The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06071994 - H.A N.A THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: June 7, 19,94 MATTER OF RECORD ------------------------------------------------------------------ On this date the Board of Supervisors heard a presentation by Sanford Lewis on the Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries and referred to the ContraCostaworks Advisory Council the possibility of the establishment of a community technical assistance fund.' i THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN CC: GMEDA i 06,'09,'94 14:45 V510 .3i0 3392 REFINERY MANAGER X001/002 Donald N'-Nlanning POSt-It"brand fix transmittal memo 7671 of payee * Tosto Refining Company Vicm P:nidcmTv 4h?-PXAa lFft�l11 _ A Division of k:iuun +'. E },, . 7osco Corporutrar, Ca. y G �° Avca RcFlnc:n I )L� Q � tti� M;jmincz.CA N55',�-145'1 Dept. Phone# 510)372-3122 S3� Fans# � f,4 CO,4 `U Fax 10— -3W—37572-, 1 V June 9, 1994 RECEIVED TI'le Honorable Gayle ,Bishop JUN — 9 1994 Supervisor, District 3 Contra'Costa County „ CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 120 CONTRA COSTA CO. San Ramon, CK 94583 Dear Gayle: It was with genuine inters:,st and an open mind that I attended the workshop by Sanford Lewis which you co-sponsored with CBE last Monday night. "Good Neighbor Agreements" fit very well with Tosco's full acknowledgement that "we operate with the permission of the community." We believe that we have made great progress in becoming a good corporate citizen, responsible neighbor and caring employer- This idea appeared to hold promise for even greater partnerships with our local community, building upon the positive steps we've taken with our Community Advisory Panel to be a "Good Neighbor." What an alarming surprise Mr. Lewis and Mr. Larson had in store for those of us froth industry who had hoped to participate in the meeting. It is unfortunate that you were unable to stay. I believe that you would have been as disappointed as I was. As it turns out, industr}',is:. only a target, not a partner, in the "agreement." Mr' Lewis advocated pressuring business through legal challenges and coalitions of community groups, environmental groups, neighbors, government, and labor. He gave tips for forging strong legal challenges to hold up permits, stop projects, cause industry to move, convert them to a green industry or shut down. He suggested that the company's own employees be used to provide to the',"groups" those documents which are not public documents. He noted that in some cases the groups should target the company's management and have them thrown out as part of the "agreement." There were repeated references to the need for technical staff to support these efforts- Such technical review of company compliance, practices, records etc- is exactly what a dozen'�or so government agencies are doing already. In summary, he advocated an adversarial relationship to pressure business to be a "Good Neighbor (hivhop.lr_tl.s'up1 i4 , 06-'0 V 94 14:45 $510 370 3392 ^R&INERI 31ANAGER 01)2"o(.)2 The Honorable Gayle Bishop June 9, 1994 Page 2 The leadership exhibited by the Board in forming the "Contra Costa Works" Committee and the Industrial Advisory Committee has encouraged and enabled great strides to be made in bringing together, as 'partners, representatives of the key components of our community, including industry. We are in the process of forging what we sincerely believe to be positive, productive partnerships- You will notice that in Mr. Lewis' literature, Companies are not listed as one of the partners in the "agreements." This approach appears to be in direct contrast to the efforts led by the Board. We believe that business can be a good neighbor, but the pressure tactics proposed by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Larson will hinder, rather than hasten, that process. I know that the positive steps we've taken with our Community Advisory Panel were not done in response to such pressure, but rather a true desire to be a "Good Neighbor." I would be pleased to meet with you and discuss why we believe that the Board's cooperative approach` to "Good Neighbor Agreements" is better that the "us and them" adversarial approach. We would also like to share with you some of the other things that we are doing in that regard. 1i " Thankfully, I truly don't believe that Mr. Lewis or Mr. Larson represent very many of the local citizenry. They certainly don't represent the 40,000 of us who work in industry in Contra Costa County and all of the people and groups we positively impact every day, directly and indirectly. I hope that you will take a closer look at what Mr. Lewis and Mr. Larson are really selling before you make any further decisions about their particular model for "Good Neighbor Agreements." Sincerely, D- V. Manning DNM:gp cc: The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier The Honorable Thomas M. Powers The Honorable Jeffrey V. Smith The Honorable Tom Torlakson t (bishop,IaV sup) o: MMM rq The Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries Waverly, Massachusetts Technical Assistance Provider The Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries advances neighbor and workforce participation in sustainable industry decisionmaking -- promoting clean, stable and fair local industries. .Through legal, technical and research support, we help local stakeholders to develop and secure rights and resources at local plants and within corporations. Toward this goal, we assist in development of strategies and policies at local, state, national, and even international levels. I CHEVRON AGREEMENT RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA WEST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE DO! SOME KEY FEATURES POLLUTION REDUCTION Leakless valves (350 in expansion project, 200-400 in existing refinery) No pollution credits for the valve emission reductions Fenceline air pollution monitoring piloted with community- suggested target chemicals Toxic emission reductions continue LOCAL ECONOMY $5 million over five years to near neighbors through United Way and nonprofit service organizations Skilled job training to 100 fenceline neighbors Aggressive pursuit of employees from community LEGALLY BINDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CHEVRON - RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA This- clause was among the conditions imposed by the Planniftg Commission and overturned by the City Council: On a quarterly basis, the Applicant shall keep its existing Community Advisory Panel informed of the status of Project mitigations and conditions of approval. In order to facilitate the CAP's understanding of the technical aspects of the achievement of project mitigations and to provide independent review, the applicant shall fund review by an expert of the CAP's choice the cost of which shall not exceed $60,000 per year. The CAP shall report any comments and concerns they may have to the Applicant and the Richmond Planning Department. As things stand now, the CAP will not get technical assistance monies. WHAT'S AMBIGUOUS IN CHEVRON AGREEMENT Will community residents be trained specifically to work inside Chevron plant? (e.g. union safety training?) Will Chevron provide technical assistance funding? Will Chevron provide health clinic funding? Will clinic provide specific environmental health focus? Will rate of emission reduction continue at 12% per year? WHAT'S OMITTED FROM CHEVRON AGREEMENT Safety issues for workforce and community Labor union participation Rights to inspect facility and company documents Permanent fenceline monitoring Specific toxics use reduction plans; reducing other pollution sources at Chevron Commitment to employ specific portion of community residents i GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS FOR PROTECTING ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND LOCAL ECONOMY * Pollution Prevention * Remedial Action * Accident Preparedness * Global Issues * Right to Inspect * Funding of Experts * Information Access * Nonenvironmental Provisions * Citizen Enforcement Rules of Order for Stakeholder Participation in Plant Evaluations Some basic "Rules of Order" (akin to Robert's Rules of Order" for conducting meet- ings) are needed for stakeholder participation to promote sustainable industries. These are some of the key rights and resources that community coalitions are seeking to promote pollution prevention and stable jobs at local plants. r Information Access: Access to Expertise: Company Studies and, Documents A Right to Independent Technical Assistance Made Publicly Available to Appraise the Sustainability of the Plant ar sir MIN ' Facility Access: Employee Rights: Access for Neighbors and Workers Giving rank and file workers the to Inspect Facilities right to share information with the public and take action in regard to what they know about plant safety and sustainability Follow-Through Commitment: Getting management's commitment to follow through on recommendations from the sustainability audit of rmation Available Under the Fedefaf' CRight: tot Know Act Toxic" Release Inventory (� 4:i•;v::j.: 'C J W input chemicals Inventory List of Toxic Chemicals, Maximum Amounts Stored On-site, and Material Safety Data Sheets List of Extremely Hazardous Substances Notice of Accidental Release Examples of Documents Available In Government Files Periodic Info Submittal Permit. Application Permit TRI, Monitoring Reports Examples of Documents Generally Unavailable In Government Files Worst TOXICs Use Case Process Accident Hazards Re UCtlOtl Scenario Analysis (OSHA) The Good Ke' r Handbook WHAT TO LOOK FO$ DJRING AN INSPECTION ' erai:Housekeeping ► Poliuhori Prevention/Toxics Use-Iteduchon ► y Warnu►g Signs Of Plant Cipsure ► Fue Protection Systems, Electrical Problems Sforage of Flammables, Carcinogens, Warning Labels ..... . Irritants * Energy efficiency ► Unlabeled Mafer�ais -:: ► Emergency Procedures ► Employee Identified.Concerns ► Environmentai:Monitoring Systems ► Occupational Safety and Health concerns ► Sustamability generally. 5-22 S SOME ISSUES TYPICALLY NEGOTIATED IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OR POLLUTION PREVENTION AUDITS I.Access for the auditor to relevant documents and facility locations. 2.Access for the community group's members. 3.Responsibility for costs of experts. 4.A process for cooperative follow-through on recommendations from the audit. 5.A process for designation and protection of confidential business information. 6.Consultation with representatives of the workforce and with relevant agencies. V(xics Use Reduction Audit Protocol Previsit Preparation colloq facility data setting expections for vM clarify who will participate from firm Opening Meeting setting expe0ons for visit discuss products,proccsses,etc. agree on tour route Facility Tour �. reoelviag dock,raw material storage production process loading dock,waste treatment/storage Closing Meeting review tour outline TUR options if appropriate decide on follow-up strategy Next Steps research letter or report to the firm mordioring Impipmentation 4 THE RHONE-POULENC AGREEMENT With Texans United and Manchester, TX Community Groups Safety and environmental audits paid for by R-P Audit supervision by community group/worker committee Public disclosure of company documents includes: ► hazard assessment and risk analysis ► lists of accidents/upsets/near- misses/corrective actions ► waste minimization and reduction plans Scope of audit includes: ► regulatory compliance ► safety training ► accident prevention ► emergency response ► waste analysis and information systems ► monitoring programs ► waste minimization practices R-P will "negotiate in good faith" audit recommendations Citizens accompany auditor and can do other inspections by appointment Agreement is integrated to water pollution permit CITIZEN SUITS AND TOXICS USE REDUCTION Citizen_-. suits in the Emergency Planning & Community Right To Know Act Up to $25,000 per day for.failure to "complete and submit": ► emergency notification after hazardous substances release ► chemicals lists ► toxic release inventory ► pollution prevention act submittals EXAMPLE: I.R. INDUSTRIES SETTLEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ► $150,000 penalty agreed on for violations, but: ► $115,000 offset from penalty allowed for studies and implementation of toxics use reduction ► $45,000 plaintiffs' costs also compensated i Sheldahl Inc., Northfield, Minnesota Collective Bargaining Agreement Reflects Good Neighbor Demands Eliminate 90% of methylene chloride emissions by 1993, * Reduce methylene chloride usage by 64 percent by 1992, Hold progress meetings with the union in which the union could bring in community groups, and Top priority for capital expenditures is finding non-toxic alternative to eliminate methylene chloride. ' FACT SHEET: PREVENTING WORST CASE CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS Worst case" accident predictions for industrial users of dangerous chemicals are becoming available to the public, as a result of state and federal workplace and environmental safety laws. This fact sheet suggests an approach for effective public responses. REVIEWING ACCURACY OF PREDICTIONS Recent experience with worst case scenarios shows that companies often underestimate the actual risks from their plants. For instance, the General Chemical Corporation in Richmond, California had identified their worst accident as a short release that would not cross into the community. But in 1993 a three hour release launched a seven mile long cloud of sulfuric acid into the community, sending 20,000 to the hospital. All worst case estimates should undergo public and expert scrutiny for accuracy. Where companies are currently developing such projections, the public should have an opportunity to review drafts before projections are finalized. WE WILL NEVER BE "PREPARED" FOR THE WORST While government and corporations emphasize emergency preparedness, their preparations are proving to be of limited help in a worst case. For instance, in the General Chemical accident local residents were advised consistent with emergency preparedness plans to "shelter-in- place," i.e., stay indoors. But old homes in that community were not air-tight. Of the 20,000 who reported to hospitals with inhalation sicknesses, many had stayed home and breathed fumes that leaked in through gaps in window sills, doorways and walls. REALLY REDUCING THE POTENTIAL WORST CASE "Containment" and "shelter-in-place" solutions advanced by industry are prone to failure. Real prevention means reducing inventories of extremely hazardous materials found at a plant, and subsituting safer materials where they are available. In Union Carbide's Bhopal, India disaster, thousands were killed by a cloud of methyl isocyanate (MIC). Afterwards, many firms eliminated their potential for repeating the same disaster,.by eliminating bulk storage of MIC. Instead, they now produce only a little bit of the chemical at a time --just enough to feed ongoing production processes. In contrast, Rhone Poulenc in Institute, West Virginia continues to, court tragedy, storing up to six times the amount of NRC of the Bhopal disaster. Companies should be required to evaluate technological and operational opportunities to totally eliminate or drastically reduce worst case accident potentials. See example, other side. A PUBLIC RIGHT TO AUDIT PLANT SAFETY As residents of numerous communities have done, neighbors and workers can insist that they and their experts be allowed to evaluate company documents and inspect plants for safer ways of doing business. They can work with experts to evaluate the extent to which factors such as aging equipment, production output levels, and plant staffing and experience may affect the likelihood of an accident. They can seek ongoing, incremental improvements and dramatic innovations to eliminate the looming threat of a disaster. The Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries PO Box 79225 Waverly, MA 02179(617)489-3686 (617)489-2482 (fax) cl) CD CD oCDCD CDCDL � CD a '• �. is �.. 0 0CD CDa. 0 c, CL En CD CD CD lit CD �. CD CL .b �..�i i i '� �F � Fye.,, CD O o 0CD CS' Ln CO p O I* `CO o $r�� MO CD . ~. � a o IF CD VJ n Vj cOn { A Rt CD d;a tt �t ]] CCD NO OEn CD �- W. "C3 "+� O '� CCD cQCD ■�■ N "t O O (D CD 0 En CLEn CD CD C3 to , i:2. j - in .CDD O "' 0 CD CD CDr r �y CA CD 0 CD 0 O CD CD CD c. r CD CD p En` N •��ca li a ' • cn CDCD 14 O '; CD t' oEn 0 • �� 1— O �` �■t■ a CD O CA O �'* 0 CD CL CD D O • • 7CD O X n OSHA PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT RULE Some Key Provisions Employee Participation Participation Plan Consultation Requirement Access to All Information Process Documentation Hazards Technologies (e.g. flow charts) Equipment Good engineering practices Process Hazard Analyses; Further identify hazards Evaluate hazards Control hazards r Written operating procedures Training program Pre-startup safety review Plan for management of change MINNESOTA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ON TOXICS USE REDUCTION Program Funding from fees to industry (2 cents per pound of TRI toxics) Approximately $1. 1 million from fees annually, statewide State's technical assistance engineers separately advise both industries and community groups on technical options for reducing the use of toxic chemicals Grants to community groups for independent technical advisors on toxics use reduction -- total $143,000 Full time government staffer for public education of community groups on importance of pollution prevention ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK PROPOSAL FOR SUPERFUND LAW (Network of Toxic Victim Organizations) Environmental Health Empowerment Grants to communities to start up clinics, with funding by responsible parties under Superfund Law Specialized diagnostic services, counseling and treatment for environmentally-related illness Data gathering over lifetime of exposed population Oversight by community panel Specially-trained physicians in environmental health issues Public health protective measures to reduce future health risks Clinics are self-sustaining health care businesses Voucher system waiving fees for low income community residents CHEVRON AGREEMENT RICHMOND,, CALIFORNIA WEST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE DO! SOME KEY FEATURES POLLUTION REDUCTION Leakless valves (350 in expansion project, 200-400 in existing refinery) No pollution credits for the valve emission reductions Fenceline air pollution monitoring piloted with community- suggested target chemicals Toxic emission reductions continue LOCAL ECONOMY $5 million over five ve years to near neighbors through United Way and nonprofit service organizations. Skilled job training to 100 fenceline neighbors Aggressive pursuit of employees from community LEGALLY BINDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT c t> ^ >t j o c0 o ►— ■ ccsva �, V2 N 0 co i ! [`M✓) CyCd •F' C�. •••+ cz J' ` cz LM if, C5 cn a., cn a3 �• cts '+� 4-4 ■ cn `" c cn >n �u� �,y N to N — rte-+ C"•� O � � � I s 6 C13O cl t o iu c > , ., En ■... f, - -dcn Q, ani NEnCd cn Lou Lt 3 1` O "C$ U O U td En C3 cltea, o o U a a U THE RHONE-POULENC AGREEMENT With Texans United and Manchester, TX Community Groups Safety .and environmental audits paid for by R-P Audit supervision by community group/worker committee Public disclosure of company documents includes: ► hazard assessment and risk analysis ► lists of accidents/upsets/near- misses/corrective actions ► waste minimization and reduction plans Scope of audit includes: 00. regulatory compliance ► safety training ► accident prevention ► emergency response ► waste analysis and information systems ► monitoring programs ► waste minimization practices R-P will "negotiate in good faith" audit recommendations Citizens accompany auditor and can do other inspections by appointment Agreement is integrated to water pollution permit MINNESOTA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ON TOXICS USE REDUCTION Program Funding from fees to industry (2 cents per pound of TRI toxics) Approximately $1.1 million from fees annually, statewide State's technical assistance engineers separately advise both industries and community groups on technical options for reducing the use, of toxic chemicals Grants to community groups for independent technical advisors on toxics use reduction -- total $1435000 Full time government staffer for public education of community groups on importance of pollution prevention DRAFT RESOLUTION Whereas the safety and environment of the county is at stake from chemical plant and refinery accidents and environmental hazards, and Whereas broad community support has been demonstrated for technical assistance to community organizations, for instance: ( 1) A Community Safety Alliance of residents around seven refineries and chemical plants has been seeking a right to technical assistance to evaluate those facilities, and (2) Doctor William Walker the County Health Director has proposed providing technical assistance to Community Advisory Panels (CAPS) through the state' s AB100 Committee but the Administrator of the AB100 committee has said that such funding will not be forthcoming, and (3) The Chevron CAP has requested technical assistance funding to oversee Chevron' s current expansion, and (4) A survey of Contra Costa County CAPS conducted in April 1993 showed strongest demand among CAP members for independent technical advisors to CAPs, And whereas technical assistance funding can promote informed -and effective public and workforce participation which can dramatically improve safety and pollution prevention, Therefore the County Board .of Supervisors hereby resolve as follows: That a community technical assistance fund shall be established, the monies of which shall be comprised of 5% of county fees relating to hazardous materials regulation, and funds to be earmarked from settlement agreements resulting from spills and other toxic releases. Grants from such fund will be provided to community organizations, including but not limited to organizations of environmentally concerned industrial neighbors and Community Advisory Panels. TEL No Jun 1 ,94 14:25 No .005 P.02 From SAW*gd Lv*il TO:Kris G9n*VW1 Date:5,A6W rimc 2897:42 pmao 2 915 C) Director's Biography SANFORD J. LEWIS Is the director of the Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries of the Center for the Study of Public Policy, and author of the!Good Neighbor Handbook:A Community-based Strategy for Sustainable Industry. The Good Neighbor Project helps communities and workers to promote clean, stable and fair local industries. He is an attorney whose clients have included local grassroots environmental groups, as well as many national organizations, Including the National Toxics Campaign Fund, Greenpeace and the Center for Policy Alternatives. His clients have also Included local government'and the Toxics Use Reduction Institute of Massachusetts. In addition to directing the Good Neighbor Project he Is an Instructor of Environmental Law In the graduate program in Urban and Environmental Policy at Tufts University. His course entitled Pollution Prevention and the Law emphasizes the role of environmental low reform in promoting Innovation,job creation and stability, and economic efficlency. He was attorney and lobbyist for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group from 1983 to 1986. In that capacity he was a coauthor of a Massachusetts hazardous waste cleanup ballot initiative, supported by a landslide vote of 74% of voters in November 1986. He was also a leading advocate for numerous Massachusetts laws and regulations, Including the state Superfund and hazardous waste management rules. In his capacity as legal director W the National Toxics Campaign Fund' he wrote the legal chapters of the citizens' handbook"Fighting-Toxi5s" published In 090 by Island Press. He was coauthor of"From Poison to Prevention" and "Shadow on the Land," seminally important policy reports on hazardous waste reduction, and agricultural chemicals. policies, respectively. During 1991 he wrote"Border Trouble," which detailed for,the first time the water quality problems along the U-S.- Mexico border due to industrial development In that region. In 1992, he coauthored "Inconclusive by Design," which identified waste, fraud and abusain federal environmental health research studies around hazardous waste sites. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School(J.D. '83) and holds a B.S. in Environmental Science from Cook College, Rutgers University.He Is a member of the Environmental Lawyers Network International (ELNI), TEL No Jun 1a 94 14:25 No .005 P.03 Raw Sanl*W Lewis To: Kris Genwvmli Vita:(41514 Time:29:11:39 ftas 5 of 5 SANFORD J. LENNITS PUBLICATIONS AND OTHER WRITIN(jS The Good Areighbor Handbook:A Cemmunily-bame--d Strategv Far Sustainable.Industry, 1992, Coauthor. Investigative Report:Inconcls&vive By Design: Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Federal Environmental Health Research, EiMronmejAW Health Network and National Toxios Campaign Fund, May 1992. The Role and Limits of Volunteerism: Toward an Integrated Public Strategy to Advance Corporate Environmental Responsibifity, Paper Presented at International Conference an CWotatc Environmental Responsibility, Tutting, Germany,October 1991. Border Troubles:Assessment of Water Pollution in US-Mexico Border Waterways, March 1991. Whole Earth Review, "Turning Polluters hao Good Neighbors,"Spring 1990, Model Solid Wwte Ordinances on incineration,recycling,mid plastics, for Greenpeace (3arbage Prevention Platt, 1990. "The Good Neighbor Strategy in the 1990's,,, April 1990, The Roston Harbor Toxics Cleanup: Who Should Pay?National Toxic Campaign Fund,February, 1990. From Poison to Prevention:Replacing Hazardous Waste FacililySiting with Toxics Reduction Strategies. National Toxic Campaign Fund,August 1989. CAjautbor- kv the World Burns: Documenting America's Failure to Address the Ozone Crisis. April 25, 1989. Report Prepared for the Carnpaign for Safe Alternatives to Protect the Ozone Layer. Shadow on Ike Land:A Transition Away front Toxic Chemicals on the Farm. National Toxics Prevention Fund. 1988. Coauthor:Regulating Environmental Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms: The Sate Perypec(;ve.Committee for Responsible Genetics and National Carger for Policy Alternatives. Jane 1, 1989. Briefing Paper or: Toxic Land Fraud, National Center for Policy Alternatives. 1988. Arlefing Paper on Title IN Right to Know and Chemical Emergenry Planning T.Tneler the Federal Superfund Amendment of 1986.Programs, &-gues and Opporlunifiesfor the ,tales, National Center for Policy Alternatives, 1988. Legal Chapter of Fighting Toxics, Island Prem, 099. "llazardow Ffweeast: 1000 Toxic Waste Dumps in Maysachuse.jI,,r,,, MASSPIRG study, 1984. Yhe Toxics Grisiv., What the States Can Do, chapter on "Constimer Protection" and co-author of chapter oii "Victim Compensation". Conference/Alternative State and Local Policies. 1983. "Land Pollution" (Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes,Pesticides),in Handbook of Environmental Law in Michigan, histitute of Continuing Legal Education. 1993, Petro Pollution:A Stud!y of Leakv in Underground Gasoline and Oil Storage Tanky, MASSPIRG, 1983. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Public Health Association Boston Bar Association Environmental Law Network International I TEL No . Jun 1 ,94 14:25 No -005 P.04 From:SW*rd LovAt. To; Kris Gwm;a% Utito:WIW Timm-AftIO.V Pap!4 015 l%ftiCil)aUt,HaWdoug SUbstancM(Supelk)XiCS)Task Force,Health Care Committee, Ma%.%achusetts Legislature, 0ctober 1485 to April 1986, Member,Massachusetts ffft7m46us Waste Adviwxy Committee, Department of Fnvironmental Quality Engineering. December 1982 to September 1985. Associate Member, September 1985-1987. ChRIM18II Of 15O13 W** ArOUP. Staff Attorney. Massachusetts Public liawst.Research Group. hobbyist style) lead negotiator for hazardous waste legislation and regulation.-;. Co-author of Ballot Question Four on Hazardous Waste cleanup scheduling. August 1982 to August 1985. Legal Extern.National Wildlife Federation,Energy Program. May to August 1981, Coordinator. F-hvironmental Low Society,I iniversity of Michigan Law School. 1980 to 1951. Research Asnistaut, Professor Joseph Sax, University of Michigan law School. In-depth survey of U.S. toxic chemical laws,to-allow professor Sax to give lecture series at.French toxics symposium. September to November 1980. Legal Intent. Comietticut Fund for the Environment. Conducted model review of a proposed water pollution discharge peimit for a major industrial plant. May to August.1980. Public Participation Coordinator and Ediwr. NJ DepL of Environmental Protection,Water Quality Planning t1rogram. September 1977 to June 1979. Aide. Assistant.Commissioner,Betty Wilson,NJ Del% of Environmental Protection. January to June 1976, Film and News Production Intem, NJ Public Television. June to December 1975. CHEVRON AGREEMENT RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA WEST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE DO! SOME KEY FEATURES POLLUTION REDUCTION Leakless valves (350 in expansion project, 200-400 in existing refinery) No pollution credits for the valve emission reductions Fenceline air pollution monitoring piloted with community- suggested target chemicals Toxic emission reductions continue LOCAL ECONOMY $5 million over five years to near neighbors through United Way and nonprofit service organizations Skilled job training to 100 fenceline neighbors Aggressive pursuit of employees from community LEGALLY BINDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THE RHONE-POULENC AGREEMENT With Texans United and Manchester, TX Community Groups Safety and environmental audits paid for by R-P Audit supervision by community group/worker committee Public disclosure of company documents includes: 10. hazard assessment and risk analysis ► lists of accidents/upsets/near- misses/corrective actions ► waste minimization and reduction plans Scope of audit includes: ► regulatory compliance ► safety training ► accident prevention ► emergency response ► waste analysis and information systems ► monitoring programs ► waste minimization practices R-P will "negotiate in good faith" audit recommendations Citizens accompany auditor and can do other inspections by appointment Agreement is integrated to water pollution permit MINNESOTA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ON TOXICS USE REDUCTION Program Funding from fees to industry (2 cents per pound of TRI toxics) Approximately $1.1 million from fees annually, statewide State's technical assistance engineers separately advise both industries and community groups on technical options for reducing the use of toxic chemicals Grants to community groups for independent technical advisors on toxics use reduction -- total $143,000 Full time government staffer for public education of community groups on importance of pollution prevention DRAFT RESOLUTION Whereas the safety and environment of the county is at stake from chemical plant and refinery accidents and environmental hazards, and Whereas broad community support has been demonstrated for technical assistance to community organizations, for instance: ( 1) A Community Safety Alliance of residents around seven refineries and chemical plants has been seeking a right to technical assistance to evaluate those facilities, and (2) Doctor William Walker the County Health Director has proposed providing technical assistance to Community Advisory Panels (CAPS) through the state' s AB100 Committee but the Administrator of the AB100 committee has said that such funding will not be forthcoming, and (3) The Chevron CAP has requested technical assistance funding to oversee Chevron' s current expansion, and (4 ) A survey of Contra Costa: County CAPs conducted in April 1993 showed strongest demand among CAP members for independent technical advisors to CAPs, And whereas technical assistance funding can promote informed and effective public and workforce participation which can dramatically improve safety and pollution prevention, Therefore the County Board of Supervisors hereby resolve as follows: That a. community technical assistance fund shall be established, the monies of which shall be comprised of 5% of county fees relating to hazardous materials regulation, and funds to be earmarked from settlement agreements resulting from spills and other toxic releases. Grants from such fund will be provided to community organizations, 'including but not limited to organizations of environmentally concerned industrial neighbors and Community Advisory Panels.