HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04032001 - D.2 4
TO:• BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •£"bE L=°_ Contra
FROM: William Walker, M.D. Health Services Director ;
Costa
DATE: April 3, 2001 County
. �
sra cotiN�
SUBJECT: Industrial Safety Ordinance Public Participation
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Accept the attached report on the Industrial Safety Ordinance
2) Approve the attached proposal for improving and increasing public participation in the Industrial
Safety Ordinance
3) Authorize the Hazardous Materials Program to issue a RFP for an entity to provide support
personnel for the project described in the attached proposal. The RFP will require the respondents
to address the following issues:
a) Credentials for being able to explain highly technical information to the general public
b) Ability to engage and involve the general public in a complex regulatory process
c) Capability for conducting multi-lingual and multi-cultural outreach and education
d) Capacity for organizing, housing and disseminating information to the general public
BACKGROUND:
Health Services presented the first annual report on the Industrial Safety Ordinance to the Board on
December 12, 2000. The Board at that time requested more information on how the regulated
stationary sources were implementing the inherently safer systems as required by the ordinance. The
Board also requested that the Ombudsman for the Hazardous Materials Programs work with staff from
the Hazardous Materials Programs and Communities for a Better Environment to improve the public
participation in the Industrial Safety Ordinance.
A proposal for improving and increasing public participation in the Industrial Safety Ordinance was
developed and sent out for public review on March 1, 2001 to government agencies, industries,
Industry Citizen Advisory Panels, Hazardous Materials Commission members, community groups,
environmental groups and interested private citizens. Seven written comments were received about the
proposal. The RFP for an entity to provide support persFhelfor he project f1'r�flect the concerns
raised by the comments.CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU E: 1L
ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA OARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
------------------------------ ------- ---------- - "!L' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ACTION OF BOARD
ON April 3 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER XX
SEE THE ATTA('HRII ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACnON AND VOTE
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT - - - - ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED_ April 3, 2001
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CC:
BY / " DEPUTY
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2
April 3,2001 Agenda
On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the report on public participation regarding the
the Industrial Safety Ordinance.
Those present included Dr.William Walker,Health Services Director;Lewis Pascalli,Deputy
Director of the Hazardous Materials Program;Michael Kent,Hazardous Materials Ombudsman;
and Randy Sawyer,Accidental Release Prevention Specialist.
Randy Sawyer,presented the staff report and recommendations.
The Board discussed the issues.
Michael Kent outlined proposed action for improving public outreach and participation in the
Industrial Safety Ordinance(ISO),and the Request For Proposal(RFP)process to hire
supportive personnel for the project. (seethe attached proposal).
The public hearing was opened,and the following people commented on the issue:
Denny Larson,Communities for a Better Environment,San Francisco;
Tina Cosentino,Communities for a Better Environment, 1611 Telegraph Avenue,
Suite 450,Oakland;
Janie Wilson,California Street,Rodeo;
Etta Craig,Tullibee Road,Rodeo;
Flora Cambel,Communities for a Better Environment,Richmond;
Ms.Gerry Casanares,Communities for a Better Environment,Richmond;
Ethyl Dotson,Communities for a Better Environment,Richmond;
Estella Diaz,Communities for a Better Environment,Richmond;
Dennis Bolt,Western States Petroleum Association, 1115-11th Street,Sacramento;
Leslie Stewart,Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Commission,3398 Wren Avenue,
Concord;
Sandra Falk,P.E.U.Local One,P.O.Box 222,Martinez;
Warren and Karen Susag,Communities for a Better Environment, 1611 Telegraph
Avenue,Oakland;and
Freeman,El Sobrante.
Those desiring to speak having been heard,the Board continued their discussion.
Supervisor Glover stated that he was in agreement with staff s recommendations,and would
include that the Internal Operations Committee be part of the RFP process to determine criteria
for selection of the contractor or personnel,and how to conduct the public process.
Supervisor Gioia agreed with those comments.
Discussion continued. Supervisor Gerber suggested that staff modify future reports on
Inherently Safer Systems(ISS)to include the number of requested changes,what change was
requested,the estimated costs of those changes,and the estimated costs of the items rejected.
It was suggested by Supervisor DeSaulnier that the meetings be made accessible to the public in
terms of hours,that at least one evening meeting be held,and are held in the affected
communities,and that the I.O.Committee hold one evening meeting in the community.
Supervisor Glover moved to accept staffs recommendations including those additions proposed
by himself,and Supervisors Gerber and DeSaulnier.
Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion.
Supervisor Uilkema proposed a friendly amendment to the motion,that the Crockett and Rodeo
communities,the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council,the Bayo-Vista Resident's Council,and
1
the County Services Area P-1 Citizen's Advisory Committee be informed of the upcoming
processes for their input. Supervisor Glover accepted the amendment. Supervisor Gioia agreed
and suggested that when the meetings go Countywide,input be solicited from affected
communities.
Chair Uilkema called for the vote,which was unanimous.
2
Industrial Safety Ordinance Report
To the Board of Supervisors
April 3, 2001
Introduction
Health Services presented the annual report on the Industrial Safety Ordinance to the
Board on December 12, 2000. The Board at that time requested more information on
how the regulated stationary sources were implementing the inherently safer systems as
required by the ordinance. The Board also requested that the Hazardous Materials
Ombudsman work with the Hazardous Materials staff in developing an outreach program
that would improve the public participation in the Industrial Safety Ordinance.
Inherently Safer Systems
What is Inherently Safer Systems
What does inherently safer systems mean and how does the Industrial Safety Ordinance
define it? Section 450-8.01.4(g) of the County Ordinance Code states that "Inherently
Safer Systems means Inherently Safer Design Strategies as discussed in the 1996 Center
for Chemical Process Safety (COPS) Publication Inherently Safer Chemical Processes
and means Feasible alternative equipment, processes, materials, lay-outs, and
procedures meant to eliminate, nnini.mize, or reduce the risk of a Major Chemical
Accident or Release by modifying a process rather than adding external layers of
protection. Examples include, but are not limited to, substitution of materials with lower
vapor pressure, lower flammability, or lower toxicity; isolation of hazardous processes;
and use of processes which operate at lower temperatures and/or pressures."
"Inherently safer design is a fundamentally different way of thinking about the design of
chemical processes and plants. It focuses on the elimination or reduction of the hazards,
rather than on management and control. This approach should result in safer and more
robust processes, and it is likely that these inherently safer processes will also be more
economical in the long run (Trevor Kletz)." Implementing inherently safer systems as
defined will reduce the risk of an accidental release from a facility that could have an
offsite consequence.
The CCPS publication Inherently Safer Chemical Processes has classified a strategy for
reducing risk into four categories. "These categories, in decreasing order of reliability,
are:
• Inherent — Eliminating the hazard by using materials and process conditions
which are nonhazardous; e.g., substituting water for a flammable solvent.
• Passive — Minimizing the hazard by process and equipment design features that
reduce either the frequency or consequence of the hazard without the active
functioning of any device; e.g., the use of equipment rated for higher pressure.
• Active — Using controls, safety interlocks, and emergency shutdown systems to
detect and correct process deviation; e.g., a pump that is shut off by a high level
Page 1
switch in the downstream tank when the tank is 90% full. These systems are
commonly referred to as engineering controls.
• Procedural — Using operating procedures, administrative checks, emergency
response, and other management approaches to prevent incidents, or to minimize
the effects of an incident; e.g., hot-work procedures and permits. These
approaches are commonly referred to as administrative controls."
"Approaches to the design of inherently safer processes and plants have been grouped
into four major strategies by IChemE and IPSG (1995) and Trevor Kletz:
• Minin iZe — Use of smaller quantities of hazardous substances (also called
Intensification)
• Substitute—Replace a material with a less hazardous substance
• Moderate — Use less hazardous conditions (e.g., process conditions operated at
lower temperatures or pressures), a less hazardous form of a material, or facilities
that minimize the impact of a release of hazardous material or energy (also called
Attenuation and Limitation of Effects).
• Simplify — Design facilities which eliminate unnecessary complexity and make
operating errors less likely, and which are forgiving of errors that are made (also
called Error Tolerance)."'
Inherently safer design strategies can be applied to any of these risk management
strategies as illustrated below.
Process Risk
Management Inherent Passive Active Procedural
Strategies
Minimize ..................................................
Substitutee ...........................................4.................................................
�^ U i
N
Cn cs
, ...........................................Y �Moderate .................................................�
°J on
Q Simplify
"Finally, in considering inherently safer design alternatives, it is essential to remember
that there are often, perhaps always, conflicting benefits and deficiencies associated with
'Inherently Safer Chemical Processes -A Life Cycle Approach A CCPS Concept Book, 1996
Page 2
the different options. Chemical processes usually have many potential hazards, and a
change that reduces one hazard may create a new one or increase the magnitude of
different existing hazard. It is essential that the process designer retain a broad overview
of the process when considering alternatives, that he/she remains aware of all hazards
associated with each process option, and that appropriate tools are applied to choose the
overall best option.
In the CCPS book Inherently Safer Chemical Processes they "adopt a broad definition of
inherently safer. The discussion and examples range from basic process chemistry
through details of the design of hardware and procedures. The authors recognize that
some of these more detailed examples may arise in processes that would not be described
as "inherently safer" overall. However, we believe that it is important to encourage
inherently safer thinking at all levels of process and plant design, from the overall
concept through the detailed design of equipment and procedures."
Inherently Safer Systems Submittal
Health Services requested that the Industrial Safety Ordinance regulated stationary
sources submit to Health Services' a list of the inherently safer systems implemented.
Health Services requested that the list for each of the different inherently safer systems
considered to be categorized. Health Services also requested the regulated stationary
sources to list the inherently safer systems that were considered, but were not
implemented with the justification for why the inherently safer systems was not
implemented and not feasible. The request for this information was for PHA's and new
or modified projects that were completed between April 27, 2000 (the effective date of
the amendment to the Industrial Safety Ordinance, County Ordinance 2000-20) and
March 9, 2001.
The total inherently safer systems that were implemented are 565 and are listed in
Attachment A according to the category of the system implemented. The total inherently
safer systems that were not implement are 13. The inherently safer systems that were not
implemented and the justifications for not implementing them are listed in Attachment B.
Public Outreach
A public outreach policy was drafted and sent out for comment to an interested party list.
The draft policy was developed with input from Denny Larson and A. J. Napolis from
Communities for a Better Environment. Health Services received comments from seven
individuals or groups. The final public outreach policy proposal is included in
Attachment C.
The public outreach policy is a three-phase approach with the first phase being a pilot
program to work with the communities surrounding the Tosco San Francisco Refinery at
Rodeo. Health Services would hire an individual or a group to develop and implement a
program for this pilot project. If the pilot project were successful, the second and third
phases would be to implement similar programs in the Martinez and the Bay Point areas.
'-Inherently Safer Chemical Processes -A Life Cycle Approach A CCPS Concept Book, 1996
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
Inherently Safer Systems Implemented
Five hundred sixty-five inherently safer systems will be implemented as the result of
PHA's and new or modified facilities between April 27, 2000 and March 9, 2001. The
list below includes the following:
• The regulated stationary source
• Category for each of the inherently safer systems implemented
o Instrument and Electrical —Instrumentation or electrical modifications
o Piping Systems and Equipment —Evaluations/Modifications to equipment,
specifications, inspection programs/records, replacements, etc.
o Pressure Safety Valves —Installation of new relief valves, modifications to
existing relief valves, service, maintenance, etc.
o Human Factors — Evaluations/modifications to improve personnel and
equipment interface
o Facility Siting — Evaluations/modifications to equipment locations with
respect to processes and their surroundings
o Operational — Evaluations/modifications to improve operability (e.g.'
procedures, locking open valves, etc.)
o Fire Protection/Health and Safety — Evaluations/modifications to
emergency/health and safety equipment and procedures
o Environmental — Evaluations/modifications to address environmental
regulatory requirements
o Documentation—Evaluations/modifications to process safety information
• Process Hazard Analysis or New or Modified Project
• Number of inherently safer systems implement at each of the stationary sources that
are regulated under the Industrial Safety Ordinance
Regulated Process Hazard or Category Number of
Stationary Source New or Modified Inherently Safer
Project Systems
Implemented
Ultramar Inc. Process Hazard Instrument and 28
Analysis Electrical
Piping and Systems 41
and Equipment
Pressure Safety 6
Valves
Human Factors 8
Facility Siting 12
Operational 123
Fire 6
Protection/Health
and Safety
Environmental 1
Page 4
Ultramar Inc. Process Hazard Documentation 69
Analysis
New or Modified Instrument and 3
Facility Electrical
Piping Systems and 9
Equipment
Pressure Safety 1
Valves
Human Factors 1
Facility Siting 1
Operational 0
Fire 1
Protection/Health
and Safety
Environmental 0
Documentation 0
Air Products at Process Hazard Instrument and 2
Equilon Analysis Electrical
Piping and 1
Equipment Systems
Pressure Safety 0
Valves
Human Factors 1
Facility Siting 5
Operational 16
Fire 1
Protection/Health
and Safety
Environmental 0
Documentation 15
General Chemical at Process Hazard Instrument and 1
Bay Point Analysis Electrical
Piping and 1
Equipment Systems
Pressure Safety 0
Valves
Human Factors 0
Facility Siting 0
Operational 3
Fire 0
Protection/Health
and Safety
Environmental 0
Documentation 1
Page 5
Equilon Martinez Process Hazard Instrument and 1
Refining Company Analysis Electrical
Piping and 3
Equipment S stems
Pressure Safety 0
Valves
Human Factors 2
Facility Siting 1
Operational 10
Fire 0
Protection/Health
and Safety
Environmental 0
Documentation 0
Tosco San Process Hazard Instrument and 7
Francisco Refinery Analysis Electrical
at Rodeo
Piping Systems and 76
Equipment
Pressure Safety 11
Valves
Human Factors 9
Facility Siting 8
Operational 37
Fire 8
Protection/Health
and Safety
Environmental 0
Documentation 1
Instrument and 0
Electrical
New or Modified Piping Systems and 8
Facility Equipment
Pressure Safety 6
Valves
Human Factors 0
Facility Siting 0
Operational 0
Fire 0
Protection/Health
and Safety
Environmental 0
Documentation 0
Page 6
Two regulated stationary sources reported no inherently safer systems considered in the
time that was requested. Air Products at Ultramar did not perform or revalidate any
process hazard analyses between April 27, 2000 and March 9, 2001. Polypure did not
consider inherently safer systems when process hazard analyses were performed. This
was discovered when Health Services audited them in November 2000 and is part of the
preliminary audit findings. Polypure has committed to redoing all of their process hazard
analyses to include inherently safer systems. They will submit the schedule to complete
this work when they respond to the preliminary audit findings that is due on May 14,
2001.
Page 7
a
UOA a
Cl
tA
Cd Cd
ch
• U bA O aA O
U
• > cTj U o
.�cs
cd C)o � � � � � �
o .- C: wo.d
U O y
O p Uj n tU cM (u cd >
R t4
U _ >unv
Y U > N Q
a Y =s � 3 ai v oQn
w v
-G G O G 3 Lf bA €y 03 t>p
° > � ° ¢ cn > mss° '
o Y o �- o 'o, u —,,I c o o
N y 00
en"U 3
G 0 D RfT O a 'ten d N y c� 01)
v ?', a�i � o ° 3ca
06.
> c
IV, H t nA cs
cA
> > .�1
CZ
� � °CA � � •� cU'3
N U c•3 p a W
y+ U
0 x
� � U
cf) v
cl >'
1
� cn
� T
H �
s G
• O � o c� O y y
p Q a7 ..+ ✓ U N G �
G 1 en
o w 3o
3 U U
G U N R y
�.� O �� N O � S�• US✓ bA � J'
o
U U Gy d O w n O 9 ca
n p
c} G
v U u ✓ .G '3 � ✓ `�' 7 U 4•
cs °? p
w v 3p °� r CS GC cs N G p
N U U G
1, � Tics v
cd
79
O oA M G J Q !y O U Y
Fy ✓ cd G
cr .."�, r G r .f N
p U � J� `'S �' y r
� 3 Y
O G O
r
4
U
U
� V G
'O
J � a
U
O O G cT3
UrG, w3t::r � �
�
� � o
IS
�
6
�
w � •/ \ A .
� k � \ / Rl
tom
a ƒ
0 0
� «
%
\
�
3 �
% 2
SA
ATTACHMENT C
Proposal for Improving and Increasing Public
Participation in the Industrial Safety Ordinance
Background
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Industrial Safety Ordinance
because of concerns about accidents that have occurred at the oil refineries and chemical
plants in Contra Costa County. The ordinance went into effect on January 15, 1999, and
was amended in March 2000. On December 12, 2000 the Hazardous Materials Programs
presented the first annual Performance Review and Evaluation Report for the ordinance
to the Board of Supervisors. At that meeting, in written and oral comments, Denny
Larson of Communities for a Better Environment complained that the public participation
component of the ordinance's implementation was inadequate. The Board requested that
the Ombudsman for the Hazardous Materials Programs work with staff from the
Hazardous Materials Programs and Communities for a Better Environment to improve
the public participation component. This proposal is the result of that effort.
Regulatory History
In regards to public participation, the Industrial Safety Ordinance states:
4.50-8.002(D) — Background and Findings — The County recognizes that regulatory
requirements alone will not guarantee public health and safety, and that the public is a
key stakeholder in chemical accident prevention, preparedness, and response at the local
level. Preventing accidental releases of'regulated substances is the shared responsibility
of industry, government, and the public. The first steps toward accident prevention are
identifying the hazards and assessing the risks. Once infonnation about chemical
hazards in the community is openly.shared, industry, government, and the community can
work together towards reducing the risk to public health and safety.
(E) The success of a Safety Program is dependent upon the cooperation of industrial
chemical and oil refining facilities within Contra Costa County. The public must be
assured that measures necessary_ to prevent incidents are being implemented, including
changes or actions required by the Department or the Stationary Source that are
necessary to comply with this chapter.
And
450-8.004(A) — Purpose and Goals — The purpose of this ordinance is to impose
regulations which improve industrial safety by the following:
(5)provide for public input into the Safety Plan and Safety Program and public review of
any inspections and audit resnits;
Page 11
The ordinance also provides for two specific opportunities for public participation:
450-8.018(A) — Review, Audit and Inspection — Upon submission of a Safety Plan by the
Stationary Source, the Department shall review the Safety Plan to determine if all the
elements required by Section 450-8.016 are included and complete. The Department
shall provide to the Stationary Source a written Notice of Deficiencies, if any. The
Stationary Source shall have 60 calendar days front receipt of the Notice of Deficiencies
to ma
ake ny corrections. The Stationary Source may request, ill writing, a one time 30
day calendar day extension to correct deficiencies. By the end of the 60 calendar days or
any extensloil period, the Stationary Source shall resubmit the revised Safety Platt to the
Department. After the Department determines that the Safety Plait is complete, the
Department shall schedule a public meeting on the Stationary Source's Safety Plait to
explainn its contents to the public and take public comments. (emphasis added) Tile
Department shall make portions of the Safety Plan, which are not protected trade secret
Ittformatlon, available to the public for the public meeting.
And
450-8.018(B)(4) — Review, Audit and Inspection - After receiving the written response
from the Stationary Source, the Department shall issue a public notice per the
Department's Public Participation Policy and make portions of the Safety Plan, the
Preliminary Determination and the Stationary Source's responses, which are not
protected trade secret information, available for public review. Public comments on the
Safety Plan shall be taken by the Department for a period of 45 days after the Safety Plan,
the .Preliminary Determination and the Stationary Sources responses are made available
to the public. The Department shall schedule a public meeting on the Stationary
Source's Safety Plan during the 45 day comment period. (emphasis added) The
public meetings shall be held in the affected community on evenings or weekends.
In addition, the Board of Supervisors approved the allocation of$50,000 for the purpose
of continuing the existing community education and outreach effort, including holding
community meetings to seek input on the Safety Plans required under the ordinance
(Board agenda item D.9.5, December 8, 1998).
Current Public Participation Efforts
The Hazardous Materials Programs has developed a written policy for conducting public
participation. That policy requires that when a Safety Plan is complete, Health Services
places a five-inch by four-inch advertisement in the appropriate Contra Costa Times
Newspaper and the San Francisco Chronicle announcing the opening of a forty-five day
public comment period and a public meeting. Health Services also sends letters to
approximately 150 individuals or organizations on an interested persons mailing list,
announcing the public comment period and the public meeting. Thus far, four public
Page 12
meeting for five of the regulated stationary sources' Safety Plans have been held. The
policy calls for the same process to be repeated for the second round of public meetings.
The format of these meeting has been for Health Services to give an overview of the
CalARP Program and the Industrial Safety Ordinance followed by a presentation by the
stationary source. The stationary source presentations have consisted of overviews of the
facilities' operations, descriptions of their chemical release scenarios, and explanations of
how the accident prevention and emergency response elements required by the ordinance
are implemented. The meetings have concluded with question and answer periods. One
meeting was attended by 6 members of the public, 14 attended one, and two were
attended by no members of the public. The current method of public participation has met
the specific requirements of the Industrial Safety Ordinance as described in section 450-
8.018.
New Public Participation Proposal
The intent of this proposal is to develop a public involvement process that provides the
public the opportunity to participate in a manner that more fully meets the intent
described in the Background and Findings section and Purpose and Goals section of the
ordinance. This proposal is based on the concept that the public must have access to
substantive information, and must be provided the support necessary to understand that
information, for them to provide meaningful input into the review process.
The type of information that the public can use to participate in this manner include:
• Already available Root Cause Analyses conducted for specific stationary sources, and
new Root Cause Analyses as they become available.
• The recommendations made from the Process Hazard Analyses conducted by the
stationary sources, which can be requested from the stationary sources.
• Timelines for implementing Process Hazard Analyses developed by the stationary
sources, which can be requested from the stationary sources.
• Already available Incident Notification Reports prepared by Health Services, and new
Incident Notification Reports as they become available.
However, just having this information available to the public is not enough; additional
support is necessary to help the public understand this information and to understand how
they can use this knowledge to participate in the process. To this end, the $50,000
allocated by the Board of Supervisors should be used to provide support personnel to the
community. This support would be responsible for:
• Promoting awareness of the opportunity to participate in the process to the public;
Page 13
• Meeting with members of the public who are interested in participating to help the
review and understand the available information; and
• Assisting the interested public in preparing comments and voicing their concerns
during the review process.
This model for public involvement has recently been successfully demonstrated in
several collaborative projects between Health Services and local communities. In the
Crockett/Rodeo area Health Services is working with a local community group to help
residents understand and participate in the development of a refinery fence-line air
monitoring system. Community involvement was accomplished through a series of
meetings with community members in their homes and in small groups. In North
Richmond, environmental educators from Health Services are working with community
members to help them identify the environmental health risks of greatest concern to them
and implement a program to address these priorities. The key to the success of both these
projects has been significant support personnel and open access to relevant information.
To implement this process, we recommend starting with a pilot program in the
Crockett/Rodeo area. This facility will be the first to have their Safety Plan ready for the
second public comment period and public meeting. Health Services should contract with
a consultant or a community group to provide the necessary community support as
described above. Health Services would open the 45-day comment period on Tosco's
Safety Plan approximately six weeks after the support person was hired. This would give
the support personnel enough time to conduct outreach in the community, and to help
interested community members understand the relevant information and prepare to
participate in the public meeting. This process could then be replicated for the stationary
sources in the Martinez and Bay Point areas.
Page 14
Sd— / REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM Z
l S-f- (THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name:
Phone:
Address: 2 YCity:
I am speaking for myself or organization: C
(name of organization)
CHECKS ONE
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# "ate: r
My comments will be: ge ral for against
I wish to speak on the subj of
I do not wish to speak b eave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
S. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM T
(THREE(3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this foam and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: (()2d—V () Phone�51- - U(i �0
Address: l [[I( c�GclL6 AVQ, I N S� City: ��(l,C,'lK UI 1'It{
I am speaking for myself or organization: C-, (W010VUtjW1n CI
&Ibz me
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE: ;-�
,C I wish to speak on Agenda Item# I J c� Date
My comments will be: gFcomments
for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave tfor the Board to Consider:
e: :
J- P-IAk j 0 IA Lke4)L 3 •S YY1In A 5
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM - _ Y
(THREE(3)MINUTE LIMIT) O
3
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name. w� Prn ( a1� VeM A � 61 (Q�. �� r��C� lM tL�ne.
Address: City: I 0CA,P(Z_
I am speaking for myself V_ or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on AgenZof
Date
My comments w �( forI wish to speak on the suI do not wish to speak bments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be'considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
i
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM --D y
(THREE(3)MINUTE LIMIT)
a
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: G �/ `� V �� k/h l�'Vl[vlsrrvv' ' Gl
Address: I 1k'42 IZAI City: I26 CW(�
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# DO Date:
My comments will be: gene for�_against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but lea these comments for the Board to Consider:
MA�euL
i
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak"form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
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: r�A YM Phone:
Address: City: tC►
I am speaking for myself _ or organization: C
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
Is I wish to speak on Agenda Item 4 Date
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave the a comments for the Board to Consider:
24e cepC14
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
S. Limit your presentation to.three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE(3)MINUTE LIMIT) C4�
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: 1 ► ls� (��Ir�y '-Qs _ Phone:
Address: City:
I am speaking for myself ^ or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# 'c Date
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these c mments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
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: �e+hu sC/y� Phone:
Address: City: F=1C�)
I am speaking for myself � or organization: C, LIK
b
(name of organisation)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# a Date:
My comments will be: general for_�_against
1 wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave th comments for the Board to Consider:
'� V eo G
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
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: on
��� "U
--T- ,0 mos
Address: City: Gr
I am speaking for myself or organization: C
i
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# p2 Date
My comments will be: gene for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave th a comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form On the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available.before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM 9
(THREE(3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: ��AS! s (0.,Ls Phone: 135
Address: %//J' // f� City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# � -2- Date
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
,r
SPEAKERS
Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
.speaking.
r
S. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
Estimated Annual Average Emissions - Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Refining Percent Emissions Change from 1990
20
IN 1993
0 . ■M11M 1995
❑1996
a -20 '` R::R' ``° ❑1998
-30 c :ff ■1999
A, �.:;k 02000
-50
Pollutant
Total Air Emissions (tons per day)
4500
4000 _ Total Petroleum Refining
>% 3500 '`"$ (131 -98 tpd)
0 3000 ®Other Stationary Sources
m` 2500 s
H 2000 ,;ti 7�7T
1500 4 ❑Area-Wide Sources
o —
~ 1000 =—
500 ❑Mobile Sources
A-
0
1990 1993 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 0 Natural Sources
Year
Source: California Air Resource Board Web Site, http:/fwww.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php
n;
I
fo tx."i I t1M 1
4 WSP
Western States Petroleum Association
Credible Solutions*Responsive Service•Since 1907
Contact: Dennis Bolt-(916)498-7756 April 3, 2001
Bay Area Refinery Workplace Safety and Incidence Reporting Data
COUNTY NOTIFICATIONS
Notifications to Contra Costa County's Hazardous Materials Hotline have increased because all
refineries are being more responsive to their communities by providing the County information on
routine operational activities such as fire training drills and equipment shutdowns for
maintenance.These information notifications do not reflect an increase in accidents or incidents,
but have measurably increased the number of notifications to the county.
SAFETY
Bay Area petroleum refineries present one of the best industrial safety records among
manufacturing industries in America. When compared to other manufacturers nationally,
petroleum refineries have an excellent safety record,and Bay Area refineries rank among the
best in our industry.
SUMMARY
In cooperation with Contra Costa County, Bay Area refineries are constantly working to improve
their accident/illness prevention systems and training. They work collaboratively with labor
leaders,regulators, industry experts,and citizens to improve systems, processes and feedback
loops. Our members strive to deliver quality products to consumers through environmentally
responsible and safely operating facilities.
National Injury Incidence by Manufacturing Industry(1997)
SIC Employees Injuries p/ Lost Workdays
Code 100 Workers p/100 Workers
Ships&Boating 373 158,000 17.6 8.8
Motor Vehicles 371 984,000 13.9 6.1
Food Processing 20 1,691,000 13.9 6.1
Textile Products 22 616,000 11.7 6.3
Electronics 36 1,689,000 5.7 2.8
Printing&Publishing 27 1,544,000 5.2 2.5
Petroleum Refining 291 96,000 2.5 1.2
Bay Area Refinery Incidence Rate 1997 2.6 1.2
Bay Area Refinery Incidence Rate 2000 1.5 0.1
111511 th Street,Suite 150,Sacramento,California 95814
mot same -HOW
rSA ' nEe-, yr.-A9S,iRjpfic"q -Onabiahis A
I
Z-00- ITAOiIII1,01/1 YTVIIX)
iA
yd
bnz F,!!".)b QN,2 W as ma weWlyp isnAmequ Mum
)L) oir,ebi,.6p ni ris !oil r;)
Y131AP,
V* "n-I 0YOWAS MUSIS" let;Ub
ni?vi,,;f�ubm
bs-!A izi .D1 Ooui y"-filsa ;r I Z)!: n ky, muolc,
YRAMMUS
tow'MR
amb[vg Smiquo 0, anesvic,
JIL."U01dy aluluanm W allibuiq y1i .yl4?
ylt:Ain bris
§Qpt)J-iliubnl yd y1uln!
is sit mesn
F t 9
S.;.,i Oct.", i, jrporile,.O;.Y-,z
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM D 2
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: 2,C"5'1 ,14F 5-1�WR rz. 7— Phone: 2 J& - 70
Address: --?3%60 WMi -ly if i/E - City: eONGO/�-,A
1 am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
_ I wish to speak on Agenda Item# '�Z Date:
My comments will be: general_�/ for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
� .� ey
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and and placedl it in the box near the speakers'rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Sax-4c 1 CX- Phone: Zg 1 (P UU
Address: Z Z 2- City:
1 am speaking for myself or organization:
Ll LO c�t CC
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# - L Date
My comments will be: general��- for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak"form (on the reverse side) in the box next.to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE(3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Com��pJlet is form and place ita h �xne the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: 1'1 C Phone:
Address: J" City: e &W 6,
I am speaking for myself or organization: (2�
(name of organinbon) ,
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on AgeZe Date
My comments for against
I wish to speak on the sI do not wish to speak bmments for the Board to Consider:
V
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
S. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) 3
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone:
Address: City:���
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of or8ani78tion)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone:before your,agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
eEWA
IIAF
MOMf
p
r� IN
ri
a
sviI �il aoo�.
4 b�__ ._ .._.
-
�_ dna -►�^-k -l��-- -i5_. �'��_I ._ eC�,cc -
ha j5-�✓_1,e:5_S i' __ i�-� O U C'n rr (it.Vl�±_._�!. r `�_►�. _.�— - -
r I V
AA
5
Qx`_ �_i
g
� c
� 4