HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03161999 - D4 TO: PHIL%RW&M° UNTY ADMINISTRATOR ;: '. Contra
FROM: WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D., HEALTH SERVICES DIREC ,°. Costa
ti County
DATE: March 4, 1999
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE SAFETY AUDIT OF THE TOSCO REFINERY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)r&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ACCEPT this status report on the steps which have been taken since
March 2, 1999 regarding the safety audit of the Tosco-Avon Refinery,
including the followings
A. The Scope of Work has been drafted with the assistance of Cal-OSHA,
Federal OSHA, and the Chemical Safety Board and has been agreed
to by Tosco.
B. The draft Scope of Work was circulated to the following individuals and
organizations for comment:
Ellen Garvey, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment
Kasha Kessler, Shoreline Environmental Alliance
Paul Craig, Martinez Resident
David Nesmith, Sierra Club
Torm Nompraseurt, Asian Pacific Environmental Network - Laotian
Organizing Project
Bill Walker, Environmental Working Group
Staff of Baykeeper
Hazardous Materials Commission W all members and alternates
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: a X_YES SIGNATURE: �
-RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGP€ATURE S
ACTION OF BOARD ON r-r- - - APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X1_
SEL ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTTON
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ASSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: TT TV NOES, !IT V ' -- AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: nnnp ABSTAIN:riQ OF SUPERVISORS ON T E DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
;,,r
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARIE)OF
CC: See Page 4 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
gtvDEPUTY
l
ADDENDUM TO ITEM IDA
Agenda March 16, 1999
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered recommendations of the County
Administrator and Health Services Director regarding the status of the Tosco-Avon
Refinery, including approving the selection of a consultant to perform a safety
audit of the Refinery.
Supervisor Canciamilla invited the public to speak. The following persons
addressed the Board:
Henry dark, West County Toxics Coalition, 101 a MacDonald Ave,
Richmond;
Donald Brown, 1801 Sonoma Blvd 4117, Vallejo,
Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), 329 Railroad
Ave, Pittsburg;
Ralph Sattler, Communities for a Safe Environment (CSE), 1204 I_ lfrnian
Way, Martinez,
Maria Alegria, Mayor's Conference, CCC Hazardous Materials
Commission, 3781 Brazil Court, Pinole;
Steve Sullivan, (PACE), 1333 Prale Street #C, Martinez.
Concluding further discussion, the Board took the following actions:
APPROVED recommendations listed in the status report dated 'March 4, 1999;
DIRECTED the Hazardous Materials Commission to function as an oversight
committee by holding public meetings and offering recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors at an appropriate time.
Tosco San Francisco Area Refinery
;Management Systems and Safety Evaluation
of the Avon Facility
Statement of Scope
Objective
The objectives of this Process Safety Management Systems and Safety Evaluation are to do a thorough
evaluation of the management practices and safety culture at the Tosco Avon Refinery, and to determine
what would it take for the facility to start up in a safe manner within sixty days from March 12, 1999.
Background
Because of incidents that have occurred at the Tosco Avon ke.finery,communities surrounding the refinery,
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, and Health Services are concerned about the refinery
operating safely. Among these incidents are a January 21,1997 explosion and fire at the hydrocracker and
a February 23, 1999 flash fire at a crude unit.These two incidents resulted in the death of five workers,and
ireiuries to others.
In response to these incidents,the Contra Costa.County Board of Supervisors has directed Health Services
to arrange for a third-,party evaluation performed on this refinery. This evaluation is being done at the same
time that Contra Costa Health. Services, Cal/OSHA, and the federal Chemical Mazard Investigation and
Safety Board are conducting investigations of the incident that occurred on February 23, 1999. Cal/OSHA
is investigating the initiating cause of the incident and whether the refinery was out of compliance with
regulations Cal/OSHA enforces. 1 his is a thorough investigation regarding protection of workers' health
and safety at the unit involved in the incident.
The Chemical Hazard Investigation and Safety Board and Contra Costa Health Services will each conduct
a root cause analysis of the incident. These analyses will determine the initiating causes of the incident,how
the incident occurred, and its underlying root causes, The underlying root causes will determine which
process safety management systems failed that led to this incident. The investigations will look at training;,
operating procedures,mechanical integrity, contractor safety,process safety information, communication,
the design of the equipment,hot work pennits,and safe work permits. The findings and recommendations
will address the management syst'erns that failed on February 23, 1999 and what needs to be done to correct
these failures.
Requirements
The Management Systems and Safety Evaluation will evaluate the refinery's human factors and systems
concerning the management practices and safety culture at the refinery
Scope ofWork
The evaluation will be conducted at the Tosco San Francisco Area Refinery at Avon.
1 Evaluate how the refinery's management safety systems,safety culture,and how human factors are
incorporated in the training of operating, maintenance, other staff, management personnel, and
contractors. The process safety }management systems to be addresses are; Operating Procedures,
Training,Management of Change Pre Start-Up Safety Reviews, Incident Investigation, I-lot Work,
Contractors, Emergency lResponse ,program, Compliance Audits, Employee Participation, and
Process Mazard Analysis. This evaluation should include,but not be limited by the list in Appendix
A and the items listed below.
a How is management intent, as expressed in internal policies, carried out at field level?
b How are procedures developed? What does Tosco do when work fails outside of the written
procedures?
c How is bottom-up input provided for, and on what range of subject matter? How are
disagreements resolved?
d 'what systems are In place to assure that management policies and/or procedures are carried out?
Do these include audits?
e What accountability exists at each level of the organization? Who is accountable for what and
to whore?
f How have the reduction and reorganization of personnel, including contract personnel, affected
the plant's safety?
2 public participation — the evaluation will include public participation. The public participation
process is being developed by the County. The contractor should,expect#Thai the process will include
public meetings at which the contractor will explain the firm's plan,progress,results. The meetings
will be an opportunity for the contractor to listen to the public's concerns and consider incorporating
them in the evaluation:. The contractor should expect to attend and make reports at meetings such
as the following(precise details will be made available in the County's public participation p)an);
a An initial meeting before starting the evaluation;
b Weekly meetings during the evaluation to report the progress being made and to receive input
from the public;
c A public meeting to discuss the draft findings of the evaluation;
d A,meeting of the Board of Supervisors,to present the final report.
3 The contractor will conduct a follow exp evaluation to determine how Tosco is addressing the
findings from the initial evaluation and to report on the progress that is being made in addressing
the findings. This evaluation will occur at a date to be deternhined by the contractor.
The contractor will prepare a plan for evaluation and will submit this plash to the project Manager from
Contra Costa Health Services for his/her review. Tncluded in Appendix A are examples of items to be
considered in this evaluation. Tlie contractor should use this list to assist in determining the evaluation of
Tosco's current program for addressing management systems,safety practices,and the safety culture of the
Avon Refinery.
Tosca San Rancisco Area Refinery Management Systems and Safery Evaluation of the Avon Refinery
Mage 2 of 5
Appendix A
Self-evaluation Questionnaire for Managers Considering Ways
To Improve Human PerformancelPolicy Issues
1. Is upper rna.nage era's commitment to employee health and safely clear`.? 'What policy statements
communicate this commitment to employees? leo workers understand these policies and are they
convinced of upper management's sincerity?
2. Do supervisors and workers believe that safety has higher(or at least equal)status with other
business objectives in the organization? How does the company promote a"safety first"approach?
3. Have supervisors and workers been specifically told to err on the safe side whenever they perceive a
conflict between safety and production? Will such decisions be supported throughout the
management chairs?
4. Is management of worker health and safety an essential part of a manager's daily activities? How
are managers held accountable for their health and safety record, and hour do the rewards and
penalties compare to those for production performance?
5. is health and safety regularly discussed in management meetings at all levels? Do Stich discussions
involve more than a review of injury statistics? 'What actions are taken if an injury occurs? Are near
misses discussed,and is any action taken to prevent recurrence?
6. in the areas of design, construction, procurement, operations,:maintenance, and management are
there clearly defined procedures for evaluating the human factors aspects of.
® New and modified processes?
• New and modified equipment?
• New and modified procedures?
• Special, abnormal, and one-of-a-kind procedures?
8. Are human factors resources available in the organization, and are they readily available to help
resolve procedural issues? Do they periodically review the adequacy of the standards in conjunction
with other groups (engineering, operations, maintenance, etc.)?
9. Are adequate time and resources allocated to human factors?How is human factors integrated into
the procedure writing process?
10. Ido workers help identify error-likely situations in existing designs/procedures? Are they also
involved in the review of now designs/procedures? Howe is worker input used? Are worker
suggestions implemented?
11. .Are workers encouraged to discuss potential human errors and near misses with their supervisors`?
Are such worker disclosures treated as evidence of worker incompetence,as unwarranted criticism
of management, or as valuable lessons to be shared and acted upon? What criteria and procedures
exist for reporting and investigating accidents and near misses?Are they followed consistently? Do
the investigations co into enough depth to identify the root causes or worker errors? How are tete
human factors engineering deficiencies identified during the investigation of an incident corrected
at(1) the site of the original incident, (2) similar sites at the same facility,and (3) similar sites at
other facilities?
I This a modified list from the Chemical Manufactures Association's(CMA)book titled,A Manager's Guide to
Reducing Hum-n-ErrorsTmigoving,Htiman Perforrrrtnce in e CheniLeainduatr
Tosco San Francisco Arca Refinery Management Systems and Safety Evaluation of the Avon Refinery
Page 3 of 5
12. Are supervisors trained and encouraged to identify error-likely situations, unsafe behaviors, and
personal problems that may adversely affect a worker's performance? What actions are takes} if a
problem is identified?
13. Are data on human -errors collected and made available to managers?Have the data been used as the
"basis for any management decisions?Are the data collected routinely or are they only collected after
an accident:?
Jaen wid Task Issues
14. Have critical jobs and tasks been identified? Have the mental and physical aspects of such jobs
been analyzed for both routine and emergency activities? What has been done to reduce the
likelihood and/or consequences of potential human errors in the performance oftltese j
24, Is there a written training policy applicable to all workers?What safety objectives are established
and how is attainment of such objectives monitored?
25. Are training records kept? How are retraining needs identified?Now are workers trained on new
processes, eczuipment,and procedures`?What training is given to workers changing jobs or taking
additional responsibilities?W-hat training is given to new workers?Mow is training effectiveness
assessed?
25. Are pre-employment and periodic health assessments performed for workers who must meet and
maintain defined medical standards?Is a worker's health evaluated before he/she is allowed to
return to work after an illness?
27. Are there programs for identifying and helping'workers with substance abuse or mental health
problems? What counseling, support, and professional advice is available to workers during
periods of ill health or stress?What is the company policy on reassigning or terminating workers
who are unable/unfit to perforr: fheir jobs?
Tosco San Francisco Area Refinery Management Systems and Safety Evaluation of the Avon Refinery
Page 5 of 5
Appendix B
Definitions
Human Factors: The design of machines, operations, and work environments so that
they match hur an capabilities, limitations, and needs. Includes any technical work
(engineering,procedure writing, worker training,worker selection, etc.) related to the
human factor in operator-machine systems'.
Process Safety Management Systems: Comprehensive sets of policies,procedures, and
practices designed to ensure that harriers to episodic incidents are in place,in use, and
eff'ective,2
Root Cause: The prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems,that
allow faulty design, inadequate training,or improper changes, which lead to an unsafe act
or condition, and result in an incident. If root causes were removed, the particular
incident would not have occurred.3
Safety Culture: The socially transmitted behavior patterns, beliefs, institutions, and all
other products of human work and thought characteristic of the workplace affecting the
expectation that a system does not,under defined conditions,lead to a state in which
human life, economics, or environment are endangered.4
' From the Cuter for Chemical Process safety book Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety
Fresno the Center for Chemical,Process Safety boob Guidelines for Auditing Process SAfet4+Mann omen
r sterns
From the Center for Chw:nical Process Safety book Guidelines for Auditixng Process Safety Manan ernent
5 Ms
¢The Americans.Heritage Dictionary dunes safety as: The condition of being safe;freedom from danger,
risk,or injury. The Center for Chemical Process Safety book Guidelines for Safe Process Operations and
h airitenarnee defines safety as The expectation that a system doses not,under defined conditions,lead to a
state in which human life,economics, or environment are endangered.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMISSION �.....�.w
k .
pew e�dtsfa
DATE: March 16, 1999
MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors /
FROM: Elinor Make, Executive Assistant
Hazardous Materials Commissio ` ,
RE: recommendation for public participation in the safety evaluation of the Tosco
San Francisco Area Refinery at Avon
At a special meeting called for Thursday, March 18, 1999, the Commission will hear a proposal from its
Operations Committee for the public participation plan you requested,for the safety evaluation of the Tosco-
Avon refinery, This memo details the Committee's proposal, but as the Commission will not meet until
Thursday the final proposal to you may change. Some members of the Commission not on the Committee
attended the Committee meeting and were in agreement with the proposal. The Committee meeting was
also well-attended by members of the public.
The Committee discussed the options of an oversight committee and public meetings. After deliberation,
the group developed the plan below, which Commissioners felt would allow for maximum public
participation and exchange with the safety evaluation consultant,while being most efficient given the 60-day
timeline and the need to begin immediately.
$28 The Hazardous Materials Cornrnission and the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman will co-sponsor a
series of public meetings with the consultant who will be conducting the evaluation. The Ombudsman
will convene and facilitate the meetings.
4� The first meeting will be as the consultant begins the job; subsequent meetings will occur
approximately weekly thereafter throughout the evaluation.
At the meetings, the consultant will provide a status report on the evaluation and hear comments from
the public regarding the evaluation. After the first meeting, the consultant will include a report or any
follow-up to public comments made at the previous meeting that are within the work scope of the
evaluation and suggest some action by the consultant. The report will include a decision not to act on
such a comment.
Effie "he consultant will present a summary of the major findings of the evaluation at a public meeting prior
to preparing the final report to the Board, to allow for public comment at a draft stage.
®2� The consulta t will be provided with the public comments concerning the evaluation that were made
to the Board prior to the consultant's being hired, as well as the comments on the work scope sera to
Dr. Walker prior to March 10, 1999 in response to his request.
Members: Leslie Stewart, Chair lura Aguilar Maria Alegria Scott Anderson henry Clark Paulette Lagana Mary Leeds Steven Linsle v
Jim Payne Michael Polkabla Jimmy Rodgers Mike Shlmansky Stuart Shoults Executive Assistant: Elinor Blake
20 Alleys Street, Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 370-5022 Fax(925) 370-5098
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � ..
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMISSION �. ...........
j
DATE: March 16, 1999
MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors �
FROM: Elinor Blake, Executive Assistant
Hazardous Materials Commission
RE: Recommendation for public participation in the safety evaluation of the Tosco
San Francisco Area Refinery at Avon
At a special meeting called for Thursday, larch 1 b, 1999, the Commission will bear a proposal from its
Operations Committee for the public participation plan you requested, for the safety evaluation of the Tosco-
Avon refinery. This memo details the Committee's proposal, but as the Commission will not meet until
Thursday the final proposal to you may change. Some members of the Commission not on the Committee
attended the Committee meeting and were in agreement with the proposal. The Committee meeting was
also well-attended by members of the public.
The Committee discussed the options of an oversight committee and public meetings. After deliberation,
the group developed the plan below, which. Commissioners felt would allow for maximum public
participation and exchange with the safety evaluation consultant,while being most efficient given the 60-day
timeline and the need to begin immediately.
4- The Hazardous Materials Commission and the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman will co-sponsor a
series of public meetings with the consultant who will be conducting the evaluation. The Ombudsi an
will convene and facilitate the meetings.
The first meeting will be as the consultant begins the job; subsequent meetings will occur
approximately weekly thereafter throughout the evaluation.
At the meetings, the consultant will provide a status report on the evaluation and hear comments from
the public regarding the evaluation. After the first meeting,the consultant will include a report or any
follow-up to public comments made at the previous meeting that are within the work scope of the
evaluation and suggest some action by the consultant. The report will include a decision not to act on
such a comment.
4;. The consultant will present a summary of the major findings of the evaluation at a public meeting prior
to preparing the final report to the Board, to allow for public cornment at a draft stage.
X88 The consultant will be provided with the public comments concerning the evaluation that were made
to the Board prior to the consultant's being fired, as well as the comments on the work scope sent to
Dr, Walker prior to March 10, 1999 in response to .his request.
Members: Leslie Stewart, Chair Pam Aguilar !Maria Alegria Scott Anderson Henry Clark Paulette Lagana i a j Leeds Steven Linsley
Jim Payne Michael Polkabla Jimmy Rodgers hike Shimansky Stuart Shoults Executive Assistant: Elinor Blake
0 Allen Street, Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 370-5022 Fax (925) 370-5098
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CMMISION
x > ,
DATE: March 1s, 1999 + '
ED
MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors
MAR I61999
FROM: Elinor Bike, Executive Assistant
Hazardous Materials Comssony CLERK BOARB OF CONTRA O Ao
RE: Recommendation for public participation in the safety evaluation of the Tosco
San Francisco Area Refinery at Avon
At a special meeting called for Thursday, March 18, 1999, the Commission will hear a proposal from its
Operations Committee for the public participation plan you requested, for the safety evaluation of the Tosco-
Avon refinery. This memo details the Committee's proposal, but as the Commission will not meet until
Thursday the final proposal to you may change. Some members of the Commission not on the Committee
attended the Committee meeting and were in agreement with the proposal. The Committee meeting was
also well-attended by members of the public.
The Committee discussed the options of an oversight committee and public meetings. After deliberation,
the group developed the pian below, which Commissioners felt would allow for maximum public
participation and exchange with the safety evaluation consultant,while being most efficient given the 50-day
timeline and the need to begin immediately.
+ The Hazardous Materials Commission and the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman will co-sponsor a
series of public meetings with the consultant who will be conducting the evaluation. The Ombudsman
will convene and facilitate the meetings.
�2d The first meeting will be as the consultant begins the job, subsequent meetings will occur
approximately weekly thereafter throughout the evaluation.
At the meetings,the consultant will provide a status report on the evaluation and hear comments from
the public regarding the evaluation. After the first meeting, the consultant will include a report on any
follow-up to public comments made at the previous meeting that are within the wont scope of the
evaluation and suggest some action by the consultant. The report will include a decision not to act on
such a comment.
��. The consultant will present a summary of the major findings of the evaluation at a public meeting prior
to preparing the final report to the Board, to allow for public comment at a draft stage.
®4e The consultant will be provided with the public comments concerning the evaluation that were made
to the Board prior to the consultant's being hired, as well as the comments on the work scone sera to
Dr. 'Walker prior to March 10, 1999 in response to his request,
Members. Leslie Stewart, Chair Pant Aguilar Maria Alegria Scott Anderson Nervy Clark Paulette Laganer Mari Leeds Steven Linsley
Jim Payne Michael Polkabla Jimmy Rodgers Mike Shinumsky Stuart Shoults ExecutiveAssistant: Elinor Blake
20 Allen Street, Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 370-50,2.2 Fax(925) 370-5098
John Dalrymple, Central Labor Council
Greg Feere, Building & Construction Trades Council
Members of the Ad Hoc Committee identified below
Plus an array of environmental, labor, industrial and civic organizations
and other members of the public in addition to the above,
C. Dr. Walker convened an Ad Hoc Committee to comment on the Scope
of Work for the safety audit and to participate in the selection of the
consultant who is being recommended to conduct the safety audit. The
Ad Hoc Committee has completed both tasks. The Ad Hoc Committee
consisted of five individuals:
■ William B. Walker, M,D., Health Services Director (Chair of the
Ad Hoc Committee)
0 Jim Payne, Secretary-Treasurer of the Paper, Allied Industry,
Chemical and Energy Workers (P.A.C.E.) Union, Local 8-5
■ Ralph Sattler,representing Communities for a Safe Environment
• Larry Ziemba, Vice President, Tosco Refining
N Leslie Stewart, Chair, Hazardous Materials Commission
(Organizational affiliations are included for identification purposes only]
D. The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the qualifications of six potential
consultants and narrowed the field to the two top choices. References
were checked as were any possible conflicts of interest in terms of
other work the firm is engaged in. The conclusion is to recommend that
the Board contract with the Arthur D. Little Company. The fee for items
# I and #2 on the scope of work will be $100,000. They are unable to
estimate the cost of item #3 until the other two items have been
completed.
2. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director to execute a
contract with Arthur D. Little Company in the amount of$100,000 to complete
items #1 and #2 in the attached Scope of Work for the Tosco-Avon Refinery
over the period of March 12, 1999 through December 31, 1999, with the
understanding that the staff will return to the Board to seek approval for an
amendment to the contract to include the cost of item #3 at a later date. The
County will be reimbursed for the cost of the safety audit by Tosco.
BACKGROUND:
A number of activities have been undertaken since our last report to the Board on
March 2, 1999 and in response to the direction provided by the Board at that time.
These activities have been undertaken in a manner which will,to the extent possible,
allow the necessary evaluation and review of the refinery, and allow the
implementation of changes in a timely manner that will preserve jobs and avoid any
unnecessary delay. The following summarizes the actions the Board directed be
taken and the status of the activities that have been taken in response to each:
-2-
r
1. Accept the staff`report.
No further action appears to be required in response to this portion of the
motion.
.2. Instruct staff to assist in moving the safety audit as quickly as possible
with a status report to the Board at the earliest possible date.
In consultation with Supervisor DeSaulnier, Dr. Walker, Jim Kayne, other
union officials and members of Dr. Walker's staff, we have agreed to
approach this issue in two phases. Phase I will include those actions that
must be completed in order for Tosco to reopen the refinery safely at the
earliest possible date. Phase II will include all other actions which may take
more time and do not have to be accomplished as a condition of reopening
the refinery.
The County Administrator and Health Services Director metwith the President
of Tosco Refining and the Manager of the Tosco-Avon Refinery on March 4,
1999. They reviewed the proposed two phase approach and the formation of
an Ad Hoc Committee with Mr.Wiggins and Mr. Ziemba. Mr.Wiggins and Mr.
Ziemba have agreed on this approach and have committed to cooperating
with the process.
The Ad Hoc Committee met March 9, 1999.
We Relieve that March 1 6, 1999 is the earliest date when we could realistically
make a status report to the Board.
3. return with information on the pending Cal-OSHA legislation.
A copy of AB 1127 (Steinberg) and an analysis of the bill were included on the
Consent Calendar this date.
4. health Services is to work with Tosca on the development of an
agreement with the community similar to the good neighbor agreement
that was developed with Unocal- Rodeo.
The Health Services Department is reviewing the good neighbor agreement
with Unocal (now Tosco) for the Rodeo refinery. The agreement with the
Tosco-Avon refinery will be a part of Phase ll of the overall evaluation of the
Tosco-Avon refinery.
5. Obtain additional information about any increased level of operations at
Tosco-Rodeo.
Tosco Rodeo is currently running below their permitted and historical rates of
production. Tosco was considering increasing production at the Rodeo
refinery after the fire at the Avon refinery up to permitted levels, but has
decided not to do so at this time. They will review this decision after April 1,
1999.
6. Provide a further analysis of fire district annexation issue~and refer this
issue to the Finance Committee.
-3-
We plan to make a report directly to the Finance Committee on this issue.
7. Request Tosco to reinstate the safety and hazardous materials teams.
This issue is being included as part of the Scope of Work for the consultant
to review as a part of the safety audit. The contractor is being asked to look
at how Tosco makes personnel changes and reorganizations. This item was
of special interest to the Ad Hoc Committee.
8. Encourage Tosco to make a commitment regarding future salary and
benefit payments;
Our on-going discussions with Tosco will include a request for a continuing
commitment to pay employees salary and benefits during the period of the
safety audita
9. Ask Mr. O'Malley to put his commitments in writing.
A letter has been sent to Mr. O'Malley making this request.
10. Direct staff to continue research and review of potential legal action and
return to the Board with any recommendations.
Staff will continue to pursue legal alternatives and will advise the Board of
actions in this regard in a timely manner.
11. Request our legislative delegation to review the facts surrounding this
incident for possible future legislation.
A letter has been sent to this County's legislative delegation asking them to
consider bringing to the attention of the appropriate committees the Board's
request for hearings on the Tosco incident in an effort to determine whether
additional legislation is required.
Refer to the Hazardous Materials Commission a request for
recommendations to the Board regarding a public review process for the
safety audit and for any final recommendations that come from that
audit.
The Operations Committee of the Hazardous Materials Commission meets on
March 15, 1999 to plan stakeholder and public involvement in the safety audit.
The Commission will present an interim oral report to the Board on March 15,
1999, and will convey the Committee's plan to Dr. Walker so that the Health
Services Department can begin to consider its implementation. The full
Commission will act on the Committee's proposal at its meeting on March 25,
1999,
cc; County Administrator
Health Services Director
County Counsel
Community Development Director
Larry Ziemba, Manager, Tosco-Avon Refinery
-4-