Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05222001 - C.130 k" r. C.130 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 22, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Glover and Uilkema NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.130 LETTER, dated May 11, 2001 from the County of Santa Cruz regarding elimination of MTBE gasoline usage in Contra Costa County Fleet Services. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above mentioned matter is REFERRED to the General Services Department and Health Services/Environmental Health Division I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT'THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON TT-IE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED oZ U John Sweeten,fL of the Bo d of Supervisors Q-(County inistrator By eputy c.c. Correspondents (1) County Administrator OF F r 1850 coz County of Santa Cruz i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 OCEAN STREET,SUITE 500, SANTA CRUZ,CA 95060-4069 TA C*- (831)454-2200 FAX: (831)454-3262 TDD: (831)454-2123 JANET K. BEAUTZ ELLEN PIRIE MARDI WORMHOUDT TONY CAMPOS JEFF ALMQUIST FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT FOURTH DISTRICT FIFTH DISTRICT May 11, 2001 D Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RECOVEQ 651 Pine Street Martine, CA 1;553 1 5 2001 RE: REQUEST TO CONSIDER ELIMINATION OF C[RKCtARD OF SUPERVISORS MTBE-GASOLINE IN FLEET SERVICES ACosrgco. Dear Members of the Board: As you are aware, there are serious health and environmental concerns regarding the gasoline additive MTBE. Effective December 31, : 2002 , the State of California is phasing out MTBE in the State ' s gasoline because of the threat it presents to California'.s groundwater, .surface water, and-'drinking water systems . - Although there are .certain legal limitations on the actions that -can be taken at the -local level to control the content of gasoline, we believe that there are several important steps that can be taken to limit the use of this additive and to promote voluntary efforts at the pump. On April 24 , 2001, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved several recommendations designed to accelerate the elimination of the additive in Santa Cruz County at the earliest possible time . A copy of that report is attached for your information. The purpose of my letter to you today is to request that you consider joining the County in taking action to eliminate this contaminant, including a very specific action to eliminate the use of MTBE gasoline in your fleet vehicles . We believe that this is an important and meaningful step toward achieving our overall goal . As discussed in the attached report, the County' s current supplier has advised us that they can supply MTBE-free fuel at a relatively nominal increase in the per gallon price . Because the price of gasoline normally varies based on supply and demand, as well as other market and production factors, we' -directed our County departments to evaluate the best price opportunity for the MTBE-free fuel with the goal of utilizing the MTBE-free fuel at the earliest possible time . May 11, 2001 Page 2 In addition, the Board of Supervisors directed that a public awareness campaign be developed to alert the public to the availability of MTBE-free gasoline at area gas stations . Towards this end, the County is in the process of surveying each of the gasoline stations throughout the County and will be posting information on the location of gasoline stations selling MTBE- free gasoline on the County' s website and in area newspapers . We will also be developing a voluntary labeling program that will provide a clearer identification of MTBE-free fuel at the pump. . In closing, I want to thank you on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for considering taking action to eliminate the use of gasoline with the additive MTBE as soon as possible . These actions are intended to provide the public with additional. safeguards for water quality without risking the availability of gasoline supplies or additional costs . We would encourage you to contact Bob Watson, the County' s General Services Director, at 831-454-2210 for additional information on the elimination of MTBE-gasoline in the County' s fleet vehicles, or Steve Schneider of the County Environmental Health Department at 831-454-2022 regarding the public awareness program and other related issues . Sincerely, TONY C POS, hairman Board of Supervisors TC:ted Attachment cc: Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer General Services Director Energy Commission Water Advisory Commission 2569A6 r S�?,L O F 1850 County ®f Santa Cruz Y Q COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 'A TA CRS 701 OCEAN STREET,SUITE 520,SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4073 (831)454-2100 FAX: (831)454-3420 TDD: (831)454-2123 SUSAN A. MAURIELLO, J.D., COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Agenda: April 24, 2001 April 16, 2001 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA. 95060 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION OF THE FUEL ADDITIVE MTBE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Dear Members of the Board: On March 27, 2001 your Board considered a request by Supervisor Ellen Pirie for an evaluation and report on several issues related to the reduction of the fuel additive MTBE in our local gas supplies. Supervisor Pirie's correspondence, which is attached for your Board's information, discusses many of the public health and environmental concerns associated with the presence of the fuel additive MTBE and requests that the County consider actions to reduce or eliminate the additive in local fuel supplies prior to the Statewide ban which will take effect no later than December 31, 2002. This reportprovides your Board with a response to the various directives in Supervisor Pirie's correspondence including: ► Letters from the Hazardous Materials Advisory Commission and the WaterAdvisory Commission supporting County efforts to reduce or eliminate the use of MTBE gasoline in Santa Cruz County (Attachment 1). ► A review by County Counsel of the County's legal authority relative to the storage and sale of MTBE-oxygenated gas. ► Information on.the potential financial impact of an MTBE-oxygenated gas ban on Santa Cruz County residents and the feasibility of a voluntary program for drivers who wish to purchase MTBE-free gasoline in the County. SERVING THE COMMUNITY - WORKING FOR THE FUTURE I � . 3 REPORT ON MTBE-OXYGENATED GASOLINE Agenda: April 24, 2001 Page 3 law in this area since. it would interfere with the State's regulation of surface and underground water and the federal regulation of interstate commerce. EI Dorado County was able to use its' general police powers to regulate the sale of MTBE-gasoline in the Lake Tahoe Basin due to the extreme contamination and specific designation of the Lake Tahoe Basin as an attainment area for water quality. It should also be noted that the Lake Tahoe Basin was able to receive its gasoline from a source in the State of Nevada which does not have MTBE in its gasoline and therefore did not anticipate any concerns regarding availability. Although County Counsel is continuing to research-the legal issues in this area, we are also concerned about the possibility of limited supplies of MTBE-free gasoline in the future which could result in a shortage of gasoline supplies if the County were to proceed to a total ban. As a result, we believe it is advisable for your Board to consider the development of a voluntary program within the County which would provide for consumer choice to purchase MTBE-free gasoline and would not potentially conflict with.State and federal law. This would also prevent any potential economic disadvantage to gas station operators or hardship to consumers if supplies become limited. This voluntary program is discussed in greater detail below. Financial Impact of an MTBE-oxygenated Gas Ban and the Feasibility of a Voluntary Program to Purchase MTBE-free Gasoline in the County Although there has been some speculation regarding the future availability of MTBE-free gasoline, the fuel is currently available in Santa Cruz County at several local gas stations. For example, all Union 76 stations in the County carry only MTBE-free gasoline. In addition, several of the Chevron and Shell gas stations in Santa Cruz County carry MTBE- free gasoline and it is possible that other stations, including independents, also sell MTBE- free gasoline.Various refineries in Northern California, including Tosco in Benicia, Ultramar in Richmond, and Chevron, supply stations with the MTBE-free gasoline.Again, due to the oxygenate requirement, the gasoline supplies do contain ethanol and are labeled as such at the pump. Letters were recently received from the Chevron Company and Tosco Corporation discussing their products and confirming availability of the MTBE-free gasoline within Santa.Cruz County. These letters are included as Attachment 3. With regard to cost, the pricing structure for gasoline is very complex, with several factors impacting the cost per gallon. The California Energy Commission (CEC) monitors the average statewide cost of gasoline on a weekly basis, and breaks down the price into various components of cost. The CEC's most recent report indicated that as of April 16, 2001 gasoline in Northern California had risen approximately $.04 per gallon from the previous week for a per gallon price of$1.80 for regular grade. Based on a survey of gas stations on 41S` Avenue in Santa Cruz County during this same period, gasoline prices ranged from a low of $1.81 per gallon to a high of $1.89 per gallon for regular grade, slightly higher than the statewide average. REPORT ON MTBE-OXYGENATED GASOLINE Agenda: April 24, 2001 Page 5 This would place the County in a leadership role in this important public health matter. To our knowledge, no other County has taken action to eliminate the use of MTBE-free fuel for its County fleet. In this regard we would also recommend that the Chair of the Board send a letter to other counties within the State advising them of the County's actions to eliminate MTBE-oxygenated gasoline from use in the County fleet and encouraging them to take a similar action in advance of the Governor's December 2002 phase out date. Request for Federal Waiver of Oxygenate Requirement As previously discussed,'the California Environmental Protection Agency(CaIEPA)and the California Air Resources Board have requested that the federal government waive its current regulation for oxygenated gasoline.This waiver is considered by CaIEPA to be one of the most essential steps in the successful phase-out of MTBE by December, 2002. The waiver request is based on the fact that equivalent air quality benefits can be achieved without the adverse impact that the MTBE oxygenate has on water supplies. The waiver is also needed to ensure that an alternative source of MTBE-free gasoline.is available: Since ethanol is the currently preferred alternative form of oxygenate,- the availability of MTBE-free gasoline will be dependent upon ethanol supplies, which may be in short supply for various reasons, including its use in other energy related production. It should also be noted that ethanol has qualities that may contribute to water quality degradation. According to CaIEPA, the federal waiver will address these issues by eliminating the need for either of these additives in gasoline. In addition, refineries are i currently retooling their facilities in anticipation of the December 2002 phase out of MTBE in gasoline. We should encourage the federal government to act quickly on the State's request to eliminate all oxygenates to avoid delays in the production of additive free fuel that may result from-last minute changes in regulations. We would therefore recommend that the Chair of the Board write to our federal legislators in support of California's request for the federal waiver. The Governor's Executive Order of March 25, 1999 discussing the significant risks associated with MTBE in gasoline in California and the federal waiver request is included as Attachment 4 of this report. Other Related Issues With regard to other issues, such as the evaluation and cleanup of MTBE releases, aquifer and well-head protection programs, and the protection of recharge zones and production well areas, it is critical for the County to examine all approaches that will provide additional protection for the County's water systems. Given the extreme expense and the health risks associated with the contamination and clean-up of sites, these preventive measures are critical and cost effective. Environmental Health staff has indicated that the State is currently considering new requirements for storage of gasoline and the water districts are currently evaluating these issues as well. REPORT ON MTBE-OXYGENATED GASOLINE Agenda: April 24, 2001 Page 7 6) Request the Chair of the Board to write to our federal legislators in support of California's request for a federal waiver to eliminate the requirement for the addition of oxygenates in all gasoline supplies in California, 7) Direct the Planning Department to. work with the Hazardous Materials Advisory Commission and the Water Advisory Commission regarding issues_ related to evaluation and cleanup of MTBE releases, aquifer and well-head protection programs, and the protection of recharge zones and production well areas and provide a follow-up report to your Board on or before August 21, 2001. Very truly yours, Susan A. Mauriello County Administrative Officer cc. County Counsel Planning General Services Public Works Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Advisory Commission Water Advisory Commission Various Water Districts and Agencies Each City H:\MTBE\Bdreport0a01.wpd 0134 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS March 20 , 2001. Page 2 rely on for drinking water. The county is adjacent to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The likelihood that MTBE will make its way into the bay is worrisome . The high volume of rainfall in the county may also contribute to the movement of spilled gasoline containing MTBE into the ground. I , therefore, recommend that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions : 1 . Refer this issue to the Hazardous Materials Advisory Commission with a request that the Commission make recommendations concerning the reduction or elimination of the storage and sale of gasoline containing MTBE in Santa Cruz County for consideration at the Board ' s meeting of April 24 , 2001 . 2 . Direct the County Administrative Officer, working with appropriate staff., to prepare a report for Board consideration on April 24 , 2001 , which includes the following elements : a . An opinion from County Counsel about the feasibility of enacting an ordinance which would prohibit the storage and sale of MTBE-oxygenated gas in Santa Cruz County. That report should, among other issues , provide an opinion about the extent to which the Board may act to protect local water supplies while still complying with applicable state and federal laws . b . A report on the potential financial cost on Santa Cruz County residents of implementing a local ban on the storage and sale of MTBE-oxygenated gas . In this regard, staff should be .asked to also consider the feasibility of establishing a voluntary program whereby drivers could purchase MTBE-free gas in Santa Cruz County. C . A report on the feasibility, including the potential financial cost , of purchasing MTBE-free gasoline for County vehicles . 3 . Direct the Board Chair to send a letter to .all local water districts in Santa Cruz County asking them to provide the Board with their opinions about the need //yV ATTACHMENT 1 Letters from the Hazardous Materials Advisory Commission and Water Advisory Commission 13 be more resistant to natural bio-degradation than other fuel components. MTBE has been detected in some groundwater and some drinking water in Santa Cruz County and is considered by our commission to be a potential threat to additional drinking water supplies in the county. The most significant leaks of MTBE into the subsurface environment appear to mostly have occurred as a result of leaking underground storage tanks. These leaks may have occurred before recent laws required that underground storage tanks be upgraded with extra containment and monitoring systems. These new systems are less likely to allow significant releases of fuel. Although MTBE may escape from these newer systems over the next 20 months, the most significant threat to soil and ground water appears to be from previous releases.. A ban on MTBE would not resolve these previous releases, but would reduce potential for future releases. Alternatives to MTBE, such as ethanol, have been identified, and are already substituted in some fuels. Ethanol may be advantageous because studies suggest it is less toxic in air and water than MTBE. It also appears that ethanol can be contained in tank systems with less propensity to escape to the subsurface environment. Further, if released, ethanol breaks down relatively rapidly into less harmful substances. After considerable research and discussion, the SCCHMAC suggests that the Board of Supervisors take action to encourage regulatory agencies to aggressively enforce evaluation and cleanup of MTBE releases. We also recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider aquifer and well-head protection programs for the county; including protection of recharge zones and production well areas. We also support the concept of MTBE-free gasoline in Santa Cruz County and support using ethanol or other less toxic alternatives in lieu of MTBE..However, the SCCHMAC would like to note that a county ban on MTBE-containing gasoline prior to December 31, 2002, may impose a significant burden on gasoline suppliers and vendors because MTBE-free gasoline may be limited in availability. The cost of gasoline may also increase within the county. The SCCHMAC believes that MTBE-free gasoline will increase in use as suppliers prepare for the phase out deadline. It is known that MTBE-free gasoline is already becoming available in the county in some fuel brands and grades. We hope the Board of Supervisors will find the information presented in this letter to be helpful. Please do not hesitate to notify the SCCHMAC if we can be of further assistance on this or any other hazardous materials issue. Sincerely, County of Santa Cruz Hazardous Materials Advisory Commission Cbb WAM i rA p ,i 1 1 cA _ ex `0 N U�0 p 0 v N Q W w Z 0 0 W 4 O Y z 0 0 V O Z ri O Q � m 4 w V .