Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02091993 - 1.47 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _February 9, 1993 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report on Hazardous Materials Program The Board received report No. 9301 dated January 28 , 1993 , from the 1991-1992 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Foreman entitled Hazardous Materials Program Violates Public Trust. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforementioned report is REFERRED to the Internal Operations Committee and the County Administrator and that the County Administrator is REQUESTED to provide a status report February 23 , 1993 , on the concerns and issues of the Grand Jury as referenced in their report. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of th3 Board of Supe rs of the date shown. !/�� ATTESTED: PHIL BATCHELOR,clerk of he Board of Supervisors and County Administrator cc: County Administrator gy ,Deputy Grand Jury Foreman Internal Operations Committee 1 47 A REPORT BY THE 1992-1993 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street RECEIVE® Martinez, California 94553 (510) 646-2345 FEB 2 1993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOR CONTRA COSTA CO. . REPORT No. 9301 Hazardous Materials Program Violates Public Trust Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: 28jdx, `�3 Annemarie Goldstein Grand Jury Foreman Accepted for Filing: Date: Richard S. Flier Judge of the Superior Court TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Organizational Structure/Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Inspection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Emergency Response Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Safety and Training Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 GLOSSARY OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Page 2 SUMMARY The largest concentration of petroleum and chemical production facilities in the State of California is in Contra Costa County. They present a potential for incidents with hazardous materials that could have a disastrous impact upon County residents. The safety of the residents of Contra Costa County has been placed at an unacceptable risk primarily due to the lack of effective leadership, management, and accountability in the Hazardous Materials Division of the Health Services Department. The Grand Jury finds that the Health Services Department has violated the public trust by failing to comply with the laws of the State of California. The Board of Supervisors must take immediate action because of the risk to the public. Page 3 BACKGROUND • In 1985, the California Legislature enacted AB 2185, the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (Chapter 6.95, §25500 Health and Safety Code). This act was in response to a series of hazardous release incidents which occurred throughout California. AB 2185 requires each county to implement a Hazardous Materials Program which includes responsibility for: (a) on-site inspection of businesses that are subject to the act, and (b) development of and necessary revisions to an Area Plan for Emergency Response in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. • In January of 1988, the Board of Supervisors stated: "Contra Costa County is home to many companies and industries that manufacture, store, use and dispose of toxic materials. These businesses are neighbors to a population in excess of 700,000 people. One role of government is to maintain an environment where businesses and the general population of the community co-exist as safely as possible." • Contra Costa County's Basic Plan for Emergency Services, published in June of 1991, stated: "The largest concentration of petroleum and chemical production facilities in the State of California stretches along the Contra Costa County shoreline from Richmond, along the bay and river, to Antioch. Large amounts of hazardous materials are transported daily along I-80, I-680, and highway routes 4, 24, and 242. These present a potential for incidents with hazardous materials that could have a disastrous impact upon the County." • The California Environmental Protection Agency reports over 15 million pounds of chemicals were released throughout Contra Costa County from 1989 through 1991 and that Contra Costa County, with its huge industrial base, ranked third in the state in off- site hazardous waste generation in 1989. FINDINGS Organizational Structure/Financing 1. In December 1985, the Board of Supervisors designated the Health Services Department responsible for implementation of AB 2185. 2. A Hazardous Materials Division was created with program management delegated to the County Health Officer (CHO). Page 4 3. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to impose fees and fines on regulated businesses to cover the cost of the Hazardous Materials Program. Revenues for fiscal year 1991-92 were approximately $2.7 million. Fees and fines generated 92 percent of the total revenues. In August 1992,.the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 92- 563, establishing fees for Emergency Response services. It is the County's goal to achieve 100 percent financial self-sufficiency for the Hazardous Materials Program. 4. In October 1990, a Deputy Director of Hazardous Materials was hired to provide management at the Hazardous Materials (Haz Mat) office and storage yard in Martinez. The Deputy Director submitted his resignation in May 1992, and since that date there has been no on-site manager. Funding for this position is derived from AB 2185 revenues - not from County General Funds. 5. As part of the Phase One budget reduction process, the Board of Supervisors approved the recommendation of the Health Services Director to eliminate the position of Deputy Director from the 1992-93 budget. 6. The Haz Mat staff members have organized into teams with the role of team leader rotated among peers. There is no on-site manager to provide functions such as establishing objectives, monitoring and evaluating performance, assigning or changing work schedules or approving overtime and payroll sheets. 7. All 26 Haz Mat staff members report directly to the CHO. In addition to supervising the Hazardous Materials Program, the CHO has program responsibility for Environmental Health and Emergency Medical Services as well as the state-mandated responsibility for all clinical services in the county including hospitals, clinics, and public health. Inspection Management 8. Businesses subjected to regulation under AB 2185 are identified through a variety of means including self-reporting, surveys, permit issuance and agency referrals. There are approximately 1500 businesses currently identified and entered in the Data Management System (DMS). Haz Mat was unable to provide the total number of businesses in Contra Costa County subject to regulation under AB 2185. 9. The Health Services Department is required by § 25503 (e) (2) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code to establish and implement a data management system to insure that.subject businesses are identified and tracked for compliance. The Data Management System is the only reasonable method to determine if required inspections are completed. 10. Section 25537 of the Health and Safety Code mandates that each subject business receive an on-site inspection once every three years. Page 5 11. Contra Costa County's.Hazardous Materials Inspection Plan requires a uniform inspection frequency of no less than once per year per facility." 12. Although there are state and county mandates, there are no documented staff performance expectations for the number of inspections to be done. Staff members decide for themselves which businesses to inspect and the frequency of inspection. 13.. A Grand Jury audit of the DMS revealed that for the three-year period ending December 1992, only 30 percent of the known businesses had received a completed inspection as mandated by law. 14. Based on interviews with Hazardous Materials staff, inspections of the Rhone-Poulanc files, and the DMS, there was no completed on-site inspection of the facility during the 4.5 years preceding the disastrous explosion and fire of June 22, 1992. Emergency Response Management 15. In January 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved the Hazardous Materials Area Plan, as mandated by §25503 of the Health and Safety Code. Its purpose is to protect life, environment, and property from the effects of hazardous materials release or threatened release. 16. AB 2185 requires the Health Services Department to submit an update of the Plan to the state every three years. As of December 1992, Contra Costa County's update had not been completed. 17. Emergency Response staff members are available 24 hours a day to provide technical assistance at events such as: chemical spills, illegal drug laboratory seizures, pipeline leaks, or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. 18. Twelve persons are trained to respond to incidents and are assigned to three-person on- call teams. Assignments are made by a team leader and are frequently changed by members for their own convenience without prior approval of the CHO. In July 1992, alone, there were 55 documented changes to the monthly assignment schedule. 19. A peer on each team has the responsibility for determining if a_hazardous materials incident warrants an emergency response and, if so, how many staff members will be needed. This is done without management involvement or approval. At the onset of this investigation there were no written Standard Operating Procedures to guide staff members in reaching decisions or subsequent actions. 20. There is no requirement for minimum emergency response time for on-call staff members. The 1988-89 Grand Jury concluded, and the Board of Supervisors agreed, that Page 6 an average response time of 42 minutes was not acceptable. The 1992 average response time from notification to on-site arrival increased 71 percent since 1988. 21. The amount of overtime paid in fiscal 1991-92 for response to incidents was $138,244. One team member received $21,860 in overtime pay, which is 40 percent of the base salary for that position. 22. As required by §25503(8) of the Health &Safety Code, the Emergency Response Teams meet to critique the handling of hazardous materials incidents. There is no documentation retained of these critiques. 23. Decisions are made at these meetings on whether or not to bill responsible parties for the costs of providing emergency response. There are no written procedures or criteria to guide staff implementation of the Board of Supervisor's Resolution 92-563 to recover Emergency Response costs. .Safety and Training Management 24. The California Legislature passed SB 198 (Labor Code §6401.7) which required establishment of an Injury, Illness Prevention Program. In January 1992, pursuant to SB 198, the Health Services Department adopted Policy No. 241P, a Hazardous Communication Program, to provide a safe working environment for employees. The policy requires "that all workers whose jobs involve the handling of hazardous chemicals are not only fully aware of the chemicals involved, but that they are thoroughly trained to perform their jobs safely." 25. In January 1992, the Health Services Department adopted Policy No. 158D, providing inspection, hazards abatement, and training responsibility to work-site supervisors. The policy requires Health Services Department employees to report unsafe work conditions to their supervisors. In March 1992, the CHO was formally notified by Haz Mat staff of improperly labeled hazardous materials stored beyond the legal time limits at the Martinez storage site. Clerical staff further expressed concern that they did not know the hazards presented by the chemicals stored at their work site, nor had they received the required training on how to respond to an on-site emergency. 26. The Health Services Department has not provided hazardous materials training to all staff members as required by Health Services Department Policy No. 241P. Page 7 CONCLUSIONS 1. The safety of the residents of Contra Costa County has been placed at an unacceptable risk primarily due to the lack of effective leadership, management, and accountability in the Hazardous Materials division of the Health Services Department. 2. It is poor personnel practice for a staff to function without an on-site director. 3. The current organizational design is flawed by having 26 staff members report directly to an individual who already has the considerable responsibility of being the County Health Officer and Medical Director as well as supervising Environmental Health and Emergency Medical Services. 4. The elimination of an on-site Deputy Director position from the 1992-93 budget had no positive fiscal impact since funding for a director was available from fees without using County tax dollars. This position could be reauthorized with no additional cost to the taxpayers. 5. The present procedure allows Emergency Response employees to authorize overtime for themselves and their peers without prior management approval. 6. Gross non-compliance with state-mandated inspection requirements is evidence that the regulation and enforcement of the provisions of AB 2185 have not been met. It is unconscionable that the Rhone-Poulanc plant had not had a completed inspection before the June 1992 explosion and fire. 7. With the ever-present threat of a hazardous materials incident, emergency response must be a high priority. It is unacceptable that the County's Area Plan is two years late in being updated. 8. The absence of written standard procedures to support Emergency Response policy may result in inefficient, inconsistent, and untimely responses by staff members. 9. The Hazard Communications Program has not been implemented in a timely manner with all employees in the Hazardous Materials Division. Contra Costa County is failing to provide a good example as a handler of Hazardous Materials to all businesses subject to regulation under AB 2185. 10. The Health Services Department has violated the public trust by not complying with Labor Code 6401.5, Health & Safety Code 25500, and other applicable laws governing hazardous materials. Immediate action must be taken because of the risk to the community. Page 8 RECOMMENDATIONS The 1992-93 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Immediately relieve the Health Services Department of responsibility for implementation of Section 25500 of the Health and Safety Code. 2. Immediately reassign the Hazardous Materials Division, on an interim basis, to the office of the County Administrator pending a complete assessment of corrective actions necessary to bring the County into compliance with AB 2185. 3. Immediately authorize a new position, Director of Hazardous Materials, to be funded from AB 2185 revenues and direct the County Administrator to fill the position within sixty days of the authorization. Responsibilities of the Director of Hazardous Materials should include developing and instituting standard operating procedures and supervise staff to insure the Hazardous Materials Division operations comply with all county and state mandates. 4. Concurrently, appoint a Hazardous Materials Task Force comprised of community, business, local government, and fire district representatives. The Task Force will evaluate organizational models including, but not limited to, decentralization, integration within local fire districts of inspection and emergency responses services as well as privatization of these services. a. Within 120 days of appointment, the Task Force present its recommendations for a proposed Area Plan and Inspection Plan to the Board of Supervisors. Funding required to support the Task Force to be paid from AB 2185 revenues. b. Within 30 days of receiving the recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Task Force, the Board of Supervisors approve the updated Area " Plan and Inspection Plan and submit them to the State of California for certification. 5. Immediately establish a method for continuous monitoring of the performance of the Hazardous Materials Division to assure citizens of compliance with all county and state Hazardous Materials mandates. Page 9 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AB 2185 Administering agency The department, office, or other agency of a county or city designated pursuant to subdivision of § 25502 of the Health and Safety Code. Area Plan A plan established pursuant to §25503 of the Health and Safety Code by an administering agency for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material within a city or county. Business Plan A separate plan for each facility, site, or branch of a business which meets the requirements of §25504 of the Health and Safety Code. Business plans must include: (a) inventory of information required by § 25509; (b) emergency response plans and procedures in the event of reportable release of a hazardous material including: (1) immediate notification to appropriate local emergency rescue personnel and the office; (2) procedures for the mitigation of a release or threatened release to minimize any potential harm or damage to persons, property, or the environment; and (3) evacuation plans and procedures, including immediate notice, for the business site and for the affected public. (c) training for all new employees and annual training, including refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. Department The State Department of Health Services and Director means the State Director of Health Services. Handle To use generate, process, produce, package, treat, store, emit, discharge, or dispose of a hazardous material in any fashion. Hazardous Material 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 release into the workplace or environment. "Hazardous Materials" include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Page 10 Inspection On-site inspections shall ensure compliance with this chapter and shall identify existing safety hazards or suggest preventative measures designed to minimize the risk of the release of hazardous material into the workplace or environment. Release Any spilling, leaking, Pumping, Pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment, unless permitted or authorized by a regulatory agency. Threatened Release A condition creating a substantial probability of harm, when the probability and potential extent of harm make it reasonably necessary to take immediate action to prevent, reduce or mitigate damages to persons, property, or the environment. Policy 241P Hazardous Materials All hazardous substances found in the workplace under normal reasonably foreseeable emergency conditions are included. Hazardous Substance Any substance which is a physical hazard.or a health hazard, or is included in the Director's List of Hazardous Substances pursuant to Labor Code Section 6382. r Health Hazard A substance for which there is statistically significant evidence based on at least one study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed employees. Written Hazard Communication Program A plan that is concise, understandable, accurate and containing the following elements: (1) an explanation for meeting labeling MSDS and Employee Information and training requirements, (2) a list of hazardous substances in the workplace, (3) a plan to make employees aware of hazards that might be encountered while performing non-routine tasks, and (4) a plan, if appropriate, how contractor employees will be informed of hazardous substances to which they may be exposed. Page 11 Grand Jury COrltra MartMart Ward Street inez,California 94553 Costa P County r RECEIVE® ~- FEB $ 1993 n m^'e CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. February 8, 1993 Tom Torlakson, Chairman, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors All Members of the Board of Supervisors 300 E. Leland Road, Suite 100 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Chairman Torlakson and Members of the Board: This letter is to alert the Board that it is the opinion of the Grand Jury that the failure of the Hazardous Material Division of the Health Services Department to implement the mandates of AB 2185 places residents at risk on a daily basis.. You have demonstrated support for preventive programs in the area of communicable diseases in the community; we assume you are supportive of AB 2185 - to prevent and mitigate damages from hazardous materials incidents. Prior to issuing Report 9301, which evaluates Contra Costa's compliance with the mandates of AB 2185, the Grand Jury interviewed more than thirty witnesses and subpoenaed and reviewed hundreds of current documents from .state and local agencies as well as other organizations. This investigation spanned a seven-month period ending in mid-January 1993. During the course of this comprehensive examination of the Hazardous Materials Division, the jurors discovered an alarming degree of non-compliance. The Grand Jury encourages your prompt action regarding this matter. Sincerely, ANNEMARIE GO STEIN Foreman AG:nt cc: BOARD MEMBERS (Provided) .. . r � ,i fY� ' X N� J Ji':+t Jf l.' ..� . :+t � � �� • ter i �.$ A. ,T t�. 6 � •tea��t 0.1 � ..,:._r t,+,..,Z°, 1 A�°i yr 3R.. Q DATE: ��-- 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: PHONE: 3 P - 3 Y ADDRESS: t o CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: lwlewcG&Ag4v .(NAME OF RGANIZV ION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �j�• My comments will be: general-_X for. against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. • D SPEAKERS L Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to'the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by-stating your name and address: whether. you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made;by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) J DATE: . RzoUEST TO .SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE umu) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' .rostrum before addressing the Board. l/ PHONE: NAME: �l/J r► �D,'j'`�6v�- 7 5—�t13 —ev� ADDRESS: �D / ��'G � Crryr: � ib�n�i7 cd I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # la 7. My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. { Si FAKE S 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address: whether you are speaking_ for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit'length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) . { i /U-7 TO: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FR: DENNY A. LARSON, CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT RE: GRAND JURY REPORT ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. DA: 2-9-93 Good Morning, Supervisors. I want to express my thanks for the opportunity to make a few brief, but important points regarding the Grand Jury's report on the County Health Department. I want to express my sincere hope that we can get immediatey beyond,the point of defending Dr. Walker, who is someone that I have the utmost respect for, or defending the progress that the Board of Supervisors have made in programs for Hazardous Materials, Emergency Response, and accident prevention. The fact remains that despite the work and the progress, the residents of communities on the fenceline with refineries and chemical plant neighbors are still placed at an unacceptable risk of an accidental release of toxics. That risk can only be adequately reduced if the recommendations of the Grand Jury are fully implemented in a speedy fashion. This matter is simply too serious and the series of accidents that rocked Contra Costa County so overwhelming in their evidence that but for luck we have avoided a real catastrophe, we can not just dismiss the Grand Jury's report. After all the report is not just an isolated voice; it is the latest in a growing choir of individuals, community groups, labor unions, environmental groups and others that are speaking with one voice. That voice has been clearly sending the message to industries, government, and politicians: Communities and workers are at severe risk from toxic accidents and existing programs -- taken separately or taken all together-- aren't doing the job. L b None of the programs mentioned in the Health Department's February 3, 1993, rebuttal effectively involve the public in a truly meaningful way in decisions that affect the health and safety of their neighborhoods. None of the programs have reduced the number of accidents to an acceptable level. And while it is a seemingly a convincing argument, that. in no case that the department is aware of, did delayed emergency response to an accident cause increased harm as a result of that delay, that says lttle more than so far we have been very lucky. Delays in emergency response to a hazardous materials incident clearly have a great potential to cause harm to workers, the community, and the environment. I urge the Board to again get down to the real issue here. We've made progress, but much has been the result of constant grassroots pressure. Let's recognize that and hear the voices today calling for speedy changes to get all these programs revamped to involve the public, to fully and effectively staff and manage them. Progress is not the issue. The issue is: are the programs adequate given the dangers? Clearly they are not. Part of the solution also lies in implementing new programs, that do no duplicate existing efforts as charged by uniformed critics, such as Community Safety Inspection Audits, that the people can have confidence in. Solutions like the Grand Jury's recommendation to appoint a new Task Force to investigate new models made up of community and government. Hopefully that effort will truly involve the public by holding meetings at times and locations convenient to working people. That Task Force must have sufficient budget to communicate to the public through a variety of means, funded by of course by fees on the industries that create the risks. In a "fee-driven" program there is no excuse for insufficient funding. t wv Finally I would like to ask the Board's support to open up to public participation some the programs currently pointed to by the County Health Department as improving problems. The Interagency Coordination Group and the Air Monitoring Task .Force should be open to interested the community groups if they are to succeed. It is not acceptable to keep promising some future public involvement. In addition regarding the AB100 or Oil Refinery and.Chemical Plant Safety Committee, we are asking your support for a true "public" member since the current "public member suffers from a significant conflict of interest due to past and current employment with the oil industry. We look forward to working on solutions to the problems pointed out by the Grand Jury's report with the Board and the Health Department.