidiary of The Coastal Corporation 4901 San Pablo Avenue - Hercules, California 94547-2100 Main (510) 799-9000 • Fax (510) 799-8042 ' TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET ' Date: S f�{ 5 to No. of Pages: U (Including Cover Sheet) - Company: Facsimile Telephone No. Voice Telephone No. Attn:� L-A uRA &.�rj 646 - 20?3 Z�8G cc: ' From: C�atK o�tGzV ^7�'1 t�q Z 79e) 1315 COVER MESSAGE: F!�k-b-Y-A,s if-►�Ef �,� Pte., .>..,. ,,,s:�, s �� : ISR - (OG 111 q3) 334 l&, 1 194 '734, -7t7-7( 6('7 18A -734, 445-, 0-3 19,5 1 If you have any problems receiving this transmission, please call Pacific Refining at the telephone number above. ' CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity designated abor% is confidential and may Contain information that is legally privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You arc hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this facsimile transmission by or to anyone other Om the recipient designated above by the sender is net euthoriUd and Su;etly.jtrohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify the sender by telephone and return it to the sender by U.S.Mail,or destroy it if authorization is granted by the sender. Thank you. Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ' August 10, 1996 Chevron USA Chevron Refinery P.O.Box 1272 Richmond,CA 94802-0272 ' Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Carolynn McIntosh ' Dear Ms. McIntosh: ' We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building ' Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous ' materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for ' the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. ' As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and De5aulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- ' 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sinc w G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake : 333Pachecoa8yard� :;- RECE PACIFIC REFINING COMPANY En r A Subdiary of The Coastal Corporation AUG 2 61996 4901 SAN PABLO AVENUE-HERCULES,CALIFORNIA 94547-2100.510/799-8000-FAX 510/799-8042 r ' .1i:i1' IYIU iEII�..} ' August 19, 1996 Ms. Laura Brown Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, CA 94533-2295 Dear Ms. Brown: In response to Mr. Lewis Pascalli's letter dated August 10, 1996, the following summarizes each of the incidents listed in the letter: September 9, 1989 The cause of this incident resulted from a nipple which broke off, releasing visbreaker bottoms into the atmosphere which ignited. Due to the wind direction at the time, the spray of visbreaker bottoms carried into the tank farm and off-site. March 31, 1992 The cause of this incident resulted from a tube rupture which caused a fire at Heater H-201. Due to the wind direction at the time, soot carried into the tank farm and off-site. May 29. 1992 rThe cause of this incident involved the rupturing of a return header on the cooling tower recirculation line, immediately dropping cooling water circulation flows and spraying the cooling water into the tank farm and off-site. With the loss of cooling water, the hydrocracker was depressured to the flare, which generated a smoking flare. The soot that was generated at the flare tip was then carried by combustion flue gases, which deposited this sooty material into the tank farm and off-site. February 4. 1994 The cause of this incident involved a fire at an empty crude oil tank (T-801C). While repairing the roof on this tank, sparks from the repair work caught the foam between the primary and secondary seals on fire. September 27, 1995 The cause of this incident involved maintenance workers attempt to blind a line connecting into the light slops line. A worker loosened the bolts on a flange and observed some.liquid. The worker tightened the bolts and requested that the line be depressured. A second worker depressured the line by opening a valve and letting about two gallons of liquid out of the line. At first, condensed water and diesel-like material came out of the line, then, visbreaker naphtha started coming out of the line. Visbreaker naphtha is a naphtha with a heavy mercaptan, sulfurous odor. The worker closed the valve. To reduce the odor, the worker applied a deodorizing liquid and along with a third worker, washed the liquid into the closed oil recovery ' system. 1 Ms. Laura Brown August 19, 1996 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this summary, please contact me at (510) 799-8151. Sincerely, OV A-4 Jeff W. Jakonczuk Senior Environmental Engineer r ' r rn cc a- i r Y 'a) E U N t N a) N N N O) 0 OM) f0 MO) C O O Y M a) S o a) = :C m N 75 a N ,;, U a) �a) O C LL . .2 6 N �C' C N y 17 w 0 O ` O Q) l7 N C > 'SN to lC N 7 Cl) C :3ai2 (o . o p v 3 0 2 � •� v' CO � %u� rn ` O o 0 ro N 0 vi 'co V y O o a� 0 0 ,aa) O � c m rnL U c U a US d r ; ���` '�� I '' ''�� 1 f �i k tl ��` �� i �i '`, Cb 1 � c o� m of p) 7 N N d COO lsik to l7✓ N G i0-0 d � so Q '4 1ST c7 v O to cs y � pC U L U N N 4 Z 1 1Memnchevron r ' August 20, 1996 Chevron Products Company Rt= rU P.o.Box 1272 Richmond,CA 94802-0272 2, 1996 C.L McIntosh Manager Environmental and Safety Division Mr. Lewis G. Pascalli, Jr. Deputy Director Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, CA 94553 ' Attention: Ms. Laura Brown Response to Request for Information Dear Mr. Pascalli: This letter is in response to your request for information, dated August 10, 1996, regarding hazardous materials incidents and inventories for the Chevron Richmond Refinery. ' Incidents As requested, we have reviewed our incident records and have included as Attachment I, a table which includes a brief summary of each of the incidents by date, and what we believe to be the initiating, contributing and root causes to these incidents. Enclosed as Attachment 2 is the table contained in your August 10, 1996, request. We have marked it up with suggested changes to reflect current data. Inventories Your letter included a request for annual totals for hazardous materials stored onsite as reported in our Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Plan) for the years 1989 through 1995. Unfortunately we can only supply,data for 1995. This is because we do not keep copies of old inventory records. When the inventory is revised, we update our computer database and replace hard copies in the refinery with the updated versions. We cannot obtain older versions from the Richmond Fire Department because they also toss their old copy when the yearly inventory is updated. 1 �� a ,, �� '' �` ����� . '� d ,` � �� ,, � << t4 1 �� 1 '1► 1 1 1 ��� 1 �,,` r ��� r The annual total for 1995 was approximately 25 million tons. This number reflects the total amount of hazardous materials which would normally be onsite at any given time. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Cliff Hunt at(5 10) 1 242-2183. Sincerely, i C 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 ��� � � �, i 1 t �� i t �� 1 �'� ��1 ai o d � o r � G c Mme' o R o U w ON U /^•fi i •Ey t5 flU„ G t6 v $ U p Al y G G N o 0 0 ns s w � 5U � w T o � ✓ N y to /'� •G > G rS � •t7 � w 7 w j.+ ! Nay Vey W O G N G' o p 'N3 '04 9 r N G 06. O � G y E S � � � ✓ cua tj s v O v Ao ✓ 00 - °v ✓O GP Vs � �� v NN GK7i C 3 co Yr {. N y R f y O p on y G•3 "" U y 3 0 .� pG � ou � P•G �s � o � °�$ �� baa � d 0 DO �+ — 05, 6� w N D Y" ° y ' ^ y cz u $ Ou ✓ •-' � `6 G ooh R`� "�' �� O oma ' a Gu, 3m > a ,, y pN T G .✓i 't� G N w '' y y G� O � w 4, .cy y '' �U R y> �' yy.. G "" � y s G `". w N R ✓ G on 6 R � � �' y " u 7 0 �. •�� � sa a oGD o4 o M: w � 'y" G A 53. i i Off! V U N N v ;A y H y a•;,, � y � F PO U�+ 6' a• ea ✓ o (S 7 ea e5t1✓ G r y y xN y ++ @Ilk 00 ca G ON " ° 3 N � iC �` � D �� �► �`,, � �� �,, �. t ��`�� ,, 1► �` � ,� ��, ,, 1 �, 1 << �,: t �� 1 ���� � '1 1 �� r ��� � ��� � ���, <<< Attachment II C" Co D- %Ll %L vi 0 ...............0 ai o 1,7 0 -'4 CD d p,oE ID > CC >I .o M C) CU 10Z E c0 6 13 3: T- Cp V,'o, o" o -00 rn 0 0 a) 0 N L) gC� a0 o G) CD CD 0CS- Co 0 :3 .3 0 V) 0) > 0 CC13 U) 0 0 Co 0 Nf Co (h 03 CL E E 00 CL CL CL 49 E 2� wCL CL d) o > (D U) jL CL co 0 9 0 > > > > (D X- Q 00 0') 4) i I r `` ,� �, `� I �� I �� `�, `� �, �� �4 ,' �� i l ,, I i Contra Costa County ' Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION COs'+COUTi'� �y HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH rAugust 10, 1996 Unocal Refinery 1380 San Pablo Avenue Rodeo, CA 94572 ' Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Lanny Partain Dear Mr.Partain: ' We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories ' (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically, for ' the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. ' As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- _ ' 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August-12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerely, fwis4� Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director 1 c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake =r '`^+�`3�f?!f�7�7}7„ �$ I = a �'���,. � �, of ., ,` �, �, ���� � � � �� ���� ®. , �`, � t {. �� �► '� � �► ��� � � � t ��, ,} '� � �, � . d a r � r r r r � S cG6 G N N 3 3 -t? •.G N Y � aZ � rn 11 O p as main d cr ato 0E � � w Q � 0 o N ° 0 r � C, u � b c r G cd o r � E co r d d °' N d L E r N N G O O G � 1Y tU - N rp �• r '� i i i �� t i 1 1, �� �` �. �' i ``� 1,, �� 1 '��, t ., .� �, C� a cs? t, cr rn cr rn cs? rn a�. c 0-1 •n ia N ty, cn o d � o � ca r v w / o o G is �' i Q O G co a a S i i Ei I �` I r f r i t i i i i S i' I i r • . .��, _gym ; 7a.::5''_'�-1646-2207 A—i- i r a.n 3 m i -c Co r-i-F rr:E!Fj 0 r-z A—i< Pu.9 12 '=6 14:32 _CCCHSD HA":MAT 92,.'.'546 Z ` No. 004 ' Mode NORMAL r Pages 3 Page(s) rRenu I t --- { 0 K - r r r r M r �,1' i 1 �` I � � 1`4 �� V ��` l �I t l C �i I I { i i 1 I i' 1f '4 `� ���� l �� ��'� PRODUCTS COMPANY HSER-211-96 fAugust 20, 1996 Mr. Lewis G. Pascalli, Jr. REC 'IAIEED Deputy Director, Health Services Department AUG 2 0 1996 Contra Costa County 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Pascalli: I am writing in response to your letter of August 10, 1996. The requested information regarding inventories from the Refinery's Hazardous Materials Business Plans is attached. Regarding the requested information on certain incidents,the Unocal detailed investigations for ' the referenced incidents are confidential pursuant to the attorney/client privilege. However, attached are the Executive Summaries of the facts associated with the May 17, 1996 Coker fire (which was issued on June 25, 1996) and the June 16, 1995 Tank 288 fire (which was just issued on August 19, 1996), and the summary of events which was provided to your department for the September 15, 1994 odor abatement system incident. The attached Catacarb action plan that is included in the scope of the upcoming County Safety Audit is the available (unprivileged) Unocal document associated with that incident. Regarding the September 15, 1994 incident,Unocal has made many improvements to the current odor abatement system over the last year,and the new$8 million project involving the installation of three new compressors is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year. As you know,the team for the upcoming County Safety Audit will be focusing on the odor abatement system during portions of their Process Safety Management review. We hope this information will be of assistance. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. ' Sincerely, Morgan T. Walker, Superintendent Health, Safety and Emergency Response San Francisco Refinery MTW/abs 1380 San Pablo Avenue Rodeo, California 94572-1299 PH (51 0) 799-4411 Attachments aI A U n o c a C o m p a n y HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORIES - TOTAL POUNDS REPORTED FROM BUSINESS PLANS UNOCAL REFINERY 1989 926,148,891 Pounds ' 1990 1,074,096,000 Pounds 1991 1,061,459,000 Pounds 1992 1,085,236,350 Pounds 1 1993 1,097,496,333 Pounds 1994 1,135,634,_797 Pounds ' 1995 1,140,851,875 Pounds Inventory fluctuations during the years from 1989 through 1993 are primarily influenced ' by changes in storage tank usage. 1994 reflects increased use of purchased blending stocks, and 1995 includes the clean fuels projects. 1 ■ CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN SUMMARY 1. Auditing ' A. Independent Auditor to review Unocal's notification procedures, emergency response pian and safety management program ' B. Audit notification procedures to emergency response staff, employees, agencies, and community ' 2. Training A. "Lessons Learned" Training Incorporate details of Catacarb incident in annual OSHA training to prevent recurrence ' B. Management of Change Training with emphasis on unusual circumstance C. Compliance Alert Training D. Risk Communication Training ' E. Emergency Response Plan Training 3. Drills ' A. Notification procedures B. Emergency response plan C. Health Care Provider notification,procedures 1 4. Communications Several communications channels will be used to reinforce message of commitment to safety and compliance A. Messages from Upper Management via presentations B. Articles in Employee Newsletter C. Messages from the Manager via memo 5. Management oversight/decision-making A. Increase technical staff input and cross-functional decision teams for unusual and emergency operations ' B. Increase management in the field C. Improve handling of community calls 6. Enhanced Information Access A. Update MSDS handling B. Update crisis communications policy ' C. Create health care provider notification plan D. Community Advisory Panel 1 1 December 2, 1994 Page 1 ' CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN DETAIL Action Date Description 1. Auditing 3/95 A. Independent Auditor Unocal will, at company expense, hire an independent auditor, selected by the community and mutually agreeable to Unocal, ' who will perform an independent audit of the facility's notification procedures, emergency response plan, and safety management program. The results of the audit would be made public, and Unocal is committed to responding to any concerns raised by the report. ' B. Internal Audit A team has been pulled together to improve Unocal's notification procedures, which includes how the refinery notifies ' and communicates with emergency response staff, employees, agencies, and community. ' com- Internally, these include revising our procedures for activating plete emergency personnel and ordering new communications equipment. com- In the community, these mean identifying those which need plete most carefully looking after, such as schools, day care centers ' and senior citizen centers and improving our ability to communicate with them quickly and clearly. The audit will also ' review timeliness of agency notification. (The initial audit has been completed and some of the recommendations have already been put in place) 2. Training 1/95 A. "Lessons Learned" Training Incorporate details of Catacarb incident in annual OSHA ' training to all employees to prevent recurrence 3/95 B. Management of Change Training Review formal training of personnel who participate in tManagement of Change programs with emphasis on application of the Management of Change to unique or unusua situations. Review Management of Change procedure to address and reinforce inclusion of non-engineered changes in a process, operating equipment, and procedures. ' December 2 1994 Page 2 1 Action Date Description 2. Training (Cont) 1/95 C. Compliance Alert Training Perform training to all employees during monthly safety meetings on the corporate compliance alert program. Training will include a description of compliance guidelines and standards, a description of the toll-free telephone number for compliance reporting, and distribution of a wallet-size card for ' reference. 1/95 D. Risk Communication Training Perform risk communication training to enhance management and staffs ability to communicate clear consistent message concerning potential health safety and environmental risks posed by operations. 2/95 E. Emergency Response Plan Training ' Perform training on the emergency response plan after it has been reviewed and updated, including evaluating criteria for calling an emergency "Under Control' and "All Clear", as well as agency and community notification procedures. Training will focus on Management and Staff, and be incorporated into the all employee annual OSHA training. 3. Drill 1/95 A. Notification procedure Perform table top drills after notification procedures have been 1 reviewed and updated to include: agency notification, community notification and employee notification. ' 5/95 B. Emergency response plan Perform drill of emergency response plan. Invitation to observe/participate in the drill will be extended to CAP ' members, and local fire departments. 4/95 C. Physician notification plan L Perform drill of physician notification plan. Invitation to observe/participate in the drill will be extended to recipient physicians, CAP members, and local fire departments. December 2, 1994 Page 3 Action Date Description 4. Communications Examine and take steps to improve communications within the Refinery. Several communications channels will be used to reinforce message of commitment to safety and compliance. A. Messages from Upper Management via Presentations 12/94 • President, 76 Products, addresses all supervisors 2/95 • Vice President of Refining, 76 Products, addresses all supervisors 5/95 • Vice President HES, Unocal, describes new corporate compliance program to all supervisors 1 8/95 • General Counsel 76 Products addresses all sup ervisors 11/95 • Chief Compliance Officer, Unocal, addresses all supervisors B. Articles in Employee Newsletter Including: on- ■ compliance alert 800 number going ■ interviews with health, safety, emergency response and environmental affairs personnel ■ description and examples of Management of Change process on- C. Messages from the Manager ' going Memos to employees, emphasizing commitment to compliance, updating on interaction with community 1 1 ' December 2, 1994 Page 4 Action Date Description ' 5. Management 1/95 A. Include technical staff input in cross-functional oversight/ decision teams for unusual and emergency operations Decision making Review roles for specialized departments (i.e. Environmental Affairs, Health Safety and Emergency Response, Metallurgical Engineering and Inspection, Process Engineering, Engineering Design and Construction and Law Department) in the decision making process. Review and formalize methodology for management decisions related to unusual and emergency operating situations with the goal of enhancing cross-functional ' team work and decisions. 12/94 B. Increase management in the field Increase Management's and staff group's field presence in order to improve face to face communications. Include field visits in key performance indicators (KPI). ' 1/95 C. Handling community complaints Review and improve handling of community complaints, e.g. ' establish specific guidelines for response and incorporate them in the existing procedure. Complaint routing should be reviewed and updated to assure that the appropriate ' responsible departments (Environmental Affairs, Health Safety Emergency Response, etc.) are promptly apprised of the situation and respond. Refinery manager will be given copies ' of community complaints on an ongoing basis. CAP members will review complaints at CAP meetings. Complaints will be summarized for Vice-President of Refining monthly. 1 December 2, 1994 Page 5 Action Date Description ' 6. Enhanced 2/95 A. Update MSDS handling Information Access An improved method will be developed to make MSDS quickly available to the public. Review current procedures for obtaining and reviewing Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for new or modified chemicals and new and intermediate products. Procedures should include time limits for MSDS ' development, review, and availability to employees. The procedure should be consistent with the Unocal Corporate Product Safety and Toxicology Group procedure. ' 3/95 B. Update crisis communications plan - Review and enhance current crisis communications plan to incorporate new relationships established with community members and media as a result of the Community Advisory Panel, Good Neighbor Agreement meetings and 76 Products Public Relations Plan. Specific examples include: ■ establish a list of "key community contacts" to be notified in the event of an emergency ■ timely notification of CAP members, incorporating CAP members in organization and dissemination of information to community after an incident ' ■ acquaint local media with incident command system C. Create health care providers notification plan Develop a plan to notify local health care providers (physicians clinics, emergency rooms, pharmacists, emergency response ' personnel, etc.) in the event of a release. Notification will include a brief summary of toxicological properties, recommended diagnostic tests and treatment, and a contact number for Unocal physicians and toxicologists. ' Action steps will include: 12/94 ■ Designate list of potential local health care providers (physicians, pharmacists, etc.) 1/95 ■ Hold focus group of potential recipients to review sample format and content 2/95 ■ Develop list of potential hazards to be included in program 3/95 ■ Computer/fax broadcast set up 3/95 ■ Develop policy for activation, incorporate into the incident command system procedures and training 4/95 ■ Input data into program 6/95 ■ Prepare program/data to be shared with other facilities December 2, 1994 Page 6 Action Date Description ' 6. Enhanced C. Community Advisory Panel Information Access has A community advisory panel (CAP) will be established to (Cont) been promote long-term communications, cooperation and working ' initi- relationships between Unocal and its neighbors in Crockett, ated Rodeo and Tormey. ' on- The CAP will identify and work to resolve issues of concern to going the community and Unocal. As an introduction to the refinery, Unocal will provide CAP members with an orientation and training on refinery operations, health, environment and safety procedures, company policies and procedures including a tour. Attachment 1 ' Follow-up notification regarding an odorous release at Unocal, San Francisco Refinery, Rodeo, California on September 15, 1994. ' Summaryof Events (Event times are approximate) 0855 Emergency at Tank 1001 sump, high LEL, MTBE odors.: One contractor employee complained of dizziness and was sent to Rodeo Medical Center. Sump flushed with water. 0920 Announcement of loss of odor abatement compressors. 1000 Measured 0% LEL at Tank 1001. Emergency at Tank 1001 under control. --1045 SFR personnel visit Hillcrest School. ' —1115 SFR Industrial Hygiene personnel visit Hillcrest School. 1044 Notified BAAQMD (Breakdown request odor abatement compressor) r 1105 Set up fire monitors on Tank 204 to cool and suppress vapors. r1120 Notified CCCHSD of Tank 204 release. 1130 One odor abatement compressor running. 1518 Odor complaint from Rodeo (wind 280 @ 6 mph, not SFR) 1530 Commenced hourly odor patrols of Refinery. 1700 Second odor abatement compressor running. 1900 Tank 1001 emergency all Gear. 2113 Odor complaint from Crockett. r2225 Bulk Supervisor talked to BAAQMD inspector - 3 confirmed complaints/30 pending. Odor tours negative. 2230 Increased gas to flares/decreased steam. MAjag September 21, 1994 Executive Suminary r Factual Findings of Incident Investigation San Francisco Refinery Tank 288 Fire Incident rof June 16, 1995 I. Incident Description rTank 288 is a floating roof tank that had been in finished gasoline service since it was built in 1958, until it was converted to cracked naphtha/non-phenolic sour water service on April 3, 1995. The conversion was necessary because the tank that was usually used for cracked naphtha/phenolic sour water service, Tank 294, was out of service for scheduled maintenance. The existing primary and secondary seals in Tank 288 were installed in 1991; the primary seal installed at that time was a counter weighted, pantograph type. Tank 288 has a design capacity of 112,000 barrels. At the time of the incident, the tank contained approximately 20,000 barrels of sour process water and approximately 3,000 barrels of cracked naphtha. Non-phenolic sour water is typically about 5% sulfide and 2% ammonia (by weight). The naphtha generally separates from the non-phenolic sour water in the tank and floats on the surface. r On Friday, June 9, 1995, San Francisco Refinery personnel determined that the secondary seal on Tank 288 had been damaged and was the probable source of odors that had been reported outside the refinery. Subsequent inspection later that day by a seal r repair/replacement contractor determined that the primary seal required replacement. After evaluation by refinery personnel in consultation with the seal repair contractor, the decision was made to replace the entire primary and secondary seals with the tank in service. That same day, the ground level monitoring equipment (GLM) on the east side of the refinery had readings of 1 ppb H2S between 11:00 am and 2:00 PM, and a reading of 2 ppb of H2S at 2:16 PM. Breakdown relief was sought from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) on June 9, 1995 for Tank 288 under rule 1-430. An emergency variance was rrequested on June 10, 1995, to be in effect until June 23, 1995 (it was later extended to June 30, 1995). The variance was granted on June 12, 1995. ' A procedure to do the work, based on similar sour tank procedures, was generated by the refinery. It was determined that the tank should be isolated, and that the roof should not be raised closer to the top of the tank because of concerns the tank seal might be r disturbed, increasing the potential for odors, when it was moved. The procedure addressed confined space entry procedures for the seal repair personnel, a daily tank entry permit authorized by Unocal, monitoring procedures for the contractor and Unocal Fire Protection personnel, and the use of foam in the annular space to minimize vapors and odors from the tank contents. A"foam gooseneck" for emergency firefighting was rinstalled before the seal was removed. r ' Executive Summary Page 2 Factual Findings of Incident Investigation Tank 288 Fire Incident (Continued) I. Incident Description (Continued) ' Work began on the morning of Thursday, June 1.5, 1995, with plans to continue on a 24- hour per day basis until the work was completed. Seal repair personnel wore Nomex coveralls, full face supplied air respiratory protection with emergency egress bottles, and H2S diffusion tubes. The procedure called for the seal repair employees to continuously monitor H2S, oxygen and the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) utilizing a GX-82 meter. Duringthe first two 12-hour shifts the contractor personnel were able to remove the � entire secondary seal and all of the primary seal except for about 10 counterweights. The weather during the work was cool, overcast and sometimes rainy, until mid-day on June 16, 1995, when it became sunny, warm and calm. On Friday, June 16, 1995, the day shift crew(4 employees) began lay out and installation of the shoes for the new primary seal. The GX-82 monitor was placed on a hatch cover in the center of the roof. Foam quality observed by the contractor and Unocal employees during the job was good. At 3:15 PM, contract employees were drilling holes in the roof rim and installing hanger bolting when a fire was noticed by one of the contract employees. An emergency was announced for a fire on the roof of Tank 288. All personnel working at Tank 288 safely exited the tank and the surrounding tank block. Refinery emergency response personnel arrived at the tank and immediately initiated a full scale response including activation of the Petro-Chemical Mutual Aid Organization. The fire was confirmed extinguished at 5:50 PM. In summary, no injuries occurred and the fire was contained to the annular space between the floating roof and the shell of the tank. II. Emergency Response A Unocal Maintenance Supervisor was on the Tank 288 platform with the confined space attendant (hole watch) at the time the fire started. The Supervisor called in the emergency on his refinery radio before exiting the platform down the stairs with the hole watch and the four seal repair contractors. Initial emergency response personnel arrived at the scene. The Incident Commander ' established the field command post, while two Fire Inspectors blocked in fire water valves and started fire pumps in anticipation of high fire water demand. Mutual aid from the Petro/Chemical Mutual Aid Organization (PMAO) was requested, and the Incident Commander contacted the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District to request additional engines. MTimely response was made to the tank by the appropriate refinery personnel. Smoke was rising from the tank and dissipating rapidly. The Community Notification System was activated to notify local residents of the situation. Executive Summary Page 3 Factual Findings of Incident Investigation Tank 288 Fire Incident (Continued) II. Emergency Response (Continued) Unocal Truck#I5 was the first engine on the scene, and it was positioned inside the tank block to cool the tank shell. Two other Unocal engines arrived at the scene and were connected to hydrants. Water from an adjacent unit was back-filled into the tank to help cool it and maintain the structural integrity of the tank. Municipal responders arrived and met with the Unocal ' responders to determine what additional actions were needed. One Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District pumper and two Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District pumpers were utilized to provide water for cooling the north and east sides of the tank. While these activities were being implemented, the tank shell began to buckle from excessive heat, and Engine 15 was removed from the tank block. When adequate cooling streams were established, back-filling with water was discontinued. Foam application was started in the seal area of the tank, utilizing the gooseneck that had been placed on the lip of the tank per the seal replacement pre-plan. ' The fire diminished significantly after several minutes of foam application, with smoke only coming from the rear of the tank, opposite the gooseneck. PMAO responders began to arrive, including a foam tender, which was utilized to refill the foam tank on one of the Unocal engines. A helicopter was utilized to provide reconnaissance of the tank fire. With the fire confined to the rear of the tank a firefighting with breathing g g crew ( g apparatus) climbed the stairway to the tank and a rooftop attack on the fire was initiated. After foam application, the team descended down the roof stairway to extinguish the remaining fire, estimated to be along 20 feet of the seal area. The fire was confirmed extinguished at 5:50 PM. Fire crews from the refinery and the RHFPD remained on the scene throughout the night reapplying foam to the seal area. Master cooling water streams continued to be applied to the outside shell of the tank to cool the metal and prevent re-ignition. Foam was continually applied by SFR personnel for several days to suppress vapors and odors while a decommissioning plan was implemented for Tank 288. The emergency was called all- clear once a temporary foam seal was successfully installed by Refinery Hazardous Materials Technicians. ' Formal critique meetings were held for both refine and outside responders Also a �' p , critique analysis form was mailed to all responders to gather their input regarding the incident. rExecutive Summary Page e 4 Factual Findings of Incident Investigation Tank 288 Fire Incident (Continued) III. Corrective Actions r 1. The refine has implemented a review process to ensure cross-functional team refinery P review of critical activities that will consider potential hazards, including ' community impacts, prior to implementation of any tank turnaround activities. r 2. For future primary seal replacement jobs, the Refinery will evaluate various precautionary measures including, but not limited to: locating the floating roof at the top of the tank using forced ventilation; washing the seal parts and surrounding r area with potassium permanganate to neutralize any potential for pyrophoric iron deposits; replacing the seals in sections rather than all at the same time; and requiring the issuance of a Hot Work Permit whenever tools are used on a tank roof. ' 3. Although not determined to be directly related to the cause of this incident, the r investigation team recommended that the operation and management of monitoring devices for H2S, Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and oxygen, as well as atmospheric monitoring devices, be reviewed with appropriate personnel. 1 r r r r r r r r r r E2MCUTIVE SIRY24ARY FACTUAL FINDINGS OF INCIDENT INVESTIGATION SAN FRANCISCO REFINERY ' COKER UNIT INCIDENT OF MAY 17, 1996 ' Description of Incident ' On Thursday, May 16, 1996, at 11:00 p.m.,the graveyard shift reported to work at Coking Unit 200. This was the crew's seventh and last graveyard shift for the current work rotation. On Friday, May 17, 1996, at approximately 4:40 a.m., Coker Unit 200 was preparing to switch the feed charge from Coke Drum D-204 to Coke Drum D-203. At this time, ' silicone had been placed into Coke Drum D-204 (which serves to control foaming at the end of a feed charge cycle). The status of each of the four coke drums at this time was as ' follows: Coke Drum D-204 was nearing completion of its feed charge cycle, Coke Drum D-203 had been heated and prepared for introduction of feed charge, Coke Drum D-201 was about one half of the way through its feed charge cycle and Coke Drum D-202 was open and being de-coked. At approximately 4:45 a.m.,announcements were made ' throughout the unit of the pending drum switch. Between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., Coke Drum D-203 condensate valves, located on the bottom head deck, were closed and steam ' sealed. All of these activities were part of the normal coke drum switching operation, including the status of the coke drums. ' At approximately 5:00 a.m.,unit personnel proceeded to the switchcock valve which controls feed charge to Coke Drums D-201 and D-202,and switched the valve from Coke Drum D-201 to Coke Drum.D-202. Switching feed to coke Drum D-202 allowed hot ' hydrocarbon feed charge to flow into the bottom head deck. ' At approximately 5:01 a.m., an emergency was announced for Coker Unit 200. Emergency procedures for Coker Unit 200 were implemented at this time. ' At approximately 5:05 a.m., Refinery emergency response personnel arrived at Coker Unit 200 and immediately initiated a full-scale response including activation of the Petro- Chemical Mutual Aid Organization. At approximately 8:32 a.m.,the flames were extinguished. At approximately 9:40 a.m., the emergency was declared under control. -2- Emergency Response At approximately 5:02 a.m., an emergency announcement was sent over the refinery radio informing of a"fire in the Coke Pit." Within minutes the Incident Commander arrived at the scene. Operations personnel began applying water to the fire from two stationary fire ' monitors. Within minutes of his arrival at the scene,the Incident Commander recommended to ' Contra Costa County Health Services Department(CCCHSD)that the Community Alert Network(automated telephone notification system)be activated for all four zones surrounding the refinery. During this initial response, three Unocal fire engines were applying water to the fire. All operators were accounted for and no injuries were reported. The Incident Commander instructed the Marine Terminal Dispatcher to request Petro- Chemical Mutual Aid Organization assistance via the Chevron Fire Department, and assistance from the Rodeo/Hercules Fire Protection District(RHFPD). At approximately 5:20 a.m.,a Unocal fire inspector started additional refinery fire water pumps. By approximately 5:36 a.m., RHFPD engines had arrived on scene and were deployed to the fire. Also,the Assistant Chief and Administrative Captain from RHFPD had reported to the Command Post. Within minutes,additional municipal and industrial equipment and personnel arrived and remained in the staging area(Crockett/Carquinez Fire Department,Pinole Fire Department,Richmond Fire Department, as well as Chevron, Exxon, Shell,Tosco and Dow Chemical industrial departments). By approximately 5:38 a.m., CCCHSD confirmed that the Community Alert Network had been activated. ' A Safety Officer and Operation's Chief were assigned to the incident. A formal site safety plan was developed and an ambulance requested to be on standby. By approximately 8:15 a.m.,Industrial Hygiene reported monitoring results in the surrounding community were negative and San Pablo Avenue (running through the refinery)was reopened to traffic by the CHP. At approximately 8:50 a.m., a Unocal firefighter was taken by ambulance to Doctor's Hospital for observation due to chest pain (later diagnosed as a pulled muscle). A second ambulance was requested for standby and arrived within minutes. At the same time,the Incident Commander began de-staffing some of the considerable amount of staged equipment from Pinole, Crockett,Richmond, Tosco and Shell. x At approximately 8:55 a.m., the fire was confirmed out. At approximately 9:20 a.m.,the fire protection inspectors further monitored for flammable vapors and Hydrogen Sulfide ' around the perimeter and downwind of the Coker unit. No.detectable readings were found. Corrective Actions 1. Review individual job responsibilities and procedural safeguards in the drum switching operation. Amend or revise existing responsibilities and procedures if determined necessary by this review. Provide appropriate operator training of any amendments or revisions that are implemented. ' 2. Determine the feasibility and utility of installing additional engineering controls in the drum switching operation. Ensure any changes are reviewed in accordance with Process Safety Management, Management of Change requirements,if applicable. 1 r � Contra Costa County r Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION .°d c3y HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ' August 10, 1996 Kemwater Pittsburg and Antioch Plants ' 1701 Wilbur Avenue Antioch,CA 94509 ' Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Ken Lopez ' Dear Mr.Lopez: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, ' and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building r Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. ' As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. r Sin fib r Le 's G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director rc: Laura Brown Elinor Blake r r - - �[ K. _X rn cm a CD (D v , t N r" N 1q, O qq* O co Nr r coO tC') CA � N ui 'C7 O Ch r co O y v d Q N 0) LO � ti ' � N V- N O C G co CA C7 T- U) O LO C O Z`0) m O OC r 0 s- Cn C CA CII a) N � C pOj a r O C'7 j N Gxi C N c N H O N O O F CL m � ? Co U a0 CD f0 N O co V_ 0. to N N n 00 0 0 3 CA r' ' r CNI m N � � O � d O N �L O (q C V = O O un C f° _ 00 C O w N m r ea m ¢ o. � J r r 0 ' 'Q U U Ca A N N O. Q. d d E E Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION srqc6uK'�'� HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ' August 10, 1996 Zeneca Agricultural ' 1415 S.47th Street Richmond,CA 94804 ' Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Craig Latimer ' Dear Mr.Latimer: ' We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, ' and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. ' We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so ' that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, ' 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- , 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerel ' �Lewi G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake r.a 333�racFi .0 aF . .. �Ru aka@�; I>o 95 86 3. ; ! A co Ck- 1 CD ce) 1 01 C-A 1 �' ro 13 ol o ' NN vF � LO va o %0 WO O cb 00 N C, Attachment 1 ' Preliminary-Do Not Quote 8/29/96 _N «t p a v, nxi 3 3 y a� eb d tY' o ° a0i `° c c, °' °�' d ° v o r0� 1 D *0 C a N �; p w U O O C x uOA nni H " " " t;: Q d s N .�¢ N , TLV q) GL p ; C N '. y N v T .Op O 7 �i�+ •~ y `�° C o o 1s .— .G .O� � vi tCU U a0i /y C X R & Z c n o ai G O-, r o) ami � C 03 C 0 � o � tip. O . H L� fn Yn SJ T +4 p3 O VnS P � O t'� fV r Q ""i.i y�, •Y 1�•• n Q� G d: '7 U U a> 4» ,C�` ,Yn Ut1,, C >' p ce3 ----"."".-- O y 00 ani a``"'.`'i C ai Tti G G s� p O x rz °= o .G W OR rn G h C w U U (•� F'A U f co V ,7 tes � d N G C aGi G C h Y 4. 0 C y 4. p •G u O 0 U 'n N N G w O ow Y 0A G O. N w- O U N .. a 0 � p �"' wO C RW tOa ayp w w o moo, o cps ° � � 4 � � () OY N � 6Mt � •� d N � N d � O � �' ew 40, N U N S3 w N . 7 � N d O G C) N ,. ado 00 000 Q � N o`o a� O9 to N Q M d 10 1 , Con p —°.. n C o •0.% c ,:s R °,,' o y a 3 y N R N O 3 N C ..• .p N •—, N O ^ © ,00., v �iC i v v O to '� •00 -'A O15 +'N Q. aNi o :o •a• � w .°'C � o°3 = � o � � � R C � °' a a� � u R N s d ai a� w o w o ? m °, R 1 -- U ,x. N N Y 0 � G R +• U •d G •+ R R v O .A � •� O ^U � v w � ax U R 3 T C d � CO � � � U R "' � C (z. d �! on t R vp'' .0 Pte.+ w r O O✓ y � t"0 c '.. m � C 't'' CG}" C .. :p C pp G O A ,•C.� �i Off.+ 6 41 O r U �• '0 G x U J+ d �+ R y OA W R R N o 'a Q. O y Ni o O tC ,yN, in n C O F G .Or v0� J v N Gol y N wo R as U •� yam.. � o. � G � � � w ,n y ... °> v � .a m c ,�., J A � � ✓ R � O '.C"'i N R U .ty Gw 0 00 N o`i 0 .OT. " cd 0. y U H Vy0„ � v � N � SCO O C.'� *0•' � .�► 0 � O .0C O+ C CCb 15 ^i p O 0 y yr H .. d R � O OY •r,, N "' oD f3 •' ,�� "� ;: no aR C-4 CS w N M N oo R+ ....� 1 zN M 0 1 . _ - r °' 'U. '° w 'O G > '"` °' °' x O0. N on� � � °; O � � � � a � � a bD ° R sS'• � o o E N � ��' 2 G '4 a G ✓ o ° °�' s �n C v w 3 •C rs Y °' a � N � o'' 7 � N N N � O N � S+ N ` 'd r c6 N N � .sa .01) i, ✓ � o ao s G N N v «✓' N N w 'e- 0 G 7 , 40' H G p.O .Q v ✓ d E ✓i N R 4 G N N ✓ Oy 3 on W ~ ^d N tU N �' N O ,d ✓, '�t ✓ o Q N ° .0c� � •t} � OSS � � � � O ?+ fi'1 r ✓ ? a� G .`"•� w cid o x � oA 3 u � ✓^ i ;; o o •• N o ,� CpN} o�. � •o " r a 4• G OA 7 �✓r �' I� IPA ��„ ✓ N ✓ N U G i+ 4�, Qi N � N � Do H a v f� :i oo � � o F v a •� o ,a ✓ fy � O• ° N O R � Y y � G N � v � � O G ° � O N O r c N J Q N U 1 S ° ° ,� y NN T ✓ O �.. C3, v vi 00 r cs 0 7 � V ON `^ r r > l c on o �U. epi c � U y R G? C F } p b Gi y O O G t0 r V v ` .Q ea � V an i► v d H o 0. a> � v, >a ej v I y y � U � as Z L a m co P V w x U d � y � a V = � as G 3 � C 3 � a o y w a .D a A 4. G a �Cf �• N N ¢• td O N O C O .� y c:: 61 U •Y.., c¢C '+' y d0. O N N N �+' r U 64 � p+ N Ca ^j O 07 0? Cd � y .Uw Y ^A p O fU„ N 'n N � Y� Q,• � a�U � y tY o p o U O N A U .gyp ° O 'n ! ooi ? n`.i �,• "a� end o w U c p .• y N f. o f B O to N bD MoD N N o w (/7N O d ca ti0 : Q A v C 7 .0 %0 4: U O Gy cd N �' ..+ •UO C N N b0 oD t= O CA G OC S A c0 G O T x � ,S7 Cn UU 0 ^C3 5 O O c. T o � �' ° � o°'a •ts '° � x s U ro' y u G aUi U' a a a O. Y � IS .UO.. o°A'pY o 7 cypa O of N w td a O y eOG p `„" � � of G � � v p o U .0 C O d ycu a O d k: d p"•� w ai ,:ot+�• G •• o 0 0 0. v as w In VPO p c a o c H °' o es o a• C U on m H R O N 00 w G• d �QQ ¢• o � a o ,�, ou � �' 4• ca w � � C4 W ,D � •� wOn of W o rn a cT N t3S yea N � A cn I i i i 6 i I, !I I -egal Tabs Co. 1-800-322-3022 Form#DO25-SS Incidents at Facilities - Contra Costa County 1 Process: 1. "Incident"was defined as: ' An event involving the release or threatened release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical ' limits of Contra Costa County, which may pose an imminent threat to the public health,the environment, or property and would require immediate action. ' This includes explosions, fires, chemical releases that impact off-site or have a good potential to impact off-site. ' It does not includes ills to containment that do not impact off-site and/or do not P P ' have the potential to impact off-site. ' 2. Data contained in the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Incident Report Database for 1/1/89 through 7/1/96 was reviewed. The database contains information ' related to incidents, complaints, and notifications. Over 7000 database entries were examined to screen for incidents. ' From the over.7000 entries, over 225 incident response reports were pulled for scrutiny. ' ' Of the over 225 incident response reports, 42 were categorized as"incidents". P P g ' Note: One incident was selected from the list supplied by Tom Powers, however,this incident does not appear in the Contra Costa County database ' and as of this date, the occurrence of this incident has not been verified. ' 3. For each of the 42 incidents, the chemicals involved in the incidents were extracted from the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Incident Reports, as available. The initiating cause(s) of the incidents were extracted from the detailed follow-up ' reports or by phone contact with appropriate company officials. Page 1 1 1 ' "Initiating Cause" was defined as ' . The act, condition, or failure that initiated or resulted in the incident. ' Note: Root causes were not available for the incidents scrutinized. The definition of"Root Cause" (as defined by the Center for Chemical Process ' Safety) is: The prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems, that allow faulty design, inadequate training, or improper changes, which lead to an unsafe act or condition that results in an incident. ' Root cause analysis should be used to determine actual failures and any trends in the failures 4. From a review of the initiating causes, it appears that there are no significant trends. There were 3 incidents that occurred during maintenance activities and 1 of the over ' 225 incident response reports scrutinized attributed a small release to a weld failure (note: this initiating cause has=been verified). 5. The resulting analyses are shown on the following pages. 1 1 1 1 Page 2 1 , ' Number of Incidents by Facility Contra Costa County Facility Number of Incidents 1/1989 - 6/1996 ' Air Products 1 Chevron Refinery 6 ' Dow Chemical 3 ' DuPont Chemical 1 Electro Forming 1 ' General Chemical, Pittsburg 1 General Chemical, Richmond 5 ' Pacific Refinery 5 ' Rhone-Poulenc 1 Shell Refinery 6 ' Texaco 1 Tosco Refinery 7 ' Unocal Refinery 4 ' Total Incidents 42 1 ' Page 3 Number- of Incidents by Chemical and Year Contra Costa County 1 :.....:......::>:: ..:.. ...:...:.:....:<.:.;:.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.::.::.;>;:.::.>:: . .........b......a...�.:::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::X Catacarb 1 1 ' Catalyst Dust 1 1 Carbon Tetrachloride 1 1 ' and Chlorine Chlorine 1 1 Chlorine and 1 1 ' Titanium Dioxide Hydrochloric Acid 1 1 Hydrocarbons 2 2 5 2 2 3 16 ' Hydrocarbons and 1 2 3 Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen 1 1 2 Hydrogen Sulfide 2 2 Nitric Acid 1 1 Oleum 1 1 2 Sulfur Dioxide 2 1 2 5 ' Sulfuric Acid 1 1 . 2 Other 1 1 2 ' Unknown 1 1 Totals 6 2 5 9 4 8 4 4 42 1 . Page 4 Causes of Incidents ' Contra Costa County 1 Initiating Cause Number ' Equipment Leak/Failure 7 Human Error 5 Instrument or Control System Malfunction 6 Overflow or Overpressure 2 Pipe/Line Failure 6 Power Failure 3 Pump Failure 2 ' Other 1 Unknown 10 tTotal 42 �o ' s ' s ' 4 ' 2 0 Page 5 0 E O C °N' N ti � o � c � oa—�i 3 > c po Y dQ '- o +� m 0 Q v oca o (D ° ' .00 Z U 4) S' cr E Z� .c x ai w E S 0, "" T to tQi a « N N xC `O Y 0 0 m N t7 'C ° 41 y t0 tg C i4 P -0 '0 E N C .. N oas Q p rQn Q Nod N C .0 C 4 N o y, C aC •� O r `.. N O Q « 'N V3 tC '*' O Y Q1 C 8 ooa�r —aoi ? UUccaa � HaioN c }" Via-' 0 U w m m Q 'O Y 3 Q — 'D m to 0 80 O '0 Q A O 3 OU R6 c ° t° m $ aym � v �� a � � �ow 00' >' U) ts. y € �c ° 00. 4°'" ° o �Ny -oM to '0. o 'c c Z > 10 coo O O v Q 2 co O d N y � _U O N � UZ #' p Q O CL ¢ Q O C7 N N O m 2 J N y W O3 o a«ci � t ID 4oc m � � inn) �! Q C. N N 0 C O ` o 0 Q' Q N C11 A�y ° ttS � U � N °� C E 0. (M ' W C C0 0 C 0'. pG Q t0 .0 !17 Q i� M p is E a C C C LO q a 0. q M V � M_f �✓ :> c °L ° 0 0 Q Q O n� c c c E.c4.0 C Opp O .0 U U O O 45 ° Q @ M ca ONU "0 '0 0 ca o PMA CL P.WQ CC C fl} O # = o. n E E E E E :3C. 3 C. M a ¢:: O w c w c w p O 0x >Q >> oEc c am) Q w Qa mQ ° ° 't Qao 4) 10 Qco ° y M M ) > O d "cu LL M. a— 0 m m Q _ orn « a c Q . g • c cu a to E rn ° m 0 -- 5 u- .7..o ? .Q a � � .@ Q .:° O > Q � E =m r.- E o vi cam ( cvmc -a « 2 10 c Qt > > E dQo '0 z s 4) O U °� 0 n x S u a E *- N c U c m U w a w = w 3 LL " q S -� � v n o r a a°. v � 0 w �° F- :` U U U N N (_co O) Z p 01 p 01 01 r N t� N N N N N N r SV � `• OS CS r � � O �- tf) ap Cti r E ` ° y0 (n 0 ,° 0 di 0 L m W C O N D 'a �. U W 3 v, C7 o 4) o = m ° m O >ami a° m w y O w r H L w O) O y .O_ w .r O. •� w U �. O a) N N 0 ° a) E O j « O a j vi rn O d = ai (D O o L y 3 N p m U N O C,4 0 Ute' o E E 0033) O O v LL tC0 m m 0 E ayi m >. ° Y � v m 3 cU ? o ' M ° � c OE c`9 �cc � '� ami U m-S 01.00 a) 4i ma o ZYcm � O o) E ZO c ° ytEo 0 X ° CZcLL 'D m N a) �' ? m N C O` > N y m O uUi = C w a ? ' = Mme mac) ,;? a (� �° 0M $, fnm � - "0) m c :L'x cs3 Ecm o s U � w = 4) XS p t u: c� - tet ww ytw � � :? od n co � v°ia�ci mcg oaxio- a-° 0 m Lok - � o c C y m N = 3 U Z m �` O Q = o 4 O m LLU N m N 7 O <`j a) 'p d H c 0 H C ` M W p Em O =(n m vo ° � m E � a c t � c ON m tn a o -m = vLO 2 a, io w E v a m H N v 00 .0 $ a O Y Om m 0 acx X 0 — a) 2 aw OO Em p w C Q O d O O :� O o (n O C _a m O a) UJ U O O N O m N a N �` O 7 Q 0 U m m a a Cl)CD E J N C C C C N ag 'o E — 0 o 0 0 O° 5 o = cp O OnfE n 'e (A (j O OOO O 0 0 .8 O 7a)Q Cp by 7 m ° O) 3 c c 3 ac) m 3 3 3 3 c 3 m m (o a� m m M a) aD c° E E 3 c q _Q c °c c o- a c E �c 3 3 c O O Y Y Y Y CL a. Y :3 O OCr Y i O LV LU > U;. N (D O) ` 0 0 0).G C 0 a) .r O C c CL a U o c C-0 W ? .O. ` w c CO t O 3 m wLD ;u c a p °Y w c c U N a :° w <C- mo - � 0 m � H =° E ami � y > ? E 3 3 Y c ° m y m Com 0 cY a '0 a) Q �' m ° m o 0 wjm c a 0 E 0 c 0o w = a a a m > > cm 0 c� c m U m m o :° � E _c Ewa Sm ac m o n a U) a ° moo - o o `� `� `� ° w-0 v - - m 0 `�° 0c � � o ,°0 CD a) 0 U �- O a) a) U U 'L p C y t t 0 0 o c c O m Q 'O r L C O c 0 C C a)Z N to O U � � v v a cn CO � L)E = .2 x M CO) rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn co CO rn rn !R-0a°'o !22o) -� ao (o a0 O O N to (D )f) r- r-1- In o0 aD r N r r N to C a N Q ' _ (D f- N M a0 O CO O O V' to M M 10 1 - V M :?-LL C) O C E +' +- >-a m w N L a o v U) n ' =75 M a >to c o c T p N N LL ' _J y U LL 7 N C o = B O N > LL o U0 E y 'D o v d a cm Q kLJ a) o. c m Z °) x �- U a� m m a Q Wca Q ch O U = N H N C M 0 .O C O OCO U04 # to t O + Q M N C N O 0 N r- LL LL O � t' N coM r N cc G o -0 :2 O C O O x .2 .2 .L, ~ x O c� c� o0 _ � � = o r - U C N N C N a.-(D E E o f E m E : n CL E n N C N N = Q Q:- W C M C C W o m m CL c m � rn a o cm'a m ami `: z c ; m E j U 0 o y LLCo ow ~ m c > v y o is p y w t !A rn 00 °� CL W >, (a C) t O)M C L LL X O O E (L) `cm r_ m C W m > > WEx� � E 2n 4) — — o °� E = m W L w W t1 N V U U CV C m m C O o :' C N y m C d L N a C d L O O - � vaa ov a o � v �- F- O N N O O O O 01 O CD r v� v O a cc co co M i 7 i Form#DO25-SS -egal Tabs Co. 1-900.322-3022 ' 12/11/96 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CALPIRG AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5b 1 STATE OFFICE 3LNAspin Embargoed until: For more information: 11'1 5 VM N . MW December 4, 1996 Elizabeth Hull, Ca1PIRG Ulm 391 ulm z+l.as�4=F.. 10:30 EST (510) 644-3454 ' LEGISLATIVE OFFICE 0s.w. to NEW REPORT DOCUMENTS HIGH FREQUENCY OF TOXIC "°'sl.0"3 CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS ' CA 95614 16 @16)6664W Ass California Ranks 2nd in Country with 2191 Accidents REGIONAL OFFICES Between 1993-1995 ' ' ry. 3%AM More than twenty toxic chemical spills, explosions, and other :10"&,'o Fa, accidental releases occur in the United States every day on average -- or ' 3 s,,,Fnueace nearly once an hour, according to a study released today by California ' SL s;,°,� 'IM" 7D Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) and the National 1°isl 1151SL3"l{"M FEnvironmental Law Center(NELC). The report, Accidents 114 Happen, a. ' 3 sa„Ding found that there were more than 23,000 toxic chemical accidents reported 3%0 Park Blvd stt.A to federal authorities from 1993 throw h 1995. SM w.so,a 92103 g 16191297.5512 ' ps::s a6 This week marks the twelfth anniversary of the most catastrophic Sam�= 9310, chemical accident in modern history in Bhopal, India where more than 110d,%54"Fax 3,500 people were killed and 200,000 injured. ' ^Sarno Cm lbs Sogael Ave. ;a; ,CMLy 90°z "The chemical industry continues to argue that the public has a right to know about toxic chemicals only after they have already been ' released into the air or water. As this report documents, accidents do happen and that is just too late," said Elizabeth Hull, Campaign Director for Ca1PIRG. "Accidents that expose workers and communities to chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive disorders happen far too often. To ' prevent toxic accidents and to protect ourselves, we have a right to know when and where toxic chemicals are used and produced within the plant ' gates even before they are released into the environment," said Henry Clark, president of West County Toxics Coalition. ' Other findings of the report include: California ranks 2nd in the country for toxic chemical accidents. ' California ranks number one in the country for toxic accidents involving injury, evacuation or death. Contra Costa, Alameda and 1 ' Santa Clara Counties rank respectively 17th, 22nd and 37th in the country for toxic chemical accidents. ' The to ten states with the largest number of toxic chemical accidents reported from 1993 P through 1995 were: (1)Texas 4,537; (2)California 2,191; (3) Louisiana 1,985; (4)Pennsylvania 695; ' (5) Ohio 679; (6) Illinois 655; (7) Georgia 561; (8) Alaska 552; (9)Florida 527; (l 0) Kentucky 513. The top ten counties with the largest number of toxic chemical accidents reported from 1993 through 1995 were: ' (1) Harris, TX 1588; (2)Jefferson, TX 577; (3) Los Angeles, CA 541; (4) Calcasieu, LA 366; (5)East Baton Rouge, LA 352; (6)Hutchinson, TX 350; (7) Galveston, TX 303; (8) Iberville, LA 296; (9) Ascension, LA 293; (10) ' Brazoria, TX 263. Toxic chemicals most frequently released from accidents were: ' 1 Ethylene glycol - acutely toxic and reproductive toxin; (2) Ammonia, Anhydrous - acutely toxic and fire/explosion hazard; (3) Sulfur dioxide - acute and chronic toxic effects; (4) Sulfuric Acid - acute and chronic toxic effects, fire/explosion hazard; (5) PCBs (including transformer oil) - acute toxic effects, ' reproductive toxin and carcinogen. The report notes that the accident numbers greatly underestimate the problem ' because many spills go unreported. The study tabulated accidents involving 450 chemicals as reported (usually by telephone) to government agencies form 1993 to 1995. ' The report asserts that current chemical safety programs focus too much on responding to accidents after they occur rather than attempting to prevent them in the first place. As a result, they do not fully protect the public or environment from the potential impacts of toxic chemical accidents. "A vigorous campaign is needed to prevent toxic chemical accidents form rhappening at every stage of toxic chemical production, use and handling through'Inherent Safety' programs," said Jean Bernardy of the Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste. "This means redesigning industrial processes to be safer and cleaner and finding alternatives to toxic chemicals. America's commitment to pollution prevention should embrace efforts to make industrial processes less vulnerable to accidents." ' The groups made two recommendations in the report: "We are calling on Congress to make expansion of the Community Right to Know Act one of its top priorities in 1997. ' The groups made two recommendations in the report: "We are calling on Congress to make expansion of the Community Right to Know Act one of its top priorities in 1997. ' The best ways to do that are to swiftly pass the Public Right to Know and Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, which will be reintroduced in the 105th Congress by Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Ed Markey (D-MA) and to support EPA's regulatory efforts to add toxics use reporting to the public's Right to Know," said Hull. "In addition, we urge all federal, state and local agencies to make 'Inherent Safety' a ' primary component of pollution prevention initiative and emergency planning activities." ' CaIPIRG is a non-profit, non-partisan consumer and environmental watchdog organization with 60,000 members in the state. ' NELC is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to enforcing anti-pollution laws and promoting long-term solutions to environmental problems. ; D Accld e �O ; Happen : I Toxic Chemical Accident � Patterns in the United States 1 1 1 � December 7996 � CALPIRG � e��'°o�e, w � California nli< Interest aom.cn croup law Center Accidents Do Happen Toxic Chemical Accident Patterns in the United States ' Second Edition ' by ' Linda K. Phillips, Ph.D. and Hillel Gray National Environmental Law Center and The State Public Interest Research Grou s P December 1996 ' National Environmental Law Center 29 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 (617) 422-0880 U.S. Public Interest Research Group 218 D Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707 uspirg@pirg.org ' Copies of this report are avialable for$20 from NELC or U.S. PIRG. 1 Accidents Do Happen, Page? Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank those individuals who assisted in bringing this report to fruition. In particular, we would like to thank the following individuals: Bill Spencer, for his invaluable assistance in programming and data analysis,'- nalysis, and Carolyn Hartmann, for her editorial skills. This report draws heavily upon the first edition of and Do Happen, for which we thank Joel Tickner and those who worked with him on that report. ' We also appreciate the assistance of the Andrea Askowitz, Liz Hitchcock, Rick Trilsch, and the rest of the U.S. PIRG staff who helped with production of the final report. NELC's continuing work on pollution prevention and chemical safety, including this report, is made possible primarily through the generous support of the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The National Environmental Law Center(NELC) is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan litigation and policy center dedicated to enforcing anti-pollution laws and promoting long-term ' solutions to the nation's most pressing environmental problems. Areas of specialization include clean water, pollution prevention, toxic chemical accidents, Right-to-Know, recycling, and global warming. NELC's staffincludes lawyers, scientists, researchers, and public policy experts who have a proven track record of developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental reforms. NELC maintains offices in Boston, MA; Portland, OR; Davis, CA; and Ann Arbor, MI. ' The Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) are state-based, non-profit and non-partisan research and advocacy groups working on environmental and consumer issues. U.S. PIRG is the national lobbying office for the state PIRGs. PIRGs are active in more than 30 states nationwide ' and have more than one million members. Please note that due to the limitations of accident reporting to the federal government, the data contained in this report are a substantial underestimate and as such do not represent a precise verified accounting of chemical accidents. Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' Toxic Chemical Accidents in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Thefrequency of accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ' Geographic distribution of accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Population of most affected counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Injuries, deaths, and evacuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The toxic chemicals involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' A Call for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Catastrophic and "normal" accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ' Existing policies focus on the response to accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . The need for prevention through Inherent Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ' The Emergence of Accident Prevention Programs and Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The role of the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) in accident prevention andpollution prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Exposing the risks: The importance of the citizen's right to know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ' Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix 1: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix 2: Accident reporting programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ' Notes .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ' Accidents Do Happen, Page 4 Executive Summary ' Chemical accidents unnecessarily endanger workers, communities, emergency response personnel, and the environment. The daily barrage of chemical accidents in the United States adds to the toxic pollution that scientists believe may be linked to increasing rates of cancer, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, immune suppression, and other health problems in humans and wildlife. This report examines chemical accident patterns in the United States from 1993 to 1995. It updates our earlier report, which analyzed data from 1988 through 1992. Both reports utilize the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), the largest and most comprehensive database .of chemical accident notifications, covering both transportation and industrial facility accidents. ' This report recommends Inherent Safety Accident Prevention and an expanded Right-to-Know to include information about toxic chemical use. Toxic chemical use data will reduce the risk of accidents by informing the public as to the amounts and where abouts of toxic chemicals. NELC s analysis of the ERNS data found that toxic chemical accidents are a common, on-going ' problem with potential for catastrophe. From 1988-1992, more than 34,500 accidents involving toxic chemicals were reported in the United States. From 1993-1995, there were more than 23,000 accident reports involving toxic chemicals. This means that for the past eight years, on average twenty times a day -- or nearly once an hour-- an accident was reported in the United States. ' Toxic chemical accidents are highly concentrated in a small number of U.S. states and counties. More than half of the chemical accidents occurred in eight states: Texas, California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, and Alaska. More than 40% of the chemical accidents occurred in 48 (of more than 3,000) U.S. counties. About one-fifth of the U.S. population (over 53 million people) lives in the top two percent of U.S. counties ranked by number of toxic chemical accidents. Toxic chemical accidents have caused still unmeasured damage human health and the environment. Nearly S% (one in twenty) of the chemical accidents that occurred in the ' United States basin resulted in immediate injuries, evacuations or deaths. An average of six people per day were reported to be injured as a result of chemical accidents in the U.S. Over half of the accidents in the U.S. involved the release of toxic chemicals into surface waters or land. Unfortunately, the ERNS data provides only a small picture of the accident situation in the.United ' States. While ERNS is the largest and most comprehensive data set available on accidents, it is based primarily on telephone interviews that take place when accidents are reported to authorities. Some accidents are reported more than once, but most reports are incomplete. As a result, the number of injuries, quantities of chemicals released, and other information are not fully represented in the ERNS. Furthermore, many industrial and transportation companies do not comply with accident notification rules. As several studies undertaken by state and federal ' authorities indicate, the severity of the accident picture in the U.S. is gravely understated by the ERNS data. Page_5 ' The number of accidents that happen in the United States points to vulnerabilities with complex production systems that use large amounts of toxic chemicals. Currently, chemical safety ' programs in this country are preoccupied with responding to accidents and tend to ignore these vulnerabilities. The better approach to accidents would be to prevent them at every stage of toxic chemical production, use, and handling through the relatively new principle of"Inherent Safety." Inherent Safety measures reduce or eliminate the possibility of an accident through the redesign of production systems or the substitution of hazardous chemicals with less hazardous substances at the facility. ' Our society is moving painfully slowly toward real prevention. Though new federal rules require companies to undertake planning to prevent or minimize accidents, the federal agencies responsible for carrying out these rules --EPA and OSHA-- are more geared to conventional accident mitigation and add-on safety systems rather than fundamental prevention. Existing data sources also inhibit progress because they are either inaccurate, fragmented, or they lack key pieces of information, such as the source (process, chemicals involved) of an accident. Since we first released this report in 1994, EPA has completed its Risk Management Plan ' rulemaking; though the agency declined to include a specific requirement for Inherent Safety measures. Our recommendations included sufficient funding for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which had been a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The President and Congress failed to establish this independent board, effectively eliminating it. The ERNS database is now available via the Internet, but its data still are incomplete and inaccurate. With the goal of significantly reducing chemical accidents and toxic pollution in the United States, NELC recommends the following: 1. Expand and improve the public's Right-to-Know about toxic chemical use and accidents. The availability of accurate and complete Community Right-to-Know ' information is a prerequisite to stimulating accident prevention. 2. Promote Inherent Safety Accident Prevention as a primary component of all federal, ' regional, state, and local pollution prevention initiatives and emergency planning activities.When selecting pollution prevention measures, industry and government should give a preference to those measures which also reduce the potential for accidents. Similarly, emergency planning should emphasize accident prevention through Inherent Safety. Businesses should set numerical goals to reduce chemical accidents through ' Inherent Safety measures. The commitment to prevent accidents could mirror successful pollution prevention goal setting programs. 3. Reinstate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investieation Board with sufficient funding to investigate the underlying causes of chemical accidents and Inherent Safety options for prevention. This independent board, a cornerstone of the 1990 Clean '_ Air Act, could be a motivating force in the shift toward Inherent Safety. Accidents Do Happen,Page 6 It is our hope that by using the data is available and by improving public access to Community Right-to-Know data, we will encourage industry to practice inherent safety and prevent toxic ' accidents in the future. 1 1 1 Page 7 Introduction On May 27, 1994 a Shell Chemical facility in Belpre, OH exploded and released hundreds of ' thousands of pounds of styrene and other toxic chemicals into the air and the Ohio River. Three workers were killed, over 1,700 people were evacuated, and water treatment plants along the ' Ohio river were shut down as a result of a chemical slick caused by the incident. An emergency siren, designed to protect the public, did not sound until after 30 minutes had passed. This accident represents just one more in a growing list of major chemical accidents which have taken ' place in the United States in recent years. Spills, explosions, fires, and other accidental releases of toxic chemicals unnecessarily endanger ' workers, communities, emergency response personnel, and the environment. More than five hundred chemical accidents' happen each month in the U.S., demonstrating that these accidents are an on-going threat. A large percentage of these chemical accidents do not cause immediate ' injuries or large-scale environmental damage. However, accidents with numerous injuries, deaths, and evacuations do happen in the U.S., as the Belpre example demonstrates. Also, repeated small accidents may have a cumulative effect on health or on the environment. And many health effects such as cancer or birth defects may be delayed for years. ' Since 1986, most governmental efforts to protect the public from the threat of chemical accidents have focused primarily on emergency response. Response programs take effect after an accident has taken place; they do not aim to reduce the chance of an accident happening in the first place. The government agencies that regulate chemical safety tend to disregard "Inherent Safety" measures (see box), which reduce the occurrence of accidents by changing the intrinsic characteristics of production operations. Officials also pay scant attention to the integration of ' accident prevention programs with existing pollution prevention programs, which seek to reduce routine pollution at the source. ' The first half of this report offers an initial appraisal of chemical accidents patterns in the United States from 1993-95, updating our earlier report' and based upon EPA's Emergency ' Response Notification System (ERNS) "Inherent safety", or "primary accident database. While ERNS has obvious prevention"activities reduce or eliminate the ' drawbacks, it is the largest and most possibility of an accident occurring through comprehensive national data source on the fundamental redesign of production accidental release notifications of toxic and systems or products, reductions in chemical hazardous substances. inventories, or substitution of hazardous Chemicals at the facility. These activities The findings in this report serve as a rough exclude accident mitigation and add-on ' statistical baseline on accident patterns in the safety systems, such as sprinklers, leak United States. This research also points to detectors, and double-walled vessels. several ways to improve existing data ' sources so as to stimulate Inherent Safety. Accidents Do Happen, Page 8 1 The second half of the report examines the need for accident prevention and the shortcomings of the current regulatory structure and information systems surrounding chemical accidents. During the next year, NELC will continue to explore policies to promote Inherent Safety and its link to pollution prevention. A training program is being developed to assist Local Emergency Planning ' Committees in implementing such policies. We hope this report will raise public awareness about toxic chemical accidents and encourage ' policymakers and industry officials to take decisive action to prevent such accidents in the first place. Tonic Chemical Accidents in the United States This report analyzes information in the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), a computerized database managed by EPA, with support from other federal agencies. The ERNS system receives reports of a broad spectrum of toxic chemical incidents at facilities and during ' transport, including chemical fires, explosions, spills, illegal dumping, and air releases. The database is almost entirely based on initial notifications, which are reports usually given by telephone in the early stages of an accident. Therefore, data are often incomplete and inaccurate, represent early estimates of the size or impact of a spill, or in some cases may include more than one notification of the same accident. In addition, figures in this report may not be directly comparable to those in our earlier report because of changes in the database structure, regulations and reporting patterns, and the chemicals examined. The figures in this report reflect the inaccuracies in the ERNS database, but we believe they provide a valid overall picture of chemical accidents in the U.S. This report covers only those accidents that were known (or reported) to involve certain hazardous and toxic chemicals. The report analyzes accidents by frequency, geographic distribution, impacts in terms of injuries, deaths, and evacuations. A complete description of the methodology can be found in Appendix 1. ' The frequency of accidents ' From 1993.1995, more than 23,000 accidents involving toxic chemicals were reported in the United States (Table 1). This means that on average 642 times per month, or 21 times a day, a chemical accident was reported in the United States, releasing toxic substances into the environment, potentially exposing workers, communities, and wildlife to the harmful impacts of these substances. ' Although the majority of the chemical accidents reported in the U.S. did not catch the public eye, some had catastrophic consequences. In December 1994, a huge explosion leveled the 7-story ' process building of the Terra International ammonium nitrate fertilizer plant in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, and broke windows as far as 16 miles away.' Shrapnel from the explosion punctured two Page 9 ' tanks at the plant. One tank released about 100 tons of nitric acid; the other, about 5700 tons of ammonia. According to a report later filed by the company, more than 2000 people were evacuated; there were 4 deaths and 36 injuries. The toxic leaks lasted for two months, until the tanks were empty enough for the company to repair them.` The estimated cost was $120 million. While most chemical accidents are trivialized by companies and do not attract media or regulatory attention, there is often a fine he between the accidents that happen on a daily basis and those with disastrous consequences. These daily accidents and "near-misses" accentuate the potential ' for large scale accidents which may result in injuries, fatalities, evacuations, large property losses, and extensive environmental damage. Even a small accidental release of a highly toxic or bioaccumulative chemical could produce substantial human health or environmental impacts. The high frequency of chemical accidents and masses indicates that they area pervasive, on- going source of toxic contamination to humans and the environment. They demonstrate the inherent dangers involved with complex production and transport systems that handle and store toxic chemicals, and suggest that action is needed to change this pattern. The ERNS data, however, gives only a very limited picture of the accident situation in the United States. While ERNS is the largest national data set on accidents, it is based primarily on telephone interviews, which take place at the time of an accident. As a result, numbers of injuries, evacuations and deaths, and other information are incomplete. Furthermore, many facilities and transporters fail to report their toxic accidents as required by law, and they might not report on toxic and hazardous chemicals that are released below regulated quantities or are not regulated.' For example, a study by the New York State Attorney General's Office identified 3,496 accidents involving toxic chemicals in New York State from 1988 to 1990 compared to only 466 accidents (13%) reported to the ERNS during the same period." The severity of the accident picture is gravely understated by the ERNS data. ' Geographic distribution of accidents To better understand where accidents were most common, we examined geographic patterns of accidents in the United States. 1 The top ten U.S. states ranked by number of toxic chemical accident notifications are: Texas, California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minois, Georgia, Alaska, Florida, and Kentucky. More than half of the accidents in the United States occurred in these ten states, as illustrated in Figure 1. Nearly 12 accidents per day take place in these ten states. Whether these states report greater numbers of accidents as a result of greater concentrations of industry and hazardous chemicals, more stringent reporting requirements, less effective safety programs, or a combination ' of the three, is unclear. Accidenu Do Happen Page 10 a��aaaaaaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaaa�na�in�i Figure l: Toxic Chemical Accidents Reported, by State i ' CA 9% LA 9% TX 20% �r a PA 3°la `- OH 3% IL 3% GA 2% AK 2% FL 2% KY 2% Rest of U.S. 44% 1 As shown in Table 2,just 48 of the more than 3000 counties in the United States accounted for more than 40% (9313) of the chemical accidents. These 48 counties comprise the top 1.5% of U.S. counties as ranked by number of accident notifications. Thus, chemical accidents ' are highly concentrated in a relatively small number of counties in the U.S. Page II Table 1: Toxic Chemical Accident Reports by Table 2: Toxic Chemical Accident Reports in top 2% State' 1993-1995 of Counties' 1993-1995 Accident Accidents w' ' Accident Accidents with Rank State/County Reports Injury,Evacuation Ranking State Reports Injury,Evacuation or Death or Death 1 TX HARRIS 1588 29 1 Texas 4537 75 2 TX JEFFERSON 577 3 2 Caltfomia 2191 127 3 CA LOS ANGELES 541 30 3 Louisiana 1985 39 4 LA CALCASIEU 366 11 4 Pennsylvania 695 44 5 LA EAST BATON ROUGE 352 5 5 Ohio 679 68 6 TX HUTCHINSON 350 1 6 Illinois 655 52 7 TX GALVESTON 303 2 7 Georgia 561 30 8 LA ISERVILLE 296 1 6 Alaska 552 11 9 LA ASCENSION 293 2 9 Florida 527 53 10 TX BRAZORIA 263 2 10 Kentucky 513 28 11 TX CALHOUN 248 4 11 Now York 498 26 12 TX NUECES 222 2 12 Michigan 495 21 13 NV HUMBOLDT 193 0 13 Kansas 481 18 14 IL COOK 182 18 14 Indiana 473 33 15 AZ MARICOPA 176 5 15 Missouri 468 24 16 GA CHATHAM 171 3 16 Nevada 465 9 17 CA CONTRA COSTA 169 10 17 Tennessee 443 21 18 KY JEFFERSON 167 7 18 Arizona 409 23 19 LA ST.CHARLES 157 3 19 North Carolina 392 28 20 MI WAYNE 148 5 ' 20 Alabama 359 32 21 KS SEDGWICK 144 3 21 South Carolina 356 16 22 CA ALAMEDA 137 9 22 Virginia 354 15 23 CA SAN BERNARDINO 125 9 23 Washington 319 17 24 MO ST.LOUIS 109 6 ' 24 West Virginia 304 a 25 DE NEW CASTLE 104 6 25 Massachusetts 302 12 26 MD BALTIMORE 100 15 26 New Jersey 268 10 27 KS MONTGOMERY 100 1 27 Minnesota 265 22 26 CA ORANGE 97 6 1 28 Colmdo 261 13 29 KY MARSHALL 95 3 29 Wyoming 258 4 30 PA PHILADELPHIA 94 2 30 Maryland 248 26 31 CA SAN DIEGO 91 4 31 Connecticut 228 11 32 CA RIVERSIDE 90 4 32 Arkansas 222 14 33 PA MONTGOMERY 88 7 33 Wisconsin 208 33 34 WY UINTA 87 2 34 Oldahoma 207 9 35 FL POLK 86 8 35 Iowa 207 17 36 AK ANCHORAGE 85 2 36 Mississippi 193 10 37 CA SANTA CLARA 82 5 37 Utah 191 11 38 AL MOBILE 82 2 38 New Mexico 179 5 39 WA BENTON 82 2 39 Idaho 168 9 40 IN LAKE 78 5 40 Marne 142 7 41 WV KANAWHA 77 2 41 Delaware 128 7 42 CA SACRAMENTO 77 7 42 Nebraska 118 9 43 OH CUYAHOGA 76 10 43 Puerto Rico 106 a 44 MA MIDDLESEX 75 1 44 Oregon 102 20 45 MI MIDLAND 74 0 ' 45 New Hampshire 76 3 46 TN SHELBY 73 3 46 Montana 75 5 47 NV CLARK 72 4 47 North Dakota 66 4 ; 48 AZ PINAL 71 4 48 Rhode Island 48 3 49 CA KERN 69 4 1 49 Hawaii 33 3 50 FL HILLSBOROUGH 68 2 50 District of Columbia 32 5 , 51 CT HARTFORD 68 5 51 South Dakota 27 0 52 TX HARRISON 67 1 52 Virgin Islands 24 1 53 LA ST.JAMES 66 1 53 Vermont 21 3 54 WV MASON 86 0 ' 54 Guam 2 0 55 CA SAN JOAQUIN 66 1 55 American Samoa 1 1 56 IN MARION 64 6 56 Pacific Islands Trust 1 1 57 MO JACKSON 64 1 58 LA ST.JOHN THE BAPTIST 64 1 TOTAL 23,118 1104 59 OH HAMILTON 63 5 60 NM SAN JUAN 62 0 •Includes DC and outlying trees(e.g.Puerto Rico) 61 LA JEFFERSON 61 2 62 IL LAWRENCE 61 0 ' Source for Tables 1 and 2: ERNS database 1993- 63 OH SUMMIT 60 8 1995,compiled by NELC. Note: Injuries,accidents and 64 UT SALT LAKE 60 2 deaths included are those known at the time of 65 GA RICHMOND 60 2 notification;chronic effects not included. •For reports(97%)wfttx identified counties,excluding outtying areas ' Accidents Do Happen, Page 12 ' Population of most affected counties To assess the populations most likely to be harmed by chemical accidents, we matched the ERNS ' data by county with the 1990 U.S. Census. About one-fifth of the U.S. population (over 53 million people) lives in the top two percent of U.S. counties ranked by number of toxic chemical accidents. How many Americans are at risk of suffering the consequences of a chemical accident? People residing in counties with higher frequencies of accidents may well be at a higher risk, but the data do not provide definitive proof because many ERNS notifications involve only a small spill of a hazardous chemical. Nonetheless, industrial facilities and the concomitant risks, clearly tend to be situated in areas with greater than average populations. ' Wuries, deaths. and evacuations ' The ERNS data can help gauge the severity of an accident by listing whether any injuries, deaths, or evacuations were known at the time of the notification. ' Nearly 5% of the chemical accidents reported in the U.S. as a whole resulted in immediate injuries, deaths, or evacuations. Ten states accounted for half of these accidents, as demonstrated by Figure 2. This information indicates that in nearly one of every twenty accidents the individual ' who made the notification knew that the accident was serious enough to cause injuries or deaths, or require an evacuation. ' In the U.S., an average of seventeen injuries per week were listed in ERNS as a result of toxic chemical accidents. This number of injuries, however, is seriously underestimated. Many immediate ' injuries go unreported to the ERNS. The ERNS notifications may not capture injuries that happen outside of a facility. They also do not cover chronic health effects (which may not present themselves for years) due to direct exposure during an accident or later exposure to toxic chemicals spilled into ' the environment. For example, a New York State report cited 21 times more chemical accident injuries than the ERNS (675 vs. 32) during a three year period from 1988-1990.' During a 1993 1 oleum (fuming sulfuric acid) release in Richmond, California, over 24,000 people sought medical help, and 22 were injured severely enough to be hospitalized. The ERNS database lists only 100 injuries. Immediate effects of the toxic, corrosive acid cloud included skin, eye, nose and throat ' irritation, coughing, and shortness of breath.' Sulfuric acid mist exposure can also cause delayed or chronic health effects including chronic bronchitis, which would not be recorded in ERNS. These examples indicate that ERNS captures only a small percentage of the injuries that are caused by chemical accidents in the United States. Page !3 ' Figure 2: Reports of Accidents Causing g P g ' InJjuries Evacuations or Deaths � OH 6% TX 7% FL 5% 1' IL 5% CA 12% r " 4 PA 4% µ"jiT a ., LA 4% h. IN 3% ' WI 3% ' AL 3% o Rest of U.S. 50% ' Though over 60 deaths associated with chemical accidents are cited in ERNS during 1993-1995, newspapers and other sources point to a much higher death toll from toxic chemical accidents. The discrepancy may be attributed to lax reporting by companies, differences in reporting(e.g., some toxic chemicals are not regulated under the current laws, and deaths may occur even though the spill is smaller than the threshold for required reporting), and the fact that some deaths were not yet known or had not yet happened at the time of notification. ' About 41 000eo le were evacuated in the U.S. in 1993-1995 as a result of toxic chemical accidents P P ' according to ERNS. Even though this tabulation includes some duplicates, it is likely to be far below the actual number of people evacuated during this period. Accidents Do Happen, Pae 14 Table 3. Top 20 Toxic Chemicals Released from Chemical Accidents in the U.S. Ranked by Number of Accidents 1993-1995 ' Accidents Ranking Chemical Accident with Injuries, Acute Chronic Repro- Neuro- Carci- Fire/ Reports Evacuations Toxic Health ductive toxic nogen Explosion ' or Deaths Effects Effects Town Hazard 1 ETHYLENE GLYCOL 3681 36 XX X 2 AMMONIA,ANHYDROUS 2549 276 XX X 3 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1678 53 XX X 4 SULFURIC ACID 1302 59 XX X X 5 PCBs (INCLUDING TRANSFORMER OIL) 1262 16 vary X X 6 CHLORINE 1220 202 XX X 7 BENZENE 1028 5 XX X X X X 8 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 818 25 XX X X X 9 HYDROCHLORIC ACID 723 49 XX X 10 HEXANE 588 4 X X X 11 BUTADIENE 576 6 X X X X 12 VINYL CHLORIDE 569 8 X X X X X X 13 SODIUM HYDROXIDE 563 32 XX 14 MERCURY 324 7 X X X X 15 TOLUENE 268 15 X X X X 16 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 230 12 X X ' 17 PHOSPHORIC ACID 224 13 X 18 DINITROGEN TETROXIDE (NITROGEN DIOXIDE) 213 8 X X 19 ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE 205 2 X X X X 20 TITANIUM TETRACHLORIDE 200 3 X Source: ERNS database 1993-1995,compiled by NELC. Hazardous effects compiled from Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 9th Edition, R.J. Lewis, Sr., Editor;Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary (Eleventh and TwetfthEditions, N. I.Sax and R.J. Lewis, Sr.,Editors),and the New Jersey Fact Sheets on hazardous materials in the workplace. ' NOTE: Many notifications do not properly identify all chemicals.Reports of accidents with injuries,evacuations and deaths include only those for which the casualties were known at the time,and therefore exclude any delayed or chronic health effects or later deaths. . Sax assigns every chemical in the above list a hazard rating of 3(highly hazardous). Most of the chemicals in this list either are gases(such as ammonia) or can emit toxic fumes(mercury,for example),and are toxic when Inhaled. Sulfur dioxide,sulfuric acid and nitrogen dioxide are major smog and acid rain components. 4 Chemicals causing the most severe acute effects are marked XX;PCBs are a class of compounds whose acute effects range from moderately toxic to poisonous.Chronic effects(such as emphysema)may occur even after a single exposure. Reproductive effects may include mutations,birth defects,or other damage to the reproductive system or fetus. Neurotoxic chemicals may cause damage to nerves or the central nervous system. r 'Fire/explosion hazard"designates chemicals which are dangerous bemuse they are either flammable or explosive. • PQge I.5 The toxic chemicals involved j This report is based solely on ERNS incidents for certain toxic and hazardous chemicals regulated under environmental statutes, and excludes petroleum products, such as gasoline, and many other toxic materials (see Appendix 1). ' Almost three-quarters of the toxic chemical accidents reported in the United States involved one of IS chemicals (Table 3). A Iarge percentage involved polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which have ' strict accident reporting requirements and now are banned from manufacture. PCBs are carcinogens, cause liver damage and skin ailments, and have other toxic effects including reproductive effects. Ethylene glycol was the most frequently reported chemical, including both large industrial accidents rand more frequent reporting of small spills including traffic accidents. Used in antifreeze as well as industrial applications, ethylene glycol is a poison, and in addition to immediate health effects, it ' causes delayed liver damage and birth defects. Each chemical covered by this study poses a threat to human health through acute effects (e.g., fatal poisoning, skin ailments, nausea, or respiratory impairment) and/or chronic health effects such as liver and nervous system disorders, lung disease, reproductive problems, and cancer. Some chemicals are on the list because of physical hazards (e.g., they are highly flammable or explosive or react violently with water). Anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid were the most frequent chemicals involved in accidents with immediate injury, evacuation, or death. Ammonia's uses include refrigeration and fertilizers; it is a poisonous gas. Chlorine, which is ' used in paper bleaching and other industries, is also a poisonous and corrosive gas; its health effects' include not only acute irritation to the eyes and respiratory tract, but also chronic effects such as emphysema. It also forms dioxins and other organochlorines that are associated with elevated cancer rates and reproductive problems. ' Environmental impacts Chemical accidents pollute the air, land, and water. The Belpre, OH accident contaminated air, land, and water simultaneously(see above). Eventually, an incident that emits toxic chemicals into one medium may pollute all three media. For example, air emissions may poison surface waters through deposition of toxic matter in the form of dust or rain.' Spills on land often reach groundwater, surface waters, and possibly drinking water supplies through percolation, runoff and vaporization. During 1993-1995, about 17% of the chemical accidents reported involved a toxic release into surface waters, about 33% involved releases to air, and 41%to land. A Call for Prevention The daily barrage of accidents points to vulnerabilities in industries that handle toxic and hazardous ' chemicals. Accidents can happen at any point during the life cycle of a product using toxic chemicals -- storage, transportation, product use and disposal - not just during production. These accidents add to the toxic pollution that scientists believe may be linked to increasing rates of cancer, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, immune suppression, and other health problems. Companies that handle toxic chemicals expose workers and communities to potential catastrophe. In the first national overview and ranking of areas vulnerable to chemical disasters10,NELC found that one of every six .accidentsQg Nappen, Pae 1.6 Americans lives within a vulnerable area. Meanwhile, chemical safety programs in this country are preoccupied with responding to accidents and pay little attention to the prevention of chemical accidents in the first place. Catastrophic and "normal" accidents: Toxic chemical accidents, as demonstrated by the findings in this report, are an on-going problem. The frequency of accidents (many of which go unreported) and near-misses underscores the intrinsic hazard posed by the use of toxic chemicals. "Normal accidents", say some safetyexP erts, are an inevitable byproduct of complex production processes that contain a myriad of human, mechanical, and chemical interactions." Add-on safety jsystems cannot address all of the possible interactions in chemical processes and might even exacerbate the problem by increasing the complexity of the industrial process. Since human beings and industrial processes are prone to fail, toxic accidents will continue to occur until industrial processes are redesigned to be inherently more safe and involve less toxic materials. ' The failure of industrial processes can lead to disastrous human and environmental consequences, as described by the examples below: ' BhopaIndia -- The most catastrophic chemical accident in modern history took place in Bhopal, India on December 3, 1984 when 20 tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) escaped from a Union Carbide facility, forming a toxic cloud. The accident resulted in approximately 3,500 deaths and 200,000 ' injuries. Chronic injuries such as reproductive problems and genetic damage occurred in exposed individuals. In a near miss of the same disaster on a smaller scale, Middleport,NY suffered the effects of MIC just 18 days before Bhopal when the FMC Corp. accidentally released 50 gallons of the chemical just 400 yards from an elementary school, where it was sucked into the school's ventilation system. Many children and teachers were treated at local hospitals for respiratory ' problems after being overcome by NEC fumes. Simi Valley_ CA-- On January 5, 1989, potentially lethal chlorine gas escaped from a 30 ton tank at a textile plant in Simi Valley, CA. A frozen storage tank valve broke, starting a nine and a half hour leak which formed a square-mile sized toxic cloud that hovered over the city. Approximately 12,000 people were evacuated and 20 people were injured as a result of the accident.12 Though only 20 people were reported as immediately injured, the actual number of injuries may have been much greater due to the chronic impacts of chlorine exposure. ' Superior_ WI -- A June 30, 1992 rail tank car accident caused the release of more than 20,000 gallons of benzene and other hazardous materials into the Nemadji river on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, 17 miles from Lake Superior. Benzene is a poison and a severe eye irritant; it is a confirmed human carcinogen, causing leukemia, Hodgkins disease, and other cancers; repeated exposure can cause aplastic anemia. More than 40,000 people were evacuated from their homes and offices. Significant numbers of fish and wildlife, including beaver, mink, rabbits, and numerous species of birds, died as a ' result of the accident. Although the long term impacts of the accident on the Nemadji river and surrounding areas have been difficult to quantify, its effects may be felt for years to come." From an ecological standpoint, a single spill to a lake or river could undo years of progress in controlling routine pollution. Thece events remind us that our society is perpetually at risk of accidents with devastating impacts on Page 17 communities, workers, and ecosystems. An accident the magnitude of the one in Bhopal can happen in the U.S. A 1990 study conducted by the U.S. EPA found that since 1980 there had been 15 chemical accidents in the U.S. that had exceeded Bhopal in the volume and toxicity of chemicals released." These accidents with potentially disastrous consequences might have been avoided through Inherent Safety measures. Existing Rolicies focus on the response to accidents U.S. laws on chemical accidents have focusedP rimarily on emergency response and mitigation, which take place after an accident has happened. For example, the Emergency Planning and Community ' Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, established after the Bhopal tragedy, requires the establishment of state and local emergency planning organizations to analyze local hazards and develop emergency plans. As discussed below, only a handful of programs, such as those of the ' Local Emergency Planning Committees in Cuyahoga County, OK Washtenaw County, MI, and Erie County, NY, seem committed to preventing chemical accidents and reducing toxic chemical ' inventories and uses. Emergency response programs are essential. But they cannot fully protect workers, the public, or the environment from severe toxic accidents for several reasons. First, the effect of a toxic release may be much worse than emergency systems can address. As the New York Attorney General's office has shown, a major chlorine gas release (possible from a railroad tank car or sewage treatment plant) ' might be fatally poisonous for 25 miles downwind." Second, there may not be enough time to protect people. Some toxic clouds can cover about one mile in 17.6 minutes -- while it may take up to 20 minutes to detect an accidental release, up to an hour to notify residents, and even more time to evacuate them.16 Finally, accident mitigation and cleanup cannot adequately protect humans and the environment from the long-term impacts of toxic chemicals. Firefighters, factory workers, and clean- up personnel are especially at risk when dealing with the aftermath of a toxic spill or explosion. ' Richmond, r s w i u The 1993 oleum release in R�chmo , CA Mustrates ho difficult it to protect the public during a chemical accident. The highly concentrated acid vapors formed a toxic plume and drifted about, 15 miles from the site. Approximately 24,000 people were harmed by the sulfuric acid mist. The need for prevention through Inherent Safety The best response to toxic chemical accidents is to prevent them at every stage of toxic chemical use. 1 We need to realize that accidents can and do happen in production and transportation systems that process and store large amounts of hazardous chemicals. tThe conventional approach to accidents is to install add-on safety ("secondary prevention") and mitigation systems. Such add-ons might include leak detectors, double-walled vessels, supplemental temperature and pressure controls, high-tech valves, sprinklers, and emergency flares or scrubbers. ' Unfortunately, add-on safety systems do not prevent accidents from happening, and sometimes they may even make an operation more prone to failure. Add-on measures seek to forestall an accident or limit its impact after the fact, but they can (and many eventually do) fail. For example, Union Carbide added state-of-the-art enhancements to a facility in Institute, WV that still produced MIC after the Bhopal catastrophe. A subsequent accident at the facility showed clearly that safety add-ons can never be as reliable as intrinsic changes that cut down the possibility of an accident." The detector ' Accidents Do Happen, Poe 18 system was not working properly, and protective measures to keep a release from escaping were ' inadequately designed. As a result, a toxic cloud of methylene chloride and aldicarb spread over four communities and sent 135 people to the hospital. The only sure way to prevent an accident and its subsequent impacts from occurring in the first place is through the relatively new principle of"Inherent Safety", also known as "primary accident prevention". An EPA study by Professor Nicholas Ashford, et al. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued persuasively for a shift from the current add-on safety and mitigation emphasis to a genuine "Inherent Safety" accident prevention approach." ' Inherent Safety looks at the source of the problem-- the production system. Inherent Safety can be defined as "being able to withstand deviations from normal operating conditions without having to rely on safety systems to prevent accidents.i19 In the model used by the EPA study (figure 4), ' Inherent Safety alters a basic element of the production system, such as the raw material, processing technology, or product. For example, PPG Industries developed a benign substitute for phosgene (a poison gas which has been used in chemical warfare) that can be used in the synthesis of some ' pharmaceutical products.20 Add-on safety systems occur after the initiating failure event has taken place, though before materials are released. Mitigation systems and response measures take effect before exposure takes place. FIGURE 3: A model of chemical accident prevention A model of chemical accident prevention ' Add-on safety systems Inherent "Secondary Mitigation and emergency response Production System Initiating Release Exposure Consequences ' Material T I C I St 10CF& Death InJ Env Failure Event ' Laaend:T.technology C:chemicals St storage Sc:wope OC: opersting conditions Death: iife4ceatening Inj: injuries Env:environmental damage ' (Source:Ashford,aL al.and NELC) The Emergence of Accident Prevention Programs and Laws Our society is moving ainfufly slowly toward real prevention. One pioneering effort has been the P P P 8 New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act, which promotes process redesign, chemical ' substitution and inventory reduction. The state reported a 40% reduction in the amount of toxic materials registered under the program in 1993,just five years after the program went into effect. The ' New Jersey law served as a model for the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) rule and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments'Risk Management Plan (RMP)provisions. These new federal laws require companies to analyze their accident risks, disclose "worst case" scenarios to the public, and rnndortakn nianninn to nrpvPnt nr rninimi-Fp 7.rri.4 +. 21 1 Page 19 ' Unfortunately, despite claims of commitment to pollution prevention and accident prevention, EPA and OSHA are carrying out these new laws in ways that are geared more to conventional add-on or mitigation approaches rather than Inherent Safety. EPA' s recently adopted RMP rule, for example, does not require any rethinking of the intrinsic dangers posed by production systems. Nor has EPA used its authority under the Clean Air Act to set process design or other primary accident prevention 1 requirements. OSHA's PSM rule also fails to differentiate Inherent Safety based prevention from conventional add-on safety approaches. ' The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 also mandated another new approach to accidents: it required the President to appoint a Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This Board is required by law to investigate major accidents, issue reports on chemical safety, and possibly determine ' measures to prevent accidents. This Board presents a unique opportunity to focus public awareness — and to initiate industry action — on accident prevention. An independent Board also could critique actions by federal agencies such as EPA and OSHA. But the President and Congress failed to establish this board and it has received no federal funding. Inherent Safety could be promoted in a manner similar to efforts to prevent "routine" pollution. Both Inherent Safety and pollution prevention (known as "source reduction" under federal law) share a similar-goal: changes in technologies, products, and raw materials to reduce toxics-related hazards at ' the source. By making companies take an inward look at their production systems and chemical use, integrated pollution prevention and Inherent Safety planning could strengthen the incentives to invest in fundamental process design changes. ' For instance, the New York City Right-to-Know law requires regulated companies to undertake Technology Options Analysis to identify inherently safer alternatives. The law states, "A responsible ' party shall make the following considerations...an examination of alternative substances and equipment to reduce the use of extremely hazardous substances or regulated toxic substances..and a ' timetable for implementing alternatives that are technically and economically feasible." Companies began to submit their risk management plans and options analyses in early 1995. ' The role of the Local Emergency Planning Committees JEPCsI in accident prevention and pollution prevention: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires a state emergency response commission and LEPCs in each state. Each LEPC must by law include representatives of community groups, public officials, industry, firefighters, the media, hospitals, and other stakeholders. The LEPC's duties include writing a local emergency response plan, collecting local Community Right-to-Know data such as inventories of chemicals stored at factories, and making the data and ' plans available to the public. The LEPCs have traditionally been oriented towards emergency response, with little emphasis on accident prevention. The RMP rule anticipates that LEPCs will review the Risk Management plans. This offers an opportunity for the LEPCs to encourage accident ' prevention through Inherent Safety and other measures, and to serve as a catalyst to integrate pollution prevention and accident prevention efforts. ' The LEPCs of Washtenaw County, Michigan and Cuyahoga County, Ohio have taken large strides in encouraging companies to prevent chemical accidents and routine pollution. The Washtenaw County ' LEPC obtains information on chemical hazards from facilities, conducts inspections, and assesses chemical storage fees. The Washtenaw County program has spurred some companies to streamline their operations and reduce inventories of hazardous chemicals. The Cuyahoga County LEPC Accidenu Do Happen, Page 20 requires facilities to prepare hazard analyses and submit the results of these to the public. Through its ' chemical accident prevention program, a technical advisor has visited numerous facilities to identify Inherent Safety options. The LEPC also hosted a risk reduction recognition award for facilities, and has been able to influence companies to switch to less dangerous chemicals. The LEPC conducts an ' annual report that includes information on risk reduction and toxics use reduction measures taken and neighborhood involvement in the process. ' LEPCs are an unfunded mandate; most operate with minimal staff, volunteer members, and very low budgets. To implement accident prevention programs, funding needs to be improved, and training and ' technical assistance need to be provided. Exposing the risks: The importance of the citizen's right to know Citizens are often unaware of the toxic risks posed by industries in their neighborhood. They have little access to information on chemical inventories, past accidents, and accident potential at a facility. ' This lack of information is a serious barrier to communication about emergency response and accident prevention between a facility and its neighbors. Public access to information has proven to be profoundly beneficial for environmental protection efforts. The biggest success has been federal "Right-to-Know" data on routine toxic releases. This information is prompting voluntary corporate decisions to reduce toxics; enabling government agencies to target resources and polluting facilities; and strengthening citizen activism on prevention. By harnessing the power of public accountability, information could be an equally valuable tool in the area of accident prevention. However, citizens have little access to useful data on toxic accident risks. Ironically, the "Right-to- Know" law, passed in the wake of the Bhopal tragedy, does not include the very chemical use and flow quantities that are the source of accident hazards. Most notably, the nationally available Right- to-Know reports, called the Toxics Release Inventory(TRI), do not even include the most basic data ' about the quantities of toxic chemicals that are transported through the community, stored in factories, manufactured onsite, or used in chemical reactions. Some chemical storage information is collected locally but is difficult to access and compile on a state or national level; it should be ' available in a readily accessible database similar to the TRI. Moreover, reports about actual accidents lack the vital information needed to promote prevention. ' The ERNS database, for example, seldom identifies the source of an accident or other details (e.g., the underlying technology, products, or Standard Industrial Classification code)that are needed for ' Inherent Safety or pollution prevention analysis. While the data fields exist, they are seldom filled in. ERNS does not provide data on the producer and/or end-user of the toxic chemical involved in transportation accidents. Meanwhile, ERNS and other accident reporting systems have serious ' enforcement and data gaps, as noted previously as well as in a 1993 study by the EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office.' A database of reports filled out after chemical accidents, ARID, should contain somewhat more accurate data, but because they are voluntary, few tARIP reports are filed. Citizens, government agencies, and companies themselves need solid data to evaluate progress ' •----- r-r—, 'V,,r^vamnle- the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires companies to prepare and Page ?1 ' disclose five-year accident histories for each facility as well as prospective "worst case" accident scenarios.' A worst-case scenario describes the number of potential deaths, injuries, and the area ' affected by a chemical accident at a facility (vulnerable zone). Worst-case scenarios typically assume the failure of mitigation and add-on safety systems. Toxics Release Inventory(TRI) data and worst- case scenarios could serve as measures of a facility's prevention progress because its vulnerable zone would be reduced as Inherent Safety is achieved. The Clinton Administration has initiated a number of steps to expand the public's right to know. ' These include doubling the number of chemicals which must be reported; a proposed rule adding seven new industry sectors to those who must report; and a proposed rulemaking to include ' information on toxics used inside industrial facilities. Recommendations ' Toxic chemical accidents in the United States are a substantial problem that endanger human health, wildlife, and the environment. Many chemical accidents, however, are preventable. The focus on 1 emergency response and the prevalent "it won't happen here" mindset do not adequately prevent catastrophic accidents or the ongoing poisoning of our natural resources. It is imperative that industry and government switch from a reactive position on toxic chemical accidents to one that ' promotes prevention. With the goals of reducing toxic contamination and improving toxic chemical safety in the United ' States, NELC recommends the following: 1. Expand and improve the Public's Right-to-Know about toxic chemical use and accidents. ' An expanded Right to Know should include information about the use storage, and flow of P 8 a o g , ' hazardous chemicals within production processes as well as information about past accidents and "worst case" accident hazards. This information should be made available to the public through easily accessible on-line services such as the Toxics Release Inventory established under the Emergency ' Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Citizens, government agencies and industries themselves need complete and accurate information on ' toxic chemical production and use, chemical accidents, and sources of toxic pollution to play a meaningful role in developing plans for preventing pollution and accidents. Until we have a clearer understanding of where the toxic chemicals are in production, transportation, and commerce, it will ' be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent the majority of toxic chemical accidents and adopt the principle of Inherent Safety. ' We are pleased that the EPA has taken steps to implement one of our earlier recommendations, to ensure easy public access to currently available accident data, by making the ERNS and ARID databases available on the internet. But we still have a long way to go, to ensure that the public has ' easy access to more complete and accurate toxics information. On September 27, 1996, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Rulemaking, seeking public comment on the best way for the Agency to add information on the use of toxic chemicals to the public's Right to Know. This is a significant step forward, but one that has already been met with ' Accidents a Happen, Page 22 intense opposition from the chemical industry. ' In addition to this EPA proposal, Representatives Pallone (NJ) and Markey (MA) introduced the Public Right to Know and Children's Environmental Health Protection Act (H.R. 4234) at the end of the 104th Congress and will reintroduce this bill early in 1997, We urge Congress to make this bill a top environmental priority in the 105th Congress. The Public Right to Know and Children's Environmental Health Protection Act will: • Require reporting on toxic chemical use; • Eliminate loopholes that exempt entire industries from Right to Know reporting;, • Ensure reporting on extremely hazardous substances like dioxins and mercury, and • Establish warning labels for children's foods and products that contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. ' We urge the Clinton Administration and Congress to move forward swiftly with their plans to expand and improve the public's Right to Know about toxic chemical use information. In addition, we urge ' the EPA to develop a plan for providing the public with more complete information on toxic chemical accidents. ' 2. Promote Inherent Safety Accident Prevention as a primary component of all federal, regional, state, and local pollution prevention initiatives and emergency planning ' activities. We urge the EPA to use every opportunity to ensure that Inherent Safety becomes the centerpiece of ' the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Plan program. This includes regulations, guidance documents and trainings. OSHA's Process Safety Management program, and state pollution prevention and emergency planning programs, should also emphasize Inherent Safety. ' Inherent Safety should be an integral part of the existing technical assistance and regulatory infrastructure for pollution prevention. When selecting pollution prevention measures, industry and government should give a preference to those measures which also reduce the potential for accidents The Local Emergency Planning Committees, established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, should emphasize accident prevention and Inherent Safety as an integral part of their activities. LEPCs are on the front lines of planning for toxic chemical accidents. To date, however, most of the LEPC efforts across the country have focused on responding to ' accidents after they have occurred, rather than looking for ways to prevent them in the first place. LEPCs need to change their mindset to carry out this vital role of planning to prevent accidents. ' NELC is working with EPA, LEPCs, and other stakeholders to develop training in Inherent Safety concepts and implementation for LEPCs. Funding for the LEPCs should be increased and contingent upon an understanding of and commitment to carry out the principles of Inherent Safety which are ' critical to chemical accident prevention. Though no facility plans on having an accident, accidents do happen. Corporate and political leaders ' should commit to reducing the possibility of chemical accidents through investments in inherently safe technologies. The commitment to prevent accidents can mirror similar successful goal setting for pollution prevention. Page 23 Government agencies should require facilities to set Inherent Safety goals for each extremely ' hazardous chemical that they store or use. TRI reports, if expanded as proposed, could be used to gauge progress in achieving these prevention goals. ' 3. Reinstate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board with sufficient funding to investigate the underlying causes of chemical accidents and Inherent Safety options for prevention. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments'of 1990 the independent Board is explicitly mandated to P P Y investigate major chemical accidents, critique regulatory and industry inaction, and issue recommendations on chemical safety and accident prevention. The Board could be a motivating force in the shift toward Inherent Safety. Although President Clinton named five qualified individuals to the Board, the Board's funding was eliminated from the federal budget in 1995. Funding for the Board should be reinstated so that it may begin operations. The decision to eliminate the Board may cost more in lost lives, damage to the environment and public health, and property losses. In conclusion, toxic chemical accidents are an on-going, daily source of toxic contamination to humans and the environment. The number of accidents underscores the intrinsic vulnerability of ' current production systems that handle hazardous and toxic chemicals. The best way to prevent catastrophic accidents, as well as the daily toxic pollution caused by accidents in the United States, is through the prevention concept of Inherent Safety. The long-term health of our environment, our communities, and our workplaces depends on the safer technologies, materials, and products that industries should start adopting today. ' Accidents Do Happen, Page 24 Appendix l: Methodology ' NELC obtained the full Emergency Response Notification System database for the years 1993 and 1994 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's internet site(http://www.epa.gov/ERNS/). ' Data for 1995 were obtained from ABB Environmental Services, an EPA subcontractor that managed the ERNS database. ERNS contains information on accidental releases based on notifications given to government agencies. We chose three years of data so as to increase the number of data points for ' statistical relevance and to detect trends over time, updating our earlier report. Numerical data from the two reports may not be directly comparable because of differences both in the database and in NELC's methodology. The report covers only incidents involving toxic and hazardous chemicals that are regulated under federal law (CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPCRA sections 302 and 313, ' and the Clean Air Act). About 450 different regulated chemicals were spilled during the three-year period. Oil, gasoline, and other petroleum product spills which constitute 57% of ERNS notifications; non-hazardous substances; and numerous notifications that did not adequately specify the chemical ' released were excluded. Finally, many toxic or hazardous chemicals were excluded because they were not identified as regulated substances, or because they were misclassified in the database. This ' report screened for more toxic chemicals (nearly 1500)than our earlier report (about 800). For any given incident, the ERNS database might disclose the numbers of people injured or ' evacuated, identity and quantity of each chemical released, environmental medium that was polluted, etc. Unfortunately, data are often missing due to lack of knowledge or improper reporting at the time of notification. NELC found the quality control of the ERNS database to be very weak. While the ERNS database now(since 1992) avoids duplication of records updated by EPA, duplicate notification records are a ' problem due to reporting to multiple authorities (i.e., Department of Transportation; Coast Guard), or multiple telephone reports to the same agency. For instance, one major accident (the Shell Chemical accident in May, 1994) was reported six times in the database, including two reports of the single ' death. ' In the 1988-1992 data, NELC found what appeared to be duplicates among approximately 2% of the accidents with injuries, 1.5% of the accidents with evacuations, and 9% of those with deaths. During 1993-95, 12% of all accidents with deaths were reported at least twice (although only 4 of 64 deaths ' were reported more than once). In some cases, the toxic chemical was spilled as a result of another accident (for instance, a traffic accident); some of the deaths or injuries may have been caused by the initial accident. NELC removed suspected duplicate accident reports involving deaths (4 cases), but did not add deaths or injuries to records for incidents known to NELC through other sources. Reporting of geographic information was improved over the earlier period. From 1988-92, there were ' about 300 selected incidents with unknown states; from 1993-95, all incidents were identified with states. By correcting obvious spelling and typographical errors, NELC reduced the number of incidents with incorrect or missing county data to 791 (approximately 3%) of 23,119 accidents ' involving toxic chemicals. To estimate the population affected by chemical accidents, NELC matched Page?S the ERNS data with 1990 U.S. Census demographics data by county. ' Quality of chemical substance reporting was not examined in our earlier report. In the original 1993- 95 data(119,122 records of spilled materials), we found numerous obvious errors, where coding for the chemical did not match the "material spilled". In about 22% of records, either the material was unknown, the coding did not match the material spilled, or the chemical was not included in the ERNS chemical reference database. We made an effort to correct some obvious errors (where the coding for chemical did not match the "material spilled"), but this task was far beyond the scope of this study. Most reports with misclassified materials, and all those with unknown materials, were eliminated from the study, even though many of these spills involved toxic chemicals. Finally, NELC included some chemicals in our analysis, such as lead compounds, which are regulated but were not so identified in the chemical reference database. ' It is important to note that EPA does not verify ERNS data, such as the reported occurrence, magnitude, material spilled, or consequences of events. NELC does believe that ERNS data helps ' draw a valid and relevant picture; however, as explained in the report, it greatly understates the true number and impact of toxic chemical accidents. ' Additional information on the methodology may be obtained by contacting the authors. Appendix 2: Accident reporting programs Several environmental and public safety laws require the reporting of chemical accidents to local or eq federal authorities. The laws specify the chemicals and quantities which must be reported, who must ' report the release, when it must be reported, and to whom reports must be made. These laws include: ' The Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLAI requires that facilities immediately report the accidental release of reportable quantities of specific hazardous substances listed under CERCLA and several other laws to the National Response Center (NRC). ' The law does not specify any additional reporting requirements after immediate notifications. The law provides authority to the EPA to conduct investigations into accidents. ' The Emergency Planning,and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA.) requires EPA to publish a list of extremely hazardous substances (EHSs), chemicals that could cause serious and irreversible damage to health and the environment. EPCRA requires the reporting of releases ' involving EHSs or CERCLA reportable chemicals to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) or the Local Emergency Planning Committee(LEPC). After the accident, the facility is required to submit written follow-up reports to the LEPC or SERC outlining the company's response ' to the release, any known or anticipated health impacts, and appropriate medical procedures. ' The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that any vessel or onshore or offshore facility immediately report any discharge of a regulated hazardous substance in amounts in excess of reportable quantities Accidents Do Happen, P2&e 26 ' to the National Response Center or the Coast Guard. The CWA also requires the reporting of oil P q P 8 ' discharges above threshold quantities. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) requires transportation carriers to immediately notify the NRC if, as a direct result of a release: (1) a person is killed; (2) a person receives injuries ' requiring hospitalization; (3) estimated carrier or other damage exceeds $50,000; (4) an evacuation of the public lasts one or more hours; (5)one or more major transportation arteries are closed for one or more hours. The carrier is then required to submit a written follow-up report to the Department of Transportation. 1 Other laws which require the reporting of chemical accidents include: the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, covering releases of hazardous wastes; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires employers to notify the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of any ' accidental release of a hazardous substance when there has been a death or five or more workers hospitalized; and Department of Energy (DOE) Emergency Management System, establishing a comprehensive system for reporting information related to operations occurring at DOE and DOE- operated facilities. ' Accident notifications and reports are sent to numerous databases, which compile on-going and historical information on chemical accidents. Five of the most utilized databases include: ' Emergency Response and Notification System (ERNS) - compiles notifications of accidents involving oil and hazardous wastes. More than 160,000 notifications have been made since its inception in 1986. ' Hazardous Materials Information System (HIVIIS) - contains written reports on unintentional hazardous materials releases from transportation, pursuant to the Hazardous Materials ' Transportation Act. The Integrated Management Information System(DES) - managed by OSHA, contains records of accident inspections in response to a worker death, or five or more worker hospitalizations. ' The Accidental Release Information Program (ARID)-is a verified, more detailed subset of the ERNS data, designed by EPA to collect more information on the causes of accidents and changes that could be made at facilities to prevent accidents. ARID forms are submitted after an ' accident, and are voluntary. The Acute Hazardous Events(AHE)Database was a limited project that provided an historical ' perspective on the magnitude of chemical accident from with information from secondary sources such as newspapers, United Press International, reports to the National Response Center and federal and state authorities. ' Page?7 ' Notes 1. An accident can be a non-routine chemical release,spill,explosion or fire at an industrial facility or during transport. 2. Accidents Dg Happen: Toxic Chemical Accident Patterns in the United States(National Environmental Law Center and U.S.Public Interest Research Group,August 1994) 1 3. Large Property Damage Losses in the Hydrocarbon-Chemical Industries:A Thirty-year Review, 16th Edition, 1995. David Mahoney,Editor.Marsh&McLennan,Inc]M&M Protection Consultants,New York ' 4. ARID and ERNS databases(see Appendix 2) 5. A 1989 study of the Acute Hazardous Events(AHE)database,a national database which describes chemical accidents with serious consequences,showed that more than a third of the chemical accident deaths and injuries investigated occurred during releases of less than the reportable quantity. Such events may have never been reported to ERNS. 6. Skinner,Peter,et. al. 1991.It Can't Happen Here!Recent Sig i�ficant Toxic Chemical Incidents:A Compendium and Discussion. Albany: New York State Attorney General's Office,Environmental Protection Bureau. 7. Skinner,P.,et al. 1991. I 8 "Report to the LEPC Region II from the Task:Force on Chemical Releases",December 6, 1993. California Region II Local Emergency Planning Committee. 9. The EPA wrote a report in 1994,studying the impacts of air depositions on human health and water quality. For more information,contact EPA's Amy Vasu at(919)541-0107. 10 Nowhere to Hide:Chemical Accident Risks in the United States,Joel A. Tickmer and Hillel Gray,National Environmental Law Center and U.S.Public Interest Research Group, 1995 H. Perrow,C. 1984.Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books. 12. Environmental Policy histitute/Friends of the Earth. 1989. The Communi Pty lume,vol. 1,No. 3. Washington, D.C. The ERNS database record for this accident notes no injuries or evacuations. ' 13. Jopke,P.and Dale Patterson. 1994. Environment al Imoacts of the Nemadii River Spfll,. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The ERNS database report for this accident indicates that no evacuations took place. ' 14. Potter,J. 1993. Chemical accident prevention regulation in California and New Jersey. Ecology Law Quarter]}, vol.20:755-813. 15, Jaffe,S.and P.Skinner. 1989, New York Under a Cloud: The Need to Prevent Toxic Chemical Accidents. Albany: New York Attorney General's Office. 16. See Jaffe and Skinner, 1989,which describes an EPA study on toxic cloud movement and an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study on accidental release detection,notification,and evacuation times. 17. Ashford,N.,,et al. 1993. The Encouragement of Technological Change for Preventing Chemical Accidents Moving Firms from Secondary Prevention and Mitigation to Primary Prevention. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Ashford also cites additional examples. 1 Do I { THOMAS REI [) ASSOCIATES ! 1 560 WAVERLEY_ST., SUITE 201 (BOX 880), PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Tel: 415-327-0429 Fax: 415-3274024 tra@igc.org RECEIVED f r' i DEC 2 7 W6 December 26, 1996 TRA File LCOI CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Jeff Smith, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Agenda Item D-1, December 30, 1996. Proposed Ordinance would enhance public safety by regulating major maintenance turnarounds as a source of accidents and public health risk. Dear Chairman Smith and Board Members: Industry representatives have claimed that there is little potential benefit to public safety from the application of the proposed ordinance to major maintenance, so-called turnaround projects. The claim is based partially on the purported adequacy of existing maintenance and partially on the assertion that the planning process under the ordinance is inferior to a root cause analysis of accidents. The claim that planning under the ordinance wouldn't improve public safety exaggerates industry's present involvement in reducing risk and ignores what the ordinance can accomplish. This letter refutes the claim with two points: First, turnaround projects pose special problems that are not addressed by routine maintenance and thus routine industry procedures can never address the full scope of public risk as can the ordinance. Second, root cause analysis cannot substitute for land use review since it is narrowly focused on individual cases of failure and failure only in existing equipment and procedures. The recent record of major incidents in the County show that the industry approach has not worked. The magnitude of accidents documented in "Neighborhoods at Risk" show that greater scrutiny of public safety and accountability is needed.' ' Contra Costa Building Trades Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and Shoreline Environmental Alliance. "Neighboorhoods at Risk, A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989 — 1996". July 29, 1996. Attached as Exhibit 1. LC0I1226 Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 2 t 1. Turnarounds pose special problems that are not addressed by routine maintenance and existing industry procedures. The proposed ordinance targets major maintenance projects which are beyond the scope of routine plant safety. The bulk of testimony by representatives of industry and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union has stressed the emphasis on safety in routine plant work, however existing industry safety procedures address only existing facilities and routine operations. The ordinance is intended to anticipate s the special conditions that arise during major maintenance due to the installation of new technologies and due to the stresses of shut-down/start-up on both old and new equipment. r Established routine maintenance procedures are limited to existing facilities and deal with past accidents. They obviously do not automatically extend to new processes and new technologies that often motivate a turnaround. Turnarounds in Contra Costa County have usually been opportunities for industry to add new processes or make significant modifications to existing processes. The ability to i improve the plant and meet new markets is a major benefit of a turnaround that offsets the economic loss from plant down time. a The changes introduced during turnaround directly affect the potential public safety risk. They may entail new catalysts or process chemicals with different hazards than those previously in use or involve new processes, new equipment, and instrumentation that has yet to be tested in actual use. The ordinance offers the public an opportunity to see how industry plans to deal with the new safety problems posed by new technologies. The plans will address such factors as the physical proximity of new equipment to off-site land uses (e.g. residences and schools), and the introduction of new materials that require new safety equipment and new incident response procedures in the surrounding community. For both new and old equipment, there are peculiar problems associated with shut-down/start-up for a turnaround. The shut-down/start-up process poses a particular risk to plant operations. Shutting equipment down means depressurizing and cooling units and re-introducing oxygen (air) into flammable atmospheres with the associated risk of worker injury and fire. Starting up entails increases in temperature and pressure that puts stress on piping, tanks, valves and puts control and monitoring equipment to the test. Engaging planning prior to turnaround could identify ways the plant can shut equipment down with a specified protocol to reduce risk, establish a reasonable level of testing for new piping, and putting equipment on stream after safety monitoring equipment has been shown to be in working order. Turnaround may entail instigation of new procedures that have not been tested or subject to regulatory approval. The General Chemical oleum release occurred because of temporary use of a rail car for storage. The absence of any advanced LC011226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES f Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 3 t planning to deal with this new procedure is highlighted in Congressional ` investigations conducted under by Representative Miller.2 The shutdown/startup risk is significant because of the potentially large scale of resulting accidents. Industry itself reports that maintenance activity is associated with major accidents. One study examining 14 major incidents from 1987 to 1991, cumulatively amounting to over $2 billion in damage, over 79 deaths, and nearly one thousand injured observed that most of the incidents occurred around a maintenance activity.3Smith documents the peculiar problems of managing maintenance and the general deficiency of industry in integrating projected maintenance needs into plant planning. Contra Costa's own experience includes examples. Most recently, Pacific Refinery restarted a gas oil vacuum tower and a failed pipe connection resulted in an off-site release. Maintenance shut-down was associated with the General Chemical oleum spill (1993) because the modernization project had oleum, a mixture of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, temporarily stored in rail tank cars. The catastrophic Chevron isomax fire and explosion (1989) occurred while the unit was being shut- down for cleaning. Even the Unocal catacarb release (1994) is related to major maintenance planning — the unit failed because it was being run longer than originally planned in order to defer repairs to a major scheduled turnaround. 2. Root cause analysis cannot substitute for land use review. Root cause analysis is a useful exercise and would be valuable as County follow-up after any incident, but it has been difficult to get industry to conduct the analysis and publish results, and often results have been inconclusive due to multiple causes or other one-of-a-kind circumstances. Few of the major incidents have been examined through root cause analysis, I and overview surveys like the recently completed Unocal refinery audit are done rarely and reluctantly by industry. The current analysis and reporting practice does not contain the kind of information that would be provided under the ordinance. The database maintained by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) includes information "regarding the type of incident that occurred, but rarely the initiating, contributing, or root cause of an incident'.` The only required reporting is 2 Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Natural Resources, George Miller, Chair. "Living with Risk: Communities and the Hazard of Industrial Contamination". December 9, 1993. Attached as Exhibit 2. 3 Paul Smith. "Using Maintenance Management Systems as an Aid to OSHA and EPA compliance", Annual Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical Industries Environmental and Safety Conference, 1993. Attached as Exhibit 3. Contra Costa County Health Services Department, "Preliminary report on Hazardous Materials Incidents and Other Notifications in Contra Costa County, 1989 — 1996", August 29, 1996. Page 14. Attached as Exhibit 4. LCOI1226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES t Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 4 descriptive and does not allow the County to see patterns or trends that could be used to encourage a company to take preventive action. Even when HSD conducted specific incident follow-up surveys of industry in August 1996, the response fell well short of root cause analysis that could lead to prevention. Although specifically asked for the "initiating cause, the contributing causes, and the root cause"', the industry response letters generally reflect only a shallow investigation. In reviewing the industry response, HCD concluded "Root causes were not available for the incidents scrutinized." ® According to HSD, "A good deal of information regarding root causes and contributing causes of incidents is not available for review because most facilities do not yet conduct root cause analysis."' (Emphasis added). One limitation to relying on obligatory root cause analysis is the inherent complexity of refinery and industrial systems and the difficulty of discerning among multiple causes. In most reports to the County, cause is often listed as "human or procedural" error — a catch-all term potentially masking fundamental deficiencies in instrumentation or management oversight. Root cause analyses may not be applicable to the special problems associated with major maintenance. Root cause analyses usually reflect "normal" operating conditions and do not prepare a plant to deal with the potential for failure on aged equipment as the run nears the scheduled turnaround date. Further, root cause essentially requires case-by-case review of accidents after they have happened and does not foster broad-scaled planning that could reduce potential for major classes of accidents before they happen. It is obviously important to prevent recurrence of a specific type of accident, but the record of the past in Contra Costa County shows a wide diversity in the character of incidents and suggests that relying on after-the-fact study would not give the public the level of preventive protection it needs. Industry response to past root cause analyses have been limited. Turnaround projects offer a public safety opportunity that should not be ignored. The history of smaller accidents leading to larger incidents points to the need for major plant modifications that cannot practically be accomplished while the facilities are in routine operation. For example, many past toxic releases have resulted from correct operation of safety valves that vent to the atmosphere. During a major maintenance s Contra Costa County Health Services Department, series of letters to industries "Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents" , August 10, 1996, and responses from industry. Attached as Exhibit 5. e Contra Costa County Health Services Department, "Incidents at Facilities—Contra Costa County", undated, circa August 1996. Attached as Exhibit 6. ' Contra Costa County Health Services Department, "Preliminary report," supra, August 29, 1996. Page 14. LC0I1226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES x Chairman Jeff Smith —December 26, 1996 Page 5 on an existing process, there is an opportunity to add better instrumentation to safety valves and piping to convey the release to containment and treatment. Industry has resisted making the necessary changes due to cost and impact on existing operations. While it may be true that these changes may be costly on a piecemeal basis and may interfere with operation of safety equipment in use, it may be economically practical if integrated in a larger maintenance project. During turnarounds, it is essential that the history of accidents and maintenance problems be addressed to determine what fundamental changes can be made to protect the public. This allows the public to share in application of the principle of "Inherent Safety", meaning measures to "reduce or eliminate the possibility of an accident through the redesign of production systems or the substitution of hazardous chemicals with less hazardous substances at the facility".' Finally, root cause analysis as conducted by industry focuses on the plant engineering aspects of failure and does not reflect the sensitivity of surrounding land uses and the possible need for changing or relocating potentially dangerous process units. The main benefit to the ordinance is the focus on land use in relation to planned major maintenance. This focus extends beyond the plant boundary to the surrounding community which bears the risk form incidents inside the plant. The evolution of the ordinance, including the structure of the point system and the definition of incident illustrate the intent to consider the surrounding land uses in addition to the engineering focus of root cause analysis. 3. Conclusion The proposed ordinance offers the County an opportunity to consider the safeguards for new equipment and new processes not then in use and to examine the relationship between plant and surrounding land uses. Land use review would also take into account past problems and address ways to ameliorate them, taking a more comprehensive look than has traditionally been available through industry-run root cause analysis. In this way the ordinance offers a more direct way of considering prevention of accidents. Sinc rely, r Vk�1 Thomas S. Reid California Public Interest Research Group, "Accidents Do Happen, Toxic Chemical Accident Patterns in the United States". December 1996. Page 5. Attached as Exhibit 7. LC011226 THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES 1 it i � NEIGHBORHOODS AT RISK A REPORT ON INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: 1989-1996 t t 1 Prepared by: l CONTRA COSTA BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE t July 29, 1996 rL E I. INTRODUCTION Contra Costa is a County in harm's way. One of the most heavily industrialized l counties in California, Contra Costa workers and residents have suffered from 35 major industrial accidents since 1989. Although industry claims that major accidents are very rare, on average there has been a major accident every 21h months in the County. Clearly accidents are preventable, but regulatory gaps must be addressed in order to reduce the increasing number of major incidents in our industrial belt. I In just .the last few years, industrial accidents in Contra Costa County have killed workers, injured thousands of people, closed schools and freeways and required evacuation of workers and residents of surrounding communities. Smoke from fires and explosions has rained potentially toxic ash on many neighborhoods and communities. r There have been over 1700 incidents at ten major facilities in Contra Costa County between 1989 and 1995. These include the notorious General Chemical release in 1993, when more than 20,000 people sought medical care, and the infamous catacarb release in 1994, where the Unocal refinery over a 16 day period allowed over 100 tons of catacarb to pollute nearby neighborhoods despite the fact that refinery officials knew the release was occurring. There have been 17 accidents (more than 2 per year!) that have caused injuries. Most often workers have been the victims, but nearby residents have also suffered. Four accidents have caused schools to be closed. Two accidents have closed freeways because of toxic clouds. Four accidents have forced residents to evacuate their homes or be confined inside. Existing programs have unquestionably failed to protect the public. Industrial 3 accidents are increasing rather than decreasing. There were 358 accidents in 1992 when reporting requirements improved, and there were 507 accidents in 1995.1 Incident 'Despite industry claims that the increase in accidents is due to their improved 1 efforts at reporting even small spills,, the steep climb in serious incidents can`not be explained away. Industry's inherent admission that they have not always reported toxic releases should surprise no one. A refinery emergency response plan audited by a community/worker panel plainly discouraged reporting off-site impacts by claiming that such reports could "cost" the company more than releases of which the public was unaware. A1065.043 1 F ` records show that these accidents have been repeatedly caused by companies that have failed to implement safety recommendations. These companies presently store more than 123 million pounds of toxic chemicals in Contra Costa County, an indication of the horrible potential for future disasters. It is time for fundamental change. The citizens of the County deserve land use standards that will make these facilities compatible neighbors. It is time to end a bizarre double standard where a homeowner must get a building permit for a deck remodel while a billion dollar industry with a track record of injury and death needs no building permit at all for industrial equipment. Developers of shopping centers and subdivisions must get land use permits under public review from the Planning Commission, while industries that have polluted our neighborhoods with toxic gases and injured our friends and family members are not subject to any Planning Commission review. H. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS IN : 1989-19 CCID CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 95 A. Numbers Of Accidents Contra Costa County is the eleventh worst County in the nation with regard to toxic accidents with over 1,900 incidents reported at the major industrial facilities in the County between 1989-1995. (Table 1.)Z The ten industrial facilities reporting the largest number of incidents accounted for over 1,700 of the total incidents at the major facilities in the County. (Table 2.) Almost 90 percent of the reported incidents occurred at refineries and chemical plants. Among refineries, Unocal reported the largest number of incidents with 474 reports between.1989-1995. Among chemical plants, Dow reported the largest number of incidents, with 235 reports. (Table 2.) The number of incidents reported to the County has increased from 68 in 1989 to 507 in 1995, or by over a factor of seven (Figures 1-3). The increase in total number of accidents can not be explained by the often repeated industry claim that companies have r started to report even small releases due to public pressure. Even assuming a modest percentage of the increase is due to better reporting beginning in 1992, a steep increase in toxic releases would still be evident. Since 1992, there has been a 140 percent increase in the number of incidents. i 2 There have been 226 incidents reported at these facilities in the first six months of 1996, raising the total number of reported incidents since 1989 to 2,140, and indicating that the increasing trend of accidents and releases is continuing unabated. A1065.043 2 Table 1 Number of Incidents by Year at Major Industrial Facilities in Contra Costa County Industry 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total Air Products Co. - - 1 American Color - - - 1 Arco 1 - 4 Bay Area Environmental 1 5 - - - - - 6 Bay Cities Paving &Grading C&H Sugar 2 1 - 2 2 1 - 8 California Oils Co. - 2 - - - - 2 Chevron Refinery/Chemical 14 11 35 72 37 76 59 304 Concord Naval Weapons Station - 2 2 1 1 5 3 14 I Cooper Drum Co. - - - 1 - - - 1 Criterion Catalyst 1 - - - - 1 1 3 Dexter Hysol Adhesives 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 7 Diablo Chemical - - - - - 1 - 1 Dow Chemical 9 8 47 67 32 34 38 235 Dupont 1 3 1 2 3 6 14 30 t Exxon - 2 4 1 - 2 1 10 Feralloy West Corp. - - 1 2 - - - 3 Foster-Wheeler Cogen Plant - - - - - 1 - 1 General Chemical 9 4 6 8 19 12 9 67 GWF Power System - - - 4 - 2 2 8 Harbor Plastics - - - - 2 - - 2 ICI Americas/Zeneca - - 2 2 1 4 9 Imperial West Chemical 2 4 5 - 2 1 1 15 IT Corporation 1 3 - 1 - 1 1 7 I Kaiser - 2 2 2 6 - 2 14 i Marvais Steel 1 - - - 1 - - 2 Monsanto - - - - - 2 1 3 O'Brien Iron Works - - - - 2 - - 2 Ozol - 2 1 - 2 1 - 6 Pacific Bell 2 - - 2 1 - - 5 Pacific Refinery 1 2 3 25 23 19 13 86 PGandE 2 2 3 3 2 9 11 32 Pinole Point Steel/Colorstrip - 2 1 2 4 - - 9 Poly-Cal Plastic - - - 1 - - - 1 Rhone Poulenc - 2 3 2 1 2 1 11 Richmond Machine& Fab. - - 1 1 _ - _ 2 RMC Lonestar - 1 1 1 - 1 4 Santa Fe Pacific 1 - 1 1 1 7 2 13 Sheldon Oil - - 1 _ _ - 1 Shell Refinery/Chemical 2 12 17 35 38 59 55 218 ' Southern Pacific - 1 5 . 3 1 - 1 11 Standard Oil Texaco - 1 1 2 1 - - 5 4 Tosco Refinery/Chemical 3 4 7 47 46 83 63 253 Tracor Aerospace - - - - 2 _ 2 Unocal Refinery/Chemical 12 6 11 60 58 107 220 474 USS Posco 1 - 1 4 2 - 1 9 Varian 1 - _ Wickland Oil - - - - 2 3 1 6 Witco - - - - 1 - - 1 Total 68 81 167 358 295 438 507 1,914 AM5.043 3 r � Table 2 TEN FACILITIES REPORTING LARGEST NUMBER OF INCIDENTS: 1989-1995 FACILITY NUMBER OF INCIDENTS: 1989-1995 Unocal 474 Chevron 304 Tosco 253 Dow 235 Shell 218 Pacific 86 General Chemical 67 PG&E Power Plants 32 r. Dupont 30 Imperial West Chemical 15 Total: Top Ten Facilities 1714 Total: All Reports to County 7045 It is also safe to assume that a significant number of chemical spills go unreported due to a variety of reasons, including the remoteness of certain potential sources, such as pressure relief valves. In addition, a recent community/worker audit of the emergency response plans at a Contra Costa refinery revealed the corporate policies which ! discourage reporting toxic releases. During the initial stages of an accident, managers must refer to a chart to rate the seriousness of the event according to what the potential costs are to the corporation. The plan clearly indicated that toxic releases will hurt the company less if the public is unaware of them. The most troubling aspect of the number of accidents is that most occurred at ten large industrial sites. These facilities include corporations that are reported to be among industrial leaders in improved safety and community relations: Dow Chemical, DuPont, k Chevron and Shell. Others have checkered records, such as Pacific and General Chemical. If large numbers of releases are occurring at an increasing rate at both the "safest" and the "worst" facilities, then more effective regulation and oversight is clearly required. County officials have given the petrochemical industry a chance to put their house in order. This approach has clearly failed, and a rapid response before the next accident strikes is required. 4 4 f . Y� 8 `� o - •� � in o + t,4 � r N r 8 8 Ie a1�°$, 1 r 'w' U �.d N a� a a ■ — a t - g g rn M r g g h 4mio'J lnwD snuoo of pavobu sluamoui 3o joqmH 6 ..._.........._._.......... .................................__ ............._......._....__. ' ................ ......_............................. ................. _.. 0 n N LL CD y 0�0 ................ ...... ......... ......_....._....................;......................................................................... ._ COi .0 r C ±1 O_ C rocm _ ... �.. ........_...... ..... . ............. ................ rn U. 8 � C C V .................................,.....................................;.................... .............. O V C 7rn ... ........... os i t � ................................................................................................................... _ go4 co 4 'n 00 OO O O O O O co 0 V cn N f4unoo s;soo si;uoo o;pa:podsa s;uoppul;o jogwnN 7 O g � w 40 N oil U S goos N d� ,t Q sus C4 �. a B. Types Of Accidents The most common types of accidents in the County are spills and leaks, toxic gas: releases, flaring, and fires. Between 1992 and 1995, 1,598 incidents occurred at major industrial facilities in Contra Costa County. Among these, 274 or 17 percent of the total were spills and leaks, 265 or 17 percent were toxic gas releases, 135 or 8 percent were flaring events at refineries, and 90 or 6 percent were fires. Derailed tank cars, explosions, releases of smoke, odor, and breakdowns of pumps, compressors, valves and other fugitive components were also reported: (Figure 4.) The types of accidents posing the most significant risk to public health and safety are the toxic gas releases. Even small toxic gas releases will typically travel beyond the confines of the plant, contaminating the air breathed by the public. The release of catalysts compounds, such as Chevron Dec. 1991 and Unocal s Catacarb 1994 has also been a significant risk to the public. Catalytic compounds contain heavy metals, particulates, and other chemicals known to pose a danger to public health even in small quantities. Catalysts are not considered acutely hazardous, although exposure can cause immediate health problems and may result in long term impacts. Chemical releases through pressure relief valves that vent toxics directly to the air, rather than to containment systems, have resulted in serious accidents. Although the Bay Area Air District has considered a regulation to prevent these releases for years, no action has been taken and no date for adoption has been set. Flaring, in which accidental releases of gases are only partially combusted (depending on various limiting factors including the temperature, time, and turbulence of winds) can be a major source of smoke, soot, odor, noise and vibration into surrounding neighborhoods. Fires release large quantities of smoke, soot, and hazardous chemicals such as cyanides, dioxins, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. These materials can leave unsightly deposits on personal property and cause adverse health affects. Most of the spills and leaks occurred at oil refineries. The most commonly spilled substances were hydrocarbon materials, including diesel, gasoline, and various oils. Other commonly spilled materials include sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid. These spills and leaks may impact on-site workers or contaminate surface waters and groundwaters, which may, in turn, jeopardize public health and safety if the contaminants R travel off site. k f 9 C. Toxic Gas Releases Contra Costa County stores about 123 million pounds of toxic, explosive, and highly corrosive chemicals (Table 3), often in close proximity to population centers, and is second only to Los Angeles County in the quantity stored. The majority of these chemicals are stored at ten chemical plants and refineries. (Table 4.) Table 3 TOXIC CHEMICALS STORED IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY F CHEMICAL USES AMOUNTS Pounds Sulfuric Acid Used to make fertilizers, metal cleaners, 82,7919024 explosives; and in refining and manufacturing Oleum (fuming Used in the soap and electronics industry 159840,000 sulfuric acid) Carbon Disulfide Used as a solvent for waxes and resins; as a 8,100,810 disinfectant, an insecticide; and in manufacturing rubber and artificial fibers Ammonia Produced as a byproduct of refining; used as 5,921,797 ' a feedstock in fertilizers and in pollution control equipment j Nitric Acid Used to make fertilizers and explosives 4,826,426 j Chlorine Used in solvents and cleaning agents 2,411,947 Hydrogen Fluoride Used in the petrochemical, glass, porcelain, 1,290,000 chemical manufacturing and semiconductor industries as a catalyst or etcher Phenol Disinfectant; corrosive; used in refining 1,050,215 Sulfur Dioxide Combustion byproduct of burning 669,109 petrochemicals; used to make sulfuric acid i Hydrogen Sulfide A byproduct of refining 617,434 TOTAL 123,518,762 10 t Table 4 CHEMICAL STORAGE LOCATIONS COMPANY POUNDS Rhone-Poulenc (Martinez) 39,045,475 Tosco Refinery (Avon) 30,905,748 General Chemical (Richmond) 17,260,000 Zeneca (Richmond) 8,190,000 Chevron Refinery (Richmond) 7,894,115 General Chemical (Bay Point) 4,913,000 Chevron Chemicals (Richmond) 4,000,000 Shell Refinery (Martinez) 3,352,457 f DuPont (Antioch) 2,537,000 Unocal Refinery (Rodeo) 1,516,734 TOTAL 119,614,529 Accidental release of these chemicals is the second most common type of accident that occurs in Contra Costa County. Between 1992 and 1995, 265 accidental releases of toxic gases were reported to the County. Most of these were from Dow Chemical and the refineries. The most commonly released chemicals were hydrogen sulfide, chlorine, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and sulfur trioxide. (Table 5.) All of these chemicals are acutely hazardous materials. 11 Table 5 CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN'TOXIC GAS RELEASES AT MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES NUMBER OF RELEASES SUBSTANCE 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOT FRACTION Hydrogen Sulfide 11 5 9 11 36 0.14 = Chlorine 16 5 5 7 33 0.12 Sulfur Dioxide 4 7 10 5 26 0.10 Hy one Acid 7 6 3 5 21 0.08 - Sulfur Trioidde 0 6 7 8 21 0.08 Unknown 5 5 2 4 16 0.06 Hydrogen 5 2 4 3 14 0.05 Hydrocarbons 8 3 1 2 14 0.05 Ammonia 3 2 5 4 14 0.05 Nitrogen Oxide 2 1 1 8 12 0.05 Propane 5 2 1 2 10 0.04 = Carbon Tetrachloride 2 2 0 4 8 0.03 - Natural Gas 0 4 1 2 7 0.03 _ Perchloroethylene 3 2 0 1 6 0.02 _ Butane 2 2 1 0 5 0.02 Hydro uonc Acid 5 0 0 0 - Ethylene Oid e 2 2 0 0 4 0.02 CRIorinated Pyridines 0 0 0 4 4 0.02 - Freon 0 0 0 3 3 0.01 Butadiene 1 0 0 0 1 0.00 Phenol 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 Catacarb 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 Diniethyi Disulfide 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 C oroform 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 Monomethylam ine 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 Titanium Chloride 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 0 Gasoline 0 0 0 1 1 0.00 - TOTALS 81 57 52 75 265 1.00 Hydrogen sulfide is a byproduct of refining, and most of the hydrogen sulfide releases were from refineries. Hydrogen sulfide is a malodorous gas that smells like rotten eggs and is a common source of odor complaints around refineries. Exposure of the general population to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide causes headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, shortness of breath, choking, coughing, sore throat, chest pain or heaviness, burning eyes, fainting, nervousness, fever, awakening 12 t at night, loss of sleep, acute asthma attacks, anorexia, and weight loss. Exposure to high concentrations paralyzes the respiratory center and is instantly fatal. Chlorine is used for water treatment and in chemical manufacturing. It is extremely irritating to the mucous membranes of the eyes and the respiratory tract and in moist air or fogs, it combines with water to form hydrogen chloride. Most of the chlorine releases were from Dow Chemical. Exposure to low concentrations causes burning eyes, scratchy throat, coughing, and shortness of breath. Exposure to high concentrations causes respiratory distress,.pulmonary edema, and death. Sulfur dioxide is a byproduct of refining and is also used to make sulfuric acid. Sulfur dioxide is corrosive and poisonous and in moist air or fogs, it combines with water to form sulfurous acid. Low concentrations of sulfur dioxide cause irritation of mucous membranes, throat, esophagus, eyes and skin, chronic cough, constriction in the chest, fatigue, altered sense of smell, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, bronchial asthma, prolongation of common colds, and breathing difficulties including shortness of breath. Exposure to high concentrations may cause edema of the lungs, respiratory paralysis, and death. Hydrochloric acid is moderately irritating to the mucous membranes of the eyes, the respiratory tract, and the throat. High concentrations result in pulmonary edema, laryngeal spasm, and death. Sulfur trioxide combines with moisture in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid. It is a corrosive poison that is highly irritating to skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. D. Health Impacts , r Exposure to any one of the toxic gases described above could cause serious health effects, however, industrial communities do not risk exposure to just one chemical or even one toxic release. Rodeo/Crockett/Tormey residents may have been exposed to 474 chemical releases from the Unocal refinery and 86 spills from the Pacific refinery, involving dozens of chemicals over a six year period. Although we know some of the health effects of exposure to a single chemical, very little is understood about the impact of repeated exposures to a variety of harmful toxics. When exposure to daily pollution coming from industrial plants is added to constant accidental releases, fires and explosions, there is little doubt that it is undesirable. Children, in particular are at risk from toxic releases because of their smaller size and developing bodies. 13 The information produced by the Pacific Refinery Health Survey Review (August 5, 1992) is illustrative of the kind of impacts industrial operations have on surrounding neighborhoods. In a formal survey of neighbors, the Bay Area Air Quality Management 'District took legal declarations of the neighbors under penalty of perjury. Dr. Walker, Medical Director of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, reviewed the material and found good evidence that the neighbors' health problems were being caused by the refinery's air pollution. 'There is striking consistency among the types of acute health effects complained of by the declarants. Many of the declarants complain of headaches, sore throats, coughing and nausea resulting from the odors and t emissions from Pacific Refining Company. Some, who have pre-existing asthma conditions, complain of exacerbation of those symptoms due to the refinery's emissions. These are exactly the kind of acute symptoms which one might expect to result from significant odor and emission releases from an oil refinery. ... " Dr. Walker also evaluated the reliability of the data based on the representiveness of the sample group of declarants: "Even thou the group of declarants constitutes a self-selected group, though Sz' P gr P, there is a remarkable specificity, consistency, and time-relatedness in the declarations taken as a whole. For this reason, I believe that these declarations provide credible and reliable evidence that the periodic odor and emission releases from Pacific Refining Company are causing acute health effects in the Rodeo community. People do not generally present in these large numbers in a single community this specific range of health complaints unless there is a common inciting factor, which in this case I believe is environmental." E. Examples of Major Accidents Since 1989, a substantial number of accidents have occurred in Contra Costa 0 County that have resulted in significant impacts to either workers or surrounding communities. These impacts have included deaths, injuries, illnesses, school closures, bridge and highway closures, evacuations or other significant releases of hazardous materials or wastes. These accidents and their impacts are briefly summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Six of these accidents are discussed in more detail below. 14 Chevron Isomax Fire (4/ 891 While the Isomax Unit was being shutdown for steam cleaning, a pipe carrying highly flammable hydrogen developed a leak, and the resulting hydrogen cloud ignited. Two large explosions and a fire resulted, causing the 100•foot high reactor in the Isomax Unit to collapse. Over 150 firefighters from Chevron, other refineries, and the City of Richmond struggled to keep the blaze under control, which burned for six days. A Cal/OSHA report concluded that Chevron had knowingly endangered workers by failing to provide protective fire gear and had not inspected the leaky pipe for 23 years despite an industrywide tendency for pipes to corrode. Nine workers were injured and sent to local hospitals, three of whom were severely burned. Dense black smoke was visible as far away as San Francisco and Martinez and drifted into nearby neighborhoods and east across the hills of El Cerrito and Berkeley. Hundreds of people, primarily from El Sobrante Valley, San Pablo and North Richmond, complained to Richmond city offices and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District about odor, smoke, and soot. About 275 children were evacuated from Verde Elementary School. Shell CW& is Feed Hydrotreater Fire (Q/�/�9). A vapor line in the Catalytic Feed Hydrotreater leaked hot hydrogen and hydrocarbon gases, which ignited almost immediately. The fire caused liquid lines in the area to fail, resulting in ground fires. A major explosion, about a dozen minor explosions, and a fireball erupted in the midst of the conflagration. The fire burned for two days. Two contract workers were sent to a local hospital with second-degree'burns over about 25 percent of their bodies. The blast from the explosion was heard up to 7 miles away in Benicia The blaze released a thick black cloud, which drifted east over parts of Martinez, Avon, and Pittsburg. Some residents evacuated the area, and numerous odor. and smoke complaints were lodged with local agencies. Chevron Catalyst Release („ 5191). A malfunctioning microprocessor caused a valve, which should have remained open, to shut inadvertently, causing_pressure to build up inside a refining unit. The pressure forced about 60 cubic yards of nickel-laden catalyst to be emitted through the unit's exhaust stack. Winds carried the resulting dust clouds south over Point Richmond, where the catalyst dust settled onto cars, roads, and homes and throughout a 16 square mile area Over 500 people responded to a community health survey.complaining of respiratory problems. The Countyused the Community Alert Network emergency notification tY (�) 8 cY system for the first time in an effort to protect the public. However, timely warning was 7 hampered by the company's delay in acknowledging the harmful toxic dust clouds had crossed the fenceline. 15 l Community outrage over the incident resulted in numerous heated public meetings, including one on Chevron's Risk Management and Prevention Program ("RMPP"). At that meeting County health officials generally agreed with Chevron management that the company's accident prevention measures were adequate, despite strong objections from community groups. County Health staff, however, publicly admitted that gaps existed in the RMPP process, which did not cover chemical releases involving toxics not classified as "acutely hazardous." t Twice in 1992, hundreds of local residents marched to the main gate of the refinery demanding stronger regulations and community oversight. Neither Chevron or government agencies took significant action to prevent future accidents. Instead, industry and agencies focused on improving emergency notification systems, rather than focusing t on preventing them in the first place. Rho e-Poulenc Acid Fire (6.122,192). An estimated 135,000 gallons of sulfonation acid sludge spilled from a broken valve on a 5-foot-deep storage tank. The sludge, a highly flammable mixture of sulfuric acid and up to 25 percent petroleum products, caught on fire. One worker was killed, another was seriously injured, and 15 firefighters were treated for sulfuric acid burns and smoke inhalation. Black smoke and an acid cloud covered parts of Central County, closed local freeways, caused residents to complain of headaches, nausea, burning eyes and sore throats, and damaged the paint on vehicles. Despite the widespread impacts of the release, the plant manager told a special meeting of the Martinez City Council the next day that there were "no off-site impacts." Following a series of public protests led by Communities for a Safe Environment, the ] company abandoned a controversial plan to operate a commercial hazardous waste ! incinerator at the site. General Chemical Oleum Shill (7126/93. In late June of 1993, the General Chemical plant in Richmond shut down to modernize its facility. During modifications, oleum, a mixture of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid, was temporarily stored in tanker rail cars. Workers had never unloaded oleum from a tank car at this facility before and received no special training prior to the Bay Area's worst chemical disaster to date. Oleum, which freezes at 84 F, must be heated to liquify it before it can be unloaded. The oleum was heated with steam in preparation for unloading. However, the railcar overheated because workers were not properly trained and the railcar was not equipped with gauges and thermometers needed to monitor temperature and pressure inside the tank. This caused a pressure vent on the car to rupture. 16 I � About 4 tons of sulfur trioxide were emitted from the pressure vent into the air over a 3 hour period. A cloud of sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid drifted northeast of the plant along the Interstate 80 corridor from Richmond to Crockett. More than 24,000 residents and commuters were sent to local hospitals complaining of burning eyes, sore throats, and respiratory ailments. Twenty people were hospitalized. The Ba Area Air Quality Management District and the Contra Costa County Bay � Health Services Department fined General Chemical 1.18 million dollars for the accident, which included $600,000 for a health clinic and $200,000 for a mobile health van for North Richmond. More than 45,000 plaintiffs have filed 54 lawsuits seeking compensation for injuries suffered during the spill. Unocal Catacarb Release (8/22,194). About 100 tons of catacarb escaped from a small hole near the top of a 150-foot regenerating tower in the Hydrogen Plant of the Unicracker between August 22 and September 6, when the unit was shutdown. Catacarb is an alkaline solution used to purify hydrogen and contains potassium carbonate, potassium borate, diethanolamine, and a trace amount of potassium metavandate and polyhydroxy alcohol. Government investigations revealed that Unocal kept the equipment operating despite worker warnings of the risks. Unocal also failed to adhere to Company policies regarding accident response and notification. Unocal had delayed repairs to the unit until a scheduled turnaround in October, running the equipment six months longer than originally planned. Airborne catacarb fell over the town of Crockett, unincorporated Tormey and the Wickland Oil Terminal, forming a sticky brown residue on exposed property, including vehicles and lawns. Over 1500 people sought treatment at a local Good Neighbor Clinic for symptoms which included more serious health problems. These people were diagnosed with diarrhea, vomiting, headaches, allergies, brain damage, memory loss and cognitive disorder. Many are still sick a year and a half later. i � 17 . Table 6 EXAMPLES OF MAJOR ACCIDENTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: 1989 - 1996 DATE FACILITY INCIDENT 4/10/89 Chevron A major fire and explosion occurred in the Isomax Unit due to a hydrogen leak. Nme workers were injured and 3 seriously burned. 275 children were evacuated from Verde Elementary. Black clouds of ` smoke poured into surrounding community for 6 days. 9/5/89 Shell A major fire and 3 explosions occurred in the Catalytic Feed Hydrotreater. Odor, smoke, and fallout was experienced in the surrounding community. Two contract workers were severely burned, and windows rattled up to 7 mi from the refinery. 10/23/90 Dow A cloud of hydrochloric acid was released from an overflow of a tank. 1/4/91 Shell The LDU Lube Crude Heater had a tube failure. Some 700 gal of oil leaked into the firebox and burned for over 2 hrs. Dense smoke and odor invaded parts of Martinez. 2/1/91 Dow 40 lbs of chlorine and 300 lbs of liquid pyridines leaked from a faulty gasket, causing odor in the surrounding community. 5/5/91 Dow 400 lbs of chlorine and 880 lbs of carbon tetrachloride gas were released _ from a tank, injuring 6 workers. 6/25/91 Dow 700 lbs of liquid chlorine leaked from a faulty valve, sending 30 workers to hospitals and clinics. High winds dissipated the cloud offsite. 10/29/91 Chevron A fire in the Catalytic Cracking Unit sent black clouds of smoke over much of the Bay Area and forced toll takers to evacuate the Richmond- San Rafael Bridge. 12/5/91 Chevron 40-tons of catalyst dust was released from the Catalytic Cracking Unit and blanketed Pt. Richmond and surrounding areas, requiring massive cleanup. Additional catalyst was released while restarting the unit on 12/6/91. 1/30/92 Tosco A refinery tank spilled 1,894 barrels of diesel, which was trapped in a containment ditch. Tosco paid a$20,000 penalty to the county for failing to immediately report the spill. 5/29/92 Pacific Refining While the-refinery was shut down due to a leak in the cooling tower, the flares overloaded and were unable to burn off all of the released material. As a result, water, soot and chemicals spewed onto homes in 6/22/92 Rhone-Poulenc A faulty valve leaked 135,000 gal of sulfuric acid sludge, which caught n on fire killing one worker and severely injuring another. An acid cloud covered parts of Concord, West Pittsburg and Martinez. t 18 Table 6 (continued) DATE FAaMXrY INCIDENT 6/23/92 Chevron A pump failure in the Catalytic Cracking Unit released a foul-smelling cloud. Yellow smoke engulfed parts of Richmond. 7/29/92 Texaco One worker died and another was seriously injured when a high-pressure hose burst and sprayed them with crude oil. 8/13/92 Tosco A refinery fire triggered an explosion heard for miles. One worker was treated for burns at a hospital and released. 8/22/92 Electro Forming A leaking nitric acid tank send a plume of acid over Richmond, sending 100 people to hospitals. 9/20/92 Tosco A power failure caused flaring, which sparked a small grass fire. Smoke and odors were experienced in West Pittsburg. 12/11/92 Tosco A flare released a nauseating odor that irritated people in a large area of Concord and prompted Pine Hollow Intermediate School to send students home. 3/7/93 Tosco A butane leak created a brown cloud of unburned hydrocarbons that covered parts of Martinez. No health problems were reported. 4/l/93 Shell An explosion in a sludge storage tank rocketed the metal lid onto power lines, causing power outages to about 1000 PG&E customers . 6/18/93 Tosco 300,000 lbs of hydrocarbons and 1,600 lbs of H2S were released from a pressure relief valve, causing odors throughout Clyde,Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch and Oakley. 300 people complained of odors, nausea, headaches and eye and respiratory irritation. 7/26/93 General Chemical About 4 tons of S03 (oleum)was released from an overheated rail car. A large plume of sulfuric acid formed over Richmond sending about 24,000 people to local hospitals 10/7/93 Tosco 2000 gallons of oil were dumped into Hastings Slough. EPA fined Tosco $125,000 10/8/93 Shell An acid tank exploded and sent a fireball into the sky. The explosion and fire were caused by water that leaked into an acid storage tank. 2/10/94 Chevron A power outage in the Sulfur Recover Unit,resulted in the release of t many tons of sulfur and other compounds. 3/10/94 Chevron An instrument failure caused the release of large quantities of hydrogen sulfide from the flares. Residents as far away as El Sobrante complained of illness. I 8/22/94 Unocal 100 tons of catacarb was released over a 16 day period from a regenerating tower in the Unicracker Complex, resulting in a sticky/greasy fallout throughout the Crockett area and causing hundreds of residents and workers to become ill. 9/15/94 Unocal A compressor failure released hydrogen sulfide, causing 80 school 1 children at Hillcrest Elementary to seek medical attention. 19 6 Table 6 (continued) f DATE FACII.I'1'Y INCIDENT t 6/17/95 Unocal A tank fire lasted 3 hrs, causing the evacuation of about 200 families in Crockett, many for over a week due to ongoing fiunes. 9/25/95 Tosco Pollution control equipment was bypassed when a boiler malfunctioned, t releasing a large cloud of coke dust, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. 9/27/95 Pacific Faulty shutdown cleaning procedures resulted in the release of naphtha and sulfur compounds. Disabled children were evacuated by ambulance from schools. 2/1/96 Shell A powerful explosion in the new Hydrogen Unit operated by the Shell contractor Air Products results in worker evacuation, houses being rattled several miles away, and a huge cloud of burning hydrogen visible for miles. 4/l/96 Shell An explosion and major fire that burned out of control for 3 hrs 1. occurred in the Catalytic Feed Hydrotreater. A large smoke cloud blanketed the surrounding community. 4/20/96 Shell A fire and explosion occurred while draining oil from a process unit into the sewer. Workers report that "hot" sewers have been an ongoing risk for several months in the area causing the cancellation of"hot work" permits. 5/17/96 Unocal A major fire in the Coker lasted 3.5 hrs and was caused by workers switching the wrong valve, sending hot oil into the coke pit. Workers claim that Unocal repeatedly rejected recommendations for simple engineering changes made during internal safety review over five years before. E ' 20 Table 7 EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING INJURIES OR ILLNESS, SCHOOL OR BRIDGE CLOSURE, EVACUATION OR CONFINEMENT OR OTHER SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING INJURIES OR ILLNESS ■ Chevron Fireball 4/10/89 (nine workers injured, three seriously burned) ■ Shell Light Oil Process Explosion 9/5/89 (Two contract workers severely burned) ■ Dow Chlorine and Carbon Tectrachloride Release 5/5/91 (Six workers injured) ■ Dow Chlorine Release 6/25/91 (Thirty workers sent to hospitals and clinics) ■ Chevron Catalyst Release 12/5/91 (people ill with diarrhea, breathing problems, rashes) ■ Pacific Flare Overload 5/29/92 (Water, soot and chemicals spewed onto Rodeo homes. At least three citizens sought hospital treatment) ■ Rhone-Poulenc Sulfuric Acid Sludge Release and Fire 6/22/92 (one worker killed, another severely burned) ■ Tosco Fire and Explosion 8/13/92 (Explosion heard for miles, one worker sent to hospital for burns) ■ Electro Forming Acid Release 8/22/92 (Over 100 people sent to hospitals) ■ Tosco Pressure Relief Valve 300,000 lbs. Release 6/18/93 (Several people sent to hospital with burning eyes, shortness of breath) ■ General Chemical Oleum Release 7/26/93 (20,000 people sought hospital treatment) ■ Chevron H2S Gas Release 3/10/94 (people as far as El Sobrante complain of illness) ■ Unocal Catacarb Toxic Chemical Release 8/22/94 (Over 1,500 people ► treated over following year) 21 Table 7 (continued) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING INJURIES OR ILLNESS (continued) ■ Unocal H2S Release 9/15/94 (80 nearby schoolchildren sought medical attention) ■ Pacific Refinery Naptha, Sulfur Release 9/27/95 (Disabled children from nearby school evacuated by ambulance) ■ Shell Hydrogen Unit Explosion 2/2/96 (Resulted in worker evacuation; two workers suffered minor injuries) ■ Shell Explosion and Fire 4/1/96 (Large smoke cloud blanketed surrounding community) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING SCHOOL CLOSURES ■ Chevron Fireball 4/10/89 (275 elementary school children evacuated) ■ Tosco Flare Release 12/11/92 (Nauseating odor in large area of Concord resulting in Pine Hollow Intermediate School sending students home) ■ Pacific Refinery Naptha, Sulfur Release 9/27/95 (Evacuation of disabled children by ambulance from nearby school) ■ Unocal Coker Fire 5/17/96 (Prompted schools to close; residents warned to stay inside) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CLOSING BRIDGES OR FREEWAYS ■ Chevron Oil Leak Fire 10/30/91 (Richmond-San Rafael bridge evacuated) f ■ Rhone-Poulenc Sulfuric Acid Sludge Release and Fire 6/22/92 (freeway temporarily closed) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSING EVACUATION OR CONFINEMENT ■ Chevron Catalyst Release 12/5/91 (County residents warned to stay indoors) ■ Chevron Pump Failure Release 6/23/92 (County residents warned to stay indoors-Same unit as 10/31 and 12/5/91 events) 22 s Table 7 (continued) ■ Unocal Tank Fire_ 6/17/95 (200 Crockett families forced to evacuate area for over a week) ■ Unocal Coker Fire 5/17/96 (Prompted schools to close; residents warned to stay inside) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT RELEASES ■ Dow Hydrochloric Acid Release 10/23/90 (Cloud of hydrochloric acid released from overflow of tank) ■ Shell Heater Fire 1/4/91 (Dense smoke invaded parts of Martinez) ■ Dow Chlorine Release 2/1/91 (40 lbs. of chlorine and 300 lbs. liquid pyridines leaked causing odor in community) ■ Tosco Diesel Spill 1/30/92 (Trapped in containment ditch; Tosco failed to immediately report to County) ■ Pacific Flare Overload 5/29/92 (Water, soot and chemicals spewed onto Rodeo homes. At least three citizens sought hospital treatment. t i ■ Tosco Flaring Incident 9/20/92 (Caused small grass fire, smoke and odors I experienced in West Pittsburg) ■ Tosco Butane Leak 3/7/93 (Butane leak created brown cloud which covered parts of Martinez) ■ Shell Sludge Tank Explosion 4/1/93 (Caused power outages to about 1000 PG&E customers) ■ Tosco Oil Spill 10/7/93 (2000 gallons oil dumped into Hastings Slough) ■ Shell Fireball 10/8/93 (fireball in sky could be seen for miles) ■ Chevron Power Outage and Release 2/10/94 (Power outage resulted in release of many tons of sulfur and other compounds) 23 Table 7 (continued) ■ Tosco Release 9/25/95 (Boiler malfunction causes release of large cloud of coke dust, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) ■ Shell Fire and Explosion 4/20/96 Small fire and explosion while draining �P ( xP 8 oil from process unit into sewer) III. PROPOSED "GOOD NEIGHBOR" SOLUTIONS TO EXISTING REGULATORY GAPS A. Need for Effective County Land Use Review of Industrial Construction, Repair and Maintenance Projects Involving Hazardous Materials or Hazardous Wastes The accidents at major industrial facilities reviewed in Section II dramatically demonstrate that the current regulatory framework has not been effective in minimizing accidents and hazardous materials releases from industrial facilities in Contra Costa County. Indeed, the statistical evidence shows that the number of accidents and releases is dramatically increasing. (Figure 3.) The petroleum refineries, chemical plants and other heavy industrial facilities handling hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are subject to a patchwork of existing regulatory programs. The gaps and limitations in these programs, however, combined with problems of compliance and enforcement, have undermined the effectiveness of the E ! current regulatory structure in reducing major accidents and releases of hazardous ! materials. Industry often cites the Risk Management and Prevention Program ("RMPP") and process safety management ("PSM") standards to argue that additional County regulation is unnecessary. However, both RMPP and PSM standards are limited to acutely hazardous materials, and do not apply at all to a wide range of facilities handling extremely toxic chemical compounds. Even with respect to acutely hazardous materials, the RMPP requirements apply only if the Administering Agency determines that there is a significant likelihood that the facility's use of the material poses an acutely hazardous „ materials accident risk. Even then, a facility may still apply for exemption from the RMPP process. The PSM standards also apply only to the handling of acutely hazardous materials. No effective compliance or enforcement of either program currently exists. Other state and federal regulatory programs have also proven ineffective. (See Tables 8, 9 and 10.) l � 24 Table 8 LIMITATIONS ON RISK MANAGEMENT PREVENTION PROGRAMS (RMPPs) AND HAZARD AND OPERABILITY STUDIES (HAZOPs) ■ Only applies to acutely hazardous materials als (e.g., catacarb, hazardous waste not covered). ■ No review of RMPP and HazOp at public hearing. ■ RMPP and HazOp need not evaluate risks to on-site persons. ■ RMPP is certified as in compliance by the facility operator and a privately employed expert. ■ Local agency review of RMPP is limited to whether it is deficient. Its ability to impose additional safety measures on facility is severely restricted. ■ According to County Health Department, HazOps are not available to public. ■ No effective program for enforcing or monitoring a facility's compliance with the RMPP . County has only reviewed 30 RMPPs since program enacted in 1986. Table 9 LIMITATIONS ON PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ■ Only applies to acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals (e.g., catacarb, hazardous waste not covered). ■ Need not consider risks to off-site persons. ■ No review of PSM at public hearings. ! ■ Facility has broad discretion to determine appropriate level of hazard analysis based on factors such as system "complexity," number of employees exposed, extent of hazards, and operating history. ■ Facility performs the pre-startup safety review and determines whether safety procedures are adequate. 25 Table 9 (continued) ■ Facilityperforms inspections and testing. p p e ■ Facility organizes the incident investigation team and reports results to Cal- OSHA. ■ Hazard analysis need only be updated every 5 years. ■ Cal-OSHA has planned inspections only 20 facilities statewide. Other inspections by complaint only. Table 10 LIMITATIONS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT - EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS ■ Only applies to extremely hazardous substances. ■ Focuses on community's response to hazardous chemical emergencies, not prevention of such emergencies. ■ Facility merely submits list of hazardous chemicals used to local emergency planning committee and identifies an emergency coordinator; the committee develops the response plan. ■ Local government agency coordinator is designated by the state emergency response commission (Le., could be the Fire Department, County Health Department, etc.). ■ Facility has 60 days after using a new extremely hazardous substance to notify relevant agency. 1 26 i Table 10 (continued) i LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT- RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS ■ Only applies to extremely hazardous substances and certain regulated hazardous pollutants. ■ Risk Management Plan requirements have not yet been established. U.S. EPA published proposed regulations in October, 1993 and again in March, 1995 — still not final. ■ Proposed requirements similar to California's RMPP program. i ■ Enforcement mechanism is EPA (or Bay Area AQMD) audits and safety inspections; no local enforcement. Until recently, oil refineries and other major industries in the County were not subject to any local land use permitting requirements. While a three-foot retaining wall in a residential backyard requires a County permit and inspection, a billion-dollar refinery modernization could be carried out without even a local building permit. Although the new Hazardous Materials Ordinance enacted by Contra Costa County is a step in the right direction, the Commission had been working under a limited charge and the Ordinance fails to address a number of operational issues that have led to recent accidents, and would leave important gaps in the regulation of these facilities. The proposed "Good Neighbor" amendments to the Hazardous Materials Ordinance are intended to reduce the risk of accidents and toxic releases by making existing safety programs more effective, and by filling gaps in the current regulatory structure. The "Good Neighbor" amendments would: 1) expand the range of projects r made subject to review and regulation, 2) increase public disclosure of risks from facility accidents and releases; 3) improve incident reporting and investigation in order to facilitate accident prevention planning; 4) require special safety measures and inspections to reduce hazards associated with high pressure and high temperature operations; and 5) require findings based on specific health and safety criteria prior to project approval. l The deficiencies and gaps in existing regulation and the proposed "Good Neighbor" solutions are discussed in more detail below. �1 27 B. Need toExP and Range Projects to Review �g of ProJects Subject 1. Restricted definition of"development project" would leave major projects unregulated The definition of"development project" under the new Ordinance would allow major projects to go unregulated. For example, the Ordinance does not cover any facility modifications, replacement, repair or maintenance projects unless the project results in an increase in design capacity. The Ordinance also exempts pipelines and related equipment more than 300 feet from residential or commercial property. The narrow project definition in the new Ordinance would exclude a broad range of projects and would allow major industrial projects to be carried out without any County land use review. As we know from the recent retooling of refineries to produce cleaner fuels, modification and modernization projects can involve literally billions of dollars in work and can subject workers and surrounding communities to potentially significant risks. These risks are present whether or not the work results in an expansion of facility design capacity. The "Good Neighbor" amendments would extend review to major repair, replacement and modernization projects whether or not the project would increase facility capacity. The amendments would also delete the current exemption for pipeline ` projects. Finally the proposal would repeal the special building permit exemption for projects at industrial facilities. 2. Failure to include "turnaround maintenance" leaves a major gap in current regulations The Coalition believes that the exemption of major maintenance work in the new Ordinance leaves a critical gap in the current regulatory framework. 'Turnaround maintenance" refers to the shutdown of oil refinery operating units to perform periodic inspection, maintenance and repairs. The operating schedules for the various refinery units are typically developed a year or two in advance and will specify the shutdown periods for turnaround maintenance. The length of the shutdown period will depend on the maintenance work scheduled during the turnaround, which can vary from cleaning, inspection and minor repair to a comprehensive safety check and preventative maintenance, equipment overhaul and construction of new facilities. Because refineries cannot keep a permanent staff large enough to handle major turnarounds, outside contract labor is typically brought in for this work. Increased competition and marketing demands have created significant tension between refinery operating and maintenance schedules. Unit shutdown for regular 28 inspection and preventative maintenance is essential for safe operation of the facility, however, taking units off-line means less product for sale. These factors have led to longer and longer operating runs of process units. (Bland and Davidson, Petroleum Processing Handbook, McGraw-Hill 1967, pp. 7-14, 7-32.) In addition, the shutdown and startup of process units for inspection and maintenance is one of the most dangerous periods in refinery operations, and must follow careful procedures in order to ensure the safety of plant personnel and adjacent communities. The reports on a number of recent accidents in Contra Costa County demonstrate a link between accidents and turnaround projects or other maintenance activities, including inadequate inspection and maintenance, increasing demands on refinery equipment and mishaps during unit shutdown or startup. (See Table 11.) t TABLE 11 EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE/CORROSIONAND/OR INADEQUATE INSPECTION 4/10/89 Chevron Lomax Fire. OSHA report indicates that leaky pipe had not been inspected for twenty-three years and workers were not provided with adequate protective fire gear. Two injured workers blame faulty equipment, and an emergency switch that had been out of order for at least a year. 10/7/93 Tosco Acid Leak. Pipe segment had been repaired and replaced after a leak three years prior. Tosco had problems with same pipe three years earlier as welder was preparing to finish a weld seal. 2/2/96 Shell Hydrogen Unit Exvlosion, Air Products state pipe burst due to stress corrosion cracking. 4/1/96 Shell losion and Fire. Company officials indicate cause was pipe failure and failure to inspect all similar pipes. According to Contra Costa Times, pipe corrosion led to fire. 29 Table 11 (continued) EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS RELATED TO MAINTENANCE/REPAIR WORK 5/29/92 Pacific Release. Fire caused while workers trying to repair leak in tubing. Company had shut down unit for repairs. County and BAAQMD criticize Pacific for failure to notify earlier of potential problem. 6/17/95 Unocal Tank Fire. Unocal stated fire started when maintenance crews installed new roof seal on tank. Unocal documents indicate that Unocal became aware of problem with seal allowing odors to escape on June 9. t 9/27/95 Pacific_Release. Workers were cleaning pipeline as part of efforts to shut- down plant. County officials questioned whether Pacific was following safety regulations for shutdowns. In order to address these issues, the "Good Neighbor" amendments would authorize the County to review major maintenance projects at industrial facilities. The County would be able to impose minimum standards on scheduled maintenance turnaround projects to address health and safety and environmental concerns. For example, the County could require a safety inspection of facility equipment within a specified time period after the completion of the turnaround project. The "Good Neighbor" amendments also ensure that County review of major ] maintenance projects would not interfere with refinery operations or maintenance j decisions. The amendments would prohibit the County from denying a permit for maintenance work, and would require action on permits within 60 days of a completed application. The amendments would also allow otherwise planned maintenance work to be carried out without a permit on a unit or units shutdown due to an emergency. 3. Current hazard score formula would exclude major industrial projects from review Under the hazard score formula established in the new Ordinance, massive projects with potentially significant health and safety risks would escape County review. For example, the $800 million clean fuels modernization project at the Chevron refinery would not have triggered land use review had it been subject to the new hazard score system. The Hazardous Materials Commission has acknowledged that the Chevron project would not have met the threshold for review under the new Ordinance despite the fact that the project involved the construction and remodeling of huge process units 30 handling thousands of tons of hazardous materials under high temperatures and pressures. The current formula emphasizes the change in existing risk levels rather than the overall risk presented by a proposed project. The formula also understates the risk to the communities living in the area around an industrial facility. For example, in order to receive the highest point for distance from receptor, a person would have to be living �. within 300 feet of the project. The formula also fails to take into account at all the potential risk to on-site workers, and assigns no points for persons at industrial sites who may be exposed to accidental releases of hazardous materials. Finally, the formula offsets a project's hazard score by providing substantial credits for closures or reductions in operations by the facility. The "Good Neighbor" amendments would make several adjustments to the hazard score formula in order to ensure that all projects with potentially significant risks are subject to County review. First, two revisions are made to shift the focus from change in amounts of hazardous materials or wastes to total amounts of hazardous materials or wastes involved in the project. The transportation risk factor is revised to examine the total amount of hazardous material or wastes transported rather than only the increase in transported levels. The facility risk factor is revised to consider the total amount of hazardous materials or wastes that moves through the unit or units involved in the proposed project F rather than the amounts added by the project. Second, the community risk factor is amended by revising both the "distance of ` the project from receptor" and "type of receptor" considerations. The "distance of project from receptor" consideration is adjusted to assign the highest point score to receptors € within'0-1500 feet from the project, which the Coalition believes represents the area of significant risk in the event of an accidental release of toxic materials. For example, the town of Crockett is over a mile from the D409 tower which sprayed catacarb on the area. Clearly large amounts of toxic chemicals under high pressure and temperature in large industrial facilities can seriously impact neighbors at many times 300 feet. The "type of receptor" consideration is revised to include workers and other persons who may be exposed at industrial properties in the event of a toxic release. Third, the credits for reductions or projects to be closed is deleted. A project may present significant risks to on-site workers and the surrounding community even if t r an applicant will close other units or reduce operations. Fourth, the calculation of the amounts of hazardous wastes or materials involved in a project is changed from a "fill to capacity" measure to a "throughput" measure. The f� throughput of materials through process units is an accepted measurement in the t 31 industryand is readily available, while a measurement of all equipment filled to capacity would have to be calculated and would be virtually impossible to verify. f Finally, the overall point score requiredto trigger County review is lowered from 80 to 70 based on the Chevron modernization example and to better reflect the scope of projects presenting substantial risks. Projects with a hazard score between 70 and 79 would be considered by the Community Development Director and projects with scores of 80 or above would be considered by the Planning Commission. C. Need For Additional Risk Management, Reporting and Safety Requirements - 1 1. Risk Management Current law includes various requirements intended to reduce the risk of accidental releases of hazardous materials, including the RMPP/hazard and operability study and process safety management requirements. However, these programs apply only to the handling of acutely hazardous materials. In addition, an RMPP and hazard and operability study are only required when the administering agency determines that there is a significant likelihood that the facility's use of the material may pose an acutely hazardous materials accident risk. (See'Tables 8, 9 and 10.) In addition to their limited scope, existing risk management programs suffer from a lack of effective compliance monitoring or other enforcement measures. While compliance with RMPP, hazard and operability study recommendations and process safety management standards could go a long way toward reducing catastrophic accidents, there is currently no effective enforcement of compliance with such programs and standards. The reports on a number of recent accidents show a consistent failure to follow risk management and other safety procedures. (See Table 12.) TABLE 12 EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ! MANAGEMENT STANDARDS/TRAINING 6/22/92 Rhone-Poulenc Sulfuric Acid Release. Cal-OSHA determined that release and fire caused by defective, older valve that had been modified. Inspectors found workers not properly trained to handle valve. I 6/23/92 Chevron Release. Post-incident inspection report indicates accident could have been avoided with proper planning and installation of equipment. I � 32 Table 12 (continued) 6/18/93 Tosco Hydrocarbon Release. BAAQMD officials cite deficiencies in training and operating procedures as causes for spill. Accident caused by improperly calibrated instrument. 7/26/93 General Chemical Oleum Leak. Workers turned up heat too high to unload rail car. Air District report states company had no written instructions for unloading oleum and workers only received verbal instructions. Company admits workers had never unloaded oleum from cars before. BAAQMD and Cal-OSHA both found inadequate training and monitoring equipment contributed to accident. 8/22/94 Unocal Catacarb Release. Reports filed with County show Unocal first detected leak on 8/22/94 but decided to keep operating despite worker warnings. Company officials failed to adhere to company's policies regarding accident response and notification of problem. Unocal had delayed repairs to unit until scheduled turnaround in October, running unit six months longer than originally planned. Refinery set record for amount of material produced. 5/17/96 Unocal Coker Fire. Workers started fire by turning wrong pipeline valve. There may not have been clear explanatory marks on the valves. Workers claim that Unocal repeatedly rejected recommendations for simple engineering changes made during internal safety review over five years before. The "Good Neighbor" amendments include a number of provisions intended to improve the management of hazardous materials and reduce the risk of accidental releases by expanding the scope and content of current requirements. For example, the amendments require that all applications for a permit under the Ordinance include an updated hazard and operability study. Such studies are currently required only for facilities handling acutely hazardous materials. a The "Good Neighbor" proposal also requires that a hazard and operability study identify hazards due to material, mechanical and safety failure or personnel practices, which are not required to be identified under current law. The proposal requires the hazard and operability study to identify accident risks to on-site personnel and present a quantitative analysis of any significant human health risk, neither of which are currently Y 33 required. An updated RMPP would also be required for facilities handling acutely hazardous materials. The "Good Neighbor" amendments attempt to improve compliance with risk management programs through two measures. First, all applicants would be required to submit the results of an independent audit of compliance with process safety management standards related to the project. Second, the County would be required to make specific findings that the applicant will comply with hazard and operability study recommendations, process safety management standards and the RMPP, if applicable, before approving the project 2. Investigation and Reporting Requirements t Determining the causes of accidents, explosions, fires and releases is critical to the design and implementation of safety measures to prevent a recurrence of the conditions that led to the facility upset. Currently, however, the investigation and information related to the accident is usually controlled by the facility. In those cases where the k County does assemble a review team, the team typically does not include workers, who are often in the best position to identify problems in facility operations. Similarly the impacted community is seldom involved in reviewing accidents, despite their undeniable stake in determining causes and preventing future accidents. Under current law, it is also virtually impossible for the public to obtain meaningful information regarding accidents and releases. Reports are filed with multiple agencies with no consistent format or any central clearinghouse of information. The information provided by the facilities is also typically cryptic and of little help in determining the causes of the accident. The "Good Neighbor" amendments address these problems with several provisions. First, in the event of an accident or upset involving the release of hazardous materials or wastes, the facility manager would be required to personally present a report of the incident to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest feasible Board meeting following the incident. Second, the County would be required to establish review teams comprised of County staff, facility management, workers and the public to investigate all serious accidents involving the release of hazardous materials or wastes. Finally, the County Department of Health Services would serve as a clearinghouse for all reports of accidental releases of hazardous materials or wastes that are required by law to be filed with any local, state or federal agency. These reports would be available to the public upon request. 3. Safety Measures The risks from oil refineries and other industries managing hazardous materials ` and wastes result primarily from the processing and handling of these materials under 34 high temperatures and pressures. The timing and quality of the welding and other repair and maintenance work performed on the process equipment and vessels containing these materials is often critical to the safe operation of the facility. (See Table 11.) The "Good Neighbor" amendments include several provisions intended to ensure that this work is done by qualified workers and is properly inspected. The amendments r require that workers who will be employed to perform welding on high temperature, high pressure installations pass specified tests administered by an independent agency. The applicant would be required to assure the professional independence of all certified welding inspectors who will work on the project. All prefabricated high temperature/high-pressure installations would be required to have 100 percent of their welds tested by x-ray inspection. D. Need For Meaningful Public Review and Project Approval Based on Specific Criteria and Findings The existing RMPPs and PSM standards do not require public hearings or establishing any public process for decisions. In addition, the new County Ordinance does not establish criteria for project approval or set forth specific findings related to the review of hazardous material and hazardous waste development projects. By contrast, the "Good Neighbor" amendments require specific findings designed to ensure careful review of'the potential health and safety and environmental impacts of the proposed project. Under the "Good Neighbor" proposal, the County would be required to make specific findings that the proposed project will not significantly adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the County or the local economy, ' and will not impose a significant risk to human health or the environment from an accident involving hazardous materials or wastes. If these findings could not be made, the County could approve the project only by making specific findings of overriding considerations. These include findings that all feasible measures to reduce or minimize the significant risks of the project have been imposed, and that specific benefits of the f project override any remaining unmitigated risks or effects of the project. The "Good Neighbor" amendments also require findings intended to ensure compliance with risk management and safety measures. The County would be required to find that the applicant will comply with measures specified in the updated hazard and operability study, process safety management standards, any updated RMPP, and all other feasible measures required by the County for the protection of health and safety or the environment. The County would also be required to find that the workers performing welding on high temperature and pressure installations and performing the asbestos-related work have been properly certified. The County would also be required to make other findings to ensure proper welding of high temperature and high pressure installations, including x-ray and independent inspections. 35 The "Good Neighbor" proposal would require meaningful public notice and hearing on all projects subject to land use review. This would include a right to appeal all decisions to the Board of Supervisors. E. Need for Meaningful Penalties and Sanctions Current law does not include any meaningful penalties or sanctions for non- compliance with permitting requirements or for corporate negligence that causes injury ! or death. The "Good Neighbor" Ordinance would impose civil fines of up to $25,000 for each separate violation of the Ordinance. A portion of the funds from such levies would be earmarked for a special Community Technical Assistance fund for various efforts including: independent community-based air sampling by industrial neighbors, establishment of a Industrial Neighbor Ombudsman position that reports directly to the Board with broad investigatory powers and technical experts to assist community groups in reviewing industrial projects needing county permits. In addition, the proposal would make it a criminal misdemeanor for any person to discipline a worker who refuses to perform a task that the worker believes would create an unreasonable risk of injury or death to facility personnel or to offsite persons. The "Good Neighbor" amendments would also make it a criminal misdemeanor for any manager who has committed gross negligence in the management of hazardous wastes or materials that results in injury or death to workers or offsite persons. IV. CONCLUSION There may have been a time when we could allow industry to police itself. In the old days, when tight-knit communities were made up of workers and bosses, companies had more of a relationship with the towns surrounding their plants. Now, with multinational corporations in far flung parts of the world, we need to bring the control back to the local jurisdiction. The "Good Neighbor" proposal will not prevent all accidents, but it will go a long way toward reducing the risk to workers and adjacent communities of an almost daily 1 threat of foes, explosions and toxic releases. It is time for the County to reassert itself as the watchdog over industry. The workers and residents of the County deserve no less. i 36 i REFERENCES American Industrial Hygiene Association, Emergen , Response Planning Guidelines for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, 1988-1990. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Historic Settlement in General Chemical Oleum Release, Air Currents, February 1994. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Memorandum from Air Pollution Control Officer to Chairperson Hilligoss and Members of the Board of Directors, Re: General Chemical Incident of July 26, 1993, September 15, 1993. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Public Nuisance Notice of Violation Summary: 1989-1996. Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division, Hazardous Materials/Occupational Health, Incident. Reports: 1989-1996. Denis Cuff and Amy Snider, Chemical Catch-22, Water Spurred Acid Fire, Contra Costa Times, June 24, 1992. D.C. Glass, A Review of the Health Effects of Hydrogen Sulphide Exposure, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, c. 34, no. 3, pp. 323-327, 1990. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Emergency Response Division, Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Reports, EPA Region IX: 1989-1995. Robert B. Jewett, General Chemical: Letter to William B. Walker, Contra Costa County Health Services Department Re: Written Follow-up Notification of July 26, 1993 Incident, August 4, 1993. j� Jane Kay, Deadly Neighbors, San Francisco Chronicle-Examiner, August 10, 1993. E Kathleen Maclay, Rhone-Poulenc Given Two Weeks to Prove Fatal Fire Unavoidable, Contra Costa Times, August 4, 1992. Willy Morris, Crockett, Rodeo Residents Upset Over Unocal Release, Contra Costa f Times, October 2, 1994. _ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Criteria for a Recommended Standard . . . . Occupational Exposure to Hydrogen Sulfide, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-158, May 1977. A1065.058 f National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Diseases. A Guide to their Recognition, June 1977. G.A. Poda, Hydrogen Sulfide Can Be Handled Safely, Archives of Environmental Health, v. 12, pp. 795-800, 1966. ` N. Irving Sax, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1 New York, 6th Ed., 1984. Shell Oil Co., Breakdown Report #1674, October 8, 1993, Spent Sulfuric Acid Tanks 1114 and 1115 Vapor Recovery System, October 29, 1993. Shell OR Company, Martinez Manufacturing Complex, Risk Management and Prevention Program Report, December 1990. Edward J. Shields, Analysis of What Caused the SO3 Release at General Chemical Corporation's Richmond Facili , on July 26, 1993, General Chemical Report, August 13, 1993. Times Staff, Rhone-Poulenc worker, 44, Dies of Bum Injuries, Contra Costa Times, July 6, 1992. U.S. EPA, Air Oualily Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides, Volume 1, Report EPA-600/8-82-029aF, December 1982. U.S. Public Health Service, The Air Pollution Situation in Terra Haute. Indiana with Special Reference to the Hydrogen Sulfide Incident of May-June 1964, 1964. Unocal Corporation, San Francisco Refinery, Rodeo, CA, Risk Management and Prevention Program, August 1992. Unocal Good Neighbor Audit, CBE, 1995. Unocal, Unocal Incident Fact Sheet (9-06-94), September 12, 1994. Unocal, Update of Incident Report of September 12, 1994. E A1065.058 2 Form#D025-SS Legal Tabs Co. 1-800.322.302 The Committee on Natural Resources December, 1993 .m LINING x WITH RISK: Communities & the Hazard of Industrial Contamination Majority Staff Report Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Natural Resources George Miller, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 (202) 225-2761 EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY AM ED17YONS, DECEMBER 9, 1993. LIVING WITH RISK: Communities & the Hazard of Industrial Contamination Table of Contents The Chairman's Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 II. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 A. COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 1. ACCIDENTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 General Chemical Accident; July 26, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 2. PREVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Federal Prevention Programs . Page 14 b. State Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16 c. Industry Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17 d. Computer Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20 3. EMERGENCY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22 B. ABSENCE OF SYSTEMATIC REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24 C. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 28 1. CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY LAWS . . Page 28 2. POSSIBLE PREEMPTION OF, STATE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30 a. Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws . Page 30 b. Challenge to California Hazardous Materials Storage Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31 c. Preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act . Page 33 D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35 M. FINDINGS .Page 3 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. RECOMMMNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 41 A. Policy Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 41 B. Specific Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 43 Page i Living with Risk December, 1993 1 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 44 ' VI. APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 46 Accidents to which Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Unit Responded 1980 to 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 47 Map Showing Density of Hazardous Materials Accidents in Contra Costa County and Surrounding Area 1980-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 51 ' Agencies Responding to the Rhone-Poulenc (6/22/92) and General Chemical (7/26/93) Hazardous Materials Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 52 Agencies Responding to the Dunsmuir Incident . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Page 55 ' Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force Inter-Agency Matrix (Summary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page.56 Page u 1> i E Living with Risk December, 1993 LIVING WITH RISK: -Communities & the Hazard of Industrial Contamination The Chairman's.Summary The story of industrial development worldwide has been.one of substantial benefits derived from industries that often use highly dangerous and toxic chemicals. But communities where these factories are located have a different story to tell; the people in these communities live constantly with the presence and threat of hazardous materials releases. Some releases of hazardous materials are permitted under federal and state environmental statutes; others result from accidents. The health and environmental effects of these releases are still largely unknown. While industry is vital to these regions, industrial growth must not be achieved at the expense of public health and safety. Contra Costa County in Northern California is one example of a densely populated community coexisting with heavy industry. Accidents are commonplace; since 1980 the County's Hazardous Materials Unit has responded to 35 accidents,' and there have been several more less serious incidents. One of the most dangerous accidents occurred on July 26, 1993 when oleum leaked from a tank car, during unloading at General Chemical's Richmond facility. A toxic sulfuric acid cloud measuring several miles in size passed over the area, causing alarm, panic and fear. Following the accident, the Committee on Natural Resources conducted an investigation to examine how this and similar accidents might be avoided. The report of the investigation, "Living with Risk: Communities and the Threat of Industrial Accidents" makes recommendations for reducing the risk of accidents and for improving accident response. "Living with Risk" finds that governmental accident prevention and emergency v response are most effective when developed locally, but warns that Contra Costa County's existing programs are threatened. An industry petition pending before the federal Department of Transportation argues that California state laws governing hazardous material management should be superseded by less stringent federal laws. Such preemption, the report concludes, might deprive local communities, including Contra Costa, of the ability to protect themselves. ` A complete list of the accidents to which Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Unit responded 1980-1993 appears in the appendix. Page 1 Living with Risk December, 1993 The report finds that communities have a fundamental "right-to-know" about ' hazardous materials in their backyards. Although Congress has recognized this right-to- know, the report recommends it be expanded. The report also recommends that computer technology play a major role in disseminating this information. The report criticizes government at all levels for failing to develop a coherent plan for hazardous materials management. Federal, state and local responses have often been ' piecemeal creating serious regulatory gaps, which have sometimes hampered effective accident prevention and emergency response. For example, the report criticizes the absence of reporting requirements in California for railroad tank cars used for storing hazardous ' materials for less than 30 days. The report also notes that many industries fail to report tank cars used for storing hazardous materials beyond 30 days, although required to do so by state , law. Another regulatory loophole identified in "Living with Risk" is that industrial facilities can start up new operations without providing advance notification to County authorities. The General Chemical leak occurred during the unloading of a tank car, a procedure that had not previously been performed by the Richmond facility, and about which , local authorities had not been notified. The report also notes that government had failed to act promptly to prohibit the use of this type of tank car for transporting dangerous chemicals, even though its shortcomings had been described more than two years earlier. , "Living with Risk" notes that overlapping jurisdictions create further problems when multiple agencies take action following accidents. According to California's Office of Oil Spill Prevention, at least 58 agencies responded to the July 1992 Dunsmuir spill when a tank car carrying the pesticide metam sodium derailed above the Sacramento River. In June 1992, at least 20 agencies took action following.a fire at the Rhone-Poulenc facility in , Martinez, California. At least 18 agencies were involved following the General Chemical oleum spill.' The report recommends that federal, state and local authorities work together to reduce overlap. Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) must provide strong leadership to coordinate response; LEPCs should also initiate prevention and emergency response programs year-round. Congress should provide additional resources for these programs. "Living with Risk" criticizes General Chemical for failing to provide its employees with adequate training for unloading tank cars, and emphasizes the importance of training in all aspects of industry operations. Accident prevention is primarily the responsibility of 2 i A list of agencies responding to each incident appears in the appendix. The list of agencies responding to the Rhone-Poulenc accident was compiled by Contra Costa Office of Emergency Services. The list of agencies responding to Dunsmuir was compiled by the state Office of Emergency Services. , Page 2 Living with Risk December, 1993 _ I t industry, the report finds, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should require prompt compliance with workplace review requirements approved by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. i Public health is inextricably linked to the condition of the environment; the report recommends that additional research be performed to determine the cumulative and synergistic impacts of exposure to permitted and unpermitted releases of dangerous chemicals. "Living with Risk" finds that the neighborhoods most frequently affected by hazardous materials are disproportionately minority communities. The report recommends that Congress and the agencies act to mitigate and to redress-these environmental injustices. In addition, science has been slow to recognize that exposure to toxics affects men, women, and children differently. Affected communities, including Richmond, have a high proportion of female-headed households. The report recognizes that the hazardous materials industry plays a vital role in the U.S. economy and manufactures products considered essential to modern American life. However, the use of dangerous chemicals must be reduced and increased effort made to identify safe alternatives. Government intervention has encouraged industry to lessen its dependence on hazardous materials through such mechanisms as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which mandates industry reporting of routine releases. Since the TRI was introduced, industry has consistently reduced these releases. Contra Costa County has the highest concentration of hazardous materials per square mile of any county in California. The region's residents live daily with the threat posed by these materials. Although the risk of accidents can never be eliminated, all possible steps must be taken to reduce this risk. Steps must also be taken to improve current emergency notification and response procedures. The recommendations outlined in this report should be followed to help achieve these goals. ly, � r RGE Chairman Page 3 w Living with Risk December, 1993 I. INTRODUCTION In 1984, a deadly chemical leak at the Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India focused world attention on industrial accidents involving acutely hazardous materials.3 More than 3,800 people died and hundreds of thousands were injured following exposure to the deadly cloud of gas.` Thousands more have died or continue to suffer adverse health effects in the years since the accident. Many viewed Bhopal as an isolated tragedy that could never have occurred in the United States. However, a 1985 report on the accident by the International Confederation of Fn Free Trade Unions concluded: Our investigation revealed ... that none of the factors that caused or contributed to the Bhopal accident were unique to the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. Indeed[,] the causes we identified are common to many chemical manufacturing and other industrial processes throughout the world.' It Bhopal prompted a flurry of federal and state initiatives, as well as industry and community efforts aimed at improving worker and public safety. Many of these were advocated by the environmental community, which has been instrumental in improving - hazardous materials management. In 1986, the U.S. Congress recognized the need for communities to be informed about hazardous substances handled by local industrial facilities with passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).' The term "hazardous materials" has a number of different statutory definitions. Most are based on relative toxicity, the cancer-causing properties of the substance and the safety hazards associated with the material. The teem is used broadly in this report to describe substances that pose a threat to public health and safety. This report discusses the storage and transportation of hazardous materials, and the accidental release of these materials. It does not address oil spills, which are regulated separately under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA). 71, 4 Fatal Hanudous Materials Accidents in Industry, Domestic and Foreign Experience from 1945 to 1991. } Resources for the Future; June 19 1993. ' The Trade Union Report on Bhopal: The Report of the ICFTU-ICEF Mission to Study the Causes and Effects of the Methyl Isocyanate Gas Leak at the Union Carbide Pesticide Plant in Bhopal, India on December 2-3, 1984. 6 Also Imown as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 or "SARA." 42 U.S.C. if 11001-11050(1988) Page 4 Living with Risk December, 1993 In 1990, Congress approved amendments to the Clean Air Act' (CAA) requiring industrial facilities to develop emergency response plans. Many states and cities have approved additional safety measures. The result is a complex patchwork of legislation and regulation at federal, state and local levels. Despite this heightened awareness of the dangers of hazardous materials, the risk of , accidents persists. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 7,000 accidents involving hazardous chemicals have been reported in the U.S. over the past five years. These accidents killed 136 people, injured some 1,500 others and led to the evacuation of an additional 217,000.8 The San Francisco Bay Area, with more than 60 industrial facilities lining its , waterfront, is particularly susceptible to serious accidents. Since 1988 Contra Costa County, on the east side of San Francisco Bay, has been the site of at least sixteen major accidents involving hazardous materials. In Martinez, the county seat, a fire at a Rhone-Poulenc sulfuric acid recycling facility in 1992 killed one worker and seriously injured another. The most recent incident occurred on July 26, 1993, when the valve on a rail tank car filled with oleum' ruptured during unloading at the General Chemical facility in the city of Richmond. Escaping oleum created a sulfuric acid cloud several miles long. Several thousand people sought medical treatment following exposure to the toxic cloud.10 The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on August 10, 1993 in Richmond to examine industry , and local community initiatives to improve hazardous materials management. The Committee heard testimony from federal, state and local officials as well as from Richmond Pub. L. No. 101-549(1990). "Enhancing the Public's Right-to-Know About Environmental Issues" by Gary D. Bass, Ph.D., and , Alair MacLean, p 6. The article appeared in the Vol. 4 No. 2 (Spring 1993) issue of the Villanova Environmental Law Journal. 9 Oleum, also(mown as "fuming sulfuric acid," consists of sulfur trioxide dissolved in sulfuric acid. When released into the atmosphere, the sulfur trioxide combines with moisture in the air to form more sulfuric acid. Oleum is a hazardous material. , t0 On October 5, 1993 a smaller oleum release at the Tosco Refinery in Martinez occurred when a pipeline developed a thumb-sized hole. Local residents were advised to remain indoors for approximately three hours while Tosco closed the valve and emptied the pipeline. On October 8, 1993 an acid tank at the Shell Oil facility in Martinez exploded, starting a fire that burned for about 45 minutes. No one was injured by the explosion or the fire. On November 7 an ammonia-filled rail car at the Chevron agriculture chemical plant in Richmond , leaked while being emptied. Approximately 100 pounds of ammonia spilled, but there were no injuries. Page 5 Living With Risk December, 1993 residents affected by the General Chemical spill. Although this report cites testimony from the hearing, Contra Costa County is not exceptional in its juxtaposition of industry and large population centers. As West County" Supervisor Tom Powers observed at the August 10 hearing: [W]e are not unique in Contra Costa. Industrial facilities handling hazardous materials exist throughout the state and country and often border residential and commercial districts. Hazardous materials are routinely transported by railroad and truck through countless more communities. We are all potentially at risk and all have a responsibility of finding a safer way to handle these toxic compounds. (Tr. 2311)'2 Communities that experience problems similar to those in Contra Costa County include: • "Cancer Alley," Louisiana where approximately one hundred oil refineries and chemical manufacturing plants line the Mississippi between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. 0 South Central Los Angeles, which is sometimes called California's "most toxic neighborhood." Resident Juanita Tate describes her community: "We've got no drug rehabilitation centers, no treatment center, no jobs ... But we've got toxic industries[.]"13 0 The "Toxic Doughnut" in Southeast Chicago,.where steel mills, factories, landfills, contaminated lagoons and incinerators surround a community of 10,000 people. While most citizens may presume that federal and state laws protect Americans from the risks associated with hazardous materials used in industry, this presumption is overly optimistic. In fact, far from prohibiting all releases of toxic materials, routine industrial "West County' is the western portion of Contra Costa County, and includes the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Kensington, Hercules, Pinole, Rodeo, Crockett and Port Costa. tz "Tr." cites to the stenographic transcript of the August 10, 1993 hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Natural Resources, entitled "The Community and Toxics: Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials." " "Fighting Toxic Racism: L.A. minority neighborhood is the `dirtiest' in the state," Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1991. Page 6 Living with Risk December, 1993 emissions are currently permitted under the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and ' Recovery Act (RCRA) and other federal statutes. According to the 1991 Toxic Release Inventory," 19 million tons of chemicals were released or transferred off-site. In 1989, the , latest year for which figures are available, 197.5 million tons of hazardous waste were generated, of which 2.28 million tons were landfilled, 1.28 million tons were incinerated and 28 million tons were injected into underground wells." In addition to federal statutes, many states, including California, have instituted their own laws that govern the management of hazardous materials. But these state provisions ' may at times be challenged on the ground that federal law preempts them. California's program, one of the most advanced in the country, is now facing such a challenge. An industry petition currently pending before the federal Department of Transportation argues , that California's state laws should be superseded by less stringent federal laws. If this preemption application is approved counties in California, including Contra Costa, might be deprived of the ability to protect themselves. ' Frequently, racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by planned and unplanned releases. The landmark 1987 United Church of Christ report "Toxic Waste and Racei 16 first drew public attention to the issue. Although the FPA has set up an Office of Environmental Equity, little action has yet been taken by either the Congress or by the ' executive agencies to redress or prevent inequities. The purpose of this report is not to side with industry or with local residents; rather, , it is to examine broader questions relating to the coexistence of communities and contaminants. It identifies regulatory gaps, but also suggests strategies for a unified approach to the problem of living with toxics. The balance between these interests will be , difficult, but must be achieved for the overall health of our communities. 14 The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)was set up under SARA Title In and mandates reporting of ' chemical releases. See page 14 for a more complete description of the TRI. `s 1989 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report; February 1991, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 16 "Toxic Waste and Race in the United States; a National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites," Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of , Christ, 1987. Page 7 , f' C f Living with Risk December, 1993 H. DISCUSSION A. CO AND.INDUSTRY 7 Contra Costa County, to the east of San Francisco, is representative of many other heavily industrialized communities in the United States. Residents have reluctantly become accustomed to living with the risks posed by industry; most will continue to live with the s: threat. Many are employed by industry, and these jobs are critical to the county's economic base. Gary Brown, Director of Contra Costa County's Office of Emergency Services plans to remain in the area: "I was born and raised in this county, lived here all my life. I am not going to move out of the county because there are chemicals present."' Other residents may not be able to afford to move. In Contra Costa, as in other communities, coexistence is the goal. Much of the testimony cited in this report concerns the General Chemical oleum spill in Richmond. While this was a serious accident that affected the entire community, it should not be viewed as an isolated incident. Rather, it is an example of an accident involving hazardous materials that might have occurred in other industrialized regions of the U.S. Each affected community faces similar problems: how to achieve the best prevention possible, and how to respond to an accident when one occurs. Both Congress and the states have approved measures that require community and industry to plan for potential accidents. Although federal and state measures address prevention and emergency response, loopholes persist within the maze of regulation. For example, in California, rail tank cars used for storage of hazardous materials are insufficiently regulated at either the federal or state level. Industry also can play a major role in reducing incidents through voluntary actions such as effective worker training. Although federal and state agencies must be prepared to lend their expertise, accident response must be primarily a local responsibility, because each accident is unique and regional factors determine the appropriate response. It is local authorities who are most familiar with weather conditions, traffic patterns and evacuation procedures. This report discusses ways in which Contra Costa County, and to some extent California, have sought to provide effective prevention and accident response to their residents. Other communities may have taken different approaches, but they all are striving 17 Tr. 462. Page 8 Living with Risk December, 1993 to achieve the same goal--safe, productive communities in which residents and industry can coexist. • 1. ACCIDENTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Industry came to Contra Costa County around the turn of the century, attracted by cheap land and a plentiful water supply. The region prospered; the Richmond shipyards once employed over ninety thousand people. Although the shipyards are now closed,'a strong manufacturing presence remains in the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules, Pittsburg and Martinez. Industrial facilities line the coast, including Chevron, Shell and Tosco oil refineries as well as major chemical producers such as Dow Chemical, Du Pont and Zeneca. Richmond Councilwoman Rosemary Corbin described the region: The industrial rim of Contra Costa County is loaded with industry, railroad lines, and housing; and it is next to San Francisco Bay. Much of it is on alluvial soil, and earthquake faults run through it. (Tr. 3829) Contra Costa has the highest concentration of hazardous materials per square mile of ' any county in California, and is second only to Los Angeles in the total amount of dangerous chemicals stored in the county." Michael Belliveau of Citizens for a Better Environment , listed the hazardous materials stored in Contra Costa: Nearly 127 million pounds of 50 different acutely hazardous chemical are in storage , at any one time in the county, at 129 different separate industrial plants and public facilities[.] Mhis does not include the same materials that are located in rail cars, pipelines, trucks, ships or barges. These are just on site at industrial facilities. (Tr. , 2816) Unplanned chemical releases and spills have long been part of Contra Costa's history. Henry , Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition described his childhood, "I can recall chemical accidents when I was growing up, the periodic explosions that rocked our house and broke windows... ."t' Since 1980 there have been more than 35 serious accidents in and around Contra Costa County.20 On June 22, 1992 a major spill and fire at the Martinez Rhone- Poulenc plant killed one employee, Louis Torres, and seriously injured another. Rhone- is ' "Deadly Neighbors," San Francisco Chronicle, August 8, 1993. 19 Tr. 1530. , A complete list of the accidents to which the County Hazardous Materials Unit responded 1980-1993 ' appears in the appendix. Page 9 Living with Risk December, 1993 Poulenc is the region's leader in the storage of dangerous materials, with over 39 million pounds of extremely dangerous chemicals on site.21 The frequent accidents in Contra Costa County have led to the widespread community outrage and anger that were clearly evident at the August 10 hearing. Henry Clark voiced some of these feelings: We are the ones that were chemically assaulted ... we are the ones whose human dignity was trampled on ... . (Tr. 1891) However, local residents were also aware that they must find answers to the question of how to live with industry. North Richmond community activist Donald Watts described problems associated with coexistence: Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this situation is the fact that these industries are going to continue to be our neighbors whether we like it or not. With that in mind, it is imperative that we find ways to ensure the safety of everyone living and working near these facilities. (Tr. 1763) General Chemical Accident; July 26, 1993 The most recent serious accident occurred at General Chemical in Richmond which recycles sulfuric acid, primarily for the nearby Chevron refinery. The facility had shut-down June 14 to June 26, 1993 while undergoing modernization. The company stored oleum in rail cars for a month before the closure so that it could continue to meet customer demands.' Once full operation resumed, the company returned the stored oleum to the production'process. The company completed unloading one tank car July 22, and on July 26 began unloading a second. At approximately 7:15 am, a disk on the pressure vent of the rail tank car ruptured. Thousands of gallons of oleum escaped, creating a toxic sulfuric acid cloud several square mules in size. Donald Watts described how he first learned of the spill: On the morning of the accident, at approximately 7:40 am, I was driving my two s children, ages three and five, to their preschool on Carlson Avenue in Richmond. I heard on the radio there had been a small toxic spill at the Chevron refinery. I thought to myself, should I keep the kids in the car and bring them in to work in San I 2' "Deadly Neighbors," San Francisco Examiner, August 8, 1993. ` Tr. 692. Page 10 Living With Risk December, 1993 ' Francisco: no, I decided to go ahead and take the children to school because these , things happen all the time and I didn't want to overreact. No sooner had-I arrived at work than I realized the news stories had been wrong on , two accounts. It wasn't Chevron, and it wasn't small. (Tr. 1737) At 7:45 am Contra Costa County dispatched its Hazardous Materials Unit to General Chemical Corporation and initiated emergency response procedures. The General Chemical tank car had a vents stem, which remained Pe open, permitting ' Y continued oleum emissions. Had the car been fitted with a valve system, the valve would have closed automatically once pressure had been reduced. Jack Kroeger, Production , General Manager for General Chemical Corporation described how the leak was plugged: Employees began contacting the appropriate response agencies, including the Contra , Costa Health Services Department, the City of Richmond Fire Department, and Chevron's Mutual Aid. Subsequently, the Office of Emergency Service and the , National Response Center also were contacted. Through the efforts of these agencies and General Chemical employees, a new rupture , disk was installed at about 10:15 am, and the release was stopped completely by approximately 11:00 am. The company estimates that roughly 3.9 tons of sulfur trioxide was expelled from the rail car into the air. (Tr. 339) , As many as twenty thousand people sought medical treatment following exposure to the toxic cloud caused by the oleum leak.' Hospitals in the immediate spill area were so , overwhelmed that buses shuttled patients for treatment to hospitals in neighboring Oakland and Vallejo. Visibility in the vicinity of the General Chemical Plant was greatly reduced. As the chemical fog spread, firefighters closed Interstate 80 and shut down commuter trains, , bus services and mail delivery. Dr. Wendel Brunner called it, "the most serious release that has occurred in my ten years as public health director in the county."u Many industrial facilities in Contra Costa County are justifiably proud of their safety , records and advertise the number of accident-free days on billboards at their entrances. General Chemical had erected one that, ironically, congratulated the workforce on the safe ' On Jul 29, General Chemical announced it would a for initial medical treatment for residents , Y PY following the accident. Tr. 378. 24 Tr. 2593. Page 11 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 start-up of the sulfuric acid reactor.' Jack Kroeger, General Chemical General Manager, E_ expressed his commitment to the safe operation of the Richmond facility: I am personally, and I think the company is personally, committed to not having accidents. We are committed to running safe plants. (Tr. 786) Following the July 26 leak, Robert Jewett, plant manger for General Chemical, told the press, "Let.me assure everyone, this is an isolated incident."26 However, in April, 1993 the California Occupational'Safety and Health Administration (CAL-OSHA) fined General Chemical $127,425 for 57 health and safety violations.27 CAL-OSHA carried out the inspection following the accident at the Rhone- Poulenc facility, which also reformulates sulfuric acid. General Chemical is currently appealing the fine. Also in April, California EPA fined General Chemical $137,500 for 34 violations of hazardous waste laws.21 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) issued ten notices of violation against General Chemical's Richmond plant over the last five years.29 Kroeger defended General Chemical's safety record in light of these fines: [P]rior to the CAL-OSHA visit this year, I think the only fines that had been initiated against the site were less than $3,000 since General Chemical has managed the facility. (Tr. 77) Unloading oleum from rail tank cars was not a routine procedure at General Chemical's Richmond facility. The company had, however, unloaded oleum from tank cars at its Delaware facility. Jack Krueger also suggested that unloading rail tanks was similar to unloading tank trucks, a procedure with which the Richmond facility was experienced. Under questioning from Chairman Miller, Jack Kroeger defended the company's training for employees involved in the unloading process: u Tr. 3304. 26 Sacramento Bee, July 27, 1993. V San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 1993. az Ibid. _' Chemical Regulation Reporter, July 30, 1993. Page 12 Living With Risk December, 1993 ' Mr. MTT T RR• Let us start with the question of whether or not the training took , place. Was there training? Mr. KROEGER: Yes, there was. ' Mr. MILLER: And that was based upon the experience the company has with ' the handling of oleum at another facility you have? W. KROEGER: With that and also we handle oleum at the facility in trucks, ' which is not all that different from loading into a rail car. So the facility has a lot of experience handling oleum. (Tr. 728) Yet reports by both the BAAQMD and the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) , found that operators had received insufficient training. The PUC report concluded that "[General Chemical Corporation] failed to have in place a training program which included a , check system for unloading oleum from tank cars.n30 According to the BAAQMD, "The operation was commenced without providing the operators with training and/or experience in loading/unloading railroad tank cars with fuming sulfuric acid."" The report also , commented on the unloading of the first rail tank car: It took all of two weeks to unload the first car due to a number of difficulties ' encountered by plant personnel, including a spill. Plant operating personnel had previously indicated that they were concerned about the potential for an accident. , The operation was continued. In fact, during the loading of this same tank car in June, plant records indicate an earlier release. The BAAQMD further criticized General Chemical for unloading the tank car without the ' requisite permits from the District. According to the BAAQMD, unloading procedures would have been reviewed during the permitting process. '0 Public Utilities Commission, State of California, Commission Staff Report 93-0715,Hazardous Materials Accident/Incident Investigation , General Chemical Corporation. Richmond, California, July 26, 19093; Prepared by Dennis L. Biggs, Associate Transportation Operations Supervisor, Railroad Operations and ' Safety Section. 31 Memo from Air Pollution Control Office to Chairperson Hilligoss and Members of the Board of , Directors re General Chemical Incident.of July 26, 1993. Bay Area Air Quality.Management District. Page 13 , Living with Risk December, 1993 Following the July 26 release, General Chemical decided not to use rail cars again to transport oleum in the Richmond facility.32 Mark Lindsey of the Federal Railroad Administration questioned the wisdom of this policy: ... I would like to suggest that perhaps the people making thatdeciion might wish to reexamine it because a tank truck is not quite as sturdy as a tank car. (Tr. 1228) 2. PREVEN'T'ION TF All industrialized communities seek to minimize accidents through prevention programs. Acquiring information about the potential dangers is vital to the planning of an effective prevention program. Information by itself does not reduce risk; it must be used to identify threats and to develop strategies to minimize hazards. a. Federal Prevention Programs Congress' concern about the potential for widespread impacts from industrial W accidents was heightened by the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Despite opposition from the Executive Branch in the 1980s, Congress took several steps that increased community ability to collect information and to identify risks. In 1986 Congress passed the "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act."" The law required each Governor to set up a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). In turn, each SERC established Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to evaluate local chemical hazards, plan for accidents and develop emergency response plans. Local businesses are required to notify the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department if hazardous chemicals are present in their facilities and to provide the groups with any information they might require to facilitate emergency planning. Any release of an extremely hazardous substance must be repotted to both agencies. SARA Title III also set up the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which mandates annual reporting of routine releases of some 320 toxic chemicals into the air, water, land and deep injection wells. TRI data is sent to EPA and to a state-designated agency. LEPCs do not, however, automatically receive the information. n Tr. 814. "EPCRA" is also known as Title III of the Superfuad Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 or 'SARA.* Page 14 Living with Risk December, 1993 , Although the TRI program is widely viewed as a success and has prompted many ' companies to reduce releases, the program has its shortcomings. Only some 320 chemicals must be reported, and the list omits several known or suspect human carcinogens.` In , addition, polluters are allowed to monitor their own emissions and methods for estimating releases are not standardized. There is also no indication of when pollutants are released. Releases may be spread throughout the year, be concentrated in a much shorter period or , occur in a single accidental spill.33 Furthermore, in 1991 EPA received reports from only 23,719 facilities, although the General Accounting Office calculated that 29,000 should have provided information. , In 1990, Congress approved amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), which required industry and federal agencies to take steps to reduce chemical accidents. The law required EPA to establish a list of regulated substances and to promulgate accident prevention regulations, including risk management plans to be developed by industry.37 The CAA amendments further called for a Chemical Safety and Lazard Investigation Board to review , accidents. A presidential study was also mandated to clarify and to coordinate responsibilities among federal agencies involved in chemical release prevention, in order to identify any omissions and regulatory overlaps. , In addition, the CAA amendments called on the Occupational Safety and health ' Administration (OSHA) to adopt a Process Safety Management standard for handling highly hazardous materials in the workplace. OSHA adopted the standard on February 24, 1992. Its requirements include a workplace process hazard analysis, periodic audits, standard , operating procedures, training, maintenance, pre-startup safety review, emergency response, and accident investigation. "The Toxic Release Inventory excludes over 500 chemicals listed as toxics under various environmental ' laws ... ." "The Right to Know More," researched and written by Deborah A. Sheiman, Resource Specialist, Natural Resources Defense Council, May 1991. TRI data from "Enhancing the Public's Right-to-Know About Environmental Issues" by Gary D. Bass, ' Ph.D., and Alair MacLean. The article appeared in the Vol. 4 No. 2 (Spring 1993) issue of the Villanova Environmental Law Journal. I U.S. General Accounting Office. EPA's Toxic Release Inventory is Useful but Can Be Improved, ' GAO/RCED-91-121. Washington,DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991, p.49. " EPA published the proposed list of regulated substances January 19, 1993, and published the proposed Risk Management Program rule October 21, 1993. Page 15 , Living with Risk December, 1993 b. State Prevention Programs California legislators were prompted by the Bhopal incident to adopt state measures reducing the risk of industrial accidents. Industries handling acutely hazardous materials must submit business plans that identify inventories of these materials. In 1986, the State added the Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) under which industrial facilities must provide county authorities with a comprehensive hazards evaluation for acutely hazardous materials. RMPP variously refers to the state program or to each facility's program 38 Information collected under these statutes is effective only when used to identify risk. Many RMPP plans overwhelm local planners in heavily industrialized areas. For example, Contra Costa County lacks adequate resources to review them in a timely manner. Dr. Brunner described an RMPP plan: These are enormous plans ... The Chevron plant, ,just the haz(ardous] op[eration]s and all the documentation for it fills ten filing cabinets. (Tr. 3486) Despite budget constraints, Contra Costa is further ahead with the RMPP process than any other county in California." Chairman Miller questioned Dr. Brunner about the length of time required for county review of General Chemical's risk management plan: Mr. MILLER: Where are we with respect to General Chemical's plan? Dr. BRUNNER: We are currently in the process of reviewing that now. Mr. MILL E : That was submitted in 1991; is that correct? Dr. BRUNNER: Yes. (Tr. 3478) All agencies at the federal, state and local levels contend with problems posed by inadequate resources. Contra Costa County has three engineers40 working on prevention; the Federal A more complete description-of the Risk Management and Prevention Program and other state.laws may be found on page 28. Tr. 3455. 'D Tr. 2896. Page 16 Living with Risk December, 1993 Railroad Administration has only 358 inspectors nationwide, supplemented in California ' by 124 state inspoctors.41 California has taken a more proactive response to adopting prevention plans than ' many other states. However, its RMPP still does not identify all risks. For example, unloading oleum was not a procedure included in General Chemical's RU PP. The company had 60 days following start-up of the new procedure in which to notify the county. Dr. ' Walker voiced his concern about this gap in prevention notification: ['I'jhe use of a rail car for unloading at General Chemical is not part of their normal ' operation and, therefore was not part of their RMPP. And that is an area of major concern to me, the fact we can have regulatory programs and yet have the opportunity , for a company to put into place an unusual kind of procedure without proper notification of anyone, the health department, the air district and surrounding communities, or anyone else. That is a major loophole that needs to be addressed. ' (Tr. 929) Action may soon be taken to close the loophole; Assemblyman Bob Campbell, who , represents Central Contra Costa County, plans to introduce legislation in the new session of the state Assembly requiring facilities to notify local officials before undertaking new procedures. ' c. Industry Prevention Programs n , The consequences of an accidental release are far-reaching and cosily. In March 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. The disaster has, by Exxon's own estimates, cost well over $2 billion in clean-up Costs,42 plus a $1 billion settlement for civil and criminal claims.4s Thousands of private damage claims against Exxon remain outstanding. These estimates do , not include the company's intangible costs of the spill, such as adverse publicity. While the Exxon Valdez was the largest oil spill in U.S. history, less serious industrial accidents can also be expensive. Chairman Miller commented on the costs of accident prevention: ' 41 Tr. 1117. _ 42 "Judge OKs oil-spill settlement," Anchorage Daily News, October 9, 1991. ' "Natural Resources Restoration: Use of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement Funds," U.S. General ' Accounting Office, August, 1993, GAO/RCED-93-206BR. Page 17 ' Living with Risk December, 1993 [1] think each and every time we review an industrial accident ... for the most part we ... find dat where you have untrained people or you don't have procedures in place, that the costs of putting procedures in place, of training individuals to cavy out that particular function, would have been far cheaper than the resulting accident. (Tr. 3236) Several witnesses expressed their conviction that industry must be responsible for safe operation. While county, state and federal agencies all have an oversight role, it is not their job to ensure that industry complies with legislated safety measures. Industry has taken several steps to improve safety in the handling of hazardous materials. In Massachusetts, industry and environmentalists supported passage of the Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989, which aims to achieve a 50% reduction state-wide in the use of toxics by 1997.` The Chemical Manufacturers Association sponsors the Responsible Care program to promote safety; all member organizations must participate as a condition of association membership. One Responsible Cane initiative is the Community Awareness and Emergency Response code of management practices, which aims to assure emergency preparedness and to foster community right-to-know. At least one industry in the region, Clorox, had already recognized the risks associated with tank cars before the General Chemical leak. The company constructed a cement rail enclosure for loading and unloading tank cars in order to reduce the threat of toxic leaks to the community. Although any accident has multiple causes, perhaps the single most important factor in risk prevention is worker training. A 1986 Office of Technology Assessment report on the Transportation of Hazardous Materials found that: More often than not it is people problems--inadequately trained personnel, poor coordination and communication--or lack of information and advance planning that cause accidents, injuries, or environmental damage.` The same report found that 62% of reported hazardous materials spills are caused by human error. Greg Feere of the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council recalled growing up in Contra Costa County and how he learned of the importance of training: Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Transportation of Hazardous Materials, OTA-SET-304(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1986). Page 18 Living with Risk December, 1993 My father was an oil and atomic worker. And I sat across the dinner table when I was growing up and got firsthand accounts of the accidents, the explosions, the near misses. And when I was younger, I really didn't know exactly what my father did in these refineries. But as I got older, I got a firsthand understanding of the every day risk of these workers, that have to stay there after the work and construction is completed. And if that is not done right, their health and safety and livelihood of the people who maintain it, as well as the people of the community, are all at risk. (Tr. 3204) While communities can become involved in many aspects of accident prevention, ' worker training is exclusively an industry responsibility. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 required industry to develop a comprehensive management plan for handling acutely hazardous chemicals. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) developed a Process Safety Management Standard for Highly Hazardous Chemicals; Explosive and Blasting Agents; the final rule was published by OSHA on February 24, 1992. One requirement of the standard is that selected industries perform Public Hazards Analyses (PHAs), to identify potential risks in the workplace from improper handling of hazardous chemicals.` Although OSHA allows up to five years for PHAs to be completed," industry witnesses testifying on the proposed rule indicated that they had already conducted these analyses or similar reviews: 46 "The process hazard analysis shall address: (i) The hazards of the process; , (ii) The identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace' (iii) Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such ' as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases. [Acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control instrumentation with alarms, and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors.] ' (iv) Facility siting; (vi) Human factors; and (vii) A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls on employees in the workplace." 29 CFR $1910.119(e)(1)(1992). n "The process hazard analysis shall be conducted as soon as possible, but not later than the following schedule: ' (i) No less than 25 percent of the initial process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1994; (u) No less than 50 percent of the initial process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1995; (iii) No less than 75 percent of the initial process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1995; Civ) All initial process hazards analyses shall be completed by May 26, 1997." 29 CFR §1910.119(e)(1) (1992)• Page 19 Living with Risk December, 1993 w In January of this year, the American Petroleum Institute issued our industry's standard for the very subject we address here today. Developed in consultation with [OSHA], it closely parallels your proposed regulation." The Dow minimum requirements state that: "Each location shall have an appropriate 71 and active program for reactive chemicals testing and reviews. Regular reviews of process reactivehazards shall be required for existing processes, new processes, and whenever key personnel or a process changes, as well as a thorough review of ' laboratory or pilot plant data prior to scale-up.""' wr . The enforceability of the workplace risk standard has been the subject of ongoing dispute among OSHA, industries and labor unions. d. Computer Technology Computer technology has become increasingly important in prevention efforts and in disseminating information to affected communities. Toxic Release Inventory data is available on computer disk and numerous other databases cavy information on hazardous materials useful in developing prevention programs. The Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations software package developed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in conjunction with EPA is designed to manage industry-supplied data. It includes mapping capability and response information, and is available to emergency planners at minimal cost. The INTERNET system provides an effective and efficient means of disseminating information. One of the networks that has proven most valuable to residents of heavily industrialized communities is the Right-to-Know NetworkSO (RTK-NET). RTK-NET was developed by non-profit organizations to provide the public with information about pollution in communities throughout the United States. It carries Toxic Release Inventory data, information about the health effects of chemicals, regulatory reporting requirements, data on civil suits brought on behalf of EPA and census results. The network plans to add OSHA Testimony of American Petroleum Institute on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Process Safety Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, D.C., December S, 1990. The Dow Chemical Company, Testimony of John R. Gallamore on OSHA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Proposed Rulemaking Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals; March 6, 1991. J0 RTIC-NET is operated by OMB Watch and the Unison Institute in Washington, DC. Page 20 Living with Risk December, 1993 J inspection information, emissions permit data,st health trends and credit practices. Although this information has been made public in various forms, it has not been brought together before on a single database that can be accessed easily anywhere in the country. Technologyalone, however, cannot tee effective accident response. In �n Congress, Representative Douglas Applegate (D-OH) has argued for the creation of a national agency to track hazardous materials shipments. In 1990, Congress called upon the National Academy of Sciences to study "a central reporting system and computerized telecommunications data center that is capable of receiving, storing, and retrieving data concerning all daily shipments of hazardous materials"52 Although the Academy's report recommended improvements to the existing system for providing information to emergency responders, it recommended against implementing a national tracking system since the system would not rectify the most serious failures in existing procedures. In addition, it determined that such a system would fall short on setting standards and on making good use of industry capabilities. However, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recently set up a pilot project in the Houston area so that emergency response units may access the FRA computer system in the event of an accident. Permits that must be obtained by facilities to comply with Clean Air Act, the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act and other statutes. I Hazardous Materials Shipment Information for Emergency Response, Committee for the Assessment of a National Hazardous Materials Shipments Identification System; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1993. Page 21 Living with Risk December, 1993 3. E MGENCY RESPONSE Prevention does not always avert accidents. Industry and communities must therefore develop emergency response systems to minimize the public health impacts of unplanned releases of hazardous materials. Under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, industrial facilities will be required to develop emergency response plans. In California, this is already required under the state's Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP). As with accident prevention, computer technology can also be useful in emergency response. The Chemical Manufacturers Association set up CHEMTREC, a computerized electronic data storage system, to provide responding agencies with information and technical assistance on chemicals involved in accidents. In July 1991, CHEMTREC was used by emergency teams responding to a rail car derailment that spilled 19,000 gallons of metam sodium into the Sacramento River near Dunsmuir in Northern California. Effective accident response must, however, primarily be a local responsibility since it is residents who are most familiar with area conditions. A key element in response is notification. In Contra Costa County, the principle mechanism for alerting county residents is the Community Alert Network (CAN), a computerized telephone system that can automatically call houses affected by the spill. Following the Richmond oleum leak, the system made 1,569 calls in 48 minutes to homes in the immediate vicinity of the General Chemical plant. However, only 857 of these calls got through ss Dr. Walker believed that the CAN system functioned, "as best as the CAN system can work,"' but emphasized that CAN was only part of the notification network that would be necessary to alert residents." Two shortcomings of the CAN system have already been addressed. Governor Wilson authorized the release of previously inaccessible unlisted phone numbers to emergency response agencies in a bill signed October 5, 1993. As of January 1, 1994 the CAN system will double the number of calls made simultaneously from fifty to one hundred. Other notification systems currently being implemented in Contra Costa County include establishing a low-power radio station to warn residents of chemical.releases or emergencies. Industry will contribute $20,000 toward the low-wattage transmitter, which is S' Tr. 622. Tr. 626. Tr. 629. Page 22 Living with Risk December, 1993 ' expected to begin broadcasting early next year.36 At the August 10 hearing, many witnesses suggested installing a siren alert system. However, a siren system might create confusion since each accident is unique involving different hazardous chemicals and , conditions. Dr. Walker described some of the problems: [E]stablishment of sirens sounds like a simple approach. It is ... complex ... and ' requires an ongoing commitment to community education to make sure that people understand what to do when the siren goes off. I, nonetheless, believe that we can do that. ' We have been in discussion with the Community Awareness and Emergency Response group, which represents industry agencies and the public in Contra Costa County, over the last several months on the siren issue. A current proposal is now being looked at to establish county-wide standards for establishing a siren system. (Tr. 638) ' Although Contra Costa County enjoys one of the most effective notification systems in the country, it is also clear that no notification system will ever meet every demand. Again, Dr. Walker described its limitations: Will it ever be good enough? No. It will never be good enough in that not every ' citizen will either hear the sirens or get a phone call. (Tr. 658) Despite Contra Costa's experience in accident response, many were still uncertain about how to react following the General Chemical accident. Firefighters favored evacuation but were overruled by county health officials, who believed it was safer for residents to remain indoors with windows closed rather than risking increased exposure outside."' ' Another factor that can hamper effective emergency response is the enormous overlap among federal, state and local agencies that have a statutory mandate to respond to accidents. ' Fifty-eight agencies took action following the July 1992 Dunsmuir spill. At least 20 agencies responded to the June 1992 Rhone-Poulenc accident, and 18 agencies were involved following the July 1993 General Chemical spill." This overlap contributes to coordination The total cost of the project is unimown at this time. San Francisco Chronicle, August 4, 1993. ' A list of agencies responding to each incident appears in the appendix. The list of agencies responding ' to the Rhone-Poulenc accident was compiled by Contra Costa Office of Emergency Services. The list of agencies responding to Dunsmuir was compiled by the state Office of Emergency Services. Page 23 ' r t, Living with Risk December, 1993 and leadership problems, which make it difficult for community and industry leaders alike to v. obtain information necessary for improving local safety. Following the General Chemical spill, Contra Costa County formed the "Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force" to improve emergency response. The task force is currently developing a planning document," which will illustrate how regulatory authorities are involved following an accident. Once mechanisms for response are understood, the county will be able to streamline them. B. ABSENCE OF SYSTEMATIC REGULATION Overlapping federal and state statutes regulate hazardous materials. These laws have created a complex regulatory patchwork that can be burdensome to both.the regulator and to the regulated industry. In some cases, federal and state laws have lead to preemption conflicts discussed later in this report. Congress took steps to reduce the overlap when, in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, it called for a presidential study of "release prevention, mitigation and response authorities of the various Federal agencies." The purpose of the review is to "clarify and coordinate agency responsibilities to assure the most effective and efficient implementation of such authorities and to identify any deficiencies in authority or resources which may exist." The findings of the mandated report, currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget, will be critical to reducing statutory and regulatory overlap. One area in which the impacts of this patchwork approach can be seen is in federal and state laws governing the use of rail tank cars for transport and storage of hazardous materials. Each year about four billion tons of regulated hazardous materials are shipped, with more than 250,000 shipments entering the transport system daily.60 Many of these shipments are by rail. In a 1991 study the National Transportation Safety Board found: In 1989 ... more than 1.52 million carloads of poisons, chemicals, pesticides, and other hazardous materials were transported by rail in about 107,000 tank cars in other A summary of the planning document appears in the appendix. a Testimony of Mr. Bernard S. Loeb, Director, Office of Research and Engineering, National Transportation Safety Board before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives regarding Hazardous Materials Reauthorization; September 22, 1993. Page 24 Living With Risk December, 1993 types of containers. ... This volume represent a 66 percent increase over the 0.92 million carloads of hazardous materials transported by rail in 1985 ... .6t Rail tank cars can hold as much as 35,000 gallons,62 so accidents involving tank cars carrying hazardous materials can have potentially catastrophic consequences. One such accident occurred on July 14, 1991 when a Southern Pacific train derailed above the Sacramento River. One of the cars fell into the river, spilling 19,000 gallons of the pesticide metam sodium. Congresswoman (now Senator) Barbara Boxer, who chaired a congressional investigation into the accident, described the impact on the river, "This pesticide flowed down the river for 45 miles, killing every living thing ... along that stretch. The Sacramento River was one of the foremost trout fishing rivers in America; now it is a virtual graveyard."6 Both the Dunsmuir and General Chemical spills involved the DOT-111 tank car. Before the July 26 Richmond accident, there had been growing concern about the safety of the DOT-111A tank car, the type involved in the General Chemical leak. The NTSB had noted in May 1991, "The inadeggmy of the protection provided by DOT-111A tank cars for certain dangerous Rroducts has been evident for many years in accidents investigated by the ' Safety Board. (emphasis added) Between 1988 and 1992 there were at least 317 disk failures on the DOT-111A.' There may have been more, but disk failure is Mt a listed ' accident for DOT reporting purposes. Before the General Chemical spill, the Federal Railroad Administration had already ' announced that as of October 1, 1993 the DOT-11,1A tank car could no longer be used to carry certain types of hazardous materials, including oleum. The DOT-111A has been replaced by a new design more resistant to puncture with an improved valve system to ' i 61 National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594. Safety Study; Transport of Hazardous ' Materials by Rail. PB91-917002; NTSB/SS-91/01. az Hazardous Materials Shipment Information for Emergency Response, Committee for the Assessment of ' a National Hazardous Materials Shipments Identification System; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington. D.C. 1993. 69 Adequacy of Isws and Regulations Governing Rail Transportation of Hazardous Chemicals. Hearing , before the Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, July 31, 1991. 6` National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594. Safety Study; Transport of Hazardous Materials by Rail. PB91-917002; NTSB/SS-91/01. 6! Tr. 219. ' Page 25 Living with Risk December, 1993 reduce the possibility of a leaks during loading or unloading. However, according to testimony submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer, General Chemical was unaware that the DOT-111A was t'o be phased out: I learned in talking to General Chemical's chief counsel that the corporation believed it could still use the model 111A tank car, involved in the recent incident after October 1st, with some modifications. That is not true. (Tr. 180) Industry has also demonstrated its unfamiliarity or reluctance to comply with the law in other areas. Under California state law, industries in Contra Costa must file business plans with the county to report certain hazardous materials stored for more than 30 days. Reports must be made whether the chemical is stored in a fixed facility or in a rail tank car on private or leased tracks, such as the tank car involved in the General Chemical spill. Thus, during the 30-day grace period, county authorities do not know what is stored in the area at a given time. Furthermore, according to Barbara Masters of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, industry frequently fails to report rail cars used for storing hazardous materials beyond 30 days. Even though State law does require reporting of materials stored for greater than 30 days in a rail car, as a matter of practice, it doesn't occur very often. There are a couple of companies that do routinely report to us rail cars that come in and out and that are storing for greater than 30 days. But that is not a common practice, and it is very difficult for us to get a handle on what is occurring if it is not reported to us. (Tr. 4138) Failure to report tank cars used for storage beyond 30 days is a violation of state law. Following an anonymous tip in December 1989, California Public Utilities Commission Railroad Safety Division and the California Highway Patrol conducted an investigation into the use of rail tank cars for storage of hazardous materials. The investigation found unreported tank cars storing liquid petroleum gas in many East Bay cities. Although the Amore complete description of Business Plans and other state laws may be found on page 28. Page 26 Living with Risk December, 1993 majority of tank cars did not exceed the 30-day threshold above which the tanks must be ' reported, the following violations were confirmed: Tank Cars Gallons Days in Violation Benicia 19 570,000 448 days ' Tosco/Avon 25 750,000 1485 days Oakland 26 780,000 844 days 67 Before the August 10 hearing, Chairman Miller wrote to every major facility in ' Contra Costa County requesting information about tank cars used to store dangerous chemicals. Most companies responded promptly and Committee staff estimated that at least ' 555 tank cars were present in the county on August 3, 1993. It is not known how many of these had been reported to the county. Chairman Miller summarized the gap in available information on tank cars: , Federal Department of Transportation regulations cover hazardous materials in transit, but do not extend to these same tank cars when in storage. Although the State requires reporting of tanks used for permanent storage of hazardous materials, few companies apparently comply. Reporting of tank cars used for storage of dangerous , chemicals for less than 30 days is not required. (Tr. 84) Laws governing the use of tank cars for storage are complex, but they illustrate how regulation has failed to provide the maximum possible prevention. But as Congress and the state seek to eliminate these loopholes, there is a danger of splintering and fragmenting the process still further. , Report of Investigation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Case Number: F225-301-89, Violation Data: Continuous thru 1989. California Highway Patrol, Golden Gate Division, Environmental Crimes Unit. Investigator, M.M. Mueller. Page 27 Living with Risk December, 1993 C. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS 1. CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS S SAFETY LAWS To supplement federal law, several states have approved measures to improve public and environmental safety. California has passed legislation to reduce the likelihood of chemical spills, and to protect the public when such spills occur.63 Such statutes necessarily lead to tension between industry's need for consistency and the state's desire to protect residents. Preemption law attempts to resolve these conflict§ by determining when federal law should supplant state law. One such preemption issue is currently pending before the federal Department of Transportation; the swimming pool chemicals industry has submitted a petition arguing that California's hazardous materials management laws are superseded by less stringent federal requirements. If the federal government approves this application, the entire state program might be in jeopardy. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) requires businesses handling hazardous material to submit a business plan, and establishes emergency response procedures to protect the public in the event of a major chemical spill. The California Public Utility Code (CPUC) establishes a separate set of safety regulations for railroads and railroad safety investigation and enforcement." Chapter 6.95 includes the Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP), which is aimed at reducing the accidental release of hazardous materials that might threaten public safety and health. The legislation is predicated on the belief that, "programs designed to prevent [the release of hazardous materials] are the most effective way to protect the community health and safety and the environment."" CHSC §25531 states, "The protection of the public from uncontrolled releases or explosions of hazardous materials is of statewide concern. There is an increasing capacity to both minimize and respond to releases of toxic air contaminants and hazardous materials once they occur, and to formulate efficient plans_ to evacuate citizens if these discharges or releases cannot be contained." 69 CPUC § 765.5. 70 CHSC § 25531. Page 28 Living with Risk December, 1993 The RMPP requires all owners or operators of facilities that handle "acutely hazardous materials"' to register with the administering agency.'Z The focus of the RMPP is on reviewing and evaluating each facility's plans and programs for reducing the risk of a chemical accident. Facilities must identify the hazardous substance and its location, and describe the processes and equipment used in handling the material.73 The agency may waive the registration requirement if, after a preliminary determination, it concludes that the ' likelihood of an acutely hazardous materials accident is remote." The CHSC also aims to minimize the impact of releases of hazardous materials when they do occur. Businesses that handle hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan for emergency response to a release or a threatened release of a hazardous Material." As with the RMPP registration requirement, the implementing agency may waive the business plan requirement upon a showing by the facility that the material does not pose a significant or potential threat to either human health and safety or the environment.76 The CPUC includes provisions intended to reduce the threat to public health and ' P safety posed by the transportation of hazardous materials by railroad. "The California Legislature's interest in the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail was strongly ' influenced by the derailments near Dunsmuir and Sea Cliff."' Following these accidents the California Legislature created a Rail Accident Prevention and Response Fund&' and required improved staffing to regulate railroad safety." 71 "Acutely hazardous material" is defined by reference to a federal standard. CHSC §25532(x) defines "acutely hazardous material" as "any chemical designated an extremely hazardous substance which is listed in Appendix A of Part 355 of Subchapter J of Chapter I of Tide 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations." 72 CHSC § 25533. n CHSC § 25533. The County is the administering agency. ' 74 CHSC § 25533. " CHSC § 25503.5(a). ' 76 CHSC § 25503.5. 77 Written testimony of William H. Well, page 7. Sea Cliff refers to a July 28, 1991 accident when a Southern Pacific train derailed in Sea Cliff, 75 ' miles from Los Angeles, spilling hydrazine, a highly toxic chemical. 7i CPUC § 7713. 79 CPUC § 421. Page 29 t4P F' G. Living with Risk December, 1993 2. POSSIBLE PREEt1 FTION OF STATE LAW . Under the doctrine of preemption, federal law may displace state law in some circumstances. While-legislators and enforcement officials in California have tried to integrate state and community standards with federal law, many parties have asserted that state and local requirements conflict with federal transportation laws. a. Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws The primary authority for issuing federal regulations and developing and implementing federal programs regarding transportation of hazardous materials rests with the Department of Transportation (DOT). A number of other federal organizations including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) all regulate specific aspects of hazardous material transportation.EO Congress enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) in 1975 to "improve the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation to protect the Nation adequately against the risks to life and property which are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials."B1 In 1990, Congress amended the HMTA by enacting the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 0MATUSA). Congress concluded that the release of hazardous'materials posed a serious threat to public health and safety. Congress found that some states' laws conflicted with federal law and created confusion among shippers attempting to comply with both sets of requirements.' Therefore, Congress sought to increase the uniformity of federal, state, and local regulations. Under the HMTUSA, state and local laws are preempted if: (1) compliance with both the state or local requirement and the HMTA is not possible (the dual compliance test); or (2) the state or local law as applied or enforced creates and obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the HMTA (the obstacle test); or United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Transportation of Hazardous Materials," July 1986, page 7. ii 49 U.S.C. § 1801. r: Pub.L. 101-615, § 2, November 16, 19%, 104 Stat. 3244. Page 30 Living with Risk December, 1993 i (3) the state or local law concerns a "covered subject" and is not substantively the salhe as any provision of the HMTA or a regulation under the HMTA.' b. Challenge to California Hazardous Materials Storage Regulation ' DOT has received comments on a combined Preemption Determination Application (PDA) filed by the Swimming Pool Chemical Manufacturers Association (SPCMA) to determine whether the HMTA preempts all the provisions of Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, and a number of other state and local regulations, including a regulation regarding storage of hazardous materials incidental to transportation.` The statutory jurisdiction of the HMTA includes "transportation" of hazardous , materials, including "any loading, unloading, or storage incidental thereto"(emphasis added)." HMTA jurisdiction does not extend to storage of hazardous waste. Case law and DOT administrative decisions have not yet clearly defined the meaning of the term "incidental." The issue thus remains open: how long must a hazardous material be stored after or before transportation for it to be outside of the HMTA definition of "storage incidental" to transportation, and thus outside of HMTA jurisdiction? , In contrast to the HMTA's exclusive focus on the risks posed by hazardous materials during transportation, Chapter 6.95 of the CHSC was enacted to reduce health and environmental risks during storage and handling by preventing chemical spills and by insuring effective emergency response when spills occurred. The focus of Chapter 6.95 is not on transportation of hazardous materials, but on the public health risks associated with handling and storing hazardous materials.as In amendments to Chapter 6.95, the California Legislature took s fine the �P �lature steps to de meaning of "storage" as opposed to "storage incident to transportation." Acting consistently with all applicable DOT regulations and rulings, and in the absence of a comprehensive statutory scheme, the legislature enacted section 25501.2 and section 25503.7, which establish that if hazardous materials are left in the same container at the same facility for 83 49 app. U.S.C. 11811. The "dual compliance" and "obstacle" taste arra not new tests, but were the criteria actually used to determine preemption under regulations promulgated pursuant to the HMTA. DOT, ' "Implementing the HMTA," 1992, page 10. 34 58 FR 6170, Dee. 31, 1992. 58 FR 8480, 8488, 8490, Jan. 26, 1993. u 49 U.S.C. § 1802(6). as SPCMA concedes that "Chapter 6.95 of the H&SC, as originally enacted by the California Legislature, neither addressed nor regulated "transportation." 58 FR 8495, Feb. 12, 1993. Page 31 LiVM9 with Risk December, 1993 more than 30 days, the materials are no longer being transported, they are being stored. These amendments did not invade the "transportation" jurisdiction of the HMTA, but rather placed a conservative benchmark on the meaning of "storage" and the scope of the jurisdiction of the CHSC. SPCMA asserts that these amendments change the focus of Chapter 6.95 to include transportation including storage incidental thereto. Since the focus of Chapter 6.95 allegedly now includes transportation, SPCMA claims the entire Chapter is preempted by the HMTA. Such an argument, however, stretches the regulatory intent too far. Section 25501.2 and section 25503.7 identify a point at which, as a practical matfer, hazardous materials are being stored, not transported. Neither invades the realm of "storage incident to transportation", nor defines the meaning of that term. The focus of Chapter 6.95 remains on protection of the public from the dangers of stored hazardous materials. Even if it is determined that Chapter 6.95 as amended extends into the realm of transportation, only those provisions that are determined to deal with transportation, not the entire Chapter, would be subject to possible preemption by the HMTA. SPCMA further argues that many of the requirements of Chapter 6.95, including the business plan for emergency response discussed above, are preempted with respect to transportation because they are obstacles to the enforcement of the HMTA.'" This issue focuses on whether the California statute requires parties to meet requirements or to take actions that make it more difficult or impossible for them to comply with the requirements of the HMTA. But this argument ignores the express policy stated in the HMTUSA. State and local programs, such as the business plan requirement in Chapter 6.95 designed to improve response to hazardous materials spills, are expressly encouraged in the HMTUSA's Congressional Declaration of Policy." Such programs are consistent with the goals of the HMTA and tend to facilitate rather than impede its enforcement. The RMPP is also compatible with the goals of the HMTA, since it provides the public and the State of California with information concerning the presence of hazardous materials. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, the HMTA specifically encourages states to collect data and information to develop and improve emergency plans to n SPCMA asserts that the "requirements contained in Chapter 6.95 are in addition to and different from requirements contained in the HMTA and regulation thereunder and stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Act.' 58 FR 8496, February 12, 1993. a 49 app. U.S.C. §.1801 states in pertinent part "in order to provide reasonable, adequate and cost- effective protection from the risks posed by the transportation of hazardous materials,a network of adequately trained state and local personnel is required." Page 32 Living with Risk December, 1993 prevent hazardous waste spills during transportation.89 The efforts of the RMPP to gain , information regarding the risks posed by handlers of hazardous materials appear to compliment rather than impede related HMTA data collection. Furthermore, while there is a potential for local requirements to conflict with the HMTA, most of the requirements of Chapter 6.95 do not pose such an obstacle. The , majority of provisions cited by the SPCMA apply to "handlers" of hazardous materials 90 The definition of "handler" in Chapter 6.95 does not include "transporters.n91 These provisions are not an obstacle to the enforcement of the HMTA, because they are outside of ' the statutory jurisdiction of the HMTA.92 c. Preemption under the Federal Railroad Safety Act Under Chapter 13 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has statutory authority over all areas of railroad safety, including HMTA provisions affecting rail transport of hazardous materials. The FRA also has the authority to investigate railroad accidents. Although this regulatory scheme may in some cases preempt state hazardous materials laws, it is intended to complement rather than , supplant state regulation. Federal and certified state inspectors work together closely in both prevention and response efforts.93 The FRSA permits states to "adopt or continue in force any law, rule, regulation, order, or standard relating to railroad safety until such time as the Secretary has adopted ' a...regulation... covering the subject matter of such state requirement," and even thereafter, to adopt safety standards more stringent that the federal requirements "when necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard" if those standards are compatible with ' 49 app. U.S.C. § 1815(a)(1)(A). 9D Eg. CHSC 125503.5. 91 CHSC § 25501. ' For discussion of the meaning of "transportation" and "incident to transportation" in the HMTA, please see above. Written testimony of Mark Lindsey. page 3. , Page 33 , 4.:u. Living with Risk December, 1993 federal law and do not unduly burden interstate commerce.14 Under this standard, there is a presumption against tion." P � preemption." P Under the FRSA standard, preemption challenges to state and local laws focus carefully on whether a FRSA regulation or provision covers the particular subject regulated by the state or local regulation. In a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court suggested that "local hazards" are those whose "application depends on each case's facts."" The exact meaning of "essentially local safety hazard" remains to be settled by the courts, and will likely be a subject of future litigation" Although federal standards set minimum levels for hazardous materials storage, these need to be supplemented by the states to address specific local requirements. As discussed above, accidents involving hazardous materials demand local responses. California's RMPP is designed to encourage local response and is consistent with federal laws governing hazardous materials storage. Federal determinations of preemption would set an unfortunate precedent and send a signal to local communities that the federal government does not recognize their legitimate need for local regulation of hazardous materials. °' 45 U.S.C. 1434. n CSX Transportation Lac, v. Easterwood, 113 S. CG 1732(1993). j 96 Id This definition is logically consistent with the definition of"local safety hazard" applied by the Sixth Circuit: "manifestly, this local safety hazard exception cannot be applied to uphold the application of a statewide rule." Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 926 F.2d 567 (1991). For example, the California Public Utility Commission is currently pursing an investigation of the Dunsmuir accident that implicates the meaning of"local safety hazard." CPUC investigation I91-08029. Page 34 Living With Risk December, 1993 ' D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Over 64% of Richmond residents are members of minority groups; community activists testifying at the hearing expressed anger at local environmental injustices. Michele Washington Jackson, Executive Director of the North Richmond Neighborhood House and Dorothy Olden of the North Richmond Advisory Committee provided powerful descriptions , of environmental injustice: We are here today to speak to environmental racism. This racism is deadly, ' insensitive, dehumanizing, and economically deficient for the residents of ... the entire City of Richmond. This racism is symbolic of the racism experienced during slavery whereby a few benefit and the majority suffers. Michele Washington Jackson (Tr. 1453) No matter what we are labeled we are alsoPart of America. We deserve clean air. We have the right to live not in fear of our lives or for our children's lives. We realize that the industries and the communities must coexist together. We have long ' done our part, but why should we suffer as we do? Dorothy Olden (Tr. 1706.) Communities similar to Richmond exist throughout the United States. Approximately one hundred oil refineries and chemical plants line "Cancer Alley" between Baton Rouge and ' New Orleans in Louisiana. In Southeast Chicago, Illinois, some 10,000 people live in the "Toxic Doughnut" surrounded by steel mills, factories, landfills, contaminated lagoons and , incinerators. Both communities are predominately African-American. The underlying issue of environmental justice was fust raised to widespread public ' attention by the landmark 1987 study by the United Church of Christ 9° The report found that environmental hazards are not distributed equitably but fall disproportionately upon minorities. According to the study, 15 million African-Americans--three out of every five-- live in communities with one or more abandoned toxic waste sites. Subsequent studies have identified other risks to minorities from environmental , hazards. A June 1991 report by the Argonne National Laboratory found that higher percentages of African-Americans and Hispanics live in areas where the air is too dirty to i go "Toxic Waste and Race in the United States; a National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites," Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ, 1987. Page 35 I s. Living with Risk December, 1993 meet federal air quality standards.' According to the National Law Journal (NIJ), the Superfund program takes 20% longer to place sites in minority communities on the priority list for clean-up than sites in white neighborhoods. The NLJ study also found that EPA 4. consistently imposes considerably weaker penalties on those who pollute minority neighborhoods than on those who pollute white communities.100 Although research demonstrates that neighborhoods hosting locally undesirable land uses tend to be poorer and have more minority residents than other neighborhoods, studies have not examined local demographics at the time of siting or subsequent factors that may have contributed to the correlation in their findings. So, it remains unclear whether the initial siting process was affected by race or whether market dynamics may have contributed to the inequitable distribution pattern now evident.101 Several factors may lend to disproportionate health risks to minority communities where industrial facilities are sited. Less obvious than the immediate health impacts of accidental chemical releases are the cumulative consequences of sustained exposure to both. unplanned releases and permitted releases. Witnesses before the Committee emphasized their concern that each accident was represented as not having a health impact. According to Henry Clark, "What they (industry) tell us mainly ... the community really wasn't affected because the toxic smoke went up in the air and over your community so you really weren't affected. It has basically been an effort to minimize the chemical exposure to residents in North Richmond."102 Dr. Brunner shared this skepticism, noting that although single accidental releases may have no health effect, there was no consideration of the long-term cumulative or synergistic health impact: We also need to remember this is not an isolated occurrence. That this has happened again and again and repeatedly over the last few years in this community and throughout Contra Costa County, and we issue the same bulletin on no long-term health impacts. (Tr. 2658) Research into the long-term adverse health impacts that may be caused by sustained exposure to toxic and hazardous chemicals is both costly and difficult to perform. The Wernett, D. and L.. Nieves. 1991. "Minorities and Air Pollution: A Preliminary Geo-Demographic Analysis," pnnwted at the Socioeconomic Research Analysis Conference - II, June 27-28, 1991. 10D "The Minorities Equation," September 21. 1992;The National Law Journal. t01 Vicki Been, Professor of Law at New York University, is conducting research in this area. 1°a Tr. 1872. Page 36 Living With Risk December, 1993 principal federal agency for conducting research into the long-term impacts of exposure to ' hazardous wasteg.is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry whose budget for Fiscal Year 1993 budget totalled only $60 million. Although research is also performed by EPA and the National.Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIERS), which conducts ' mostly basic research, efforts are generally fragmented and hampered by lack of funding. Science has also been slow to recognize that exposure to toxics affects men, women, and children differently. Affected communities often have a high proportion of female- headed households; in Richmond the figure is 34.2%, of whom 91.7% are minority. A recent NIERS study found that women were uniquely susceptible to some toxins, including pesticides and lead, in the environment. According to Kenneth Olden, director of NIERS, "Although there are many principles of health research that are the same for males and , females, there are special susceptibilities experienced by women (and children)."103 For example, there is growing scientific evidence that pesticides are linked to breast cancer.104 The government's efforts to develop a coherent response to the health hazards of toxics encounter the same problems of information management described in the discussion of risk evaluation above. EPA's inability to develop a system for managing information has , handicapped the agency's efforts to set priorities for assessing the risks posed to people and the environment from toxic chemicals.1QJ Following the Dunsmuir spill of metam sodium, EPA was unaware of information in its files showing that the pesticide could cause birth defects. It was weeks before the agency warned pregnant women and workers in the area of the pesticide's hazards.106 Although such anecdotal evidence points to the fact that environmental hazards are distributed inequitably, the impact of these hazards is still largely unknown. Insufficient , research has been performed to understand how cumulative exposure to hazardous materials can affect health. Women and children appear to be more vulnerable than men, and minority groups appear to be subject to higher exposures by virtue of their neighborhood locations. ' More must be learned about the consequences of environmental degradation and public health, since the two are clearly linked. 10° Washington Post Health Section, June 29, 1993, p. S. t0' "Studies Give Pesticides Role in Breast Cancer," The Washington Post, October 12, 1993. 'm "EPA's Acts to Improve Longstanding Information Management Wealmesses,"-Testimony by the General Accounting Office before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, and the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. March 29, 1993. t06 Ibid. , Page 37 , Living with Risk December, 1993 III. MI)INGS 1. Public health is inextricably linked to the condition of the environment. Failure to protect the environment can cause far-reaching and damaging consequences to public health. 2. Environmental risks fall disproportionately on minority populations. Benjamin amin Chavis, in the landmark 1987 study "Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States" by the United Church of Christ, defined environmental injustice: [R]acial discrimination in environmental policymaking and the enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities, and the history of excluding people of color from leadership in the environmental movement. 3. While maximum effort must be taken to reduce the risk of hazardous materials accidents, risk cannot be eliminated entirely. Industries that handle dangerous chemicals and affected communities must work together to minimize risk and to develop adequate emergency response plans in the event of an accident. Industry _ bears primary responsibility for safety, but the community must acknowledge the risk and work with industry to minimize it and to develop emergency response plans. Trust is an essential element to successful programs; each accident erodes trust as industry and the community are polarized. 4. Just as communities want to avert accidents involving hazardous materials, so does industry. Those responsible for industrial accidents may face civil, criminal and other penalties. A San Francisco judge recently approved a $15.5 million settlement in response to the July 14, 1991 Dunsmuir spill, in which a Southern Pacific rail tank car spilled 19,000 gallons of the pesticide metam sodium into the Sacramento River. r General Chemical in Richmond will be facing the consequences of the July 26, 1993 oleum leak for many years. Several investigations are already underway and myriad lawsuits have been filed. 72 5. Communities have a "right-to-know" about hazardous and toxic chemicals handled by local industry; community empowerment is critical to successful accident prevention. Page 38 Living with Risk December, 1993 This right was acknowledged by Congress in 1986 with passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.107 6. Worker training is essential to the safe and successful operation of an industrial facility. Training is also vital for handling hazardous materials in transit. A 1986 report by the Office of Technology Assessment on the transportation of hazardous materials concluded: More often than not it is people problems--inadequately trained personnel, poor coordination and communication--or lack of information and advance planning, rather than technological shortcomings, that cause accidents, injuries, or environmental damage.10E 7. Multiple federal, state and local agencies share jurisdiction over response to hazardous materials spills. According to California's Office of Oil Spill Prevention, at least 58 ' agencies responded to the Dunsmuir spill. In June 1992, at least 20 agencies took action following a fire at the Rhone-Poulenc facility in Martinez, California. At least 18 agencies were involved following the General Chemical oleum spill.1" , Witnesses at the August 10 Committee hearing called for better coordination of accident response by overlapping regulatory authorities. 8. Government has been slow to develop a coherent strategy for managing hazardous materials; during the 1980s the executive branch actively blocked initiatives to ' increase worker safety and to protect the environment. Since passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which required both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop , comprehensive management plans for hazardous materials, both agencies have missed statutory deadlines. 9. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) failed to act promptly to prohibit the use of the DOT 111A type tank car for transporting certain types of hazardous materials, including oleum. In May 1991, the National Transportation Safety Board found, "Mhe inadequacy of the protection provided by DOT-111A tank cars for certain dangerous products has been evident for many years in accidents investigated by the 10T "EPCRA" is Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 or "SARA." 10' U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Transportation of Hazardous Materials, OTA-SET- 304 (Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1986). ' A list of responding agencies appears in the appendix. Page 39 Living with Risk December, 1993 Safety Board."10 However, the FRA did not forbid the use of the tank car for carrying these products until October 1993. 10. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 called for a Presidential review of "release prevention, mitigation and response authorities of the various federal agencies," The findings of the EPA-led review will be essential to new coordinated, government-wide management initiatives for hazardous materials. The report is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget. 11. General Chemical Corporation failed to take adequate steps to prepare for unloading of the tank car containing oleum at its Richmond facility on July 26, 1993. The report of the incident prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District'" criticized the company for "corporate stupidity." National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594. Safety Study; Transport of Hazardous Materials by Rail. PB91-917002; NTSB/SS-91/01. Memo from Air Pollution Control Office to Chairperson Hilligoss and Members of the Board of Directors re General Chemical Incident of July 26, 1993. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Page 40 6 Living with Risk December, 1993 IV. RECONEVIE114DATIONS A. Policy Initiatives 1. As the U.S. overhauls its health care system, special attention must be given to the health impacts of environmental degradation. Greater resources should be devoted to a research into the impact of long-term exposure to both permitted and uupermitted releases of hazardous materials. Particular consideration should be given to the health effects on women and children; many affected communities have a high percentage of households headed by women. 2. Congress should take further steps to prevent, mitigate and redress environmental injustices. The "Environmental Justice Act, ,112 introduced by Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), seeks to ensure environmentally equitable enforcement of a wide range of environmental, health and safety standards. Alternatively, Congress should include environmental justice language when it reauthorizes major environmental statutes, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,113 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act"" and the Clean Air Act."' However, Congress should not ask EPA and other agencies to carry out environmental justice programs without allocating adequate resources to perform the j work. 3. The Administration should foster a comprehensive government-wide approach to the management of hazardous materials. Multiple agencies regulate hazardous materials, including EPA, OSHA and the Department of Transportation, and a government-wide 1 coordination strategy is required if risks from hazardous materials and bureaucratic 1 overlap are to be minimized. ) 4. Federal, state and local governments must similarly work together more closely to >1 streamline accident response and to implement health, safety and environmental protection legislation to eliminate existing loopholes. However, new initiatives should Nq� _i 12 H.R. 2105 was introduced in the 103rd Congress on May 12, 1993. 13 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050(1988) +� 114 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901.6992k(1988 & Supp. 11 1990) "s 42 U.S.C. If 7401-7671q(1988&Supp. II 1990) Page 41 f.� s. Living with Risk December, 1993 not fragment the regulatory process further or add unreasonable burdens to the operations of industry. 5. Each accident is unique, requiring Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), the agencies most familiar with regional conditions, to coordinate response and provide effective leadership when an accident occurs. LEPCs should also work year- round to educate and involve the public in prevention programs. 7 6. Both the states and federal government should allocate additional resources to the approximately 3,800 LEPCs, which are critical to effective accident response and community involvement. 7. Federal OSHA should require swifter completion of workplace safety reviews required by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. These reviews will help identify potential risks in the workplace and reduce the risk of accidents. 8. Industry should devote additional resources to the development of safer alternatives to the acutely hazardous materials currently used in industrial processes. Reducing use of hazardous materials is the most effective long-term policy to improve community safety. 9. Congress and the federal agencies should improve public access to information, and should consider expanding reporting provisions under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. EPA should initiate pilot programs using newer information technologies, like the "Right-to-Know" Network and INTERNET, to disseminate environmental and public health data to the public. The pilot schemes should focus on addressing environmental injustices. 10. The federal government should improve its management of information. According to the General Accounting Office, "EPA is an agency with hundreds of information systems that are mostly separate and distinct, with their own structures and purposes. This plethora of systems impairs EPA's ability to easily share mutually beneficial information across program boundaries, fosters data duplication, and precludes more comprehensive, cross-media assessments of environmental risks and solutions.""" "EPA's Acts to Improve Longstanding Information Management Wealmeases,* Testimony before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, an the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. March 29, 1993. Page 42 Living with Risk December, 1993 B. Specific Actions 1. The Department of Transportation should rule against the preemption petition submitted by the Swimming Pool Chemical Manufacturers Association (SPCMA). SPCMA and other industry groups argue that California's stringent laws for hazardous materials are preempted by the weaker federal statute. If.this preemption holding were made, it might have an adverse impact on public health and safety for ' California and other states with strict environmental laws. 2. In California, industryand the state should work to ether to improve the Risk g P Management and Prevention Program (RMPP). They should eliminate current loopholes in laws governing the storage of hazardous materials in rail tank cars. Industry should also be required to provide advance notice of new operations, in addition to complying with all RMPP requirements. 3. EPA should assist Local Emergency Planning Committees in obtaining Toxic Release Inventory data and other information available on database including EPA's Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations software and the Right-to- Know Network. 4. In Contra Costa County, industry and the county should work together to improve ' public health care in Richmond by providing a local primary health care clinic. 5. The Administration must move swiftly to find qualified candidates to fill the five- ' member Chemical Safety Board created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Chemical Safety Board will investigate accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. Members of the Board should be selected for their public safety expertise, not for their political aspirations. Page 43 t Living with Risk December, 1993 V. CONCLUSION Economic advancement should not be pursued to the detriment of worker and public safety or public and environmental health. Congress has acknowledged the role of the r.. government in protecting employees and the public with passage of worker safety laws and IL environmental legislation. Although industry bears primary responsibility for the safe management of hazardous materials, communities cannot be passive. They must develop public health education programs and cooperate with industry in developing emergency response plans. Accident prevention and emergency response must be ongoing efforts to be successful. Industries handling,hazardous materials are vital to the U.S. economy; they provide thousands of jobs and are critical to the nation's tax base. Many of these industries manufacture products taken for granted as essential to modern American life. Until safer alternatives are developed, hazardous materials and dangerous chemicals will continue to be used widely in manufacturing. While the use of these chemicals is necessary to society, modern society also demands that unnecessary risks in the handling of these materials be eliminated. For the most part, industry strives to avoid the costs of unsafe facilities and accidental releases of hazardous materials. Federal environmental programs such as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) have had an additional impact on how industry operates in the United States. Many facilities had not identified emissions before required to do so by the TRI. Since reporting was introduced, industry has routinely reduced its emissions. Aggressive community efforts have also had a major impact. In Contra Costa County, Dr. Walker described the impact of risk management in the county's major facilities, "The major effect of those efforts so far has been ... to reduce the total amount of acutely hazardous materials on-site in the county."117 Yet accidents continue to occur. Since the Richmond General Chemical spill there have been several less serious incidents in Contra Costa County, all of which have frightened residents and reminded them of the risk with which they live daily. While industry has improved, and continues to improve its prevention programs, the stakes are too high for compliance to be voluntary. The government has a role in both prevention and accident response, but that role must be streamlined to avoid onerous regulatory overlap. _3 F 117 Tr. 917 Page 44 Living with Risk December, 1993 Government and industry must also consider new approaches to the problems of ' coexistence. Minority communities have borne the brunt of both planned and accidental releases of hazardous materials for too long. The health impacts of cumulative exposure are ' largely unknown. As Congress looks to the reauthorization of major environmental protection legislation, it must include steps to mitigate environmental injustices. It should also devote additional resources to scientific research that will explore more fully the link between environmental pollution and health. Public access to information is essential to a democratic society. One element is the , right of communities to know who and what hazardous materials are polluting their neighborhoods. New information systems, including the Right-to-Know Network and INTERNET, will play an important role in giving the public access to information. The relationship between community and industry is often antipathetic. Each accident decreases public acceptance of the dangers of living close to an industrial facility. Each , failure in prevention efforts tests emergency response systems and strains already overburdened local authorities. Yet communities and industries must learn to work together to advance their common interests in public health and a viable economy. ' Page 45 D�mbe�s 1993 1 r4e 46 N Coll f^ 0.0 d Q � N N � O too e� •O O i W O rn O O 3° � a 4• ~ a E ✓ IL i all, 'ry u G t!1 cl% C4 W a �n •� � r it oa :d' d 2 b 11 Q N N et g w3e 'vy � o = r ^ C° C L ° i9 o E3 � � � 9,� 00as o '°> vo S 43 ,$ sba R y s � > a =-a c ft ba $ ami 5 = s c a e y cc wo a Eng 'o _ os ' 8 u eo Li ra •— ,� ° H � _ g �.� .E oo � o Q eo rn as o a 51 O E U a = e6 000 000 000 00 in O 00 00 N O� N �D O� e f h S-1 Ile Fd o 71% too 0 "or- • Cy ts TOO v- -0 JS G tin 00, I -pa -zr; d W o to coca CF rA ... A '; p o 3 � 3 o I d r0 d tr t g 3 c '° o = boa o � it r' > = LM 6 o wt N N N QNt NC� O . F c sT c 00 (�� coo cc 000 Qt a ao few d lar. F 0-4 a $` C w 0 d �°a Its 0 w P sus ... y y y c a m rz .. c _ •to ay c \� now a cc sum 1s cc o Living with Risk December, 1993 Agencies Responding to the Rhone-Poulenc (6/22/92) and General Chemical (7/26/93) Hazardous Materials Incidents Information supplied by Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services n Rhone-Poulenc Contra Costa County Health Services Department (County Health Officer and Hazardous Materials Response Team) EF., Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services Regional Water Quality Control Board Bay Area Air Quality Management District State Department of Fish and Game L CAL TRANS CAL OSHA CAL EPA State Department of Toxic Substance Control California Highway Patrol U.S. Coast Guard Page 52 l Living with Risk December, 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Shell Oil Company Safety Division (Mutual Aid) Santa Fe Railroad Police City of Martinez Police Department American Red Cross Regional Ambulance General Chemical Contra Costa County Health Services Department (County Health Officer and Hazardous Materials Response Team) Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services City of Richmond Fire Department City of Richmond Police Department f CAL OSHA State Department of Fish and Game ) CAL EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control 1 Regional water Quality Control Board Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Highway Patrol ` _i Page 53 I 4' L r. Living with Risk December, 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region DC Federal Railway Administration U.S. Coast Guard American Red Cross Regional Ambulance California Public Utilities Commission"s z: This agency was identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as responding to the incident. Page 54 Living with Risk December, 1993 Agencies Responding n ' to the Dunsmuir Incident Federal Shasta County Private Environmental Protection Agency Bella Vista Water District Southern Pacific Railroad Federal Railroad District Attorney's Office OHM National Weather Service Environmental Health Office Terro U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Executive Office Fire Camp Commercial U.S. Coast Guard Fire Department Mt. Shasta Ambulance U.S. Environmental Health Health Services U.S. Fish&Wildlife Public Works U.S. Forest Service Sheriffs Department U.S..Geological Survey Administrative Offices U.S. National Oceanographic& Health Department Atmospheric Administration County of Sisldyou State Administrative Offices Health Department Air Resources Board Sheriffs Department California Conservation Corps Environmental Protection Agency Highway Patrol Cal-Osha City Department of Conservation Department of Corrections Dunsmuir City Offices Fish& Game Dunsmuir Fire Department Forestry & Fire Protection Dunsmuir High School , General Services McCloud Fire Department Health Services Mt. Shasta Fire Department Health Services Office of Drinking Water Redding Fire Department Health Services Parks &Recreation .Weed Fire Department Department of Transportation Office of Emergency Services Public Utilities Commission Volunteer Water Quality Control Board Department of Forestry Volunteer in Fire Prevention Shasta Cascade Amateur Radio Society Shasta Lake Volunteer Fire Company (PS4) Siskiyou County Sheriffs Search and Rescue ' Shasta County Sheriffs Search and Rescue Red Cross Salvation Army ' Infornratfon Supplied by California Department of FM & Game Of ee of Oil ft evention & Response. Page 55 Living with Risk December, 1993 Contra Ca= C wwy Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Fora Inter-Agency Morris (Swxnwip) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE INTER-AGENCY MATRIX 3' FOR MORE INFORMATION. CONTACT: BARBARA MASTERS (510) 370.5014 SANDY HOLLENBECK (510)646-2286 November 29, 1993 Page 56 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE INTER-AGENCY MATRIX INTRODUCTION As stated in the Mission Statement, the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force was formed to enhance the efforts of regional, state and federal agencies in overseeing major industrial activities. In order to achieve enhanced coordination and cooperation, it is necessary to understand the role that each agency plays in the realm of hazardous materials regulatiom and response. Once this is understood, efforts to identify "gaps"and "overlaps"in the overall regulatory system may be identified and appropriately addressed. For this purpose, the following "Inter- Agency Matrix" has been developed by representatives from each agency. The Matrix has been divided into two distinct sections. The first section, "Bay Area Haz Mat Inter-Agency Matrix - Prevention Responsibilities", describes the role that each agency plays in preventing accidents involving hazardous materials through regulatory programs and inspections. The second section, "Bay Area Haz Mat Inter- Agency Matrix- Emergency Response", describes the role that each agency may play in the event of a hazardous materials incident which may impact public health, property or the environment. In order to enhance the matrix as a reference tool for public and business audiences as well as internal use, a narrative document has been developed. This narrative , includes information about each agency, including contact person(s), mission statements, regulatory authority, organization structure, and explanatory notes in reference to information provided in the matrix. Please note that this document is not fully comprehensive because not all agencies involved in hazardous materials regulation are represented. Efforts are underway to expand agency participation in this effort. Therefore, this document is considered a working draft. Furthermore, as additional legislation and regulations are promulgated, the matrix be revised to reflect these changes. ' November 29, 1993 i HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE MISSION STATEMENT There exists within the Bay Area, and principally within Contra Costa County, a coalition of federal, state, regional and local public health, safety and environmental agencies who have joined together in a cooperative and voluntary effort to enhance the level of service that these agencies provide both separately and collectively to the communities within their jurisdictions. The member agencies recognize the need to coordinate and enhance their activities .in the areas of: tp 4r 1. Emergency Res to hazardous materials incidents which may have 9 Y onse P Y on-site and/or community impacts on the public health, public property and the environment. 2. Accident Prevention by reviewing and coordinating programs to identify and reduce potential causes of hazardous materials incidents. 3 Communication, Outreach and Public Participation by effectively communicating prevention program efforts, providing comprehensive and timely emergency response and other program information, and seeking public comment and participation. The member agencies agree to develop a workplan to carry out this mission. November 29, 1993 ii DRAFT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER-AGENCY MATRIX GLOSSARY 11/29/93 I HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTERAGENCY MATRIX - GLOSSARY OF TERMS TERM DEFINITION Emergency Response, On-scene incident mitigation or assistance. Emissions Pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, total suspended particulated, sulfur dioxide,lead and nitrogen oxide, released into the air . Generato Facility which generates hazardous waste. Hazardous Materials H&SC (25501 Q,k)): Any material thatr because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Include hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material for which there is a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health & safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released. Hazardous Substance (1)MSDS is required. (2). Substance is radioactive. (3) Substance is listed in 49CFR Parts 172 and 173. (4) Material is listed in section 6382(bl of Labor Code. Hazardous Waste CCR Title 22 (66261.20 at seq.): A waste which exhibits the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, or which is listed as a RCRA hazardous waste. Inspection On-site field review and verification of documentation. Notice of discrepancies which require resolution to achieve compliance. Inventory Listing of all hazardous materials handled at the facility, along with the maximum quantities on-site and the locations of those materials. j Monitoring Sampling for and measuring of hazardous materials in the environment (e.g. air, water and soil). Notification Release incident information provided by the responsible party to the affected agencies. Permit A document authorizing an activity associated with hazardous materials handling when the handler meets all of the regulations and standards required by the permitting agency. 1 11/29193 v t DRAFT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER-AGENCY MATRIX GLOSSARY 11/29/93 TERM, Continued DEFINITION Publig Particloation There is formal opportunity for members of the public to review and comment on an issue before approval is granted by an agency. This may -entail written comments and/or public meetings. Regulations Principles, rules and/or laws designed to govern hazardous materials handling. Regulations are developed and authorized through a formal promulgation process. 8elga$ H&SC (25501(n)) Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, disharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment, unless permitted or authorized by a regulatory agency. r ini Training documentation reviewed should include training plan, course contents, and records of training completed. TSD Facility Facility which treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste. 11/29/93 vi DRAFT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER-AGENCY MATRIX GLOSSARY 11/29/93 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTER AGENCY ABBREVIATIONS Local Agencies CCCHSD Camra Coots County He"Services Department FIRE(Richmond) wohmond Firs Protaodon Distriat D.A. Contra Coots County oleogoAttorney AG Contra Costs Coumy Department of Agriculture SAN(Central Contra Costa) Central Costa coots sanitary Distiot Regional Agencies BAAQMO Bay Ares Ab Quality MwuW ment District , RWQCB Reoicr d Water Quality Control Districts LEPC Lood Enorgenay Plww*M Committoo State Agencies CaUOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration OFG Department of Fish and(ions OSPR/DFG Oi Spill Prevention and Responan Branch of Department of F(eh and Gans Cal/OES California Office of EmwWay Services SFM California State Fire Marshal , eDTSC(R) Department of Tomo Substance Control(Regional) aDTSC(HQ) Department of Tonic Substance Control(State Headquarters) SLC State Lands Commission , PUC Public Utilities Commission *Branch of California Environmental Protection Agency(CAL-FPA) Federal Agencies USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USCG United States Capt Guard DOT-FHWA United States Department of Transportation-Federal Highway Adminstration 11/29/93 vii eh m 0 N V~Ioa= oosn_ vasn xis x x and W Mr J m MMMIQ X x N z CL =910 x x x x xXx x N W Nis z C 9301PO z W t1iO/HAsO W Q: picx x x x x x X X X VHSOMO M •- *1 4. o 0 V pDMliXxxX x x x X xxx z W Owavve x x x x X Q cc P�9�+u�'J P OlMfS x xx x x x x x Z }. ov Q N Q _ (P�PlHl3tl� � �rr m 3 ,..E C 4 w Z � � 4 �e aLU 34 (a s M Of 1 vMNi'toa_ •- M VANI-XX x xxX ane w oir -+ x x as roMOsip- z Z X XX XXX IL V! z cc on- z C s3omo- z LU > _ oioraasa LU Q IL Ojo X YHsBmp X X t� 0. � o � �ltaAAt{ U z (�LU GMV" XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX Q Q H (*we*Snoop pauwJUWs z ov Q - 2 p X N Q E p X xx x a to — 6 i s e S IG • i C 4 � _ a °e � r a C(( [n M CN Calm 1. vOWL xxx andXXxx x x xXx xx co W Ms- H J m ffliU9S10 x xXxXxXxxx XXX X x x N Q amic xxx x N Q w X XXX x Xx XX z c 1301•a x x x xxx xxx x P z WoAcvudso x xxx xxx x Q oia x x X X XXX xxx x T x vNsorP xxxxxXx x x ME eo F- • n. Dal x m CD v 830" X x x x x d z amvvs x X x x x x x x x Q H1*%"a•ate P+w«OtNvs x x x x_ x z_ ow x x x xxx x xx Q *V*0 Xxx N s = x xx X XX XX x X XXXone= S QW e a - X x x X .%( xxx x m p c E o a c J M C y s _ ¢ • fl «r a -i3 �► s = Q d Nl YI C3 V r Qf N vNu+ttx x vmn :;c xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx x xx Ond -x x y J O� m tCNI:?SlQ N C pWS1Q2--ACXxxxxxxxxxxxxx XxxXjCx x;c xxxx x x d N Wcc wa- Z O s3aPO x P - Z W Djawso ccW Dia X vNsorPO --X x x rc � m } 9*0" v Z ' W Gwovl/8 C7 Q HPAUDOINVS x x x x x x x x x x x x x Z , f,. ov- a .,r V x ' N _ (P W�U3Wi rx C 4 Q CSFIo:>� ::-cX * ;XXx � xxxj x x x;C;c xx x m c Cz IK 0 w � X arUzi a Esa � to e 5 r E i _S � � y� � •s � � o O ~ CV) N V~100 XXXXXXXX 00lM1 vd"n X x x x x iC 0t>d X X XXXx x X xXX N W 018- F m M140810 x x x x x x N z Q 00=10x x x x x x x x x x x d. • UA N WAS xXxxxxxx z G 8aOne0 x x x x x x x z W > 0j0/1(dS0 W Q d 0,10 x x x x x x x v1(Soma RE o o } ppMti X x x V us pwavvi xxx Xxxx x x x x x x Q Q � N�9.�00 R�OIp111S z f- ov Q .v.a x x N Qcc r Q } �L a 1 s o 1- 'ca os N V~100 CMU XXXXXXX Xxxxxx x x xx vd3$n x X X 9nd W 915 X X X X X x x x xx X X X _4 J m 1CN19S10 x x x x rA Od QWS1G x x X x N ...li W NO- x xXx x Z 0 230/" x xx P Z LU W DJWUdSO XXX xx xXx XXXx cc Q. pAO XXX xx Xxx x x x x vNSOI" x x ic- �a �,- 9� IL Q o � d v a9o�na X x x x Z w Owovve x x x x x is x X x X x Q 0~ N 1M"D•a-0 PaMPOINVS Z �,. ov v.O x yC IV d= IPOOVAIgtl13 U 0 Q asm= :J y S Go 3 r J v � a D Q 5 t . � ir• aa = a o cc 4 M Qf _ N vlrultloa- Dom vagnx xxxx ;Cxxxxx KXxxx x j� x ane N W *Ir H J ' m I UMIG N 0 d fd2 XXXXXX XXXXX X x XXx CL N • LU Q MIT 2 LL P W W OlGllids01 X x cc ` Cie. X x X vNSQlRa: R n F� ae IL 0 f, A tL ti7DN1y� x X X x X Z LU GROWS j( O. Zdd xX X XX Q H In•o9� 0 I• �IMIS' Z I .r.G X N ZIP�wel1l13Mtd:x a. li ;C x x x x x �E aX dddz xXXXx xxxxxx Xxx a m � � Q W s s 3 cc Z Zzcc cc CA.O • • L • 1 aittL • LU f� 111 os vNu+ttoa� N oMM x x ve3gn-X XXXX XXXxx x x xxxx and. x X N W 1=� J m (OHYJSIO'.K XNXX XXXXx x X XXX H C Dania■x XXXX X x X x x x X X * X H -- LU c w z Zsaoma� x xxxx W W OlOrddSO_ x X x x x x x Lt pial Xxxxx XX vNSOlNa' X F� ami A a v oaodAa� X . z LU awovve� x X , cc H (nom"Woo P+K»a)Nvs= 2 f Or' Q .r.O= f _ (P�WaN13Nid' o v d 'Q O'�a_ X x X X � 5 d = Sit .. W Q 9__�_ is CC f t:C O ~ W (a! W W S }p 1 4. N vn�uta•ioaT7 Doan vaso x t xx ox xxxxxxxxx xx x ON N W o P J 03 1ON10S10 ft x xxxx xx xx x x N O QW810 x xxxx xx xx xxx x x .. 0. N ¢ was x Z O 83O x X X X XX xxxxxxxx xxx x x x Z W Di0MdS0 Z W cc vi0 K VHSOM3 it xx xxxxxxxx Q to d 4 83tvm V _ Z W 0vlovV8 - Q Ho 0--o P-mvilmS X x Z Q N IP�1�ltl13Wi cc QSFfoo0�t x xx x p Q E ' ° 1 algal 46 a 19 Ic ]t + �—o—c—a----s`n o `c oc s cc t7 :r s. �p :� Z .0 k c, ell c, V~.Lot: X XXXX x xx x p X X X x X x x x x X x X x X � � � X , va3sn x xxxxxxxx xx xx x xx x x ane x x x x x xx x x x ' W ow- x x XXX xxx xxx x x t 1 m M1410210 X XXXXXXXX XX XXX X X XXXX X z rC pWsjp X XXXXXXXX x x 'X x x !i x x X xx x O. In LU Mlir x X X Z r G S3On•o x x xx Xxx x x x x XXXX x x P Z wciaaaso x x x x x xx xx xx x x x x r °' oio X X X X X X x xx x xx x x x x vNsorna x xxxxxxXx XX `xxxx x x x x x 1 'd31 r m a � YDDM!! x X x X X X x X X xxx X X a' W , C7• ow �/ � vg X XXXXXXXX XX XXX X XX X Q N ("Goo•moo PAUMolNvS X x X x X x x x X x x x x X X X X X X Z r ov X XXX X X XX X ;CxxxxX ,Q o 5 Y'd X X c N e = 1vltl)3Uti X XXXX X xx xx x X XXX X c L e a x xxXXXX XXXXXXXX ;� XXXX X l a � a m atiC sE • as! h i " � r • CMC 96 _ O ON — � � s : Em ; loc. CL 6CCL • O : ; a 3 W Q s 3 W b • w Q p ! • a a .• e C o os vMH ioo ^• open x x x x x x x va3sn X x x x araC x x ane 1- � per W (OHlpgla X x x x x x x x x x x N _ C (Wps1aX it x x x xxxxxx xxx CL W pus x is x x } S30/100X X x x x x X X x x x x x x x x xx Zydso/oja x x x x x x x x x xx x x ,ter cWa via x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 VHSO/Np x X x x x x W pd3l X x X loomu x X x x x x x xxx x QOWOvve ;C x x x C vQ r. W Zov-X X xxx xx xx x W (RWO 6l1Y0p If4Y•pINVS X jc x x x x a W (PUO-4*IV13UU X X X x j� X X x x X X x pC x x x x ~ Z aS14033 x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x ~ epl x X = 1 ~ ~ e 0 i 9 c v t I a a E a W- • a • S. Z • z v ,1s : o E N W C e C y e a o !� ; LUd 7 K C V d V w p O d W F� O C- _Z • 2 V cc c- @ )". C c a. E: «-z < 0 3 E E E ,°� o • • a • V of O S O- O O W «' _ • s C O W IL o ; r3 0. � E222222 Z o c : o W t < o tiaaacacacaIW E4 c� a W _ c a c o 0 0 o C o W ti • ch as N r r viw+ttoa_ ousn X x xxxxxxx x x xx va3sn X xx ;cxxxxxx x x xx X and i— � ais- , W (DHIOSIG X X x x x X x X x x x xx N Z (WOSlO X,X x x Xxxxxxx X xx ' a W wdS X X } g30/1.O X X X x X jc X xx V Z vdswDdp x X X x XXXx x XXXX W Dic x x x x xxxxx x xxxx ' LUVHSOn•O X jc x x x X•x W W3, r X sODMa x x X x X Q Q GwovvB X jc x xx N Lr vc W Zorx x xXXX : XXX ' W (� 1"WO 8A000 111AU63INVS x X X Q W IPUDLULPIV13UU X X I X x x x x X X x X x X X X x Z GSH000 XXXXX X xxxxx X x XXX M"' 8O1 x x x x x x x x � q . N « Q • `e E V V A W 9 •o c 3 co A V Q W- aa V E E r a• ra Z= O to W 10: ° a` m o • ; M O e O S 3 = c s y 3oc acy o `o �LU -t .1 a r r d = .me o b 6 E c E Eo 9 �` v . �o E < a D • '• 3 O o u ' Z- a, ; � ' a 0 : E Q < m 3 E E E n � e z cj c E a C Lu =0 doa � � ro E o f°- 1°- j°- �ioSuEi — — �—� � � m a �` o� °• � � a E o V ti r ` � WC • M M M r open x x vd3sn x xxxxxx xx X ;Cxxxx x and H WIT LMN1OS10 ;� Xxxxxxxx x x x x x x W H Z WaS10 XXxxxxxx x x x x x x NK Q W vuS x X x 530/1 O z W9019:10 x xx xxxxx W 7 � via x xx xxxxx W vHS01190 W Od3l QOYYovvB x x 2 v0 W zor W IawO VAY00 PAu•91NVS Q W IpuoWyoro13tiLd x xxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx . F- Z OSH000 x x x x xx xx QS01 X X X x x x x x x CC C G - 2 N E � Q $ _ c Q - E Q LU t m a- a Co d V a c 3 ; a W r a tai x C a a � � � cc U) ° 4 0 < a �1Qcc z IL 00 it 0 ~ 9 Z O ti o r v a < a 3 E E E • n9 0 W F s C E x 0 0 0 : : p_v f4 W 0 < o V F� 1! 1� r W Ir a0 C C d < as S O W `C ~ o 0 o O0 E v o H 2 v CL W o Wy M t M r OOSA x x x x x xxx x vd3sn x xxxxxxxxx XXxxxxxx xxxx x .-i and 1- � ais W AMID= xxxxxxxxx x x xx x XXX ! N CMosia xxxxxxxxx x X X-Xxx XXX W wdS } S301190 x x x x x XXX xx v adso/Oda x x x x xxxxxxx xxx Z LU x x X X xxxxxxx xxx � Oda � LU VHSOIRO x x x x Xxx x x 2 W I Od3l x aaomm x x x x x rc Q awovv9 x x x x x x va W v o x x x ;c x z W •i•o I 0•auo 0 IRAQ•91NVS X xx x x x x x x � cc Q W IPUOW4zlal3ald x x x x x x x Z aSH000 XXX xXK X xxxxxx xx 1 CS0) X X X x X C G O i 4 fV - E Q o 1 LU }Q Z 3 o = fn z 3 CL 1" 0 a g � • � o LU a O 'a • � H ; � p � � • i C G >- CL o so o C . o C (� e S E o E y to a $ o : �•L •+ 'a 2 p r • $ S • ti o 3 H « t Z _ $ • E io V -80 o Z— a 2 �°- a 3 < = m d v d 5 G s < o YJ I a o 0 0 0 0 H Q C H w eti r. 'rt~100 oven x ye3sn x X oc ona N Q a18 W (mcl e X N! Z talOSla a a N W rus X X • $30J1*a V Z VC1801010 x W 0i0 X W dNSOJt�a W 3431 X soomw x x X rc QOWCWS Y0 w z orZ W Qt*too*suuoo Pituealmvs ccW (puou+�!b13a1� H ? asHOOO ~ sal x x X x x � o N � e LU a _ Q 4 Qo a W_ N O m d !: o W b a Zto W t2? « C R7 W LU V a U H t 3 Form#DO25-SS legal Tabs Co. 1-800.322-3022 USING MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AS AN AID TO OSHA AND EPA COMPLIANCE By: Paul Smith Applications Consultant EDS 245 From the end of October, 1987 to June 17, existing governmental regulations. To 1991, the American Petrochemical Industry comply with these regulations, and safe was involved in at least fourteen serious guard against major upsets, many accidents and/or major upsets. The resulting companies will have to make fundamental explosions, fires, and upsets killed at least changes in how maintenance is performed, 79 people, injured 923, and caused in excess or provide access to an new form of of$2,000,000,000 in property damage.Most maintenance information system, or both. of these incidents occurred around a maintenance activity. The companies that The purpose of OSHA's 1910.119 is to were involved in these incidents were often prevent or minimize the consequence of a heavily fined, and embroiled in law suits, catastrophic release of highly hazardous where the number of litigates often chemicals. It is a holistic approach to numbered into the thousands. process safety management that is performance oriented. Although it could be Federal and state regulatory agencies have costly to implement, this regulation will lead responded to. these dramatic events with to more reliable equipment and a safer work legislation such as OSHA 1910.119 and the place. Most companies who handle 1990 clean Air Act. Legislation in this area hazardous chemicals already have systems in mandates formal systems, clearly defined place Pat promoted process safety roles and responsibilities,written procedures management, but probably don't have the and audit trails. means to produce the necessary documentation. This regulation will These regulations are being introduced into formalize the process, and encourage a maintenance environment that is rapidly companies to review maintenance procedures moving in the opposite direction. Recent instead of just document them. The trends in maintenance management. have regulation closely parallels recommendations stressed: from organizations such as the American • De-centralization Petroleum Institute and the Chemical • Reduced supervision and technical Manufacturers Association. This regulation support covers 14 areas of process safety • Multi-skilled craftsmen management: • Contracting of maintenance 0 Operator involvement in • Application maintenance • Definitions • Self-directed work crews • Employee participation • The elimination of the maintenance • Process safety information department entirely. • Process hazard analysis • Operation procedures These changes have resulted in a work force • Training of generalists who are having to make • Contractors decision and take action without having • Pre-startup safety review t enough technical expertise to be aware of the a Mechanical integrity ? consequences of their actions. Many of these a Hot work permit incidents were caused by being unaware of o Management of change or failure-to follow simple procedures, or by 0 Incident investigation making unauthorized substitution of parts • Compliance audits 1' and material. Today I would like to limit the discussion to There is bound to be a conflict between this the two sections of OSHA 1910.119 that type of maintenance environment and most impact maintenance organizations and 246 _computerized maintenance management maintenance is performed and who performs systems (CMMS). These sections are: it. • Mechanical Integrity Since the regulation is concerned with • Management of Change process safety management, the maintenance aspect is often overlooked. Those charged We will also discuss how computers can be with insuring that their company is in used to document environmental monitoring. compliance often have no maintenance Federal and state environmental regulations experience. In a rush to comply, existing will require that petrochemical companies computer systems are overlooked, and many monitor fugitive emissions and maintain stand-alone system are implemented. These them below a specific level, and that leakage systems often duplicate much of the rates continue to decrease. When leakage functionality found in a Computerized exceeds this rate, repairs must be make and Maintenance Management System(CMMS). a history kept. At a large site, there may It is not unusual to find different systems for have to be 1,000,000 readings a year taken work order control,preventive maintenance, and recorded, and repairs tracked. There instrument documentation, inspection, may be 30 - 50 work orders a month raised equipment history, and project management. to deal with leakage that exceeds the The same data fields may appear in more minimum amount. than one system, and there is usually no process in place to keep the information in Computer systems are well suited be used as multiple systems in agreement. Records tools to help companies comply with these entered into these systems can become legal regulations. The amount of documentation documents admissable in a court of law. that is required, and the requirement that it Corporations should establish corporate be made available to large numbers of standards for systems and insist that all people with different job titles, can only be documents that relate to mechanical integrity accomplished economically with computer are accurate and consistent. Individuals systems. Even though this has not should not be allowed to develop PC based historically been the role of a CMMS, they systems that do not comply with these can be successfully applied. It will require standards, and are not included in site wide however, that the CMMS move up in the management of change procedures. "importance"hierarchy of plant systems,and that interfaces to drawing, docuoient Nlechanical Integrity management, and human resources systems be established. This new role for CMMS 'Employers will need to review their will require changes in attitude and a maintenance programs and schedules to see reappraisal of computer security. The ability if there are areas where 'breakdown' to view data will have to be given to many maintenance is used rather than an on-going people, but the ability to change data will mechanical integrity program. Equipment have to be tightly controlled. used to process, store, or handle highly hazardous chemicals needs to be designed, Since the penalties for non-compliance of constructed, installed and maintained to these minimize the risk of releases of such regulations can be severe, many companies chemicals.'Appendix C to 1910.119 - seem. to have placed more emphasis on quickly meeting the letter of the law, instead Mechanical Integrity has six parts: of the spirit of the law. To comply with the spirit of the law, many companies will need • Application to make fundamental changes in the way • Written Procedures 247 • Training for Process Maintenance The requirement for written maintenance activities procedures that affect the covered equipment • Inspection and Testing may be the most difficult and time • Equipment Deficiencies consuming section for the maintenance e Quality Assurance organization to deal with. Since these procedures must be made available to We will discuss each of these area and how employees, the use of a . computerized a CMMS can be used to advantage to systems will make maintenance of these implement a mechanical integrity program. procedures much easier than relying on paper based systems that require updates to Application be mailed out and inserted. A CMMS will allow maintenance procedures to be 'The first step of an effective mechanical documented and related, to pieces of integrity program is to compile and equipment. The system should allow categorize a list of process equipment and equipment specific procedures and generic instrumentation of inclusion in the program. procedures to be related to the same piece of This list would include pressure vessels, equipment. This greatly reduces the amount storage tanks,process piping, relief and vent of maintenance for generic procedures if systems,fire protection systems components, they can-be entered, and related to many emergency shutdown systems and alarms and pieces.---of equipment. Front-ending the interlocks and pumps. For the CMMS with a word processor and up- categorization instrumentation and the listed loading a file for insertion will decrease the equipment, the 'employer would prioritize effort required to enter and maintain the which pieces of equipment require closer procedures. scrutiny than others. Appendix C to 1910.119. Since the procedures may be very voluminous, and there may be a desire to The heart of a good CMMS is the equipment have drawings embedded in them, there may records section. Equipment can be be a need to interface a CMMS with a documented, categorized, prioritized, and document management system. Decisions printed list produced on demand. All future will have to be made on how much data will transactions such as technical specifications, reside in a CMMS for estimating purposes bills of materials, drawing references, work orders, inspection schedules,job standards, .Training for Process Maintenance Activities and repair. history will depend on the accuracy of the equipment section. It is The regulation requires not only that important that a methodology be developed employees be trained in the procedures to categorize and enter data into the mentioned above, but also requires equipment section. There should be a central certification that the employee understands equipment data base for engineering, the procedures. This will require an corrective maintenance, inspection, and employee tracking system to record names, condition monitoring. Many companies that dates, and the means used to assure have implemented a CMMS may find that understanding. This information will need to they will have to perform a substantial re- be taken into consideration whenever work of existing data in order to provide employees are assigned to maintenance r- employees an accurate equipment safety tasks. This requirement extends to contractor information system. employees as well. This type of information has not historically been part of a CMMS, Written Procedures and may require interfaces to human resources systems. The effort required to 248 train everyone who does maintenance work Management of thickness readings and will affect the use of contractors, multi- deciding when to take action is an important skilled craftsmen, and operator involvement part of an inspection program. Interfaces to in maintenance. hand held data collectors will greatly simplify the task of gathering, storing,.and IIpection and Testing analyzing large amounts of data. The regulation requires that equipment used Equipment Deficiencies in critical processes be inspected in accordance with good engineering standards. Equipment deficiencies that are outside Applicable codes and standards could acceptable limits must be corrected before include: further use, or in a timely manner when • American Society for Testing and necessary means are taken to assure safe Material operations. The basic work order cycle of a • American Petroleum Institute CM v1S is adequate documentation of • National Fire Protection Association deficiencies that are found, and corrective • American National Standards action that was taken. Work that is safety Institute related can be categorized and prioritized. A • American Society of Mechanical CMMS can provide an on-line listing of Engineers outstanding jobs. Documentation is required that captures the Quality Assurance serial number of the equipment, the name of the person performing the inspections or "A quality assurance system is needed to test, and the results. If as a results of these help ensure that the proper materials of inspection or test, corrective action is construction are used, that fabrication and required, there must be documentation that inspection procedures are proper, and that it was achieved. A CMMS allows installation procedures recognize field inspections and testing schedules to be installation concerns."Appendix C 1910.119 'j established that are time, service, or event driven. A work order is generated for each A CMMS can contribute to this process in discrete inspection or test. Computer security several areas: ! should be such, that only elected personnel will be able to mark an inspection work • A formal work order system can order completed. A written procedure that assure that work is reviewed and describes the inspections or tests, and the that if it constitutes more than desired outcome can be printed with each "replacement in kind" that work order. Equipment history:'sections management of change procedures provide a means to document the results. If are invoked. corrective action is required, a corrective 3 work order can be generated, and corrective • Maintenance procedures can be job history.attached to it. If temporary printed with each work order. patches or repairs are made, a note can be attached to the equipment that will be printed • Bills of material can be attached to with each subsequent work order as a each piece of equipment. reminder. This can also be viewed in equipment history. A CMMS allows • Materials systems can force documentation of inspections and corrective inspection and certification of work to be presented that outlines the total material when received from life cycle of each piece of equipment. vendors. 249 • A materials catalog assures quality "replacement in kind. "Appendix C 1910.119 control and consistency. Many companies do a good job of keeping • Maintenance systems can be process procedures current, but often do not interfaced with drawing systems to keep maintenance procedures or equipment give rapid access to the latest records current. One recurring problem is drawings. that during the implementation stage of a CMMS, equipment data is loaded, and then Material purchasing standards will have to there are no procedures to keep the data prevent material from being purchased using current. As mentioned earlier, having a vague generic descriptions, and prevent work order approval process is a good way purchasing agents from freely making to make sure that management of change substitutions based primarily on price and procedures are invoked with each change. delivery. Maintenance procedures, equipment documentation, bills of material, and Implementing a mechanical integrity material catalogs will have to be updated. program could include the following steps: There may also be a requirement that employees, both company and contractors, • Identify which equipment is are re-trlined on the new procedures. covered Temporary repairs that have been • Review existing equipment undocumented have been a problem in the documentation past. These repairs are often forgotten and become "permanent". A CMMS is an • Develop a criticality ranking excellent tool to track these temporary scheme and rank equipment repairs and make permanent repairs in a timely manner. • Review and evaluate existing maintenance programs Environmental Monitoring • Review maintenance training A CMMS is a natural choice to catalog points to be monitored, establish intervals, •.Identify inspection and testing store readings, select points that are above a requirements - threshold, and issue work orders to take corrective action. The points to me • Analyze equipment condition and monitored should be part of _a central decide what is outside the norm equipment data base. This will allow the life cycle of a piece of equipment to be • Evaluate quality assurance presented. procedures The use of hand held data collectors and data Management of Change loading utilities will automate the process of gathering and analyzing hundreds of "To properly manage changes to process thousands of readings. chemicals, technology, equipment and facilities, one must define what is meant by Client Server change. In this process safery management standard, change includes all modifications Modern client server technology will allow to equipment,procedures, raw materials and data to be accessed from several sources and processing conditions other than presented graphically. Data from drawing 250 systems, document management, process knowledge. This can be accomplished by control, and condition monitoring can be presenting data in graphical formats such as presented on a single screen. A graphical charts,drawings,and different-colored status plant model can be displayed that allows icons. Client server technology can branching to equipment specifications, work accomplish these goal, but there will have to orders,and equipment history.Drawings and be a change in management philosophy in documents can easily be attached to work what should be in these systems, and who orders. The use of colored icons to denote should be using them. These systems will be status will make decision making much a valuable tool to aid in implementing and easier. The goal is to turn data into managing a comprehensive equipment information, and information into integrity program that can dramatically knowledge. This will encourage employee reduce the risk of safety and environmental empowerment and will move decision catastrophes. making to lower levels. Employees will then be able to make decisions based on knowledge,instead of chance.These systems will be access by employees with many job titles: engineering,operations,maintenance, contractors, stores, purchasing, and human { resources. Many of the major safety and environmental incidents in the petrochemical industry could have been prevented had the employees that were involved known the , status of equipment, the dangers of certain actions, or the proper procedures. Computer systems are the best medium to convey this information to process, maintenance,and contract employees. Summary Companies may have to assume that those who are performing maintenance have limited technical expertise and will have to have access to accurate equipment documentation, and detailed: written procedures for performing work. Much of this functionality can be found in a conventual CMMS. But, due to the massive amounts of data that must be resented, and S rl the need for graphical pr entations, the CMMS will have to be aug ented by data that resides in other systems There must be 1 a plan as to how this data wi be integrated, presented to employees, and kept accurate and consistent. Every effort should be made -i to present data in a format that aids decision making by people with limited technical 251 4 Form#DO25-SS Legal Tabs Co. 1.800-32V PRELIMINARY REPORT ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS AND OTHER NOTIFICATIONS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 1989 - 1996 Sue Loyd Dena Hutchin Laura Brown Contra Costa County Health Services Department August 29, 1996 INTRODUCTION Contra Costa County has one of the highest concentrations of industrial facilities among California counties, and the largest number of major facilities outside of Los Angeles County. It is located on the northeastern edge of the San Francisco Bay and is ideally situated for heavy industry. The Delta's deep water channel provides an important commerce link between the West Coast and Pacific Rim countries. A large industrial base is located along the shoreline of the Sacramento River, Carquinez Straits, San Pablo Bay, and San Francisco Bay. Contra Costa County is home to five refineries, a half dozen chemical plants,two power plants and numerous smaller facilities. Recent hazardous materials industrial incidents have prompted the Board of Supervisors to initiate a policy discussion about the need for and nature of a new or revised County policy that would improve safety. This report was prepared to document the data which will assist in that discussion. The report is a preliminary review of the County Health Services Department database of incidents,notifications, and complaints concerning hazardous materials incidents that were received by the County between January 1989 and July 1996. This report will show that many of the notifications received by the County are related to training, small spills into containment areas, minor releases below specified reportable quantities, and changes in equipment status. Before discussing the data, however, it is important to understand the hazardous materials regulations now implemented by the County, including the Notification Policy that prompted the reporting of industrial incidents and notifications. The industrial community in Contra Costa County must adhere to federal and state as well as local hazardous materials laws and regulations. California statutes are some of the most restrictive and safety-oriented in the nation. Considering the amount of hazardous materials stored and used in the county, safety requirements and environmental standards are imperative for a secure workplace and community. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the five federal, state, and local laws and policies governing hazardous materials handling and storage that are implemented by County agencies primarily the Health Services Department. Numerous other regulations are implemented by other agencies, notably the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,the Regional Water Quality Control District,the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cal/OSHA,the State Fire Marshall (which regulates pipelines), the State Lands Commission,the US Coast Guard, and others. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 1 8/29/96 Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Program The California hazardous materials emergency planning and community right-to-know law(also known as the Business Plan Program or the Hazardous Materials Release,Response and Inventory Program) covers some 1200 businesses in Contra Costa County, including the oil refineries and chemical plants. The purpose of the regulation is to protect the health and safety of the public and of emergency responders, as well as to ensure the community's right to know about chemical use in the County. This regulation requires the training of all employees who I may come into contact with hazardous materials. Training consists of hazardous materials storage and handling procedures, spill prevention, emergency response procedures, and clean-up procedures. All businesses storing more than specified quantities of hazardous materials must report an inventory of chemicals and submit an emergency response plan to the Health Services Department. I Risk Management and Prevention Plan (RMPP) Program _I The goal of the California RMPP is to prevent the accidental release of acutely hazardous materials and to prepare for public protection in the event of a release. The RMPP evaluates potential off-site consequences of the worst credible accident scenario for emergency response planning. Contra Costa County is one of the leading jurisdictions in implementing the RMPP. I As of August 1996, forty-six RMPPs are on file with the County. 1 Federal Risk Management Plan (RMP) Program The Federal RMP evaluates flammable hazardous materials as well as acutely hazardous =� materials. Under this program, the worst-case (rather than worst credible case) scenario for off- site consequences must be assessed. The Health Services Department anticipates responsibility I for implementation of this program beginning in 1997; it will augment the current RMPP. f _J Process Safety Management(PSM) The Federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration(OSHA)adopted PSM standards in 1992. Whereas the RMPP and RMP regulations are concerned with off-site impact to human wl Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 2 8/29/96 I } health and the environment,the PSM standards consider employee safety. This federal regulation, and its more stringent state Cal/OSHA counterpart, establish procedures for process safety management that protect employees by preventing or minimizing the consequences of chemical accidents involving highly hazardous chemicals. A key provision of PSM is process hazard analysis -a careful review of what could go wrong and the safeguards that must be V implemented to prevent releases of hazardous chemicals. Employers must identify those Lt <: processes that pose the greatest risks and evaluate those first. Figure 1 shows the overlap of the RMPP,RMP, and PSM regulations. l� FIGURE 1 Regulatory Overlap Cal-OSHA PSM Fed -OSHA PSM Cal-RMPP Fed-EPA RMP County Notification Policy In addition to the state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials,Contra Costa County maintains a strong notification policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1992. The policy requires a facility to immediately notify the Health Services Department of a hazardous materials release or threatened release that poses a present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. The importance of this notification policy cannot be overestimated. The policy results in industry reporting very small spills, in addition to the required reporting of releases above federally-specified reportable quantities. This policy is critical to the effectiveness of the Community Warning System, which is one of the most advanced alert and notification systems in the nation. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 3 8/29/96 County Land Use Permit for Development Projects for Hazardous Waste or Materials This ordinance encourages businesses and other entities to consider potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community in planning projects involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Land use permits are required for development projects which score above a specified threshold. COUNTY DATA ON INCIDENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, AND COMPLAINTS The County's hazardous materials"incident files"are comprised of three distinct types of reports: Incident - An incident is an event involving the release or threatened release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County, which may pose an imminent threat to the public health,the environment, or property, and would require immediate action. For the purpose of this report, incidents have been subdivided into Level I ' and Level II events. These levels will be described later in the report. Notification-Under the County's Notification Policy, a notification is a report(usually made P Y by a company)that a release may occur, or that a release has occurred but did not go off-site, ' injure anyone, and was contained, or an activity will occur such as flaring or on-site emergency drills that could cause concern to citizens observing it. This notification would not require a response other than documentation and internal notification of the County's Incident Response ' Team. Complaint-A complaint is information received by the County,usually from a private party, ' that involves past activities or activities which would be completed by the time an inspector , could arrive on-scene, and which are thought to violate the hazardous materials handling, storing, processing and removal laws. Based on the information received,the activity does not present an imminent threat to the public health,the environment or property. ' Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 4 8/29/96 f Methodology fr Health Services Department staff reviewed the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials L Incident Report Database for January 1, 1989 through July 31, 1996. Over 7,000 database entries were examined. These entries were further screened for selection of reports by the following industrial facilities: Chevron,Dow, DuPont, General Chemical (Bay Point and Richmond), Pacific, Rhone-Poulenc, Shell, Tosco, and Unocal. The two Pacific Gas and Electric Company power plants(Antioch and Pittsburg) and KemWater,formerly Imperial West Chemical (Antioch and Pittsburg)were also included because they were included in a report presented to the Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety by the Contra Costa Building Trades(July 29, 1996). 77 ., The total number of reports for the selected facilities was 2020. Of this total, 1854 were notifications, 115 were incidents, and 51 were complaints. The data presentation below evaluates the incidents and notifications in more detail for the time period January 1989 through July 1996. The remaining 5000 database entries consisted of complaints,referrals,and clean-up requests about non-facility events such as illegal discharge of waste onto public property, drug labs, and u neighborhood complaints. Incidents,Notifications, and Complaints Concerning Hazardous Materials Chart 1 shows the number of incidents,notifications and complaints for the selected facilities from January 1989 through July 1996. Overall,the number of incidents has declined since 1989, with the exception of 1994. In contrast, notifications have steadily increased,which is expected as a result of the 1992 County Notification Policy. Chart 1 indicates that between 1991 (no Notification Policy)and 1992 (the first full year of the Notification Policy),notifications increased over 200%. The trend for increased notifications continues. The following sections discuss incident and notification data in more detail. The 51 complaints shown in Chart 1 are specific complaints relating to facility activities. None of the complaints relate to Level I incidents but some may relate to Level II incidents or notifications. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 5 8/29/96 �o a N Y. - a x..rn,. p.�.ee.��'�' ; �S y. �4 ..a. .,.,,��'var�? F 3 u as•1 C7, t0 w v E 53 +:$..r' "a � vii ►�C � �- �__ to o. €«. 'R A: InEl C1 � .� aa,s �s, ":m .a L ♦ ,s. N 00erg x s m g x€ 4'; ci pm x -dw �:"'ck i r U & Yet t c •/�1 ;`n{,t, ?„+yLs+pG�.� i4 �a �.v� �4Rs.`i.y.� �� t Y`"� �� "�Sdkl^*� S �'�'� '^' � L U V a c� fit nu3 �xr r �4�� �✓sx�'�'� a z'�"+w° �;5��i+�4mle -�w-���r�7''�"'r�•�`� � �" ���' �' '� M � CYC y +s ,r k i „ i Vk z ME 00 x,.T z , ,� t`y ❑ 0. o m Y D Y � C .C O C C C 'Y r6 v� a t+1 N LL 6`i C u 3 ,jagwnN � �ea Incidents As mentioned previously, an incident is an event involving the release or threatened release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County,which may pose an imminent threat to the public health,the environment, or property,and would require immediate action. For the purpose of this preliminary study we reviewed each file for content. As a result, incidents have been further divided into two levels to differentiate the severity of the incidents. Level I-These are incidents/events involving the release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County which may have Dosed an imminent threat to the public health.the environment, or property. and required immediate action by 13ealth Services. These events may consist of explosions, large fires, releases of toxic or hazardous substances creating off-site impacts, or occurrences that resulted in serious worker injuries. Level H-These are incidents/events involving the release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County,which did not pose an imminent threat to the public health. the environment. or prop. These events may include small fires, releases of toxic or hazardous substances that may cause an odor impact but did not pose an imminent threat to the public health and safety,and occurrences that resulted in non- volatile spills to the environment. Chart 2 presents the distribution over time of incidents reported in the County from January 1989 through July 1996. It includes the 115 incidents for the selected facilities as well as 19 additional events either not recorded in the database or that occurred at facilities other than the selected facilities. Examples of these additional incidents are as follows: the 6/22/92 incident at Rh6ne-Poulenc,the 7/29/92 incident at Texaco Pipeline,the 2/1/96 incident at Air Products, the 3/25/89 incident at Tosco, and the 4/1/93 incident at Shell. Chart 2 shows that there is no apparent trend in the occurrence of either type of incident during the years for which we have data. Two 1994 incidents included in Level II did not involve hazardous materials but are included here because they are in the database,were responded to by staff and were reported by an industrial facility. One involved algae in a rainwater puddle,and one involved pollen on cars. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 7 8/29/96 a a , a ` � *Z✓ '*� i� X�"z ry a s� '`� -i`24'�s '�,3 �'.�-xa ' °�fi` x- � �r`.y �� � +,05�� � E.R 2111111111 io s n, i l 4,.*£.w.11—�:"; '" , ^# .r� .+- � "� tea, �� �ia��•'z�-+, �' A•'�m s »� : s. � bs e gig _ 00 � 7aFi', to It MASS x ' � � ��iw�;�s as� r�✓t e e .. �,�� ,� ��iFwx 1'i *b e �.'7! nn hill, 1 V O �- U ►�I i �' y�era a qa if if �'�� k"' �, �'.a� £r � t x His a �^y x �; � � 7�k - uev�i"A�jy �., ✓ ° r q vii Yi 'F d xSy S `? ;mak .vS.'.� ✓.y.�....A,'$AT*ps. 'krtrF rv.re^ -a '4�.'`�` 4 "�`>s? .sw, k u� � �4 ' "!?t`°�'y� � y„���'3'�.:c 7i sy.^�'.,�v a .i �'•� � x,S.3�.+�- �4�� �. ' � w r Q za �' s ..s..;, -, 3 A 2 „,v,; ?, a,-a,; '� F;,. H.'. ��d, � isi i a .x ..-y ^ jagmnK - o. r, s Causes of Incidents Attachment 1 offers a closer look at Level I incidents. For each incident,the date, initiating cause, category of incident, and chemical(s) involved are presented,as well as some additional descriptive details. A good deal of information regarding root causes and contributing causes of incidents is not available for review because most facilities do not yet conduct root cause k analysis. From Attachment 1,no single cause or trend can be identified as responsible for the Level I incidents that have occurred in our County since 1989. a Notifications Ilk Contra Costa County received a total of 1854 notifications from the selected industries for the reporting period January 1989 through July 1996. A notification as defined in the County's notification policy is: "a report usually made by a company that a potential release may occur; or a release has occurred but did not go off-site,injure anyone, and was contained; or an activity such as flaring or on-site emergency drills that could cause concern to citizens observing it. This would not require a response other than documentation and Incident Response Team notification." Documentation of notifications began in 1990. However,companies were not required to notify until the policy was adopted in the fall of 1991. A review of the incident files for 1989 showed that thirty-four would have been notifications under the Notification Policy. As Chart 3 shows,most of the notifications listed in the database were releases. Please note that 1989 notifications are not included,as they were not documented. a The types of events reported in Notifications are described below. :i } Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 9 8/29/96 Z, luxupenu 43 MN XF N -Jau5ounru qg ............ R- i-s N ZP OWN- T?,g iR aR op 7n,jgvx p OWU sounrul R ARR a c -ki v T 44 "P k UP- 0 umou3jurl 5, C" � s .a��'.. ��d ''�"�"�.s ='�` ��,x.1"� k�rt ^,g��«�,��"'�f83��{',��'a.�y7' �a�r,q,aa�}�.��'*�s$ F.s�,� � ' M. L -K Q; -IMM 00 V17 -T, Jopo tr x " ", Jul Jalpo ci M I 4 Z 4. A 7M P oil 's -17P Al 55, W !N -4 AA, ir;i IIUU A, a 01, 5V TE -�4 Kt-, luouidinbg Eo q 5 VJMZ,,� 5 -2i-1- 3 u ' M. `2- U a O ' xa mwft� ,zr CD CD Q 0 Q C7% C4 v io , jaqmnNI CIO Releases The most common type of notification is a release. For the purposes of this report the term i "releases"includes small spills, leaks, and potential releases. Most of these releases occur on r- the industries'property,have no off-site impact,and are mitigated by trained crews. These releases result in negligible risk to the general public. The quantity/volume of most of these releases are below federal guidelines for reportable quantities but are reported to the County under the Notification Policy. Flaring Flaring is the second most common notification and includes normal flaring and the potential for greater than normal flaring. Flaring is a controlled and regulated safety mechanism designed to manage excess gas production by the complete combustion of the flared gasses to form primarily carbon dioxide and water. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established strict limitations on the contaminant levels in the gasses, such as sulfur and particulates. Industries maintain continuous stack analyzers to monitor compliance and are required to report exceedence to the Air District. Equipment Notification with regard to equipment issues is the third most common type of notification. It includes changes in equipment condition(e.g., a piece of equipment or unit being shut down or started up, equipment failing to operate, new equipment or unit being put into service), demolition of equipment,and equipment malfunctions with no associated consequences. Drills The fourth most common type of notification is the report of drills, including site.drills, fire training, and site alann testing. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 11 8/29/96 Fire p Fire notifications include small process and non-process fires such as insulation fires, electrical fires, grass fires, control room fires,and cafeteria fires. The major facilities maintain their own fire-fighting personnel for responding to these situations. Other "Other" includes notifications of steam leaks,cooling tower plumes,potable water leaks,and other items generally not associated with chemical releases. Odor , Sixty-four notifications of odor were reported to the County between January 1989 and July 1996. These notifications were related to on-site odors with no identified associated source. Unknown This category includes notifications for which the report was incomplete and did not state the -" nature of the notification. Power T I Notifications with regard to power outages with no associated release were reported. Power I outages may affect the process units or process equipment. If the power outages resulted in an associated release,the notification was counted as a release and not as a power outage. 4 Alarms The County also receives notifications for alarm activation not associated with a release or upset, such as false alarms. wI Injury Notifications of injury have been subdivided into those associated with worker exposure to v� hazardous materials releases ("Injury/Rel."on Chart 3) and those not associated with worker Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 12 8/29/96 I :t DISCUSSION Contra Costa County has one of the most advanced policies with regard to environmental reporting. The County's Notification Policy requests reporting of releases that are often well below regulatory thresholds. The County's notification policy is administered with the voluntary cooperation of industry, who legally could report fewer events. About 2000 of the 7000 reports reviewed concerned industrial facilities. Of those 2000 reports, 37 were classified as Level I and as such may have posed a threat to the public health,the environment, or property; 97 were classified as Level II incidents which include events such as small fires or releases that may have caused smoke or bad odors. tr� Of the 1854 notifications from selected facilities for January 1989 through July 1996, 50% involved releases that did not go off-site and caused no worker injury. Reports of flaring ; comprised 16%of all the notifications. Reports of equipment issues and drills respectively,were 10%and 7%of the total. J Even one incident that has the potential to cause harm is one incident too many. Since 1989,the County has experienced from three to nine such incidents each year(apart from 1990, when there was only one). Overall the number of incidents has declined since 1992, but there are not enough years of data to declare a downward trend. Other events that do not threaten to harm the public are still of concern because they may be alarming or odorous and may represent problems at the facility that need to be addressed to prevent the same, or worse events from happening =� again. An important way to prevent recurrence of accidents is to closely examine the causes of those that have occurred. The County's database includes information regarding the type of incident that occurred but rarely the initiating, contributing,or root causes of an incident. The Health T� Services Department has requested information from the facilities about initiating, contributing, J and root causes of the Level I incidents. From the initial responses, it appears that many facilities have not conducted root causes analysis on past incidents. Further, many facilities are not yet conducting root cause analysis on recent incidents. Review of the 37 Level I incidents demonstrates that no single initiating cause is responsible. Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 14 8129196 exposure to hazardous materials ("Injury"). Please note that the County Notification Policy does not require notification of worker injuries to Health Services. Derailments derailments at the facilities selected r A review of notifications regarding derat a fac es se for review,reveals �F that the derailments involved rail cars that derailed or jumped the tracks, and were not associated with chemical releases. `t Summary of Notifications .a Figure 2 shows the subject of notifications by percentages for the selected industries. Of all notifications from January 1989 through July 1996, 50%involved on-site releases. Reports of j flaring comprised 16%of all the notifications. Reports of equipment issues and drills respectively, were 10%and 7%of the total. The remaining 17%involved fires, odors on-site, and other. In Figure 2, other includes alarm, derailment, worker injuries associated with exposure to hazardous materials, worker injuries not associated with exposure to hazardous materials, other,power, and unknown. FIGURE 2 Notifications by Percentage Selected Facilities Releases Drill 50% 7% Odor 4% �. Other , a 7% Flare Equipment 16% Fire o 6% 10/o Figure 2-Other Includes: Alarm, Derailment,Injuries/Rel., Injuries, Other, Power, and Unknown Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 13 8/29/96 Once root cause analysis begins to be an industry practice,valuable information will be created. The Health Services Department,would like to receive additional follow-up incident investigation results regarding the initiating,contributing, and root causes of an incident. The County's Notification Policy,which resulted in the bulk of information used to prepare this report, is the most advanced such policy that we are aware of. It requires a call to Health Services about events for which no other agencies require reporting. When the policy was developed in 1991,the industrial community expressed concern that the number of notifications would be used inappropriately to suggest a level of risk to the community that was not present. In addition,they were concerned that the policy would have a negative impact on their ability to conduct business. Nevertheless, industries have voluntarily complied. The policy has proven extremely beneficial to county residents and to people who work and go to school here, as it provides our department with an early"heads-up"of any events that might be of public health or community concern. We believe this preliminary report provides an accurate portrayal of the notifications we have received and urge that the notification data not be used in a way that discourages continued voluntary compliance. k r Preliminary-Do Not Quote Page 15 8/29/96 Attachment 1 Preliminary-Do Not Quote 8/29/96 u � U A :a o 0o a� v p y °, O Or Od ✓ •O to C iLy p. G SAS O OO• r 03 O dJSr� u O O N u �' c� O 6� +� a> p N q ,.� .• yR„ d G N ,pp K -0 W y0 "* u N ; u p ✓� . O •a O O G p N om.. O ~ O T J w O N ✓ t�"' v ?' i '.•.• N d d v O O w 'w :iL � O � N' N NN � d 34 M � N � tb '3 O •n N "•N q t4 M d .G•c6 A P. � ✓ � G d: u'j' ""' ". .G �^ V � '`. w, � p d p LJ 0t b0 O r c •°moo r c ° H N 04 w p. .00 ° " .°► c� u ai G o '_— d tg N R 6 S d ✓ a V '• •°S n�i w v a1°• an t p W .�• d •U V i �" � � ✓ Cf IS FG c •� 'W 3 ��, � � tLt w. v y d $ `,yr V G• d " N Y" �r ✓ O 'O •i w O r N Aro- O d ; N °, u "Os s a•C c 0u w N •o ea o OC uN� -0 S� ? a ig N C 7 i rd„ � G � tp6 v 4: � ✓ •O 4pi •G �?' O N dA yam`' °, V; W O+'w O G 7]., � Npn 0. � :� Y tY� �` �i V a `• " O 06 p A ° � O .per � V � ° ° N W •N •� � '�' �' C ,may •�6 61 M 7• � c� w •O T G �' tr w N N G O� � i T Go WN aA ee N < Oin .00 la 0(4- CIO io 0 to is ta- G ro- 0 0 Nee ba tr US w 0 0 to tn ............. 00 .0 0 N 10, ot vs, 41 a "or l4i oi. C06, to a ee of 3 30 -dv o 40 fp 00 -0 to 00 r- -0 "04) s 00 ts I& o i S % & * �Z- 'o —, 4) % tz 4.1 IS Q % �--S ✓ 4) It 0, 0 40 W -C-A No C4 C04, Go } � $ ) � V § a > 0 J $ ; % f $ § t © / 6 \ � — m \ S 9 — = to — � { 7 . � 2 ƒ . 2 tA } k ) } � 0- k ■ . § § $ . _ � . . k > e ! � k \ ■ � ' � ) _ is 7 � k . . � ] cc c In \ � . . 5 I -=° Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 Shell Oil Company P.O.Box 711 Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Eric Brink Dear Mr.Brink: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, ! contributing causes,and root causes. E As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincer Lewis .Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake SBC. Mg ri Mgrami , tt Q ati m 0) m 0. m oc o' s O m to .• Z m "' o c y CO : y = 'Ta _r w (a tei a`. i .0 C, w O V ~ O O 4 c d c � RCD -9 c"i Ns�i c3 n' pom H mo a c c d = 2 a o m c > vci O d d o m e +« a °' s ' _ X °v' o r o m m y3 we t j v io c E c 0`. c O 4 a ul R 0) c a rn e o o rn W 0 Q � �v Av v v = fA 2 =C) V caC 4) c m m 0 O m O O. c G! Cl a _ Y CL G Q V W Im N G N m C t4 �:gLt to I C IA ? a j C_ c 9 d 3 O¢¢ 41 tQ C •N a. U � g o�p a� v 3 r [Oy r. to AJ w C`0 J eo ``y 430v $ % m IL _ � , :0) 00 } . � c a . � . ■ 2 � } § . 0 2CIJ $ ¢ cp � 2 co � . © Go 2 0 7 % $ V70 k ' _ # ■ c fk / § 2E § $ © — CL fm 2 o 2 I 2 . F- CL CL $ n o 0: $ 2 k ! k 2 gC CD ! � _ ® © (D } ` . • � 3 t C� � § Mr Q ® ■ 2 & ■ c � ■ � � . ■ ■ � © � . � . k \ ! E # ■ 2 CL / . k . . . � . . . - Contra Costa County Health Services Department - 40 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH t August 10, 1996 Tosco Refining Company Avon Refinery Martinez,CA 94553-1487 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Dick Halford - Dear Mr.Halford: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerely, Lewis .Pascalli,Jr. ' Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake 0 4), L) O 'c 0 0 u vo 0. C: 0 y4) .0-- 0 0 0, 0 OSS Oo ift 4) 0 A 0 —0 0 -03 -5 0) s A 4) g GN tp (o oo o to -Z 0 f� O 'o ZO Vol 0 = .40) 0 io 6) t dl0 0 tp .0 CP 16 t: So) 4) OS 4 0 0 4) C* 0 I IS 00 Is ............. coll CA T-4, ;low to � 0 e- o c� c� 0 cs) ek � w ct� r- ra cu oy o o � � 4 Q C CD 04 U-j Lo co m co C Z t N as 0 o E) is Q ' (D 0` m ,c r C� 0 -- 8 fA Y. M -58 a�a N - Z v a- �- RICHARD F.HALLFORD Manager Environmental,Health&Safety Community Relations ' Tosco Refining and Marketing Company TOSCO A Division of Tosoo Corporation Avon Refinery Martinez,California 94553-1487 Telephone:510 372-3106 Facsimile: 510372-3021 File: 1280 a August 23, 1996 Lewis G. Pascalli,Jr., Depury Director Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Boulevard AUS; 981996 Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Request of August 10, 1996 Dear Mr. Pascalli: In response to your letter of August 10, 1996, enclosed we have provided the following information for Tosco's Avon Refinery: e Table 1 - Descriptions of incidents occurring at Tosco since 1989. Incident descriptions P g P provided are for those incidents requested by the County. e Table 2 - Maximum Business Plan Inventories- 1995 e Explanatory Notes to Table 2 Should you have further questions regarding an of this information lease contact me at Y q g g Y , P (510) 372-3106. Sincerely yours, Richard F. Hallford, Manager Environmental, Health& Saf ty d Community Relations RMJN Enclosures 0356.rmj ` C V C � EM i10 m O C 'p ) a) 'O C O Cm ° 0 � w N O C C C = wr 3 � .o MO Ern t 'v to° 3 •- ° c o r. o a—°i E ca E 'k m e c a� o 4) :E o m m SO CL a� m 'o. ° Eos r- E CNO .r c ° 4) E' O c :; v; o � o a N � € Ec o 2 >,— w roa� 0Eg -o ooh ns ° m '> oE meno � wM ° rn d o a� ° X.00 3 L 2 >. o Nto � O v' tU0 X N W O fII LL C O a) = N 'O 'O Z i1i�< iG3z x0 0 cc Z c = s s s ss = syv C7 Z c `' >;<> O Q •V «<<> n 2 m m a a 0 = O W s s W W >:» O C" Su IVM- 13 ma V V C r... NO 3 o m o c rn L o m « o = m 0 off_ °1 � 2 = 8 o c � m d � GO c c o o f o � = U c d d OU) ° ° � c La c o m a? ° CL c o U r- 0 u,' a o CL O ; ° 3 ° 0 .0 3 3 a aE 4) W �r CL x E o c CL mom cc E000 c m10 Q01, CID ° CN 04 to N t- aD NNLa co N �O D C) r M1� TABLE 2 TOSCO AVON REFINERY MAXIMUM BUSINESS PLAN INVENTORY- 1995 MATERIAL LB HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: HYDROCARBON TANK INVENTORY 3,486,211,525 PURCHASED CHEMICAL AND 322,622,130 PROCESS UNIT FILL HAZARDOUS WASTE: 704,560 TOTAL 3,809,538,215 Explanatory Notes to Table 2 Maximum Business Plan Inventories - 1995 Tosco RefiniLI Company Your letter asked us to confirm the maximum hazardous materials inventories from our AB 2185 Business Plans for the years 1989 through 1995. Tosco retains only the latest hazardous materials inventory on a spreadsheet. We therefore are unable to provide or confirm previous years' inventory totals. Our 1995 inventory is summarized in the attached Table 1. The inventory consists of three parts: (1)Hydrocarbon Tank Inventory(the"Tank List"), (2)Purchased Chemical and Process Unit Fill Inventory, and (3) Hazardous Waste Inventory. Please note that, per the Business Plan rules, these inventories are "maximum possible" inventories. They are meant to provide the worst case condition which may be encountered by emergency responders at a particular location. For example, the numbers on the hydrocarbon tank inventory are tank capacities. Obviously, the total tank inventory shown would not be reached unless every tank in the refinery were simultaneously filled to capacity, a condition which never occurs. The figures therefore significantly overstate actual refinery inventories. Similarly, the purchased chemical inventories are the greatest amounts expected to be on hand at each process unit any time during the year. We therefore urge caution in using our Business Plan inventories and those of other facilities to attempt to provide any kind of representative county- wide "snapshot" of actual hazardous materials inventories. That is not the p=ose for which Business Plan inventories were developed, We are unsure of the source of the previous years' inventories which you provided in your letter. The inventory for 1990 looks low and appears to include only the purchased chemical and process unit fill inventory. The inventories for 1994 and 1995 look high. The inventory for 1994 appears to include the fresh water reservoir,which does appear on the tank list. We are unsure of the source of the 1995 figure. If.estimates are required for previous years, we would recommend using the attached 1995 inventory. Since some new process equipment and tanks have recently been built, the inventory likely somewhat overstates previous years. However, it is probably better than the estimates shown in your letter. i - Contra Costa County a; Health Services Department rq•.._unt;.J ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 General Chemical,Richmond Plant 525 Castro Street Richmond,CA 94801 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Valerie Gray Dear Ms.Gray: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerely, Left G.Pascalli, r. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake ' AV8 a 'n nm.:AAG� a#"A\"�`At�r c��;. _F } � . | � . � . . . . . l cc 8 k £ § ae \ + . . ® m0 m� © n � ■ o • — 0 j ` N � w � § oi0 + K £ A8 g 2 2 a 6 0 f 7 2 + 0) 4)° 22 % � 2 % ° 0 � k a. ku. 88k k � k � a J C%j 2 CD y k co CD o 2 J o 2 k 32 do E 6 3 � x _2 3 E k k k k to ! k 202) � � t / C - E > k 0 ] ° 2 o e e ` k c § % $ 2 � @ 2X C, cm U, a _LD cc § ■@ m c5 CL kd � �k � k■ j « " CL ff % a � a4)m : \ o w U! a ] / 2 0 2 2 2 \ � / . 2 § 2 � . e � � - , ■ a � £ 2 CID -\ \ c @ ! C o J o y\ . ] � \ ' � . $ 00 � � a ¥ . � $ j CD . _ f ] vi V c . < cn Ot Ci m � { 2 R @ m cn u tn . F � m cn $ g @_ R f � § CD co � � k ! O d o o M k § � 0. � r-_ k o A . CD $ J ] co 2 2 ) C3k cc . � \ ) a E $ . i . 2 ca � m M e a 2 . 2 § _ V . v § 2 . (D0) ` CU # _ ■ -�— �neIl ChemTcca August 19, 1996 P.O.Box 1712 Richmond,CA 94802-1712 TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE Fax 51 j 232-7193 769 Mr. Lewis G. Pascalli, Deputy Director Hazardous Materials Section REQ':FIVE� Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Blvd. AUG ?2 1996 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: General Chemical Corporation -Richmond Works Hazardous Materials Inventories and Incidents Dear Mr. Pascalli: Please find attached information you requested for the incidents occurring at General Chemical Richmond Works from since 1989. The hazardous materials inventory information for 1991 (maximum total pounds on-site) is 17,293,140. See attached. The following was totalized from each year's Business Plan submittal: 1989 17,285,240 1990 17,285,240 1991 17,293,140 1992 16,898,500 1993 16,967,264 1994 16,924,064 1995 17,169,664 If you should have any questions regarding the above inventory quantities or the incident histories, please do not hesitate to contact me at(510)237-3869. Sincerelyours Y Valerie A. Gray Mgr EHS attachments cc: T. Brafford K. Meashey c:lfileslrchmd�081996.cxc Extracted from the 1996 RMPP: SULFUR DIOXIDE & SULFUR TRIOXIDE RELEASES ✓ 1) Accident DescriFtion On May 18, 1989 at 2:50 am and at 9:05 pm, two separate power failures caused unknown quantities of unburned hydrocarbons and sulfur dioxide to be release from the decomposition chambers. The second release resulted in a vapor cloud that dissipated in approximately 20 minutes. The Richmond Fire Department and the Chevron environmental field representatives were notified on both occasions. Castro Street was closed to traffic during both incidents. Underlying Causes The magnetic breaker in switch room 5 failed. Measures taken to avoid a similar accident A new magnetic breaker was installed and the system was interlocked between switch room 3 and 5 and the prover circuit. A power loss to any switch room will activate the prover circuit and remove all raw materials feeds from the decomposition chambers. An emergency stop switch was installed in the control room that allows manual activation of the prover circuit that then allows the turbine and 800 hp blower to operate for one minute before total plant shutdown. 2) ,Occident Description At about 9:45 a.m. on November 3, 1992, the main steam driven turbine tripped, causing the entire plant to be shutdown. An operator quickly reset the manual trip and restarted the plant. At about 9:55 a.m. the turbine again tripped. An operator again reset that turbine and restarted the plant. During both startups, gasses were released from the decomposition chambers. During the second plant startup, the wind direction caused the gasses to drift towards Castro Street. Castro Street was briefly shut down to vehicular traffic until the release stopped, and the gasses dissipated. Underlying Causes The cause of the turbine trip was the failure of the governor. Gasses were released from the decomposition chambers as a result of the failure of a 30" valve to properly close, and thereby prevent air from blowing from the 800 HP blower to the decomposition chambers. The air going to the chambers caused the gasses inside of the chambers to be forced out. Measures taken to avoid a recurrence The governor and attached oil pump were replaced. The position switch associated with the 30" valve was interlocked with the 800 HP blower so that the 800 HP blower could not start unless the position switch indicated that the 30" valve was closed. The system has been redesigned so that the 800 HP blower is no longer required (Accident Description On June 10, 1994 at approximately 11:35 am PDT, the main gas blower shutdown causing approximately 831 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 20 pounds of sulfur trioxide to be released from the B &W decomposition chambers. The apparent cause of the release was due to an electrical problem to the blower. The amount of fugitive emissions was found to be reported incorrectly due to a flaw in the calculation. The correct amount emitted was 199 pounds of SO2 and S pounds of SO j . Underlying Cause The high temperature oil gauge sensor is believed to have tripped the shutdown. Measures taken to avoid a recurrence I The oil sensor was replace with a more reliable sensor. l OLEUM & SULFUR TRIOXIDE RELEASES 1 1 ) Accident Description On July 26, 1993, approximately 3.9 tons of sulfur trioxide were released to the atmosphere from a railcar during off-loading. The pressurized air and sulfur trioxide in the vapor space exploded through a safety rupture disc installed in the dome are on top of the car, and poured through the opening for approximately three hours until the disc was replace. The Community Alert Network was activated by the Contra Costa County Health Service Department. Castro Street and neighboring streets were shut down to vehicular traffic until the release was stopped, and the gasses dissipated. UnderlXine, Causes The sulfur trioxide release was caused by a sudden and rapid increase of pressure in the vapor space inside the railcar. Measures taken to avoid reoccurrence The facility will no longer store oleum in railcars. The facility has chosen to eliminate the storage and transport of oleum by implementation of the Oleum Risk Reduction Project. The Project consists of manufacturing electronic grade sulfuric acid on site instead of storing and shipping oleum to General Chemical's Bay Point Works. r f BUSINESS PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Business Plan Title III Submissions Hazard Communication Program. Attachments: (a) List of Hazardous Chemicals (b) MSDS Request Letter (c) MSDS Evaluation Form (d) Employee Training Record Revisions: Date Updated Plan January, 1990 a Updated Plan February, 1991 ch O o ricn m` c p Q G CV W * O m y Ort � r W Qcis D WY., U ¢ a o Lj Q, _ 4.) a x J I tai co o ? Lti! o ° g .. �- V > Z CY Z LL! �. ' rC� H_ OD i1R W !— QLo O .� Ld c W J CM Z = Cs Ix U o «. O U c� :z �= ci e in o ¢LU u o .:.:.:;.:Y;:;;:;•;;;:ri:;.::.:....:.• ow LU 0 .......... • :.:. o a v 72�•X4:5+.%.�iiiil4::�!Y:iY•:;:;:{:i t OCLU c we �•- 4 U v, w ••- Q�. 'ea w C, to 0UJ y ~` .e+t itT Cr2 L W 01 cc ct > . �a s•�;2= �` COO •� c 0 1=°ii`itiiiE< •` `' < ,si?�?ass aZ 1 Q a C C O O W m a C6 CL C6 IX 02 bw CL m C4 „1 U a � W W U Z "" •a':?;;r%'� C%v":^;:. :icy'..= �"� �r u 1/t =r+�';+-r3'.'•'v::,'%:::$s'r `� •i:: '"� _ � d u Z +tet u � � � G � V :? u::,s.,: r;z; :<;::•: :;:<:<s_ = Q ... a .1 _ +r� ` tai Y4'•i•}•;:•:::rv�::•{ L3 J as ors v, FAM a.i°^Y:>a::.<u�••;%'•:e•::<'�'R::ti'...,;r^_:;•- J � Z ¢ J w u K CY uj c Ca o 0 W C4 LU U tJ °" G w .c a Z so t�. O Q C C U m Os as to pCp ba W 7M+ � G1 NCO , V ap : N 40. 0 �+ .t O V O rA �1 S 4) .rr7�1 c rU\ .'ter lw� X 0 Z` rn j .•9 p C'm .: N ' c a L' ; m m . 0) co L '! .. E- s � eEa Zo c» NN NM W) �: V V d r � .r T 41 =.. 4 / w H d U) In Y! LYS 4 � r � R Z v @; r r r r � er 'ry" �, d aT et vet e p b a r ,. afA u Z vc Z G7 o o O � 4' pQp�� c V5 rk 40 gn Z GLS d Lid d O zO Qf 0. C H v � M u C ,. CZ v � o to3 cn co rn in I FL 1 20 , U '� v tti cp 7 cVWl cm d o u �+ c cFL 5 U. lu N? d cn cn ti - oC ,+� in $: c�n d s Z «:: U a ~"F: to • Y N j � Y w Y N N ♦ Y• N J y � Vr N ♦ w L � rp ♦ f � d �qq 3 y ` ~ � • M J \ i i i ♦ e Y.� N •• S i M r ' t� - w • 4 3 � 6 9 � Ly{C d . a A •y" yc p � N N .� i 1Cj1 � M N N G > S� 1 03 ! ! . � ■ _ . < , - . ¥ E ° $ Mag16 ■ � 36tj ' . . . — ' . �. _ ... ■ . - £ � � . _ $f| ■ r . � . , . - �/ & , � ! � � 2 _; i £ $ ■ § - i ' § ! ] � I - z - I!■• � `'�� � . � . . � • ; � : I cc § a■a . § § k ! } x ; . . . . ■ ' � a I ; 2 } a . ■ . 2 ! _ � ■ ! _ _ : � . , 23 . . . . ■ ��f . - ! • - E � : ■ . . . . . . . . . . . . � !!� ■ _ - . - - . - • • 2 . : ƒ • � } � - - - - \ . . / / ^ . ! i its - • - - © - - - . . } ■ �!� _ . . - } � � _ a a s ■ a a � ||E ! _ _ _ • . E - \�' a � & . � � (■} 2Z, � s, ! ■ ! 1 K � i � ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FORM THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER QR OPERATOR OF EACH BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA WHICH AT ANY TIME HANDLES ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN OUANTITiES GREATER THAN 500 POUNDS,SS GALLONS OR 200 CUBIC FEET OF GAS AT STP. SUBMIT THIS FORM TO YOUR LOCAL ADMINISTERING AGENCY.(§25533& 25536 Health 3 Safety Code) Note Instroetlons on reverse . Business Name GENERAL CHEM I CAL CORPORATION Business Site Address 525 CASTRO STREET, . RICHMOND, CAL 1 FORN I A 94802 Business Mailing Address Of different) Business Phone (415) 232-7193 Business plan Submission Date1 SENT 2/91 Process Designation2 r ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MAN13LW -USE ADDMONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY. (MAX AMT CHEMICAL NAMEQUANTITY ON HAND ANY ONE TIME. ) SU-FUR DIOXIDE 5,000 LBS SU.FLR TRIOXIDE 2,500 LBS SULFURIC ACID (INCLUDES DES OLELM & SIDEN SUL -1.R I C ACID) 16,200,000 LBS VANAD I UA FE'rOX I DE 50,000 Las GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSES AND PRINCIPAL EOUIeMN74; SEE ATTAG-ED SFEET SIGNATURE �� PLANT MANAGE PRINTED NAME DATE 02!05!91 Catfornia Office of Ernerpency 8ewiees FORM HM 3777(5.25.87) GENERAL DESCRIPTION This facility manufactures sulfuric acid using fuel gas, sulfur and spent sulfuric acid as raw materials. Spent sulfuric comes to the plant through pipeline and tank truck, is stored in tanks and fed to the decomposition chamber where it is burned to S02 and H2O. The system is under a negative pressure of 1-10" . Tempezature in the decomposition chamber is 18000F. The S02 gas then enters the waste heat boiler which lowers the temperature to 5000F. The S02 then enters the gas cooling tower where it is cooled to 1000F. It then enters the precipitator where acid mist and particulates are removed. The S02 gas then enters the gas drying tower where excess moisture is removed. The S02 then enters the gas blower at a pressure of 70" H2O and 1200F. The SO2 then enters the reheat chamber where it mixes with a hot (1900oF) S02 stream. This mixture exits the reheat chamber at 8000F. The S02 goes into the converter where at 8000F, it contacts the vanadium pentoxide catalyst and is converted to SO33�. From here, the S03 enters a waste heat boiler to cool it to &OF. It then goes to the absorbing tower where the S03 is stripped to make sulfuric acid. The remaining gas goes to the abatement unit and then exits through the plant stack. The acid is stored in tanks and shipped by truck, rail _ and pipeline. To make oleum, the gas exits the converter and goes to the oleum absorbing tower, which strips a ,portion of the S03 to make oleum. The balance of S03 returns to the sulfuric absorbing tower. The oleum is stored in tanks and is shipped by tank truck. This is a continuous process with a rated capacity of 219,000 tons per year. Contra Costa County `s Health Services Department Zan ;S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 i DuPont,Antioch Plant 6000 Bridgehead Road Antioch,CA 94509-7301 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Brian Coleman Dear Mr.Coleman: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Envirornnent,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for, the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerel , t" Lewr G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake �: - 1 V O o `' d c a .- � .tet°.• d 7 r o O Z v . E Go \ � k J k a � o s A e 4 $ R 2 go 0 $ . � r # £ U aS \ � $ $ 7 . � to Ll- co � c . � ! ■ a LO a) � @ R . _ 2 ! . . Cli IT 04 a) 2 . @ k C14 . 04� . � 2 § .$ . � 2 . 2 e CM o § CD C 2 C q to 70 CM. � k m ! � C)� k _§ CO ■ _ 2� � a@ / CL _ 2 x � - > ! ■ @ r f ci k CL K § ] 0 ■ CD_ CD k ■ � � � < � CD C 3 . � kco co ` GoIm e ts C� 3 O § 9 . . . § � / ■ _ � § . ! � k / ■ c . . \ v § . . cc 2 S o Z CL a. � D . i� (CU P OP ANTIOCH PLANT �1E; X996 6000 Bridgehead Road Antioch,California 94509-7301 15101779,6100 August 21, 1996 Ms. Laura Brown Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94509-7301 Dear Me. Brown: I am responding to your August 10, 1996 letter requesting verification of Business Plan inventories and additional information concerning our release on March 24, 1994 . Our records show the following for the Business Plan inventory numbers: 1992 24 ,325, 810 1993 23 , 149, 810 1994 22,402 ,200 1995 24,368,860 A summary of our March 24, 1994 incident including causes and actions taken subsequently to prevent recurrence are shown below: Summary A failure of the Inconel 601 oxygen preheater coil at DuPont's Antioch titanium dioxide plant occurred on 3/24/94. The coil had a major rupture at the third turn from the bottom, leading to a release of process gas. Rupture of the coil was attributed to third stage creep from over temperature in service. Failure of the control thermocouple caused the furnace to be fired harder and run hotter until the coil failed. Similar coils in the same service at sister plants have operated for a combined 114 years without a failure such as this. Initiating Cause: Failure of thermocouple. Contributing Cause: Interlock scheme was not designed for failure of a single thermocouple. Root Cause: Failure of thermocouple. Upgrades Since Incident: 1. Lowered temperature of coil to extend life. 2. Interlock scheme redesigned to look at differential temperatures between different thermocouples. 3. Redundant thermocouple added at outlet to preheater If you should have questions regarding this, please call me at (510) 779-6260. Sincerely, Brian R. Coleman Environmental Manager =° Contra Costa County Health Services Department ss : � ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 r Dow Chemical P.O.Box 1398 Pittsburg,CA 94565 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn:Mike Krup Dear Mr,Krup: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerely, 7 r L is .Pascalli,PY Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake � � & a \ � . 9 # \ aat % o o% \ kt I JC)4 § ® 5 © k 0 $ O« � C-" £ k co 0) « p g k � kf a 2 3 \ CP g k 5 E 0k 9 � # 6 s ƒ � � \ � � k tmI § f $ �k - % k � CD _ a) U. '� � ��� ■ 7 f b . ' . « \ � � c . it) co C)CV cA ] j C14 # c t � Ci � . 04 } th 2 C, 0 to 0 cli ] 4) E § t A . . C*4 ƒ\. k � / . � $_ o m ■ § cr) V # 4 / U) k 2 § k . 2 12J q 2 / e � k ■ 2 ! � m C m � 7 � ® ] _ e $ R 2 . .0 cm � 2 ] ' . 0 � e � q co ] > �_ C cc m . k 2 � § . S Mcc 2 . u � � 0 \ cc ■ ■ U S k k � , -° Contra Costa County f Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ........... HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemicals 100 Mococo Road Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Gary Amideneau Dear Mr.Amideneau: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by.the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986 The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is,on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincere! , wis .Pascalli, r. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake ... ._ � , -'.`ir.'3i7�f�]'�..� ���:��. �..�...a ---.. ��_�4 ___. :f'i `l9Lt^_..___i�' 1ts... _. c...;- .., .�.,a.:.u�.-•a,. _. ... � � a ! . f U) , fit ƒ 72 1 E a J % eoe § k13 ■ § � ! 1 � 2 k C < a co 2 § C . m C 0 a . § v � . B � $ © k _ ] � � - ! CL . .. � co d � � . ! � � . � ■ a . � ! � ! : � . � � _ ] . . k . § g ] § . . k � � ■ § 2 . @ � q 0 $ . $ . $ . p ƒ G § % _ o § k � �� � � § k f 2 § / k ! ° % � _ e © - $ g 4 © ] o © . CL . co J . o c" In co co . 43 � � 2 ] E t L c ■ � - � � ! m C § 2 k inM cc 0 m cu v 2 ■. � 0 CL N k k .4) . Z ƒ ƒ : . ` . . . r a ul a) N m N 01 N mui a0 CMZ c m o � -ev) GCU O mcn w ul rn CO o r � Ogo) o c r co G m y r 4) :a ~ di ~ C .G Q1 O m O v, 3 CL V cn o ' C Wo o 8 � c v r m u, ca 4 m 4) c ea E co '° ` w fn m ( (D (s = t i CL a Contra Costa County _ Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION .cdsTA c uK'� �ti. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 General Chemical,Bay Point Plant 501 Nichols Road Pittsburg,CA 94565-1098 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Jim Craig Dear Mr.Craig: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below'in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sie y, Lewt G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake l ?2441Da' i�r.n'f�r► .. * :>t� .a!_���h_iii' ?4 ���':•:'��� w: ==---_ rn a sw O Gf O G O N N � o G u o , N 7 � G N � r a r v � V" V a+ t ins % . CL 2 ? . ` ch � co . n .. . . . . � 2 2 C . . - c ■ _ ■ � � � . . £_ o k ~ . ƒk _ 0 � k % 7 k_ k 2 © — §x � Go �oso t © © © 2 7 � � $ � . CL o CL0 © LO 0 U) ` q . q C*4 Q ) © � c � . e � \ � � k . m . � . .� ■ � . ■ c � � � . _max �o•�,rrl rrtw ti l c71I rulnl wrlrn lu 7b4bc0'73 P.01 •_.1_ ..y....-__. � _ ,_ I_-., �_.�....__._.�_ .-__...._T.___ _._.._.._... _ ......___..r. _1_.__.....•_ .. _ 11 � _..i-.. �+TMS__ ; -rive fl -. •--�--- ��}`+r~�_j9!?r�' �4.:�._^�-+fid}.�C' _�.�t�__.�LY$•��`�.�f_�s'����_-mc�£�. . ! .._- . -��K .6`C7 ---�--+- J4 Tatar F.01 : = Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 3 August 10, 1996 e Pacific Refinery 4901 San Pablo Avenue Hercules,CA 94547 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents i Attn: Guy Young Dear Mr.Young: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter Rather,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. } S' Lew .Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director 9 c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake a ! ! . E . eeeeee f a m 8 -6 � ' E - ( um) 2 m 5 E 2 % / 'a 0 - o c k � $ 7 � kCL 0 k � k Vi = 2 = o _ o o = ¢ k E k $r -j k ( vi ° w 0 0 cn A � � 0 . ! � C .f R � § $ . k � � � . . $ 2 B R § K § § % C) u o = . � . kc § _ k § ® cc e § & 2 • ACL ■ ] � - LC� IL � LL . \ J «. cm � . C) . 8 ! © . d - »~ $ � & ■ a . � . . } � 2 $ © � . c } � 7 c a . ! 0 � / k � CM £ � � ! CDcc 7 \! � $ . V- co $| LO I C § � 4m ` co CD q C / � w m 9 §| . Z17 o GoE n ° o 0) Cm k7 � .cri / ) a 2 § . ® 12 o12 \ d 2 a k : a) m 2| c CL ® . ] . a # . � 01 ■ c . ] ' . K ■ 2 C Q ® ■ G Q � § 9 ® © 2 § 2 C . . cc K 2 M © Ad 0 8 Z (D 0) •va" AAfdo 10:4Z '42510 799 bU42 EMPLOYEE REL Q001i001 0c, PACIFIC REFINING COMPANY A Subsidiary of The Coastal Corporation 4901 San Pablo Avenue • Hercules,California 94547-2100 Main (510) 799-9000 • Fax (510) 799-8042 TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET s Date: S (� 5 b No. of Pages: U (Including Cover Sheet) - Company: (tic s i� Facsimile Telephone No. Voice Telephone No. Attn: i. AuttA &Z�r.7 f646 - 2o-73 G4(o 2?-8ro cc: From: Ar—owC ,QK 741-) 90 4 7- 515 COVER MESSAGE: �-���o��s F���-,��.� Ir-►�Ef�� ��.. Pte. �.�-. �,,s:�s �� 1�1 t ► � CoC�I, � °r3/ 334 ��� (,on./ 2,(,41 4-6T 1 3 7 i$} t61t foci tbs 14�i4 "734, 7a-71 6t-7 16.E 1955 , -734144 s-, (63 a; If you have any problems receiving this transmission, please call Pacific Refining at the telephone number above. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This message is inteided only for the use of the individual or entity designated above,is tonfidentisl and my Contain information that to legally privileged or exempt}tom disclosure under applicable law. You ane hereby notified that any dissemination, distribulien,copying or use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this facsimile trarumission by or to anyone other Om the recipient designated above by the sender is not Authorir.a and strietly2tohihited. If yeti have received this communication in error,please anmediately notify the send-by telephone and return it to the senda by U.S.Mail,or destroy it if authorization is granted by the sender. Thule you. Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH t August 10, 1996 Chevron USA Chevron Refinery P.O.Box 1272 Richmond,CA 94802-0272 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Carolynn McIntosh Dear Ms.McIntosh: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in'Contra Costa County: 1989-1986 The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since.1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. F. Sin W G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake • _' � s1C�18COt�@Y0 �_ A 11. '" ��017]d 3 1111x1.J1 �e�e_:f + rPci yi,.. is: RECif PACIFIC REFINING COMPANY s ���' A Subdiary of The Coastal Corporation AUG 2 l7 1996 4901 SAN PABLO AVENUE•HERCULES,CALIFORNIA,94547-2100.510/799-8000 FAX 510/799-8042 f ' '�'• . ._ _ti Hui:;uuui l,ia.e;i�s August 19, 1996 Ms. Laura Brown Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, CA 94533-2295 Dear Ms. Brown: In response to Mr. Lewis Pascalli's letter dated August 10, 1996, the following summarizes each of the incidents listed in the letter: September 9. 1989 The cause of this incident resulted from a nipple which broke off, releasing visbreaker bottoms into the atmosphere which ignited. Due to the wind direction at the time, the spray of visbreaker bottoms carried into the tank farm and off-site. March 31, 1992 The cause of this incident resulted from a tube rupture which caused a fire at Heater H-201. Due to the wind direction at the time, soot carried into the tank farm and off-site. May 29, 1992 j! The cause of this incident involved the rupturing of a return header on the cooling tower recirculation line, immediately dropping cooling water circulation flows and spraying the cooling water into the tank farm and off-site. With the loss of cooling water, the hydrocracker was depressured to the flare, which generated a smoking flare. The soot that was generated at the flare tip was then carried by combustion flue gases, which deposited this sooty material into the tank farm and off-site. February 4, 1994 The cause of this incident involved a fire at an empty crude oil tank (T-801C). While repairing the roof on this tank, sparks from the repair work caught the foam between the primary and secondary seals on fire. September 27, 1995 The cause of this incident involved maintenance workers attempt to blind a line connecting into the light slops line. A worker loosened the bolts on a flange and observed some.liquid. The worker tightened the bolts and requested that the line be depressured. A second worker depressured the line by opening a valve and letting about two gallons of liquid out of the line. At first, condensed water and diesel-like material came out of the line, then, visbreaker naphtha started coming out of the line. Visbreaker naphtha is a naphtha with a heavy mercaptan, I ulfurous odor. The worker closed the valve. To reduce the odor, the worker applied a deodorizing liquid and along with a third worker, washed the liquid into the closed oil recovery system. Ms. Laura Brown August 19, 1996 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this summary, please contact me at (510) 799-8151. Sincerely, w .teff W. Jakonczuk Senior Environmental Engineer rn a! CL ca E CD E « 9) C * C V N o E N } w Li. a y N a G IL tC tp 7 O y U C E S a 61 Y a 2r CM 0 46 42 O m .i7 �• ` y �0 N a U y, -5 O 0 N cE3 oOD O 30 �' rn Q M v Oa. tl3 U ro 4)d 0) m O) C) .r C d! r. a c {la v £ o Uhf d 0 2 CL m a Q N V � CLu d U CLE O a o� g` mv 1 U) to � a � 91 t c w z s N r_ o a CK 4 m 'i E n 4, O w � CL a a o Q E amt ii U U V V U U i C Gs gg rn ,n ra o o 0) O o C-1 <h c°3a a t �r as CDN d Q� d G � d 0) N 'r Ln U to d . ld.+ C�3 _d d 00 d C rd C ' 0 Ri 06 '� 33 Q tC0 � aN co CD � 3 N � +� N G a LO �1 E d 4 C cc cc .Tr LL 11 Ch n Chevron August 20, 1996 Chevron Products Company � �. 4VE�� P.0.Box 1272 Richmond,CA 94802-0272 w A�c.1 ` 996 C.L McIntosh Manager Environmental and Safety Division is Mr. Lewis G. Pascalli, Jr. Deputy Director Contra Costa County Health Services Department 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, CA 94553 k Attention: Ms. Laura Brown Response to Request for Information > Dear Mr. Pascalli: This letter is in response to your request for information, dated August 10, 1996,regarding hazardous materials incidents and inventories for the Chevron Richmond Refinery. Incidents As requested, we have reviewed our incident records and have included as Attachment I, a table which includes a brief summary of each of the incidents by date, and what we believe to be the initiating,contributing and root causes to these incidents. Enclosed as Attachment 2 is the table contained in your August 10, 1996, request. We have marked it up with suggested changes to reflect current data. Inventorigs, Your letter included a request for annual totals for hazardous materials stored onsite as reported in our Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Plan)for the years 1989 through 1995. Unfortunately we can only supply.data for 1995. This is because we do not keep copies of old inventory records.When the inventory is revised, we update our computer database and replace hard copies in the refinery with the updated versions. We cannot obtain older versions from the Richmond Fire Department because they also toss their old copy when the yearly inventory is updated. The annual total for 1995 was approximately 25 million tons. This number reflects the total amount of hazardous materials which would normally be onsite at any given time. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Cliff Hunt at(5 10) s 242-2183. F Sincerely, z :a `4 f C V - y V a �<« abA (Y 9a 4 +��' to'� ' � .- •� U � a w aw V`r� y ro a C .^fir •' ✓ y U U Y w d A low— In aoa c 3 ro Gto •y U a e� � V � ti � � •� 7 d d y R �.O y C N O T` ��.'. •N :. � �.. Y U � to ,nr Q•� � U �' w RG U w+ 4� C 1U y d •U U 61 d 6F V N PC bor. • w u o ` . d Gai bn °U' —� d Qy p 'a • to 3p � r. a � � .3oDcyt�n aCtan3 b�0.tiy .•• O y dj a. NN 'Ct � C > 7 �+ «: � N > ~Q cin awl a d O y O ses a r. O 3 N N � y ; ed �, H yyy a & •� OL y Q t`1 '� p - o= � y U s a C a yy w 3 y C d N .� •Ly N d 40^" 61 G IFV+ N d N •N v 61 �'` V d U �" � 63 � "y. .y � 46+ �.•� •""1. fie+ V ^S ^ Q V It"".+ ai •--' �' •- ;1 �'� 'sr' - c ,�.:�• ,---"T` e+'' tom• ,Z < v ch�erit�I a . Acta b d ` � o m � O� N A �.�� N r 9' n• @ d r �� ..� i0 m T Gv t? of t V U ° N ° ' ° T 'O N ��� '�' A p ; Np w G d {a 'n CD d N i 7 A O O C. D Tj, N P� ✓ Q y G i Np co Jl CJS00 Os d c.►r T % O 01 0 CO A u i r ul t? U � 4, o- G R v O y u u rn � N C,4 � O � D c =° Contra Costa County _ Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 Unocal Refinery 1380 San Pablo Avenue Rodeo,CA 94572 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Lanny Partain Dear Mr.Partain: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below ut regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. .As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- . 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August-12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. r Sincerely, wis .Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake �' .-��.- _:�:'` �-�'�'3.�',Psr�hci�f+ <.:r":����:i"._�'`s11"Y�.a:.+. ."..�iti`i�-�±�_� _.,. ..� y:_c�c.__ �•.rY._..sc�� .:.. _ c► c� o- 'C -;C to So. v � E Z V W C m y p- S c C m CD u. s ! 0- cn k ƒ 0 . cl� } CF) � � $ � g � ¢ 7 2 CO } E -. . O ¢ ■ 2 % a § 0) k ) C14 m � 2 ¢ 7 � k . g \ ' $ k Lf) $ 7 _ R k $ �k g� : � �k ■ (7) c £ £ § � a V- ccm k 7 V 2 9 � a) a Go - e to S C-4 . . Q �Q . t © ul c © m c . e E ) c c � k 2 . � cc 0 ■ � � � k k ] % $ $ © N ca (a 0 M Tr a.n s m i i t".on-T . .e!pori kiq 12 14:32 CCCHSL IyRD ---i 92-21546S3 No. 004 Mode I NORMAL Pages 3 Page(s) . Result 0 K t PRODUCTS COMPANY HSER 211-96 August 20, 1996 Mr. Lewis G. Pascalli,Jr. RECPINIED z Deputy Director, Health Services Department AUG 2 ® .996 Contra Costa County 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez,CA 94553 1 � Dear Mr. Pascalli: I am writing in response to your letter of August 10, 1996. The requested information regarding inventories from the Refinery's Hazardous Materials Business Plans is attached. Regarding the requested information on certain incidents,the Unocal detailed investigations for the referenced incidents are confidential pursuant to the attorney/client privilege. However, attached are the Executive Summaries of the facts associated with the May 17, 1996 Coker fire (which was issued on June 25, 1996)and the June 16, 1995 Tank 288 fire(which was just issued on August 19, 1996), and the summary of events which was provided to your department for the September 15, 1994 odor abatement system incident. The attached Catacarb action plan that is included in the scope of the upcoming County Safety Audit is the available(unprivileged) Unocal document associated with that incident. Regarding the September 15, 1994 incident,Unocal has made many improvements to the current odor abatement system over the last year,and the new$8 million project involving the installation of three new compressors is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year. As you know,the team for the upcoming County Safety Audit will be focusing on the odor abatement system during portions of their Process Safety Management review. We hope this information will be of assistance. Please contact me if you would like to discuss a this matter further. Sincerely, / Morgan T. Walker, Superintendent Health, Safety and Emergency Response San Francisco Refinery MTW/abs 1380 San Pablo Avenue Rodeo, California 94572-1299 Attachments PH 1510) 799.4411 A U n o c a I C o m p a n y HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORIES - TOTAL POUNDS REPORTED FROM BUSINESS PLANS UNOCAL REFINERY 1989 926,148,891 Pounds 1990 1,074,096,000 Pounds 1991 1,061,459,000 Pounds 1992 1,085,236,350 Pounds 1993 1,097,496,333 Pounds 1994 1,135,634,797 Pounds 1995 1,140,851,875 Pounds Inventory fluctuations during the years from 1989 through 1993 are primarily influenced by changes in storage tank usage. 1994 reflects increased use of purchased blending stocks, and 1995 includes the clean fuels projects. 1 `I CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN SUMMARY 1. Auditing A. Independent Auditor to review Unocal's notification procedures, ,emergency response plan and safety management program B. Audit notification procedures to emergency response staff, employees, agencies, and community 2. Training A. "Lessons Learned" Training Incorporate details of Catacarb incident in annual OSHA training to prevent recurrence B. Management of Change Training with emphasis on unusual circumstance C. Compliance Alert Training D. Risk Communication Training E. Emergency Response Plan Training 3. Drills A. Notification procedures B. Emergency response plan C. Health Care Provider notification procedures 4. Communications Several communications channels will be used to reinforce message of commitment to safety and compliance A. Messages from Upper Management via presentations B. Articles in Employee Newsletter C. Messages from the Manager via memo 5. Management oversightldecision-making A. Increase technical staff input and cross-functional decision teams for unusual and emergency operations B. Increase management in the field C. Improve handling of community calls 6. Enhanced Information Access A. Update MSDS handling B. Update crisis communications policy C. Create health care provider notification plan D. Community Advisory Panel December 2, 1994 Page 1 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN DETAIL Action Date Description f 1. Auditing 3/95 A. Independent Auditor Unocal will, at company expense, hire an independent auditor, selected by the community and mutually agreeable to Unocal, who will perform an independent audit of the facility's notification procedures, emergency response plan, and safety management program. The results of the audit would be made public, and Unocal is committed to responding to any concerns raised by the report. B. Internal Audit A team has been pulled together to improve Unocal's notification procedures, which includes how the refinery notifies and communicates with emergency response staff, employees, agencies, and community. com- Internally, these include revising our procedures for activating plete emergency personnel and ordering new communications equipment. com- In the community, these mean identifying those which need plete most carefully looking after, such as schools, day care centers and senior citizen centers and improving our ability to communicate with them quickly and clearly. The audit will also review timeliness of agency notification. (The initial audit has 4 been completed and some of the recommendations have already been put in place) 2. Training 1/95 A. "Lessons Learned" Training Incorporate details of Catacarb incident in annual OSHA training to all employees to prevent recurrence 3195 B. Management of Change Training Review formal training of personnel who participate in Management of Change programs with emphasis on application of the Management of Change to unique or unusua situations. Review Management of Change 'procedure to address and reinforce inclusion of non-engineered changes in a process, operating equipment, and procedures. t December 2, 1994 Page 2 Action Date Description j 2. Training (Cont) 1/95 C. Compliance Alert Training Perform training to all employees during monthly safety meetings on the corporate compliance alert program. Training will include a description of compliance guidelines and standards, a description of the toll-free telephone number for compliance reporting, and distribution of a wallet-size card for reference. 1/95 D. Risk Communication Training Perform risk communication training to enhance management and staffs ability to communicate clear consistent message concerning potential health safety and environmental risks posed by operations. 2/95 E. Emergency Response Plan Training Perform training on the emergency response plan after it has been reviewed and updated, including evaluating criteria for calling an emergency "Under Control' and "All Clear", as well as agency and community notification procedures. Training will focus on Management and Staff, and be incorporated into the all employee annual OSHA training. 3. Drill 1/95 A. Notification procedure Perform table top drills after notification procedures have been reviewed and updated to include: agency notification, community notification and employee notification. 5/95 B. Emergency response plan Perform drill of emergency response plan. Invitation to observe/participate in the drill will be extended to CAP Vmembers, and local fire departments. 4/95 C. Physician notification plan Perform drill of physician notification plan. Invitation to observe/participate in the drill will be extended to recipient physicians, CAP members, and local fire departments. December 2, 1994 Page 3 Action Date Description 4. Communications Examine and take, steps to improve communications within the Refinery. Several communications channels will be used to reinforce message of commitment to safety and compliance. A. Messages from Upper Management via Presentations 12/94 - President, 76 Products, addresses all supervisors 2/95 - Vice President of Refining, 76 Products, addresses all supervisors 5/95 - Vice President HES, Unocal, describes new corporate compliance program to all supervisors 8/95 - General Counsel 76 Products addresses all supervisors 11/95 - Chief Compliance Officer, Unocal, addresses all supervisors B. Articles in Employee Newsletter Including: on- • compliance alert 800 number going ■ interviews with health, safety, emergency response and environmental affairs personnel ■ description and examples of Management of Change process on- C. Messages from the Manager going Memos to employees, emphasizing commitment to compliance, updating on interaction with community x December 2, 1994 Page 4 Action Date Description 5. Management 1/95 A. Include technical staff input in cross-functional oversight/ decision teams for unusual and emergency operations Decision making Review roles for specialized departments (i.e. Environmental Affairs, Health Safety and Emergency Response, Metallurgical Engineering and Inspection, Process Engineering, Engineering Design and Construction and Law Department) in the decision making process. Review and formalize methodology for management decisions related to unusual and emergency operating situations with the goal of enhancing cross-functional team work and decisions. 12/94 B. Increase management in the field Increase Management's and staff group's field presence in order to improve face to face communications. Include field visits in key performance indicators (KPI). 1/95 C. Handling community complaints Review and improve handling of community complaints, e.g. establish specific guidelines for response and incorporate them in the existing procedure. Complaint routing should be reviewed and updated to assure that the appropriate responsible departments (Environmental Affairs, Health Safety Emergency Response, etc.) are promptly apprised of the situation and respond. Refinery manager will be given copies of community complaints on an ongoing basis. CAP members will review complaints at CAP meetings. Complaints will be summarized for Vice-President of Refining monthly. December 2, 1994 Page 5 Action Date Description 6. Enhanced 2/95 A. Update MSDS handling Information Access An improved method will be developed to make MSDS quickly available to the public. Review current procedures for obtaining and reviewing Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for new or modified chemicals and new and intermediate products. Procedures should include time limits for MSDS development, review, and availability to employees. The procedure should be consistent with the Unocal Corporate Product Safety and Toxicology Group procedure. 3/95 B. Update crisis communications plan - Review and enhance current crisis communications plan to incorporate new relationships established with community members and media as a result of the Community Advisory Panel, Good Neighbor Agreement meetings and 76 Products Public Relations Plan. Speck examples include: ■ establish a list of "key community contacts" to be notified in the event of an emergency ■ timely notification of CAP members, incorporating CAP members in organization and dissemination of information to community after an incident ■ acquaint local media with incident command system C. Create health care providers notification plan Develop a plan to notify local health care providers (physicians clinics, emergency rooms, pharmacists, emergency response personnel, etc.) in the event of a release. Notification will include a brief summary of toxicological properties, recommended diagnostic tests and treatment, and a contact number for Unocal physicians and toxicologists. Action steps will include: 12/94 ■ Designate list of potential local health care providers (physicians, pharmacists, etc.) 1/95 ■ Hold focus group of potential recipients to review sample format and content 2/95 ■ Develop list of potential hazards to be included in program 3/95 ■ Computer/fax broadcast set up 3/95 ■ Develop policy for activation, incorporate into the incident command system procedures and training 4/95 ■ input data into program 6/95 ■ Prepare program/data to be shared with other facilities December 2, 1994 Page 6 Action Date Description 6. Enhanced C. Community Advisory Panel Information Access has A community advisory panel (CAP) will be established to (Cont) been promote long-term communications, cooperation and working initi- relationships between Unocal and its neighbors in Crockett, ated Rodeo and Tormey. on- The CAP will identify and work to resolve issues of concern to going the community and :Unocal. As an introduction to the refinery, Unocal will provide CAP members with an orientation and training on refinery operations, health, environme.rit and safety procedures, company policies and procedures including a tour. Attachment 1 Follow-up notification regarding an odorous release at Unocal, San Francisco Refinery, Rodeo, California on September 15, 1994. Summary of Events (Event times are approximate) 0855 Emergency at Tank 1001 sump, high LEL, MTBE odors., One contractor employee complained of dizziness and was sent to Rodeo Medical Center. Sump flushed with water. 0920 Announcement of loss of odor abatement compressors. 1000 Measured 0% LEL at Tank 1001.. Emergency at Tank 1001 under control. --1045 SFR personnel visit Hillcrest School. —1115 SFR Industrial Hygiene personnel visit Hillcrest School. 1044 Notified BAAQMD (Breakdown request odor abatement compressor) 1105 Set up fire monitors on Tank 204 to cool and suppress vapors. 1120 Notified CCCHSD of Tank 204 release. 1130 One odor abatement compressor running. 1518 Odor complaint from Rodeo (wind 280 @ 6 mph, not SFR) 1530 Commenced hourly odor patrols of Refinery. 1700 Second odor abatement compressor running. 1900 Tank 1001 emergency all Gear. 2113 Odor complaint from Crockett. 2225 Bulk Supervisor talked to BAAQMD inspector - 3 confirmed complaints/30 pending. Odor tours negative. 2230 Increased gas to flares/decreased steam. MArag September 21, 1994 Executive Summary Factual Findings of Incident Investigation San Francisco Refinery Tank 288 Fire Incident of June 16, 1995 I. Incident Description Tank 288 is a floating roof tank that had been in finished gasoline service since it was built in 1958, until it was converted to cracked naphtha/non-phenolic sour water service on April 3, 1995. The conversion was necessary because the tank that was usually used for cracked naphtha/phenolic sour water service, Tank 294, was out of service for scheduled maintenance. The existing primary and secondary seals in Tank 288 were installed in 1991; the primary seal installed at that time was a counter weighted, pantograph type. Tank 288 has a design capacity of 112,000 barrels. At the time of the incident, the tank contained approximately 20,000 barrels of sour process water and approximately 3,000 barrels of cracked naphtha. Non-phenolic sour water is typically about 5% sulfide and 2% ammonia (by weight). The naphtha generally separates from the non-phenolic sour water in the tank and floats on the surface. On Friday, June 9, 1995, San Francisco Refinery personnel determined that the secondary seal on Tank 288 had been damaged and was the probable source of odors that had been reported outside the refinery. Subsequent inspection later that day by a seal repair/replacement contractor determined that the primary seal required replacement. After evaluation by refinery personnel in consultation with the seal repair contractor, the decision was made to replace the entire primary and secondary seals with the tank in service. That same day, the ground level monitoring equipment (GLM) on the east side of the refinery had readings of 1 ppb H2S between 11:00 am and 2:00 PM, and a reading of 2 ppb of H2S at 2:16 PM. Breakdown relief was sought from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) on June 9, 1995 for Tank 288 under rule 1-430. An emergency variance was requested on June 10, 1995, to be in effect until June 23, 1995 (it was later extended to June 30, 1995). The variance was granted on June 12, 1995. A procedure to do the work, based on similar sour tank procedures, was generated by the refinery. .It was determined that the tank should be isolated, and that the roof should not be raised closer to the top of the tank because of concerns the tank seal might be disturbed, increasing the potential for odors, when it was moved. The procedure addressed confined space entry procedures for the seal repair personnel, a daily tank entry permit authorized by Unocal, monitoring procedures for the contractor and Unocal Fire Protection personnel, and the use of foam in the annular space to minimize vapors and odors from the tank contents. A"foam gooseneck" for emergency firefighting was installed before the seal was removed. Executive Summary Page 2 Factual Findings of Incident Investigation Tank 288 Fire Incident (Continued)' I. Incident Description (Continued) Work began on the morning of Thursday, June 1.5, 1995, with plans to continue on a 24- hour per day basis until the work was completed. Seal repair personnel wore Nomex coveralls, full face supplied air respiratory protection with emergency egress bottles, and H2S diffusion tubes. The procedure called for the seal repair employees to continuously monitor H2S, oxygen and the Lower Explosive Limit(LEL) utilizing a 9X-82 meter. During the first two 12-hour shifts, the contractor personnel were able to remove the entire secondary seal and all of the primary seal except for about 10 counterweights. The weather during the work was cool, overcast and sometimes rainy, until mid-day on June 16, 1995, when it became sunny, warm and calm. On Friday, June 16, 1995, the day shift crew(4 employees) began lay out and installation of the shoes for the new primary seal. The GX-82 monitor was placed on a hatch cover in the center of the roof. Foam quality observed by the contractor and Unocal employees during the job was good. At 3:15 PM, contract employees were drilling holes in the roof rim and installing hanger bolting when a fire was noticed by one of the contract employees. An emergency was announced for a fire on the roof of Tank 288. All personnel working at Tank 288 safely exited the tank and the surrounding tank block. Refinery emergency response personnel arrived at the tank and immediately initiated a full scale response including activation of the Petro-Chemical Mutual Aid Organization. The fire was confirmed extinguished at 5:50 PM. In summary, no injuries occurred and the fire was contained to the annular space between the floating roof and the shell of the,tank. II. Emergency Response A Unocal Maintenance Supervisor was on the Tank 288 platform with the confined space attendant (hole watch) at the time the fire started. The Supervisor called in the emergency on his refinery radio before exiting the platform down the stairs with the hole watch and the four seal repair contractors. Initial emergency response personnel arrived at the scene. The Incident Commander established the field command post,while two Fire Inspectors blocked in fire water valves and started fire pumps in anticipation of high fire water demand. Mutual aid from the Petro/Chemical Mutual Aid Organization(PMAO)was requested, and the Incident Commander contacted the Rodeo-Hercules Fire,Protection District to request additional engines. Timely response was made to the tank by the appropriate refinery personnel. Smoke was rising from the tank and dissipating rapidly. The Community Notification System was activated to notify local residents of the situation. Executive Summary Page 3 Factual Findings of Incident Investigation' t Tank 288 Fire Incident (Continued) H. Emergency Response (Continued) Unocal Truck#15 was the first engine on the scene, and it was positioned inside the tank block to cool the tank shell. Two other Unocal engines arrived at the scene and were connected to hydrants. Water from an adjacent unit was back-filled into the tank to help cool it and maintain the structural integrity of the tank. Municipal responders arrived and met with the Unocal responders to determine what additional actions were needed. One Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District pumper and two Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District pumpers were utilized to provide water for cooling the north and east sides of the tank. While these activities were being implemented, the tank shell began to buckle from excessive heat, and Engine 15 was removed from the tank block. When adequate cooling streams were established, back-filling with water was discontinued. Foam application was started in the seal area of the tank, utilizing the gooseneck that had been placed on the lip of the tank per the seal replacement pre-plan. The fire diminished significantly after several minutes of foam application, with smoke only coming from the rear of the tank, opposite the gooseneck. PMAO responders began to arrive,;including a foam tender, which was utilized to refill the foam tank on one of the Unocal engines. A helicopter was utilized to provide reconnaissance of the tank fire. With the fire confined to the rear of the tank, a firefighting crew with breathing apparatus) climbed the stairway to the tank and�a rooftop attack on the fire was initiated. After foam application, the team descended down the roof stairway to extinguish the remaining fire, estimated to be along 20 feet of the seal area. The fire was confirmed extinguished at 5:50 PM. Fire crews from the refinery and the RHFPD remained on the scene throughout the night reapplying foam to the seal area. Master cooling water streams continued to be applied to the outside shell of the tank to cool the metal and prevent re-ignition. Foam was continually applied by SFR personnel for several days to suppress vapors and odors while a decommissioning plan was implemented for Tank 288. The emergency was called all- clear once a temporary foam seal was successfully installed by Refinery. Hazardous Materials Technicians. Formal critique meetings were held for both refinery and outside responders. Also, a critique analysis form was mailed to'',all responders to gather their input regarding the incident. Executive Summary Page e 4 Factual Findings of Incident Investigation Tank 288 Fire Incident (Continued) III. Corrective Actions ` 1. The refinery has implemented'a review process to ensure cross-functional team review of critical activities that will consider potential hazards, including community impacts, prior to implementation of any tank turnaround activities. 2. For future primary seal replacement jobs, the Refinery will evaluate various precautionary measures including, but not limited to: locating the floating roof at the top of the tank using forced ventilation; washing the seal parts and surrounding area with potassium permanganate to neutralize any potential for pyrophoric iron deposits; replacing the seals in sections rather than all at the same time; and requiring the issuance of a Hot Work Permit whenever tools are used on a tank roof. 3. Although not determined to be directly related to the cause of this incident, the investigation,team recommended that the operation and management of monitoring devices for 2S, Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and oxygen, as well as atmospheric monitoring devices, be reviewed with appropriate personnel. EXECU= STMDIARY FACTUAL FINDINGS OF INCIDENT INVESTIGATION i SAN FRANCISCO REFINERY COKER UNIT INCIDENT OF MAY 17, 1996 Description of Incident On Thursday,May 16, 1996, at 11:00 p.m.,the graveyard shift reported to work at Coking Unit 200. This was the crew's seventh and last graveyard shift for the current work rotation. On Friday,May 17, 1996, at approximately 4:40 am., Coker Unit 200 was preparing to switch the feed charge from Coke Drum D-204 to Coke Drum D-203. At this time, silicone had been placed into Coke Drum D-204 (which serves to control foaming at the end of a feed charge cycle). The status of each of the four coke drums at this time was as follows: Coke Drum D-204 was nearing completion of its feed charge cycle,Coke Drum D-203 had been heated and prepared for introduction of feed charge, Coke Drum D-201 was about one half of the way through its feed charge cycle and Coke Drum D-202 was open and being de-coked At approximately 4.45 am., announcements were made throughout the unit of the pending drum switch. Between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., Coke Drum D-203 condensate valves, located on the bottom head deck,were closed and steam sealed. All of these activities were part of the normal coke drum switching operation, including the status of the coke drums. At approximately 5:00 a.m.,unit personnel proceeded to the switchcock valve which controls feed charge to Coke Drums D-201 and D-202, and switched the valve from Coke Drum D-201 to Coke Drum D-202. Switching feed to coke Drum D-202 allowed hot hydrocarbon feed charge to flow into the bottom head deck. At approximately 5:01 am., an emergency was announced for Coker Unit 200. Emergency procedures for Coker Unit 200 were implemented at this time. At approximately 5:05 am.,Refinery emergency response personnel arrived at Coker Unit 200 and immediately initiated a;full-scale response including activation of the Petro- Chemical Mutual Aid Organization. At approximately 8:32 am.,the flames were extinguished. At approximately 9:40 am., the emergency was declared under control. -2- Emergency Response At approximately 5:02 a.m., an emergency announcement was sent over the refinery radio informing of a"fire in the Coke Pit." Within minutes the Incident Commander arrived at the scene. Operations personnel began applying water to the fire from two stationary fire monitors. Within minutes of his arrival at the scene,the Incident Commander recommended to Contra Costa County Health Services Department(CCCHSD)that the Community Alert Network(automated telephone notification system)be activated for all four zones surrounding the refinery. During this initial response,three Unocal fire engines were applying water to the fire. All operators were accounted for and no injuries were reported. The Incident Commander instructed the Marine Terminal Dispatcher to request Petro- Chemical Mutual Aid Organization assistance via the Chevron Fire Department, and assistance from the Rodeo/Hercules Fire Protection District(RHFPD). At approximately 5:20 a.m.,a Unocal fire inspector started additional refinery fire water pumps. By approximately 5:36 am.,RHFPD engines had arrived on scene and were deployed to 'the fire. Also,the Assistant Chief and Administrative Captain from RHFPD had reported to the Command Post. Within minutes,additional municipal and industrial equipment and personnel arrived and remained in the staging area(Crockett/Carquinez Fire Department,Pinole Fire Department,Richmond Fire Department, as well as Chevron, Exxon, Shell,Tosco and Dow Chemical industrial departments). By approximately 5:38 am., CCCHSD confirmed that the Community Alert Network had been activated. A Safety Officer and Operation's Chief were assigned to the incident. A formal site safety plan was developed and an ambulance requested to be on standby. By approximately 8:15 a.m.,Industrial Hygiene reported monitoring results in the surrounding community were negative and San Pablo Avenue (running through the refinery)was reopened to traffic by the CHP. At approximately 8:50 a.m.,a Unocal firefighter was taken by ambulance to Doctor's Hospital for observation due to chest pain (later diagnosed as a pulled muscle). A second ambulance was requested for standby and arrived within minutes. At the same time,the Incident Commander began de-staffing some of the considerable amount of staged equipment from Pinole,Crockett,Richmond, Tosco and Shell. a. At approximately 8:55 a.m.,the fire was confirmed out. At approximately 9:20 am.,the fire protection inspectors ftuther monitored for flammable vapors and Hydrogen Sulfide around the perimeter and downwind of the Coker unit. No detectable readings were found. -3- !Corrective 3-Corrective Actions 1. Review individual job responsibilities and procedural safeguards in the drum switching operation. Amend or revise existing responsibilities and procedures if determined necessary by this review. Provide appropriate operator training of any amendments or revisions that are implemented. 2. Determine the feasibilityand utility of installing additional engineering controls in the drum switching operation. Ensure any changes are reviewed in accordance with Process Safety Management,Management of Change requirements,if applicable. KJ Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION r�•c'iin`�'� HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 Kemwater Pittsburg and Antioch Plants 1701 Wilbur Avenue Antioch,CA 94509 Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Ken Lopez Dear Mr.Lopez: _ We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. 'Le in ti is G.Pascalli, r. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake r } ■ . 0) T- o a) L � . _ q # o co a) LOT— C14 q f m q_ o ] Cl . . � @ ■ m § 22 § rlt. } @ (L) cj $ § % c 7 $ ! 9 @ f a a) o R k ■ _ m a) O w . § o / � I � / 2 Csf C6 a 0 ¢ . . . CL 4) -(u � o o co o \ kLO cu 2CL 04 � . . ] cli 0 k ® CD a* & & . . k � C-4 CV) : . . . q � . ■ C 2 O § 2 m � � m � § K v 2 . . C c o . 2 . kc a " u Q 2 2 j � . § § . e § 2 a CL Z E a EE Contra Costa County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION r------- --- HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH August 10, 1996 Zeneca Agricultural 1415 S.47th Street Richmond,CA 94804 f, Subject: Hazardous Materials Inventories/Incidents Attn: Craig Latimer Dear Mr.Latimer: We are writing to request some additional information about incidents that have occurred in our county since 1989, and also to verify chemical inventory information as compiled by our office. I am sure that you are aware of the recent booklet that was prepared and distributed by the Contra Costa Building Trades Council,Communities for a Better Environment,and Shoreline Environmental Alliance titled "Neighborhoods at Risk,A Report on Industrial Accidents in Contra Costa County: 1989-1986". The booklet discusses a number of incidents that have occurred in the County's history and also details some hazardous materials inventory information by site. We would like you to verify the information supplied below in regards to the hazardous materials inventories (attached) that we have on file for your site. If any of the amounts or amounts are not correct,please let us know so that we can cross check our inventory files. We are also seeking additional details on the incidents that have occurred at your site since 1989. Specifically,for the attached list of incidents we would like a summary of the incident and(if known)the initiating cause, contributing causes,and root causes. As you may already know,the next meeting scheduled with Supervisors Smith and DeSaulnier is on August 29, 1996. Therefore,we would greatly appreciate you response by August 20, 1996,if at all possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss this matter further,please contact Laura Brown of my staff at 510- 646-2286 as I will be out of the office from August 12, 1996 through August 19, 1996. Thank you. Sincerel Lewi G.Pascalli,Jr. Deputy Director c: Laura Brown Elinor Blake Pachecq BAu e4. . `fie _ .i omla:95 ;+ . 1iD �>ia?Mw . – . � � . . CL 0) O _ 7 � V) . � y . g h Clt c . Lc) 0 . IT 0. csi a . ) " ° CD f� . . :• . 2 C ■ f � � . ] ■ _ . \ �ƒ C*A § U) & ■ 0 f k . 0k g . a @ . ��� ■ – � Im Go E �_ k � k t – x .0- 0 13© 3 2 � —m 0CD Q ■ k � � � � � � 0 j . c c @ ® 7 . t to ------------ E o e � � _ ■ 67 � . } ■ � 2 � � � � � 2 k k ■ ■ ■ � j . k D Attachment 1 r : Preliminary-Do Not Quote 8/29/96 j w 1 1 1 1 1 o� O d O � N N 'y J N F �, �► J C N CIO 41 00 Q Q' N N d i .fl 'X J 'O '" N O ✓ �^• ..+ �^" S'" H i A to y .,. �, '3 ,+ O 4 B O J � d on d - N «+ y (} N o d H u N � to 'i i N N d 1'+ �" lC G N ",y O . ax3 '.� ^,. r.S Cd y w J 'G N Q p G p ^ O ;; W T O 000 y R y � U yal ai d �00 x f yN yJ W U 7 v r� � as t3a N d Jy 'd R $ d jD G d o L G w N W A N J 'U¢ a+ r tS t - w ".. "'' Q O 3s N +Siy -' i O a 10- G J O • N 'Jf' G r A d +•�• p '� V d y N T. � i G O 44 �i R G O N O SS "ca J 60 O N W 'N OA ta tol � 0 0• N u ��� y � J GQ� J °` ilk rN y a fa Q, ie N a' .o y r' I y d CAs N '" o R o ;p o 0 N G :a d d t4 ^ y a w G V Ci C� � .f" •f: {aj .tn o ^ N wbb 0a y ? i y y ? ? v N s Jp- C N rW. 'C3 T d • Ns ? 'd ? .. tipw c ¢ o N os � •,;, ay � O d � ;L .q ta .o ooi± •? •� u ... '^ •o ..�.n nA - v • o y '? = v i w C o0 U .p T T. •c3 �t Cs S) t6 `• U Oy 'Al y61f ? ma.dy N Nt6p 7d w 0- 0 tGo SY ''V ""' yN ✓ O •O?� N QdC' .YrN.0•. W0e G a) to Z 0 Ad 13 C , s 3 ,° �Q. c c oa Yeo•w `� G JS 3 O to r..� G o 8 T 45 T x 45 u C y •� w s u x goopp w o. R y c Ciscm u� 00 � d � o• d a i v V •LS U +o•' � .aYi y d •�? d ✓ G p r .oQQ+ On d sa o w aoi $, u o .0 S� .Y. U w .� d p fl+ o O o 'o O p. Y R y O y U G a u O .et y O .+ ,.op G G N N ono am N v ? G 3 o a as 4, a $ r00, �a S .�5 ��' d 3 "a w n5 46 �• Y Gc � � v N No .• O� ell vti 0 a I m o � N NN •� � � U O h w 4.1 NU'. � N .°b � A p � p tom^ � ,J�. c, N w "° '.•i'+ V � �"� a> � � w d�N G u oo°' o o E N .. v 03 u c`� '' 16' .p M � N d •G• us,, � G •;� d F cNd .� w v � U ty N d O ll. !t► O Q S rt67 s r N r d ✓ U o > „ G d d :•• 1O? w .vp w 3 T la Sv O O G ° 4r y L6 ° Q •AiG A � Ny N � � � N �A� A� O � ° w � � •w � � to • � � � O ea w m U c o e� 3 k' G o N ° �s O� N � O io 00 ov Ile UA o V � r M ♦ id jV o U �+ O g .. i3 U • .� so 3o R ;o o $ c id A a .edtS 9 v wc� '� - -- .p U tL d 7 • G d ed U )J G 7°N 'Oro N Ma,>, la d N cc w d C ° .O• � •C O r r � ep P � 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 I 1 � \ 2 � ■� \ ■ , . � f � & t % ■ oma ■ - . � 2 � B } / � Q Q ! k . . . § § . � k � ■ � . . � � 5 � 27 k t : � � k Z £ k / } \ 10 co d o a w O '`. R V CY N p .� •'.� U on d O d c"'a t°.7 ,N ,,,' •°p O H !+ O O .NG �O C d w o- 1j w y ,•�„�' d O .O � .G d y � O O' Y ,t•+ � R y -p Y .ty 'O •d � � N � •V1 � { JOG 80 iii N O :C w r •O y1 Q O 'Op O c� G' w vi G 3 y 'o at u b O O F O. i crA O :O coa *O' `^ cGd w •p > . Oc,. O t�"+ w T U Y rN.• 03 O Y G = H r W W v O p � G m U O •�' ° pp N 00 04 N N d w R �" O '. d' R 9 'O •C Y tW �j Otl O •Yv p p W O J 'd � p v, R cCd s w iy � V J Ltdd Y R ^� o O r ~ `Ca d CLI a ro- a W W R W o0 E b •g c d " w oai $ o $ v ° � s c per i Q as 7' '� Gi o 'off '� w .� °' c C O p,. � w y .G Pp•. G � O � O R'L ,,, � i�i A .•. �► O N p� 7 U w �OG• _ d aRJ d O• C d V � � •� tli d ° 'fit? � l�C V � �' 46 on 0.2 M � � •� d � � w V, � � LOQ+ = �¢ d N 00 R N �A � i J Tabs Co �.ann_Z�2anoo Incidents at Facilities - Contra Costa County Process: 1. "Incident"was defined as: An event involving the release or threatened release of hazardous materials occurring within the geographical limits of Contra Costa County,which may pose an imminent threat to the public health,the environment,or propertyand would require immediate action. This includes explosions,fires chemical releases that impact off-site or have a P P good potential to impact off-site. It does not include spills to containment that do not impact off-site and/or do not have the potential to impact off-site. 2. Data contained in the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Incident Report Database for 1/1/89 through 7/l/96 was reviewed. The database contains information related to incidents, complaints,and notifications. Over 7000 database entries were examined to screen for incidents. From the over.7000 entries, over 225 incident response reports were pulled for scrutiny. ` Of the over 225 incident response reports,42 were categorized as"incidents". P P g Note: One incident was selected from the list supplied by Tom Powers, however,this incident does not appear in the Contra Costa County database and as of this date, the occurrence of this incident has not been verified. rfi 3. For each of the 42 incidents,the chemicals involved in the incidents were extracted from the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Incident Reports, as available. The initiating cause(s) of the incidents were extracted from the detailed follow-up reports or by phone contact with appropriate company officials. Page 1 "Initiating Cause"was defined as The act, condition, or failure that initiated or resulted in the incident. Note: Root causes were not available for the incidents scrutinized. The definition of"Root Cause"(as defined by the Center for Chemical Process Safety)is: The prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems, that allow faulty design, inadequate training, or improper changes,which lead to an unsafe act or condition that results,in an incident. Root cause analysis should be used to determine actual failures and any trends in the failures 4. From a review of the initiating causes, it appears that there are no significant trends. There were 3 incidents that occurred during maintenance activities and 1 of the over 225 incident response reports scrutinized attributed a small release to a weld failure (note: this initiating cause has=been verified). 5. The resulting analyses are shown on the following pages. 1 Page 2 4 Number of Incidents by Facility s Contra Costa County Facility Number of Incidents 1/1989 - 6/1996 F d Air Products 1 Chevron Refinery 6 Dow Chemical 3 DuPont Chemical 1 Electro Forming 1 General Chemical, Pittsburg 1 General Chemical, Richmond 5 Pacific Refinery 5 Rhone-Poulenc 1 a. Shell Refinery 6 Texaco 1 Tosco Refinery 7 Unocal Refinery 4 Total Incidents 42 Page 3 Number of Incidents by Chemical and Year Contra Costa County ..S . . . . .. . . . . { 1 ..:...:9nbs#a : . 4 ....... ::_:: ... _ .a.......... . _: inc _ _.:.:..::.:.:.:.: Catacarb 1 1 Catalyst Dust 1 1 1 i Carbon Tetrachloride and Chlorine Chlorine 1 1 Chlorine and 1 1 Titanium Dioxide Hydrochloric Acid 1 1 Hydrocarbons 2 2 5 2 2 3 16 Hydrocarbons and 1 2 3 Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen 1 1 2 Hydrogen Sulfide 2 2 Nitric Acid 1 1 Oleum 1 1 2 Sulfur Dioxide 2 1 2 5 Sulfuric Acid 1 1 - 2 Other 1 1 2 Unknown 1 1 Totals 6 2 5 9 4 8 4 4 42 n x Page 4 Causes of Incidents Contra Costa County Initiating Cause Number Equipment Leak/Failure 7 Human Error 5 Instrument or Control System Malfunction 6 Overflow or Overpressure 2 Pipe/Line Failure 6 Power Failure 3 Pump Failure 2 Other 1 Unknown 10 Total 42 �o— s s� i 4 2 0 a Z Page 5 L 0 w 0 0 C Q1 y .°. O O to H C O d 0 3 Q^ N C Y T C r $ 0 O 0 C01 N d �` C N O ; 01 OL C 0 0 O d N ° w E "' Il 7 Q) N "" C X 4) E Q U e`o 0 c ° e o W E N a L 0 0c M5 r- = o, >. o5 $ a may « E v c y N E ° m 0 > - > > d y H y ° � .� U 0 o y 0 »: y S Q O Ol C « Ofd i� y y M M y y N O N C C w C O >`C -- CO AS fC0 N '3 O id Y U M N as ° « o o ° MCO Cr r � N ° QUE c 0c m U- c 0 c� 0 0 0 0 E N c 0 `o adi ._ c >�v > > coy � >•c � Xo 3 0 oc ° UITv M02 0 M- yUv 3 0 $ 0 ° d ° a Q o � -m � � o € = c CD cav c co 0 = c ai 'i c°a £ C No .. w _Nv 'ao v Z > wco c a � � Q U c o $ $ 0Z CL « N c«o o� - �e 0 0 ° 'r.E E 0 0 LL co y rn a3 vN aoi d $ 0 - -' a ) 4, U) O C ,C. N N N d 0 L d {r a C � C C» `� U ►� O N N 3 W E 0 r/ a. O 'O U C Q C 13 O C N OO O O CM O�1 �O OyOVO a OO .0 .0 « QO �D ` OU ° ° ON OOO V LG C/ p ? �. U DU aOD = U 75 _ _ = Z = a � � c c c c• c c c c E E E n a 3 3 O a a a a E a E E a � V Ute» n- a > S U) (A(A = a k) O W c W c w D Dc AE > O E y E Y Eo o ad > >4)4Cd� M Wc Ecd o >d = o CX c awo 0d ° L c1 0 am OE > d - 0c M = $N � Mm m C di c > C'w � �rn4) c � ° oa'C � aw � ctE o ~ EE ESE2 - a2 E 4) 0 0p � c°�oL c c 0 $ w N H a ar U- $ O a CD w = w = W Y o - - ° o Jr-? o $ o E c o U UU fi U H W ~ Qs W CNi N NN NN ? v '� cc •- Ln (D cC ti ao m IN IM I°' P4 Ia 1-P P P-- IC. C; C C. C r.C, A G. C � G Form#D025-SS Legal Tabs Cc T California ranks 2nd in the country for toxic chemical accidents. California ranks number one in the country for toxic accidents involving injury, evacuation or death. Contra Costa, Alameda and to make expansion of the Community Right to Know Act one of its top priorities in 1997. 2" y 3 n� National CALPIRG Entonmed California Public Interest Research Group Law Center Accidents Do Happen Toxic Chemical Accident Patterns in the United States Second Edition by Linda K. Phillips, Ph.D. and Hillel Gray National Environmental Law Center and The State Public Interest Research Groups December 1996 National Environmental Law Center 29 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 (617) 422-0880 U.S. Public Interest Research Group 218 D Street; SE Washington, DC 20003 A (202) 546-9707 uspirg@pirg.org . Copies of this report are avialable for$20 from NELC or U.S. PIRG. Accidew Do Happen, Pone 2 t Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank those individuals who assisted in bringing this report to fruition. In particular, we would like to thank the following individuals: Bill Spencer, for his invaluable assistance in programming and data analysis, and Carolyn Hartmann, for her editorial skills. This report draws heavily upon the first edition of Accidents Do Happen, for which we thank Joel Tickner and those who worked with him on that report. We also appreciate the assistance of the Andrea Askowitz, Liz Hitchcock, Rick Trilsch, and the rest of the U.S. PIRG staff who helped with production of the final report. NELC's continuing work on pollution prevention and chemical safety, including this report, is made possible primarily through the generous support of the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The National Environmental Law Center(NELC) is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan litigation and policy center dedicated to enforcing anti-pollution laws and promoting long-term solutions to the nation's most pressing environmental problems. Areas of specialization include clean water, pollution prevention, toxic chemical accidents, Right-to-Know, recycling, and global warming. NELC's staff includes lawyers, scientists, researchers, and public policy experts who have a proven track record of developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental reforms. NELC maintains offices in Boston, MA; Portland, OR; Davis, CA; and Ann Arbor, M. The Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) are state-based, non-profit and non-partisan research and advocacy groups working on environmental and consumer issues. U.S. PIRG is the national lobbying office for the state PIRGs. PIRGs are active in more than 30 states nationwide and have more than one million members. Please note that due to the limitations of accident reporting to the federal government, the data contained in this report are a substantial underestimate and as such do not represent a precise verified accounting of chemical accidents. Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Toxic Chemical Accidents in the United States .. . . . ..... .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 7 Thefrequency of accidents . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Geographic distribution of accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Population of most affected counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Injuries, deaths, and evacuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The toxic chemicals involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ACall for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Catastrophic and "normal" accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is Existing policies focus on the response to accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 16 • The need for prevention through Inherent Safety • . . 16 The Emergence of Accident Prevention Programs and Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The role of the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) in accident prevention and pollution prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Exposing the risks: The importance of the:citizen's right to know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix1: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix 2: Accident reporting programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 r. r� ' Notes . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 fi m A Accidents De Happen, Page 4 Executive Summary R Chemical accidents unnecessarily endanger workers, communities, emergency response personnel, and the environment. The daily barrage of chemical accidents in the United States adds to the toxic pollution that scientists believe may be linked to increasing rates of cancer, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, immune suppression, and other health problems in humans and wildlife. This report examines chemical accident patterns in the United States from 1993 to 1995. It updates our earlier report, which analyzed data from 1988 through 1992. Both reports utilize the Emergency Response Notification System(ERNS), the largest and most comprehensive database of chemical accident notifications, covering both transportation and industrial facility accidents. This report recommends Inherent Safety Accident Prevention and an expanded Right-to-Know to include information about toxic chemical use. Toxic chemical use data will reduce the risk of accidents by informing the public as to the amounts and where abouts of toxic chemicals. NELC's analysis of the ERNS data found that toxic chemical accidents are a common, on-going problem with potential for catastrophe. From 1988-1992, more than 34,500 accidents involving toxic chemicals were reported in the United States. From 1993-1995, there were more than 23,000 accident reports involving toxic chemicals. This means that for the past eight years, on average twenty times a day — or nearly once an hour— an accident was reported in the United States. Toxic chemical accidents are highly concentrated in a small number of U.S. states and counties. More than half of the chemical accidents occurred in eight states: Texas, California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, and Alaska. More than 40% of the chemical accidents occurred in 48 (of more than 3,000) U.S. counties. About one-fifth of the U.S. population(over 53 million people) lives in the top two percent of U.S. counties ranked by `i number of toxic chemical accidents. 5 Toxic chemical accidents have caused still unmeasured damage to human health and the environment. Nearly S% (one in twenty) of the chemical accidents that occurred in the United States basin resulted in immediate injuries, evacuations or deaths. An average of six people per day were reported to be injured as a result of chemical accidents in the U.S. Over half of the accidents in the U.S. involved the release of toxic chemicals into surface waters or land. Unfortunately, the ERNS data provides only a small picture of the accident situation in the-United States. While ERNS is the largest and most comprehensive data set available on accidents, it is based primarily on telephone interviews that take place when accidents are reported to authorities. Some accidents are reported more than once, but most reports are incomplete. As a result, the number of injuries, quantities of chemicals released, and other information are not fully represented in the ERNS. Furthermore, many industrial and transportation companies do not comply with accident notification rules. As several studies undertaken by state and federal authorities indicate, the severity of the accident picture in the U.S. is gravely understated by the ERNS data. Page S The number of accidents that happen in the United States points to vulnerabilities with complex production systems that use large amounts of toxic chemicals. Currently, chemical safety programs in this country are preoccupied with responding to accidents and tend to ignore these vulnerabilities. The better approach to accidents would be to prevent them at every stage of toxic chemical production, use, and handling through the relatively new principle of"Inherent Safety." Inherent Safety measures reduce or eliminate the possibility of an accident through the redesign of production systems or the substitution of hazardous chemicals with less hazardous substances at the facility. Our society is moving painfully slowly toward real prevention. Though new federal rules require companies to undertake planning to prevent or minimize accidents, the federal agencies responsible for carrying out these rules--EPA and OSHA— are more geared to conventional accident mitigation and add-on safety systems rather than fundamental prevention. Existing data sources also inhibit progress because they are either inaccurate, fragmented, or they lack key pieces of information, such as the source (process, chemicals involved) of an accident. Since we first released this report in 1994, EPA has completed its Risk Management Plan rulemaking; though the agency declined to include a specific requirement for Inherent Safety measures. Our recommendations included sufficient funding for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which had been a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The President and Congress failed to establish this independent board, effectively eliminating it. The ERNS database is now available via the Internet, but its data still are incomplete and inaccurate. With the goal of significantly reducing chemical accidents and toxic pollution in the United States, NELC recommends the following: 1. Expand and improve the public's Right-to-Know about toxic chemical use and accidents. The availability of accurate and complete Community Right-to-Know fr information is a prerequisite to stimulating accident prevention. 2. Promote Inherent Safety Accident Prevention as a primary component of all federal; ' regional, state, and local pollution prevention initiatives and emergency planning actiyities.When selecting pollution prevention measures, industry and government should give a preference to those measures which also reduce the potential for accidents. Similarly, emergency planning should emphasize accident prevention through Inherent Safety. Businesses should set numerical goals to reduce chemical accidents through R Inherent Safety measures. The commitment to prevent accidents could mirror successful pollution prevention goal setting programs. 3. Reinstate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board with sufficient funding to investigate the underlying causes of chemical accidents and Inherent Safety options for prevention. This independent board, a cornerstone of the 1990 Clean _ Air Act, could be a motivating force in the shift toward Inherent Safety. Accidents Po Happen,Pate 6 It is our hope that by using the data is available and by improving public access to Community Right-to-Know data, we will encourage industry to practice inherent safety and prevent toxic accidents in the future. �i s< I '.F Page 7 Introduction On May 27, 1994 a Shell Chemical facility in Belpre, OH exploded and released hundreds of thousands of pounds of styrene and other toxic chemicals into the air and the Ohio River. Three workers were killed, over 1,700 people were evacuated, and water treatment plants along the Ohio river were shut down as a result of a chemical slick caused by the incident. An emergency siren, designed to protect the public, did not sound until after 30 minutes had passed. This accident represents just one more in a growing list of major chemical accidents which have taken place in the United States in recent years. Spills, explosions, fires, and other accidental releases of toxic chemicals unnecessarily endanger workers, communities, emergency response personnel, and the environment. More than five hundred chemical accidents' happen each month in the U.S., demonstrating that these accidents are an on-going threat. A large percentage of these chemical accidents do not cause immediate injuries or large-scale environmental damage. However, accidents with numerous injuries, deaths, and evacuations do happen in the U.S., as the Belpre example demonstrates. Also, repeated small accidents may have a cumulative effect on health or on the environment. And many health effects such as cancer or birth defects may be delayed for years. Since 1986, most governmental efforts to protect the public from the threat of chemical accidents have focused primarily on emergency response. Response programs take effect after an accident has taken place,they do not aim to reduce the chance of an accident happening in the first place. The government agencies that regulate chemical safety tend to disregard "Inherent Safety" measures (see box), which reduce the occurrence of accidents by changing the intrinsic characteristics of production operations. Officials also pay scant attention to the integration of accident prevention programs with existing pollution prevention programs, which seek to reduce routine pollution at the source. The first half of this report offers an initial appraisal of chemical accidents patterns in the United States from 1993-95, updating our earlier report'and based upon EPA's Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) "Inherent safety", or"primary accident database. While ERNS has obvious prevention"activities reduce or eliminate the drawbacks, it is the largest and most possibility of an accident occurring ring through comprehensive national data source on the fundamental redesign of production accidental release notifications of toxic and systems or products, reductions in chemical hazardous substances. inventories, or substitution of hazardous chemicals at the facility. These activities The findings in this report serve as a rough exclude accident mitigation and add-on statistical baseline on accident patterns in the 3'ety "ems, such as sprinklers, leak United States. This research also points to detectors, and double-walled vessels. . several ways to improve existing data sources so as to stimulate Inherent Safety. R ' 1 L Accidents Do Happen, Page 8 �t The second half of the report examines the need for accident prevention and the shortcomings of the current regulatory structure and information systems surrounding chemical accidents. During the next year, NELC will continue to explore policies to promote Inherent Safety and its link to pollution prevention. A training program is being developed to assist Local Emergency Planning Committees in implementing such policies. We hope this report wi11 raise public awareness about toxic chemical accidents and encourage policymakers and industry officials to take decisive action to prevent such accidents in the first place. Toxic Chemical Accidents in the United States This report analyzes information in the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), a computerized database managed by EPA, with support from other federal agencies. The ERNS system receives reports of a broad spectrum of toxic chemical incidents at facilities and during transport, including chemical fires, explosions, spills, illegal dumping, and air releases. The database is almost entirely based on initial notifications, which are reports usually given by telephone in the early stages of an accident. Therefore, data are often incomplete and inaccurate, represent early estimates of the size or impact of a spill, or in some cases may include more than one notification of the same accident. In addition, figures in this report may not be directly comparable to those in our earlier report because of changes in the database structure, regulations and reporting patterns, and the chemicals examined. The figures in this report reflect the inaccuracies in the ERNS database, but we believe they provide a valid overall picture of chemical accidents in the U.S. This report covers only those accidents that were known (or reported) to involve certain hazardous and toxic chemicals. The report analyzes accidents by frequency, geographic distribution, impacts in terms of injuries, deaths, and evacuations. A complete description of the methodology can be found in Appendix 1. The frequency of accidents From 1993-1995, more than 23,000 accidents involving toxic chemicals were reported in the United States(Table 1). This means that on average 642 times per month,or 21 times a day, a chemical accident was reported in the United States, releasing toxic substances into the environment, potentially exposing workers, communities, and wildlife to the harmful impacts of these substances. 1 s Although the majority of the chemical accidents reported in the U.S. did not catch the public eye, some had catastrophic consequences. In December 1994, a huge explosion leveled the 7-story 5 process building of the Terra International ammonium nitrate fertilizer plant in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, and broke windows as far as 16 miles away.' Shrapnel from the explosion punctured two Y� g Page 9 tanks at the plant. One tank released about 100 tons of nitric acid; the other, about 5700 tons of ammonia. According to a report later filed by the company, more than 2000 people were evacuated;there were 4 deaths and 36 injuries. The toxic leaks lasted for two months, until the tanks were empty enough for the company to repair them.`The estimated cost was $120 million. While most chemical accidents are trivialized by companies and do not attract media or regulatory attention, there is often a fine line between the accidents that happen on a daily basis and those with disastrous consequences. These daily accidents and "near-misses" accentuate the potential for large scale accidents which may result in injuries, fatalities, evacuations, large property losses, and extensive environmental damage. Even a small accidental release of a highly toxic or bioaccumulative chemical could produce substantial human health or environmental impacts. The high frequency of chemical accidents and near misses indicates that they are a pervasive, on- going source of toxic contamination to humans and the environment. They demonstrate the inherent dangers involved with complex production and transport systems that handle and store toxic chemicals, and suggest that action is needed to change this pattern. The ERNS data, however, gives only a very limited picture of the accident situation in the United States. While ERNS is the largest national data set on accidents, it is based primarily on telephone interviews, which take place at the time of an accident. As a result, numbers of injuries, evacuations and deaths, and other information are incomplete. Furthermore, many facilities and transporters fail to report their toxic accidents as required by law, and they might not report on toxic and hazardous chemicals that are released below regulated quantities or are not regulated.' For example, a study by the New York State Attorney General's Office identified 3,496 accidents involving toxic chemicals in New York State from 1988 to 1990 compared to only 466 accidents (13%)reported to the ERNS during the same period." The severity of the accident picture is gravely understated by the ERNS data. GeoMphic distribution of accidents To better understand where accidents were most common, we examined geographic patterns of accidents in the United States. The top ten U.S. states ranked by number of toxic chemical accident notifications are: Texas, ff California,Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Alaska, Florida, and Kentucky. More than half of the accidents in the United States occurred in these ten states, as illustrated in Figure 1. Nearly 12 accidents per day take place in these ten states. Whether these states report greater numbers of accidents as a result of greater concentrations of industry and hazardous chemicals,more stringent reporting requirements, less effective safety programs, or a combination of the three, is unclear. .9ccidenu a JO o No en.Po Figure 1: Toxic Chemical Accidents Reported, by State CA 9% Accide'is Do NcpPe_n P°Rei 10 --- Figure 1: Toxic Chemical Accidents Reported, by State CA 9% LA 9% TX 20% r t� G - F I : F EES I I• LE I E: 1 F. 1. I I. 1 E' !I E - t 4: E: ff i - i i i I, I Accidenu 2e Hoppen.Page 10 ��I■ IIS �� --..___ � *'t Figure 1: Toxic Chemical Accidents Reported, by State j CA 9% t LA 9% 4 TX 2D% OH 3% w 4 IL 3% GA 2% AK 2% FL 2% KY 2% Rest of U.S. 44% As shown in Table 29 just 48 of the more than 3000 counties in the United States accounted t for more than 40% (9313) of the chemical accidents. 'These 48 counties comprise the top 1.5% of U.S. counties as ranked by number of accident notifications. Thus, chemical accidents are highly concentrated in a relatively small number of counties in the U.S. r Q Source for Tables 1 and 2:ERNS database 1993- 63 OH SUMMIT 60 9 1995,compiled by NELC. Note:Injuries,accidents and 64 UT SALT LAKE 60 2 deaths included are those known at the time of 65 GA RICHMOND 60 2 notification;chronic effects not included. _ ---- ----- ---T--- -- __ . For reports(97%)with identified cou,ties.excluding outying areas uvcrv7Gnr ar►v ..........a __ .._ _._ Bhopal catastrophe. A subsequent acctdetif a#t�ie 'acilif}►-sTcib�i�ety'cicariy:cr� �. ......=-=-- never-be as reliable as intrinsic changes that cut down the possibility of an accident.'' The detector �.� —_...,_.�1jUul� N1:JtY(i13i 1`►V"1"VVMVuaa-a-f�.�.�---. _J —_':_� -, ,�__��._, _-._.' "`_ ..___ _ technologies. The commitment to prevent accidents can mirror similar successful goal setting for 9ccidemts De Happen,Page 10 Figure l: Toxic Chemical Accidents Reported, by State CA 9% LA 9% TX 20% n� PA 3% IL 3% GA 2% AK 2% FL 2% KY 2% Rest of U.S. 44% As shown in Table 2,just 48 of the more than 3400 counties in the United States accounted for more than 40% (9313) of the chemical accidents. These 48 counties comprise the top 1.5% of U.S. counties as ranked by number of accident notifications. Thus, chemical accidents are highly concentrated in a relatively small number of counties in the U.S. Page 11 Table 1: Toxic Chemical Accident Reports by Table 2: Toxic Chemical Accident Reports in top 2% State' 1993.1995 of Counties' 1993-1995 Accident Accidents w.' Accident Accidents with Rank State/County Reports Injury,Evacuation Ranking Sloe Reports Injury,Evacuation or Death or Death 1 TX HARRIS 15813 29 1 Tons 4537 75 2 TX JEFFERSON 577 3 2 California 2191 127 3 CA LOS ANGELES 541 30 3 Louisiana 1985 39 4 LA CALCASIEU 366 11 4 Panns"nia 895 44 5 LA EAST BATON ROUGE 352 5 5 Ohio 879 88 6 TX HUTCHINSON 350 1 6 Illinois 855 52 7 TX GALVESTON 303 2 7 Georgia 561 30 8 LA ISERVILLE 296 1 8 Alaska 552 11 a LA ASCENSION 293 2 9 Florida 527 53 10 TX BRAZORIA 263 2 10 Kentucky 513 28 11 TX CALHOUN 248 4 m 11 New York 498 26 12 TX NUECES 222 2 12 Michigan 495 21 13 NV HUMBOLDT 193 0 13 Kansas 481 18 14 IL COOK 182 18 14 Indiana 473 33 15 AZ MARICOPA 176 5 15 Missouri 458 24 16 GA CHATHAM 171 3 16 Nevada 465 9 17 CA CONTRA COSTA 169 10 17 Tennessee 443 21 18 KY JEFFERSON 167 7 18 Afton 409 23 19 LA ST.CHARLES 157 3 19 North Carolina 392 28 20 MI WAYNE 148 5 20 Alabama 359 32 21 KS SEDGWICK 144 3 21 South Carolina 356 t6 22 CA ALAMEDA 137 9 22 Virginia 354 15 23 CA SAN BERNARDINO 125 9 23 Washington 319 17 24 MO ST.LOUIS 109 6 24 West Virginia 304 8 25 OE NEW CASTLE 104 6 25 Massachusetts 302 12 26 MD BALTIMORE 100 15 26 New Jersey 268 10 27 KS MONTGOMERY 100 1 27 Minnesota 265 22 26 CA ORANGE 97 6 28 Colorado 261 13 29 KY MARSHALL 95 3 29 Wyoming 258 4 30 PA PHILADELPHIA 94 2 30 Maryland 248 26 31 CA SAN DIEGO 91 4 31 Connecticut 228 11 32 CA RIVERSIDE 90 4 32 Arkansas 222 14 33 PA MONTGOMERY Be 7 33 Wisconsin 208 33 34 WY UINTA 87 2 34 Oidshome 207 9 35 FL POLK 86 8 35 kwe 207 17 36 AK ANCHORAGE 85 2 36 Mississippi 193 10 37 CA SANTA CLARA 82 5 :? 37 Utah 191 11 38 AL MOBILE 82 2 38 New Mexico 179 5 39 WA BENTON 62 2 39 Idaho 168 9 40 IN LAKE 76 5 40 Maine 142 7 41 WV KANAWHA 77 2 41 Detawere 128 7 42 CA SACRAMENTO 77 7 42 Nebraska 118 9 43 OH CUYAHOGA 76 10 43 Puerto Rico 106 8 44 MA MIDDLESEX 75 1 44 Oregon 102 20 45 MI MIDLAND 74 0 a 45 New Hampshire 76 3 46 TN SHELBY 73 3 46 Montana 75 5 47 NV CLARK 72 4 47 North Dakota 66 4 48 AZ PINAL 71 4 48 Rhode Island 48 3 49 CA KERN 69 4 ,k 49 Hawaii 33 3 50 FL HILLSBOROUGH 66 2 50 Dish of Columbia 32 5 51 CT HARTFORD 68 5 51 Sant Dakota 27 0 52 TX HARRISON 67 1 52 Won Islands 24 1 53 LA ST.JAMES 66 1 53 Vermont 21 3 54 WV MASON 86 0 54 Guam 2 0 55 CA SAN JOAQUIN 66 1 55 American Samoa 1 1 56 IN MARION 64 5 56 Pacific Islands Trust 1 1 57 MO JACKSON 64 1 58 LA ST.JOHN THE BAPTIST 64 1 TOTAL 23,118 1104 59 OH HAMILTON 63 5 60 NM SAN JUAN 62 0 Includes DC and outlying areas(e.g.Puerto Rico) 81 LA JEFFERSON 61 2 82 IL LAWRENCE Si 0 Source for Tables 1 and 2: ERNS database 1993- 63 OH SUMMIT 60 8 1995,compiled by NELC. Note:Injuries,accidents and 64 LIT SALT LAKE 60 2 deaths included are those known at the time of 65 GA RICHMOND W 2 nntficabon:chronic effects not included. •Farmoats(97%)with identified counties,excluding outlying areas Accidents Do Hoppen,Page 12 Population of most affected counties To assess the populations most likely to be harmed by chemical accidents, we matched the ERNS data by county with the 1990 U.S. Census. About one-fifth of the U.S. population (over 53 million people) lives in the top two percent of U.S. counties ranked by number of toxic chemical accidents. How many Americans are at risk of suffering the consequences of a chemical accident? People residing in counties with higher frequencies of accidents may well be at a higher risk, but-.the data do not provide definitive proof because many ERNS notifications involve only a small spill of a hazardous chemical. Nonetheless, industrial facilities and the concomitant risks, clearly tend to be situated in areas with greater than average populations. Injuries. deaths. and evacuations The ERNS data can help gauge the severity of an accident by listing whether any injuries, deaths, or evacuations were known at the time of the notification. l Nearly 5% of the chemical accidents reported in the U.S. as a whole resulted in immediate injuries, deaths, or evacuations. Ten states accounted for half of these accidents, as demonstrated by Figure 2. This information indicates that in nearly one of every twenty accidents the individual who made the.notification knew that the accident was serious enough to cause injuries or deaths, or require an evacuation. In the U.S., an average of seventeen injuries per week were listed in ERNS as a result of toxic chemical accidents. This number of injuries, however, is seriously underestimated. Many immediate injuries go unreported to the ERNS. The ERNS notifications may not capture injuries that happen outside of a facility. They also do not cover chronic health effects (which may not present themselves for years) due to direct exposure during an accident or later exposure to toxic chemicals spilled into the environment. For example, a New York State report cited 21 times more chemical accident injuries than the ERNS (675 vs. 32) during a three year period from 1988-1990.' During a I993 oleum (fuming sulfuric acid) release in Richmond, California, over 24,000 people sought medical help, and 22 were injured severely enough to be hospitalized. The ERNS database lists only 100 injuries. Immediate effects of the toxic, corrosive acid cloud included skin, eye, nose and throat irritation, coughing, and shortness of breath.' Sulfinic acid mist exposure can also cause delayed or chronic health effects including chronic bronchitis,which would not be recorded in ERNS. These examples indicate that ERNS captures only a small percentage of the injuries that are caused by chemical accidents in the United States. Page 13 s. u 6 Figure 2: Reports of Accidents Causing i Injuries, Evacuations or Deaths OH 6% TX 7% F1 5% 3 IL 5% ` T CA 12% 3 SM 4 PA 4% �"' w LA 4% IN 3% W1 3% AL 3% Rest of U.S. 5D% Though over 60 deaths associated with chemical accidents are cited in ERNS during 1993-1995, newspapers and other sources point to a much higher death toll from toxic chemical accidents. The discrepancy may be attributed to lax reporting by companies, differences in reporting(e.g., some toxic chemicals are not regulated under the current laws, and deaths may occur even though the spill is smaller than the threshold for required reporting), and the fact that some deaths were not yet known or had not yet happened at the time of notification. About 41,000 people were evacuated in the U.S. in 1993-1995 as a result of toxic chemical accidents, R according to ERNS. Even though this tabulation includes some duplicates, it is likely to be far below the actual number of people evacuated during this period. ix G Accidents Do Hoppen,Por 14 t Table 3. Top 20 Toxic Chemicals Released from Chemical Accidents in the U.S. Ranked by Number of Accidents 1993-1995 Accidents Ranking Chemical Accident with Injuries, Acute Chronic Repro- Neuro- Carci- Fire Reports Evacuations Toxic Health ductive toxic nogen Explosion or Deaths Effects Effects Toxin Hazard 1 ETHYLENE GLYCOL 3681 36 XX X 2 AMMONIA,ANHYDROUS 2549 276 XX X 3 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1678 53 XX X . 4 SULFURIC ACID 1302 59 XX X X 5 PCBs (INCLUDING TRANSFORMER OIL) 1262 16 vary X X 6 CHLORINE 1220 202 XX X 7 BENZENE 1028 5 XX X X X X 8 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 818 25 XX X X X 9 HYDROCHLORIC ACID 723 49 XX X x 10 HEXANE 588 4 X X X 11 BUTADIENE 576 6 X X X X 12 VINYL CHLORIDE 569 8 X X X X X X 13 SODIUM HYDROXIDE 563 32 XX 14 MERCURY 324 7 X X X X 15 TOLUENE 268 15 X X X X 16 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 230 12 X X 17 PHOSPHORIC ACID 224 13 X 18 DINITROGEN TETROXIDE (NITROGEN DIOXIDE) 213 8 X X 19 ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE 205 2 X X X X 20 .TITANIUM TETRACHLORIDE 200 3 X Source: ERNS database 1993-1993,compiled by NELC. Hazardous effects compiled from Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, SM Edition,R.J. Lewis,Sr.,Editor;Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary (Eleventh and TwelfthEditions,N. I. Sax and R.J.Lewis, Sr.,Editors),and the New Jersey Fact Sheets on hazardous materials in the workplace. m NOTE: Many notifications do not property identify all chemicals.Reports of accidents with injuries,evacuations and deaths include only those for which the casualties were known at the time, and therefore exclude any delayed or chronic health effects or later deaths. al Sax assigns every chemical in the above list a hazard rating of 3(highly hazardous). Most of the chemicals in this list either are gases(such as ammonia) or can emit toxic fumes(mercury,for example),and are toxic when Inhaled. Sulfur dioxide,sulfuric acid and nitrogen dioxide are major smog and acid rein components. 3 Chemicals causing the most severe acute effects are marked XX;PCBs are a class of compounds whose acute effects range from moderately toxic to poisonous.Chronic effects(such as emphysema)may occur even j after a single exposure.Reproductive effects may include mutations,birth defects,or other damage to the reproductive system or fetus.Neurotoxic chemicals may cause damage to nerves or the central nervous System. 'Fire/explosion hazard"designates chemicals which are dangerous because they are either flammable or explosive. n z ;F M1• c. ~ Poge 15 The toxic chemicals involved This report is based solely on ERNS incidents for certain toxic and hazardous chemicals regulated under environmental statutes, and excludes petroleum products, such as gasoline, and many other toxic materials(see Appendix 1). Almost three-quarters of the toxic chemical accidents reported in the United States involved one of 15 chemicals(Table 3). A large percentage involved polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)which have strict accident reporting requirements and now are banned from manufacture. PCBs are carcinogens, cause liver damage and skin ailments, and have other toxic effects including reproductive effects. Ethylene glycol was the most frequently reported chemical, including both large industrial accidents and.more frequent reporting of small spills including traffic accidents. Used in antifreeze as well as industrial applications, ethylene glycol is a poison, and in addition to immediate health effects, it causes delayed liver damage and birth defects. Each chemical covered by this study poses a threat to human health through acute effects (e.g., fatal poisoning, skin ailments, nausea, or respiratory impairment) and/or chronic health effects such as liver and nervous system disorders, lung disease, reproductive problems, and cancer. Some chemicals are on the list because of physical hazards (e.g., they are highly flammable or explosive or react violently with water). Anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid were the most frequent chemicals involved in accidents with immediate injury, evacuation, or death. Ammonia's uses include refrigeration and fertilizers; it is a poisonous gas. Chlorine, which is used in paper bleaching and other industries, is also a poisonous and corrosive gas; its health effects include not only acute irritation to the eyes and respiratory tract, but also chronic effects such as emphysema. It also forms dioxins and other organochlorines that are associated with elevated cancer .s rates and reproductive problems. n environmental impacts Chemical accidents pollute the air, land, and water. The Belpre, OH accident contaminated air, land, m and water simultaneously (see above). Eventually, an incident that emits toxic chemicals into one medium may pollute all three media. For example, air emissions may poison surface waters through deposition of toxic matter in the form of dust or rain.' Spills on land often reach groundwater, surface waters, and possibly drinking water supplies through percolation, runoff and vaporization. During 1993-1995, about 17% of the chemical accidents reported involved a toxic release into surface waters, about 33%involved releases to air, and 41%to land. A Call for Prevention The daily barrage of accidents points to vulnerabilities in industries that handle toxic and hazardous chemicals. Accidents can happen at any point during the life cycle of a product using toxic chemicals storage, transportation, product use and disposal - not just during production. These accidents add to the toxic pollution that scientists believe may be linked to increasing rates of cancer, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, immune suppression, and other health problems. Companies that handle toxic chemicals expose workers and communities to potential catastrophe. In the first national overview and ranking of areas vulnerable to chemical disasters10,NELC found that one of every six 0. Accident/D_e Happen, Pate 16 Americans lives within a vulnerable area. Meanwhile, chemical safety programs in this country are preoccupied with responding to accidents and pay tittle attention to the prevention of chemical accidents in the first place. Catastrophic and "normal" accidents: Toxic chemical accidents, as demonstrated by the findings in this report, are an on-going problem. The frequency of accidents(many of which go unreported) and near-misses underscores the intrinsic hazard posed by the use of toxic chemicals. . 'Normal accidents", say some safety experts,are an inevitable byproduct of complex production n processes that contain a myriad of human, mechanical, and chemical interactions." Add-on safety systems cannot address all of the possible interactions in chemical processes and might even exacerbate the problem by increasing the complexity of the industrial process. Since human beings and industrial processes are prone to fail, toxic accidents will continue to occur until industrial processes are redesigned to be inherently more safe and involve less toxic materials. The failure of industrial processes can lead to disastrous human and environmental consequences, as described by the examples below: RQp&L,.jndia--The most catastrophic chemical accident in modern history took place in Bhopal, India on December 3, 1984 when 20 tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) escaped from a Union Carbide facility, forming a toxic cloud. The accident resulted in approximately 3,500 deaths and 200,000 injuries. Chronic injuries such as reproductive problems and genetic damage occurred in exposed individuals. In a near miss of the same disaster on a smaller scale, h iddleport,NY suffered the effects of NEC just 18 days before Bhopal when the FMC Corp. accidentally released 50 gallons of the chemical just 400 yards from an elementary school, where it was sucked into the school's ' ventilation system. Many children and teachers were treated at local hospitals for respiratory aA problems after being overcome by NEC fumes. i SimiValley- CA -- On January 5, 1989, potentially lethal chlorine gas escaped from a 30 ton tank at a textile plant in Simi Valley, CA- A frozen storage tank valve broke, starting a nine and a half hour r leak which formed a square-mile sized toxic cloud that hovered over the city. Approximately 12,000 people were evacuated and 20 people were injured as a result of the accident.12 ,Though only 20 people were reported as immediately injured, the actual number of injuries may have been much a greater due to the chronic impacts of chlorine exposure. Supers, 'or WI -- A June 30, 1992 rail tank car accident caused the release of more than 20,000 gallons of benzene and other hazardous materials into the Nemadji river on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, 17 miles from Lake Superior. Benzene is a poison and a severe eye irritant; it is a confirmed human carcinogen, causing leukemia, Hodgkins disease, and other cancers;repeated exposure can cause aplastic anemia. More than 40,000 people were evacuated from their homes and offices. Significant numbers of fish and wildlife, including beaver, mink, rabbits, and numerous species of birds, died as a result of the accident. Although the long term impacts of the accident on the Nemadji river and surrounding areas have been difficult to quantify, its effects may be felt for years to come." From an ecological standpoint, a single spill to a lake or river could undo years of progress in controlling routine pollution. —" - -�-- - - -------• ..�...��,.etly st r A- of are-;Aonte with devastati= imDacts of Page 17 communities, workers, and ecosystems. An accident the magnitude of the one in Bhopal can happen in the U.S. A 1990 study conducted by the U.S. EPA found that since 1980 there had been 15 chemical accidents in the U.S. that had exceeded Bhopal in the volume and toxicity of chemicals released." These accidents with potentially disastrous consequences might have been avoided through Inherent Safety measures. 4 Ddstingooticies focus on the resRonse to accidents U.S. laws on chemical accidents have focused primarily on emergency response and mitigation, which take place after an accident has happened. For example, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, established after the Bhopal tragedy, requires the establishment of state and local emergency planning organizations to analyze local hazards and develop.emergency plans. As discussed below, only a handful of programs, such as those of the Local Emergency Planning Committees in Cuyahoga County, OK Washtenaw County, NU, and Erie County, NY, seem committed to preventing chemical accidents and reducing toxic chemical inventories and uses. Emergency response programs are essential. But they cannot fully protect workers, the public, or the environment from severe toxic accidents for several reasons. First, the effect of a toxic release may be much worse than emergency systems can address. As the New York Attorney General's office has shown, a major chlorine gas release (possible from a railroad tank car or sewage treatment plant) might be fatally poisonous for 25 miles downwind." Second, there may not be enough time to protect people. Some toxic clouds can cover about one mile in 17.6 minutes --while it may take up to 20 minutes to detect an accidental release, up to an hour to notify residents, and even more time to evacuate them.16 Finally, accident mitigation and cleanup cannot adequately protect humans and the environment from the long-term impacts of toxic chemicals. Firefighters, factory workers, and clean- up personnel are especially at risk when dealing with the aftermath of a toxic spill or explosion. The 1993 oleum release in Richmond, CA illustrates how difficult it is to protect the public during a chemical accident. The highly concentrated acid vapors formed a toxic plume and drifted about IS' s miles from the site. Approximately 24,000 people were harmed by the sulfuric acid mist. The need for prevention through Inherent Safety The best response to toxic chemical accidents is to prevent them at every stage of toxic chemical use. We need to realize that accidents can and do happen in production and transportation systems that f process and store large amounts of hazardous chemicals. fz. The conventional approach to accidents is to install add-on safety("secondary prevention") and mitigation systems. Such add-ons might include leak detectors, double-walled vessels, supplemental temperature and pressure controls, high-tech valves, sprinklers, and emergency flares or scrubbers. Unfortunately, add-on safety systems do not prevent accidents from happening, and sometimes they may even make an operation more prone to failure. Add-on measures seek to forestall an accident or limit its impact after the fact, but they can (and many eventually do)fail. For example, Union Carbide added state-of-the-art enhancements to a facility in Institute, WV that still produced MIC after the Bhopal catastrophe. A subsequent accident at the facility showed clearly that safety add-ons can 9"bubr t+o sc reliahla as intrinsic changes that cut down the possibility of an accident." The detector A Accidents Do Happen,Pae 18 system was not working properly, and protective measures to keep a release from escaping were inadequately designed. As a result, a toxic cloud of methylene chloride and aldicarb spread over four communities and sent 135 people to the hospital. The only sure way to prevent an accident and its subsequent impacts from occurring in the first place a is through the relatively new principle of"Inherent Safety", also known as "primary accident prevention". An EPA study by Professor Nicholas Ashford, et al. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued persuasively for a shift from the current add-on safety and mitigation emphasis to W a genuine "Inherent Safety" accident prevention approach." Inherent Safety looks at the source of the problem--the production system. Inherent Safety can be defined as "being able to withstand deviations from normal operating conditions without having to rely on safety systems to prevent accidents."19 In the model used by the EPA study (figure 4), Inherent Safety alters a basic element of the production system, such as the raw material, processing technology, or product. For example, PPG Industries developed a benign substitute for phosgene (a poison gas which has been used in chemical warfare)that can be used in the synthesis of some pharmaceutical products." Add-on safety systems occur after the initiating failure event has taken place, though before materials are released. Mitigation systems and response measures take effect before exposure takes place. FIGURE 3: A model of chemical accident prevention A model of chemical accident prevention Add-on safety systems Inherent Safety "Secondary . Mitigation and emergency response Production System Initiating 7 Release Exposure Consequences Event H Material 4 T C St O Sc Death IN Env Failure Event Legend:T technology C:chemicals St storage 6c:scope OC: operating conditions Death: W94esat"g int injuries Env.environmental damage ;\(Souroe:Ashford,eL el.and NELC) / A The Emergence of Accident Prevention Programs and Laws Our society is moving painfully slowly toward real prevention. One pioneering effort has been the New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act, which promotes process redesign, chemical substitution and inventory reduction. The state reported a 40% reduction in the amount of toxic materials registered under the program in 1993,just five years after the program went into effect. The New Jersey law served as a model for the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM)rule and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments'Risk Management Plan(RMP)provisions. These new federal laws require companies to analyze their accident risks, disclose "worst case" scenarios to the public, and M Pone 19 4 Unfortunately, despite claims of commitment to pollution prevention and accident prevention, EPA and OSHA are carrying out these new laws in ways that are geared more to conventional add-on or mitigation approaches rather than Inherent Safety. EPA' s recently adopted RMP rule, for example, does not require any rethinking of the intrinsic dangers posed by production systems. Nor has EPA used its authority under the Clean Air Act to set process design or other primary accident prevention requirements. OSHA's PSM rule also fails to differentiate Inherent Safety based prevention from conventional add-on safety approaches. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 also mandated another new approach to accidents: it required the President to appoint a Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This Board is required by law to investigate major accidents, issue reports on chemical safety, and possibly determine measures to prevent accidents. This Board presents a unique opportunity to focus public awareness —and to initiate industry action—on accident prevention. An independent Board also could critique actions by federal agencies such as EPA and OSHA. But the President and Congress failed to establish this board and it has received no federal funding. Inherent Safety could be promoted in a manner similar to efforts to prevent "routine" pollution. Both u Inherent Safety and pollution prevention (known as "source reduction" under federal law) share a similar goal: changes in technologies, products, and raw materials to reduce toxics-related hazards at the source. By making companies take an inward look at their production systems and chemical use, integrated pollution prevention and Inherent Safety planning could strengthen the incentives to invest in fundamental process design changes. For instance, the New York City Right-to-Know law requires regulated companies to undertake Technology Options Analysis to identify inherently safer alternatives. The law states, "A responsible party shall make the following considerations...an examination of alternative substances and equipment to reduce the use of extremely hazardous substances or regulated toxic substances..and a timetable for implementing alternatives that are technically and economically feasible." Companies began to submit their risk management plans and options analyses in early 1995. r The role of the Local Emergena Planning Committees aIPCsI in accident prevention and pollution prevention: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires a state emergency response commission and LEPCs in each state. Each LEPC must by law include representatives of community groups, public officials, industry, firefighters, the media, hospitals, and other stakeholders. The LEPCs duties include writing a local emergency response plan, collecting local Community Right-to-Know data such as inventories of chemicals stored at factories, and making the data and plans available to the public. The LEPCs have traditionally been oriented towards emergency i response, with little emphasis on accident prevention. The RMP rule anticipates that LEPCs will review the Risk Management plans. This offers an opportunity for the LEPCs to encourage accident prevention through Inherent Safety and other measures, and to serve as a catalyst to integrate pollution prevention and accident prevention efrbrts. The LEPCs of Washtenaw County, Michigan and Cuyahoga County, Ohio have taken large strides in encouraging companies to prevent chemical accidents and routine pollution. The Washtenaw County LEPC obtains information on chemical hazards from facilities, conducts inspections, and assesses chemical storage fees. The Washtenaw County program has spurred some companies to streamline their operations and reduce inventories of hazardous chemicals. The Cuyahoga County LEPC R Accidents Do Happen,Page 20 requires facilities to prepare hazard analyses and submit the results of these to the public. Through its chemical accident prevention program, a technical advisor has visited numerous facilities to identify Inherent Safety options. The LEPC also hosted a risk reduction recognition award for facilities, and has been able to influence companies to switch to less dangerous chemicals. The LEPC conducts an annual report that includes information on risk reduction and toxics use reduction measures taken and neighborhood involvement in the process. LEPCs are an unfunded mandate; most operate with minimal staff, volunteer members, and very low budgets. To implement accident prevention programs, funding needs to be improved, and training and technical assistance need to be provided. Exposing the risks: The importance of the citizen's right to know Citizens are often unaware of the toxic risks posed by industries in their neighborhood. They have little access to information on chemical inventories, past accidents, and accident potential at a facility. This lack of information is a serious barrier to communication about emergency response and accident prevention between a facility and its neighbors. Public access to information has proven to be profoundly beneficial for environmental protection efforts. The biggest success has been federal "Right-to-Know" data on routine toxic releases. This information is prompting voluntary corporate decisions to reduce toxics; enabling government µ agencies to target resources and polluting facilities; and strengthening citizen activism on prevention. By harnessing the power of public accountability, information could be an equally valuable tool in the area of accident prevention. However, citizens have little access to useful data on toxic accident risks. Ironically, the "Right-to- Know" law, passed in the wake of the Bhopal`tragedy, does not include the very chemical use and flow quantities that are the source of accident hazards. Most notably, the nationally available Right- to-Know reports, called the Toxics Release Inventory(TRI), do not even include the most basic data about the quantities of toxic chemicals that are transported through the community, stored in factories, manufactured onsite, or used in chemical reactions. Some chemical storage information is collected locally but is difficult to access and compile on a state or national level; it should be available in a readily accessible database similar to the TRI. Moreover, reports about actual accidents lack the vital information needed to promote prevention. The ERNS database, for example, seldom identifies the source of an accident or other details (e.g., the underlying technology,products, or Standard Industrial Classification code)that are needed for Inherent Safety or pollution prevention analysis. While the data fields exist, they are seldom filled in. ERNS does not provide data on the producer and/or end-user of the toxic chemical involved in transportation accidents. Meanwhile, ERNS and other accident reporting systems have serious enforcement and data gaps, as noted previously as well as in a 1993 study by the EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office.0 A database of reports filled out after chemical accidents, ARIP, should contain somewhat more accurate data, but because they are voluntary, few ARIP reports are filed. Citizens, government agencies, and companies themselves need solid data to evaluate progress +- AL-141Men Sir Art (rA Al ranmrne nn�"eniae to flrmare and Page ?1 disclose five-year accident histories for each facility as well as prospective "worst case" accident scenarios.'A worst-case scenario describes the number of potential deaths, injuries, and the area affected by a chemical accident at a facility (vulnerable zone). Worst-case scenarios typically assume the failure of mitigation and add-on safety systems. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data and worst- case scenarios could serve as measures of a facility's prevention progress because its vulnerable zone would be reduced as Inherent Safety is achieved. The Clinton Administration has initiated a number of steps to expand the public's right to know. These include doubling the number of chemicals which must be reported; a proposed rule adding seven new industry sectors to those who must report; and a proposed rulemaking to include information on toxics used inside industrial facilities. Recommendations a' Toxic chemical accidents in the United States are a substantial problem that endanger human health, wildlife, and the environment. Many chemical accidents, however, me preventable. The focus on n emergency response and the prevalent "it won't happen here" mindset do not adequately prevent catastrophic accidents or the ongoing poisoning of our natural resources. It is imperative that industry and government switch from a reactive position on toxic chemical accidents to one that t promotes prevention. With the goals of reducing toxic contamination and improving toxic chemical safety in the United -` States, NELC recommends the following: 1. Expand and imarove the Public's Right-to-Know about toxic chemical use and accidents. An expanded Right to Know should include information about the use, storage, and flow of hazardous chemicals within production processes as well as information about past accidents and "worst case" accident hazards. This information should be made available to the public through easily accessible on-line services such as the Toxics Release Inventory established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Citizens, government agencies and industries themselves need complete and accurate information on toxic chemical production and use, chemical accidents, and sources of toxic pollution to play a meaningful role in developing plans for preventing pollution and accidents. Until we have a clearer understanding of where the toxic chemicals are in production, transportation, and commerce, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent the majority of toxic chemical accidents and adopt the principle of Inherent Safety. We are pleased that the EPA has taken steps to implement one of our earlier recommendations, to ensure easy public access to currently available accident data, by making the ERNS and ARIP g databases available on the internet. But we still have a long way to go, to ensure that.the public has easy access to more complete and accurate toxics information. On September 27, 1996, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Rulemaking,seeking public comment on the best way for the Agency to add information on the use of toxic chemicals to the public's Right to Know. This is a significant step forward, but one that has already been met with Aeciderm a Happen, Poe 22 intense opposition from the chemical industry. In addition to this EPA proposal, Representatives Pallone (NJ) and Markey (MA) introduced the Public Right to Know and Children's Environmental Health Protection Act (H.R. 4234) at the end of the 104th Congress and will reintroduce this bill early in 1997. We urge Congress to make this bill a top environmental priority in the 105th Congress. The Public Right to Know and Children's Environmental Health Protection Act will: • Require reporting on toxic chemical use; • Eliminate loopholes that exempt entire industries from Right to Know reporting; • Ensure reporting on extremely hazardous substances like dioxins and mercury; and • Establish warning labels for children's foods and products that contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. We urge the Clinton Administration and Congress to move forward swiftly with their plans to expand and improve the public's Right to Know about toxic chemical use information. In addition, we urge the EPA to develop a plan for providing the public with more complete information on toxic chemical accidents. 2. Promote Inherent Safety Accident Prevention as a primary component of all federal, regional, state, and local pollution prevention initiatives and emergency planning activities. We urge the EPA to use every opportunity to ensure that Inherent Safety becomes the centerpiece of the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Plan program. This includes regulations, guidance documents ' and trainings. OSHA's Process Safety Management program, and state pollution prevention and emergency planning programs, should also emphasize Inherent Safety. Inherent Safety should be an integral part of the existing technical assistance and regulatory infrastructure for pollution prevention. When selecting pollution prevention measures, industry and government should give a preference to those measures which also reduce the potential for accidents The Local Emergency Planning Committees, established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, should emphasize accident prevention and Inherent Safety as an integral part of their activities. LEPCs are on the front lines of planning for toxic chemical accidents. To date, however, most of the LEPC efforts across the country have focused on responding to accidents after they have occurred, rather than looking for ways to prevent them in the first place. LEPCs need to change their mindset to carry out this vital role of planning to prevent accidents. NELC is working with EPA, LEPCs, and other stakeholders to develop training in Inherent Safety concepts and implementation for LEPCs. Funding for the LEPCs should be increased and contingent upon an understanding of and commitment to cavy out the principles of Inherent Safety which are critical to chemical accident prevention. Though no facility plans on having an accident, accidents do haRRen. Corporate and political leaders should commit to reducing the possibility of chemical accidents through investments in inherently safe technologies. The commitment to prevent accidents can mirror similar successful goal setting for Y Page 23 Government agencies should require facilities to set Inherent Safety goals for each extremely hazardous chemical that they store or use. TRI reports, if expanded as proposed, could be used to gauge progress in achieving these prevention goals. 3. Reinstate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investi¢ation Board with sufficient funding to investigate the underlying causes of chemical accidents and Inherent Safety options for prevention. y Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the independent Board is explicitly mandated to ILI investigate major chemical accidents, critique regulatory and industry inaction, and issue recommendations on chemical safety and accident prevention. The Board could be a motivating force in the shift toward Inherent Safety. Although President Clinton named five qualified individuals to the Board, the Board's funding was eliminated from the federal budget in 1995. Funding for the Board should be reinstated so that it may begin operations. The decision to eliminate the Board may cost more in lost lives, damage to the environment and public health, and property losses. In conclusion, toxic chemical accidents are an on-going, daily source of toxic contamination to humans and the environment. The number of accidents underscores the intrinsic vulnerability of current production systems that handle hazardous and toxic chemicals. The best way to prevent catastrophic accidents, as well as the daily toxic pollution caused by accidents in the United States, is a through the prevention concept of Inherent Safety. The long-term health of our environment, our communities, and our workplaces depends on the safer technologies, materials, and products that industries should start adopting today. r, t' 4, S' 9 R a �t f H r a Accidents Do Happen, Page 24 _ Appendix l: Methodology NELC obtained the full Emergency Response Notification System database for the years 1993 and 1994 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's internet site(http://www.epa.gov/ERNSn. Data for 1995 were obtained from ABB Environmental Services, an EPA subcontractor that managed the ERNS database. ERNS contains information on accidental releases based on notifications given to government agencies. We chose three years of data so as to increase the number of data points for statistical relevance and to detect trends over time, updating our earlier report. Numerical data from the two reports may not be directly comparable because of differences both in the database and in NELC's methodology. The report covers only incidents involving toxic and hazardous chemicals that are regulated under federal law(CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPCRA sections 302 and 313, }g and the Clean Air Act). About 450 different regulated chemicals were spilled during the three-year period. Oil, gasoline, and other petroleum product spills which constitute 57% of ERNS notifications; non-hazardous substances; and numerous notifications that did not adequately specify the chemical areleased were excluded. Finally, many toxic or hazardous chemicals were excluded because they were not identified as regulated substances, or because they were misclassified in the database. This report screened for more toxic chemicals (nearly 1500)than our earlier report (about 800). For any given incident, the ERNS database might disclose the numbers of people injured or evacuated, identity and quantity of each chemical released, environmental medium that was polluted, etc. Unfortunately, data are often missing due to lack of knowledge or improper reporting at the time of notification. NELC found the quality control of the ERNS database to be very weak. While the ERNS database now (since I992) avoids duplication of records updated by EPA, duplicate notification records are a M problem due to reporting to multiple authorities (i.e., Department of Transportation, Coast Guard), or multiple telephone reports to the same agency. For instance, one major accident (the Shell Chemical accident in May, 1994) was reported six times in the database, including two reports of the single death. In the 1988-1992 data,NELC found what appeared to be duplicates among approximately 2% of the accidents with injuries, 1.5% of the accidents with evacuations, and 911/6 of those with deaths. During 1993-95, 12% of all accidents with deaths were reported at least twice (although only 4 of 64 deaths were reported more than once). In some cases, the toxic chemical was spilled as a result of another accident(for instance, a traffic accident); some of the deaths or injuries may have been caused by the initial accident. NELC removed suspected duplicate accident reports involving deaths(4 cases), but did not add deaths or injuries to records for incidents known to NELC through other sources. Reporting of geographic information was improved over the earlier period. From 1988-92, there were about 300 selected incidents with unknown states;from 1993-95, all incidents were identified with states. By correcting obvious spelling and typographical errors, NELC reduced the number of incidents with incorrect or missing county data to 791 (approximately 3%) of 23,119 accidents involving toxic chemicals. To estimate the population affected by chemical accidents,NELC matched Pone 25 the ERNS data with 1990 U.S. Census demographics data by county. Quality of chemical substance reporting was not examined in our earlier report. In the original 1993- 95 data(119,122 records of spilled materials), we found numerous obvious errors, where coding for the chemical did not match the "material spilled". In about 22% of records, either the material was unknown, the coding did not match the material spilled, or the chemical was not included in the ERNS chemical reference database. We made an effort to correct some obvious errors (where the coding for chemical did not match the "material spilled"), but this task was far beyond the scope of this study. Most reports with misclassified materials, and all those with unknown materials, were eliminated from the study, even though many of these spills involved toxic chemicals. Finally,NELC included some chemicals in our analysis, such as lead compounds, which are regulated but were not so identified in the chemical reference database. It is important to note that EPA does not verify ERNS data, such as the reported occurrence, magnitude, material spilled, or consequences of events. NELC does believe that ERNS data helps draw a valid and relevant-picture; however, as explained in the report, it greatly understates the true number and impact of toxic chemical accidents. Additional information on the methodology may be obtained by contacting the authors. Appendix 2: Accident reporting programs Several environmental and public safety laws require the reporting of chemical accidents to local or federal authorities. The laws specify the chemicals and quantities which must be reported, who must report the release, when it must be reported, and to whom reports must be made. These laws include: The Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires that facilities immediately report the accidental release of reportable quantities of specific hazardous substances listed under CERCLA and several other laws to the National Response Center(NRC). The law does not specify any additional reporting requirements after immediate notifications. The law provides authority to the EPA to conduct investigations into accidents. The Emergengy Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)requires EPA to publish a list of extremely hazardous substances(EHSs), chemicals that could cause serious and irreversible damage to health and the environment. EPCRA requires the reporting of releases involving EHSs or CERCLA reportable chemicals to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)or the Local Emergency Planning Committee(LEPC). After the accident, the facility is required to submit written follow-up reports to the LEPC or SERC outlining the company's response to the release, any known or anticipated health impacts, and appropriate medical procedures. The Clean Water Act WWAI requires that any vessel or onshore or offshore facility immediately report any discharge of a regulated hazardous substance in amounts in excess of reportable quantities Accidents D_o Happen, Page 26 a r to the National Response Center or the Coast Guard. The CWA also requires the reporting of oil discharges above threshold quantities. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act a M A) requires transportation carriers to immediately notify the NRC if, as a direct result of a release: (1) a person is killed; (2) a person receives injuries requiring hospitalization; (3) estimated carrier or other damage exceeds $50,000; (4) an evacuation of the public lasts one or more hours; (5) one or more major transportation arteries are closed for one or more hours. The carrier is then required to submit a written follow-up report to the Department of Transportation. Other laws which require the reporting of chemical accidents include: the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, covering releases of hazardous wastes;the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires employers to notify the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of any accidental release of a hazardous substance when there has been a death or five or more workers hospitalized; and Department of Energy (DOE)Emergency Management System, establishing a comprehensive system for reporting information related to operations occurring at DOE and DOE- operated facilities. Accident notifications and reports are sent to numerous databases, which compile on-going and historical information on chemical accidents. Five of the most utilized databases include: Emergency Response and Notification System (ERNS) - compiles notifications of accidents involving oil and hazardous wastes. More than 160,000 notifications have been made since its inception in 1986. Hazardous Materials Information System (HIvIIS) -contains written reports on unintentional hazardous materials releases from transportation, pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. The Integrated Management Information System (MS) -managed by OSHA, contains records of accident inspections in response to a worker death, or five or more worker hospitalizations. The Accidental Release Information Program (ARID)-is a verified, more detailed subset of the ERNS data, designed by EPA to collect more information on the causes of accidents and changes that could be made at facilities to prevent accidents. ARID forms are submitted after an accident, and are voluntary. The Acute Hazardous Events(AHE)Database was a limited project that provided an historical perspective on the magnitude of chemical accident from with information from secondary sources such as newspapers, United Press International, reports to the National Response Center and federal and state authorities. . Page 27 Notes 1. An accident can be a non-routine chemical release,spill,explosion or fire at an industrial facility or during transport. 2. Accidents j2 Happen: Toxic Chemical Accident Patterns in the United States(National Environmental Law Center and U.S.Public Interest Research Group,August 1994) 3. Large Property Damage Losses in the Hydrocarbon-Chemical Industries:A Thirty-year Review, 16th Edition, 1995 David Mahoney,Editor.Marsh dt McLennan,Inc./M&M Protection Consultants,New York 4. ARIP and ERNS databases(see Appendix 2) 5. A 1989 study of the Acute Hazardous Events(AHE)database,a national database which describes chemical accidents with serious consequences,showed that more than a third of the chemical accident deaths and injuries mvesu.gated occurred during releases of less than the reportable quantity. Such events may have never been reported to ERNS. 6. Skinner,Peter,et. al. 1991.It Can't Happen Here!Recent Sigpificant Toxic Chemical Incidents:A Compendium and us 'o . Albany: New York State Attorney General's Office,Environmental Protection Bureau. 7. Skinner,P.,et al. 1991. 8 "Report to the LEPC Region A from the Task Force on Chemical Releases",December 6, 1993. California Region II Local Emergency Planning Committee. 9. The EPA wrote a report in 1994,studying the impacts of air depositions on human health and water quality. For more information,contact EPA's Amy Vasu at(919)541-0107. 10 Nowhere to Hide:Chemical Accident Risks in the United States,Joel A. Tickner and Hillel Gray,National Environmental Law Center and U.S.Public Interest Research Group, 1995 11. Perrow,C. 1984.Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books. 12. Environmental Policy Institute/Friends of the Earth. 1989. The Cm=uW1y Plurne,vol. 1,No. 3. Washington, D.C. The ERNS database record for this accident notes no injuries or evacuations. 13. Jopke,P.and Dale Patterson. 1994. Environmental Impacts of the Nemadii River bW. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The ERNS database report for this accident indicates that no evacuations took place. 14. Potter,J. 1993. Chemical accident prevention regulation in California and New Jersey. Ecology Law Ouartah, vol.20:755-813. 15. Jaffe,S.and P.Skinner. 1989. New York Under a Cloud:_The Need to Prevent Toxic Chemical Accidents. Albany: New York Attorney General's Office. 16. See Jaffe and Skinner, 1989,which describes an EPA study on toxic cloud movement and an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study on accidental release detection,notification,and eva bon times. 17. Ashford,N.,et.al. 1993. The EncoA agement of Technological Change for Preventing Chemical Accidents- Moving Firms from Seconds evention and Mitigation to Primary Prevention. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Ashford also cites additional examples. a t