Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06122001 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '=s L' Contra FROM: Donna Gerber _ - Costa DATE: June 12, 2001 OQSr'4 OUN'� SUBJECT: Consider Recommendations Regarding the CCounty Industrial Safety Ordinance and Inherently Safer Systems SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. DIRECT staff to review the attached draft language from County Counsel (Attachment A) amending the Industrial Safety Ordinance to give the Health Services Department discretion to determine whether an Inherently Safer System or a process hazard analysis recommended action must be implemented. 2. SOLICIT from the County Administrator's Office, Health Services Department, Community Development Department and County Counsel's Office a comprehensive and integrated report on what those departments would need if the Board amends the Industrial Safety Ordinance to allow them to exercise discretion to require inherently safer systems/actions. This report should include fiscal ramifications, if any. 3. REFER the draft amendment language to the Hazardous Materials Commission and the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board for comments. Include with the referral a copy of State Attorney General Bill Lockyer's published opinion citing the County's police power authority to require inherently safer systems in order to protect the public health or safety without greater risk of liability under the Tort Claims Act. The same materials should be referred to industry representatives for their review. 4. REPORT to the Board of Supervisors during the month of September 2001 the comments of the Hazardous Materials Commission and the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board, and the Staff Report cited in #2 above. (This date can be modified if staff advises.) At that time, County staff will also advise the Board of Supervisors what steps would be required to comply with CEQA and Health and Safety Code section 25534.06 in order to modify the Industrial Safety Ordinance with this amendment. 5. REQUEST, in the interest of promoting greater public participation, that the Board of Supervisors meeting at which this report will be presented and considered be scheduled to commence at 1:00 P.M. and this item b rd at P M. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _x—YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME DATION OF BOARD MMITTEE APPROVE OTHER II I SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 12, 2001 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER XX SEE ADDENUM FOR BOARD ACTION AND VOTE VOTE OF SUPE SORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT CO OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS(A NT 1 AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERV ORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: N ABSTAIN: ATTESTED ASWEET CLERK O THE BOARD OF ERVISORS AND COUNTY M11DMINISTRATOR cc: - Supervisor Gerber ADDENDUM D.2 June 12, 2001 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered recommendations regarding the Industrial Safety Ordinance and Inherently Safer Systems. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Uilkema invited comment from the public. The following persons presented testimony: Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment, 1611 Telegraph, Oakland; Margarita Flores, Communities for a Better Environment, Ballo Vista, Rodeo; Ethyl Dotson, Communities for a Better Environment, Richmond; Karen Susag, Communities for a Better Environment, Oakland; Lucia Flores, KAEP, Communities for a Better Environment, Rodeo; Wendy Banega, , KAEP/Communities for a Better Environment, 1244 Tullibee Court,.Rodeo; Beleu McQuistant, Communities for a Better Environment, 111 Dempsey Way 714, Rodeo; Cary Dyer, Industrial Association, 3377 Deer Valley Road, Antioch; Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council, 935 Alhambra Ave, Martinez; Jim Payne, PACE, P.O. Box 349, Martinez; Tina Rosentino, Communities for a Better Environment, 1611 Telegraph Ave, Oakland. The following persons did not wish to speak, choosing to leave written comments or letters: Elizabeth Edelmann, (read by speaker Wendy Banega); Ralph J. Sattler, Communities for a Safe Environment, 1204 Ulfinian Way, Martinez; Maria Brown, 318 California Street, Rodeo; Concepcion Castaneda; Maria Alegria, Pinole City Council, Contra Costa County Mayor's Representative to the Hazardous Materials Commission, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole; Thomas Zimmerman, Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board, Contra Costa Health Services, 597 Center Avenue, Ste 200, Martinez. Following further discussion, the Board took the following actions: 1. DIRECTED staff to review draft language from County Counsel to amend the Industrial Safety Ordinance; 2. SOLICITED a comprehensive and integrated report from the County Administrator's Office, Health Services Department, Community Development Department and County Counsel regarding departmental needs should the Industrial Safety Ordinance be amended to allow departmental discretion in the Inherently Safer System actions; 3. REFERRED the draft amendment language and to the Hazardous Materials Commission, Public Environmental Health Advisory Board, PACE (Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union) Health and Safety Committee and the Internal Operations Committee for comments and DIRECTED that the Internal Operations Committee also analyze the relevant CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) issues, these comments and report for Board consideration in October 2001; 4. REQUESTED feedback from the State Office of Emergency Services (OES), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CALEPA), and OSHA; DIRECTED that correspondence be coordinated by the Internal Operations Committee; DIRECTED the Board of Supervisors meeting at which this matter will be considered begin at 1:00 p.m. with this matter scheduled at 6:00 p.m. to promote greater public participation; and DIRECTED County Counsel to consider the legal impact of a language amendment to the Industrial Safety Ordinance requiring a Contra Costa County approved Safety Plan to operate; (AYES: 1,III,IV,V and II;NOES: None;ABSENT:None;ABSTAIN: None); 5. ADDITIONALLY DIRECTED County Counsel to obtain a peer review regarding liability under the Tort Claims Act. (AYES: I,IV,V and II;NOES: III;ABSENT:None;ABSTAIN: None) t BACKGROUND: When the Good Neighbor Safety Ordinance was replaced by the Industrial Safety Ordinance, several amendments were proposed which were not agreeable to a majority of the Board at that time. One of the amendments sought was to require inherently safer systems/actions so that County staff would have discretion and authority in reviewing industry practices. As part of this proposed amendment, industry would have access to an appeal process. In March 2000, the Board again considered amendments to the Industrial Safety Ordinance as a result of a stipulated Judgment with Communities for a Better Environment. Again, the issue of inherently safer systems authority was revisited. In the staff report, the reason cited for not recommending the Inherently Safer Systems amendment was as follows: "The staffs primary objection to this option centers on anticipated increased exposure to liability for the County should it order changes in facility operations that are (1) not derived from the County's review of a Safety Program and (2) not supported by the Stationary Source. Staff concludes, that the County would not enjoy immunity from liability for these actions, since these actions would not derive from a state mandated program. Staff further concludes, that the liability exposure created would be excessive, placing at risk other County programs designed to protect public health and safety." Given the staffs concerns, I recommended, and the Board agreed, that County Counsel would prepare a letter requesting an opinion from the State Attorney General in order to explore the reasons Staff had listed. Two questions were asked of the Attorney General's office. 1. "May a general law county exercise its police power authority to require an industrial facility, not seeking any entitlement from the county, to use an inherently safer system or take a specific action, such as the use of particular equipment, manufacturing or refining processes, or management procedures, in order to protect the public health and safety?" 2. "If so, would a county subject itself to a greater risk of liability under the Tort Claims Act by having its officers exercise their discretion in requiring an industrial facility to use an inherently safer system or take a specific action?" The Attorney General's Opinion and answers to the above questions is attached. (Attachment B) The opinion by the State Attorney General clarifies that the County has the authority to require inherently safer systems/actions and will not take on added liability risk in doing so. Given this information, the Staffs stated objection has been resolved. Therefore, there is no objective barrier to amending the Industrial Safety Ordinance to provide the added safety protection of an Inherently Safer Systems requirement. It is appropriate to ask the County's Hazardous Materials Commission and the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board to comment on the proposed amendment and advise the Board of Supervisors prior to the Board's consideration of the changes to the Industrial Safety Ordinance. AN EXAMPLE WHERE INHERENTLY SAFER MECHANISMS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED AN EXPLOSION AND FATALITY In 1997, at Tosco Avon, the hydrocracker exploded and killed one worker. As a result of the many investigations and the root cause analysis, we now know that the company ran the unit beyond its limits. We also know that there was a mechanism available, and now in place, that interrupts or stops operators from running the unit over its capacity. With this "inherently safer mechanism" in place, the same accident cannot occur. With the amendment proposed, the Industrial Safety Ordinance will r' • give the Health Department staff the authority to require such a mechanism. The authority and discretion to do this will empower the Health Services staff and provide the leverage necessary to give refineries an added incentive to use inherently safer systems/actions. Therefore, given • that the transition of Contra Costa refineries from locally- owned and operated companies to being merged with or acquired by multi-national companies and the attendant changes in managerial personnel, and • that serious refinery/industry accidents play havoc with supply and contribute to a widely-held public perception that gasoline prices are manipulated and that the public is without protection, and • the history of accidents and releases in this County, and • the huge inventory of hazardous materials which are clustered in the industrial belt, and • the staggering impacts of a possible worse case scenario plume of toxic releases for all areas of the county, Contra Costa County, now more than ever, needs to have stronger regulatory oversight and a greater ability to protect and promote the health and safety of its residents with an amendment to the Industrial Safety Ordinance that requires industry to use inherently safer systems and practices. P. 12 Jun 06 01 01 : 02p ATTACHMENT A Office of the County Counsel ContraCosta ouny 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: (925) 335-1800 Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: (925)646-1078 Date: September 26, 2000 To: Donna Gerber, Supervisor, District III r From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel 4 5 By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel* Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE RE INHERENTLY SAFER SYSTEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS Pursuant to your request, this office has prepared for your consideration and possible utilization, a draft ordinance amending the Industrial Safety Ordinance, to give the Health Services Department to determine whether an Inherently Safer System or a process hazard analysis ecommended action item must be implemented. The draft ordinance is attached, as w I1 as a marked draft, showing the changes proposed to the existing ordinance. A draft ordinance was previously sent to the Health Services Department's Hazardous Materials Division for comment. The adoption of the attached or a similar ordinance is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and the notice and hearing requirements of Health and Safety Code section 25534.06. If we may be of further assistance, please advise. Attach.. Marked and clean drafts of ordinance cc: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, DeSaulnier and Can ciamilla Phil Batchelor, County Administrator William B. Walker, M.D., Director, Health Services Dept. Lewis G. Pascalli, Jr., Director, Hazardous Materials Programs Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Department M:INAZMA N NDOR D1926W.wyd Jun 06 01 01 : 02p p. 13 MARKED DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.2000- (AMENDING ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 450-8, ON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY,REGARDING INHERENTLY SAFER SYSTEMS AND ACTION ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSES) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows(omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. Subdivision(D) of section 450-8.016 of the County Ordinance Code, added by Section H of Ordinance No. 98-48, and amended by Section I of Ordinance No. 2000-20, is amended,by adding subsection(5),to expressly authorize the Health Services Department to review and approve or disapprove a Stationary Sources's determination not to implement an Inherently Safer System or process hazard analysis recommended action item,and by making certain clarifications and correct certain typographical errors,to read: (D) Process Hazard Analysis/Action Items. (1) Process hazard analyses will be conducted for each of the Covered Processes not included in the Federal program level 3 Risk Management Program according to one of the following methods: What-If,Checklist, What- If/Checklist, Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP), Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis or an appropriate equivalent methodology approved by the Department prior to conducting the process hazard analysis. The process hazard analysis shall be appropriate to the complexity of the Covered Process and shall identify,evaluate,and control the hazards involved in the Covered Process. The process hazard analysis shall address: the hazards of the process;the identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences;engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases. (*eceptable rAO!, ks ,e detection methods might include process monitoring and control instrumentation with alarms,and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors.);consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls; Covered Process and Stationary Source siting;Human Factors;and a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls. All process hazard analyses shall be performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations,and the team shall include at least one employee who has experience and knowledge specific to the process being evaluated. Also, one member of the team must be knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used. (2) The process hazard analyses shall be conducted within 1 year of the effective date of this Chapter and no later than the submittal date of the Safety Plan. Previously completed process hazard analyses that comply with die-California Code of Regulations,Title 8, Section 5189, and/or flit-California Code of Regulations,Title 19, Section 2760.2 are acceptable for the purposes of this Chapter. Process hazard analyses shall be updated and revalidated at least once ORD. 2000- - 1 _ _ . Jun 06 01 01 : 03p p• 14 MARKED DRAFT every 5 years after completion of the initial process hazard analysis. Updated and revalidated process hazard analyses completed to comply with tate-California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5189, and/or thrCalifornia Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2760 are acceptable for meeting the update and revalidation requirement. External events, including seismic events, shall be considered for processes containing a substance defined in the-California Code of Regulations,Title 19, Chapter 4.5 1, Section 2770.5, if the distance to the nearest public receptor for a worst case release scenario specified by the California Code of Regulations,Title 19, Chapter 4.5 1, Section 2750.3 is beyond the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint as defined in California Code of Regulations,Title 19, Chapter 4.5 1, Section 2750.2(a). (3) For all Covered Processes,the Stationary Source shall consider the use of Inherently Safer Systems in the development and analysis of mitigation items resulting from a process hazard analysis and in the design and review of new processes and facilities. The Stationary Source shall select and implement Inherently Safer Systems to the greatest extent feale Feasible. If a Stationary Source concludes that an Inherently Safer System is not feas kzle Feasible;the basis for this conclusion shall be documented in meaningful detail. This documentation shall include(1) sufficient evidence to demonstrate to the County's satisfaction that implementing this inherently safer system is not:fea b e practical, and (2)the reasons for this conclusion. A claim of"financial infeasibility"shall not be based solely on evidence of reduced profits or increased costs,but rather shall include evidence that the financial impacts would be sufficiently severe to render the inherently safer system as impractical. (4) For all Covered Processes, the Stationary Source shall document the decision made to implement or not implement all process hazard analysis recommended action items and the results of recommendations for additional study. The Stationary Source shall complete recommended actions identified by the process hazard analysis and selected for implementation by the Stationary Source as follows: all actions not requiring a process shutdown shall be completed within one year after submittal of the Safety Plan; all actions requiring a process shutdown shall be completed during the first regularly scheduled turnaround of the applicable process subsequent to one year after submittal of the Safety Plan unless the Stationary Source demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Department that such a schedule is infeasible. For recommended actions not selected for implementation, the Stationary Source shall include the ,justification for not implementing the recommended action. For all Covered Processes, the Stationary Source shall retain documentation of closure,and any associated justifications, of actions identified by the process hazard analysis. The Stationary Source shall communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions. Any documentation justifying a decision not to implement a process hazard analysis recommended action shall include(1) sufficient evidence to demonstrate to the County's satisfaction that implementing this action is'4 i1W e,impractical, and(2)the reasons for this conclusion. A claim of"financial infeasibility" shall not be based solely on evidence of reduced profits or increased costs, but rather shall include evidence that the financial impacts would be sufficiently severe to render the improvement as impractical. ORD. 2000- - 2 - Jun 06 01 01 : 04p p. 15 MARKED DRAFT .(.$)-!T. e` e ' "ent;shall review..an d'a: rove orcls " o hfiiuiat:on°i3y a. Sfatioiiary ource nofC0 implement an Inl%iently Sad'er'System itis j ' tibve�,or a • roces ::bazar .trial is recommended:acti(iri:item subsection:; tLrY Source shall:hae te,! urden of satsfying tie epactment.t]at tleerei?tlySaer ystem or rocess p hazer :analy ,s:aecommezg.fhded,action�tOti is not 'easib7e:-: Department's approval:or _.. dila rova ;of a`;ieYei�7riinafon not� o;m :1enert ari Intiezeritly Saesten'or;aproeess:hazard P aiialysaS;recominendetl action item shau inpludel:he Deparh e�lt' ntluigS3ustlfying itsiecisiori =: - - . .. .. ........._........ . and:shall.be:;iilc tidedfis, art of-the Ratlal Dtermiriatgn; 43U_ = biv1siori'{Cjj `Upon '....._ .......:... :_:MYtft.•^j'..^:.: 1': 'i'..:...,._.:. :. ...'.' .. .":'.:'•:'.:..:..•_:1;:'.:•'.::::::':.i:..'.'....:..r'..:'.::':;y::A..;. �:LtH__'_. .-. i�--_::.:. :.:. - ' the;-�7eparc�!��t.s,�i ,pro�tal of a;��at�oz<ary:Sonrce,s determuiat14��bt�o,�.mplement�ari Inh�r �ltlyal�ersZem or process hazard:analysis recommetied: t1t1tmthe:Stationary . . Sotird ,shall�tn je tin fit 5rtch mastire:unlarss:;if a P ais tte.Fa . j;.•,-. _ ..'..::a:oiis :rovide. subsiau °d sCtiozi=4 '0;-$O I$;: (Ords. 2000-_§ l; 2000-20 § 1; 98-48, § 2; Health& Saf. Code, § 25543.06.) SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Board Chair [SEAL] LTF HAJWMAT\1ND0RDbrd92600r.wpd ORD. 2000- - 3 - T Jun 06 01 12: 58p p. 2 AUS,-31-00 THU 04:00 PM COUNTY COUNSEL F - Sent by: ATTORNEY GENERALS OFF A163222369) ATTPCHPT,-'-JT A TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATI'ORN,EY GENERAL State of California BILI, LOCKYER Attorney General OPINION No.00-405 of August 31, 2000 BILL LOCKYER Attorney General GREGORY L. GONOT Deputy Attorney General THE HONORABLE VICTOR J. WESTMAN, COUNTY COUNSEL, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,has requested an opinion on the following questions: 1. May a general law county exercise its police power authority to requiro an indaistrial facility, not seeking any entitlement Brom the county, to use an inherently safer system or take a specific action, such as the use of particular equipment, manufacturing or refining processes,or managcment procedures,in order to protect public health or safety'' 2. If so, would a county subject itself to a greater risk of liability under the Tort 1,lainis Act by having its officers exercise their discretion in requiring an industrial facility to use an inherently safer system or take a specific action? t 00-405 AUG-31-2000 16:35 9256461078 93: P.03 Jun 06 01 12; 59p p. 3 -AM-31-00 THU 04;01 PM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO. 9256461078 P, 04/13 Sent by. M ORNEY GENERALS OFF 9163222368; OtM511Vu lid;enrm ,� ix ---I . .,- •, •- CONCLUSIONS 1. A general law county may exercise its police power authority to require an indumiial facility, not seeking any entitlement from the rowdy, to use an inherently safer system or take a specific action,such as the use of particular equipment, manufacturing or refining processes,or management procedures, in order to protect public health or safety. 2. A county would not subject itself to a greater risk of liability under the Tots Claims Act by having its officers exercise their discretion in requiring an industrial facility it) use an inherently safer system or take a specific action. ANALYSIS We are informed that A general law county has adopted an industrial safety ordinance ("ISO") which is primarily applicable to pcirolcum reflneries and chemical manufacturing facilities located within the county, The purpose of the iSO is to prevent accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment. To provide an added measure of safety,it has been proposed that the ISO be amended to require the refineries and facilities to[Hake changes in their operations that are determined to be"inherently safer"by county officers based upon studies of similar facilities located throughout the country. The two questions presented for anulysis concern whether the proposed ISO amendment would be valid, and if so, would county officers, in exercising their authority under the amendment, have a greater risk of liability for injuries caused by subsequent accidental releases of hazardous materials. We conclude generally that the amendment would he valid and that the county officers would not be subject to a greater risk of liability for exercising their authority under the amended ISO. 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment The general authority of counties and cities to adept local ordinances is set forth in article X1, section 7 of the Constitution; "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws" i 00-405 G-31-2000 16=36 92564610,18 93: P.04 Jun 06 01 12: 59p p. 4 AUG-31-00 THU 04:01 pH COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO, 9256461078 P. 05/13 Sent by- ATTORNEY GENERALS OFF 9163222368; vn,olfw 1c.ao, ..1jWW This constitutional authority,often ref -ed to as the"policC power," is 561bjCCt t0 [h0 two limitations mentioned—that the power be exercised within territorial limits and be subordinate to state law_ Apart from these limitations,a county's or city's police power is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself. (Candid Enterprises, lot:, v. Grasssmatt Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 CAM 878, 885; Birkenfeld v. 00, of Berkeley (1176) 17 Cal.3d 129, 140; 77 Ops.Cal.AttyGen. 137, 138 (1994); 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gon.2.8,29-30(1990); 73 Ops.C:al.Atty.Gen. 13-14(1990).) Of course,the exercise of the police power by the Legislature or by cities and counties is also subieet to any other limitations imposed by the state or federal Constitutions. Among these limitations is the general requirement that legislation be rationally related to a (cgitirrtate governmental concern. (Metrontedia, Inc. v. City of Sun Diego(1951)453 U.S. 490,515: Schad v. Mt.Ephraim(109 1)452 U.S.61,68.) Ordinances that arc not in conflict with general laws will be upheld against constitutional challenge if they are reasonably related to prontGting the health,safety,or welfare of the public and if the means adopted to accomplish such goals ate reasonably appropriate to the purpose. (Sec Nunset Amusement Co. v. Hoard of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 64, 72; Suter V. City of Lafayette 0 997) 57 C'al.AppAth 1109, 1128.) In Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Ury oj'Lo.s Angeles(1962) 57 Cal.2d 515, 522.the Supreme Court observed: .('Tlhe determination of the necessity and form of such regulations, as is trite with all exercises of the police power, is primarily a legislative and not a judicial function,and is to be tested in the courts not by what the judges individually or collectively may thiol; of the wisdom or necessity of it particular regulation, but solely by the answer to the question is there any reasonable basis in fact to support the legislative determination of the regulation's wisdom and necessity? Thus in Miller V.Board OPublic Works• (1925) 195 Cal,477),this court said in 195 Cal.at page 490: 'Thc courts may differ with the legislature as to the wisdom And propriety of a particular rnaetment as a means of accomplishing a particular end,but as long as there arc considerations of public health,safety, morals, or general welfare which the legislative body may have had in mind,which have justified the regulation, it must be assumed by the court that the legislative body had those considerations in mind and that those considerations did justify the regulation. . [W]hen the necessity or propriety of an enactment [is] a question upon which reasonable minds might differ, the propriety and necessity of such enactment(is) a matter of legislative determination.'" 3 00.405 HUG-31-2000 16:36 92564610713 93:: P.05 Jun 06 01 12: 59p P. 5 AUG-31-00 THU 04:02 PM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX N0, 9256461078 P. 06/13 Sent by: nTTOnNEY GENERALS OFF 9t 63222368; Ua!JI/VV In determining the reasonableness of an ordinance,the courts will consider the dcgroc to which the regulated bu6iness is harmod by the regulation. In Antonella v. City of Sun Diego (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 161, 165.166,the court explained: "it is fundamental a lawful business may not be destroyed wider the guise of regutation. (Citation.] On the other hand,the manner of its operation may be subject to regulation reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety,and general welfare, even though burdensome. [Citations.)" Accordingly, an ordinance will be upheld unless it results in undue oppression or a confiscation ofproperty. (Harriman P. Qy of Bever!},H1llf(1969)375 Cal.App. 9)8,9251 Curtis v. City ofl Los Angeles(1916) 172 Cal. 230,234.) With respect to the application of the proposed ISO amendment, a determination by county officers could result in anything from a major improvement of a facility's operations to the shut-down of the facility depending upon the circumstances. We are,not given any facts to determine whether application of the propostd amendment could withstand judicial scrutiny if challenged in a particular situation. however, it is clear that tiro county may, within the scope of its police power authority, enact an ordinance which rc;quires the operator of an industrial facility to implement ceitain technical or procedural changes in order to promote gteater public safety. This,of course,would be contingent upon the ordinance not being in eontlict with general law, an issue to which we now turn our attention. In keeping with the limitations imposed upon the constitutional grant ofpolice power authority, it has been repeatedly held that where a local ordinance conflicts with general law,it is void. (Cohen v. hoard of Supervisors(1985) 40 04.3d 277,290;A c& H Cattle Co. v. CIO,of Escondido(1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1038.) In Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles(1993)4 Cal.41h 893,the court described a proscribed"conflict" as follows- "'A conflict exists if the total legislation "'duplicates, contradicts, or cntets,an area fully occupied by genera)law,either expressly or by legislative implication,"" [Citations.] "Local legislation is'duplicative'ofgeneral law when itis coextensive therewith. (Citation.) 4 00-405 HUG-3i-2060 lb:J'( h'.L7b Jun 06 01 01 : 00p p. 6 AUG-31-00 THU 04:02 PM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO, 9256461078 P. 01/13 Sent by: ATTORNEY GENERALS OFF 9163222360; Ud131/uu le:aurmij9t= ,.w.., "Similarly,local legislation is 'contradictory'to general law when it is inimical thereto. (Citation.] "Finally, local legislation enters an area that is 'fully occupied' by bencral law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to'fully occupy'the area(citations)or when it has impliedly done so . (1d.,at pp. 897-898.) In light of these governing constitutional principles,would a county ordinance that sccks to impose stricter regulation on the handling of hazardous materials at industrial facilities conflict witb state law? The answer to this question requires consideration of the stale statutory scheme which the ISO was intended to supplement.I Thenazardous Materials Rcicase Response Plaits and Inventory Act(Health&Saf.Code,§§25500-25547.2;"Act")' was enacted to protect the public health and safety and environment in connection with the handling and release; or threatened release of hazardous materials. (§ 2S500; County of Fresno v. ,Slate of Cal fforida(1991)53 Cal.3d 452,465;77 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gcn.227(1994); 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 146, 146-148 (1987).) Each county is responsible for implerrtcntinb the Act's requirements, except that a city may assume responsibility within its own .jurisdiction. (§ 25502, subds. (a), (b).) A county, or a city that assumes responsibility, administ`rs the Aot by designating one of its departments, offices,or other agencies as the .1administering agency." (§ 25502, subd.(c).) The Act requires any"business"that handles hazardous materials to establish and implement a"business plan"for an emergency response to a rel ease or threatened release The ISO states in part: "Ibis Ordinance adds Chapter 450-S to theCounryArdinanceCode. Chapter450-9 imposes regulations which supplement the requirements of Calitomia Health and Safety Code Article 2(commencing with section 2553 1)of Chapter 6-9S concerning huardum matenats management by enacting measures to prevent and rtducu tw probabiliry of accidental releases ofreaulatcd substances that have the potential to causo significant hanh to the public healthand inercaseparticipationby industryandthe public to improve accident prevcntiun. '('hese measures include submission of a Safety Plai,i to the county,stringent mqutretneuts for the contents of a Safety Plan and Safety Program, public review of tht Safety Plan, authorization for the County to require changes in the:Safety Plan or Safety 1'rq, men, and expansion atthe he list of regulated substances beyond those covered by tht federal and State Risk Management grogram regulations,and Authorization for the County to expand audits and inspections to all units within the Stationary Source;." 'All refcrenccs hereafter to the Health and Safety Code;arc by section number only. S 00-405 HUG-31-2000 1G:37 9256461137B 93% _.--- P-07 Jun 06 01 01 : 00p p. 7 AUG-31-00 THU 04;03 PM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO, 9256461078 P. 08/13 Sena by: ATTORNEY GENERALS OFF 9163222368; UtlIJIluu is;airy-,jtPrM 7P,.,.j . .,_ _. . . of hazardous materials(§25503.5,Subd,(a))and submit the plan to the local administering agency for review(§25505). The administming agency is required to maintain records of all business plans and prepare an "uca plan" for an ernergency response to an actual or thiemened release of hazardous materials. (§ 25503, subd. (e).) Under sections 25531.25543.3, tho administering agency has a direct role in the pTcvCntion of uncontrolled teleases of hazardous materials, Subdivision(a) of sc etion 25534 requires the administering agency to make a preliminary determination"whather there is a significant likelihood that the handler's use of an acutely hazardous material may pose an acutely hazardous materials accident risk," If the administering agency determines that then; is such risk, "it shall require the handler to prepare jnd to submit an RMPP (risk management and prevention program)." (§25534, subd.(4)(1).) The administering agency is Tegtdred.to inspect tach site every three years to determine whether the business is in compliance with the Act's provisions. (§ 25537.) Regulations adopted to implement sections 25531-25543.3 are known as the California Accidental Release Prevention Program Regulations(('al.Code Regs.,tit. 19, §§ 2735.1-2785.1). The county's ISO is intended to supplement these regulations by extending tl►0 scope of some programs and by requiring additional programs such as the implementation of"inherently safer"systems. The ISO as amended would go beyond the Act's approval process for tho safety plans and programs of covered facilities by requiting the operators of the facilities to use inherently safer systems or take specific actions. As the ISO neither duplicates nor contradicts the Act, we consider first whether the I..cgislature has cxpressly manifested its intent to"fully occupy"the arta of hazardous materials management by industrial facilities or has impliedly done so, With respect to the business and area plan requirtanents of the Act, section 255UO states; . . "The Legislature further finds and declares that this chapter doos not occupy the whole area of regulating the inventorying of hazardous materials and the preparation of hazardous materials response plar+s by businesses and Uie Legislature does not intend to preempt any local actions, ordinances, or regulations which impose additional or more stringent requirements on businesse3 which handle hazardous materials. Thus,in enacting this chapter, 6 00-405 AUG-31-2000 ie:38 92564610'?e `� 93 P.06 Jun 06 01 01 : 00p p. 8 AUG-31-00 THU 04:03 PM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX N0, 9256461078 P. 09/13 Sent by: ATTORNEY 3ENEAAL9 OFF 9163222369; 06/31/Uu ie:jtrm;fix wu-, IOU, it is trot the intent of the Legislature to preempt or otherwise nullify any othor statute or local ordinances containing the same or greater standards and protections." There, can be no implied preemption of an arca where state law expressly allows supplernentaty local )caislation. (Surer v, City of Lafayette, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. l l2►.) With respect io the Act's requirements concerning the prevention of accidental releases of airborne hazardous substances,section 25531 provides: "(a) The Legislature finds and declares that a significant number of chemical manufacturing and processing facilities generate,store,treat,handle, teftne, process and transport hazardous materials. The Legislature further finds and declares that,because of the nature and volume of chemicals handled at these facilities, some of those operations may represent a threat to public health and safety if chemicals are accidently released. -(b)The Legislature recognizes that the potential for explosions, fires, or releases of toxic chemicals into the en*onment exists. The protection of the public from uncontrolled releases of explosions of hamdous materials is of statewide concern. "(c) There is an increasing capacity to both minimize and respond to roleases of toxic air contaminants and hazardous materials once they occur, and to f'onnulate efficient plans to evacuate citizens if these discharges or releases cannot be contained. However,programs designed to prevent these accidents are the most effective way to protect the community health and safety and the environment. These programs should anticipate the circumstances that could result in chair occurrence and require the taking of ricecssary precautionary and preemptive actions,consistent with the nature of the hazardous materials hendlcd by the facility and the surrounding environment. "(d)As required by Clean Air Act amendments enacted in 1990(P.1.. 101-549),ilia Environmental Protection Agency has developed a program fol- the orthe prevention of accidental releases of mgulated substances. In developing the program, the Environmental protection Agency thoroughly revi-wed a wide variety of chemical and hazardous substances to identify substances that 7 00-405 AUG-31-2000 16=3e 92-564610^r3 _ 93 —. _._ P.09 Jun 06 01 01 : 00p p. 9 AIG-31-00 THU 04:04 PM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO, 9256461078 P. 10/13 Sent by: ATTOMEY OCNERALS OFF 9183222368; unijirvv se.iti mijwjda .--, • -,- might pose a risk to public health or safety or to the environment in the event of an accidental release, The Environmental Protection Agency developed a program to prevent accidental releases of those substances determined to potentially pose the greatest risk of immediate harm to the public and the environment. 'lie federal program provides no options for implementing agencies to diminish the requirements or applicability of the federal program. "(c) 1n light of this new federal program, the Legislature finds and declares that the goals of reducing regulated substances accident risks and eliminating duplication of regulatory programs can best be accomplished by implementing the fedeW tisk tnmiagement program in the stats, with certain amendments that are specific to the stare. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the state seak and receive delegation of the federal program for prevention of accidental releases of regulated substances established pursuant to Section I I2(r)of the federal Clears Air Act(42 U.S.C.Section 7412(r)),by implementing the federal program as promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency,with certain amendments that arc specific to the state." Unlikc section 25500, section 25531 does not specifically "open the door" to local ordinances imposing additional or more stringent requirements on businesses that handle liazardorrs materials. Instead. it does two things. Fust, it stresses the importance of prcvcntive programs in the protection of communities_ Second, it defers to federal lrgislation, tilt Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, and expresses the intent that the regulatory program developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency be implemented in this state. By expressly deferring to federal legislation and adopting the federal approach to both hazardous waste management and the prevention of accidental releases of regulated substances, the Legislatwre has, in effect, adopted Congress's intent expressed in the federal legislation. Of particular significance in this regard is 42 United States Code section 7412 (r)(11)-. "Nothing in this subsection shall preclude,deny or limit any right of a State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement,limitationorstandard(including anyprocedural requirement)that is more stringent than a regulation,requirement,limitation or standard in effect under this subsection or that applies to a substance not subject to this subsection." Hence, as a political subdivision of the state,a county is not precluded by the federal Cleat) Air Act frorn adopting and enforcing its own regulations pertaining to hazardous materials g 00-405 AUG-31-2000 i6:39 9255461076 _ 93/ P.10 - Jun 06 01 01 : 01p P. 10 RUG-31-00 THU 04;04 Ph1 COUNTY COUNSEL FAX N0. 9256461078 P. 1I/13 Sent by: ATTORNEY OENERALS OFF 91632223tiu; that may be rcleascd into the air, Given the Legislature's deference to foderal legislation and programs,no such prcolusion exists under the terms of sections 25531-25543.3. The county may thus adopt ordinances providing for stricter regulation than state or federal law in the handling ofhazardous materials at industrial facilities.' In answer to the first question,therefore,we conclude that a gcricral law county may cxcrcisc its police powfr authority to require an industrial facility, not socking any entitlement from the county,to use an inherently safer system or take a specific action, such as the use of particular equipment, manufacturing or refining processes, or management proccdurca,in order to protect public health or safety. 2. County Liability The second question presented concerns whether the county would increase its risk of liability under the Tort Claims Act(Gov.Code,§§ 810-998.3)by having its officers exercise their discretion under the proposed amended ISO in requiring an industrial facility to use an inherently safer system or take some other prescribed action. We conclude that the county would not increase its risk of liability. For purposes df our analysis,we may assume that the(SO has been amended, county otficcrn have requircd a stationary source to make changes in its operations,and the facility has had an accidental release of hazardous materials causing injuria to members of lite pablic. The persons injured arc considering whether to seek damages hom the county, on the grounds that the county-mandated changes caused or worsened the accident. The Tort Claims Act governs actions at law for civil liability against public agencies and their officers and employees. (81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 331, 332(1998).) The stututay scheme specifically addresses "the substantive liabilities and immunities of(§§ 810-895.8),the procedures for initiating claims against(§§900-935.6),and the entitlement to defense of Q§995-996.6)and indemnification for(§§825-825.6)public employees," (81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gart. 199, 199-200(1998),fn.omitted.) A public entity is not generally liable for an injury except as Otherwise provided by statute, (Gov. Code, § 815; Caldwell V. Mwttuya (1995) 10 CalAdi 972, 980; Iverson v. Maroc Un f ed ,School Disr. (1995) 32 C'a1.App.4th 218,227.) Section$15?provides: s Ourdiscuesian of thtproposed amended ISO's possible oon0ict with general laws is Urnited to the type of accidental releases twvered by sections ?5531.25543.3. The effect of the proposed alnendcd ordnance,if any,on other statewide enviimn,nental programs is beyond the stupe of this opinion, q 00-405 I-!Lila-.51-�L71010 1b=.3J J�Jb4b119'fti y-S:: t'. '11 Jun 06 01 01 : 01p p. 11 AUG-31-00 THU 04:05 PM COUNTY COUNSEL FAX NO. 9256461078 P. 12/13 Sent by; ATTORNEY MEWS OFF 9103222368; 081311Uu 1[::fermijCM "(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or ornission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the actor omission would,apart from this section,have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative. "(b)Except as otherwise provided by statute,a public:entity isnot liable far an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of tho public entity where the employee is immune from liability." In determining whether liability may exist in a particular case,the threshold inquiry under the Torts Claims Act is whether the defendant owes a duty of cure to the plaintiff. (Williams Y. Scute of California(1983)34 Cal-3d 18,22-23;Ronald S. V. County of San Diego (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 887, 893.) "The existence of a duty 'is entirely a question of law,to be determined by reference to the body of statutes,rules,principles and precedents which make up the law... .' [Citation.]" (Stoat Y. City of Purlerville(1983) 148 C:al.App.3d 937, 941.) Where a duty of case is found, the-text issue to be determined is whothce there hus been a breach of that duty. A finding of negligence rests upon a deteiminAtion that the actor has failed to perform a duty of care owned to the injured party. (Ronald S. v. County of San Diego,supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 893.) The breach of duty may be an affirmative act that places the person in peril or increases the risk of hams. (KIliam v. State of California,supra,34 Cal.3d at p. 24;McCorkle v. Lat Angeles(1969) 70 t;aUd 252.) Finally,if a duty of care is established and a breach of that duty found to cause the injury,it must be decided whether there exists a statutory immunity for tho public agency and its officers and employers which precludes recovery. In Washington v. County c f Contra Costa(1995)38 Cal.App.4th 890, the court found no duty of cone owed by the county under the Act's mandatory provisions to prevent releases of hazardous materials. (!d,at pp.696-900.) Moreover,even if causation and negligence were established,the court concluded that the county and its officers and employees were immune from liability, (Ibid.) Specifically, we note that no liability could attach on the basis that the proposed amended ISO itz;elf was faulty or ill-advised. "A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his adoption of or failure to adopt an enactment or by his failure to enforce an enectment." (Gov, Code, § 821.) An "enactment" is defined to include ordinances. (Gov.Code, § 810.6.) If it were alleged that the injury resulted from errors in the conception or devvloptnem of specific changes which the industrial facility was required to implement,a further immunity would be provided for the county officer's exercise of discretion. Govemment Code stetion 820,2 stated: 10 00-405 HUG-31-2066 16:40 925bAGio?e _~ — — --- 93-% P.12 200 ' __�.'-��r c� o s �;,v.- PO r -a vD►- - phos____�'/_/_� c�c rU- - m CIL - ___-_... --- —;;� CI.�CC/C!f'!.C/d__.-.--�!LQ.—._�'1_c?.c..S.r�� .��C�..✓-h.L(1 G` :�----- ----_._�_ - -__.. .-._ - . _ _ -... ---- ----— -----_- � _Y-CL.S_/_ -�s----(T-�C Lb.r._e.._. �6 i:•�cx_r-._.�?_h_ ._.�T..e.r_�a_�..e---�-n---- ---�--- ----- n __ -. .__+_ ' ' _Vie. F- N1► .~ sic et - . _ _ -', L.o_ t)a:n r ISI! Ili 5u fig 1/1 2.06 To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of the Contra Costa Community, and the ISO regulations that were put in place a few years ago to protect my safety and the safety of my family and friends are very important to me. I am writing this letter to inform you that I support Supervisor Donna Gerber's recommendation for inherently safer systems. Since you have the authority to require refineries to meet guidelines to protect the community I am asking that you support the recommendation and accept it so we can better protect the r community we represent. Thank You, - - - Elizabeth Edelmann (5ro) y-0 i FROM CEL I NDA & RALPH SATTLER FAX NO. : 925 229 22?-: :�.: �. 11 2001 09:20PM P1 Communities For a Safe Environment 1204 Ulfinian Way Martinez, CA 94553-1973 Telephone: (925) 229-0593 Fax: (925) 229-2274 .Tune 11,2001 ` To: Supervisor Donna Gerber: Re: Industrial Safety Ordinance Dear Supervisor Gerber: I am unable to attend the meeting. I am writing to voice our support for your efforts to improve and strengthen the Industrial Safety Ordinance. We urge the other County Supervisors to support your efforts to make our communities safer and heathier. Most risk arr our c iidren and o.':..7. people. The County must have the authority to require that industry make h-)th.e^uipment and operational changes to assure that the best technologies and procedures are bei,,!-er.V;'_,?yed. If they refuse to do so,or claim that the changes are not needed,expert reso-r ..r -i- to assist the County in its assessment when there are differences of opinion uisig "best practices"and "best technology." I understand that the State Attorney Generals office has issued an opinion that you have the authority to require that`industry make these changes. Since el , Ralph . Sattler Steering Committee Member Communities for a Safe Environment -TU V)(? To Whom It May Concern: We the residents of Bayo Vista Rodeo have endured many years of bad odors, rashes, allergies and other health problems even though the ISO is in place. Therefore I am asking you to support Supervisor Donna Gerber's recommendation for Inherently Safer.Systems since you have the authority to require refineries to meet guidelines that protect the community. Sincerely, j. rows To Whom It May Concern: We the residents of Bayo Vista Rodeo have endured many years of bad odors, rashes, allergies and other health problems even though the ISO is in place. Therefore I am asking you to support Supervisor Donna Gerber's recommendation for Inherently Safer Systems since you have the authority to require refineries to meet guidelines that protect the community. Sincerely, room JUN 1 Z LU01 GLS zUPERVISORS .-TA CO. j(-)P( i l ,2vcl` To Whom It May Concern: We the residents of Bayo Vista Rodeo have endured many years of bad odors, rashes, allergies and other health problems even though the ISO is in place. Therefore I am asking you to support Supervisor Donna Gerber's recommendation for Inherently Safer Systems since you have the authority to require refineries to meet guidelines that protect the community. Sincerely, rown / VED JUN 1 2 2001 �.POARD OF' VISORS CONTRA C,. �, RECEiVEL JUN 12 2001 To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of the Contra Costa Community, and the ISO regulations that were put in place a few years ago to protect my safety and the safety of my family and friends are very important to me. I am writing this letter to inform you that I support Supervisor Donna Gerber's recommendation for inherently safer systems. Since you have the authority to require refineries to meet guidelines to protect the community I am asking that you support the recommendation and accept it_sq_we can better protect the community we represent. Thank You, Elizabeth Edelmann l Edd A4 toll (51 D) -ty-0 Irb 0 /Uosof fos /Gs ��c,rc/er7les' (le / - 0 S uePor a vor l�us ce//v dc-rU` /C,, 5'u pe( Viso r Cr ©o&ct 6r,�ae (oma t7c-r t c. �OS'C'O (6'(0 luclS , 0c Y r c rrl (fS � O c X I c c) S (f n o S tJ /1iwos 3 ctki(DS rorguc �ghulerJ eS7a aKec7crnc/c) G7� �. csT u ►�-,r�i .K i70So�ra C9S/ec/C-3 , er?3ar) url �- ✓Uel? 3`1Sn,,a de S'e(yu t IC oo, clN cc:n or J Cr7 C/a Y c!.Si -es poCiAIC i'IQr C/ecccc ,we de 7 d C' �'( cc)S 67 -acrd s RECEIVED C:'m�ce�cro�v �aslcrricdc� JUN 12 2001 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. W92 -i�l, ��d( .(tVSc ba, v �►1 S1 et wan i "VeGtS.Q Svc gfl+ us G q j I \ -Yl32 4s-v +)aoc-C ecvcS ick tec6.cva--Q AS C)uc Vv� w � I��.-t�e Sol-fie S S� ►� �� �ou 12-01 08= 34A Alegvia 510 758-9292 P-01 Y l w ir1 o 1 e C 2 D OD V (n OVn T flu" j . Q2131 Pear Street Tel : (510) 724-9000 Pinole, CA 94564 Fax: (510)724-9826 June 12,2001 VIA FAX 925-335-'07b RECEIVED ATTENTION: CLERK OF THE BOARD 335-1913 JUN 12 2001 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County CLER;:.F(1RD OF SUPERVISORS Go;-: i RA COSTA CO. Dear President of the Board: SUBJECT: Amendment to Industrial Safety Ordinance(ISO)-"Inherently Safer" I apologize that I cannot be with you this morning to request in person your support to refer the "inherently safer"amendment to the Hazardous Materials Commission for our review. As you know, our commission has a wide representation of diverse views that include industry, business, environmental, 1 due of Women Voters, the }public and cities. As a member of the Hazardous Material Commission, I would welcome the opportunity to imminent on the proposal_ In recent history, we have seen the merging and consolidation of refinery ownership and as a result, the safety of the operations becomes a heighten concern. I think its time to consider the review of stranger regulatory mechanisms. As local officials, it is our greatest responsibility to ensure the health and safety of communities that live near refineries or industry that use hazardous chemicals. I trust you will ag=- I look forward to your favorable consideration of this modest request. Should you have further questions, I can be reached at 510-759-7642- Sincerely, Maria AIWda Councilmember,City of Pinole and Contra Costa County Mayor's Representative to the Hazardous Materials Commission Jun 12 01 08: 48a p' 3 <FOPt CEL INDA & RALPH SATTLER FAX NG. : 925 229 27_74 Jun. 11 2001 04:15PM PI Communities For a SafC Enviroiwnent 1204 ulf,nian Way Martithe4 CA 94553-1973 T'elcphoilc: (925)229-0693 Fax: (925)229-2274 June 11,2.001 To: Supervisor Donna Gerber: Re: Industrial Safety Ordinance Dear Supervisor Gerber: I am unable to attend the meeting. I am writing to voice our support for your efforts to improve and stre%nhcn the Industrial Safety Ordinance. We urge the other County Supervisors to support your efforts to make our conununides safer and heatbier. Most risk are our children and older people. The County roust have thy:authority to r uire that industry make both equipment and operational changes to assure that the best technologies and procedures are being employed_ If they refuse to do so,or claim that the changes are not needed,expert resourves are available to assist the County in its assessment when then:are differences of opinion regarding"best practices"and "best technology-" I understand that the State Attorney Generals office has issued an opinion that you have the authority to require that "industry make these changes. Ralph . Sattler Steering C'onunitter:Member Communities for a Safe Environment Jun 12 01 08: 48a P. 2 Jun 12 01 07: 40a john dial coker 925 427 3018 P. 1 PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD Wilma Blackman Doris Copnerman Bonnie Croy Art Hatchott Laura Kurre Mary Lou Laubscher Maryooe Leeds Edith Loewenstein June 12, 2 0^v 1 Yolanda Polaiyuec Kimberly McClendon Hessa++de sur:McNeil KayMcvay Gayle Uilkema, Chair Jeffrey Rittemtan Board of Supervisors Mary Rocha Nick Rodituez Jean Sid By Facsimile Transmission Bonita Wwdsan Ghair Dear supervisor Uilkema: Thomas 2irnmerman I have just reviewed Supervisor Gerber's several E"05clo h1 recommendations concerning the draft amendment language of JoseGeorge Matey the Industrial safety ordinance with respect to the issue George Kaplan Y ! P Carolyn Robinson of inherently safer systems); specifically that PEHAB review the draft and comment to the Board of Supervisors in TrateyRatt"y September 2001. Executive Asatstant to the Public&Environmerttaf Health Advisory Board It is inherent in PEHAB'5 mandate to act on such recommendations from its Supervisors and such would be desirable in any event in light of the important public and environmental health issues implicated in giving (or not giving) to the Health Services Department the discretion to determine which hazard control system is to be implemented under the Ordinance. I will forward this recommendation to PEt3ADle Steering Committee for consideration at its upcoming meeting on .lune 21, 2001 and in the meantime hope for the rest of the Supervisors' agreement that this review aad comment by FERAS is of value to the Board. very Respectfully, Thomas Zimmerman CCI Supervisor Donna Gerber Contra Costa Health Sarvice3 597 Center Avenue,Wte 209 Martirxx,CA 94553-4669 PHONE:(925)313.8835 FAX.(9251,313.6721 •,� ; REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) O Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers, rostrum before addressing the Board. II 3,,, Name: I F �//� Phone: St �n `C)1130 Address: �(9�� T-C,C QG►�IU V�V Ave City: 14 a I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: _ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �_ Date: 2- l 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM �-- (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum b for addressing the Board. a Name: ✓ - 7a Phone: 5/0 .2 Address: /�(7 ��i` SSC/ Lliz'-- 4�) I am speaking for myself / or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # -7f 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . 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 organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ) Date: J Z6ci 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) L� Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Soso l c� ��� - b(4 Name: �� J�S� C� � Phone: T� Address: City: I am speaking for myself or organization: C�� (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for .S 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near. the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone: S�() Address: -nAthp.a M City: I am speaking for myself or organization: "ASP °CM-1 (name of organization) CHECK ONE: _ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: Zo--ok 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 yourfpresentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM ��` •--+ (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: J Phone: Address: /-�IVJ--) 0111 boe City: I am speaking for myself or organization: rP)CI3 G (name of organization) CHECK ONE: ;1 --�-4_ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # `A.01- Date: (0/ 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM �-- (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers, rostrum. bef a addressing he Boars. Name: Phone: �► a44 Z s.-�- Address: 1-JAy y City: X a(7!eD I am speaking for myself _ or organization: (name of organization) 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: .•l 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: b / ef-I K Phone: Address: „� city:—" I am speaking for myself or organization: �SdC)/Tr�Q (name of organization) CHECK ONE: r� I wish to speak on Agenda Item # u` oC Date: ~ /� O 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all ipersons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: ��Q Q2`�'� Phone: 2Z -4(40 Address: ��S � ���r c Q,�R city:_ I am speaking for myself or organization: C (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # '- 2 Dateao� 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all i persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: + '"` Jl`► G Phone: 31-4 -a -2 0 Address: 3 49 City: AW -r y I am speaking for myself or organization: ;D1q1Ce5 (name of organization) CHECK ONE: � I ��� 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM 0, 5L ' (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) !J Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum,before addressing the Board. Name: l,f�l(�`/�1� [1.1✓�Cj1n Phone: Address: City: I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # _ Date: �� My comments will be: general for-t— 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 and 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. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) .