Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05211996 - C86 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COI'ltl"a FRDM: Supervisor Jeff Smith Costa t County y�. ,.� DATE: May 21 , 1996 SUBJECT` PROPOSED ORDINANCE REQUIRING SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PROJECTS AT FACILITIES HANDLING HAZARDOUS WASTES OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommendation: Refer the attached draft ordinance to the Community Development Director and appropriate industrial associations for comment and refer back to the Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety (Smith & De Saulner) for public hearing. Background: This ordinance is being proposed to require a County permit be obtained for previously uncovered construction and maintenance of facilities that handle hazardous wastes or hazardous materials. Although permits are normally required for the initial construction of such a facility, these same facilities are constantly repaired, reconstructed and maintained without being required to submit new permits. The ordinance will require risk management protection plan updates, hazardous operations studies and the implementation of measures which will attempt to prevent accidents before they happen. There are indications that recent fires, explosions and other problems in facilities handling large amounts of hazardous materials can be traced to the areas involving repair, reconstruction and maintenance. The attached draft ordinance will require permits and public scrutiny for a variety of additional projects costing over$250,000. This ordinance proposes to provide a higher level of protection to the public and plant workers than that offered by existing ordinances. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: "z.,II/JI);; RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF B MTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUREiSt ACTION OF BOARD ON may 21, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Please see Addendum (attached) for a list of speakers and Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS(ABIENT Bishopt HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ISA TRUE ,._ AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOEL: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ASSENT: ASITAIN OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc Supervisor Smith ATTESTED May 21, 1996 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Community Development Director SUPE 1;TY1ADMINI ATOR Hazardous Materials Comm.. (via HS) Ad Hoc Cte. on Industrial Safety (via CDD) 0382 (10/68) BY >D RAF T CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Adopt Division 819 as follows: Chapter 819.2 SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PROJECTS AT FACILITIES HANDLING HAZARDOUS WASTES OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Article 819-2.2 General 819-2 .202 Purpose. The purpose of this Subsection is to ensure that projects proposed at facilities that handle hazardous wastes or hazardous materials are carried out in a manner that protects the he-a lth safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the = frk , and that protects the environment, by requiring a special permit for such projects in accordance with the provisions set forth herein. 819-2.204 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. 819-2.206 Applicability. Any person proposing a project as defined herein in any zoning district shall be subject to the provisions of this Subsection. Nothing in this Subsection relieves any person from compliance with any other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Article 819-2.4 Definitions 819-2 . 402 Project. (1) For purposes of this Subsection, "Project" means a project meeting all of the following criteria: (a) The project involves either of the following categories of work: (i) The construction, alteration, enlargement, replacement or other modification of a structure, equipment or facility; and/or (ii) A scheduled maintenance turnaround or major repair of a structure, equipment or facility. (b) The cost of the proposed work is reasonably estimated to exceed $250, 000; and A1065.002 (c) The structure, equipment or facility on which the work will be performed has the capacity or would have the capacity to handle: (i) more than four thousand tons per year of hazardous waste; (ii) more than five hundred tons per year of extremely hazardous waste; (iii) more than twelve thousand, five hundred tons per year of hazardous materials; or (iv) with respect to acutely hazardous materials or mixtures containing acutely hazardous materials, quantities which at any one time are equal to or greater than the threshold planning quantities listed in Appendix A of Part 355 of Subchapter J of Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 2 . In computing tons of hazardous waste, the aqueous portion of any wastewater stream containing less than one percent by weight of hazardous waste constituents shall not be included in the computation of the amount of hazardous waste handled provided such constituents are removed from such aqueous stream or otherwise treated on-site to render the waste nonhazardous and provided such hazardous waste constituents contained in such aqueous streams of the entire facility are one hundred tons per year or less. This method of computing tons of hazardous waste shall not apply where the aqueous stream is an extremely hazardous waste as determined by the California Department of Health Services. 819-2.404 Transport. "Transport" means an act to move hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste, hazardous material, or acutely hazardous material by air, rail, highway or water. 819-2 .406 Treat. "Treat" means an act by any method, technique or process including neutralization or incineration, to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover or reclaim energy or material resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store or dispose of; or amenable to recovery, storage,, or reduction in volume. A1065.002 2 �.DIU 819-2 .408 Dispose. "Dispose" means to discharge, deposit, inject, dump, or place any hazardous waste or extremely 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. 819-2 .410 Generate. "Generate" means an act or process of producing hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste. 819-2.412 Store. "Store" means an act to contain hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste, hazardous material or acutely hazardous material, either on a temporary basis or for a period of years, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal or use of such hazardous waste or hazardous material. 819-2 .414 Use. "Use" means an act to produce, apply or utilize a hazardous material or acutely hazardous material in any manufacturing, industrial or other commercial process, including any chemical, physical or biological process. 819-2 .416 Hazardous waste. "Hazardous waste" means any substance which is regulated as a hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. 819-2 .418 Extremely hazardous waste. Extremely hazardous waste means any substance which has been identified as an extremely hazardous waste under Title 33 of the California Code of Regulations. 819-2 .420 Hazardous material. "Hazardous material" means any substance which is regulated as hazardous under California Labor Code Sections 6382 or 6383 . 819-2.422 Acutely Hazardous Material. "Acutely Hazardous Material" means a material as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 25532 , subd. (a) . 819-2.424 Handle. When used in conjunction with the term "hazardous waste" or "extremely hazardous waste, " "handle" means to generate, treat, process, store, transport, transfer, recycle, recover or dispose of hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste. When used in conjunction with the term "hazardous material" or "acutely hazardous material, " "handle" means to store, transport or use hazardous material or acutely hazardous material. 819-2 . 426 Worker Certification. Worker Certification means that the workers have passed within the last twelve months the Piping Industry Progress and Education Trust (P. I.P. E. ) Certification Test for Steamfitting/Pipefitting and/or Welding or A1065.002 3 another test equivalent in difficulty administered by an entity independent of the project applicant approved by the City. 819-2 .428 High Temperature/High Pressure Installation. A high temperature/high pressure installation includes, without limitation, process units, vessels, spheres, tanks, piping and other installations where fluids or gases are under a pressure exceeding 30 pounds per square inch or at temperatures exceeding 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Article 819-2 . 6 Applications and Procedures 819-2 . 602 Procedure. Any person proposing a project subject to this Subsection shall submit an application to the planning commission's office. 819-2 . 604 Application Form. In addition and any other information required by the planning commission's office to implement this Subsection, the application shall include: (1) A detailed description of the projectand all related projects which are anticipated to be performed within one year of the completion of the proposed project. Piecemealing of projects to avoid application of the provisions of this Subsection is strictly prohibited. (2) The information necessary to compute the tons per year of hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste, hazardous material and/or acutely hazardous material handled at the facility. (3) The information necessary to compute the cost of the proposed project. (4) An updated risk management and prevention program executed and stamped by a professional engineer with appropriate qualifications for the project that complies with Health & Safety Code § 25534 (c) for the project. (5) An updated hazard and operability study executed by a professional engineer with appropriate qualifications for the project which (a) identifies the hazards associated with handling hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste, hazardous materials and acutely hazardous materials due to material, mechanical, equipment, operational, procedural or safety failure; A1065.002 4 (b) identifies the accident risk to on-site and off- site personnel; (c) presents a quantitative analysis of any significant human health risk; (d) includes a clearly prepared map of the facility and the location of human populations at risk of exposure and all the populations identified in Health & Safety Code § 25534 . 1; and (e) identifies measures that may be utilized to prevent or minimize any significant risk to human health. 829-2. 606 Hearing. The proposed project shall be considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The hearing shall be noticed in the manner required for a conditional use permit. 819-2 . 608 Findings. In order to recommend the project for approval by the Board of Supervisors the Planning Commission shall make the following findings: (1) No Significant Effect. (a) The proposed project will not significantly adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the city or the local economy; and (b) The proposed project will not impose a significant risk to human health or the environment from an accident involving hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste, hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials. (c) The proposed project will not significantly adversely affect the environment. (2) Worker Certification. The workers who will be employed to perform the steamfitting/pipefitting and/or welding on high temperature/high pressure installations, have obtained worker certification. (3) Prefabricated Units. Prefabricated units which consist, either wholly or partially, of high temperature/high pressure installations will be required to have 100% of their welds determined to meet appropriate engineering specifications by means of x- ray inspection. The applicant shall submit a written report signed and stamped by a professional engineer A1065.002 5 C.P with appropriate qualifications setting forth the results of the x-ray inspection. (4) Safety Compliance. The applicant will comply with the measures specified in the updated risk management and prevention program and the updated hazard and operability study and all conditions imposed on the project by the Q41ty. (5) Overriding Considerations. With respect to any effect or risk for which the findings in Paragraph 4 (c) (1) above cannot be made, (a) A finding that all feasible measures have been imposed to reduce or minimize the effect or risk; and (b) Specific benefits of the project override the remaining unmitigated significant risks or effects. Any proposed findings of specific benefits which override such remaining significant effects or risks shall be available for public review at least 10 days prior to Commission recommendation of the permit. 819-2 . 610 Conditions. The Commission shall have the authority to recommend such conditions on the proposed project as it deems necessary to enable it to make the findings required by Paragraph 4 (c) of this Subsection. Without limitation on its authority, with respect to scheduled turnaround maintenance projects, the Commission may recommend require further maintenance or inspections at scheduled intervals in the future. 819-2 . 612 Referral to the Board of Supervisors. After action by the Planning Commission, the matter shall be automatically referred to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors shall have full authority-t°reverse, modify, supplement or approve the action of the Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors shall hold a public hearing on the proposed project which shall be noticed in the same manner as a hearing on a conditional use permit. The Board of Supervisors shall approve the project only if it can make the findings set forth in Paragraph 4 (c) of this Subsection. The Board shall have the authority to impose such conditions on the proposed project as it deems necessary to enable it to make the findings required by Paragraph 4 (c) of this Subsection. 819-2 . 614 Exemption. A permit shall not be required for a temporary project that is necessary in order to provide for the immediate protection of human health and safety or the environment due to a sudden, unexpected emergency. Any such A1065.002 6 temporary project shall be inspected by the Community Development Department and subject to its approval. 819-2 . 616 Fee. A fee may be prescribed in a sum set by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. 819-2. 618 Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any equipment or facility for which a permit is required by this section without obtaining a permit as required by this section. In addition to any other remedies authorized by law, intentional or negligent violations of this section shall be subject to civil penalties not to exceed $25, 000 for each separate violation or, for continuing violations, for each day that violation continues. 819-2 .8 Repeal of Sections 819-2 .802 Repeal. Sections 84-63 . 2 through 84 . 63 . . 1004 are hereby repealed. ,f a1065.002 7 temporary project shall be inspected by the Community Development Department and subject to its approval. 819-2 . 616 Fee. A fee may be prescribed in a sum set by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. 819-2 . 618 Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any equipment or facility for which a permit is required by this section without obtaining a permit as required by this section. In addition to any other remedies authorized by law, intentional or negligent violations of this section shall be subject to civil penalties not to exceed $25, 000 for each separate violation or, for continuing violations, for each day that violation continues. 819-2 .8 Repeal of Sections 819-2 .802 Repeal. Sections 84-63 . 2 through 84 . 63 . . 1004 are hereby repealed. i A1065.002 7 C.86 ADDENDUM Item C.86 May 21, 1996 Supervisor Smith introduced the ordinance and invited discussion from Board members. Following discussion by Board members, Chairman Smith invited public comment on the matter and the following persons addressed the Board: Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council, 935 Alhambra, Martinez; Tom Adams, Building Trades Local, 651 Gateway Blvd., #900, South San Francisco; Dennis Spaniol, Council of Industries, 1003 W. Cutting, Suite 281, Richmond; Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment, 500 Howard, #506, San Francisco; Scott Folwarkow, Western States Petroleum Association, 2300 Clayton Road, Concord; Kathy Adams, Industrial Association of Contra Costa County, P.O. Box 988, Martinez; Donald R. Brown, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 1801 Sonoma Boulevard, #117, Vallejo; Ronald Wetter, Pacific Gas and Electric, 1030 Detroit Avenue, Concord; Ron Espinoza, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 305 Sunnyslopes Drive, Martinez; Howard Spencer, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 432 First Street, Rodeo; John Sakamoto, Eichleay Engineers, Inc., 3096 Bernard Avenue, San Ramon; Cecily Feudo, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers I-5, 1579 Glazier Drive, Concord; Rick Jones, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 1865 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez; Mike Rydman, 620 Edwards Street, Crockett; John Wolfe, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, 320 Main Street, Martinez; Sabina Gokcen, Hazardous Materials Commission, 2047 Olympic Drive, Martinez; Scott Anderson, The Industrial Association of Contra Costa County, P.O. Box 1398, Pittsburg; Tom Lindemuth, 501 Daisy Place, Pleasant Hill; Linda Best, Contra Costa Council, 3182 Old Tunnel Road, Lafayette; Palmer Madden, Contra Costa Council, 1331 N. California Boulevard, Walnut Creek; Dan Hall, Wickland Corporation, 3640 American River Drive, Sacramento; Andy Mechling, Shoreline Environmental Alliance, 902 St. Andrews, E1 Sobrante; and Henry Clark, 1323 Boltery, Richmond. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, Chairman Smith closed the public comment period. C.86 ADDENDUM Page 2 Following further Board discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the proposed ordinance requiring special permits at facilities handling hazardous wastes or hazardous materials is REFERRED to the Community Development Director, the Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety and the Hazardous Materials Commission for review. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Community Development Director, the Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety and the Hazardous Materials Commission are DIRECTED to solicit input from all concerned parties in a public forum and report back to the Board within thirty (30) days providing a proposed policy/procedure or other alternative for the Board's consideration. cc: Supervisor Smith County Counsel Community Development Director Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Safety (via CDD) Hazardous Materials Commission (via HS/Elinor Blake) Elchleey Engineer,il Inc. of California Suite 600, 1390 Willow Paso Road, Concord, California`4520 a 510.689.7000 • FAX 510-689-7006 Russell I Miller, P.E. President May 21, 1996 RECEIVED � Board of Supervisors Clerk an —� Jeanne Maglio ENAY I I9 CLERK BOARD CF Re! Richmond Ordinance/Contra Costa county Ordinauci! CONTRA COZ Dear Ms, Maglio: The purpose of this letter is to voice my strong opposition to the subject ordinances. I am a professional engineer who has lived in this area for twenty yi,ars, and been involved in a wide range of professional services to heavy industry for that entini pe-iod. I can state unequivocally that these ordinances would be redundant,unnecessary, and Jb nothing to mitigate risks associated with hazardous materials and/or process plants. Our firm has been heavily involved in a broad range of risk iamu gement consulting in industrial facilities. We have a highly qualified staff of engineering pr:f'esi ionals who possess an in-depth knowledge of the operating hazards associated with industrii,L facilities and hazardous materials. We know that effective mitigation of risk is achieved throng:-i application of rational scientific and engineering solutions to extremely complex,problems, 11fec love mitigation of risk will not be achieved through an emotional and irrational application of ini,ffeetive and bureaucratic regulations. In all probability,these types of regulations wil. exa"erbate the problems by malting process plan improvements into political issues that can be weed I+y special interest groups to serve their own purposes. We support The Hazardous Materials Commission's Proposo l Contra Costa County Land Use Ordinance, which is an example of a reasonable approach to holy,ng problems with input from all elements of the community, The Richmond Ordinance, on&,e of ier hand, is exactly the type of regulation that we strongly oppose, and believe will do more:harvi than good. Sincerely, T/T*d S00'ON WUTV:ZZ 966ti'T2'AUW ti ANDERSEN, BONNIFIELD & STEVENS MAILING ADDRESS ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 5926 1355 WILLOW WAY-SUITE 255 PHONE(510) 602-1400 CONCORD, CA 94524-0926 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 FAX(510) 825-0143 May 21, 1996 HAND DELIVERED REVED M/I 'J� Contra Costa County CLERK BOAFi7 ub UPERVISr RS CONTRA e; I�cow r_ Board of Supervisors -. Re: Proposed Hazardous Material Ordinance Dear Supervisors: Our office represents a number of industrial construction concerns throughout Contra Costa County. We have carefully reviewed the proposed hazardous materials ordinance (County File ZT3-96). It is out understanding that this proposed ordinance is the work product of the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission. We commend the Commission for producing a quality proposal which if enacted as an ordinance will make Contra Costa County a better place to work and live. It is my understanding that the process to create this proposed ordinance took over three years and involved over 100 public meetings. We strongly support this proposed ordinance and trust it will be given your strong consideration without delay. We are concerned with an apparent attempt by Supervisor Jeff Smith, Mr. Tom Powers and organized labor to propose an ordinance imposing permits on industrial facilities in an amount over $250,000 in Contra Costa County. This proposed "Powers ordinance" is a duplicate of an ordinance being proposed in the City of Richmond by Ms. Donna Powers. It is our opinion that the "Powers ordinance" is only being brought before you to ensure that basically all industrial construction in Contra Costa County will be under the control of the local building trades unions. It is not a safety ordinance and it is not an environmental ordinance. It is an annuity for the Pipetrades Union. Irrespective of the merits or intentions of the ordinance, we are most concerned that this ordinance will be "piggybacked" with the proposed hazardous materials ordinance. We object on the grounds that there has not been notice of the proposal to the public at large. To be considered, this ordinance must move through the process just as the ordinance from the Hazardous Materials Commission. There has been no process on the "Powers ordinance". Pursuant to Government Code §§65854, 65856 and 65804, the "Powers ordinance" must comply with the process required for enactment of legislation. Obviously the Hazardous Materials Commission took great pains to obtain adequate public input and staff review. It is our position that the "Powers ordinance" should travel through the same process. Contra Costa County May 21, 1996 Re: Proposed Hazardous Material Ordinance Page 2 I thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, CRAI�F. ANDERSEN CFA:Ijc is\work\cfa\I-super.521 k w FWMI ID : MAY 21 '96 10 :07 ado . 001 F .01 FOSTER WHEELER MARTINEZ, INC. 550 SOLANO WAY • MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 64303 - PHONE 510-313-0800 • FAX 510-313-0014 May 21, 1996 The Honorable Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Fax (510) 646-1059 Dear Members of the Board: Foster Wheeler Martinez, Inc. A business located in Contra Costa County opposes the Proposed City of Richmond Ordinance. This Proposal will not foster economic growth In our County. The proposed ordinance would defer manufacturing expansion and limit additional high wage jobs and growth. The proposed ordinance is unnecessary. Existing and forthcoming regulations such as the Hazardous Materials Commission's Proposed Contra Costa County Land Use Ordinance address safety in the industry. We urge you to reject the Proposed City of Richmond Ordinance. Sincerely, Hector V. Neg on Administration Manager I ea(- 05/21/96 TUE 10:21 FAX 510 685 9050 INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION - f►001 LL +: THE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. •"_ OF CONTRA COB-rA COUNTY May 21 , 1996 I Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Attn: Jeanne Maglio Via fax: 646-1059 Dear Members of the Board: By unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Industrial Association, we strongly encourage you to oppose the "Richmond ordinance" which has been introduced by Supervisor Jeff smith and support the Hazardous Materials Commission's Land Use ordinance, as proposed, which is currently being reviewed by the County Planning Commission. The Richmond Ordinance, while professing to be safety-motivated, is clearly special-interest legislation with no improvement to safety. Safety issues are currently managed through County, State, and Federal guidelines. It makes no sense to require facilities to delay implementing urgently required maintenance while waiting for a permit to be approved. Nor does it make any sense to dictate that a certain group should be the only one that can perform the maintenance activity when others have been trained as well as or better than the specified groups. The Hazardous Materials Commission, on the otherhand, was instructed under a board order over three years ago to develop a land use ordinance that would decrease risk by encouraging industrial facilities to reduce quantities of hazardous materials, transport them in the safest way possible, and move operations as far away from "sensitive receptors" as possible. After much toil, untold volunteer hours, and over a hundred public meetings, a group comprised of representatives from labor, business, cities, industry, environmentalists, the general public, and county health services and planning staffs have come up with an ordinance which is considered to be fair, while decreasing risk to surrounding communities. It gives no group preferential treatment; it emphasizes developing 'projects which are the safest for our communities. sincerely, Scott Scott A Anderson President W C118=- 05/21/96 TUE 10:48 FAX 5102422425 ADMIN BLDG 3RD FLOOR 0 002 4 J I Mn wo Chevron Chevron U.S.A. Products Company P. O. Box 1272 Richmond, CA 94802-0272 W. D. Steelman General Manager May 21, 1996 The Honorable Board of Supervisors: I am writing to inform you of our strong opposition to the proposed County Ordinance "Special Permits for Projects at Facilities Handling Hazardous Wastes or Hazardous Materials." The Chevron Richmond Refinery would not be directly impacted by the ordinance since the refinery is totally located within the City of Richmond. However, as a business in Contra Costa County, we are deeply concerned about the economic health and business climate in the county. We are also deeply concerned about safety and the prevention of industrial incidents. Our reasons for opposing the proposed ordinance are detailed below. First, the ordinance will not improve safety. Requiring a business to acquire numerous land use permits for plant projects and maintenance will delay or discourage necessary maintenance. The ordinance also does not impose new safety requirements;it merely duplicates existing and forthcoming federal and state safety regulations. Second, the proposed ordinance would place tremendous permitting burden on industry and.county staff with no public benefit; save for special interests who would demand concessions in the public permitting process. To illustrate the extent of the permitting burden, I will describe how the proposed ordinance would affect the Richmond Refinery(if the ordinance were enacted in the City of Richmond). Throughout a year, a refinery undertakes numerous plant turnarounds to do necessary plant inspection, maintenance, and repairs and catalyst change-outs. We plan to have 14 plant turnarounds/catalyst changes in 1996, 16 in 1997, and 22 in 1998. We estimate that it would take two to four months to complete the proposed permitting process for each permit application, assuming there are no delays in the permitting process. Note that major projects and emergency repairs are not included in the above numbers. L'.fk 05/21/96 TUE 10:49 FAX 5102422425 ADMIN BLDG 3RD FLOOR Z003 Board of Supervisors Page 2 May 21, 1996 We have heard the public's frustration and concern about recent refinery incidents. But adopting more regulations, especially duplicative regulations by different agencies, is not the answer. Petroleum refining is already a heavily regulated industry. Our operations are overseen by dozens of federal, state, and local agencies. Existing regulations, as well as industry standards are extensive and cover: personnel training, equipment design, operations and maintenance procedures, accident prevention and investigation, emissions control, etc. Refinery safety comes from due diligence in following agency and industry standards and a focus on incident prevention. I encourage you to oppose the proposed ordinance as being unnecessary regulation, with no safety benefit. I do request your support in working with industry in communicating the standards that are in place to prevent accidents and enhance safety. Chevron extends an invitation to you and selected county staff to visit our Richmond Refinery to discuss our operation and our safety policies and procedures. Very truly yours, MAY-20-1996 15:01 FROM TIMEC CO.VALLEJO,CA TO 15106461059 t Jearie 1Viaglio l Board of Supervisors-Clerk Fax 010Y646 '4 059 ,. ME {:?eon' U.Mao i&'. Ura beaif zaf over. l0(30 TiMEC Company em io ees i�r a ot3 toop ose the p. Y p Y ,,. . g Y pp , . proixsedrordinan a requiricig "Special Permits fog Projects at Facilities:Nandlitig Hazardous wastes:oi'Hazardous.Mati rims." : WIS vjew this ordinance as a trafisparent attempt to tatce work`away':frcirn.workers who ire curretitty do[t�g the woriC.'actd giveto others. 'Ait#io +gh the rhetoric'f the prop sed.o#d t nca makes. lairIfi i bout the'rieed #v improve ' afaty,°'i#�irr�uid actually be courife aroductNe.and riv 16 the-refineries mtire urisafe.> All issues stip osetlly.addressed by this ordinance are already oc rered y any federal, Mate and local codes.and ►rdinances already in place-arid working t-urge yai, to pass and€nance developed by the.Hazardous Materials Comm. '.•as pjjserited without trying to-tie the"Richmond 6rdinance" to it. Sincerely;' t. R.;B �ggsond CFO.� 1 .� I",Uorp„t`a a Ptace • VaUe)G,.Catiforn4 64590. P.O' 66x 7.7 � �7fl7) 642-?222 • I.iC'28{229 a Woffd�tri to ol ki Safety,Quality snd Produaiiuiiy: 6'►qu-MvONWYCOe49oart:WVRKoarsour,'Aresm« u i>Rfxvworo.tewr 05/20/96 11:59 FAX 510 372 3176 TOSCO REFINING 0 001/002 LI (j:7 y Clark S.Wrigley Refinery Manager rm Vice President,Refining ' Tosco Refining Company A Division of Tosco Corporation TOSCO Avon Refinery Martinez,California 94553-1487 Telephone:510 372.3002 Facsimile: 510370-3392 May 20, 1996 Ms. Jeanne Maglio Board of Supervisors Clerk 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Via fax: (510) 646-1059 Dear Ms. Maglio: On behalf of the men and women of Tosco Refining Company, I strongly urge you to ovnose the proposed ordinance requiring "Special Permits for Projects at Facilities Handling Hazardous Wastes or Hazardous Materials"which is to be considered at your May 21 meeting. To put it simply, this ordinance is unnecessary. It duplicates existing regulations, including Contra Costa County's own Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) and Cal/OSHA'S Process Safety Management Program (PSM) which requires thorough Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZ/OPS). Additionally, it will duplicate provisions in the new Federal Risk Management Program (RMP)which will take effect later this year. In fact, the ordinance discourages industrial maintenance and development, therefore decreasing opportunities for full time local jobs. Its lengthy permitting process (estimated at 3 months) could actually negatively impact safety by delaying necessary repairs and maintenance. It creates a time consuming and cosily process which adds another layer of bureaucracy and will not improve safety. Obviously this would impact the gasoline supply in the State of California. At the County Supervisor's direction, the Hazardous Materials Commission has spent more than three years formulating a sound land use ordinance which provides for better management of projects involving hazardous materials. It provides a screening tool to review projects which result in a change in risk rather than arbitrarily triggering a land use permit for a project based solely upon cost and quantity of materials handled. I attended the Planning Commission meeting last week at which time the proposed Land Use Ordinance was presented for public hearing. There was NO public opposition voiced. This is likely due to the fact that there was a very high level of community involvement throughout the process. In fact, all 15 speaker cards submitted on this issue were in support of the ordinance. Please note that Tosco's Clean Fuels project would have triggered a Land Use Permit under the newly proposed,formula. 05/20/96 12:00 FAX 510 372 3176 TOSCO REFINING C�j 002/002 In short, the "Special Permits...Ordinance" is bad for business. Therefore, it is detrimental to the economy of Contra Costa County. It is also counter to the County's Economic Partnership's goals of streamlining regulations. Most importantly, it will not improve safety:. We ask you to consider the facts and the overall public good rather than this piece of flawed, special interest legislation. I am available at 372-3002 or in person to speak with you on this matter. Respectfully, Ow cc: The Honorable Jim Rogers The Honorable Gayle Bishop The Honorable Jeffrey V. Smith, M.D. The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier The Honorable Tom Torlak'son 0,. MAY 20 '9E 03:56PM MO FO WALNUT CREEK P.2 1 rror � CENTRA COSTA C O U N C I L 2694 Bishop Drive, Suite 121 San Ramon, CA 94583 Phone: (510) 866.6666 Fax; (S10) 866.8647 at ae.a May 20, 1996 wneprnp Penner Morneen d Foerefer Iff"Od s Put P+Nltlrht TMM"K.T�r1111 Protieenr aeynotea f 9rewn Mr. Jeff Smith. Chair rNA foRg` and Members of the Board of Supervisors LetlB s`" Panner Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors He88 e'1 *e nor 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Vice TToskfe fonts Martinez, California 94553 Merle Glui"d V?"Prel&ml of Pbnnfnp fthlandDevefopmenlCcrWRtw Re: Contra Costa Council Opposition to vlp of"I°"r` ftn.nee A Adrnlnlnntlen Proposed City of Richmond Ordinance and Support for Proposed Irish Gantt ftsfyenl,CEO County Hazardous Materials Land Use Ordinance eer CeunN sear ei1,h;"' Chairman Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors: Wry W.OMM ATOP ppoial Maneper Clow RAW For the reasons stated below,the Contra Costa Council respectfully opposes t1"P1"Iewt the proposed City of Richmond ordinance which would require special permits for EVehts Is"�8" Pn„�nl projects, including maintenance activities, with costs exceeding $250,000 and MMSIWAM porly involving facilities handling hazardous waste or hazardous materials. The Council com Vlee pmWelft support the County's efforts to establish a land use ordinance for projects Events involving hazardous waste, TOM Metrstksn r3ononf Manapa sw+wfby 6napparp Center The Council opposes the,proposed Richmond ordinance for the following reasons: e Unnecessn Regulations. The proposed ordinance is unnecessary because existing and forthcoming regulations address safety in the industry. Specifically,the proposed ordinance duplicates provisions of the Process Safety Management program administered at the state level by CAL-OSHA as well as the Risk Management&Prevention Program administered by the County. In fact,Richmond's proposal actually could negatively impact safety at the affected facilities. Counter to the proponents claim,the lengthy permit process could potentially delay or discourage necessary plant maintenance and repairs. wcr•6289 ® tnn rean,.ee p�aa en recyese eeper MAY 20 '96 03:56PM MO FO WALNUT CREEK P.3 Mr. Jeff Smith, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors May 24, 1996 Page Two • Adverse Economic Impacts. Richmond's proposed ordinance negatively impacts the business climate and economic well-being of Contra Costa County. It is counter to the Council's economic development goals which include streamlining regulations and permitting and ret$ining high wage manufacturing jobs. The effect of the proposed ordinance would deter manufacturing expansion and limit additional high wage jobs. The Council d=support the proposed County hazardous materials land use ordinance, for the following reasons: • Extensiv�Pzblic Review. The County Hazardous Materials Commission has spent the last few years working to formulate a sound land use ordinance which provides for better management of projects involving hazardous materials while not unnecessarily over burdening business. The County's proposed ordinance was developed after extensive public involvement, including citizens and representatives of the environmental community, labor, and industry. • near gam. The Commission's proposed land use ordinance provides a screening tool to review projects which result in a change in risk and encourage safer technology. Rather than arbitrarily trigger a land use permit for a project simply based on cost and quantity of materials handled, the proposed County ordinance addresses new projects or expansions or changes in existing projects that would result in changes in risk; and exempts maintenance and repair if no change in risk occurs. • Q� tiye Process for Evaluation of isk. The County's proposal also provides review periods and timelines and uses objective criteria for evaluating risk rather than subjective criteria proposed in Richmond's ordinance, w"289 MAY 20 '96 03:57PM MO FO WALNUT CREEK P.4 Mr. Jeff Smith; Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors May 20; 1996 Page Three The Contra Costa Council represents a variety of over 350 businesses located in Contra Costa County. The Council is dedicated to maintaining and increasing economic vitality throughout the County. On behalf of the Council's members, thank you for your consideration of this issue. Very truly yours, X ame a , President Contra Costa Council we-6289 MAY-20-1996 15:41 FROM TO 15106461059 P.01 BAY AREAS COUNCIL .200 Pine street,suite 3OO May 2p 1996 San Francisco,CA 94104 (415)981.6600 FAx(415)981-6408 .EXEC1rrn*E COMMrME Chuirmac (AL EEXT►.AMPLIO ku-Aidens&CEO JVefi VC s�f=HIrl KKNI r f_�urY. The Honorable Board of Supervisors MAR�'G•k NlTPFtRn1AN KQED.Inc.Presidemc.`E° County of Contra Costa SQED.I 5TEWNtirlen A.BURD Precidrnby Fax 510/646-1059 :.k CF.Ci S&f-Wav,]r+c. KLNNEI'li'1'.U1[KR Chairman&pCEO f:bcvu,rr f;or . Dear Members of the Board: DONALD G.VISHER Ck airman&CEO Thr f:ah,11d.. TED W.HALL The Bay Area Council., a business-supported public policy DhCC LQ."NCKinpo} organization, hereby expresses its opposition to the proposed PALL IL%ZrN C.�.air,nar,&Qa county ordinance requiring permits for work in facilities handling Wc•lis!'arav bS -'I, KRAN'K C.ATtRRINCER hazardous materials. Tte.%lent&(ZO Tran5afIVIi(:A Culp. DAVID.y.I,AW K EN C E:M.D. Uibcsnap&CEO nra Fvvnclxl?vn We have concluded that such an ordinance is unnecessary in that it KraiFkrfjl[h.YIA r. JOH ff m:::a-: �� Chalargely duplicates the authority and regulations of other agencies Chuff: Arnrlahl`,"r". involved in hazardous materials. We believe that your proposed JOHN M.LIL13E Ametticstn Linc. ria vl,presicicil[ CEO ordinance would create an undue burden and result in negative AmePresidda. AW r:V5 M``°";Q economic impacts in Contra Costa County and the greater Bay Chronicle llroadc.axcint Co. EDIVARD R.MaCRACBEW Area. Chairrn=!C CEO Silicon Gffrpf?ies'IrtC, ROBERT T.PO We urge you to reject the proposed ordinance. FC'krxi Rr.ac:!:�c kianL VI San Francisco PH1LD J.QVIG= Gh?irrnan,Prrx)Qrm&f;F!f) Sincerely Puafie Telesis Group T.GARY ROGERS Chairman&('10 Dicycr•,G:WJ k kc C maul RICHA=LJ.ROSELNEILIAt: �f aminnau&CEO IianiLA,mericz Corp. ROBERT J.SALDICH Precicirnr k CEO 7r Siracusa Ilav/:I:ClrlT STANLEY Y T..8I{YNh"ER Angelo I QLairmAn&CEOPresidentPwific Ca;and Uecrric Co. G.CRAIG SVLLIVAN l•:hairman&f*o The Clorox Co. KD 7.SC'IlAl) Genera?Manager Krornyt,.yyArrdu fNviaion IBM Corp. We O1`1164 ANGELO J.SIRACV,&i flay Area Council ■rel UdG Awa snl.4 ynn,it A L!u'iuM�,pO'A JTC{�rIA1RiJ.G!F:N 61d-i[al.•Q fu gnah,i.'rn.d u<.r..r;,,n itirw,r n/ler:rwp rAe K9olo»ef n:G yr.ali,v jty.ir, cA'.Ray An•�,xkc CcuMHf sac raspun,ur. MAY 21 '96 08:27 CMA LEGIS DEPT P. 1 • • May 20, 1996 •California The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chairman Manufacturers Contra Contra Board of Supervisors Association 500 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisor Smith: The California Manufacturers Association stands in opposition to the proposed ordinance requiring special permits for projects at facilities handling hazardous waste or hazardous materials. This ordinance is unnecessary because existing and forthcoming regulations address.safety in industry. The ordinance duplicates provisions of the Process Safety Management program administered at the state level by Cal-OSHA, as well as the Risk Management& Prevention Program administered by the cotuaty. While the prevention of all accidents is a worthwhile goal,we believe the proposed ordinance will have the opposite effect of that intended. Facilities are constantly repairing and maintaining equipment. Creating additional hurdles and delays by imposing a lengthy new permit process is more likely to undermine health, safety and the environment,rather than improve it. Not only is this proposed ordinance bad for Contra Costa County, it is bad for California. Part of CMA's statewide objectives is to help reduce the number of duplicative "California-only" regulations that exceed federal regulations without providing additional, significant benefit to human health and safety or to the environment. This ordinance strikes us as a duplicative "Contra Costa-only" ordinance,without,providing such benefit. CMA respectfully opposes this proposed ordinance. Sincerely, I, PRK 7'TMMERMAN - 980 Ninth Street Vice President,Government Affairs Suite 2200 Sacramento CA 95814-2742 (916)441.5420 FAX(916)447.9401 FAX(9161441-5449 � %L FROM :CR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 916 444 668S 19SE,OS-21 08:37 #737 P.02/03 9-paw- CALIFORNIA CHAMBER of COMMERCE May 20, 1996 Mr_ Jeff Smith, Chairman Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 500 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Smith: The California Chamber of Commerce is a broad-based non-profit organization that brings together a diverse range of interests including business, industry and agriculture. Our membership consists of over 10,000 businesses, two-thirds of which are small businesses, 430 local chambers of commerce and 160 trade organizations. We are strongly OPPOSED to the proposed ordinance t4Special Permits for Projects at Facilities Handling Hazardous Wastes or Hazardous Materials". The proposed ordinance sends an anti-business message at a time when California is trying to have a positive business climate and encourage economic development and job growth. The ordinance is contrary to efforts at federal, state and local levels to streamline permitting and eliminate unnecessary and duplicative regulatory requirements. Excessive regulation and lengthy permit processes discourage business growth and are factors in business decisions to leave California or locate new facilities elsewhere. California has been known nationwide as a state which is unfriendly to business. For years, there has been exodus of businesses out of. California. Only last year, was there a reversal in this trend. The California Chamber has been deeply involved in efforts to reform the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Endangered Species Act, and advocates requiring cost-benefit analysis of the economic and employment impacts of new regulations or changes to existing ones, and the elimination all duplicative state and federal regulations. C FROM :CA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 51E 444 EE85 19SE,0E-21 08:37 #737 P.03/03 Page 2 Mr. Jeff Smith May 20, 1996 The proposed ordinance increases business costs and bureaucracy with no public benefit. We encourage you to opposc the proposed ordinance and not support any further development of this ordinance which duplicates existing federal and state environmental and safety requirements. Sincerely, Valerie Nera,Director Agriculture and Resources cc Members of the County Boud of Supervisors RECEIVE® COMMUNITIES FOR"A 5/5/96 MAY 2 1 1990 From Julia. May, CBE CLERK BOARD-OF SUPERVISORS ETTER CONTRA COSTA CO. ENVIRONMENT Small Selection of Refinery and Chemical Plant Accidents Formerl-v`Citizens'foraBetter Environment-California in Contra Costa County Area California is top in the nation for number of toxic chemical accidents, according to.a '94 report based in EPA data; by.the National Environmental Law Center and US Public Interest Research Group. Contra Costa County came out 11th out of all the counties in the entire country for ,number of toxic chemical accidents.. Even.the following small,selection of releases during the last few.years shows a major problem with safety at petrochemical.plants in the Bay Area. General Chemical General Chemical 7/26/93 Uncontrolled Pressure Relief,Valve blew•a 157-mile ground-plume of 1.9,000 gals of oleum (sulfuric acid and S03).through Richmond. People thought plume was a ground fog and walked directly into the. acid cloud, having received no warning. Over 20,000"sought hospital treatment; many have recurring.respiratory and related problems. Chevron Chevron Fireball. 4/10/89 .Explosion (fireball shoots 250 feet into the`air) and fire at, Chevron refinery injures nine workers, burning three seriously. 275 children from Verde elementary are. evacuated. Black clouds of particulate-laden smoke pour Into Comm unify for six'days: _ Chevron--Bridge Release. .,10/W/91 Tollkeepers evacuated at Richmond-San Rafael bridge After oil leak .sets fire, covering tollbooths iii.clouds of thick black smoke,• caused by fire at catalytic cracking:unit.' Chevron Catalyst 12/5/91 40 tons of "toxic catalyst including nickel, vanadium, and alumina-silica compounds blanket Pt. Richmond and . surrounding areas requiring massive cleanup, and first use of County's Emergency Notification Program. 'County ; warns residents to stay indoors. On Dec. 6 while restarting the unit, Chevron blows more toxic dust.out its stacks : . rather.than vacuum it.up, causing a second.release. People were ill with diarrhea, breathing.problems, rashes.. .:500 Howard Street, Suite .506 .• San Francisco, CA"941.05 ! (415) 243-8373 In Southern California:605 W.Olympic'Blvd:, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA.90015 (213)'486-5114 Chlorine-Free 100%post=consumer Cj ,.. ` Chevron 6/23/92 Pump failure at Chevron refinery in Richmond,releases foul-smelling cloud; County activates emergency alert network, warns residents to stay indoors. Toxic materials released through flare, yellow smoke pours from smoke stacks and cracking unit. Same unit as 10/31 & 12/5/91 events. Chevron 2/10/94' Power outage caused by raccoon according to Chevron at sulfur recovery units. Back-up power also fails, causing many tons of sulfur and volatile organic compounds to be blown into neighborhoods. Chevron 3/10/94 Potentially deadly HUS gas blows out of flares at Chevron when instruments fail. Residents as far as El Sobrante complain of illness as'a result of the leak. Unocal Unocal Catacarb 8/22/94 Unocal allowed known release to continue for 16-days, while it coated Crockett & other communities with toxic chemicals, causing a brown sticky residue. Over 1,500 were treated during the following year at the community clinic which was set up to treat affected community members. Diagnoses included diarrhea, cognitive disorders, brain damage, headaches, vomiting, allergies, memory loss,,and others. Unocal,H2S 9/15/94 80 schoolchildren at.Hillcrest elementary sought medical attention.when a-release of acutly hazardous H2S gas covered the school grounds after a compressor , failure. Unocal Tank Fire 6/17/95 Fire involving 4.2 million gallon tank,lasted 3 hours . causing evacuation of almost 200 families out of Crockett, many for over a week due to ongoing fumes. In frustration with continuing illnesses during the spate of releases from Unocal, many residents moved from Crockett. Since these releases-some neighbors wishing to move have found it very difficult to sell their homes. Tosco Tosco Big PRV. 6/18/93 Pressure.Relief Valve without control system vented huge 300,000 lbs release of hydrocarbons and mixed with acutely hazardous H2S gas, sending several to the hospital with burning eyes and shortness of breath. 2 Tosco Boiler Failure 9/25/95 Boiler and another pollution control were bypassed when boiler broke down after leaking for months Large cloud released contained coke.dust, CO, hydrocarbons. It was not tested for possible dioxin even though chlorine sources were present and . conditions were right for dioxin formation (poorly controlled combustion, chlorine & oxygen). Rhone Poulenc Rhone Poulenc 6/22/92 80,000 gallon sulphuric acid sludge release and fire in Martinez killed one worker, severely burned another, and sent a huge SO2 cloud and black smoke cloud over surrounding areas. Exxon Exxon big fire 8/9/92 Compressor fails, causing fire at the Benicia plant, with huge smoke clouds seen all the way to San Francisco. Exxon 12/21/95 Exxon flare pilot lost, causing odor problems over large area, including Benicia, Vallejo, Crockett, and Novato. Acutely hazardous H2S gas detected. Pacific Pacific Flare Failure 5/29/92 Big sulfur compound cloud pours into community of Rodeo, panicking people who are unable to get information about what to do. Pacific had been aware of problem with leaky heat exchanger at hydrocracker . at least a week prior to event, which should have resulted in a controlled shut down, rather than the crash shutdown which occurred. Pacific School Evac 9/27/95 Naptha, sulfur compounds caused evacuation of disabled children from school by ambulance, with headaches, vomiting, and shortness of breath. Shutdown cleaning procedures caused the release. Shell Shell 9/5/89 Light Oil Process explosion rattles windows 7 miles from refinery, burns out of control for several hours. Two contract workers severely burned. Shell Hydrogen 2/2/96 Powerful explosion in hydrogen unit subcontracted by Shell caused worker evacuation. 3 4 Shell Fire 4/1/96 Another explosion in Light Oil Process:. After huge explosion, major fire burned out of control for 3 hours. Large smoke cloud went into nearby community. Toxic chemicals were detected, which may have come from the fire, or from ongoing refinery activities. No direct measurements of air pollution, were taken in the community where the smoke cloud blew. Shell 4/20/96 Draining. oil from process unit into sewer causes explosion and fire. 4 RECEIVED May 21, 1996 MAY 2 1 1996 Dear OCAW, Rodeo & Crockett.Residents, CLERK BOARD OF SUPERV SOBS CONTRA COSTA CO. In the last'few days, a publication called 'Neighborhood News" appeared in Rodeo & Crockett from a group calling itself "C.A.R. (Citizens Against Releases)", causing considerable concern to residents and union workers who have been working. together to make local refineries cleaner and safer. Communities for a Better Environment wants to make sure you know, we never reviewed or approved the use of our name on this publication . This should be evident by the fact that the publication used our old name "Citizens" which we changed to "Communities" over one ,year ago. We do not believe that a new group needs to be formed with existence of RCA, SEA, CBE, and OCAW already working effectively together. Recently groups from all over the area held a Regional Environmental Summit to build a coalition effort on accident prevention. A follow-up meeting is planned for October. We have been in discussion with the Contra Costa Building Trades,regarding. the need to improve land use permitting at industries in Richmond and Contra Costa County for some time now. We were not aware that the OCAW was not, informed of the proposals being formulated. It is unfortunate that the distribution of this publication has temporarily disrupted the coordinated efforts of many existing groups, however, CBE is committed to work with all the parties so that our efforts for cleaner and safer industries continue to move forward. If you have further questions or concerns, do not hesitate to call me at 415- 243=8373,ext 212. Sincerely, Denny Larson, Community Organizer, CBE. CAR is compouW Qf members of ft cerm nun4, on 'roxics Omftn 'This is what appeared in Neighborhood News: "ding T 8`a Request to SPeak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT C=Wlete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Address; 1 am spealcing for ngWf._or organbason: wee ofwu CHECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item My comments will be: general .4tor_,tainst . 1 wish to speak on the shied of . _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these conmments 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' mum before addressing the Board. Name: rf�one: i am speaking for myself_or organhation: , ti 7 g 4 gia�ne � orsanisatiora CHECK ONE: �S'� . 1 wish to speak an Agenda Item #_ Qat .5-16, My comrrwill be: general Jor rrst _ i wish to speak an the subject of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave these convnents for the Bo" to consider: P Request to S eak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIn Complete this form and place it In the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: ,'hww. - ` -1� Addrm— o w � sem, 1 Ch►= Ad �� I 1 am WeaWng for myself.or orlon+ v�1c, r, 6�K of CHECK � G _�� . t/ f wish to on Avnda Item # - My c+omrnents will be: pumW _ _ior nst 1 wish to speak on the subjed of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave these for the Board to considers - Request to Speak Form C S& ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' I altruist before addressing the Board. Name: Oe n Z, #hone: �JS- Y3--?3-23 Sid G 9 V-/ I am speaking for myself_or C b t:,- Owns of 0 rd-Is dwa 1H NE: to speak on Agenda Item #� Orate• --�� My continents will be: general I wish to speak on the subject of - _,+,_ I do not wish to speak but leave these comnnents for the Board to coreiider Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it In the box near the speakers' wstrum before addressing the Board. !hone: ,2 -10) Z C. . 1 am speaking for myself or Owns of ooN CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on ften& Item # Oat : z 4 My comments will be: general _ i wish to speak on the abject of I do not wish to qmk but lease these comments for the Board to consider. Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this fornn and place h in the box near the speakers' rostrum before 'ng the Board. Name: G � GT�Z --�� *hone: 4�r©2 r-3 • ckr 1 am WeWng for nnyseif_or ,rja.� Hanle of �! CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on /agenda Item f -Llp My comments will be: general _fbr..agalnst . 1 wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave dme 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 speakm' rostrum before addressing the Board. Warne: "WW', /ZZI amf or 1 **e;On:sMysel _ CHECKspeak on Agenda Item My comments will be: several _.for_,*Wnd 1 wish to speak on the subject of _ i do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to coruider: Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Cwwlete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' wstrum before addressing the Board. Now _ � u 1 K)6 r e rel b a iJ�,-(mal �}ve s Cit)r: cc> ,c,,O I am speaking for myself_or organs P&�, C, *wee of o-yant�tioN CHECK ONE: 1 wish to 1pNlc on Agenda Item # b.L Oeste~ �i- 5,b My comments will be: general _Jor l *ai ^._. 1 wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak bust leave these comnKnts for the BMW to corsdder: 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. aN Name: a O Z& rhone: �1 ck►: Pnn-g. I am speaking for mysieif_or organization: n -C�q6O Ohne of a�anttatfoN CHECK ONE ,L- ,� I wish to speak on Asermia Item My comments will be: general -x.,.for_,*ainst 1 wish to speak on the abject of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: - - Request to Peak Form /D\` ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it In the box near the speakers' rostrum before add 'ng the BON& a 1I am speaking for my".,._.r or e Ghem►1do cwa carne of organ CHONE: ',. 1 wish to speak on Agenda Ran # C' Ddc- MY will be: genera! '&Jlor.._.main ..._._.�-• s wish to speak on the xd4ed arf_ 1 do not wish to speak but leave thee oomuneerts for the Board Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Cwwlete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' Cosa um before addressing the Board. �w'w I am speaking for mysetf--.or organs El&k hy 91 e � CH ONE: 1 wish to speak on AV nda Unn # ..L.0 My co I n nits, will be: rwmnW_for 1 wish to on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave dw se for the Board to cor0det: Request to Speak Form �a ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the Weakers' rostrum beF, re addressing the Board Name: Ce.c,'l Feu.c�0 I am weaWng for myself_or O C it W 1 -,L *Ww Of \CH[{]C ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on /agenda Item #= Oast 5 6 Mr comments will be: #ewal .tor nst I wish to on the x6ject of _ 1 do not wish to WAbut leave these com Inds, for the Board Request to Speak Form (: 13 ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name; 4�1C-K rixxw 370-- 3�g( Address: Z 2�(0S Cite: 1 am speaking for myself=or !'� own of or�anisat oN CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #L.6.L Oate s-ZI-� My comments will be: general for„_, Wnd _ i wish to on the subject of 1 & not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) -0 Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers" rostrum beforedressing adthe Board. Ke, R d mw� ,,one. X9.7 Q009 e-) e-0j ward 5 St- Cry- i am speaking for myself_.or . (111M of CH ONE: C lxen � �(�, � �1 qb . s I wish to speak on da Item #" Oat Mr commerrts will be; general 1 wish tomp�,on of ,I rr�P- r ro , S v i i i � nt��d i i n�Qdws �uA - 5 &r a `�( AQP OWS Ia�S I do not wish to weak but lam Giese iaitefltS for the Board 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: _ Jo,t-�,J v•�ai1L) i may; -l�2Ti�E2 1 on speaking for myself_or 7 xa.414-2s A oum of orpn�sationJ CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item #= Qate+ /zip INrcomments will be: geekra! Joreist _ 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' nostrum before addressing the Board. Leo llLor�e: � ✓ ��05— 1 am speaaUng for mysdf_or of ONE: 7y, 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #C; fie: 1 Mr comments will be; general _for_"ain�t _ I wish to speak on the subject of . o. l do not wish to speak but leave these comnfor the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the Weaken" rostrum um before addresang the Board. !hone9 3 Adcbim-��,/30x, /398 may. s/gu4e C I am speaking for myself_,or c am lwasi-l;em 455w, �f C Ow -0 of o-nation) CHKK ONE: �1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #L-.6L My comments will be: general _forponst fx • _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave dwse comments for the Board to conader: Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) CwWlete this form and place it in the box near the spe ake W noatrum before addressing the Board. Name: oven L �,,,,, Nov► rtwne: a �-- s� 0 Sol N-)G=say � lgce fir; -AeajgA! I am spealdng for mpelf✓✓or aganizabom 6�a�ne of orpmisatioN CHC ONE: 1 wish to gmAk on Agenda Item f.LL Mr oanmaets wilt be: general .for.."M , 1 wish to 1peak on the shied of I & not wish to speak but leave th me comments for the Board 1 to confider: 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: ,'ln 4,� Oft rhone:� c3/d�z old Thal c ►: lam ,peaking for myself or organization: �1ha/ eum Of MECK ONE: V1, wish to speak on Axen& item #f.-L_ My comments wilt be: general for_,Sainst 1 wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the hoard to cornider: Request to Speak Form �a ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It the box near the weakens' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: 00., 1 Uk?` &�k 7- 2��2 liddr,113/ M 9t' % I amVealdngfor myseff.ornizatiomC,�,- Offac,GNE: 1� ! wish to Weak an Agenda Item #LP^f My be: general _-_,tor, si I wish to WA on the A bjed of - _ i do not wish to speak but leave these commarts for the Board to corm-2-- Request to Speak Form 21 ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. I am speaking for myself_or rd O&M -I of orian2satioN CH ONS VIO 1 wish to on Agendi Item # C (o pat C'411 11 Mr cobe: general _tor nst . I wish to speak on the lub'ed of . 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Forme e ,5� ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' mstrum before addressing the Board. Name: ec� i lhone.'2-z3 - 8� Address:-9 02 4 Ake �ws ilo r,iY�4� 1 am speaking for myself_or bre- I h e- FkIV, Ajj ,j�(Q �nank of orpnt�tioN CHEM( ONS 7 1 wish to speak on /agenda Item #.= My comments will be: Benwal' for 1 wish tok on the �� of �� CEJ c�rc� h ti� � _ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. Request to Speak Form �3 e , 36 ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) _ Complete this form and place It In the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. ` name: /2 cicf K VIW : Z - zl � -3 /address: Z 1 city ` d i am speaking for myseff—,\).,/ or orgsnizatior of iwdndin OUC K ONE: 1 _wis h to Weak on Agenda Item # �� ? _ __.: My comments will be: Beneral _ i wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: [A. ] Ll��� 'IV/ C� Y6# Eichteey Engineer,il Inc. of California Suits 800, 1390 Willow pace Road, Concord, California 94520 • 510,689-7000 a FAX 510.889-7006 Russell J, Miller, P.E. ftaidant May 21, 1996 Board of Supervisors Clerk RECEIVE-D­71 Jeanne Maglio FMAY 11-31} CLERK BOARD r0' Re: Richmond Ordinance/Contra Costa county Ordinanc;' CONTRA.c=t Dear Ms, Maglio: The purpose of this letter is to voice my strong opposition to the subject ordinances. I am a professional engineer who has lived in this area for twenty y itars, and been involved in a wide range of professional services to heavy industry for that entire pe iod. I can state unequivocally that these ordinances would be redundant,unnecessary, and Jb nothing to mitigate risks associated with hazardous materials and/or process plants. Our firm has been heavily involved in a broad range of risk inane gement consulting in industrial facilities. We have a highly qualified staff of engineering pr:les,ionals who possess an in-depth Imowledge of the operating hazards associated with industric L facilities and hazardous materials. We know that effective mitigation of risk is achieved throug'Iapplication of rational scientific and engineering solutions to extremely complex problems, I ffec dve mitigation of risk will not be achieved through an emotional and irrational application of in+,ffeetive and bureaucratic regulations. In all probability,these types of regulations wil.exa-0erbate the problems by malting process plan improvements into political issues that can be wed 1)y special interest groups to serve their own purposes. We support:The Hazardous Materials Commission's Proposed Contra Costa County Land Use Ordinance,which is an example of a reasonable approach to i.oly;ng problems with input.from all elements of the community, The Richmond Ordinance, on the of ier hand, is exactly the type of regulation that we strongly oppose, and believe will do more:parr z than good. Sincerely, T/T ld GOO'ON WUTV:ZZ 966Z'ti2'AdW Elchleay Englneen;li [tic. of California Sults 600, 1390 Willow pass Road, Concord, California 94520 9 510,689-7000 • FAX 510.689-7006 Russell I Miller, P.S. Prooldent May 21, 1996 RECEIVED ? Board of Supervisors Clerk .� Jeanne Maglio MAY 2 1 13 x, Re., Richmond Ordinance/Contra Costa count Ordinanc;; ct.FRK soaRc C. Y CONTRA,.O Dear Ms, Maglio; The purpose of this letter is to voice my strong opposition to the subject ordinances. I am a professional engineer who has lived in this area for twenty yi,ars, and been involved in a wide range of professional services to heavy industry for that entire.pe-iod. I can state unegttivocally that these ordinances would be redundant, unnecessary, and ,!'o nothing to mitigate risks associated with hazardous materials and/or process plants. Our firm has been heavily involved its abroad range of risk inane gement consulting in industrial facilities. We have a highly qualified staff of engineering pr:1ev ionals who possess an in-depth Imowledge of the operating hazards associated with industrit ,facilities and hazardous materials. We know that effective mitigation of risk is achieved throug"i,apl plication of rational scientific and engineering solutions to extremely complex problems, Ii'Iffec.Live mitigation of risk will not be achieved through an emotional and irrational application of in+.-ffeetive and bureaucratic regulations. In all probability, these types of regulations wilt. ex,a mrbate the problems by making process plan improvements into political issues that can be wed Uy special interest groups to serve their own purposes. We support The Hazardous Materials Commission's Proposol Contra Costa County Land Use Ordinance, which is an example of a reasonable approach to holy;ng problems with input from,all elements of the community, The,Richmond Ordinance, on t1i,e of ier hand, is exactly the type of regulation that we strongly oppose, and believe will do more;hart z than good. Sincerely, t/i •d s00•0N wdib:titi 966Z 'T2*AdW �j ANDERSEN, BONNIFIELD & STEVENS O MAILING ADDRESS ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 5926 1355 WILLOW WAY-SUITE 255 PHONE(510) 602-1400 CONCORD, CA 94524-0926 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 FAX(510) 825-0143 May 21, 1996 HAND DELIVERED a RECEIVED ,- MAY i ► 1996 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CLERK BOA- 60-' P"�.5` CONT^n ,- '- Re: Proposed Hazardous Material Ordinance Dear Supervisors: Our office represents a number of industrial construction concerns throughout Contra Costa County. We have carefully reviewed the proposed hazardous materials ordinance (County File ZT3-96). It is out understanding that this proposed ordinance is the work product of the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission. We commend the Commission for producing a quality proposal which if enacted as an ordinance will make Contra Costa County a better place to work and live. It is my understanding that the process to create this proposed ordinance took over three years and involved over 100 public meetings. We strongly support this proposed ordinance and trust it will be given your strong consideration without delay. We are concerned with an apparent attempt by Supervisor Jeff Smith, Mr. Tom Powers and organized labor to propose an ordinance imposing permits on industrial facilities in an amount over $250,000 in Contra Costa County. This proposed "Powers ordinance" is a duplicate of an ordinance being proposed in the City of Richmond by Ms. Donna Powers. It is our opinion that the "Powers ordinance" is only being brought before you to ensure that basically all industrial construction in Contra Costa County will be under the control of the local building trades unions. It is not a safety ordinance and it is not an environmental ordinance. It is an annuity for the Pipetrades Union. Irrespective of the merits or intentions of the ordinance, we are most concerned that this ordinance will be "piggybacked" with the proposed hazardous materials ordinance. We object on the grounds that there has not been notice of the proposal to the public at large. To be considered, this ordinance must move through the process just as the ordinance from the Hazardous Materials Commission. There has been no process on the "Powers ordinance". Pursuant to Government Code §§65854, 65856 and 65804, the "Powers ordinance" must comply with the process required for enactment of legislation. Obviously the Hazardous Materials Commission took great pains to obtain adequate public input and staff review. It is our position that the "Powers ordinance" should travel through the same process. + Contra Costa County May 21, 1996 Re: Proposed Hazardous Material Ordinance Page 2 I thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, C"F. ANDERSEN CFA:Ijc is\work\cfa\I-supes.521 051/21,'9,6 TUE 10,21 FAX 510 685 905o INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION LILof THE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. OF CC. NTMA COSTA COUNTY May 21 , 1996 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Attn: Jeanne Maglio Via fax: 646-1059 Dear Members of the Board: By unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Industrial Association, we strongly encourage you to oppose the "Richmond Ordinance" which has been introduced by Supervisor Jeff Smith and support the Hazardous Materials Commission's Land Use Ordinance, as proposed, which is currently being reviewed by the County Planning Commission. The Richmond Ordinance, while professing to be safety-motivated, is clearly special-interest legislation with no improvement to safety. Safety issues are currently managed through County, State, and Federal guidelines. It -makes no sense to require facilities to delay implementing urgently required maintenance while waiting for a permit to be approved. Nor does it make any sense to dictate that a certain group should be the only one that can perform the maintenance activity when others have been trained as well as or better than the specified groups . The Hazardous Materials Commission, on the otherhand, was instructed under a board order over three years ago to develop a land use ordinance that would decrease risk by encouraging industrial facilities to reduce quantities of hazardous materials, transport them in the safest way possible, and move operations as far away from "sensitive receptors" as possible. After much toil, -untold volunteer hours, and over a hundred public meetings, a group comprised of representatives from labor, business, cities' industry, environmentalists, the general public, and county health services and planning staffs have come up with an ordinance which is considered to be fair, while decreasing risk to surrounding communities. It gives no group preferential treatment; it emphasizes developing projects which are the safest for our communities. Sincerely, Z4 Scott A Anderson President P.0, E30X 988 Martinez, California 94553 Cn FILIMI ID MAY 21996 10 : 07 No . X101 P . 01 FOSTER WHEELER MARTINEZ, INC. 550 SOLANO WAY • MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 845G3 - PHONE 51D-313-0000 - FAX 510-313-0014 May 21, 1996 The Honorable Board of supervisors Contra Costa County Fax (510) 646-1059 Dear Members of the Board: Foster Wheeler Martinez, Inc. A business located in Contra Costa County opposes the Proposed City of Richmond Ordinance. This Proposal will not foster economic growth in our County. The proposed ordinance would defer manufacturing expansion and limit additional high wage jobs and growth. The proposed ordinance is unnecessary. Existing and forthcoming regulations such as the Hazardous Materials Commission's Proposed Contra Costa County Land Use Ordinance address safety in the industry. We urge you to reject the Proposed City of Richmond Ordinance. Sincerely, � v Hector V. Neg on Administration Manager tib,C. ,.L 05/21/96 TUE 10:48 FAX 5102422425 ADMIN BLDG 3RD FLOOR 0 002 c1�ev —40- Chevron Chevron U.S.A. Products Company P. O. Box 1272 Richmond, CA 94802-0272 W. D. Steelman General Manager May 21, 1996 The Honorable Board of Supervisors: I am writing to inform you of our strong opposition to the proposed County Ordinance "Special Permits for Projects at Facilities Handling Hazardous Wastes or Hazardous Materials." The Chevron Richmond Refinery would not be directly impacted by the ordinance since the refinery is totally located within the City of Richmond. However, as a business in Contra Costa County, we are deeply concerned about the economic health and business climate in the county. We are also deeply concerned about safety and the prevention of industrial incidents. Our reasons for opposing the proposed ordinance are detailed below. First, the ordinance will not improve safety. Requiring a business to acquire numerous land use permits for plant projects and maintenance will delay or discourage necessary maintenance. The ordinance also does not impose new safety requirements; it merely duplicates existing and forthcoming federal and state safety regulations. Second, the proposed ordinance would place tremendous permitting burden on industry and.county staff with no public benefit; save for special interests who would demand concessions in the public permitting process. To illustrate the extent of the permitting burden, I will describe how the proposed ordinance would affect the Richmond Refinery(if the ordinance were enacted in the City of Richmond). Throughout a year, a refinery undertakes numerous plant turnarounds to do necessary plant inspection, maintenance, and repairs and catalyst change-outs. We plan to have 14 plant turnarounds/catalyst changes in 1996, 16 in 1997, and 22 in 1998. We estimate that it would take two to four months to complete the proposed permitting process for each permit application, assuming there are no delays in the permitting process. Note that major projects and emergency repairs are not included in the above numbers. 05/21/96 TUE 10:49 FAX 5102422425 ADMIN BLDG 3RD FLOOR 2003 �,• Board of Supervisors Page 2 May 21, 1996 We have heard the public's frustration and concern about recent refinery incidents. But adopting more regulations, especially duplicative regulations by different agencies, is not the answer. Petroleum refining is already a heavily regulated industry. Our operations are overseen by dozens of federal, state, and local agencies. Existing regulations, as well as industry standards are extensive and cover: personnel training, equipment design, operations and maintenance procedures, accident prevention and investigation, emissions control, etc. Refinery safety comes from due diligence in following agency and industry standards and a focus on incident prevention. I encourage you to oppose the proposed ordinance as being unnecessary regulation, with no safety benefit. I do request your support in working with industry in communicating the standards that are in place to prevent accidents and enhance safety. Chevron extends an invitation to you and selected county staff to visit our Richmond Refinery to discuss our operation and our safety policies and procedures. Very truly yours, ANDERSEN, BONNIFIELD & STEVENS MAILING ADDRESS ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 5926 1355 WILLOW WAY-SUITE 255 PHONE(510)602-1400 CONCORD, CA 94524-0926 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 FAX(510)825-0143 May 21, 1996 HAND DELIVERED >'n RECEIVED MA)' Contra Costa County CLERK BOARD 011- Z'� ;r EORS Board of Supervisors CONTRA CCS 0.a Re: Proposed Hazardous Material Ordinance Dear Supervisors: Our office represents a number of industrial construction concerns throughout Contra Costa County. We have carefully reviewed the proposed hazardous materials ordinance (County File ZT3-96). It is out understanding that this proposed ordinance is the work product of the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission. We commend the Commission for producing a quality proposal which if enacted as an ordinance will make Contra Costa County a better place to work and live. It is my understanding that the process to create this proposed ordinance took over three years and involved over 100 public meetings. We strongly support this proposed ordinance and trust it will be given your strong consideration without delay. We are concerned with an apparent attempt by Supervisor Jeff Smith, Mr. Tom Powers and organized labor to propose an ordinance imposing permits on industrial facilities in an amount over $250,000 in Contra Costa County. This proposed "Powers ordinance" is a duplicate of an ordinance being proposed in the City of Richmond by Ms. Donna Powers. It is our opinion that the "Powers ordinance" is only being brought before you to ensure that basically all industrial construction in Contra Costa County will be under the control of the local building trades unions. It is not a safety ordinance and it is not an environmental ordinance. It is an annuity for the Pipetrades Union. Irrespective of the merits or intentions of the ordinance, we are most concerned that this ordinance will be "piggybacked" with the proposed hazardous materials ordinance. We object on the grounds that there has not been notice of the proposal to the public at large. To be considered, this ordinance must move through the process just as the ordinance from the Hazardous Materials Commission. There has been no process on the "Powers ordinance". Pursuant to Government Code §§65854, 65856 and 65804, the "Powers ordinance" must comply with the process required for enactment of legislation. Obviously the Hazardous Materials Commission took great pains to obtain adequate public input and staff review. It is our position that the "Powers ordinance" should travel through the same process. Contra Costa County May 21, 1996 Re: Proposed Hazardous Material Ordinance Page 2 I thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, CRA14 ANDERSEN CFA:Ijc is\work\cfa\I-supes.521 Elchleay Engineer,► Inc. of California Suite 800, 1390 Willow pass Road, Concord, California W20 • 510.689-7000 • FAX 510.689-7006 Russell J, Miller, P.S. Prouldent May 21, 1996 RECEIVED Board of Supervisors Clerk Jeanne Maglio EMAY I D Re! Richmond Ordinance/Contra Costa county Ordinanci' CLERK BOARD Dear Ms, Maglio: The purpose of this letter is to voice my strong opposition to the subject ordinances. I am a professional engineer who has lived in this area for twenty yl,ats, and been involved in a wide range of professional services to heavy industry for that entil r pe'iod. I can state unequivocally that these ordinances would be redundant,unnecessary, and J'o nothing to mitigate risks associated with hazardous materials and/or process plants. Our firm has been heavily involved ut a broad range of risk inane gement consulting in industrial facilities. We have a highly qualified staff of engineering pr1ev ionals who possess an in-depth knowledge of the operating hazards associated with industri,,1 facilities and hazardous materials, We know that effective mitigation of risk is achieved throug:-1,apl ilication of rational scientific and engineering solutions to extremely complex,problems. I Hec Live mitigation of risk will not be achieved through an emotional and irrational application of in+.-ffective and bureaucratic regulations. In all probability,these types of regulations wil".exa-derbate the problems by making process plan improvements into political issues that can be wed Uy special interest groups to serve their own purposes. We support:The Hazardous Materials Commission's Proposed Contra Costa County Land Use Ordinance,which is an example of a reasonable approach to i::oly ng problems with input from all elements of the community, The Richmond Ordinance, on the of ier hand, is exactly the type of regulation that we strongly oppose, and believe will do more;baric 1 than good. Sincerely, e; a,1- mv." T/T 'd S00'0N WUTV:ZZ 966ti'Z2'AUW MAY 20 '96 03:56PM MO FO WALNUT CREEK P.2 1 ` rror CONTRA COSTA I C O U N C I L 2694 Bishop Drive, Suite 121 San Ramon, CA 94583 Phone: (510) 866.6666 Fax: (5 10) 866.8647 ;rnow J.AM May 20, 1996 hlXOPF19 Partner Alomean d Foereler 1""0e10 Plot PM106M rwmee K.Terrill pfolidem Reynolds d arbor Mr. Jeff Smith. Chair prwwt Viet ftrcee and Members of the Board of Supervisors ftfM nna fds Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Pa Hessen"a ted! 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Vicok�l.°s"t Martinez. California 94553 ✓Merle GoI1101W Vee Prosleent of Prennhrp Rlohfand DevaWm s Gowretra+ Re: Contra Costa Council Opposition to vine Preeltle"1 unease d Admi"Mntlen Proposed City of Richmond Ordinance and Support for Proposed eP"We�.coo County Hazardous Materials Land Use Ordinance gap Oovnry see* Vim omish,"' Chairman Smith and Members of the Board of Supervisors. Wry W.Crani,IUCP Proper Manager C~1 For the reasons stated below, the Contra Costa Council respectfully opposes Vic tem the proposed City of Richmond ordinance which would require special permits for Ion WIN projects, including maintenance activities; with costs exceeding $250,000 and smor Vim Pro adenr DUNNpoenclal4 involving facilities handling hazardous waste or hazardous materials, The Council COnttNctAu1 CanpanY Vice ", support the County's efforts to establish a land use ordinance for projects Events involving hazardous waste, Tom MaCraaron Central+Wga► sunvelleypappe+gComm The Council opposes the proposed Richmond ordinance for the following reasons; Un_necessarv.R atio s. The proposed ordinance is unnecessary because existing and forthcoming regulations address safety in the industry, . Specifically,the proposed ordinance duplicates provisions of the Process Safety Management program administered at the state level by CAL-OSHA as well as the Risk Management&Prevention Program administered by the County. In fact,Richmond's proposal actually could negatively impact safety at the affected facilities. Counter to the proponents claim,the lengthy permit process could potentially delay or discourage necessary plant maintenance and repairs. w"289 ® 1,04 M"ar?*"print"on rOCV*Aa Omer MAY 30 '96 03:56PM MO FO WALNUT CREEK P,3 Mr. Jeff Smith, Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors May 24, 1996 Page Two + Adve a Emm2m'c lmfl s. Richmond's proposed ordinance negatively impacts the business climate and economic well-being of Contra Costa County, It is counter to the Council's economic development goals which include streamlining regulations and permitting and retaining high wage manufacturing jobs. The effect of the proposed ordinance would deter manufacturing expansion and limit additional high wage jobs. The Council dW support the proposed County hazardous materials land use ordinance, for the following reasons: + e s'vg„Rablic Review. The County Hazardous Materials Commission has spent the last few years working to formulate a sound land use ordinance which provides for better management of projects involving hazardous materials while not unnecessarily over burdening business. The County's proposed ordinance was developed after extensive public involvement, including citizens and representatives of the environmental community, labor, and industry, • En u ges S kty. The Commission's proposed land use ordinance provides a screening tool to review projects which result in a change in risk and encourage safer technology. Rather than arbitrarily trigger a land use permit for a project simply based on cost and quantity of materials handled, the proposed County ordinance addresses new projects or expansions or changes in existing projects that would result in changes in risk; and exempts maintenance and repair if no change in risk occurs. • O Lgctiv;,Process for E a_1=W f Risk. The County's proposal also provides review periods and timelines and uses objective criteria for evaluating risk rather than subjective criteria proposed in Richmond's ordinance, wc-6289 MAY 20 '96 09:57PM MO FO WALNUT CREEK P.4 Mr. Jeff Smith. Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors May 20- 1996 Page Three The Contra Costa Council represents a variety of over 350 businesses located in Contra Costa County. The Council is dedicated to maintaining and increasing economic vitality throughout the County. On behalf of the Council's members,thank you for your consideration of this issue. Very truly yours, f f! ame a . President Contra Costa Council wa-6289 MAY-20-1996 15:41 FROM TO 15106461059 P.01 BAY AREA COUNCIL a 200 Pine street,Suite 300 May 20, 1996 San Francisco,CA 94104 (415) 981.6600 Frac(415)981-6408 •�CUTIVE COM:UITTEE Cpxirmaa a1t.RI:K'f}.AAtELtO Pres:idenr&CEO rotRV Clml SW.HiT ducwKRNIA Culp. The Honorable Board of Supervisors )s1ARY G.W.RITE%KT)AN PQTDInc.CCEOSQED. County of Contra Costa MM`den, rte' predrienc&krr� by Fax 510/646-1059 Safeway,hzc. Kf.Nr'877t'r.VkKR Cl airman&�o <;Hgrrtl;pr�s. Dear Members of the Board: et DONALD C.PURER Chairrnwi&CEO The Gap,Inr.. TLD w,ILUL The Bay Area Council, a business-supported public policy DirCC Wr' ,ZKinard'Rr l';n. organization, hereby expresses its opposition to the proposed PAt7.M%27—N a:a>"llan&a-o county ordinance requiring permits for work in facilities handling lo't'I I�,k'at�v IAr,1. VKA'NK C.WRRINCER hazardous materials. Twsidens&f:EC Trnrrsez:ierica Corp. DpvIP U.AAWKLNC:r:;WD. Chahman&CEO Ka1"I4ri141z Ylpn We have concluded that such.an ordinance is unnecessary in that it in�•rF�r:zsclati�n JOHN C.LEWIS largely duplicates the authority and regulations of other agencies Chairini'm An1r'ahl`;nrp. involved in hazardous materials. We believe that your proposed JOHN M.LILLIE AmArtrzAzr, 'e-iidem &. ordinance would create an undue burden and result in negative .�mrriran President Coq. AMY M``°Mss Presiticnt l4 ClSU economic impacts in Contra Costa County and the greater Bay Chronicle.Droadcacring Co. MWARD R.MCCRACKET Area. ea. Chaintuv,&CLU SiliCOn t_:rApNir,'.8,1ryC. ROBERT T.PARRY LO Presidet:t&CEO We urge you to reject the proposed ordinance. kccicry l hcwa.c Deni.%d Sar,Franrisro PHIUP J.QVIGLEY (:ApirmAn,prrxielrn[[%..t;l!U Sincerely PI alit:Telesis Group T.GARY ROGERS Chairman&CEO Drcycr's(ku:d kc Cica:rr RICHA=N.ROSENSERC rL amirman&CE9 ��• Dano n:erica Corp. ROBERT J.SALDICH Prexiclenr k CRO Rat+NLEYYoln T.T..S ,Angelo J. Siracusa 1p STANLEY Clsirman&CEC) President Pw.fic C:aA and &r.rrlc.Co. G.CRAIG SVLLIV.1_Y Gh*irrnan kC:P..0 The Clorox Cu. 90 7SCKA11 General Manager MArA.IZo.iy$R'.11,I)tVipifril IBM Corp. LY t)fllcin ANGtLO J.SEar►CUSA P'oga?cm X.CK0 Dap Area Counrii ■%hr#1a1 A,tn fi.rnt;l,xr,v in irr 70A ane,i,.1—ixmr-.povor d p7afiizar;cm a4sd;'Oreo ru cnah.a r:xd ucrim pn ixwt lif�lRiNf�t�af N91t0»�+�r9 e7p1C yr.C(i.Y u�'L j.ix rK.Rny.lrrn.Ike Co+imM(aWc:o-spwr,�s Jr.Any oma C:an�nu�lLrec:. MAY 21 '96 09:27 CMH LEGIS DEPT P.1 • • • • May 20, 1996 •California The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chairman Manufacturers Contra Contra Board of Supervisors Association 500 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisor Smith: The California Manufacturers Association stands in opposition to the proposed ordinance requiring special permits for projects at facilities handling hazardous waste or hazardous materials. This ordinance is unnecessary because existing and forthcoming regulations address,safety in industry. The ordinance duplicates provisions of the Process Safety Management program administered at the state level by Cal-OSHA, as well as the Risk Management&Prevention Program administered by the county. While the prevention of all accidents is a worthwhile goal, we believe the proposed ordinance will have the opposite effect of that intended. Facilities are constantly repairing and maintaining equipment. Creating additional hurdles and delays by imposing a lengthy new permit process is more likely to undermine health, safety and the environment,rather than improve it. Not only is this proposed ordinance bad for Contra Costa County, it is bad for California. Part of CMA's statewide objectives is to help reduce the number of duplicative "California-only" regulations that exceed federal regulations without providing additional, significant benefit to human health and safety or to the environment. This ordinance strikes us as a duplicative "Contra Costa-only" ordinance,without providing such benefit. CMA respectfully opposes this proposed ordinance. Sincerely, R TTMMERMAN 980 Ninth Street Vice President,Government Affairs Suite 2200 Sacramento CA 95814-2742 (916)441.5420 FAX(918)447.9401 FAX(9161441-5449 05/20/96 11:59 FAX 510 372 3176 TOSCO REFINING 0 001/002 Clark S.Wrigley Refinery Manager Vice President,Refining ' Tosco Refining Company A Division of Tosco Corporation '=-Osco Avon Refinery Martinez,California 94553.1487 Telephone:510 372-3002 Facsimile: 510 370-3392 May 20, 1996 Ms. Jeanne Maglio Board of Supervisors Clerk 651 Pine Street, 1 st Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Via fax: (510) 646-1059 Dear Ms. Maglio: On behalf of the men and women of Tosco Refining Company, I strongly urge you to oppose the proposed ordinance requiring "Special Permits for Projects at Facilities Handling Hazardous Wastes or Hazardous Materials"which is to be considered at your May 21 meeting. To put it simply; this ordinance is unnecessary. It duplicates existing regulations, including Contra Costa County's oven Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) and Cal/OSHA's Process Safety Management Program (PSM) which requires thorough Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZ/OPS). Additionally, it will duplicate provisions in the new Federal Risk Management Program (RMP)which will take effect later this year. In fact, the ordinance discourages industrial maintenance and development, therefore decreasing opportunities for full time local jobs. Its lengthy permitting process (estimated at 3 months) could actually negatively impact safety by delaying necessary repairs and maintenance. It creates a time consuming and costly process which adds another layer of bureaucracy and will not improve safety. Obviously this would impact the gasoline supply in the State of California. At the County Supervisor's direction,the Hazardous Materials Commission has spent more than three years formulating a sound land use ordinance which provides for better management of projects involving hazardous materials. It provides a screening tool to review projects which result in a change in risk rather than arbitrarily triggering a land use permit for a project based solely upon cost and quantity of materials handled. I attended the Planning Commission meeting last week at which time the proposed Land Use Ordinance was presented for public hearing. There was NO public opposition voiced. This is likely due to the fact that there was a very high level of community involvement throughout the process. In fact, all 15 speaker cards submitted on this issue were in support of the ordinance. Please note that Tosco's Clean Fuels project would have Triggered a Land Use Permit under the newly proposed formula. • 05/20/96 12:00 FAX 510 372 3176 TOSCO REFINING Ia002/002 In short, the "Special Permits...Ordinance" is bad for business. Therefore, it is detrimental to the economy of Contra Costa County. It is also counter to the County's Economic Partnership's goals of streamlining regulations. Most importantly, it will not improve safety. We ask you to consider the facts and the overall public good rather than this piece of flawed, special interest legislation. I am available at 372-3002 or in person to speak with you on this matter. Respectfully, cc: The Honorable Jim Rogers The Honorable Gayle Bishop The Honorable Jeffrey V. Smith, M.D. The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier The Honorable Tom Torlakson MA'Y-20-1996 15:01 FROM TIMEC CO.VALLEJOPCA TO 15106461059 P.01 - Jewaris Maglio -Boa-d of Supervisors-Clerk fax- 114}}:f�4fi�10.59 ,. .fou-:N1s�:Mt�gliac . • ,. ..nbehalf:of over. '1400 TIMFC .Company employees, i .urge you to oppose the proposed•,ordinance:requiring YSpeoial Permits for Projects at Facilities`HandIthg •Hazardous.wastes or'klazardouS:Materials." We 'view this ordinance as a transparent attempt to take work'away:from workers who are c�.irrehtGj► dflirtg the worts and give to others. Ait#noogh t.he.rhetoric of the propnsed.ordiiisi6ce makes clair:mi about the need #o improVe 'safet�;'it•wt uId actus lly be ri uriferproductive end make the-refineries. more unsafe- All issues sup osedly addressed.�by this;ordinance are already cavefed by tariy federal, state;and local'c es.and ordinances,already inpuce and workmg.: ,1 uc yowto pass'ordihance developed by the. Hazardous Materials Coi-Tim sign s;p :serited irvlthout fry>ng to'tie the "Richmond Ordinance"to'it 4 sinci~rely; i3Figgsood ` CEO 1 by uoropfa#e Ptac® •`Valfej6,.Catifomia 04580 • P.O."BOx 7705 X707).842;-2222 • Lac 280229, . Workresg to C y Fn Safety,Q&atity and Froduaivjty. V TRA'TfD Qk RCYO: OPAPER+WERE DOITJO OUA VART T044N O vI!VlRDbAIS_- _ . FROM :CG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 916 444 6655 1956,05-21 08:37 #737 P.02/03 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER of COMMERCE May 20, 1996 Mr. Jeff Smith, Chairman Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 500 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Smith.- The mith:The California Chamber of Commerce is a broad-based non-profit organization that brings together a diverse range of interests including business, industry and agriculture. Our membership consists of over 10,000 businesses, two-thirds of which are small businesses, 430 local chambers of commerce and 160 trade organizations. We are strongly OPPOSED to the proposed ordinance "Special Permits for Projects at Facilities Handling Hazardous Wastes or Hazardous Materials", The proposed ordinance sends an anti-business message at a time when California is trying to have a positive business climate and encourage economic development and job growth. The ordinance is contrary to efforts at federal, state and local levels to streamline permitting and eliminate unnecessary and duplicative regulatory requirements. Excessive regulation and lengthy permit processes discourage business growth and are factors in business decisions to leave California or locate new facilities elsewhere. California has been known nationwide as a state which is unfriendly to business. For years,there has been exodus of businesses out of.California. Only last year, was there a reversal in this trend. The California Chamber has been deeply involved in efforts to reform the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Endangered Species Act, and advocates requiring cost-benefit analysis of the economic and employment impacts of new regulations or changes to existing ones, and the elimination all duplicative state and federal regulations. FROM :CR CHRMBER OF COMMERCE 916 444 6685 1996,05-21 08:37 #737 P.03/03 Page 2 Mr. Jeff Smith May 20, 1996 The proposed ordinance increases business costs and bureaucracy with no public benefit. We encourage you to opposc the proposed ordinance and not support any further development of this ordinance which duplicates existing federal and state environmental and safety requirements. Sincerely, Valerie Nera, Director Agriculture and Resources cc Members of the CountyBov-d of Supervisors