HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05191987 - 2.6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 19, 1987 , by the following vote:
AYES; Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Torlakson, Schroder
NOES; None
ABSENT; Supervisor McPeak
ABSTAIN; None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT; Underground Storage Tank Program
The Board received the attached report dated April 6,
1987 from the Health Services Director relating to implementation
of the Underground Storage Tank Program.
Dan Bergman, Assistant Health Services Director,
Environmental Health, advised that implementation of the program is
progressing well.
Supervisor Tom Torlakson commented on the thoroughness
of the report. He advised that he had been contacted by two East
County residents, Tino Bacchini and Al Bello, who had expressed
concerns on the cost and the paperwork involved in implementing the
program. Supervisor Torlakson requested that Mr. Bergman meet with
the two residents to resolve any problems they may be having in
implementing the program.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the attached
report is ACKNOWLEDGED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bergman is REQUESTED to
meet with the two East County residents as noted by Supervisor
Torlakson.
cc: Health Services Director
Environmental Health
County Administrator
1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: —122A, '1
PHIL BATCHEL C,erk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
. Deputy
t? 4
60
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
To: Board of Supervisors Date:
Via Phil Batchelor April 6, 1987
County Administrator
From: % �� Subject:
Mark Finucane Underground Storage
Health Services Dire for Tank Program
By: Dan Berg an
Assistant H alth Se vices Director
Environmental Health
On June 10, 1986, a preliminary status report concerning implementation of the
Underground Tank Program was presented to your Board for review. The following
information is an update of the Underground Tank Program development, implemen-
tation and compliance efforts achieved to date.
SUMMARY
Implementation of the Underground Tank Program is progressing well . Response by
the regulated community has been excellent. Presently, almost all 'underground
tank owners in the county have paid the required fees and are working with staff
to complete remaining requirements that will allow the issuance of final permits
to operate. As of March 1, 1987, approximately 50% of all facilities meet
full compliance with the vast majority of the remaining 50% being within 90
days of compliance.
Staff have developed standard procedures and have established good working rela-
tionships with facility owners, industrial associations, local fire districts,
and the State Water Resources Control Board.
In 1984, the Cortese and Sher Bills required the registration and permitting of
non-exempt underground tanks containing hazardous materials. Shortly
thereafter, the County Health Services Department, Environmental Health
Division, was designated to develop and implement the state-mandated local
Underground Tank Program.
Early in 1984, .the County Board of Supervisors passed ordinances to empower the
Health Services Department to administer an Underground Tank Program in the
incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. Only one city within the
county, Danville, enacted a local ordinance to manage their own program. In
March 1987, Danville rescinded the ordinance, thus resulting in a countywide
pro=am-adfRinistered by the County Heal-th Services Department.
The local program began with one part time professional in 1984. Registration
data on 3,000 tanks was supplied ,by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) . After conversion of this data to a suitable IBM-PC data base format,
A-41 3181
' ^
�
-2-
the Health Services Department invoiced approximately 1100 tank owners for five
(5) year fees and notified them of the State requirement to bring their tanks
into compliance. `
The Health Services Department's primary emphasis was on tanks that were sUs-
peCted of leaking Or which had failed the precision tank tests. Second emphasis
was On implementing new State regulations* inspection and approval Of new
double-wall tanks installed after January| }, 1984.
The County Health Services Department began a public outreach campaign in
January, 9A6 to advise tank owners Of the new State requirements. In June,
August, and October the second, third* and final notices were sent to tank
owners. Failure of tank Owners to respond to those notices resulted in several
cases being filed by the District Attorney's Office. With the addition of
staff, increased data base capability, and the services Of the County
Auditor-CVntrVXlerS the County Health Services Department collected $636,042
from January-December, 1986 for the five (5) year permit fees. This amount
-
includes D 56 State surcharge/per tank which must be collected by the County
and paid to the State Water RSS0Urc2S Control Board. This provides the Health
Services Department a t101,000 annual budget to permit, inspect, and monitor all
underground tanks in the county.
Compliance with the underground tank regulations has been difficult for the 1233
tank owners identified to date. The process of submitting applications on each
tank, submitting five (5) year permit fees, precision tank testing, and imple-
menting a monitoring plan has been time consuming and expensive. Approximately
25% of the underground tanks in the county failed the initial tank test, thus
requiring repair or removal from service. These C0StS impacted local government
agencies as well , with SB 90 claims for State reimbursement submitted annually.
AS of March 1, 1987, the County Health Services Department has three and one-
half professionals and One Clerical staff dedicated to the program. This has
resulted in 50% of the known (from SWRCB registration) tanks meeting full
compliance with the vast ,majority of the remaining 50% being within AO days of
compliance.
I. Legislative History
In response to concerns relating to groundwater contamination resulting from
leaking underground tanks storing hazardous materials, the State Legislature
enacted the following legislation:
A. The Cortese Bill, effective on January 1, 1984, required registration
with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) of all underground
storage tanks containing hazardous substances. The deadline for regis-
tration was subsequently extended from July }, 1984 to July }, 1985.
B. The Sher Bill was enacted in January, 1984. This b1 | | set standards
for construction and monitoring, and required the permitting and inspection
of underground tanks storing hazardous substances (exempting certain
- ' lt r�l �h heating oil , and animal dip-tanks).
----- �gY7CV u __�, om���� , This legislatiOn
--
authorized counties and cities to adopt local underground tank ordinances
prior to its effective date of January l, 1484. Contra Costa County
'
enacted an ordinance on December 13, 1983 with Only one city, Danville,
having enacted a local ordinance.
-3-
C. On March 19, 1987 the City of Danville repealed Chapter 4, Title 7 of
their Municipal Code, thus tr-ansferring their jurisdiction for underground
storage tank regulations to the County.
II. Program Implementation Requirements
Provisions of the Sher Bill authorized costs of the implementation programs to
be derived from underground tank operating permit and abandonment fees. These
fees had to cover the permitting and inspection of existing underground storage
tanks and the pre-construction plan approval , permitting, and inspection of new
tanks. In early 1984, estimated implementation costs were identified and
identical fee ordinances for underground tank permits and abandonments, for
unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county were adopted.
The Sher Bill and the County ordinance set January 1, 1985 as the permitting
date for underground tanks, however, the SWRCB had failed to have regulations in
place by that date. Regulations were approved in August 1985 with an interim
permit date of March 1, 1986, and a final permit date of September 1, 1986.
III. Program Plan
A. Staffing.
With the passage-of the County Underground Tank Ordinance and the Sher
Bill , both effective January 1, 1984, and the direction by the Board of
Supervisors for the County Health Services Department to act as imple-
menting agency, the County Health Services Department initiated a program
of plan checking and inspections for new underground tank facilities. At
this time one staff member was assigned these program responsibilities in
addition to regular duties. Inspection of new tank installations and
abandonments was implemented during 1985.
In June 1985, the Contra Costa County Health Services Department received
the inventory records (based on tank registrations) from the SWRCB. -These
records included over 3000 tanks and 1100 facilities, representing only
those tanks which were registered with the State. The information was
originally received as a computer printout. Environmental Health Division
staff requested this tank inventory in magnetic form, adapted the data to a
compatible' format and programmed an IBM PC to provide the data base for
mailing permit applications, fee invoices, and the beginning of a data base
file for all underground storage tank facilities in Contra Costa County.
An experienced EPA inspector joined our staff in September 1985 on a
contract through the Intergovernment Personnel Act, and was assigned to the
program on a full time basis. In October 1985, an additional staff member
was hired and assigned to this program. A fourth position was scheduled to
provide full time program-support in July 1986, but was not hired.
Since January 1984, tFie staff commitment- as-si-g-eed to this program has
increased from a one-half time equivalent to the present 3-1/2 full-time
equivalents dedicated to the program. This has resulted in the increased
clerical workload and hiring of one additional intermediate clerk.
-4-
B. - Implementation.
The implementation of this program required the development of a computer
database, forms, applications, informational letters, lists of con-
sultants, contractors, laboratories, tank testers, tank removers, and other
documentation to assist tank owners in complying with program requirements
and to provide necessary information. It was also necessary to originate
filing systems for new and existing tanks, and computer programs for
generating invoices, modifying and recording application data, and
locating tanks by owner name, street address, and city.
1) In January 1986, a letter was sent to the 1100 facility owners which
had appreared on the SWRCB computer list. In this mailing, owners were
given a brief outline of the State law and were advised of the
compliance dates, penalties for non-compliance, and requirements to
obtain interim and final operating permits.
2) In June 1986, a second letter was sent to the 1100 facilities which
were now in the underground tank data base. The purpose of this second
letter was to give a status report to owners on whether their applica-
tions, fees, tank test reports, and monitoring plans had been received.
General review of these files as of May 31, 1986 revealed the
following:
(a) Approximately 50% of the owners had submitted applications.
(b) Approximately 715Y. of the owners had paid the fees.
(c) About 15% of the required precision tank tests had been completed.
(d). Fewer than 5% of the owners had submitted monitoring plans.
3) In August 1986, a third letter was sent to those facility owners
that were not in compliance advising of their deficiencies, the
requirements for obtaining final operating permits from the Health
Department by September 1, 1986, and the civil penalties for operating
an underground storage tank which has not been issued a permit. _
4) Beginning August 14, 1986 five year final permits were mailed to
those facilities which were in full compliance.
5) In October and November 1986, a fourth and final letter was sent
to approximately 700 facilities which had not met the September 1 ,
1986 compliance deadline. In this letter, tank owners were advised
of the penalties of operating a non-permitted tank and given 30 days
notice that their file would be referred to the District Attorney for
penalty enforcement. General review of these files as of September 30,
1986 revealed the following:
a. 90% of the owners had submitted applications.
b. 95% of the owners had paid the fees. - -
c. Approximately--50�of the required precision tank tests
— had been completed, but these tests inc-luded a large
number of failures, repairs and retests. Also,
.. .~
`
'
`
-5-
- _-
_
approximately 50% of tank owners were waiting for an
initial test by tank test CVmVdAi9s but were delayed
due to backlog of requests. -
d. 75% of the monitoring plans and plot plans had been
received.
`
6) In January 1987, approximately 20 files were referred to the District
Attorney for penalty enforcement based on Mon-payment of fees and
failure of the tank owner to take any actions to comply with
underground tank regulations. To date, 7 of the 20 District
Attorney referralshave resulted in Civil suits.
7) Review Of Vnpernitted facilities and inspection Of new installations
and removals is the majority Of the underground tank workload.
Enforcement requests t- the District Attorney continue On a case-by-
case basis with emphasis now placed on major Oil companies with
multiple facilities which have not yet complied.
General review of underground tank files as of February 28" 1987
revealed the following for underground tanks which were registered with
the CSNR0B. .
(a) Approximately gg% of the owners had submitted applications.
(b) Approximately 95% Of the Owners had paid fees.
(c) About 75% of the tank tests have been completed, however, failure
Of one tank at any facility denies an operating permit. This
results in many facilities not being in compliance even though
other tanks at the same facility have been tested and are Cer-
tified tight.
(d) Approximately 90% Of tank monitoring plans have been submitted and
approved for the specified facility and type Of Operation.
8) The State Water Resources Control Board required registration of all
underground tanks used to store hazardous materials in 1983, This data
base was not a complete list of all underground tanks in the county as
program implementation found many unregistered tanks. In an attempt to
permit all underground tanks, a "Public Notice to Underground Tank
Owners" will be published in April 1987, requesting tank owners (which
store hazardous materials) that have not registered their underground
tanks and complied with legislative requirements, to contact the County
Health Services Department.
'
. -
-
_
. ^ .`
^ '
' -6-
`
_
. .
-
lV. Proqram Fiscal Status
A. As of November 198-6, the Underground Tank- Pro-gram has generated the
following revenues:
UGT Program 5-Year5-Year Permit Fee Summary
Receipts Receivables
YearMnnth
1986JaOWary 4,592
---- February 127,960
March 153^360 427,572
April 69,234 303,912
May 37,764 205*508
June 44*116 132,130
July 19'562 124,020
August 50,558 80,426
September 30°364 60,714
October 30,554 40,914
November 19,120 30,886
December 16°868 24,928
1987Jdnuary 23*784 8,926
---- February 17,889 9,157
Total Receipts Jan. 1906 - Feb.1087 $654,725
Receivable as of MdrCh 1987 9,157
Total Program Potential 663,882
Estimated State Surcharge less 6% -157,920
(3000 tanks x $56 = $168,000)
County Program Revenues $-505`962
B. At the present time, SB90 claims have been submitted for reimburse-
ment.
C. The County program includes a surcharge of $56.00 per tank required by
State lawwhich is payable to the SWRC8, On September 30, 1986, the
SWRC8 authorized the - local administering agency to withhold 6% Of the
$56.00 for local administering costs. As of February 23, 1¢87 this
trust fund surcharge is $I24,080.
V. Program Highlights
The Underground Tank Program has presented a considerable challenge to the
Environmental Health Division due to the-volume of applications, test reports,
monitoring plans, invoices, and correspondence. Program implementation involved
gathering a-pplications, permit fees, precisio t
r� tOnke5ts, and m0�it��'ing nfans
for approximately ],0]0 underground tanks from an estimated ll@O facility owners.
The addition of three full-time professionals and two clerical staff was com-
pleted. These additional staff are developing a program in accordance with State
regulations, pursuant to your Board' s proactive approach and direction.
"b
-7-
Program implementation hurdles which have been or are presently being resolved
include:
1) Using an IBM PC to manage the large amount of data processing in a
short period of time.
2) Hiring and training professional and clerical staff to develop, imple-
ment, and monitor a compliance program in a positive and cooperative
spirit with the regulated community.
3) Ensuring uniform implementation throughout the County, including
cooperation with the City of Danville.
4) Establishing a close working relationship between Fire Services and
Environmental Health Inspectors, and encouraging uniform interpretation
of the Uniform Fire Code and amendments by County Fire Districts and
Independent Fire Districts with respect to in-place tank abandonments
and inspection of removed tanks prior to transportation.
5) Development and issuance of computer generated permits on a changing
number of tanks at 1100 facilities.
6) Review of facilities which were "existing" prior to January 1, 1984 and
"new" facilities which began operation or had new tanks installed after
that date. Therefore, a facility may be an existing facility with a
combination of "existing" and "new" tanks, which may be billed under
"existing" and "new" fee schedules pursuant to the terms of the State
statute.
7) The monitoring plans required by this legislation must be. site and
operation specific. This requires hours of review by professional
staff to ensure that monitoring plans meet the intent of the regula-
tions and are also applicable to the facility operation at the
time of approval .
8) Quantification of data regarding the number of leaking tanks, number of
tank test failures, the backlog of orders for tank testors, and the
number of inspection hours.
9) Presently, the inspection time requirements are extensive due to the
requirement to approve installation plans, installations, tank tests,
removals, soil sampling, and clean-ups.
10) As of March 23, 1987, the County data base reflects the following:
a) 1233 active underground tank facilities
b) 218 facilities were added to the original SWRCB data base
C) 214 facilities have been deleted from the SWRCB data base because
a-lA tanks were removed from site
d) 30 faci-lities will be added with inclusion of the City of Danville
and an unknown number of new facilities will be added as a result
Of the April 1987 public notice.
Y.
y t.
-8-
V I
8-VI. Contra Costa County Governmental Compliance
Contra Costa County owned tanks must also comply with the. requirements of State
underground storage tank laws and regulations. Most County-owned tanks have
been tested except for those which are going to be removed. Four (4) of the 29
county owned tanks have failed the precision tank tests and another 2 are slated_ for
removal due to age and other considerations. A precision test cannot be per-
formed on one tank at County Jail due to technical problems.
As of December 1 , 1986, 12 of the 29 County owned tanks have met all of the
requirements of State law and have been issued "Permits to Operate". Of the
remaining 17 tanks, 5 have been removed (or abandoned in place with fire ser-
vices approval ). To date, 12 County owned tanks located variously at the Main
Street Service Center, County Administration Building, Richmond Health Center,
Emergency Services, Animal Services, County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek
Detention Facility remain out of compliance.
Monies have been appropriated by the County Administrator's Office for the pur-
pose of bringing the remaining County owned underground tanks storing hazardous
materials into compliance with State law. General Services is coordinating this
effort. Environmental Health Division staff will assist General Services and
other County Department Directors in achieving compliance and obtaining final
operating permits for these remaining 12 underground hazardous materials storage
tanks, at their request.
DB:JP:rm
Enclosures