HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06132006 - D.2 v`
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
a' R;
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP, .,.�;.:...::,,, �- :� Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~ter County
WILLIAM WALKER, M.D.,
HEALTH SERVICE DIRECTOR
DATE: JUNE 13, 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SPECIFIED SECTIONS TO
COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 450-8, ON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY, AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. DETERMINE that the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011), which
was prepared in part to review and evaluate the Health Service Department's
recommended amendments to specified sections of County Ordinance Code
Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety, is adequate for the purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that these recommended amendments
will not cause a significant impact on the environment. l
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON Z if APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED R_
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: P.Roche,CCC-CDD(925)335-1242 ATTESTED
g�,
cc: CAO JOHN C N, CLERK OF- THE BOARD OF
Clerk of the Board SUPE IS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development Department
County Counsel
Hazardous Materials Div.,Health services Department
Better Government Ordinance file DEPUTY
June 13,2006
Board of Supervisors
Ordinance No.2006-22,Amending Specific Sections to Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety, as recommended by Health Service Dept.
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS — continued
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/351 that incorporates findings under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and certifies the Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2003042011)for the proposed action, which is the adoption of an ordinance
amending specified sections to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial
Safety, as recommended by the Health Services Department.
3. INTRODUCE, waive reading and set June 20, 2006 for adoption of the attached
ordinance (Ordinance No. 2006-22) amending specified sections to County
Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety.
4. DIRECT Community Development Department staff to file and post Notice of
Determination of No Significant Impacts with the County Clerk.
5. DESIGNATE County Counsel as the official charged with preparing a summary of
the subject ordinance for publication pursuant Government Code Section
25124(b).
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact. The proposed amendments to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial
Safety, would not require significant additional staff time or resources, but if demand is placed on staff
time, fees would be increased to cover additional staff costs.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On September 17, 2002 the Board of Supervisors considered a proposal to amend County Ordinance
Code Chapter 450-8 (Industrial Safety Ordinance) to include contractor employee training
requirements. As a result of the deliberations on this proposed ordinance, also know as the Contractor
Safety amendments, the Board determined on December 2, 2002 to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments. Following the
Board's direction, the Community Development Department issued a Notice of Preparation for an
Environmental Impact Report on March 31, 2003. The County released a Draft Environmental Impact
Report in September 2004 and completed a Response to Comments/Final Environmental Impact
Report in November 2005. The County Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing on the adequacy of
the Draft Environmental Impact Report on October 18, 2004, and then again on November 22, 2005
the Zoning Administrator announced his recommendation for the Board of Supervisors on the
adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Report
were previously distributed to Board members under separate cover, but the Final Environmental
Impact Report has not been certified by the County.
The Environmental Impact Report also considered other proposed amendments to County Ordinance
Code Chapter 450-8 that were recommended by Randy Sawyer, Hazardous Materials Program
Director for the Health Services Department. These amendments are intended to improve industrial
safety and update and clarify other sections of to Chapter 450-8.
June 13,2006
Board of Supervisors
Ordinance No. 2006-22,Amending Specific Sections to Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety, as recommended by Health Service Dept.
Page 3
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - continued
Unlike the proposed contractor employee training requirements, the Health Services Department
recommendations were as a whole non-controversial and generally not subject to comment during the
course of the environmental review process. These amendments were drafted by County staff in
consultation with industry during the same time period as the Board was considering the proposed
contractor employee training requirements.
Attached for the Board's consideration are two exhibits.
Exhibit "A" is Board Resolution No. 2006/351 that incorporates findings under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and certifies the Environmental Impact Report(SCH#20030420.11)
for the proposed action, which is is the adoption of an ordinance amending specified sections to
Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety, as recommended by the Health Services
Department.
Exhibit"B" is the ordinance which amends specified sections of County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-
8, as recommended by the Health Services Department. This ordinance would impose additional
measures to improved industrial safety, and it would conform Chapter 450-8 to state law, including
changing references to the former "State Risk Management Program", to the new "State Accidental
Release Prevention Program". The attached ordinance specifically amends County Ordinance Code
Chapter 450-8 by:
1) Adding definitions for "California Accidental Release Prevention Program." "Catastrophic
Release," "Human Factors, and "Human Systems," to section 450-8.012;
I
I
2) Amending subdivision (b) of section 450-8.016 to require that human factors programs
developed by stationary sources address maintenance safe work practice procedures and
maintenance procedures for specialized equipment, piping, and instructions by June 30, 2011,
to expand the requirement to conduct a management of change to changes in permanent
staffing levels and reorganizations in maintenance, health and safety as well as in operations or
emergency response, and to.stationary sources using contractors in permanent positions in
operations and maintenance, to require stationary sources to ensure that job function
descriptions are current and accurate for positions under consideration before conducting the
management of change, to provide that staffing changes that last longer than ninety days be j
considered permanent, to provide that temporary changes associated with strike preparations
be considered, and to require consultation with employees and their representatives; and,
3) Adding subdivisions (g) and (h) to section 450-8.016, to require all stationary sources to
conduct security and vulnerability assessments and safety culture assessments. This
ordinance also makes various clarifying, administrative, and other non-substantive changes to
sections 450-8.004, 450-8.010, 450-8.014, 450-8.016, 450-8.018, and 450-8.030.
i
Also provided under Exhibit"B"for the Board's reference is a redline strikeout version of the ordinance j
to more clearly indicate the proposed changes to Chapter 450-8.
June 13,2006
Board of Supervisors
Ordinance No. 2006-22, Amending Specific Sections to Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety, as recommended by Health Service Dept.
Page 4
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - continued
The amendments, as recommended by the Health Services Department, were considered in the
Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011)to assure that they receive the same level of review
under California Environmental Quality Act and to remove any doubt that the County was segmenting
its environmental review of proposed amendments to the Industrial Safety Ordinance. A copy of the
Response To Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report is proved under Exhibit "C".
Attachments (4 items)
Exhibit"A": draft Board Resolution 2006/351
Exhibit"B": Ordinance 2006-22, Amending Specified Sections of County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, as
recommended by the Health Services Department; and, redline strikeout version of the same ordinance
Exhibit"C: A copy of the Response To Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011)
G:\Advance Planning\adv-plan\ISO\061306boisoamendlisd.doc
Exhibit "A": draft Board Resolution 2006/351
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED this resolution nn -1 Ana 13, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: �G ' ��L� , ✓�G �^'`�'�v� �
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/351
SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF THE }
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2003042011) }
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS }
TO COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 450-8, }
ON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY }
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2002 the Board of Supervisors considered a proposal to
amend County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety, to include contractor
employee training requirements.
WHEREAS, following the Board of Supervisors deliberations on this proposed
ordinance amendment, the Board determined on December 2, 2002, to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed amendments relating to
contract employee training requirements and directed the Community Development
Department and Health Services Department to prepare said Environmental Impact Report.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department issued a Notice of Preparation
for the Environmental Impact Report on March 31, 2003, and subsequently released a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2003042011) in September 2004.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011) also considered the
environmental effects of the proposed amendments to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8,
as recommended by the Hazardous Materials Program Director for the Health Services
Department, which amendments were developed in discussions with industry and labor groups
at the same time as the proposed contractor employee training requirements.
WHEREAS, the Health Services Department recommended amendments to the
Industrial Safety Ordinance were considered in the Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2003042011) to assure that they receive the same level of review under CEQA as the
proposed amendments relating to contractor employee training requirements, and to remove
any doubt that the County may be segmenting it environmental review of proposed
amendments to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety.
WHEREAS, the amendments recommended by the Health Services Department are
intended to improve industrial safety and update and clarify certain sections of the Industrial
Safety Ordinance, and, unlike the proposed contractor employee training requirements, these
amendments to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8 were as a whole non-controversial and
generally not subject to comment during the course of the CEQA review process.
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2004 the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator
conducted a hearing on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011)
for the proposed amendments to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety.
WHEREAS, in November 2005 the Community Development Department completed
and released a Response To Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
amendments to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety.
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2005, the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator
announced a decision finding the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011) was
complete in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adequate for the
purposes of decision-making, and recommended the Board certify this Environmental Impact
Report.
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005 the Board of Supervisors authorized the Health
Services Department to work with the Contra Costa Community College District and various
industry and labor organizations to form a committee for the purpose of establishing an
Industrial Training Institute whose mission would be to insure that all regular and contract
employees who work in oil refineries and other heavy industrial facilities meet the highest skill
and safety training.
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006 the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to
consider adoption of amendments to the County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial
Safety, as recommended by the Health Services Department.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors:
• FIND that after reviewing and considering the information contained in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2003042011) prepared for the proposed
amendments to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial
Safety, that the EIR is complete and adequate for the purpose of decision-making on an
ordinance to amend specified sections of Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial
Safety, as recommended by the Health Services Department; that the EIR has been
prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and to the requirements of the State and County CEQA Guidelines; and, that
the EIR reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis as being adequate.
• DETERMINE that on the basis of the whole record before the Board, including the
Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011), that adoption of Ordinance 2006-22,
which would amend specified sections to County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8,
Industrial Safety, to improve industrial safety and make certain technical update and
clerical amendments, as recommended by the Health Services Department, will not
have any significant effects on the environment.
• CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003042011) for the proposed
action, which is the adoption of an ordinance amending specified sections to County
Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8, Industrial Safety, as recommended by the Health
Services Department.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
Contact: P. Roche,Adv. Planning, CDD(335-1242) correct copy of an action taken and entered on the
cc: Community Development Department minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date
CAO shown.
County Counsel
ATTESTED: - 2
n Cullen, Clerk of the Board of
upervisors and County
Ad inistrator
By:
eputy
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/351
GAAdvance Planning\adv-plan\ISO\BrdRes2006-3511SOCEQAII.doc
Exhibit "B": Ordinance 2006-22, Amending Specified
Sections of County Ordinance Code Chapter
450-8, as recommended by the Health
Services Department; and, redline strikeout
version of the same ordinance
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
ORDINANCE NO. 2006- .
(AMENDMENTS.TO ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 450-8,
ON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY)
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...SUMMARY. This ordinance amends specified sections of County Ordinance
Code Chapter.450-8, to impose additional measures to improve industrial safety, and to.conform
the ordinance to state law, including changing references to the former"State Risk Management
Program,"to the new"State Accidental Release Prevention Program." This ordinance amends
County Ordinance Code Chapter.450-8.by:. l) adding definitions for"California Accidental
Release Prevention Program."."Catastrophic Release,""Human Factors,: and"Human Systems,".
to section 450-8.012; 2) amending subdivision (b) of section 450-8.016 to.require that human
factors programs developed by stationary sources address maintenance safe work practice
procedures and maintenance procedures for specialized equipment,piping, and instructions by
June 30, 2011, to expand the requirement to conduct a management of change to.changes in
permanent staffing levels and reorganizations in maintenance, health and safety as well as in
operations or emergency response, and to stationary sources using contractors in permanent
positions in operations and maintenance, to require stationary sources to ensure that job function
descriptions are current and accurate for positions under consideration before conducting the
management of change, to provide that staffing changes that last longer than ninety days be
considered permanent, to.provide that temporary changes associated with strike preparations be
considered, and to.require consultation with employees and their representatives, and 3) adding
subdivisions (g) and(h) to section 450-8.016, to require all stationary sources to.conduct security
and vulnerability assessments and safety culture assessments. This ordinance also makes various
clarifying, administrative, and other non-substantive changes to sections 450-8.004, 450-8.010,
450-8.014, 450-8.016, 450-8.018, and 450-8.030.
SECTION II. Section 450-8.004 of the County Ordinance Code, is amended to read:
450-8.004..Purpose and Goals. (a) The purpose of this ordinance is to.impose
regulations which improve industrial safety by-444 f"ewin- •
(1)requiring the conduct of process hazard analyses for covered processes handling
hazardous materials not covered by the federal or state Rist-'_`Management Accidental Release
Prevention Programs;
(2)requiring the review of action items resulting from process hazard analyses and
requiring completion of those action items selected by the stationary source for implementation
within a reasonable time frame;
(3) requiring the review of accidental release prevention efforts of stationary sources and
providing for the conduct of investigations and analyses for the determination of the root cause
for certain incidents;
ORD. 2006-
- 1 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
(4) providing review, inspection, auditing and safety requirements that are more stringent
than those required in existing law and regulations;
(5)providing for public input into the safety plan and safety program and public review of
any inspection and audit results;.
(6) facilitating cooperation between industry, the County, and the public in the prevention
and reduction of incidents at stationary sources;
(7) expanding the application of certain provisions of the federal and state 1
A.ccideiltal Release Prevention Programs to processes not covered by the federal or
state Risk NUnagement Accidental Release Prevention Programs; .
(8) verifyigg that an approved security and vulnerability study is performed, and that the
recommendations are addressed within a reasonable time frame;
(89) requiring the development and implementation of a written human factors program;
and
(9 10)preventing and reducing the number, frequency, and severity of accidental releases
in the County.
(Ords. 2006-_ §.2; 98-48 § 2.)
SECTION III. Section 450-8.010 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:.
450-8.010 Applicability. (a) This ordinance shall apply to.stationary sources;and I
except that:
(b) The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except Sections 450-
8.016 (c) and (e), and 450-8.018 (f) and (g):
(1) storage tanks containing a non-regulated substance, except for storage tanks that
contain a material that meets the embustible liquid aefiniti ^ of has a flashpoint above 141'F
and below 200°F in accordance with the definition of combustible liquid in.49.CFR 173.120(b);
(2) drum storage of. (AA,) a non-regulated substance; (R) less than 10,000 pounds of a
Hazard Category B material located such that the drums could reasonably be expected to be
involved in a single release; and(Clfof a Hazard Category A material, located such that the
drums could reasonably be expected to be involved in a single release, at less than the quantity
specified as the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Substances list
(Appendix A to 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended from time to time) or 500
pounds, whichever is less;
(3) activities in process plant laboratories or laboratories that are under the supervision of
a technically qualified individual as defined in Section 720.3.(ee) of 40 CFR. .This exemption
does not apply to specialty chemical production; manufacture, processing or use of substances in
pilot plant scale operations; and activities conducted outside the laboratory;
(4) utilities, except for fuel gas and natural gas systems to.the battery limits of a process
unit; and
(5) any waste tanks, containers or other devices subject to the federal and state hazardous
waste laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR Chapter 1,
Subchapter I, commencing with Part 260, the Cali fornia Hazardous Waste Control Law,
California Health and Safety Code, commencing with Section 25100 and the California Code of
ORD. 2006-
- 2 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
Regulations, Title 22 Division 4.5.Environmental Health Standards for the Management of
Hazardous Waste.
(Ords. 2006-_ § 3; 98-48 §.2.)
SECTION IV. Section 450-8.014 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
450-8.014.Definitions. For purposes of this chapter the definitions set forth in this
section shall apply. Words used in this chapter not defined in this section shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Clean Air.Act Regulations (40 CFR § 68.3) and in California
Health and Safety.Code article 2 (§ 25531 et seq.) of Chapter 6.95, unless the context indicates
otherwise.
(a) "Covered process"means any process at a Stationary Source.
(b) "Department"means the Contra Costa County Health Services Director and any
Director authorized deputies.
(c) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and
technological factors.
(d) "Hazard Category.A Materials" are substances which meet the Hazard Category A
Material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016...
(e) "Hazard Category B Materials" are substances which meet the Hazard Category B
Material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016.
(f) "Industry codes, standards, and guidelines" means the edition of the codes, standards,
and guidelines in effect at the time of original design or construction for the design, construction,
alteration, maintenance or repair of process units, industrial equipment, or other industrial
facilities, structures or buildings published by, but not limited to, the American Petroleum
Institute (API), the Ghemieal M.nuf ettffers n oei tion ire r n�, the American Chemistry
Council. (ACC), he American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), and meets Recognized and Generally Accepted Good
En-
gineering, Practices (RAGAGEP)..
(g) "Inherently safer systems" means"inherently safer design strategies".as discussed in
the 44% latest edition of the Center for Chemical Process Safety Publication"Inherently Safer
Chemical Processes-," and means feasible alternative equipment, processes, materials, lay-outs,
and procedures meant to.eliminate, minimize, 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.
(h) "Major chemical accident or release" means an incident that meets the definition of a
Level 3 or Level 2 Incident in the Community Warning System incident level classification
system defined in the Septembef 27, 1997 Centra Cesta County guideline orthe ma y.
Warning System Hazardous Materials Incident Noti fication Policv, as determined by the
Department; or results in the release ineluding, but not limited te, ter-, of of of a
Regulated Substance and meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) results in one or more fatalities;
ORD. 2006-
- 3 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
(2)results in greater than 24.hours of hospital treatment of three or more persons;
(3) causes on and/or off-site property.damage (including clean-up and restoration
activities) initially estimated at $500,000 or more. On-site estimates shall be performed
by the stationary source. Off-site estimates shall be performed by appropriate agencies
and compiled by the Department;
(4) results in a€fie vapor cloud of nammables and/or combustibles that is more
than 5000.pounds.
(i) "Regulated substance".means (1) any chemical substance which satisfies the
provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 25532 (g), as amended from time to.
time, or(2) a substance which satisfies the provisions of Hazard Categories A or B in section 84-
63.1016. .Mixtures containing less than 1% of a regulated substance shall not be considered in
the determination of the presence of a regulated material.
0) "Risk Management Program"means the documentation, development,
implementation, and integration of management systems by the facility to comply with the
regulations set forth in 40 CFR, Part 68 and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 2,
commencing with Section 2553 L.
(k) "RMP" means the Risk Management Plan required to be submitted pursuant to the
requirements of the 40 CFR §.68.150-68.185.and the California Health and Safety Code article 2
(Section 25531.et seq.) of Chapter 6.95.
(1) "Root cause"means prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems, that
allow faulty design, inadequate training, or improper changes, which lead to an unsafe act or
condition, and result in an incident. If root causes were removed, the particular incident would
not have occurred.
(m) "Safety plan".means the safety plan required to be submitted to the Department
pursuant to.the requirements of Section 450-8.016 of tie-this chapter.
(n) "Safety program"means the documentation, development, implementation, and
integration of management systems by the stationary source to comply with the safety
requirements set forth in Section 450-8.016 of this chapter.
(o) "Stationary.source".or"source".means a facility which includes at least one process as
defined in 40 CFR 68.10 that is subject to Federal Risk Management Program Level 3
requirements and whose primary North American Industry.Classification System code (NAICS)
is 324 (Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing) or 325.(Chemical Manufacturing).
(p) "Califoini.a Accidental Release Prevention .Program".means the documentation,
development, implementation, and integration of management systems by a facility to comps
with the regulations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter
4.5.
(q) "Catastrophic release" means a major uncontrolled emission, fire, or explosion,
involving one or more highly hazardous chemicals, thatpresents serious danger to employees in
the workplace and/or the public. As used in this section, "highly hazardous chemical"has the
meaning, ascribed to it in 29 CFR 1910.119(b) as of May 21, 2003.
(r) "Human Factors" means a discipline concerned with designing machines, operations,
acid work environments so that they match hulman capabilities, limitations, and needs. "1` tinia'n
Factors" can be further referred to as environmental, organizational, and job tactors, and human
and individual characteristics that i.nfluence behavior at work in a way that can affect health and
ORD. 2006-
- 4 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
safety.
(s)"Hurnan Systems" mcans the systems, such.as written and unwritten policies,
procedures, and practices, in effect to minimize the existence/persistence of latent conditions at
the stationary source. It also includes the broad area of safetyCulture of a stationary source to the
extent that it influences the actions of individuals or groups of individuals. .
(Ords..2006-_ § 4; 98-_ §.2.)
SECTION V. Section 450-8.016.of the County.Ordinance Code is amended to read:
450-8.016.Stationary Source Safety Requirements..The stationary source shall submit
a safety plan to the Department within one year of the effective date of this ordinance or within
three years of the date a facility becomes a stationary source, that complies with the provisions of
this section and that includes the safety elements listed in subsection(a)below...In addition, the
stationary source shall comply with the safety requirements set forth in subsections (a) through
(e) of this section and shall include a description of the manner of compliance with these
subsections in the safety plan. A new covered process at an existing stationary.source shall
comply with subsections (a) through(a)prior to initial startup.
(a) Risk Safetv Program Elements. All. covered processes shall be
subject to the safety pro., .i elements listed below. These Covered Pr-e esses not ineiuded ;.,
the Feder-a!program level 3 Risk NUnagement-Pr-egmm shall be subjeet to the Risk NUnagemen
Program elements listed below. The safety plan shall include a description of the manner in
which these Risk Management safety program elements listed below shall be applied to the
covered process. .These Risk safety program elements shall be implemented in
conformance with the California Accidental Release
Prevention Program and the safety plan shall follow Chapters FSS. 7,8 and 9.dated jul
.1998, and Chapter-9 dated November-2, 1998 f the Contra Costa County Health Services
Department RAW.Ca Program guidance documentj���8
(1) Process Safety Information..(A) The stationary source shall complete a compilation of
written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis as required by
this chapter. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the stationary
source and the employees involved in operating the covered process to.identify and understand
the hazards posed by the covered process. This process safety information shall include
information pertaining to.the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the
process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to
the equipment in the process, and information pertaining to the hazards of the Regulated
Substances in the process.
(i) This information shall consist of at least the following: toxicity information;
permissible exposure limits; physical data; reactivity data; corrosivity data; thermal and
chemical stability data; and hazardous effects of inadvertent mixing of different materials
that could foreseeably occur.
(ii) Material Safety Data Sheets meeting the requirements of Section 5189, Title 8
of California Code of Regulations may be used to comply with this requirement to the
ORD. 2006-
- 5 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
extent they contain the information required by this subsection.
(iii) Information pertaining to the technology of the process shall include at least
the following:.a block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram; process
chemistry; maximum intended inventory; safe upper and lower limits for such items as
temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions; and, an evaluation of the consequences of
deviations. .Where the original technical information no longer exists, such information
may be developed in conjunction with the process hazard analysis in sufficient detail to
support the analysis.
(iv) Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include: materials
of construction; piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's); electrical classification; relief
system design and design basis; ventilation system design; design codes and standards
employed; material and energy balances for processes built after the compliance date of
this Chapter; and safety systems (e.g. interlocks, detection or suppression systems).
(B) The stationary source shall document that equipment complies with recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices.
(C)For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards,
or practices that are no longer in general use, the Stationary Source shall determine and document
that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
(2) Operating Procedures. (A) The stationary source shall develop.and implement written
operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in
each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the
following elements:
(i) Steps for each operating phase: initial startup; normal operations; temporary
operations; emergency shutdown, including the conditions under which emergency
shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified
operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner;
emergency operations; normal shutdown; and, startup.following a turnaround, or after an
emergency shutdown.
(ii) Operating limits: consequences of deviation; and steps required to correct or
avoid deviation.
(B) Safety and health considerations.:prepeAies Properties of, and hazards presented by,
the chemicals used in the process; precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including
engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment; control
measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs; quality control for raw
materials and control of hazardous chemical inventory levels; and, any special or unique hazards.
(C) Safety systems and their functions.
(D) Operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who.work in or
maintain a process.
(E) The operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they
reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process
chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to.stationary sources. The stationary source
shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
(F) The stationary source shall develop and implement safe work practices to provide for
ORD. 2006-
- 6 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening
process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into.a stationary source by maintenance,
contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe work practices shall apply to.
employees and contractor employees.
(3) Employee Participation_(A) The stationary.source shall develop.a written plan of
action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by this chapter.
(B) The stationary source shall consult with employees and their representatives on the
conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the other
elements of the safety program in this chapter..
(C) The stationary source shall provide to employees and their representatives access to
process hazard analyses and to all other information required to.be developed under this chapter.
(4) Training:For Each Employee in Such Covered Process:. (A) Initial training. {)Each
employee presently involved in operating a covered process, and each employee before being
involved in operating a newly assigned covered process, shall be trained in an overview of the
process and in the operating procedures as specified in Section 450-8.016 (A)(2). The training
shall include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations including
shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to.the employee's job tasks. In lieu of initial
training for those employees already involved in operating a process, on-an owner or operator
may certify in writing that the employee has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely
carry out the duties and responsibilities as specified in the operating procedures.
(B) Refresher training. Refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and
more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a covered process to assure that
the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the covered
process. The stationary source, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the
process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.
(C) Training documentation. The stationary source shall ascertain that each employee
involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by this section.
The stationary source shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the
date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
(5)Mechanical Integrity:,Including the Use of Industry Codes, Standards, and
Guidelines— (A) Application. Paragraphs (B)through(F) of this subsection apply,to.the
following process equipment: .pressure vessels and storage tanks; piping sub.systems (including
piping components such as valves); relief and vent systems and devices; emergency shutdown
systems; controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) and,pumps.
(B) Written procedures. The stationary source shall establish and implement written
procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
(C) Training for process maintenance activities. The stationary source shall train each
employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment.in an overview of
that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks to.assure
that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner.
(D) Inspection and testing. (1) Inspections and tests shall be performed on process
ORD. 2006-
- 7 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
equipment. .Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices. The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be
consistent with applicable manufacturers'.recommendations and good engineering practices, and
more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. .The stationary
source shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment.
The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who
performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which
the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the
results of the inspection or test.
(E) Equipment deficiencies. The stationary source shall correct deficiencies in equipment
that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in Section 450-
8.106(A)(1))before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken
to assure safe operation.
(F) Quality assurance. .In the construction of new plants and equipment, the stationary.
source shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable for the process application for
which they will be used. Appropriate checks and inspections shall be performed to assure that
equipment is installed properly and consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer's
instructions. The stationary source shall assure that maintenance materials, spare parts and
equipment are suitable for the process application for which they will be used.
(6) Management of Change:_ (A) The stationary source shall establish and implement
written procedures to manage changes (except for "replacements in kind") to process chemicals,
technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to.stationary sources that affect a covered
process.
(B) The procedures shall assure that the following considerations are addressed prior.to
any change:. the technical basis for the proposed change; impact of change on safety and health;
modifications to operating procedures; necessary time period for the change; and, authorization
requirements for the proposed change.
(C) Employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees
whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process shall be informed of, and trained in,
the change prior to start-up of the process.or affected part of the process.
(D) If a change covered by this section results in a change in the process safety
information required by Section 450-8.016(a)(1), such information shall be updated accordingly.
(E) If a change covered by this section results in a change in the operating procedures or
practices required by Section 450-8.016(a)(2), such procedures or practices shall be updated
accordingly.
(7)Pre Start-Up Reviews__ (A) The stationary source shall perform a pre-startup.safety
review for new stationary sources and for modified stationary sources when the.modification is
significant enough to.require a change in the process safety information.
(B) The pre-startup safety review shall confirm that prior to the introduction of regulated
substances to a covered process: construction and equipment is in accordance with design
specifications; safety, operating, maintenance, and emergency procedures are in place and are
adequate; for new covered processes, a process hazard analysis.has been performed and
ORD. 2006-
- 8 -
DRA FT MARKED TO SHO W CHANCES.
recommendations have been resolved or implemented before startup; and modified covered
processes meet the requirements contained in management of change, Section 450-8.106(a)(6);
and training of each employee involved in operating a process has been completed.
(8) Compliance Audits=, (A) The stationary source shall certify that they have evaluated
compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years to verify that the .
procedures and practices developed under.this Chapter are adequate and are being followed.
(B) The compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the
process.
(C)A report of the findings of the audit shall be developed.
(D) The stationary source shall promptly determine and document an appropriate
response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have
been corrected..
(E)The stationary source shall retain the two.most recent compliance audit reports.
(9) Incident Investigation:. (A) The stationary.source shall investigate each incident
which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated
substance.
(B) An incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible,but not later.than
48 hours following the incident.
(C) An incident investigation team shall be established and consist of at least one person
knowledgeable in the covered process involved, including a contract employee if the incident
involved work of the contractor, and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to
thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident.
(D) A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a
minimum: date of incident; date investigation began; a description of the incident; the factors that
contributed to the incident; and, recommendations resulting from the investigation. .The written
summary shall indicate whether the cause of the incident and/or recommendations resulting from
the investigation are specific only to the process or equipment involved in the incident, or are
applicable to other processes or equipment at the stationary source. The incident investigation
report shall be made available to.the Department upon request.
(E) The stationary source shall establish a system to promptly address and resolve the
incident report findings and recommendations. .Resolutions and corrective actions shall be
documented.
(F) The report shall be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job.tasks are relevant
to the incident findings including contract employees where applicable.
(G) Incident investigation reports shall be retained for five years.
(10)Hot Work=. .(A) The stationary source shall issue a hot work permit for hot work
operations conducted on or near a covered process.
(B) The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in §
5189 of Title 8 of California Code Regulations have been implemented prior to beginning the hot
work operations; it shall indicate the date(s) authorized for hot work; and identify the object on
which hot work is to be performed. The permit shall be kept on file until completion of the hot
ORD. 2006-
- 9 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES.
work operations.
(11) Contractors:_ (A) Application.. This section applies to contractors performing
maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a
covered process. .It does not apply to contractors providing incidental services which do.not
influence process safety, such as janitorial work, food and drink services, laundry, delivery or
other supply services.
(B) Stationary.Source responsibilities. (i) The stationary source, when selecting a
contractor, shall obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator's
safety performance and programs. (ii) The stationary source shall inform contract owner or
operator of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to.the contractor's
work and the process. (iii) The stationary source shall explain to the contract owner or operator
the applicable provisions of the emergency response program Section 450-8.016(a)(12). (iv) The
stationary.source shall develop.and implement safe work practices consistent with Section 450-
8.016(a)(2), to.control the entrance, presence, and exit of the contract owner or operator and
contract employees in covered process areas. (v) The stationary source shall periodically
evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations as
specified in Section 450-8.016(a)(11)(C).
(C) Contract owner or operator responsibilities. (i) The contract owner or operator shall
assure that each contract employee is trained in the work practices necessary to safely perform
his/her job. .(ii) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee is
instructed in the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job
and the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan. .(iii) The contract
owner or operator shall document that each contract employee has received and understood the
training required by this section. The contract owner or operator shall prepare a record which
contains the identity of the contract employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify
that the employee understood the training. (iv) The contract owner or operator shall assure that
each contract employee follows the safety rules of the stationary source including the safe work
practices required by Section 450-8.016(a)(2). (v) The contract owner or operator shall advise
the stationary source of any unique hazards presented by the contract owner or operator's work,
or of any hazards found by the contract owner or operator's work.
(12) Emergency Response Program=. (A) The stationary source shall develop and
implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the
environment. .Such program shall include the following elements: (i) an emergency response
plan, which shall be maintained at the stationary source and contain at least the following
elements: procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about
accidental releases, emergency planning, and emergency response; documentation of proper first-
aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to.treat accidental human exposures; and
procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental release of a regulated
substance; (ii) procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection,
testing, and maintenance, including documentation of inspection, testing, and maintenance; (iii)
training for all employees in relevant procedures and the Incident Command System; and (iv)
procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes
ORD. 2006-
- 10 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes.
(B) A written plan that complies with other federal contingency plan regulations or is
consistent with the approach in the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance ("One Plan") and that, among other matters, includes the elements provided in Section
450-8.016(a)(12)(A), shall satisfy the requirements of this section if the stationary source also
complies with Section 450-8.016(a)(12)(C).
(C) The emergency response plan developed under this section shall be coordinated with
the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. §11003. .Upon request of
the local emergency planning committee or emergency response officials, the stationary.source
shall promptly provide to the local emergency response officials information necessary for
developing and implementing the community emergency response plan.
(D) The stationary source whose employees will not respond to accidental releases of
regulated substances need not comply with (a)(12)(A) through(a)(12)(C) above,provided that
they meet the following_(i) for stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a
process above the threshold quantity, the stationary source is included in the community
emergency response plan developed under Section 11003.of Title 42 of the United States Code
(USC); or.(ii) for stationary sources with only regulated flammable substances held in a process
above the threshold quantity the stationary source has coordinated response actions with the local
fire department; and (iii) appropriate mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders
when there is a need for a response.
(13) Safety Program Management. (A) The owner or operator of a stationary source
subject to this Chapter shall develop a management system to.oversee the implementation of the
safety program elements.
(B) The owner or operator shall assign a qualified person or position that has the overall
responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the safety program
elements.
(C) When responsibility for implementing individual requirements of this chapter is
assigned to persons other than the person identified under subsection a(13)(B), the names or
positions of these people shall be documented and the lines of authority defined through an
organization chart or similar document.
Human Factors Program..(1) Stationary sources shall develop.a written human
factors program that follows the human factors guidance document developed or adopted by the
Department. .The program shall be developed within one year following the issuance of the
Contra Costa County guidance documents_or--the effective date of the ordi.,.nee, ti)i.s section, or.
as otherwise allowed by this chapter, whichever is later. .The human.factors program shall
address:
(A) the inclusion of human factors in the process hazards analysis process;
(B) the consideration of human systems as causal factors in the incident investigation
process for major chemical accidents or releases or for an incident that could reasonably have
resulted in a major chemical accident or release;
(C) The training of employees in the human factors program;
(D) Operating procedures; and .
ORD. 2006-
- ll -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
(E)The requirement to eenduet a management of ehange prior-to.staffing ehanges fef!
ehanges in pemanent staffing levels,-eer-g niz do ; operations
L'm..leyees and their r-e ffese t.,tiyes shall be . „1ted i the management .,4'..1,.nge
�Zl 1V C)lV�i{.+IIL 41fUGV111V11L Vl V11U11GV.
(E) Maintenance safe work practice procedures and,maintenance procedures for
specialized equipinent, piping,, and instruments, no later than Deee . ber 34-.Tune 30, 200911; and
(>~) The requirement to.conduct a management of change prior to.staffing changes for.
changes in permanent staffing levels/.reorganization in operations, maintenance, Ii.eal.th and
safety, or emergericesponse. This requirement shall also.apply to.stationary sources using
contractors in permanent positions in operations and maintenance. Prior to conducting the
management of change, the Stationary.Source shall ensure that the job function descriptions are
current and accurate for the positions under consideration. Staffing,changes that last longer than
ninety days are considered permanent. Temporary changes associated with strike preparations
shall also be subject to this requirement. Employees and their representatives shall be consulted
in the management of change.
(2) Employees and their representatives shall participate in the development of the written
human factors program.
(3) The program shall include, but not be limited to, issues such as staffing, shiftwork and
overtime.
(4)A description of the human factors program (b)(1) through(b)(3) above shall be
included in the safety plan prepared by the stationary source.
(c)Root Cause Analysis and Incident Investigation..(1) Stationary sources shall
conduct a root cause analysis for each major chemical accident or release which occurs after the
effective date of this chapter. Stationary sources shall periodically update the Department on
facts related to.the release or incident, and the status of a root cause analysis conducted pursuant
to this section, at meetings scheduled by the Department in cooperation with the stationary
source. .To.the maximum extent feasible, the Department and the stationary source shall
coordinate these meetings with other agencies with jurisdiction over the stationary source.
Within 30 days of completing a root cause analysis performed pursuant to this section, the
stationary source shall submit to.the Department a final report containing that analysis, including
recommendations to be implemented to mitigate against the release or incident re-occurring, if
any, and a schedule for completion of resulting recommendations. The.Department may require
the stationary source to submit written, periodic update.reports at a frequency not to exceed every
30 days until the final report is subrnitted. The methodology of the root cause analysis shall be
one of the r-eeen,, endea methodologies from recognized by the Center for Chemical Process
Safety or shall be reviewed by the Department to determine substantial equivalency
(2) The Department may elect to.do its own independent root cause analysis or incident
investigation for a major chemical accident or release. If the Department elects to.conduct a root
cause analysis or incident investigation the stationary source shall cooperate with the Department
by providing the following access and information in a manner consistent with the safety of
Department and stationary source.personnel and without placing undue burdens on the operation
of the stationary source: (i) allow.the Department to investigate the accident site and directly
related facilities such as control rooms, physical evidence and where.practicable the external and
internal inspection of equipment, (ii) provide the Department with pertinent documentation, and
ORD. 2006-
- 12 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
(iii) allow.the Department to conduct independent interviews of stationary source employees,
subject to all rights of the stationary source and employees to be represented by legal counsel
and/or management and union representatives during such interviews. If in the course of the
Department's root cause analysis or incident investigation access is required to areas of the
stationary source which in the judgment of the stationary source requires personnel entering the
area to.use protective equipment and/or have specialized training the Department shall provide
its personnel with such equipment and training. To the maximum extent feasible the Department
shall coordinate any root cause analysis or incident investigation it conducts with investigations
conducted by other agencies with jurisdiction over the stationary source to minimize the adverse
impacts on the stationary source and/or its employees.
(3)No part of the conclusions, findings or recommendations of the root cause analysis
conducted by the Department or stationary source, or incident investigation conducted by the
Department, relating to any major chemical accident or release or the investigation thereof shall
be admitted as evidence or used in any action or suit for damages arising out of any matter
mentioned in such report.
(d) Process Hazard Analysis/Action Items. (1) Process hazard analyses will be
conducted for each of the covered processes not ineluded in the Fedora' program level 3Risk
Management Pr-egfafn 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 (acceptable 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. . PHAs s1101.11d also include consideration of
external events except for seismic analyses, which are only required when criteria Listed in
450-8.01.6(4)(2) are satisfied. .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 I 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 the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5189,
and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2760.2 are acceptable for the
ORD. 2006-
- 13 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
purposes of this Chapter. Process hazard analyses shall be updated and revalidated at least once
every 5 years after completion of the initial process hazard analysis. Updated and revalidated
process hazard analyses completed to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
Section 5189, and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2760 are acceptable
for meeting the update and revalidation requirement. Extefn ' events, incl ding seismic Seismic
events shall be considered for processes containing a substance defined in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 19, Chapter.4.51, 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, Section 2750.3 is beyond within the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint as
defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Chapter 4.5, 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 feasible. .If a stationary
source concludes that an inherently safer system is not feasible, the basis for this conclusion shall
be documented in meaningful detail.
(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 from the initial FHA's and from PHA revalidations. 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 yearafter 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. .
(e) Accident History..(1) The stationary source shall include an accident history.in the
safety plan of all major chemical accidents or releases from June 1, 1992, through the date of
safety plan submittal to the Department. .For each major chemical accident or release the
stationary source shall report the following information, to the extent known:
date, time and approximate duration of the release;
chemicals released;
ORD. 2006-
- 14 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
estimated quantity released in pounds;
type of release event and its source;
weather conditions at the time of the release;
on-site impacts;
known off-site impacts;
initiating event and contributing factors;
root cause(s);
whether off-site responders were notified; and
operational or process changes that resulted from the investigation of the release.
(2).The stationary source shall annually submit a report of the accident history to the
Department. The first report shall be due two years after the effective date of this &Fdi .onc-
cedes t#is chapter, and subsequent reports shall be due on the anniver-saries of the eff etive
`ate of the or-din nee. by June 30 of each.vear..
(f) Certification. The owner or operator shall submit in the safety plan a single
certification that, to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete.
(g) Security and Vulnerability Assessment. Each stationary source shall perform and
document a Security and.Vulnerability Assessment as defined. in the Contra Costa County
CaIARP Program Guidance Document, by June 30, 2007, and at least
once eveil five years after the initial assessment, oras prescribed by federal regulalion. The
Stationary Source shall document its process for assuring that recommendations are addressed..
(h) Safety Culture Assessment. The stationary source shall conduct a Safety Culture
Assessment. The assessment shall be based upon a method listed in the Contra Costa County
CaIARP Progyra n Guidance Document or shall. be reviewed by the Department to determine
Substantial equivalency. The initial. assessment shall be perfonned by one year
following the revisions to.the Industrial Safety Ordinance Guidance Document that addresses the
Safety Culture Assessment, and at least once ever five years thereafter. The Safety Culture
Assessment will. be reviewed during the audit and inspection of the Stationary Source. The
Department may perform its owyn Safety Culture Assessment after an a M.ajor Chemical Accident
or Release or the occurrence of any incident that could reasonably have led to a.Major Chemical
Accident or Release, or based on Department audit results of the Stationary Source.
(Ords. 2006-_ § 5; 2000-20 § 1; 98-48 § 2.)
SECTION VI. Section 450-8.018 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
450-8.018 Review, Audit, and Inspection..(a)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
ORD. 2006-.
- 15 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
calendar days from receipt of the notice of deficiencies to make any corrections. The stationary
source may request, in writing, a one-time 30.day calendar day extension to correct deficiencies.
By the end of the 60 calendar days or any extension period, the stationary source shall resubmit
the revised safety plan to the Department. .After.the Department determines that the safety plan is
complete, the Department shall schedule a public meeting on the stationary.source's safety plan
to.explain its contents to.the public.and take public comments. .Public comments on the safety
Llan shall. be taken by the Department for a period of 45 days after the safety plan is 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. The public meetings shall be held in the
affected community on.evenings or weekends. The Department shall respond in writing to all
written comments received during the 45-day comment period and to all oral comments received
and not addressed at the public meeting. The Department shall make portions of the Safety Plan,
which are not protected trade secret information, available to.the public for the public meeting.
(b) (1)The Department shall,within one year of the submission of the stationary source's
safety plan, conduct an initial audit and inspection of the stationary source's safety program to.
determine compliance with this Chapter. .Based upon the Department's review of the safety plan
and the audit and inspection of the stationary source, the Department may require modifications
or additions to.the safety plan submitted by the stationary source, or safety program to bring the
safety plan or safety program into.compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. .Any
determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required
shall be in writing, collectively referred to as the "preliminary determination." The preliminary
determination shall explain the basis for the modifications or additions required to.bring the
safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this Chapter aild provide I
a timetable for resolution of the recommendations. The preliminary.determination shall be
mailed to the stationary source.
(2) The stationary source shall respond in writing to the preliminary determination issued
by the Department. The response shall state that the stationary source will incorporate into.the
safety plan or safety program the revisions contained in the preliminary determination or shall
state that the stationary source rejects the revisions; in whole or in part. .For each rejected
revision, the stationary.source shall explain the basis for rejecting such revision. Such
explanation may include substitute revisions.
(3) The stationary source's written response to the Department's preliminary
determination shall be received by the Department within 90 days of the issuance of the
preliminary determination or such shorter time as the Department specifies in the preliminary
determination as being necessary to.protect public health and safety. Prior to.the written
response being due and upon written request from the stationary source, the Department may
provide, in writing, additional time for the response to be received.
(4) After receiving the written response from the stationary source, the Department shall
ORD. 2006-
16 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
issue a public noticepursuan.t to 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. The public meetings shall be held in the affected community on
evenings or.weekends. .The Department shall respond in writing to all written comments
received during the 45-day comment period and to all oral comments received and not addressed
at the public meeting.
(c)Based upon the Department's preliminary determination, review of the stationary
sources responses and review of public comments on the safety plan, the preliminary
determination and the stationary source's responses, the Department may require modifications
or additions to.the safety plan submitted by the stationary source or safety program to bring the
safety plan or safety program into.compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. Any
determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required,
and any determination that no modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are
required shall be in writing(collectively referred to.as "final determination"), shall be mailed to
the stationary source and shall be made available to the public. .The Department may not include
in a final determination any requirements to a safety plan or safety program•eh that would
cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any
permit or order issued by any state or federal agency.
(d) Within 30 days of the Department's final determination, the stationary source and/or
any person may appeal the final determination to the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Chapter
14-4 by a verified written notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
payment of the applicable appeal fee. .The appeal must be limited to issues raised during the
public comment period...The notice shall state the grounds for any such appeal, including(i) the
reasoning that the appeal is necessary because the stationary source is in compliance with this
Chapter, or(ii) the reasoning that the appeal is necessary to.bring the stationary source into
compliance with this Chapter. .In acting on the appeal, the Board shall have the same authority
over the final determination as the Department. The Board may require modifications or
additions to the safety plan or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into.
compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. The Board may not include in its decision on
the final determination any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a
violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or
order issued by any state or federal agency. The decision of the Board of Supervisors shall be
final with respect to the final determination.
(e) The safety plan shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of receipt by the
Department final aetien and shall be reviewed and updated by the stationary source every three
ORD. 2006-
- 17 -
I
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANCES
years pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance. Any revisions to the safety plan as a result
of the review and update shall be submitted to the Department and shall be subject to the
provisions of this Section.
(f) The Department may, within 30 days of a major chemical accident or release,initiate
eta safety inspection to review and audit the stationary source's compliance with the
provisions of Section 450-8.016. The Department shall review and audit the stationary source's
compliance with the provisions of Section 450-8.016 at least once every.three years. .The
Department may audit the stationary source based upon any of the following criteria:.accident
history of the stationary source, accident history.of other stationary sources in the same industry,
quantity of regulated substances present at the stationary source, location of the stationary source
and its proximity to.the public and environmental receptors, the presence of specific.regulated
substances, the hazards identified in the safety plan, a plan for providing neutral and random
oversight, or a complaint from the stationary.source's employee(s) or their representative. .The
stationary source shall allow the Department to.conduct these inspections and audits. .The
Department, at its option, may select an outside consultant to assist in conducting said inspection.
(g) Within 30 days of a major chemical accident or release the Department may
commence an incident safety inspection with respect to the process involved in the incident
pursuant to the provisions of Section 450-8.016 (c).
(h) (1)Based upon the Department's audit, safety inspection or an incident inspection, the
Department may require modifications or additions to.the safety plan submitted by the stationary.
source or safety program to.bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the
requirements of this chapter. Any determination by the Department shall be in writing and shall
be mailed to the stationary source (referred to as the notice of findings). The stationary source
shall have 60 calendar days from receipt of the notice of findings to.make any corrections. The
stationary source may request, in writing, a one-time 30 day calendar day extension to make
corrections. The Department may not include in its notice of findings requirements to a safety
plan or safety program whiehthat would cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal .I
law or regulation or a violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. The
notice of findings made by the Department will be available to.the public. .
(2) Within 30 days of the Department's notice of findings, the stationary source and/or
any person may appeal the notice of findings to the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Chapter 14-
4.by a verified written notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
payment of the applicable appeal fee. .The appeal must state the grounds for any such appeal,
including(i) the reasoning that the appeal is necessary because the stationary source is in
compliance with this Chapter, or(ii) the reasoning that the appeal-is necessary to bring the
stationary source into compliance with this Chapter. In acting on the appeal, the Board shall
have the same authority over the notice of findings as the Department. .The Board may require
modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety
ORD. 2006-
- 18 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
program into.compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. The Board may not include in
its decision on the notice of findings any requirements to a safety plan or safety program which
that would cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law.or regulation or a
violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. The decision of the Board
of Supervisors shall be final with respect to the notice of findings. .
(i) Nothing in this section shall preclude, limit, or interfere in any way with the authority
of the County to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering authorities
under any other provision of law nor shall anything in the Chapter effect or diminish the rights of
the stationary source to claim legal privileges such as attorney client privilege and/or work
product with respect to information and/or documents required to be submitted to or reviewed by
the Department.
(Ords. 2006 § 6; 98-48 § 2.)
SECTION VII. Section 450-8.030 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
450-8.030. Annual Performance Review and Evaluation. .(a) The Department shall
annually: (1)Review review its activities to implement this Chapter, and (2) Evaluateevaluate
the effectiveness of this Chapter in achieving its purpose and goals pursuant to Section
450-8.004.
(b)An annual performance review and evaluation report shall be prepared by the
Department based upon the previous fiscal year's activities and shall be submitted to.the Board
of Supervisors on or before October 31, 2000 and each year thereafter. The report shall contain:
(1) A brief description of how.the Department is meeting the requirements of this Chapter
as follows: (i) effectiveness of the Department's program to.ensure stationary source compliance
with this Chapter; (ii) effectiveness of the procedures for records management; (iii)number and
type of audits and inspections conducted by the Department pursuant to this Chapter; (iv)
number of root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted by the Department; (v)
the Department's process for public participation; (vi) effectiveness of the public information
bank, including status of electronic accessibility; (vii) effectiveness of the Hazardous Materials
Ombudsperson; (viii) other required program elements necessary to implement and manage this
Chapter.
(2) A listing of all stationary sources covered by the Chapter, including for each: (i) the
status of the stationary source's safety plan and program; (ii) a summary of all stationary source
safety plan updates and a listing of where the safety plans are publicly available; (iii) the annual
accident history report submitted by the stationary source pursuant to.Section 450-8.016(e)(2);
(iv) a summary, including the status, of any root cause analyses
conducted or being conducted by the stationary source and required by this Chapter, including
the status of implementation of recommendations; (v) a summary, including the status, of any
audits, inspections, root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted or being
conducted by the Department pursuant to this Chapter, including the status of implementation of
ORD. 2006-
- 19 -
DRAFT MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES
recommendations; (vi) description of.inherently safer systems implemented by the stationary
source; and (vii) legal enforcement actions initiated by the Department, including administrative,
civil, and criminal actions pursuant to this Chapter.
(3) Total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter.
(4) Total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the
support of this Chapter.
(5) Total personnel and personnel years utilized by the jurisdiction to directly implement
or administer this Chapter.
(6) Comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of the local program
that raise public safety issues.
(7) The impact of the Chapter in improving industrial safety.
(c) The Department shall provide a copy of the annual performance audit submission
required by Title 19 Chapter 4.5 Section 2780.5 of the California Code of Regulations to.the
Board of Supervisors on or before October.31 of each year.
(Ords. 2006-_ § 7; 98-48 § 2.)
SECTION VIII..EFFECTIVE DATE. .This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 15 days after passage, this ordinance or a summary of this ordinance 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: John Cullen, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By:
Deputy Board Chair
[SEAL]
LTF.
H:\HAZMAT\INDORD\2004\012804 draft.wpd
042606 marked draft
ORD. 2006-
- 20 -
Exhibit "C": A copy of the Response To Comments / Final
Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2003042011)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE,
COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER
450-5
SCH#2003042011
November 2005
MM
♦ \
srA,cour�'�
Prepared for:
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Final
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE
Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for: November 2005
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
225 Bush Street
Suite 1700
San Francisco,CA 94104
415.896.5900
www.asassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Petaluma
Sacramento
Seattle
Tampa
r ESA
J
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction.................................................................................................................I-1
A. CEQA Process.....................................................................................................I-1
Public Review and Response to Comments........................................................I-2
B. Method of Organization......................................................................................I-2
C. Agencies and Organizations Commenting on the Draft EIR..............................I-2
II. Responses to Written Comments on the Draft EIR................................................1I-1
A. Introduction........................................................................................................II-1
OverallResponse................................................................................................11-1
B. Agencies and Organizations Commenting on the Draft EIR.............................Il-3
Letter A—State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research.....II-6
Letter B—Air Products Manufacturing Corporation .........................................II-8
Letter C—GenTek,Inc.....................................................................................I1-20
Letter D—Associated Builders and Contractors..............................................II-34
Letter E—Bingham McCutchen.....................................................................II-113
Letter F—Andersen&Bonnifield..................................................................II-168
References......................................................................................................11-180
III. Text Changes to the Draft EIR...............................................................................III-I
IV. Proposed Ordinance as Amended...........................................................................IV-1
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. CEQA PROCESS
On September 15, 2004,the Contra Costa County Community Development Department released
for public review a Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)on the Proposed Amendment
to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance (proposed.amendment). The public
review and comment period on the Draft EIR began on September 15, 2004 and closed on
October 29,2004.
The Final EIR is an informational document prepared by the lead agency that must be considered
by decision makers before approving or denying a proposed project. California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines(Section 15132)specify the following:
"The Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in
summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in
review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency."
This document has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. This Final EIR incorporates
comments from public agencies and the general public,and contains appropriate responses by the
Lead Agency to those comments. The Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County
Industrial Safety Ordinance EIR consists of the Draft EIR and this Response to Comments
document.
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended, guides the process of
environmental review in California. Under CEQA,all aspects of the preparation of the Draft EIR
and its review,as well as the subsequent steps to prepare a Final EIR are specifically outlined by
the CEQA Guidelines.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 1-1
CHAPTER II
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter includes copies of the comment letters received during the public review period on
the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. Each comment is labeled with a number in the
margin and the response to each comment is presented immediately after the comment letter.
Where responses have resulted in changes to the text of the Draft EIR,these changes are shown
within quoted portions of the Draft EIR text using the following conventions:
1) Text added to the wording in the Draft EIR is shown in underline,
2) Text deleted from the wording in the Draft EIR is shown in StFikeeut,and
3) Text changes are shown in indented paragraphs.
These text changes also appear in Chapter III of this Response to Comments document.
OVERALL RESPONSE
A number of commenters challenge the conclusion of the DEIR that the potential project impacts
to Public Safety would be less than significant. The commenters reason that the proposed ISO
amendment would restrict the affected facilities from hiring contractor-covered workers who are
needed to safely perform the required work. These commenters base there challenge by relying
on an older version of the Proposed Amendment analyzed in an Initial Study in October 2002.
While it is true that this previous version the Proposed Amendment was more restrictive by
allowing the hiring of only CAC-approved workers for the affected facilities; the Proposed
Amendment considered in this EIR was revised after the October 2002 Initial Study was
prepared. The revised version of the Proposed Amendment considered in this EIR includes an
exception clause allowing contractor-covered workers who have not received CAC-approved
training to be hired by an affected facility if it is determined after two days of searching that there
are not sufficient workers available with CAC-approved training. Thus,the DEIR properly
concluded that the potential project-related impacts to public safety would be less than
significant.
Other comments state that the two-day waiting period to hire non-CAC approved workers could
compromise safety because of the two day delay. The DEIR acknowledges [Page IV.A-17] that
there could be delays in completing some projects because of the two day delay provided by the
exception clause. However,the DEIR states on Page IV.A-17 that, if it is determined by the
affected facility that such delays would create an imminent danger to safe operation,this would
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-1
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
B. AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE
DRAFT EIR
A State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research November 1,2004
B Air Products Manufacturing Corporation November 5,2004
C. GenTek, Inc. November 10, 2004
D. Associated Builders and Contractors November 11, 2004
E. Bingham McCutchen November 12, 2004
F. Andersen& Bonnifield November 12, 2004
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-3
Letter A *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA h
Governor's Office of Planning and Research ��
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Arnold _ l: 83 fanBoel
Schwarzenegger (J4 l;~���v 3 Acting Director
Governor
November 1,2004
Patrick Roche
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wino
Martinez,CA 94553 V
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Contra Costa County's Industrial Safety Ordinance
SCH#: 2003042011
Dear Patrick Roche:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The
review period closed on October 29,2004,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. A-1
Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
��•--
Tent'Roberts
Director,State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3019 www.apr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base Letter A continued
SCH# 2003042011
Project Title Proposed Amendment to Contra Costa County's Industrial Safety Ordinance
Lead Agency Contra Costa County Community Development
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description Proposed amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance,County Ordinance
Code Chapter 450-8 DEIR.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Patrick Roche
Agency Contra Costa County Community Development
Phone (925)335-1242 Fax
email
Address 651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
City Martinez State CA Zip 94553
Project Location
County Contra Costa
City
Region
Cross Streets County-wide
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use Various
Project Issues Cumulative Effects;Growth Inducing;Landuse;Population/Housing Balance;Public Services;
Recreation/Parks;Toxic/Hazardous
Reviewing Resources Agency;Regional Water Quality Control Bd.,Region 5(Sacramento);Regional Water
Agencies Quality Control Board,Region 2;Department of Parks and Recreation;Native American Heritage
Commission;Office of Emergency Services;Department of Fish and Game.Region 3;Department of
Water Resources;California Highway Patrol;Caltrans,District 4;Department of Toxic Substances
Control
Date Received 09115!2004 Start of Review 09/15/2004 End of Review 10/29/2004
J.
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
Letter C continued
GenTek,Inc.
90 E=Halsey Road
Parsippany,N7 07054
(973)515-1939
7. The Draft EIR Fails to Recognize that the Proposed ISO Amendments will Increase
Environmental and Safety'Hazards as a Direct Result of Decreased Plant Shutdown
Durations and Increased PIant Shutdown Frequencies.
The draft EIR also fails to recognize other impacts that flow from the unavailability of qualified
CAC-approved contractors. Specifically, if the proposed ISO amendments are adopted, there
will probably be an increase in the number of plant shutdowns. If qualified CAC-approved i
contractors are not available or are only available for a limited time, facilities could be forced to i
shorten the duration of their plant shutdowns thereby failing to accomplish all of the necessary
preventive maintenance and improvement projects that facilities would normally take in
conjunction with a plant shutdown. If this were to occur, more frequent, shorter duration
shutdowns would become the normal business practice. Such practice would have a very C-17
negative.impact on safely and the environment because delays in preventive maintenance and
' improvement projects' scheduling will lead to increased air emissions, railcar traffic, and noise
-and-to an increased risk of safety incidents. These added risks and hazards are not addressed in
the draft EM- I
Accordingly; the.draft EIR is flawed in its failure to recognize the increased environmental and
safety hazards that will result from the adoption of the proposed ISO amendments and must be
revised to address these hazards prior to any further consideration of the proposed ISO
amendments.
8. The Draft FJR Fails-to Recognize that the Proposed ISO Amendments will Discourage
Future IndustrialBase Expansion in Contra Costa County.
If the proposed•ISO amendments are adopted and implemented, future development of the
industrial base in. Contra Costa County is likely to be discouraged. For instance, owners of i
existinig unregulated facilities will probably not seek to expand their operations if such expansion
would trigger the ISO requirements. Such owners would likely channel their expansion plans to
their facilities.located outside of Contra Costa County and, even more Iikely, outside of the State
of California.'. Even more significantly, companies contemplating the location of facilities in C-18
Contra Costa.County will prob-ably.look outside of the County,particularly if the companies are
in an industrial sector(s)-that has-the potential-to trigger application of the ISO requirements
through its initial startup and/or future expansion plans. Again, these potential impacts are not
addressed in-the draft EM
7
Letter C continued
GenTek,Ina
90 East Halsey Road
Parsippany,NJ 07054
(973)515-1839
delays will likely increase the risk of releases thereby compromising safety at the ISO-regulated
facilities. In addition, the-prroposed ISO amendments will have an even greater impact on .
compromising safety at ISO-regulated facilities because it is likely that various incorporated
cities in Contra Costa County will move to adopt the same amendments. This will result in C-13
fin-ther violations of the CEQA because-of the increased universe of ISO-regulated facilities (like cont.
General Chemical's Richmond Works) and the even smaller pool of CAC-approved contractors
to go around. Even more magnified safety impacts and delay of work impacts will be the end
result.
Finally, in the draft EIR at Table II-1 (page II-3), "hazards and public safety" were identified as
less significant environmental impacts of the proposed ISO amendments. This is clearly
erroneous. For all of the reasons stated'above, the proposed ISO amendments will violate the C-14
CEQ,A.'because•they will result in a significant potential adverse effects on safety and the
environment.
Accordingly, the draft EIR is flawed in its failure to recognize the potentially significant
environmental impacts that the proposed ISO amendments could have on safety and must be
revised'to address these impacts prior to any further consideration of the proposed ISO'C-15
amendments.
6. The Draft EIR-Fails'to Recognize that the Adoption of the Proposed ISO Amendments
will Violate Varioius U.S. and CaMi uia Constitutional Protections and Result in
Discrimination AgainstNon-Union,Workers.
The proposed ISO amendments include a provision that,if adopted as proposed,would limit the
contractor pool at ISO-regulated faei4tics to CAC-approved contractors located only in Contra
Costa,Alameda and Solaitio counties witblin California. This is arbitrary at best and only serves
to further lin4it.the contractor pool. la addition, as more fully explained within the comments of
the 3 ISO-regulated refineries in Contra Costa County,which have been incorporated herein by
reference,if adopted,tate proposed ISO amendments will violate the Privileges and Immunities, C-16
Commerce aind Contract Clauses-ofthe U.S.and California Constitutions and will result in
discrimination against none-union workers.
Accordingly,the draft ETR is flawed in its failure to recognize that the adoption of the proposed
ISO amendments will violate various U.S.and California constitutional protections and will
result in discrimination against non-union workers.
6
Letter C continued
GenTek,Jnr-
90 East Halsey Road
Panippany.NI 07054
(973)515-1839
4. The Draft EIRFails to Recognize that the Proposed ISO Amendments Will Force ISO-
Regulated Facilities to Retain Less Qualified Contractor-Covered Employees.
GenTek utilizes several highly trammed, specialized, qualified contractors with proven safety
records at our General Chemical Bay Point Works (as well as at our Richmond Works) facility.
These contractors are currently required to provide safety and insurance information in advance
of qualifying for consideration to do work at our facility. Once onsite, these contractors go
through scope-specific training and are audited to ensure safety procedures are being followed.
Contractors that fail to meet our expectations are not retained and are not rehired in the future.
i
It has been-GenTeVs experience that many of its safest,most qualified contractors are not CAC-
approved contractors. It bas also been GeaTek's experience that the non-CAC-approved i C-11
contractor-covered employees are more highly trained in the area of safety as it relates to
process-specific projects undertaken by General Chemical than are their CAC-approved
counterparts.. Unfortunately,if the proposed ISO amendments are adopted as proposed, as of the
effective date of the amendments, these highly qualified contractors will not be able to work at
the General.*Chemical Bay Point Works facility. Banning these already proven,process-specific
contractors from jobs at General Chemical, as well as at other ISO-regulated facilities, will very
likely decrease plant safety because they, will have to be replaced with CAC-approved
contractors that.aze.unlikely.to have-a long history of process-specific safety training and hands- j
on experience.
Accordingly., any-consideration of the proposed ISO amendments should not be pursued fuorther 11
because'such amendments are likely to result in a decrease in plant safety.
S. The-Draft EIR Fails-to Recognize that the Adoption of the Proposed ISO Amendments
will Violate the-California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)-
If adopted, the proposed ISO amendments wiU violate the CEQA by resulting in a significant
potential adverse effects on the environment (as defined at Section 15382 of the CEQA
Guidelines) because-they will cause safety impacts and delay of work impacts. Specifically,
regarding safety impacts, the CAC-approved contractors will replace the highly specialized, I C-12
process-specific non-CAC-approved contractors currently hired for the work at ISO-regulated
facilities_ The large portion of-the CAC-approved contractors,which do not have the specialized
process-specific training that currently prevents safety incidents at the ISO-regulated facilities,
will pose additional safety risks at the ISO-regulated facilities.
Further, with respect to delay of work impacts, it is probable that scheduling will be delayed
(and,as discussed in detail below,shutdowns will be scheduled for shorter durations)while ISO-
C-13
regulated facilities wait for the availability of the required CAC-approved contractors. Such
5
Letter C continued
GenTek,Inc.
90 Fast Helscy Road
Parsippany,NJ 07054
(973)515-1839
CAC-approved contractors' requirement is likely to have on facilities that are not subject to the
ISO. As a result, even if qualifying contractor-covered employees are available from time to i
time for projects at the smaller ISO-regulated facilities, like General Chemical, and at non-ISO ; C-6
facilities, the owner's of these smaller facilities are likely to be forced to pay a premium for
contractors in order to compete with the diversion of contractors to projects at the 3 ISO- cont.
regulated refineries.
Further, restricting the labor pool to CAC-approved contractors will significantly reduce the
number of competitive bidders. This reduction will ultimately result in increased project costs-
Such costs are not addressed in the draft EIR. The draft EIR must be revised to recogni2e this j
unintended result and to point out that these anticipated increased project costs would not be
balanced by any benefit to plant safety_ In fact, as emphasized above,-the unintended result is C-7
likely to nun counter to the objective of the proposed ISO amendment. An actual decrease in
plant safety is likely-to be the eiid result because, practically speaking, it is likely that the love
bidders, those non-CAC-'approved contractors with proven safety records (which are currently
used by ISO-regulated facilities), will not be permitted to work on projects at ISO-regulated
facilities.
Accordingly;the draft EIR is flawed in its failure to address all of the potential'impacts that the
adoption and implementation of the proposed ISO amendments would have on the smaller ISO- C-8
regulated facilities in Contra Costa County.
3. The Draft EIR NGsrepresents the Regulated. Communities' Participation in the
Analyses of the Potential Impact of the Proposed ISO Amendments on Small
Businesses.
The draft)EIR is also flawed in its failure to appropriately categorize the scope of participation bf
specific individuals in the information collection process during its development. Although
Kevih O'Kelly and I (Jeff Jakonczuk) are listed as GeneW Chemical representatives that were
contacted (see pages VII-1 and 2),we were not afforded-an opportunity to discuss the potential
impact of the proposed ISO amendment on small businesses, such as General Chemical. C-9
GenTek is hereby.taking this opportunity to provide such information that it had hoped to
provide previously to Contra Costa-County's consultant. Unfortunately, the consultant failed to
arrange a meeting with General Chemical representatives to explore the disastrous consequences
that the proposed ISO amendments are likely to have on the smaller ISO-regulated facilities.
Given General Chemicals' inability to provide constructive comments to the consultant during
the preparation of the.draft EIR, GenTek requests the removal of references to Kevin O'Kelly C-10
and me(JeffJakonczuk) on page'VII-2 of the draft EIR
4
Letter C continued
GenTek,Inc.
90 East Halsey Road
Parsippany,NI 07054
(973)515-1939
ConocoPUhps Refinery,the Shell Refinery, and the Tesoro Refinery. This "large facility only'
focus is evident in several portions.of the draft EIR,including,but not limited to the:
• "Contractor Selection"procedures section on page MA-6.
a "Effectiveness of Training Programs"section on page IV.A-7.
a "Union and Non-Union Contractor-Covered Workers in Contra Costa County section on
pages IV.A 7 and IV.A-8.
a Safety Plans included in Appendix C.
C-5
Unfortunately, the draft EIR fails to accurately depict the full impact of the adoption and cont.
implementation of the proposed IS.O amendments on General Chemical Bay Point Works and on i
the-other smaller ISO-regulated stationary sources in Contra Costa County(i.e.,Polychemie, Air
Products at the Shell Refinery,Air Products at the Tesoro Refinery). In fact,the potential impact
of the proposed ISO amendments on these smaller facilities was not even addressed within the i
draft.EM' We believe that our General Chemical Bay Point Works and the other smaller ISO-
regulated stationary sources will be placed at a severe disadvantage vis-i-vis the larger, ISO-
regulated refineries if the smaller sources are required to comply with the ISO amendments as
proposed.
For instance, several of the proposed changes, including the contractor training and certification
requirements and the-safety culture assessment requirement, will be extresaaely burdensome and
costly to small businesses. In addition,the,draft EIR fails to address the impact of the proposed
ISO amendments on contractor availability for small•businesses, particularly in light of the fact
that the small pool of qualifying contractors employing highly trained, process-specific
employees are likely to be retained almost exclusively by one or more of the largest ISO-
regulated facilities i.e. the refineries). As the available,qualifying contractor pool is depleted,it
is very likely that contractors will be more inclined to bid on work at the larger ISO-regulated
facilities'because their work will tend to be longer in duration,.require more contractor-covered ,
employees and,ultimately,be more profitable for them. C-6
Given the current shortage.of qualifying contractor-covered employees,the draft EIR recognizes
that there will be contractor shortages among the 3 ISO-regulated refineries. The draft ElR
specifically states that there are not even enough CAC-approved contractors for the 3 ISO- 1
regulated refineries during peak work periods. See pages IV.A 16 and 17. This shortage will
adversely impact the smaller ISO-regulated facilities, like General Chemical, and will also
adversely impact facilities that are not subject to ISO.
In addition, the draft PIR fails to recognize that there could be a situation where there are no
qualifying contractor-covered employees available for the four (4) smaller ISO-regulated
facilities within.Contxa'Costa County. The draft EIR also fails to recognize the impact that the
Letter C continued
GenTe-,Inc.
90 Eau Halsey Road
Parsippany,NT 07054
(973):S15-1939
1. The Incident Data in the Draft EIR Does Not Support the Adoption of the Proposed
ISO Amendments.
The draft EIR indicates that since 1995: only one(1)out of twenty-eight(28)incidents' at ISO-
affected facilities involved-a contractor-covered employee; and no incidents were attributable to
contractor-covered employees at facilities not subject to ISO. See page IV.A-9. Regarding the 1
incident,the draft EIR acknowledges that the contractor-covered employee was not at fault
because the contractor was provided with insufficient safety instructions by the facility. The
draft EIR goes on to say that". . ,these data indicate that in the past,contractor-covered workers
have rarely been involved with incidents at these(ISO-regulated] facilities,both for CAC or
CCA covered workers." See page IV.A 9- Also,the draft EIR states:"Because the affected
facilities have strict safety requirements,the employment of an inadequate contractor workforce
would not occur." See page IV..A.-17. As discussed in greater detail later in these comments, if
adopted,the proposed ISO amendments are likely to result in an increase in contractor-related
safety incidents because the amendments will force ISO-regulated facilities to replace its
existing,hi2bly trained and specialized contractors with California Apprenticeship Council ' C-4
(CAC -approved contractors that do not.generally have such operation-specific safety expertise.
This will result in a decrease in plant safety at all of the ISO-regulated stationary sources within
Contra Costa County.
The.incident.data in the draft EIR clearly illustrates that the facility-specific safety programs,
which include compliance with the safety-related portions of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) .Risk Management Plan (RMP) and the Occupational Safety and Health I
Administration(OSHA.)Process Safety Management (PSM)programs and with the current ISO,
currently in place at ISO-regulated facilities adequately address the safety issues encountered by 1.
contractor-covered employees at these operations. The data strongly supports GenTek's
position that contractor safety at NO-regulated facilities in Contra Costa County is not an issue
in terms of reportable incidents.
Accordingly,the proposed ISO amendments are not supported by the draft EIR incident data and
should not be pursued further.
2. The potential Impact of the Proposed ISO Amendments on SmaH Businesses was Not
Evaluated W the Draft EIR
The draft ESR focuses solely on potential impacts that the adoption and implementation of the
proposed ISO amendments would have on the three (3) ISO-regulated refineries: the I C-5
i A total of thirty(30)incidents were actually listed in Table IV.A-3.
2
Letter C
r r///raisin
F
GenTek,S=t H GenTek
90 F=t Halsey Rnad
Parsippany,N) 07054
(973)515-1839
November 10,2004
Contra Costa County
Community Development-Department
651 Pine Street,0 Floor North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553
Attic:Patrick Roche
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Proposed Amendment to the Industrial Safety Ordinance for Contra Costa County
Dear Mr.Roche:
As the owner General Chemical's Bay Point Works(as well as General Chemical's Richmond
Works), GenTek,Inc.(GenTek)is.particularly concerned with improving safety at all of its
facilities within the chemical industry. However,as discussed in detail below, GenTek does not
believe the promulgation of'the Proposed Amendments to the Industrial Safety Ordinance for
Contra Costa County(ISO)at Co. Ord. Code 450-8 will result in improved safety. In fact,we j C-1
believe the adoption and implementation of the proposed ISO atnendments will have the opposite j
effect because these amendments are likely to result in a decrease in plant safety at all of the
ISO-regulated stationary sources.within Contra.Costa County.
GenTek bplieves that the draft Environmental Impact Report MM), the priinaty focus of these
comments,is grossly deficient and does not support the adoption of the proposed ISO
amendments. Accordingly;prior to proceeding with any proposed amendments to the Contra
Costa County ISO, GenTek believes that the draft EIR musrbe revised to address all of the i C-2
issues raised in-these comments. In the event Contra Costa County then decides to proceed with
-the adoption of the proposed ISO amendments,the draft EIR must be disseminated again for
comment.
GenTek's major concerns-with the draft BIR are discussed in detail below. In addition, GenTek
shares many of the same cone=raised by the three ISO-regulated refineries.in Contra Costa i
County(the ConocoPhillips Refinery,the Shell Refinery, and the Tesoro Refinery) and hereby C-3
incorporates their comments herein by reference. i
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
LETTER B - AIR PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
Response B-1 The EIR evaluated the proposed ISO amendment with regard to the
various environmental topic areas that could be affected, including
public safety. In the context of public safety,the DEIR states that the
proposed amendment is intended to ensure that only trained contractor-
covered workers who are sufficiently skilled and experienced in the
required tasks be hired as contractor-covered workers at the affected
facilities. Section 450-8.014(u)of the proposed amendment defines
contractor-covered worker as"...an employee of an oil refinery
contractor engaged in.....work at an oil refinery...." However,the
proposed amendment would also include other facilities in the County
that are considered as Tier 3 facilities as defined by the RMP Regulation,
and it includes facilities in the County other than oil refineries. The
definition of"contractor-covered"worker should therefore not be limited
to oil refineries.
On page IV.A-17 it is stated that situations may arise in which there
could be an insufficient number of CAC-approved contractor-covered
workers trained in the skills required to complete the assigned tasks.
Although the County regulation specifies that they only be trained,the
State requires that they be certified in these skill areas also.
Consequently training also includes certification of skills.
The proposed amendment would allow for the hiring of non-CAC
approved contractor-covered workers who have the appropriate training,
when CAC-approved workers are not available after two business days
of unsuccessful searching. An exception would also apply to emergency
conditions where a worker with the appropriate training could be hired
immediately during emergencies,whether the worker is CAC-approved
or not.
Such exceptions in the proposed amendment would allow for the hiring
of specialists needed for specific tasks that cannot be supplied by
available CAC-approved workers. The DEIR states that because of these
exceptions in the proposed amendment, safety at the affected facilities
would not be compromised.
Response B-2 Because of the exceptions that were added to the proposed amendment,
and as described in Response B-1,the proposed amendment would not
restrict an affected facility from utilizing qualified workers who may not
be CAC-approved in case of emergencies or for other longer term
projects when sufficient CAC-approved workers with the proper skills
are not available. Because of these exceptions,the DEIR states that
safety would not be compromised with implementation of the proposed
amendment.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-8
AIR
PRODUCTS '®:
Air Products Manufacturing Corp.
Martinez Equilon Hydrogen Facility 1
110 Waterfront Road (}Vin,;
Martinez.CA 94553
Telephone(925)372-9302 _
S November 2004
Fax(925)372-9339
Contra Costa County �✓'
Community Development Department 1
651 Pine Street,Orb Floor North Wing L D
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
Re: Environmental Impact Report-Proposed Amendment to County Industrial Safety
Ordinance Code,Chapter 450.8
Air Products has reviewed the proposed amendment to the County Industrial Safety Ordinance
and would like to offer the following comments in opposition. At Air Products,nothing is more
important than safety. We are consistently recognized as a safety leader by organizations such
as the Construction Users Roundtable,the Construction Industry Institute and the American
.Chemistry Council (ACC). In fact, ACC has ranked Air Products#1 in safety for the last four
years in a row.
A vital element of our safety leadership is our long-standing relationship with contractors that are
highly-trained and experienced in maintaining the specialized and unique industrial gas
equipment used in our plants. Air Products utilizes these specialists throughout the country
and, by necessity,these contractors work seamlessly with our own operations and maintenance
employees. The ability to deploy contractors from other areas of the country,in some instances
within hours of when a need arises, is critical to maintaining our high degree of safety and
environmental performance.
The proposed amendment would restrict our ability to utilize qualified contractors and deploy
them when they are needed most urgently. We believe the ordinance fails to adequately address
these situations for facilities such as ours. Thus,safety would actually be compromised and
quick response to potential environmental upset situations would be unnecessarily delayed.
These unintended consequences of the proposed ordinance would be counter to its stated goal.
For these reasons, I am asking you to oppose the proposed amendment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and please feel free to contact me if I can be of any
assistance.
Sincerely,
X14'\., z�• ..,.. r�\ �,. �\ ..'L_• `
Michael J. Ca
Martinez Hydrogen Plants' Operations Manager
U.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
LETTER A - STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH
A-1 Comment noted.
I
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-6
Letter C continued
GenTek,Inc.
90 East H21sey Raid
Pnsippany,N) 07454
(973)515-1839
9. The Draft ETR Fails to Recognize that the proposed ISO Amendments Will Directly
Conflict and Impede Compliance, with Various Safety Requirements Currently
Applicable to the ISO-Regulated Facilities.
T1ie draft EIR fails to acknowledge that the adoption of the proposed ISO amendments will have
an adverse impact on the ISO-regulated facilities' currentimplementation of various safety
requirements and will decrease plant safety. For instance, the amendments will adversely impact
implementation of existing OSHA PSM and EPA RMP programs, California's Accidental
Release Prevention (CalARP) program, and the current Contra Costa County ISO program in a i
number of ways_ Specifically,the existing PSM,RMP, CA ARP, and ISO programs are intended
to prevent accidental releases and,if releases should occur;minim»e the impact of such releases.
If adopted, the proposed ISO amendments are.likely to result in greater safety issues and more C-19
releases because the amendments would force the hiring of CAC-approved contractors over non-
CAC contractors. This would -limit the availability- of qualified contractors and would
corapromise-the ISO-regulated facilities' ability to comply with the above-referenced programs. i
For instance, all-of these.programs have preventive xr4aintenance and mechanical integrity testing
requirements. However, if the proposed ISO amendments are adopted, an adequate supply of 1
CAC=approved contractor employees will not be available within the required timeframes. This
has the very serious potential to decreese plant safety.
As previously. discussed, the regulated facilities' non-CAC contractors are more likely to be
highly trained in the area of safety as if relates to process_specific projects undertaken by the
ISO-regulated facilities. In addition, there is no evidence in the draft EIR that CAC-approved
contractors have better safety -records at ISO-regulated facilities than their non-CAC C-20
counterparts. In fact, the use of CAC-approved- contractors that do not have process-specific
expertise is lilcely to result in poorer safety records. Accordingly, the ISO amendments will not
serve to clarify and strengthen the roles and responsibilities of regulated facilities and contractors
given the robustness of the existing PSM,RMP,CaIARP, and ISO requirements. I
Further, as proposed,the ISO amendments would introduce a new hazard into the ISO-regulated
facilities' process hazard analyses. The probability of the 'liuman factor" coming into play is 1
likely to increase because the CAC requirement will force the use of a much less -experienced
work force. As such,the CAC requirement will not lead to greater awareness of process-specific
safety requirements. It will actually cause the majority of the regulated facilities to either be out C-21
of compliance with the: requirements to establish a system to address process hazard analysis
findings (U., the°human factor issues that will arise under the ISO CAC requirement); or ISO
CAC requirement by choosing a work force of highly trained,process-specific workers over their
non-process-specific CAC general safety trained counterparts, given that the small pool of highly
8
Letter C:continued
GenTek,Inc-
90
nc90 19UMUkay Md
Pusippa",NJ 07034
(973)11 S-1839
trained process-specific CAC workers is likely to be retained by the largest ISO-regulated C-21
facilities. cont.
Furthez, the proposed ISO amendments are not needed because the main objective of the
ammdments—reductioa of releases resulting in increased worker safety—is already met by the
process-specific ,requirements of the wdsting PSM, RMP, WARP, and ISO programs.
Specifically, safe work practices are already,in place, communicated to.contractors' employees,
and.applicable to such-employees. The existing management of change process already ensures
that contractors' employees are informed of and trained on specific tasks that are or will be i C-22
impacted by process changes. The existing coatraamr-specific requirements for facilities
employing contractors and for contracmrs supplying workers to heilities already ensures that
contractors' employees-are adupu tely informed of and harmed on a variety of safety-related
specific hcility infatmaft, including but not limited to process hazards, emetge=y response
plans,and safe work practices.
In addition,the U.S.Departtlneat of Thnsportation(DOT)security reguMons must be followed,
and-ISO-requires that each facility conduct a Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA). Under
these requirements, facilities must ensure that contractors meet certain eemnity guidelines,
including conducting bwJWound checks. Theso rec) h menta add even more time to the ! C-23
contiactbr qualification process. Accordingly, the proposed ISO amendmants also have the
potential to conflict with ISO-regulated facilities' existing procedures for compliance with DOT
security regulations and mcistmg ISO regulations.
If the A rty:eight (48)-�ht= eatceptian provision i&designed to address tbis,u:oneem, it docs not
offer nearly enough time:to•.meet-a facility's needs. Cup=ly.it takes several weeks to comply
with existing regulehbna'far luring contractors. The cuaaat process requires.at a minimum,fat C-24
iaaurance and safety information be reviewed and approved, security clearance be obtained. and
scope-specific praiiniag.be conducted. LimAng contrador availability will only ja4d on the time
required to quality contractors.
i
Accordingly, the draft MR is flawed m its failure to recognize that the adoption of the ISO
amendments vvilI canfliot and impede compliance with various safoW requirements mandated by C-25
existing BPA,OSHA,DOT and ISO prop-ams applicable to ISO-regulated#uilitie&
9
Letter C continued
G=Tek,Inc.
90 East Halsey Road
Parsippany,N1 07053
(973)515.1839
SUMMARY
GenTek strongly opposes the proposed ISO amendments and, for all of the foregoing reasons,
believes'that the draft ETR, which purports to support the proposed amendments, is seriously
flawed. Accordingly, prior to .proceeding with any future action on the proposed ISO C-26
amendments, GenTek requests that Contra Costa County specifically respond to all of the issues
raised within these comments. For ease of reference, a number of these specific issues are listed
below:
• Why is the County pursuing the changes to the ISO when the draft ETR states
coiitractor-covered.workers have rarely been involved with incidents at these [ISO- j C-27
regulated]-facilities
• Why is the County pursuing the changes to the ISO when the draft FIR states `Because
the affected facilities have-strict safety requirements, the employment of an inadequate !C-28
eontraetor workforce would not occur"?
• Why was-the potential impact on small businesses not addressed in the preparation of the1. C-29
draft EIR?'
• What are the estimated costs to small businesses due to the proposed changes to the ISO?
Please specifically address the reduction iu available contractors and the reduction in !C-30
competitive bidding.
• what small businesses did the County discuss this draft EIR with and what were their i
conMents? 1 C-31
• Why'is•the County pursuing the.changes to the ISO when the draft EIR states that there
are not enough*CAC-approved contractors for the refineries during peak periods, let alone i C-32
smaRbusinesses?
• Why do the proposed changes prevent facilities from using proven contractors, with
excellent safety-records,that-are not CAC-approved.? C-33
• Please explain why the selection of CAC-approved contractors is limited to Contra Costa,
Alameda and Solano counties`? Why-are other nearby counties, such as San Francisco C-34
and Marin, omitted? Why are other California counties omitted?
• Please address the environmental impact of changes to the ISO from an increase hi plant
shutdowns due to a.reductiowin contractor availability. What will the emission increases
be per year? Because more incidents occur during plant startup and shutdown,how man31 C-35
more incidents will occur each year,as a result of changes to the ISO?,
• Why is the County pursuing_the changes to the ISO when there is a conflict with so many
other regulations, including PSM, R1VIP, DOT and the ISO itself, with regard to i C-36
mechanical integrity, security etc.?
•
Has.the County discussed these changes with the agencies.enforcing the PSM, RMP and
DOT requirements? C-37
1D
Letter C continued
GeaTek,lnc_
90 East Halsey Road
Parsippany,N) 07054
(973)515-1839
• The draft EIR should be amended to address how facilities would address conflicts with 'C-38
other regulations.
• The draft EIR should be amended to address the potential that a facility will need to delay
preventive maintenance and improvement projects in order to comply with the proposed C-39
changes to•the ISO.
• The draft EIR should be amended to address the impact of the proposed changes on
security regulations and procedures. 'C-40
• The draft EIR should be amended to recognize that the proposed current 48-hour
exclusion provision is not nearly.enough time to get other contractors on board given IC-41
safety and security issues.
• The Safety Culture Assessment aspect of the proposed changes to the ISO should be
removed. If it is not removed, please explain how this requirement will be regulated. 1 C-42
The current language.in the proposed changes to the ISO should be changed to indicate
what will-be done with the information.
On behalf of the General Chemical Bay Point Works' facility, GenTek' appreciates your
consideration of these comments,and'xegiuests that any future action on the proposed ISO
amendments be postponed until all of the issues.raised within. these comments have been !C-43
resolved. I am-available to discuss-.these-comments and to respond to any questions should you
wish to speak to me. I can be reached at(973)5I5-183.9.
Sincerely,
Jeff W. Jakonczuk
Director_ of Environmental Services
I
1
12
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
LETTER C - GENTEK, INC.
Response C-I The DEIR states that the proposed ISO amendment is intended to ensure
that contractor-covered workers who are hired on special projects at the
affected facilities have the proper.training. DEIR page IV.A-17 states
that,under certain conditions,there may be insufficient CAC-approved
workers to meet the needs of the affected facilities. However, if CAC-
approved workers with the proper training are not available, exceptions
would allow the affected facilities to hire workers who are not CAC-
approved but who do have the training to perform the job safely. The
DEIR states that,because the affected facilities have strict safety
requirements and workers are screened onsite before being hired,
contractor-covered workers that are not sufficiently skilled in the
required tasks would not be hired; whether or not they are CAC-
approved. The DEIR concludes that safety would not be compromised
under the proposed amendment. The DEIR acknowledges that it is
difficult to determine how easily the exception clause could be
implemented without compromising safety,because the procedures for
complying with these exceptions are not documented in the proposed
amendment. Since the proposed amendment is not specific in the way to
implement this portion of the proposed regulation changes,the affected
facility would not be prevented from adopting safe practices when hiring
contractor-covered workers.
Response C-2 The DEIR neither condones nor objects to the adoption of the proposed
amendment. The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the
environmental impacts that could or would occur with implementation of
the proposed amendment.
Response C-3 This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response C-4 The comment implies that the DEIR supports the adoption of the
proposed amendment. The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the
environmental impacts that could or would occur with implementation of
the proposed amendment;the purpose of the DEIR is neither to support
nor oppose the proposed amendment. The comment is correct that the
DEIR states that,based on records of accidents at the affected facilities
since 1995, contractor-covered workers have rarely been involved in
these incidents. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)requires an EIR to
include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions as
it pertains to the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15125,the DEIR reported these records of accidents at affected
facilities to describe present conditions at the affected facilities. This
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-20
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
information was not intended to support or discourage the adoption of
the proposed amendment. The comment is incorrect in assuming that the
proposed amendment would force the affected facilities to replace
highly-trained and specialized contractors with CAC-approved
contractor-covered employees:Rather,the proposed amendment would
require that CAC-approved contractor-covered workers be considered
first when hiring workers for special projects. The proposed amendment
recognizes that if CAC-approved workers with the appropriate training
and experience arenot available,then other non-CAC-approved workers
with the appropriate skills could be hired,and thus, safety would be
maintained. The DEIR also recognizes that the affected facilities have
adopted practices to ensure that workers with the appropriate training and
experience are hired on special projects. However,under the current
ISO, affected facilities are not prevented from hiring unqualified
workers. .The proposed amendment would therefore provide a safety net
to ensure that only appropriately trained workers are hired. As a result,
the DEIR concludes that the implementation of the proposed amendment
would not result in a significant decrease in safety at the affected
facilities.
Response C-5 Because they are covered by the same worker pool(CAC-approved and
non-CAC-approved workers),the DEIR did include the other smaller
affected facilities in the overall environmental analysis. The County
solicited safety plans from the affected facilities; however, only safety
plans from the three larger affected facilities were submitted in response
to that solicitation. The smaller facilities are subject to similar safety
requirements, because they are Tier 3 facilities as defined in the RMP
Regulation which are subject to the proposed ISO Amendments.. The
smaller facilities face siimilar issues regarding the hiring of contractor-
covered workers for special projects. The DEIR acknowledges that,
under certain periods during peak activity there may be a shortage of
CAC-approved contractor-covered workers with the appropriate training
and experience, and such a scenario was analyzed. Because the smaller
facilities would face this same dilemma in obtaining a sufficient
workforce,the exception clause would allow any of the affected facilities
to hire other workers with the appropriate training,after a two-day
search, in order to overcome any future shortages. As stated above in
Response C-1,the DEIR acknowledges that it is difficult to determine
how easily the exception clause can be implemented,because procedures
for complying with these exceptions are not documented in the proposed
amendment. However,because an onsite screening of the contractor-
covered workers is conducted,only workers with the appropriate
training,whether CAC-approved or not,would be hired.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-21
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
The DEIR did not analyze the cost burden that the proposed amendment
may impose on the affected facilities. Such purely economic effects
cannot be treated as significant effects on the environment(CEQA
Guidelines Section 15131).
Response C-6 The EIR team met with industry representatives of the affected facilities
at the EIR team's offices in Oakland, California. The representatives of
General Chemical who were mentioned in the comment were contacted
and attended that meeting. Input and concerns on the proposed
amendment were solicited from all meeting attendees. At that time,the
General Chemical representatives did not mention the concerns that are
identified in this comment. In addition, all attendees were informed to
contact anyone on the EIR team subsequent to the meeting if additional
concerns came up. The EIR team did not receive any additional input
from General Chemical representatives.
Response C-7 The comment states that the proposed amendment would reduce the
number of competitive bids on a special project and would increase
project costs. As stated in Response C-5, economic effects cannot be
treated as significant effects on the environment(CEQA Guidelines
Section 15131). In addition,the proposed amendment would not prevent
other non-CAC-approved contractors from being hired if there is an
insufficient number of CAC-approved workers with the appropriate skills
and training. As a result,non-CAC-approved workers would not be
precluded from working on these projects if there is an insufficient
workforce of CAC-approved workers available to safely accomplish the
required work,and thus, safety at the affected facilities would not be
compromised.
Response C-8 The purpose of the EIR is to identify potential environmental impacts of
the proposed amendment; it is not required to include information
regarding any hardship that would be placed on businesses in their hiring
practices. However, similar to the larger facilities,if CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers with the required skills are not available,
then the exception clause would allow for the hiring of non-CAC-
approved workers(with the proper skills and experience).
Response C-9 The EIR team gave sufficient opportunity to representatives of the
affected facilities to express their concerns prior to conducting the
environmental analysis for the EIR.The representatives of General
Chemical who are identified in the comment were directly contacted and
their concerns were solicited. The General Chemical representatives
were also invited to meetings at the ESA offices in Oakland that were
held on January 8th,2004 and February 3rd, 2004. The meetings
included representatives of the affected facilities. At the meetings,all
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-22
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
participants were asked to report their concerns about the proposed
amendment. The General Chemical representative only identified
concern regarding the financial consequences of contracting with CAC-
approved contractor-covered workers. Such purely economic effects
cannot be treated as significant effects on the environment(CEQA
Guidelines Section 15131). However, while the representative did not
supply any data to support this concern, it was made clear that the EIR
team would gladly accept any follow-up information from the attendees
that pertain to their particular concerns. Additional information from
several attendees was received; however,none was received from
General Chemical.
Response C-10 The DEIR is a disclosure document, and it therefore identified all
attendees at the February 3,2003 meeting that was held to discuss issues
associated with the proposed amendment that could affect the affected
facilities.
Response C-11 Responses B-1,B-2,and C1 through C-9 address the concern that
implementation of the-proposed amendment could result in a decrease in
safety. It is understood that the primary concern that an affected facility
has when hiring contractor-covered workers is to maintain safety. All of
the affected facilities incorporate this factor when evaluating the skills
and experience of contractor-covered workers. As stated Responses B-1,
B-2, and C 1 through C-9, the exception clause in the proposed
amendment would allow affected facilities to hire contractor-covered
workers with the required skills and acceptable safety records. By
establishing strict requirements when hiring contractor-covered workers,
the affected facilities can eliminate those candidates that do not meet
their requirements, and can use the exception clause if there are not
sufficient CAC-approved workers for a specific project. Because of the
strict requirements established by the affected facilities and the exception
clause, implementation of the proposed amendment would not result in
decreased public safety.
Response C-12 The comment incorrectly states that the proposed amendment would
violate CEQA; the DEIR states that the impacts to safety would be less
than significant. The comment erroneously assumes that the proposed
amendment would require the replacement of all non-CAC-approved
workers who have specialized skills with CAC-approved workers who
do not have these specialized skills. However,this would not be the case
since the affected facilities would be able to hire specialized workers
with the appropriate skills if CAC-approved workers were unavailable.
In addition, the DEIR addresses possible delays that can result from
implementation of the proposed amendment.The exceptions contained in
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-23
IT.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
the proposed amendment would allow affected facilities to hire other
non-CAC-approved workers to eliminate anticipated delays. Other
highly specialized,process-specific,non-CAC-approved workers who
had been hired on past projects would not be precluded from being hired
on future projects. The proposed amendment would allow this through
the exception clause since there would be no CAC-approved workers
with this specialized training. Thus the DEIR concludes that the
proposed amendments would not result in a lack of workers with the
necessary skills and the impacts to safety would be less than significant.
Response C-13 Please see Response C-12.
Response C-14 The DEIR concludes that the proposed amendment would result in less
than significant environmental impacts. After reviewing the safety
records of the affected facilities and the training programs for CAC-
approved contractor-covered workers,the DEIR concludes that, with the
inclusion of the exception clause,the proposed amendment would not
result in significant public safety impacts. In general,the safety record is
likely to not change significantly from present conditions.
Response C-15 Please see Response C-14.
Response C-16 Although the proposed amendment would initially limit the contractor
pool to CAC-approved workers in the three local counties(Contra Costa,
Alameda,and Solano), it would not limit the hiring of other out of area
workers if a sufficient workforce with the appropriate training and skills
could not be hired within that area. In addition,the proposed amendment
would not discriminate against non-union workers. It would only limit
the initial workforce to those who have received CAC-approved training.
Not all CAC-approved training programs are for union workers. Other
non-union programs are not excluded from getting CAC-approval, if they
are not already approved.
In addition,the proposed amendment includes non-CAC-approved
workers through the exception clause which would allow for the hiring
of other workers that are not CAC-approved but that meet the skills
requirements of the specific projects, if there was not a sufficient
workforce with the appropriate training. Also,DEIR Chapter V,
Alternatives proposes a number of other training programs that could be
included in other versions of the proposed amendment,which could
increase the worker pool available for special projects.
Response C-17 Please see Response C-12.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-24
Ii.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response C-18 The assumption in the comment that the proposed amendment would
discourage future industrial base expansion in the area is not supported
by.fact and represents the opinion of the commenter. In addition, such
purely economic effects cannot be treated as significant effects on the
environment(CEQA Guidelines Section 15131).
Response C-19 The proposed amendment would not result in any hindrance to the
implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals
standard(1910.119)or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Risk
Management Plan requirements. The proposed amendment would not
prevent affected facilities from hiring specialists who are needed to
maximize safety on special projects. If there is not a sufficient number of
CAC-approved contractor-covered workers available with the
appropriate skills and experience to maintain safety,the exception clause
included in the proposed amendment would allow the facility to hire
other specialists that are not CAC-approved. Both the two working day
exception and the emergency exception would allow the affected
facilities to hire workers(CAC-approved or non-CAC-approved)with
the appropriate skills on a short-term or long-term basis.
Response C-20 Each affected facility has its own guidelines and requirements for hiring
contractor-covered workers, whether the workers are CAC-approved or
not. If prospective workers do not meet the facilities' hiring guidelines
and requirements, the affected facility is not required to hire the
candidate. The exception clause contained in the proposed amendment
would allows the affected facilities to hire non-CAC-approved workers if
the CAC-approved workers do not meet the training required for the
specific task. The proposed amendment would not result in any
hindrance to the implementation of other regulations that pertain to an
affected facility, such as the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration(OSHA)Process Safety Management of Highly
Hazardous Chemicals standard(1910.119)or the Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA)Risk Management Plan requirements.
Response C-21 Regardless of whether the proposed amendment is implemented,the
human factor issue will always be an issue in the process hazard analysis.
This is usually minimized by the strict requirements established by the
affected facilities when hiring contractor-covered workers. Since
experience is one of the criteria used by the affected facility when hiring
contractor-covered workers,then CAC-approved workers with the
appropriate training and skills could be hired,and if a sufficient number
could not be found,the exception clause contained within the proposed
amendment would allow the affected facility to hire non-CAC-approved
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-25
i
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
workers that meet the criteria. Consequently, there is no evidence that
safety would be decreased with implementation of the proposed
amendment.
Response C-22 It is recognized that there are currently programs in place at the affected
facilities to ensure that contractor-covered workers who are hired meet
the skills and safety requirements for their projects. However,the
proposed amendment could provide an additional safety net by requiring
contractor-covered workers to be trained in certain basic skills
established by the CAC training program.
Response C-23 The DEIR acknowledges that in order to comply with the proposed
amendment,the affected facilities could be required to perform
additional work. Such purely economic effects cannot be treated as
significant effects on the environment(CEQA Guidelines Section
15131). Adding a Security Vulnerability Assessment requirement would
provide an additional check to ensure that safety is maximized when
contractor-covered workers are hired and perform work activities. With
the proper resources applied to this effort by the affected facilities,there
would be little additional time added to the selection of contractor-
covered workers. In addition, considering the concerns for vulnerability
of the affected facilities,the additional Security Vulnerability
Assessment would help ensure safety at the affected facilities and would
support DOT security regulations and existing ISO regulations.
Response C-24 The 48-hour exception provision is a minimum time required before
hiring other-non CAC-approved contractor-covered workers. If needed,
the exception would allow for more time to hire contractor-covered
workers.The DEIR acknowledges that implementation of this exception
may require additional work for the affected facilities. However,this
additional work could be factored into the contracting process by the
affected facilities when establishing schedules.Any economic effects on
the affected facilities that could result cannot be treated as significant
effects on the environment(CEQA Guidelines Section 15131).
Response C-25 Because the proposed amendment would help to ensure that properly-
trained contractor-covered workers are hired on special projects at the
affected facilities, it would not result in any conflict with the safety
requirements required by the regulations cited in the comment. As stated
in Response C-23,the proposed amendment would complement other
safety-related regulations cited in the comment and if the proposed
amendment would result in delays in the completion of a project that
could compromise safety, additional resources could be applied by the
affected facility to eliminate these delays or the exception clause could
be utilized to hire contractor-covered workers where needed. As a result,
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-26
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
the proposed amendment would not conflict with other safety-related
regulations.
Response C-26 The comment is incorrect in stating that the DEIR supports the proposed
amendment. The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the
environmental impacts that could or would occur with implementation of
the proposed amendment; the purpose of the DEIR is neither to support
nor oppose the proposed amendment. The DEIR concluded that there
would be a less than significant impact to the environment under the
proposed ordinance. The concerns expressed in this comment are
discussed further in Responses C-27 through C-37, below.
Response C-27 The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts
that could or would occur with implementation of the proposed
amendment as proposed by the County. This EIR cannot make a
determination regarding the reasons behind the County's decision to
propose the amendment.
Response C=28 Please see Response C-27.
Response C-29 The potential impact that the proposed amendment would place on
smaller affected facilities,which is referred to in the comment, is an
economic effect,which cannot be treated as a significant effect on the
environment(CEQA Guidelines Section 15131).
Response C-30 Please.see Response C-29.
Response C-31 The DEIR addressed environmental impacts that could result from
implementation of the proposed amendment at all currently affected
facilities(both large and small)as well as for facilities that could be
affected in the future. The EIR team contacted and/or met with
representatives from all of the current affected facilities.
Response C-32 Please see Response C-27.
Response C-33 The proposed amendment would not entirely preclude the affected
facilities from using contractor-covered workers who are not CAC-
approved. As stated in response to other comments, such as Response C-
20,the exception clause contained in the proposed amendment would
allow affected facilities to hire non-CAC-approved workers that have the
proper skills if CAC-approved workers with the appropriate skills are not
available or in cases of emergency.
Response C-34 The proposed amendment does not state the reason for limiting CAC-
approved workers that could be hired to Solano, Contra Costa,and
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-27
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Alameda Counties and the DEIR cannot make a determination as to a
reason. However, one reason could be that the purpose was to encourage
the hiring of local workers,which is often specified on other construction
projects. In addition,as stated in Response C-27,the EIR cannot make a
determination regarding the reasons behind specific items in the
proposed amendment.
Response C-35 The DEIR states that, under the proposed amendment,projects could be
delayed if there are insufficient contractor-covered workers available for
a project. The DEIR also acknowledges that such delays can be
eliminated by utilizing the exception clause contained in the proposed
amendment. Hence delays that could compromise safety or could result
in increased emissions from the facility would be eliminated, and there
would be no increase in emissions and no decreased safety and the
affected facilities.
Response C-36 Please see Response C-20.
Response C-37 The County sent the DEIR to the State,requesting comments from the
various departments, including the Office of Emergency Services (OES)
which oversees the California Accidental Release Prevention Program
and the Department of Industrial Relations that oversees OSHA's
Process Safety Management for the affected facilities.
Response C-38 Please see Response C-20.
Response C-39 DEIR Chapter IV.A,Public Safety and Hazards addresses the possibility
of delays to future preventative maintenance and improvement projects
at the affected facilities. The DEIR states that the exception clause,
which is included in the proposed amendment,would allow affected
facilities to hire other non-CAC-approved workers in the required trades
in order to minimize these delays.
Response C40 Since contractor-covered workers,by definition are outside contractors,
the same strict security procedures would be used when hiring them for
special projects whether or not they are CAC-approved. The proposed
amendment would not result in any changes to these existing security
procedures.
Response C-41 Please see Response C-24.
Response C-42 By using the term"Safety Culture", it is assumed that the commenter is
referring to item(4)(C),Contractor Safety Record of the proposed
amendment.The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the
environmental impacts that could or would occur with implementation of
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-28
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
the proposed amendment as proposed by the County. The comment does
not pertain to an environmental effect or to the adequacy of the DEIR,
and an EIR cannot remove or add language to the proposed ordinance; it
can simply evaluate the environmental impacts that may occur from its
implementation as it is currently proposed.
Response C-43 This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-29
4k% Letter D
Associated Builders and Contractors
IRE Golden Gate Chapter
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS ' 1
AND CONTRACTORS,INC.
GOLDEN GATE CHAPTER
November 10, 2004
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Attn: Patrick Roche
4th Floor North Wing
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA'94553
Dear Sir or Madam:
Below are comments about the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
amendment to the Industrial Safety Ordinance for Contra Costa County. Answers to
these comments could result is significant changes to the draft EIR.
The Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors represents more than D-1
500 predominately non-union contractors in the Northern California construction
industry, including most of the non-union contractors performing industrial construction
in the East Bay. The Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors
operates state-approved apprenticeship programs in several trades.
Definition and Existence of"Unorganized" Labor Hiring Facilities
Page I-3 states that"a series of meetings were held with the key parties" including"the j
Independent contractor associations that supply non-union labor." First, these
associations do not"supply" labor—they do not operate as employment agencies or a D-2
hiring hall modeled after unions. The EIR needs to clarify the definition of
"unorganized" labor hiring facilities as referenced in the draft amendment and determine
if such facilities even exist.
Incomplete Sources and NCCER-Accredited Training
The only representative of contractors using non-union labor that is cited in the report as .I
a source is TIMEC. The Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors
was not contacted, nor were any individual companies besides TIMEC that employ non- I D-3
union labor, nor was the Construction Craft Training Center, which trains many refinery
workers with the NCCER curriculum. This lack of sources may explain why Table
4309 Hacienda Drive, Suite 500 • Pleasanton, California 94588
Tel (925) 474-1300 • Fox (9251474-13 10 • www.abc.org/gate
Associated Builders and Contractors Draft EIR Response Letter D continued
Page 2
IV-A.4 seems to have numerous inaccuracies in the column regarding so-called CCA
training. The National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) is not D-3.
cited as a source; the authors of the EIR need to contact the NCCER directly and
determine the extent of accrediting training for various trades in California. cont.
Percentages of Local Workers Not Based on Actual Data
The estimated percentage for local contract workers that is used to.develop conclusions 1
for IV.B (Population and.Housing and Public Services and Recreation) has very weak
underpinnings. It was not based on actual data collected through a survey of workers.
The 2003 study on local hiring prepared by the Department of City and Regional D-4
Planning at the University of California at Berkeley was based on an arbitrary computer
model and assumptions based on an outdated and biased 1989 study prepared by the
union-connected Center for Labor Education and Research, in which researchers claimed
to collect information by—among other methods—tracking vehicle license plates.
Number of Workers Never Considered
The draft EIR lists "hours of contractor-covered-labor" in Table MA-2 and cites
estimated percentages of so-called CAC-approved labor. Never once does the draft EIR 1
try to determine the actual number of workers who would be affected by the proposed
amendment. Without such information, how can the EIR make any valid conclusions
regarding impacts on population, housing, public services, etc.? D-5
The EIR should reflect the impacts of the full elimination of 60 to 70 percent of the
workforce from refinery contract work, if the estimate on page IV.A-8 is correct that 30
to 40 percent of the total number of contract workers are not graduates of a"bona fide"
apprenticeship program approved by the California Apprenticeship Council.
Residency Requirement Does Not Exist
The EIR mistakenly and repeatedly states that the amendment would restrict contract
employees working at County ISO-covered stationary sources to residents of Contra
Costa, Alameda, and Solano Counties. In actuality, the amendment would require 'D-6
contractors to obtain workers from "labor hiring facilities in Contra Costa, Alameda, or
Solano Counties." Residency is never mentioned. j
Relationship Between Labor Hiring Facilities and Local Labor.
The EIR needs to clarify the relationship between labor hiring facilities and local labor.
For unions, dispatching a worker from a"local" labor hiring facility does not necessarily ID-7
mean that the worker is"local." How do these labor hiring facilities work? What are
i
Letter D continued
Associated Builders and Contractors Draft EIR Response
Page 3
their rules for dispatching workers? What is their definition of"local?" Under what
conditions can organized labor hiring facilities dispatch workers from out of the area? If
a worker lives in Marin, Napa, or San Joaquin Counties, would he be required to move
his residence to Contra Costa, Alameda, or Solano Counties in order to have the labor D-7
hiring facilities in Contra Costa, Alameda, or Solano Counties dispatch him? For that cont.
matter, how many contract workers live in Marin,Napa, or San Joaquin Counties, and
why aren't they considered "local?" Answers to these questions could significantly
impact population and housing and need to be considered in the EIR.
Availability of Apprenticeship Training Needs Further Investigation
The EIR needs to list the apprenticeship programs by trade approved by the California
Apprenticeship Council to train workers in Contra Costa, Alameda, or Solano Counties. j
Is there enough choice and competition among programs to provide training opportunities j
for the future workforce, or do these programs have long waiting lists for entry into the D-8
programs? For example, the Operating Engineers Local 03 apprenticeship program
serving all of California has 1,721 people on its waiting list, according to an article in the
August 27, 2004 Sacramento Business Journal. Limits on training opportunities could i
cause delays and thus impact safety, and this should be considered in the EIR.
Superfluous County Restrictions on State-Approved Apprenticeship Programs
The EIR needs to recognize and consider the impact of the distinction between state-
approved apprenticeship programs and "bona fide apprenticeship programs,"a status
which is defined in the proposed amendment but not recognized in the California Labor
Code. For many trades, a newly-approved apprenticeship program would need to operate I D-9
for nine years before the program would comply with the requirements in the
amendment: five years for the first class of apprentices to complete the program and then ,
four more years to graduate apprentices in each of the most recent five years. This would
seem to be an additional restriction on the workforce that was not considered in the EIR.
Where Does Skills Testing and Training Occur?
The draft EIR does not consider the traffic impact of workers taking a skills test or
obtaining training from facilities operated by "bona fide"apprenticeship programs. For
example, the only state-approved apprenticeship program for Operating Engineers has its D-10
training facility in Rancho Murieta. How much additional traffic will be generated by
contract workers seeking eligible training under this proposed amendment?
I
Meeting Graduation Requirements But Working for an Ineligible Contractor
Letter D .continued
Associated Builders and Contractors Draft EIR Response
Page 4
The report refers to CAC-covered workers and CCA-covered workers, apparently
referring respectively to workers who have graduated from a "bona fide". apprenticeship
program and workers who obtained training from NCCER-approved programs. How D_11
many workers have graduated from a"bona fide" apprenticeship program but work for a
company that does not have an agreement with a "bond fide" apprenticeship program?
These workers would be ineligible to work under this proposed amendment.
Do the Tests Exist?
What tests for which trades have been approved by the California Apprenticeship Council
and can be administered by an accredited four-year or two-year public college with D-12
adequate facilities for both the written and manual portions of that test? This is a basis
for equivalent training as stated in the proposed amendment.
Counting Error
i
Page MA-9 states that "As Indicated in Table IV.A-3, of the 28 reported incidents..."
Actually, Table IV.A-3 lists 30 reported incidents. D-13
Sincerely,
y=...
feev—in C. Dayton
Vice President of Government Affairs
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
LETTER D - ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS
Response D-1 Comment noted.
Response D-2 The DEIR does not state on page I-3 that the Independent Contractors
Alliance acts as an employment agency or a hiring hall, as the comment
implies. Rather,the DEIR regards the independent contractors alliance as
a consortium of specialized contractors that are involved in heavy
construction and plant maintenance,principally for the refinery and
petrochemical industries. The DEIR goes on to say on page IV.A-4 that
the Alliance relies on facilities,such as the TIMEC Facility,to train
workers who represent the Alliance.
Response D-3 The DEIR did not cover all non-union labor sources for the affected
.facilities. However, it did cover the CCA,which is the principle
consortium representing mostly non-union labor for the affected
facilities, especially for jobs involving workers associated with Level 3
facilities,as defined by the California Accidental Release Prevention
(CalARP)Program. These facilities handle acutely hazardous substances
and are under the jurisdiction of the ISO. The DEIR described the
training program for the TIMEC facility,because it is the principal
training facility for these non-union workers. TIMEC is a CCA affiliate
and is accredited by the NCCER. The information reported in DEIR
Table IV.A-4,which was referred to in the comment, was obtained from
representatives of the CCA,and it accurately represents the principal
skills provided by these contractor-covered workers associated with
hazardous materials. While not all non-union labor would involve
workers aligned with the CCA,a considerable portion of the work
would.
Response D-4 The DEIR relied on data available regarding the estimate of local
contract workers,which is the UC Berkeley Study referred to in the
comment. Since the study focused on the same facilities covered under
the proposed amendment, it reasonably represents contract worker
conditions in the local area. To carry out a study suggested in the
comment would require a long and detailed work program that would not
significantly affect the analysis for this EIR,which is focused on
environmental impacts;not socioeconomic impacts.
Response D-5 The DEIR relied on the data sources that were available to estimate
contractor-covered labor on past projects at the affected facilities. This
included data received from the CAC-approved workers(the Labor
Unions), from the CCA(nonunion labor), and from the three large
affected refineries.As stated in the DEIR,the data from the three sources
was for different years and was contained in different formats. With this
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-34
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
type of variability, it was not possible to determine precisely the actual
labor pool that was provided to the refineries. However, it was possible
to use this data to assess trends in the use of contractor-covered workers
at the affected facilities. This data was sufficient to assess impacts that
could result from implementation of the proposed amendment, as
required by CEQA. Conducting a separate study, as suggested by the
commenter would require an extensive and time consuming effort and
would not considerably affect the main purpose of the EIR, which is to
assess environmental impacts.
Response D-6 We agree that the proposed amendment specifies that trained workers be
obtained from labor hiring facilities in Contra Costa, Alameda, and
Solano Counties. The text on page IV.13-3 of the EIR has been changed
to state this. However, it can be assumed that a large portion of the
workers are residents of the three county area, since Page IV.13-3 of the
DEIR states that the 2000 census data indicates that Contra Costa County
residents comprise approximately 76 percent of total workers employed
within the County. In addition, see Response C-16.
Response D-7 Response D-6 identifies the part of the proposed amendment that defines
local labor. This definition does not specify the residence of the labor
force. It only specifies the locations of the labor hiring facilities or
offices as being local. The DEIR doers not carry out an exhaustive
analysis of the residences of the CAC-approved labor pool, since it
would not significantly affect impacts on the environment. In addition,
the DEIR concluded that,under worst case conditions when the labor
demand is the greatest,there would not be a sufficient labor force of
CAC-approved contractor-covered workers,and that other non-CAC-
approved workers would also need to be hired. This condition would be
similar to earlier conditions when the facilities had high contractor-
covered labor demands,and the proposed amendments were not in effect.
As a result,the scenario described by the comment would be similar to
the maximum condition described in the DEIR,and the impacts to
population and housing would be similar to existing conditions,which is
operation without the proposed.amendment.
Response D-8 The DEIR recognizes that there would not be a sufficient workforce of
CAC-approved contractor-covered labor to supply the needs of the
affected facilities under maximum demand conditions.The DEIR states
that,because of the exception clause that is contained in the proposed
amendment,a sufficient workforce of non-CAC-approved workers could
be utilized to satisfy the shortfall,which would eliminate the delays
mentioned in the comment. The DEIR also suggests a number of
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-35
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
alternative training programs that could be CAC-approved and that could
satisfy the shortfall.
Response D-9 The intent of the apprenticeship program referred to in the proposed
amendment is to ensure that there is adequate training to meet the high
demands for complex processes involving hazardous substances at the
affected facilities.The California Labor Code is more general and would
apply to other system that may not necessarily be as complex or may not
involve hazardous substances. Although this may be an additional
restriction on the workforce, it is geared to assure adequate training for
the type of work required. As stated in several responses, including in the
general response, if the requirements would add restrictions on the
workforce,the exception clause would allow the affected facilities to hire
additional contractor-covered workers who may not be CAC-approved.
Response D-10 Depending on the skills being sought by trainees, there are a number of
different training programs that can supply training considered as CAC-
approved. Several of these programs are discussed on DEIR pages
IV.A-3 and IV.A-4.
Response D-11 The proposed amendment defines eligible contractor-covered workers as
apprentices receiving training under a CAC-approved program. The
comment is correct that apprentices who have not received training from
a CAC-approved program would not be eligible at first-pass. However,
the exception clause contained in the proposed amendment would allow
these apprentices to be hired if they have the appropriate training and
skills needed to meet the needs of the affected facility,given certain
conditions defined in the exception clause. Given these conditions, such
candidates would not be excluded, and therefore,safety at the affected
facilities would not be reduced as a result of implementation of the
proposed amendment. -
Response D-12 The tests and qualifications that have been approved by the CAC can
vary considerably,depending on the skills involved. However,to be
approved by the CAC, such training and testing requirements would have
to be equivalent to those programs already approved by the CAC.
Response D-13 The comment is correct that there are 30 incidents identified on DEIR
Table IV.A-3.The text in the EIR has been changed to reflect this
comment(see Chapter III, Text Changes to the Draft EIR). However,the
statement in the DEIR,that only one incident involved contractor-
covered workers,is still correct.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-36
NGHAM MCCUTCHEN
Letter E
Geoffrey L.Robinson
Direct Phone: (925)975-5335
Direct Fax: (925)975-5390
geo ffre y.rob inson@bingham c om
Our File No.: 0000305412
November 12, 2004
HAND DELIVERY
Patrick Roche
Principal Planner,Advanced Planning
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street,4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553 —
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Proposed
Amendments to The Contra Costa County Industrial
Safety Ordinance(SCH#2003042011) cn
Dear Mr. Roche:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the proposed amendments to the Industrial Safety Ordinance(ISO).
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Committee for Industrial Safety,
whose members include the three refineries that will be subject to the ISO
amendments if adopted. As indicated in Sandy Skaggs' October 15 letter to j E-1
Dennis Barry,we have attempted to coordinate the individual comments of the
three refineries in order to minimize duplication and ensure that substantive
comments are provided. To this end, we are enclosing several individual
continent letters and declarations from refinery representatives and experts -
(discussed and listed below). We urge the County to consider all of the individual
comments submitted.
Our specific comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report("EIR') are
provided below. In summary, the numerous environmental issues we identified in
our comments on the formerly proposed negative declaration for this project have
not been analyzed or even mentioned. Nor has the EIR acknowledged or assessed ;
.the significant information regarding potential impacts that was provided by the I E-2
refineries to the County and the preparers of the EIR(Environmental Science
Associates)at their specific request. In addition, the EIR is fatally defective in
numerous respects,including its failure to adequately describe or characterize the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed action or to properly assess
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 2
alternatives. These deficiencies must be addressed, and the EIR substantially E-2
redrafted and recirculated, if the requirements of CEQA are to be met.
cont.
I. BACKGROUND
This EIR is part of an environmental review process that began over two years
ago.
A. Negative Declaration and Submittals
Although the EIR nowhere mentions this,the County originally proposed to adopt
the ISO amendments on the basis of a negative declaration. The County
circulated the proposed negative declaration in October 2002. The negative
declaration failed to assess the potential impacts from the ISO amendments. It
failed even to recognize—much less analyze from an environmental perspective— E-3
the potential impacts of delays in refinery maintenance and operations resulting
from the restrictions on the available labor pool. It also failed to acknowledge
and assess the impact of restricting the facilities' ability to use the best qualified
and most experienced workers. On the contrary,the negative declaration
concluded,without any support, that the proposed changes would increase safety
at refineries and other affected facilities.'
In response to the proposed negative declaration,we submitted extensive
comments in a letter dated October 25,2002. A copy of this letter is attached as
Attachment 1. In this letter, we pointed out that the conclusion in the negative
declaration that the proposed changes would increase safety at affected facilities
was entirely unsupported by any evidence and contradicted by the findings of the j
County Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board(PEHAB) and the
Planning and Policy Development Committee of the County Hazardous Materials E-4
Commission(HMC),both of which found no evidence that the amendments
would improve safety.
We also pointed to substantial evidence in the record(including evidence
submitted to HMC and PEHAB, letters,declarations,and other materials) that the
proposed amendments were likely to decrease safety at affected facilities.
I
Any suggestion that the proposed ISO amendments would result in a net
a�
increase in safety is notably absent from the EIR.
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 3
We also submitted substantial evidence that the restrictions on the labor pool
imposed by the ISO amendments could have additional environmental impacts
caused by delays in completing refinery turnarounds and scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance activities. We cited specific environmental impacts that
could occur from such delays, including increased transportation risks and
environmental hazards from transportation of residuals and hazardous wastes;
increases in emissions of oxides of nitrogen and/or sulfur dioxide; and disruption
in the supply of reformulated or"clean"fuels, which could necessitate the use of
unreformulated fuels or importation of fuels from other states, with the attendant
risks.
i
Notwithstanding these and other submittals in response to the negative declaration
demonstrating the existence of potentially significant environmental impacts, the
County proceeded in reliance on the negative declaration, and the proposed ISO
amendments were scheduled for adoption by the County Board of Supervisors on
November 12,2002. In response,we and other parties submitted extensive
analysis, commentary and evidence to the Board in a letter and attachments dated
November 11,2002(a copy of which is attached as Attachment 2). These
submittals included additional evidence on the potential adverse safety impacts of E-4
the proposed action.
cont.
This evidence included the declaration of Dr. Jay Finkelman, an industrial and
forensic psychologist and Certified Professional Ergonomist,who had analyzed
the proposed amendments from a worker performance and safety perspective. He
concluded that(1)the requirement that contractor employees be trained in
programs approved by the California Apprenticeship Council ("CAC")imposed
an artificial restriction unrelated to safety and, in fact,was likely to be
counterproductive to any legitimate safety objective; (2)by limiting the pool of
qualified workers,the proposed ISO amendments would force employers to dig
deeper into the pool of potential applicants,which typically entails a degradation
of the average skill level of the work force; and(3)restricting access to qualified
workers would"be detrimental to the qualification process and is likely to impede
overall safety"at refineries.
Dr. Finkelman's conclusions were supported by cited studies, reports and articles
included in the record demonstrating the link between specific work experience
and safety in the petrochemical industry. These conclusions were further
reinforced by numerous declarations included in the submittal from refinery
personnel and contractors regarding the potential impact of the restrictions on
refinery turnarounds and maintenance activities. These declarations pointed out
that: f
l
J,
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 4
(a) Because of the specialized and intricate nature of the
work involved,refinery maintenance and tumarounds
require highly skilled labor with substantial expertise,
experience and specific safety training, and that many
or most of the workers with these skills reside outside
of California and/or are not apprentices or graduates
of CAC-approved programs; E-4
(b) Limiting the labor pool by requiring that the workers cont.
be CAC-trained and that the labor supply within
Solan, Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties be
exhausted would disqualify the majority of workers
with the most expertise, experience and safety
training in refinery tumarounds; and
(c) Mandating use of workers with little or no refinery-
specific training,experience or qualifications would
inevitably decrease rather than increase safety.
In addition to the substantial evidence regarding the potential safety impacts of
the ISO amendments,we submitted evidence demonstrating that the amendments
would likely result in substantial delays in refinery maintenance and scheduled
refinery turnaround projects. This evidence included declarations from refinery
personnel and refinery contractors, as well as from John Sakamoto,an expert in
refinery operations and safety issues. This evidence demonstrated that delays
would almost certainly result,from both the lack of available labor meeting the
requirements of the ISO amendments and the confusing and possibly conflicting
provisions of the amendments.
The same evidence demonstrated that delays, in tum,could have numerous
adverse environmental impacts,including the following: E-5
(a) Delays in maintaining units that limit nitrous oxides
(NOx), such as selective catalytic reduction and ultra-
low NOx burner systems,could result in excess NOx
emissions into the atmosphere over limits allowed by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD);
I
(b) Delays in maintaining units that limit sulfur dioxides
and sulfur trioxides could result in excess sulfur oxide
(SOx) emissions into the atmosphere over BAAQMD
permitted limits;
I
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 5
(c) Delays resulting in extended shutdowns could restrict
the supply of gasoline and diesel fuels in Northern
California and throughout the state;
(d) Delays in repair and maintenance work could cause a
refinery to run out of storage capacity for residuals,
which would make it necessary to transport the excess
residuals by ship, truck, rail or pipeline, hence
increasing transportation risks and environmental
impacts;
(e) Delays resulting in a shutdown of refinery process E-5
units—including units that handle hazardous waste—
cont.
would create a need to transport such wastes off-site
for disposal, hence creating additional transportation
risks and environmental hazards;
(f) Delays could also cause a shutdown of acid
regeneration facilities,requiring transportation of
spent acids,which would also increase transportation
risks and environmental hazards; and
(g) Delays in refinery operations could result in increased
production and use of non-reformulated gasolines,
which would increase automobile emissions and
adversely affect air quality.
None of this evidence was contradicted or undermined by anything in the record
before the Board. On the basis of this and other substantial evidence in the
record,we and others asserted that the proposed ISO amendments could not E-6
legally be adopted without preparation and certification of a full EIR that
thoroughly assessed the potential environmental impacts and analyzed mitigation
measures and alternatives.
B. Decision to Prepare EIR; Further Submittals
At the Board of Supervisors meeting of December 4,2002,the County staff
recommended preparation of an EIR, reversing its prior recommendation that the
Board rely on the negative declaration. In response,the Board unanimously voted
to order preparation of an EIR. E-7
i
The County retained Environmental Science Associates(ESA) to prepare the EIR.
In December 2003 and January 2004, the County and ESA requested substantial
I
Letter E continued
Patiick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 6
information from the three affected refineries regarding their contractor/worker
needs, worker training and qualification requirements and contracting practices,
as well as the potential impacts-of the ISO amendments on refinery operations.
In response, we submitted extensive written information, supplemented by E-7
information provided by refinery safety personnel at meetings with ESA and cont.
County staff, regarding the adverse impacts of the ISO amendments on refinery
operations and the potential environmental impacts that could result.
C. The Draft EIR
In light of this background,we were astonished to discover when we reviewed the
Draft EIR that none of the above environmental issues had been dealt with in any
detail. The EIR ignores virtually all of this information. The.EIR does not
describe or analyze the probable effects on the refineries' ability to use the most
qualified,experienced workers. It does not assess the effects of artificial E_g
limitations on the labor pool and the qualitative impacts on skills and safety raised
by Dr. Finkelman and the scientific literature. Although obliquely acknowledging
that delays would result from the amendments, it does not evaluate the frequency
or extent of such delays; and it wholly fails even to acknowledge—much less
assess—the numerous potential individual or cumulative environmental impacts
that could result from such delays.
The EIR acknowledges the requirement in Section 15123 of the CEQA
Guidelines to include"f a]reas of controversy known to the lead agency including
issues raised by agencies in the public." It states that known areas of controversy
for the proposed project include concerns related to public safety; specifically,
whether the amendment would lead to a greater risk of accidental release and j
accidents at the affected facilities. But the EIR nowhere mentions the other areas j
of controversy raised during the proceedings to date, including the very concerns E_9
about environmental impacts that prompted the preparation of this EIR �
The failure of the EIR even to mention any of these issues is mystifying and
i
renders it entirely inadequate as a decision-making tool. As discussed more fully
below, the EIR must fully address each of the project's potential impacts,
including an analysis of their likelihood and severity, an assessment of available
mitigation measures, and a thorough analysis of alternatives.
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 7
II. FAILURE TO PROPERLY DESCRIBE OR ASSESS
EFFECTS OF THE ISO AMENDMENTS ON
CONTRACTOR AND WORKER SELECTION AND
USE
As described in detail in the information submitted to the County in 2002, to ESA
and the County earlier this year, and in the attached documents, the proposed
amendments would impose numerous restrictions and requirements—' including
limitations on the contractors and workers the refineries may use—many of which
are entirely irrelevant to safety and some of which are more likely to increase than
decrease safety risks. These restrictions and requirements are not adequately
described in the EIR, and hence it is not possible to gauge, on the basis of the
EIR's analysis,what impacts may result.
The practical effects of the ISO amendments(to the extent we understand them)
on the refineries may be summarized as follows:
• Many of the contractors best qualified to perform refinery
maintenance and turnaround work employ workers from outside of
Contra Costa, Alameda and Solano counties or outside of
California, or workers who are not graduates or apprentices of
CAC-approved programs.
• Refineries will be forced to terminate long-standing
relationships with contractors with whom they are familiar and I E-10
whose work and skills they trust because the contractors' labor
pools do not qualify under the ISO amendments. Refineries will
be forced to replace these contractors with contractors and j
workers who have no site- and equipment-specific experience,
and with whom refineries have no experience and/or no basis for
evaluating their refinery-specific skills and safety attributes.
• The proposed ISO amendments would render ineligible for work
on refinery turnarounds,projects and maintenance a large
portion of an already very limited labor pool with the skills,
experience, expertise and safety training required for this work—
solely because they have not completed, and are not engaged in, !
apprenticeship programs approved by the CAC.
• The proposed ISO amendments further restrict the potential
labor pool by requiring contractors to attempt for two days to
hire apprentices or journeymen from CAC-approved programs j
from labor hiring facilities in three Bay Area counties.
i
I
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 8
• The combination of these restrictions will artificially and
detrimentally limit the pool of qualified labor. Limiting the
potential labor pool will require contractors to dig deeper into
the pool of applicants or prospects, which will lower the average
skill level of the selected workforce at refineries.
• The amendments will also restrict the ability of refineries to use E-10
workers trained in multiple or cross-fields, such as refinery cont.
mechanics. Using workers trained in such cross-.or blended
fields allows refineries to use workers with greater flexibility
and to have a smaller, more experienced workforce with better
communication skills. The workforce is thereby more cohesive,
knowledgeable and efficient. This translates into better safety.
These efficiencies and enhanced performance and safety
features will be diminished if the amendments take effect.
;The EIR contains no analysis of the nature, magnitude or impacts of the above
restrictions on the available labor pool. There is no discussion of the current i
system or modes of contracting by the covered facilities. Nor does the EIR even
indicate what the mix of union and non-union contractors has historically been in E-11
the covered facilities. How, under these circumstances, can the EIR possibly
assess the potential impacts of the ISO amendments on facility operations,the
`potential delays or disruption of such operations,and/or the safety impacts?
Additionally, the EIR does not discuss at all how covered contractors select and
employ the workers who perform work at the covered facilities. Again,how is it E-12
possible to assess the potential impacts of the ISO amendments without an
accurate and thorough understanding of these matters?
There is,similarly,no discussion whatsoever regarding the ability of contractors
(whether union or non-union)to meet the requirements of the ISO. For example,
contrary to what is apparently assumed in the EIR, the fact that labor is"union-
provided"(see, e.g., Table IV.A-2)does not mean that such labor satisfies the 'E-13
requirements of the ISO amendments. Membership in the union does not, for
example,mean(1)that the worker meets the requirements of CAC-approved
training;or(2)that the worker is from a labor hiring facility in Alameda, Contra j
Costa or Solano Counties(or even the State of California).
After the first three years of adoption of the ISO amendments, covered contractors
would be required to employ only CAC-approved workers or workers who had ! E-14
"obtained a certificate of equivalent training." How is such a certificate obtained?
Do the qualifications for obtaining such a certificate equate to those for CAC
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 9
approval? From what sources is such a certificate available? How many workers E-14
with the requisite experience and skills have such certificates? ! cont.
The ISO amendments require contractors to use CAC-trained workers from labor
hiring facilities in Contra Costa, Alameda, and Solano Counties. But the EIR
nowhere indicates how, if at all, this requirement is tied to the objectives of the
amendments. What effect, if.any, does this requirement have on achieving the
objective of ensuring that workers are trained to achieve the highest possible level E-15
of safety and achieving and maintaining a reduction in accidents at the affected
facilities? Is there any evidence to indicate that CAC-trained workers hired from
labor facilities in these three counties are safer than similarly trained workers
hired from, for example, Santa Clara or San Francisco Counties? Are there any
non-union labor hiring facilities in these three counties? If not, how can a non-
union contractor obtain labor for refinery work? Does this effectively render non-
union contractors ineligible for refinery work?
The limitation to workers from labor hiring facilities from only three counties will
almost certainly result in an inadequate workforce being available to the covered
facilities. However,the extent of the impact is entirely unknown from the EIR,
since no information is included regarding what these facilities are,where they 1 E-16
are, what kinds of skilled workers are available from them, and whether they are
capable of meeting the needs of the covered facilities. It is impossible to tell from
the EIR whether these facilities can supply even 10%,of the labor needs. Without
this information,how can decision-makers or the public assess the potential
impacts of the measure and weigh them against perceived benefits?
The EIR provides information on estimated contractor hours expended on j
previous projects in 1994, 1995 and 1996 at the covered facilities. It states that
the source of this information was"the trade unions." It then compares this
information with estimated contractor hours from the three refineries from the
years 200I, 2002,and 2003. Were the union-provided hours limited to work in
the three refineries,or were these hours for work in all covered facilities? If the
latter,then how is there any validity to this comparison? More generally, why did-
the EIR find it necessary to compare hours information from 1994 through 1996
with hours information for 2001 through 2003? What efforts were made to obtain I E-17
information from the trade unions regarding union hours for 2001 through 2003,
which would appear to be the most relevant period? If such information exists
(from the trade unions or from other sources),why was it not included in the EIR?
The ETR acknowledges that since the hours data did not cover the same years,a j
direct comparison of labor usage could not be made and therefore only
approximations could be made to characterize trends in the hiring of workers on i
past projects. The EIR provides no explanation as to why it chose to proceed on
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 10
the basis of this limited and incompatible data on one of the central issues raised E-17
by the ISO amendments. 1 cont.
The ISO amendments contain several provisions that are either ambiguous on
their face or as applied. The EIR does not identify or describe these ambiguities
or attempt to assess their impacts. For example, the EIR describes a requirement
in the ISO amendments providing that, for the first three years after adoption of
the proposed amendments, 50%of each contractor's employees in each E-18
apprenticeable occupation would be required to meet the CAC-approval
requirement. However, in the real world, contractors are either union or non-
union. No contractor typically has a percentage of each. What does the"50%"
requirement mean in practical application? Does it mean union contractors only?
As explained in the attached comment letters and declarations, there is also
considerable confusion about how the"48-hour exception"in the proposed
amendments would work in a real-world hiring context,where workers often need E-19
to be lined up weeks or months in advance of large,complex projects. The EIR
acknowledges the uncertainty(but fails to clarify it), stating that the procedures
for complying with the exceptions"are not documented." (EIR at IV.A-17)
Without a thorough understanding of the current mix of union and non-union
contractors and employees, the real-world impact of the"50%"requirement,the
gross numbers and percentages of workers who currently meet CAC-approved
training requirements,the residency of such workers,the types and numbers of
workers available from hiring facilities in the three counties,and how the i E-20
exceptions to the ISO amendments would actually work, it is not possible to
assess the potential impacts of the ISO amendments on the supply of needed labor
generally,or the availability of adequately trained,qualified and experienced
workers specifically. Without an understanding of these matters,it is not
Z The confusion over the"50%"requirement is further heightened by the apparent
differences between the EIR's description of this requirement and the actual text
of the amendments. The EIR states that 50%of"each contractor's employees in
each apprenticeable occupation"must meet the ISO's apprenticeship requirements
(EIR at III-6),while the text of the amendments states that"50%of the employees
in each apprenticeable occupation working for contractors"must meet those
requirements(id., App. A at 25). Does the requirement apply to 50%of"each
contractor's employees"or 50%of all employees working for contractors?
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 11
possible, in tum, to assess the potential environmental impacts of the ISO E-20
amendments.
cont.
III. FAILURE TO ANALYZE THE COMPONENTS OR
RELATIVE EFFICACY OF TRAINING PROGRAMS
The EIR states that one of the objectives of the proposed ISO amendments is to
ensure"that contractor-covered workers at covered facilities are trained to achieve
the highest possible level of safety . . . ." (EIR at III-3) It then purports to
analyze the CAC-approved training programs to assess their effectiveness in
attaining this objective.
i
According to the EIR (at IV.A-3), however,the only source of the information
regarding CAC-approved training was"the major trade unions." This information
apparently includes "instruction manuals covering the various training programs."
What CAC-approved programs are not sponsored by the major trade unions?
Why were these not discussed? What other sources of information were pursued?
If none,why not? The EIR should include and assess all reasonably available
information on this subject, not simply the information"the major trade unions"
chose to provide.
The EIR goes on to describe the CAC-approved training programs,but fails to E-21
discuss any on-the-job training(although it later purports to compare this training
program with training provided by TIMEC,which includes about 8,000 hours of
on-the-job training). The EIR states that"CAC-approved training is primarily
focused on skill development and mastery and personal safety."(EIR at IV.A-4)
It contains no discussion at all of the training(if any)regarding public safety
issues(as distinct from personal safety issues). It states that"public safety and
the means to minimize chemical releases which may impact the environment
surrounding the refinery are not specific topics listed in the formalized training
materials." (Id.) Are these topics covered, even though not"listed in the formal
training materials?" What training, if any,is provided in this area? If none,how
does the requirement of CAC-approved training advance the objective of
improving public safety? ,What investigation or inquiry was conducted beyond j
simply reviewing the training materials to determine what level of training was
provided in areas such as public safety and minimizing chemical releases? What
training, if any,is provided regarding process safety hazards?
IV. THE EIR FAILS TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS ON
CRITICAL REFINERY TURNAROUNDS
The EIR also wholly fails to assess the multiple potential impacts on refinery E-22
turnarounds of restricting the availability of workers generally and the availability
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 12
of the most qualified and experienced turnaround workers in particular. This
omission is inexcusable given the amount of commentary on this specific issue
that has been presented to the County to date. The potential impact of
insufficient, inadequately trained, and inexperienced workers in a refinery
turnaround is self-evident given how complex and challenging the turnaround E-22
process is. One expert described turnarounds as follows:
cont.
Turnarounds involve a range of operations
including abrasive blasting,welding,metalizing,
and painting. Frequently the work must be done in
confined spaces which have been inerted. The
author has monitored one turnaround of a major
refinery unit and is convinced that it is the most
challenging industrial hygiene operation faced in
modern history.3
As described in detail in several of the attached comment letters and declarations,
turnarounds involve major maintenance where significant portions of the refinery
are shut down. Typically, one or more units will be shut down for an extended
period, during which the unit is de-energized,de-pressured, cleaned, inspected, i
refurbished, and then placed back into service. Turnarounds are essential to
ensure the continued safe operation of all petroleum refineries. They present an
opportunity to inspect the internals of unit vessels and to maintain and repair
portions of the unit that are not accessible during unit operations. E-23
Turnarounds are extremely complex events. It takes months to years to develop
the plan for turnaround execution to ensure the integration and coordination of
(1)incoming and outgoing product(including uninterrupted fulfillment of long-
term contract obligations);(2)scheduling of maintenance; (3)completion of
engineering,procurement, and delivery of the equipment,tools,and supplies
needed to support the turnaround; and(4)contracting and management of
contractor labor to perform the turnaround work. The scope of the turnaround is
developed based upon the unit history and results from equipment inspection. j
Once the scope is developed, the specific skills needed to perform the work are
identified.
I
3 William A. Burgess,Recognition of Health Hazards and Industry: A Review of
Materials and Processes (Wiley&Sons,2d Ed. 1995) at pp. 303-04. An excerpt
from Professor Burgess' book is attached as Attachment 6.
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 13
In light of the complexity, cost and risks during a turnaround, refineries must
employ the best qualified contractors,with the most skilled and experienced
workers, to perform the work. Factors used in selecting a contractor include past
and present safety record,contractor experience and expertise, workforce training,
workforce availability,planning and scheduling capabilities, and cost. Refineries
go through extensive contracting procedures to ensure that contractors meet or
exceed their requirements. A key element to executing a successful turnaround is
hiring the contractors who have workers with the necessary skills and experience
to perform the work. A skilled metal tradesman specializing in welding boiler E-23
tubes in place is not interchangeable with a skilled metal tradesman specializing
in welding reactor cyclones or one specializing in welding reactor trays. Nor are cont.
generically trained and experienced workers an adequate substitute. It is
imperative to have turnaround maintenance performed properly so that when the
unit is restarted, it will run safely and reliably.
Many of the best qualified and most experienced contractors who perform
turnaround work employ workers who reside outside Contra Costa,Alameda, and
Solano Counties,or outside of California and/or have not completed
apprenticeship programs approved by the CAC. Given the large number of highly
qualified workers required to temporarily staff turnaround work, it is unrealistic to
believe that sufficient qualified labor will be available for this work from labor
hiring facilities in the three designated counties. The proposed amendments will j
therefore render ineligible a large portion of the limited pool of workers who have
the skills,experience, and expertise required for this critical work on refinery
turnarounds. The EIR wholly fails to acknowledge or assess the potential adverse
impacts of these restrictions on turnarounds.
V. UNSUPPORTED SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The EIR uses'vague and unsupported criteria for assessing the significance of
I
hazards to the public or the environment from the proposed ISO amendments j
(EIR at IV.A-15). What was the basis for the selection of these criteria? The EIR
estates that"an accidental release from the project.would be considered significant
if the likelihood of such an event resulting from the project and the off-site
consequence are moderate or high." (Id.) How does the EIR define"moderate" j E-24
or"high?" If such an event is likely to occur once in ten years as a result of the i
ISO amendments, is that considered"moderate?"
i
In assessing"severity,"the EIR states that"a.moderate level of severity
corresponds to moderate property damage or injury. . . . (Id. at IV.A-15) This
is entirely circular. What is"moderate property damage?" What is a"moderate
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 14
injury?" Without a complete understanding of these terms, it is impossible to
assess the validity of the EIR's environmental analysis.
The EIR's analysis of"the likelihood"of an accident is expressed as"frequent, E-24
periodic, occasional, improbable, and remote." What are these thresholds based cont.
on? Are there industry standards that correspond to these terns? Is there any
scientific basis for use of these thresholds? How will the decision-makers decide
whether the perceived benefits of the ISO amendments outweigh these risks?
VI. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE THE
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON PUBLIC
AND WORKER SAFETY
The EIR's discussion of safety impacts suffers from a number of fatal
deficiencies. First,the EIR uses a flawed methodology to assess these impacts.
This flawed methodology taints the EIR's analysis and conclusions on safety
issues. Second, the proposed ISO amendments would increase safety risks by
restricting the ability of covered facilities to use workers with the most
appropriate skills,training and experience for the job; the EIR fails even to
disclose, let alone evaluate,this impact. Third,the proposed amendments would
increase safety risks by limiting the overall labor pool, another potentially
significant impact the EIR fails to address. Fourth,the proposed amendments
would delay needed maintenance activities that are specifically designed, and E-25
indeed are necessary, to ensure and enhance safe operations. The EIR recognizes
that the amendments would cause delays, and it also recognizes that these delays
may compromise safety,but it utterly fails to analyze the actual safety impacts
that would result from delays.
The EIR's failure to analyze safety issues in any meaningful way is, again,
inexcusable given the extensive submissions to the County on these issues in
2002, including declarations from scores of workers attesting to their background
and experience in refinery turnarounds and maintenance activities(including, in
many cases, workers with experience on literally hundreds of turnarounds over a i
period covering more than 20 years). The EIR needs to be substantially revised
so that the public and the decision-makers are fully and accurately informed about
the safety consequences of the proposed ISO amendments.
A. Flawed Methodology
The flaws in the methodology used to assess safety impacts are plain. The
discussion of Impact A.l begins with the assertion: "Impacts to public safety ! E-26
were evaluated assuming that future activities to be undertaken.at the affected
facilities,such as new projects, would not be affected by the proposed ISO
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 15
amendments." (EIR at IV.A-16) This is entirely tautological. The only way to
know whether future activities would be affected is to conduct a reasoned, good
faith analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed ISO amendments. The EIR
does not do this and instead assumes away impacts it is required to evaluate. E-26
Moreover,the EIR itself admits that future projects could be delayed as a result of !cont.
_ the amendments(id. at IV.A-17), which contradicts the assumption that future
projects would not be affected. The same holds true for the assertion under
Impact A.2 that"there would be no change in operations at the facilities"due to
the proposed amendments. (Id. at IV.A-18)
The EIR also seeks to characterize the trends in the hiring of workers on past
refinery projects. But the data on labor usage is incomplete and includes only
-information from 1994-96 and 2001-03. Based on this incomplete data set, the E-27
EIR concludes that 1995 "was assumed to represent a period of maximum
contractor-covered labor at the refineries and that a similar workforce would be
required for future projects." (Id. IV.A-16) Far more data and analysis are
needed to support the EIR's assumptions and the conclusions drawn from them.
Another example of the EIR's flawed methodology is the conclusory statement
that any potential safety impacts would be avoided through existing strict safety
requirements. The EIR states: "Because the affected facilities have strict safety
requirements, the employment of an inadequate contractor workforce would not
occur. Therefore, the risk of accidents would not significantly increase, and the ;E-28
impact would be less than significant." (Id. at IV.A-17). This circular statement
is entirely unsupported by any evidence or analysis in the EIR regarding what is
and is not"an adequate contractor workforce,"and, if true,would completely
vitiate any need for the amendments.
Equally important,this statement effectively shields the EIR from having to
conduct any meaningful environmental review. In other words,the EIR avoids
coming to grips with what constitutes a safe and adequate workforce by stating
that the affected facilities will never use anything but a safe and adequate
workforce. But this dodge cannot satisfy the requirement that an ETR engage in a
reasoned,good faith analysis of potential impacts. The ETR must(1) identify the E-29
"baseline"for purposes of the analysis--i.e., the workforce currently employed in
covered facilities that allows them to operate safely and effectively without undue
delay; (2) analyze what effects the ISO amendments will have on use of that
workforce; (3)assess the relative safety and effectiveness of the workforce to
which covered facilities are restricted by the TSO amendments; (4) assess the
availability of that workforce and the potential delays, and the resulting impacts
of such delays if the.workforce cannot satisfy facility needs; and (5)then,and j
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 16
only then, make an assessment of whether the resulting workforce is or is not E-29
"adequate."
cont.
The regulated facilities do not have a choice as to whether or not to comply with
the ISO based upon their own perceptions of whether such compliance will be
fully in keeping with their"strict safety requirements." If, as the EIR assumes,
the covered facilities choose not to hire certain contractors or, indirectly, certain
workers,because of concerns about their experience, expertise and safety
qualifications,they cannot simply.elect to hire contractors and workers that do
meet their"strict safety requirements." Instead,they will be required to delay
new projects, turnaround,or maintenance activities until the ISO-qualified E-30
contractors and workers are available to perform such work. Such delays may
have safety impacts regardless of the facilities' best intentions and the most
scrupulous safety protocols. The covered facilities must therefore make
judgments about whether the potential risks from delay outweigh the risks of
employing a workforce that is less than ideal from a safety standpoint. It can be
assumed that,most of the time, the facilities will make the better choice,but that
is not a foregone conclusion. More importantly, in either case, there is an
increased safety risk that should have been analyzed in the EIR but was not.
B. Impacts Caused By Restricting Access To The
Most Qualified Workers
There is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating a strong and direct
correlation between experience and safety. Dr. Finkelman's November 2002
declaration explained that the proposed ISO amendments would likely disqualify
many of the best qualified and most experienced workers, simply because they are
not CAC-approved program graduates or apprentices. The declaration went on to
explain that,as a result,the amendments would likely decrease safety at the
covered facilities. The Draft EIR did not even mention,let alone address,the j
substantive issues raised by Dr. Finkelman's declaration. E-31
Dr.Finkelman's comment letter dated November 11,2004(see Attachment 3)
reinforces his previous submittal. In that letter,Dr. Finkelman explains that
refineries in particular need workers who have skills,training and experience that
are specific to refineries, and that restricting access to these workers, and
requiring the use of workers with less refinery-specific experience,will negatively
affect safety. The EIR concedes that CCA/NCCER training may be"more
directly applicable to skills needed for the affected facilities"than CAC-approved
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 17
training. (EIR at IV.A-4) Comments from refinery staff(see Attachment 5), as
well as from an established industry expert,4 confirm that some of the best
qualified, most experienced and safest workers for highly complex refinery
maintenance and turnaround projects would not meet the requirements of the TSO
amendments. Statements by the refinery fire chiefs further emphasize that—
while"we want to hire the most qualified and best trained workers,period"—the
proposed ISO amendments"would weaken our ability to bring in contractors
based on their safety performance." (See Attachment 7) These statements, like E-31
the extensive comments on the EIR,demonstrate how counterproductive the cont.
proposed amendments are from a safety perspective.
Thus, the ISO amendments would negatively affect safety by restricting access to
workers who have the most appropriate skills, training and experience for the job.
The safety implications are evident(and are explained in detail in the
accompanying comments and declarations), but the EIR nowhere examines them.
C. Impacts Caused By Limiting The Overall Labor
Pool
There is also substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the ISO
amendments will negatively affect safety by limiting the overall labor pool. The
EIR acknowledges that the amendments would restrict the labor pool,but again, it
fails to analyze the safety consequences that flow directly from these restrictions.
In his November 2002 declaration, Dr. Finkelman explained that there was no
scientific rationale, empirical data, or reasoned analysis to support the utility of
the proposed ISO amendments based on any legitimate measure of safety. To the
contrary, he explained that the amendments,by imposing unnecessary and E-32
artificial restrictions on the labor pool,were likely to be counterproductive to
safety objectives.
Dr. Finkelman's current comments reinforce this conclusion and highlight yet 1.
another significant deficiency in the EIR's safety analysis. Those comments
explain that by limiting the overall labor pool,the ISO amendments will force
i
employers to dig deeper into the smaller labor pool, thereby resulting in a
degradation of the average skill level of the final workforce that is selected. Due 1
to an insufficient number of workers,the amendments may also lead to workers
4 A declaration from John Sakamoto, a professional engineer and Senior Vice
President of Eichleay Engineers Inc. of California, is provided as Attachment 4.
�I
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 18
working longer hours, thereby increasing the risks of accidents resulting from
worker fatigue. As with other safety impacts, the EIR fails to provide a good- E-32
faith, reasoned analysis, and it fails to inform the public and the decision makers cont.
of the negative impacts of the proposed project.
D. Impacts Caused By Delay
As explained above, the EIR recognizes that the proposed ISO amendments
would limit the size of the labor pool. It also recognizes that the amendments
could create a substantial labor shortage when demand for labor is at a peak. (EIR
at IV.A-17: "Unless more CAC-approved workers are available, it can be
concluded that CAC-trained contractor-covered workers would be unable to E-33
provide all the contractor labor needed to staff refinery projects in peak demand
years.") The EIR further recognizes that,due to an insufficient amount of
workers resulting from the proposed amendments, "projects could be delayed."
(Id.;see also id. at V-1: under the proposed project,"the affected facilities may
have to increase the time required to complete certain activities,which could
result in delays in projects.") Finally, the EIR recognizes that"in certain cases,
delays may compromise safety." (Id. at IV.A-17)
Remarkably, however, the EIR nowhere analyzes the safety impacts that could be
caused by delay—even though it acknowledges the potential for those impacts to
occur. In what ways could safety be compromised by delays? What analysis, if
any,did the County or its environmental consultants conduct regarding this issue?
Why weren't the potential impacts from delay presented to the public or the
decision-makers for their consideration? There is simply no discussion of the
likelihood or duration of such delays, the likelihood or severity of the impact on
safety,or the nature of the impact. j E-34
Instead,the EIR summarily dismisses all potential delay impacts,based on the
conclusory assertion that either the 48-hour exception or the emergency exception
in the proposed amendments"would allow for the hiring of other competent
workers who are not CAC-approved." (Id. at IV.A-17) As with much else in the
EIR,however, there is no analysis to support this claim. To the contrary, the EIR
admits: "It is difficult to determine how easily the conditions could be met while j
not compromising safety at the affected facilities, because the procedures for
complying with these exceptions are not documented in the proposed
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 19
amendments." (Id.)5 Thus, according to the EIR, all safety impacts due to delay
will be avoided because of the exceptions in the amendments, even though the E-34
County cannot determine whether the exceptions can be relied upon to avoid cont.
negative safety impacts.
This type of illogic pervades the EIR. The emergency exception is repeatedly
cited as the panacea for potential adverse impacts from delay. However, this
exception applies only if there is"a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a
clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action. . . ." By definition,the
exception is reactive;it does not apply to actions taken in advance in order to I E-35
prevent an emergency from occurring. Thus, under the ISO amendments,
refineries may not have sufficient workers to undertake prophylactic maintenance
and repairs, and will instead have to wait until there is an"imminent danger"
before they can hire the necessary workers. But if-the true objective is safety,
isn't it better to ensure that adequate workers are available to prevent an
emergency from occurring at all,than to preclude facilities from hiring such
workers until the emergency has already occurred?
Worse still,the EIR wholly mischaracterizes the exceptions to the ISO
amendments. The EIR states that"for cases where safety might be compromised
through delays; the exception clause of the proposed amendments allows the I
hiring of contractor workers with-the right skills who are not CAC-approved." E_36
(EIR at V-2, emphasis added) This is entirely inaccurate. The emergency
exception applies only where there is an"imminent danger"requiring"immediate
action,"not where safety"might"be compromised by delays. Put simply, the i
emergency exception does not apply at all to prevent delays;rather,it only allows
a facility to respond after the delay has resulted in a negative safety impact by
creating an emergency. .
Similarly,the 48-hour exception would not prevent circumstances where safety
might be compromised through delay. To the contrary, under that exception,a E_37
facility must endure an additional 48-hour delay, and any resulting increase in i
safety risks,before hiring workers"with the right skills who are not CAC- I
approved." (EIR at V-2)
5 The many comments attached to this letter describe the uncertainties and
ambiguities surrounding the ISO exceptions, as well as the inability of these
exceptions to cure the safety problems the ISO itself would create.
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 20
.The EIR.attempts to avoid all of these problems, and all of the safety impacts of
the proposed ISO amendments, by asserting that"strict safety requirements"at
the covered facilities would prevent significant safety impacts in any event. As ,E-38
explained above, however, the EIR's unthinking reliance on "strict safety
requirements"does not relieve the County of CEQA's requirement to disclose and
describe the potential safety impacts of its actions.
More importantly, delays actually prevent refineries and other facilities from
implementing their strict safety requirements. These requirements include regular
inspection and maintenance activities to ensure that equipment is kept in proper
working order and, if necessary,is repaired or replaced in as timely a manner as
possible. This highlights another absurdity in the EIR—the proposed ISO E-39
amendment will interfere with refinery safety procedures and requirements by
delaying critical maintenance activities, but the EIR finds no need to analyze the
increased safety risks, because.those procedures and requirements will
purportedly prevent any negative impacts from occurring.
The EIR does not even come close to grappling with the obvious safety issues
presented. Instead,the EIR simply wishes these issues away. But CEQA requires E-40
more than conclusory assumptions and assertions. The record must contain
substantial evidence that supports the EIR's analysis and findings. Given that no
evidence, let alone substantial evidence,supports the EIR's evaluation of safety
impacts,the EIR must be substantially revised and recirculated.
VII. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE
ADDITIONAL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The EIR acknowledges that unavailability of a_sufficient supply of contractor-
covered Iabor as a result of the ISO amendments could result in projects being
delayed. (EIR at IV.A-17) It identifies the following as examples of projects for
which contractor-covered labor is used:
I
■ Installation of equipment for new processes for making
clean fuels and/or low-sulfur diesel fuel;
E-41
• Renovation of existing equipment to increase
performance such as cleaning cyclones in catalytic
cracker units or renewing piping networks that, upon
inspection, are found to be in need of replacement,
often because hydrogen in the gas stream may cause
piping to become brittle;
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 21
■ Modification of existing equipment to increase refinery
capacity or produce new or improved products such as
loading a new catalyst to increase production of high-
octane gasoline; and
■ Installation of new equipment to save energy, such as
replacement of water coolers with air coolers or
installation of a cogeneration system. (EIR at IV.A-2) E-41
cont.
The EIR explains that,in addition to such"special projects,"contractor-covered
labor is used in ongoing production-related activities whosepurpose is to enhance
refinery or chemical plant safety. Such activities are described in the EIR as
including pump motor rewiring, investigating and/or repairing equipment in
response to maintenance work orders from refinery production staff; and
performing periodic maintenance to ensure refinery process cleanliness and
safety.6 Id.
Despite the acknowledgment of potential delays, and the implicit
acknowledgment that these delays will affect refinery projects that may have i
direct impacts on the environment, the EIR never acknowledges that such impacts
exist, much less attempts to assess their significance. However, as set forth in the
prior submittals(Attachments I and 2) and recent expert commentary
(Attachments 3-5), the ISO amendments will almost certainly have numerous E-42
environmental impacts that are both individually and cumulatively significant.
That many of such impacts will occur is not reasonably subject to dispute.
Refineries are constantly engaged in new projects designed to meet more stringent
environmental regulations. Examples include the recent"clean fuels"project,and j
the project to remove MTBE from gasoline. Delays in projects such as this will
unquestionably have environmental impacts(on air quality and water quality)
during the period of delay.
These impacts—and their connection with the restrictions and limitations of the
ISO amendments—are described in significant detail in the context of refinery I E-43
i
6 As noted above, given that impacts on turnarounds were the subject of
extensive commentary contained in Attachments 1 and 2,the EIR inexplicably
fails to explicitly describe or analyze turnarounds as one of the refinery-related
activities affected by restrictions on contractor-covered workers.
l�
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 22
operations in the attached letters and declarations and will not be repeated here.
However,just a sampling of the identified potential impacts indicates how
completely the EIR has failed in its central purpose:
• Increases in air emissions of pollutants such as SOx,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia and
particulate matter(PM 10)may result from maintenance
delays in specialized equipment such as Selective
Catalytic Reduction(SCRs)units, thermal oxidizers,
and carbon absorption beds.
■ Delays or interruption of maintenance of specialized
units that limit NOx, such as SCRs and ultra-low NOx
burner systems in furnaces and boilers, can result in
excess NOx emissions into the atmosphere over the
permitted limits allowed by the BAAQMD.
■ Increased hydrocarbon emissions may result fromE-43
delayed repair or maintenance of valves, flanges,
pumps, compressors,fittings, etc. ! cont.
■ Delayed maintenance on pressure relief valves and
other equipment may result in leaks to the flare system,
which can increase the flare load and negatively impact
the ability to recover all of the flare gasses and
tominimize flaring(with resulting noise, visual and air
quality impacts).
• Maintenance delays of chemical plant process units
designed to keep fuel gas clean may result in continued
use of fuel that does not meet new specifications,with
consequent impacts on air quality.
• Delays in upgrades to process controls may
unnecessarily postpone improvements limiting NOx
emissions and reducing the amount of flaring that
occurs during unit operation.
■ Delays in maintenance or extended shutdowns of
refinery units that handle hazardous wastes will
increase transportation of hazardous wastes (such as
spent acids)offsite for disposal, creating transportation
risks and air quality impacts.
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 23
• Delays in turnaround or maintenance work could result
in running out of storage capacity for"residuals"
necessitating transportation of these materials by ship, i
truck,rail or pipeline.
■ Delays in maintenance of feedstock treating units
would require feedstock from outside sources, resulting
in increased transportation by truck, rail or barge with
consequent safety and air quality impacts.
■ Delays in construction of new projects (such as double
bottom tanks that prevent leaks) may impact water
quality. E-43
■ Delays in refinery operations could result in statewide cont.
shortages of gasoline and diesel,higher fuel prices, and
other associated problems.
• Delays in projects designed to minimize steam i
utilization(which requires substantially more energy
than electrically driven ones) would result in
unnecessary consumption of energy.
■ Increased unit shutdown times may result in increased
discharges of solids to the wastewater treatment plant,
increasing the frequency of dredging the plant, which in j
turn results in increased hazardous waste generation.
■ Delays in projects intended to reduce the environmental
impacts of gasoline(such as removal of MTBE from
gasoline)would have adverse impacts during the period
of delay.
The EIR must be revised to address each of these topics—and all of the other
potential impacts identified in the attached materials—rather than simply 'E 44
asserting that no impacts will occur because of"strict safety requirements"and
the emergency and 48-hour exceptions.
VIII. ALTERNATIVES
The EIR's analysis of alternatives also fails to comply with CEQA. Because the
EIR utterly fails to acknowledge any potentially significant environmental impact E-45
that could result from the proposed ISO amendments,the analysis of alternatives
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 24
is meaningless. The public and the County decision-makers therefore lack critical
information regarding the comparative merits and consequences of the E-45
alternatives and the proposed project. As with other areas of the EIR,the
alternatives analysis fails to provide sufficient information to enable informed cont.
review and decision-making.
The requirement that an EIR identify and discuss alternatives to the project stems
from the statutory policy in CEQA that public agencies should require the
implementation of feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the
project's significant environmental effects. See Pub. Res. Code§ 21002. To E-46
implement this policy, CEQA requires that an EIR identify feasible alternatives
that could avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant environmental
effects. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(4); CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.6. The EIR must include sufficient information about each alternative to
allow evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.6(d).
The EIR offers no meaningful basis to compare the alternatives with the proposed j
project. Indeed, the EIR concludes that the impacts of each of the alternatives
would be"essentially the same"or"equivalent"to the impacts of the proposed
project. According to the EIR, the only difference between the alternatives and
the proposed project is that the proposed project would limit the labor pool. As
the ETR explains, "the proposed project is the most restrictive of the alternatives
with regard to the number of candidates available for contractor work at the E-47
affected facilities." (EIR at p. V-1) Due to the limitations on the labor pool
caused by the proposed ISO amendment,"the affected facilities may have to
increase the time required to complete certain activities, which could result in
delays in projects." (Id.) But it is evident that these limitations serve absolutely
no safety purpose, given the EIR's conclusion that the public safety impacts of
doing nothing"would be essentially the same as under the proposed project"—
except that"the pool of eligible contractor-covered workers would be greater"
without the project than with it. (Id. at V-3 to V-4)
The EIR's analysis of alternatives is entirely inadequate, and in fact demonstrates
that the proposed project will restrict the labor pool without providing any safety
benefit of any kind. Because the EIR fails to disclose the true safety and other
environmental effects of the proposed ISO amendment, the EIR does nothing to E-48
identify ways to reduce those potentially significant effects. The EIR therefore
fails to explain how the alternatives to the project, including the No Project
Alternative,would both reduce potentially significant impacts and better achieve
the project objectives(i.e., increased safety and reduced accidents) when
compared to the proposed project.
Letter E continued
Patrick Roche
November 12,2004
Page 25
IX. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the EIR should be substantially revised to address
the issues raised in this letter and the attached letters, declarations and other E-49
materials, and a new draft EIR circulated for review and further comment.
Sincerely yours,
4GeoyL. Robinson
Attachments:
i
1. October 25, 2002, letter from Sanford Skaggs to Michael Hem
2. November 11, 2002, letter from Sanford Skaggs to Board of
Supervisors
3. Comments of Dr.Jay Finkelman
4. Declaration of John Sakamoto j
5. Comments of Refinery Personnel
Mike HolIingshaus
Joel Elmore
Alan Savage
James Darnell E-50
Nancy Ross
Teresa Makarewicz
Shawn Costner
William McNally
William Quinn
David Erfert
6. Excerpt: Burgess, Wm. A.,Recognition of Health Hazards in Industry
(Ch. 17—Petroleum Refineries)(Wiley&Sons,2d ed. 1995) I
7. Pipeline,News.About Contra Costa County's Refinery Industry(Fall
2004)
Letter E continued
1000 S.Fremont Ave.Unit S
Alllant n61&284lbarnbra,Z'n7cA 3
16zsne4-zm
International University F 676084-OSSo
November 11, 2004
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
4t''Floor-North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
Re: - Draft Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Amendments to Contra
Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance
Dear Mr. Roche:
I submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR), dated
September 2004, for the proposed amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety
Ordinance(ISO). As explained below,the EIR's analysis of potential public safety and hazard j
impacts is deficient in a number of significant respects. The County should thoroughly E-51
reevaluate the impacts of the proposal in a revised EIR before considering the matter for final
approval,so that the public and the decision-makers are fully informed about the true nature and
extent of the potential safety consequences of the proposed amendment.
A. Introduction
The EIR's fundamental premise is faulty and unsupported. The EIR states that I
the objectives of the proposed ISO amendment are to increase safety and reduce-accidents. But
there is absolutely no evidence or analysis to show that the proposal would achieve either
objective. There is simply no credible scientific rationale,or any empirical data,to support the
utility.of the proposed ISO amendment based vn any legitimate safety objective. In fact,it is my
considered opinion that the proposal would actually decrease safety,by artificially and E-52
unnecessarily limiting the size of the labor pool and by restricting the ability of refineries and
other facilities to hire the best suited and most highly qualified workers for the particular job.at
hand. The EIR fails to evaluate the negative safety impacts of the proposed ISO amendment, and
it therefore fails to educate the reader about the true safety implications ofYhe proposal.
B. . Qualifications
I have substantial academic and professional experience in a broad range of j
human resources issues,including worker safety and ergonomics. As a Certified Professional E-53
Ergonomist and Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, I have specific expertise in a wide
Alameda.Fresno-Irvine•losA*ies.Medco city.twmbi Saaamenio.San Diego-San kanciko
Letter E continued
variety of job safety issues. Ergonomics, which is sometimes referred to as Human Factors
Engineering or Engineering Psychology, is the science of matching people with their working
environments in ways that promote and foster safety,productivity and efficiency. It ranges from
the optimal way to recruit, evaluate,select, compensate, train and supervise workers,to the
design of a working environment that is most conducive to safe and effective worker
performance.
The selection, training and qualification of refinery workers is very much within
my expertise, and I have worked on a number of specific matters involving refineries. I have
served as a consultant for more than a decade and provided expert testimony and reports in a
variety of refinery matters involving employment practices and worker safety issues. E-53
I am an Industrial and Forensic Psychologist as well as a Certified Professional cont.
Ergonomist. I am a member of the Industrial Psychology and Engineering Psychology Divisions
of the American Psychological Association, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and the
American Academy of Forensic Psychology. I hold a Ph.D. in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology from New York University,and an M.B.A. in Industrial Psychology from the
Bernard M. Baruch School of Business of The City College of The City University of New York.
I was formerly a tenured full professor of Industrial Psychology at The City University of New
York. I now serve as Interim Systemwide Dean,Professor and Program Director of Alliant
International University's California School of Organizational Studies. I hold a Diplomate from
the American Board of Professional Psychology and from the American Board of Forensic
Psychology, where I am also a fellow. I am a Certified Personnel Consultant from the National
Association of Personnel Consultants, and a Certified Employment Specialist from the California
Association of Personnel Consultants.
C. The Draft EIR Is Deficient And The Proposed ISO
Amendment Is Likely To Have Significant Adverse Impacts
On Public And Worker Safety
It is my opinion that the proposed ISO amendment,while purportedly designed to
increase safety, is likely to have exactly the opposite effect. The amendment would likely result
in diminished safety because it will restrict the ability of covered facilities to use the best-trained IE-54
and safest workers for the job. The Draft EIR does not even acknowledge, let alone analyze in
any meaningful fashion,the potential impacts that the proposed amendment would have on the
safety of workers and the public.
1. The Proposed ISO Amendment Would Restrict The
Ability Of Covered Facilities To Use Workers With The
Most Appropriate Skills,Training,And Experience.
Due to the highly specialized nature of refinery operations and equipment,in
order to ensure proper safety and adequately trained workers,refineries need workers with skills,
training and experience that are specific to refineries. The proposed ISO amendment would E-55
likely have a negative impact on safety, because it would restrict the refineries' ability to hire i
those workers, and would instead compel them to hire workers who have less refinery-specific
skills,training and experience.
Page 2
Letter E continued
As a general matter, there is a strong and direct correlation between industrial job
experience and workplace safety. This correlation flows from the basic fact that as a worker
gains increased exposure to a particular piece of dangerous equipment, for example, he becomes
more and more familiar with how it operates and what the dangers are. Once he masters the
basic operation,his attention can then shift increasingly to safe operation. This is because lie
requires less time and energy to process the information needed to perform the essential
functions of the equipment, and can therefore devote more attention to operating the equipment
in as safe a manner as possible.
E-56
This is especially true for refineries and the potentially hazardous equipment
found in a refinery environment. In my experience, refineries are quite unique in terms of their
operations, equipment, and processes, and they present special safety challenges beyond those
typically found in most industrial settings. This is because refinery operations involve highly
complex and interrelated processes, and various components of these processes can interact with
each other in ways that are both unplanned and difficult to predict. As a result,workers with less
refinery-specific skills,training and experience may be less able to foresee the safety
consequences of their actions,regardless of how much training they have received in general
safety procedures or in their particular craft. In other words, such workers may lack the facility-
specific knowledge and experience required for optimum safety. Consequently, forcing
refineries to use workers with less refinery-specific experience would have the potential to cause
negative safety impacts.
But that is precisely what the proposed ISO amendment would force refineries to
do. The amendment would impose a series of requirements mandating the use of workers trained
in CAC-approved programs and restricting the use of workers trained in other programs. The
EIR expressly acknowledges,however, that non-CAC-approved training—such as training by the
National Center for Construction Education and Research(NCCER)used by the California
Contractors Alliance(CCA)—is better suited and more specially tailored than CAC-approved
training for the specific facilities that the ISO amendment would regulate. The Draft EIR states: E-57
"The CCA/NCCER training focuses on training for refineries and similar plants,such as
chemical plants,while the CAC approved training provided by the union shops also covers skills
for other types of facilities,such as refrigeration. Because of this specialization,the
CCA/NCCER training_mav be more directly applicable to skills needed for the affected
facilities." Draft EIR at p. IV.A-4(emphasis provided). As explained above,this is a critically !
important consideration for refineries,but the EIR utterly fails to address or analyze the serious
implications of this factor in terms of potentially significant safety impacts.
Empirical data confirms that workers with less refinery-specific training(such as
trade union workers,who do not receive NCCER training) are more likely to be involved in
safety incidents than those workers who have the needed skills, training and experience that are E-58
specific to refineries(such as non-union workers receiving NCCER training). It is my
understanding that,according to Cal-OSHA data,trade union workers in the refinery building
trades have nearly twice the job injuries as their non-union colleagues. (See June 10, 2002 letter
from George P. Smith, ARCADIS,to Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission)
Letter E continued
In the final analysis, there is no evidence at all to demonstrate that CAC-approved
traihing is more beneficial from a safety perspective than other types of training. The EIR j
acknowledges this fact, recognizing that the proposed amendment would not have any real safety
benefits when compared with the existing safety regime. See Draft EIR at pp. V-3 to V-4 E-59
(stating that"[t]he impacts of the `No Project' alternative to public safety would be essentially
the same as under the proposed project"). In fact, as shown above and as explained more fully
below,the proposed ISO amendment would likely decrease public safety when compared with
the No Project alternative.
2. The Proposed ISO Amendment Would Likely Cause
Negative Safety Impacts By Restricting The Overall
Labor Pool
In addition to the safety impacts described above, the proposed ISO amendment
would likely cause significant negative safety impacts because it would limit the overall labor
pool for covered facilities. The proposed amendment would limit the number of available,
qualified workers in several significant respects. As explained above, the amendment would
require facilities to hire workers with CAC-approved training and would restrict the ability to
hire workers who receive training from other sources, such as NCCER training. The amendment
would further limit the labor pool by requiring contractors to use labor hiring facilities in Contra
Costa,Alameda, and Solano Counties. The EIR readily acknowledges that"the pool of eligible
contractor-covered workers would be greater"under the No Action alternative than it would be
with the proposed amendment. See Draft EIR at p. V-3. It also acknowledges that the
amendment would create a worker shortage during peak demand periods. See Draft EIR at p:
IV.A-17 ("Unless more CAC-approved workers are available, it can be concluded that CAC=
trained contractor-covered workers would be unable to provide all the contractor labor needed to
staff refinery projects in peak demand years.").
Any restriction that limits the population of available, qualified workers serves to E-60
adversely increase the"selection ratio." This means that if fewer workers are permitted to enter
the selection pool,the employer will have to hire a greater percentage of those workers to meet
the job requirements. This also means that the employer will have to dig deeper into the
selection pool to find a sufficient number ofworkers. And this means that employers may have
to hire workers closer to the"bottom"of the limited selection pool, in terms of the necessary j
skills and experience,than they would if the labor pool were larger. In short, increasing the
"selection ratio"typically entails a degradation of the average skill level of the final workforce
that is selected.
Cascio(1987)defines the"selection ratio"as the number of applicants accepted
divided by the total number of applicants available. Cascio and Aguinis (2005)define the all-
important"success ratio"as"the proportion of selected applicants who are subsequently judged
successful." The"selection ratio"and "success ratio"are not new concepts and have been
discussed in the literature as far back as 1939 (Taylor and Russell). Fisher, Schoenfeldt and
Shaw(2003)also support use of these concepts in their highly renowned Human Resource
Management text. The relevant measure of"success"is generally thought of as an integrated
measure which takes into account the best suited skills,training and experience for the job at
Page 4
Letter E continued
hand. In any particular circumstance, it depends on the employee selection process used and the
specific characteristics the employer is looking for. Thus, assuming that the refinery selection
process for contract employees is focused on choosing the best qualified, best trained and safest
workers,the measure of success in this context would be the proportion of selected applicants
who are subsequently judged to be the most qualified and the safest.
In general,there is a negative correlation between the"selection ratio'and the
"success ratio,"although it is not a strict linear relationship. Thus, all other factors being equal,
if there is an increase in the"selection ratio,"this tends to lead to a decrease in the"success
ratio." Put simply, if you lower the total number of job applicants for a particular selection
process,that has a tendency to negatively affect the proportion of selected applicants who are
subsequently judged successful.
Let me use an example. Let us assume that the total number of job applicants is i
200 workers— 100 with CAC-approved training, and 100 with NCCER training—and that a . E-60
refinery needs to hire 80 workers for a particular job. The selection ratio in this example is 80 j
(the number of applicants to be selected)divided by 200(the total number of available cont.
applicants),which equals 2:5 (or 40%). Let us further assume, for purposes of this particular
example, that 50 of the workers with CAC-approved training and 50 of the workers with NCCER
training have the highest level of qualifications. Let us also assume that the remaining workers
have adequate,but not the highest,qualifications. Without the ISO amendment,the refinery has
100"highest qualification'workers to choose from—workers whose combination of skills,
training and experience indicate they will perform the work most competently and most safely.
If the selection process works properly and results in the selection of the most qualified workers,
then the success ratio in this example would be very high, and could theoretically reach 1:1 (or
100%).
With the ISO amendment,however,the refinery has only 100 workers to choose j
from. Thus,the selection ratio doubles,from 2:5 (401/6)to 4:5 (or 80%). Further,of these 100 j
workers,only 50 have the highest qualifications. To fulfill the requirement for 80 workers,the
refinery will have to hire four out of every five available workers,including 30 workers who are
not the best qualified or the safest. The success ratio will drop significantly. The ISO
amendment thereby restricts access to the most qualified and safest workforce.
Thus,by having to use some workers with lesser skills and experience due to the
limited selection pool,the proposed ISO amendment would likely decrease the overall quality of E-61
the workforce. And by negatively impacting the overall skill set and quality of the work force,
the ISO amendment would likely decrease,not increase, the overall level of safety. The Draft
EIR does not even mention,much less evaluate,this potentially significant impact.
Moreover, a restricted labor pool combined with au intensive demand for labor
could result in contractors (and hence facilities)using a smaller number of workers and having
them work longer hours. Thus,with the ISO amendment, employers, contractors and workers E-62
alike may be tempted to push the boundaries of overtime work;in order to get the same job done
As explained above, however,workers with NCCER training will likely have specific skills and
experience that are more applicable for refineries than workers with CAC-approved training.
Page 5
Letter E continued
in the same amount of time, but with fewer workers. Safety risks are magnified as a result, as '; E-62
workers become fatigued and overworked, and thus more prone to accidents.
cont.
Let me use another example. If a certain project required 12,000.hours of work
over a two-week period,with a sufficiently large labor pool, the employer could use 150 workers
to work 40 hours a week, or even 200 workers to work 30 hours a week. But with a restricted
labor pool, the employer might be required to use only 100 workers to work 60 hours per week,
or even 80 workers to work 75 hours per week. By having such a large number of workers work 11 E-63
a significant amount of overtime in a short period; there is an increased risk of fatigue, and hence
accidents. It only takes one tired or careless worker to cause an accident with significant safety
implications. This isyet another potentially significant impact the EIR failed to consider. And,
as explained above, the ISO amendment would further magnify the safety risks, as there would j
be fewer workers on the job with the facility-specific skills,training and experience needed for
optimal safety.
The EIR summarily dismisses the critical importance of having a sufficient
workforce by asserting that"strict safety protocols"followed by the regulated facilities would
"prevent projects from going forward unless an adequate workforce is available." See Draft EIR
at p. N.A-17. As with much else in the EIR,however, there is no analysis or evidence to
support this conclusory assertion. Furthermore, if"strict safety protocols"that are already in
place would ensure safe operations, then it is difficult to understand why the amendment is E-64
necessary. As explained below, this statement in the EIR only highlights the lack of any
scientific justification for the amendment from a safety perspective. Moreover, it is entirely
circular to rely on existing"strict safety protocols" to offset the adverse safety impacts that the
ISO amendment would itself likely create. Finally, "strict safety protocols" are only one part of
the safety equation;it is equally important to ensure that a sufficient number of workers are
available with the best skills,training and experience. The ISO amendment would impede,not
advance,the goal of ensuring and enhancing workplace safety.
3. The EIR's Analysis of Safety Impacts Caused By Delay
Is Cursory And Inadequate
The EIR acknowledges that the ISO amendment could result in project delays due
to an inadequate workforce. See Draft EIR at p. IV.A-17. Remarkably,the EIR claims that such
delays"would reduce the risk of accidents." Id. But delays in projects that are themselves
designed to enhance, ensure or maintain safety would,by definition,increase safety risks. The
EIR itself describes a number of such projects: for example,renewing piping networks that are
in need of replacement because they have become brittle,periodic maintenance to ensure
refinery process cleanliness and safety, investigating or repairing equipment,and other on-going
production-related activities designed to enhance plant safety. See EIR p. IV.A-2. The EIR E-65
nowhere analyzes the specific impacts that would result from delaying these activities. `
For some facilities,operational delays cost only money. But at refineries and
other safety-sensitive facilities,delays can create real safety problems. As explained above,
refinery operations involve highly complex and interrelated processes; it is therefore not
surprising that careful,regularly scheduled maintenance is needed to ensure process safety.
Delaying needed maintenance, on the other hand,would subject workers to complicated and
Page 6
Letter E continued
potentially dangerous processes that may not be operating as smoothly and cleanly as they E-65
should, or to hazardous equipment that may require repair or even replacement. This will likely cont.
have adverse impacts on both workplace performance and safety.
Ultimately,the EIR acknowledges that"in certain cases, delays may compromise
safety,"but it does not analyze any of the specific impacts that could be caused by such delay.
Instead,the EIR asserts that certain exceptions in the proposed ISO amendment"would allow for E-66
the hiring of other competent workers who are not CAC-approved." See Draft EIR at p. IV.A-
17. Again,however,the EIR is devoid of any analysis, explanation, or evidence to support this
assertion.
Equally important, it is entirely unclear how the 48-hour exception would work in
its real world application. For example,many refinery projects are scheduled for weeks or
months in advance. Would the 48-hour exception allow refinery contractors to search for labor
meeting the requirements of the ISO for any two consecutive days at any time prior to the work
being performed and then, if adequate labor is not available,hire non-CAC-approved workers for
work that will not occur for several weeks or months? Or would the 48-hour exception only ' E-67
allow hiring of non-CAC-approved workers if the contractor could not find CAC-approved labor
in the two days immediately prior to the actual work being performed? The uncertainty and
ambiguity in the 48-hour exception have the potential to create substantial inefficiencies in the
worker evaluation and selection(i.e.,hiring)process, and will likely do nothing to improve or
alleviate the safety problems the ISO itself would cause(i.e.,fewer workers available with
refinery-specific skills, training and experience; smaller overall workforce resulting in potential
selection of less qualified workers; etc.).
Moreover, neither the 48-h6ur exception nor the emergency exception would
allow a refinery contractor to hire non-CAC-approved labor for projects that do not qualify as an
"emergency,"but for which labor is needed right away(i.e.,within two business days), if there is
not enough labor available meeting the ISO's requirements. Thus,work that may be necessary
to prevent an emergency from occurring in the fust place may be delayed for up to two days E-68
under the proposed ISO amendment. This creates the absurd situation whereby the ISO could
itself create the emergency and thus the need for the exemption. The EIR suffers throughout
from this type of circular reasoning. More importantly,the EIR neither addresses these issues in
any degree of detail nor examines the significant safety impacts that could occur as a result of
delays.
4. There Is No Credible Safety Justification To Support
Adoption Of The Proposed Amendment
From a scientific perspective,there is no credible safety justification,or empirical
evidence,to support the adoption of the proposed amendment.
First,the EIR establishes the effectiveness of existing safety training and
procedures at refineries. As the EIR explains, the results of several recent studies show that E-69
"incident rates of full-time workers at refineries were approximately one third less than rates for j
the U.S. private sector,"and that"the incident rate for covered contract workers was reported to
be about equal to the incident rate for permanent full-time refinery workers." See Draft EIR at P.
i
Page 7
Letter E continued
IV.A-7. Thus, "through training and the adoption of proper procedures, the incident rate for
contractor-covered workers in the refinery industry is generally lower than other sectors." Id. E-69 .
As noted above, the EIR also acknowledges that the proposed ISO amendment would not
increase safety when compared with the"No Action"alternative. See Draft EIR at pp. V-3 to V- cont.
4.
Second, as explained above, there is nothing to suggest that CAC-approved
training is more beneficial from a safety perspective than other types of training. There is no
scientifically established relationship between completion of a CAC-approved training process
and increased safety or reduced accidents. Nor is there any evidence that contractors utilizing I E-70
non-CAC-approved training programs have less capability,incentive or experience in developing
and implementing these programs than contractors utilizing CAC-approved programs. The
same is true with respect to the required use of labor from hiring facilities in Contra Costa,
Alameda and Solano Counties, as there is absolutely no evidence that these facilities supply safer
or more qualified labor than facilities elsewhere.
It is certainly reasonable, and indeed advisable, to impose minimum and objective
standards on the content of any safety program and the performance requirements of those who
complete that program. It is also appropriate to require proper training and certification for jobs
where safety is an important issue. But it is entirely inappropriate to impose the types:of E-71
restrictions at issue here—restrictions on who can provide the necessary training and assessment
(i.e., CAC-approved providers may,but NCCER may not)and where the workers must be hired
from. The proposed ISO amendment would likely be counterproductive to legitimate safety
objectives because its requirements serve only to restrict the labor pool artificially and
unnecessarily—thereby reducing the opportunities that workers have to obtain needed, facility-
specific training,and thus reducing the population of properly trained and certified workers.
The EIR states the objectives of the proposed ISO amendment are: (i)to ensure
that contractor-covered workers at covered facilities are trained to achieve the highest possible
level of safety;and(ii)to achieve and maintain a reduction in accidents. See Draft EIR at p. III- E-72
3. There is,however,no evidence or analysis to support a determination that the proposed ISO
amendment will in fact achieve either of these objectives. Rather,the evidence shows that the
ISO amendment will likely result in significant adverse impacts.to safety and actually impede the
County's project objectives.
D. Conclusion
In conclusion,the EIR is deficient'and in need of substantial revision. The
proposed ISO amendment will likely disqualify many of the best qualified and most experienced
workers simply because they are not CAC-approved program graduates or apprentices. The
amendment will significantly limit the pool of available,qualified workers and,contrary to the E-73
cursory conclusions in the EIR,will likely have a substantive negative impact on safety. The
EIR fails to analyze these impacts in any meaningful way,and it therefore fails to present to the
public and the decision-makers the true safety consequences of the proposal.
i
Page 8
Letter E continued
DWI Finkchnnn, Ph.D.
Interim Systemwide Dean
Califurnia School of Organizational Studies
Letter E continued
Eichleay
Eichleay Engineers Inc.of California
November 11, 2004
Patrick Roche
Principal Planner, Advanced Planning
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Declaration of John Sakamoto
EIR for Proposed Amendment to CCC Industrial Safety Ordinance(ISO)
Section 450-8.014, County File#CP02-30
Declaration of John Sakarnoto
I,John Sakamoto, declare as follows:
1. 1 have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and, if called as a
witness,would testify as set.forth below.
2. 1 am a registered professional engineer and Senior Vice President for Eichleay Engineers Inc.
of California. I have worked for over 24 years in the petrochemical industries, and have acted
in the capacity of design engineer, project engineer,and project manager for numerous
projects in this industry, including major refinery maintenance and turnarounds. I am the author E-74
i
and developer of Eichleay's PRISM(Process Responsibility in Safety Management)and
Spectrum risk programs,which analyze and mitigate risk in industrial applications. I manage
Eichleay's risk management services,which are provided to clients—including refineries—in
California,other states,and abroad. I am an executive board member of Contra Costa
County's Workforce Development Board, past executive board member of the Contra Costa
Council,former chair of the Western Council of Construction Consumers(WCCC)task force
for Best Project Practices, and past chair of the Manufacturer's Task Force of the Contra Costa
Council.
3. This declaration addresses the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)prepared for the Proposed
Amendment to CCC Industrial Safety Ordinance(ISO)dated September 2004.While the EIR
addresses numerous issues related to the proposed amendment,it fails to analyze their impact
on safety at Contra Costa refineries, potentially leading to accidents that would affect the .
environment and communities outside the refineries.This is largely due to the fact that the ISO
amendment limits a refinery's ability to utilize the full spectrum of qualified workers, regardless j E-75
of affiliation and apprenticeship certification,to perform maintenance, specialty, and
emergency services.As currently written, the amendment limits the hiring of contractors to
those who employ workers who have completed or enrolled in apprenticeship programs
approved by the California Apprenticeship Council (CAC).
1390 Willow Pass Road,Suite 600 . Concord,Califomia 94520 • Tel 925.689.7000 . Fax 925.689.7006,• www.eichleay.com
Letter E continued
NE!chleay
Eichleay Engineers Inc.of California
4. The CAC is dominated by members with clear Building Trades affiliations and has E-76
predominantly approved only Building Trades apprenticeship programs. It is widely perceived
that non-Building Trades workers would be severely restricted or barred from gaining CAC
certification.
5. Refineries are complex facilities converting crude oil into various useful petroleum products
such as gasoline,jet fuel, diesel, and numerous raw compounds used to manufacture other
goods.The equipment associated with these processes requires ongoing routine maintenance
and regularly scheduled major maintenance."Turnarounds"are scheduled events during which
an entire refinery or major portions(units)of it are shut down and undergo major maintenance.
Typically, one or more units will be shut down for an extended period (1-12 weeks). During that
period,the unit is de-energized, de-pressured,cleaned, inspected, refurbished, and then
placed back into service.Turnarounds are essential to ensure the continued safe operation of
all petroleum refineries. 1
6. Work carried out during a turnaround commonly includes(1)refurbishing or replacement of
equipment, including moving parts, contacts, insulation, refractory, etc.; (2)replacement of
equipment that is nearing the end of its operating life; (3)internal inspection of equipment and
vessels;(4)replacement of expendable media such as catalysts,filters,and packing;(5)
replacement of older equipment and processes with newer, safer, and more efficient j
technologies;and(6)installation of newer monitoring and process control technologies.
7. Turnarounds are very complicated events requiring exhaustive advance planning to ensure the
integration and coordination of(1)incoming and outgoing product deliveries, including
uninterrupted fulfillment of long-term contract obligations;(2)logistical scheduling of E-77
maintenance; (3)completion of engineering,procurement,and delivery of the equipment,tools,
and supplies needed to support the turnaround; and(4)contracting and management of in-
house and offsite labor to complete the turnaround.
8. Turnarounds require months to years of preparation. It is common to plan for a major
turnaround two or more years in advance.The cost of a turnaround is dependent on the scope
of the work and is commonly measured in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in direct j
labor and materials costs; it frequently requires tens of.thousands to hundreds of thousands of
contractor man-hours.
I
9. Contractor selection is critical in planning a turnaround. Factors used in selecting a contractor
include past and present safety record, contractor experience and expertise, management
team qualifications, PSM(Process Safety Management)and CaIARP(California Accidental
Release Program)compliance,workforce training,workforce availability, planning and
scheduling capabilities,and cost effectiveness. Refineries go through involved contracting
procedures to ensure that contractors meet or exceed these requirements.
1390 Willow Pass Road,Suite 600 a Concord,California 94520 • Tel 925.689.7000 a Fax 925.689.7006 . www.eichleay.com
Letter E continued
F-10chleay
� Eichleay Engineers Inc.of California
10. Major turnarounds require numerous craft and specialty contractors. Craft contractors include
general labor, machinists,equipmentoperators,electricians, ironworkers, pipefitters,welders,
boilermakers, insulation workers, etc. Specialty contractors include millwrights, catalyst
installers, hydroblasters,tank-cleaning workers,scaffold erection,computer programmers, E-77
equipment specialists, etc. Refineries must contract work to firms and workers who meet the cont.
selection criteria noted above to ensure work integrity and safety. Firms, contractors, and .
workers who do not meet these criteria are eliminated from the contracting process. Refineries
identify the best possible contractors from local, regional,and national markets regardless of
Building Trades affiliation or specific Building Trades apprenticeship certification.
11. Based on Bay Area refinery data for the three years from 1999 to 2001, non-Building Trades
workers have a significantly better safety record than Building Trades workers as measured by
OSHA 200 recordable injury rates,which measure the average number of recordable injuries
per 200,000 man-hours of work performed.The rate for non-Building Trades workers is 1.15, j
versus 2.17 for Building Trades workers. E-78
12. These data show that non-Building Trade workers are safer than Building Trades workers who
have completed or are enrolled in apprenticeship programs approved by the CAC. Limiting
contractors to Building Trades labor who have specifically completed or enrolled in
apprenticeship programs approved by the CAC can therefore significantly impact a refinery's
ability to utilize the most competent and safest contractors to fill its need for valuable labor and
specialty skills.
13. Limiting the qualified contractor pool,to CAC program graduates may cause turnaround delays,
as local availability of workers at the planned turnaround time may be significantly different
than originally forecast.Although some turnarounds can be delayed to a small extent,a E-79
significant delay will impact a refinery unit's ability to operate safety.This can cause operating j
incidents and accidents that have onsite and offsite consequences.
14. A significant portion(i 50%)of the current total contractor workforce at Bay Area refineries is
comprised of non-Building Trades workers who are used for turnarounds,ongoing
maintenance, and specialty contractor work.Refineries require specialized workers who have
substantial training and qualifications for turnaround work.Workers who have training and
experience with ordinary construction projects are not qualified to perform the highly E-80
specialized work required for refinery turnarounds. For example,electrical, carpentry,or
plumbing workers trained to build office buildings will not be familiar with the equipment used or
the special safety requirements needed to work in high-pressure and high-temperature
operating refineries.
1390 Willow Pass Road,Suite 600 . Concord,Calitomia 94520 . Tel 925.689.1000 . Fax 925.689.7006 . www.eichleay.com
Letter E continued
[A-]Eichleay
Eichleay Engineers Inc.or California
15. A track record of safe,successful turnarounds is a better indicator of how a company and its
skilled workforce will perform than where the workers are from or where they were trained.
Enrollment in or graduation from a CAC-approved apprenticeship program does not signify that
a worker has the specialized skills and training necessary to work on refinery turnarounds.
Restricting refineries to CAC-approved labor only would leave a significant void in the number
of workers possessing the specialty skills required for the safe operation of a refinery,such as
catalyst installers, hydroblasters, tank-cleaning workers, scaffold erection, computer
programmers,equipment specialists,etc.
16. Many of the best-qualified contractors who perform turnaround work employ workers who
reside outside Contra Costa,Alameda,and Solano counties, or outside of California. This is
necessary in order to recruit the large number of highly qualified workers required to E-81
temporarily staff turnaround work.A significant portion of the workers who are qualified to work
on refinery turnarounds are not from Contra Costa,Alameda, or Solano counties and therefore
have not completed apprenticeship programs approved by the CAC.The proposed
amendment would therefore render a large portion of the limited pool of workers who have the
skills,experience,and expertise required for this work ineligible to work on refinery
turnarounds.
I
17. During a turnaround, it is common to identify additional maintenance work that needs to be
undertaken.Such work may require additional specialty contractors and labor.Given the i
severe limitations of the proposed amendment, it may be difficult or impossible to find specialty
contractors with qualified labor on short notice.The proposed amendment contains a
requirement to solicit"Trained Workers from hiring facilities in Contra Costa,Alameda,and
Solano Counties for two normal business days"prior to hiring out-of-area workers. This
requirement is not rational or safe given a refinery's need to respond immediately to any
situation that threatens its ability to operate safely.
18. In sum,the amendment proposed by the County to its ISO will likely result in substantial delays
in(1)currently scheduled major maintenance or tumarounds,as refineries attempt to secure
contracts with contractors who have a labor pool that meets the requirements of the ISO and is
available at specific times;(2)finding sufficiently qualified workers who meet the refinery's
training,experience,and safety requirements for refinery turnaround projects and in E-82
implementing such projects.The requirements of the ISO amendment could also delay
performance of unscheduled maintenance or emergency repair of major refinery units,which
require the same level of expertise as a turnaround.These delays could have a variety of
negative environmental impacts,including those outlined in the following paragraphs.
19. Delays in obtaining the best-qualified contractors can affect the maintenance and safe
operation of refinery equipment that limits air emissions such as nitrous oxides(NOx), sulfur
oxides(Sox),volatile organic compounds(VOCs),and particulate matter(PM10). Refineries
use specialized equipment such as Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCRs)units,thermal E-83
oxidizers,flares, baghouses,and carbon absorption beds to control emissions. Maintenance
delays can result in excess pollution being released into the atmosphere.The Bay Area Air
1390 Willow Pass Road,Suite 600 a Conoord,California 94520 • Tel 925.689.71300 e Fax 925.689.7006 a www.eichleay.com
Letter E continued
[N- Eichleay
Eichleay Engineers Inc.of California
Quality Management District(BAAQMD)regulates these pollutants. A variance must be
obtained from the BAAQMD to allow the unit to continue operation until the necessary E-83
maintenance work is completed. During this period,there can be significantly increased cont.
emissions, up to many tons per day.
20. Cascade or ripple effects can affect other units that depend on a specific unit and further
jeopardize the safe operation of the refinery. For example,the shutdown of an SCR,'which E-84
- limits NOx emissions, may require the shutdown of the entire power train, thereby jeopardizing
the entire refinery's power grid and emergency power system.
21. Delays in refinery turnarounds due to a shortage of workers could restrict the supply of
gasoline and diesel fuels to the entire state. In order to meet air quality standards,the State of
California has imposed unique fuel specifications for both gasoline and diesel.Californians rely
heavily on the 13 in-state refineries to produce most of the state's gasoline and fuel. Contra
Costa County's four refineries alone account for approximately one-third of the gasoline and
one-half of the diesel used in the State of California. Delays caused by the proposed
amendment to the ISO ordinance could therefore result in statewide shortages of gasoline and E-85
diesel, higher fuel prices, and other associated problems.
22. Delays could similarly result in the shutdown of refinery process units, including units that i
handle hazardous wastes.This would create a need to transport hazardous wastes offsite for
disposal,creating transportation risks and environmental hazards. Delays could also cause the
shutdown of acid regeneration facilities, thus requiring the refinery to transport spent acids to
as far as away as Southern.California, again increasing transportation risks.
Respectfully submitted,
John Sakamoto, P.E.
Senior Vice President
1390 Willow Pass Road,Suite 600 • Concord,California 94520.• Tel 925.689.7000 • Fax 925.689.7006 . www.eichleay.com
Letter E continued
e
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ISO ORDINANCE
DECLARATION OF MIKE HOLLINGSHAUS
I, Mike Hollingshaus,declare as follows:
I presently hold the position of Maintenance Superintendent for the Tesoro Golden Eagle
Refinery in Martinez, California. In this position,4 am responsible for both turnaround
maintenance and small maintenance project activities at this very complex 170,000 BPD
refinery. 1 hold a Bachelor's of Science degree in Engineering Technology and
Construction Management from the University of California State at Long Beach.
During a ten year employment period at Bechtel Corporation, I held positions in project E-86
management,project controls,and construction management for projects at power plants,
petroleum refineries and chemical plants. I have worked at the GoldeA Eagle refinery
since 1998 in my present position_ In addition, I cu=tly hold a California State
Contractor's License in "A" General Engineering and "B" General Building. I have j
personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and could and would
testify to the contents of this declaration if called upon to testify as a witness. j
a The complexity of the Golden Eagle refinery is evident by the vast array of processing
units utilized to produce the final products of gasoline, diesel, Propane, Butane,
petroleum coke, Ammonia and elemental sulfur fiom crude oil. Crude oil is a complex
mixture of chemical compounds; as such, all of the above mentioned products are
generated as crude oil is refined. Gasoline and diesel motor fuels are manufactured to E-87
meet the strict air quality specifications for the state of California. Propane and Butane
are used for commercial purposes, including sales to suppliers who provide this fuel to
heat homes. Petroleum coke is used for fuel in electricity generating plants located in
East Contra Costa County as well as overseas. Ammonia and sulfur are sold to the i
agricultural market for use as fertilizer for crops.
The first step in processing crude oil into the above mentioned products is the crude unit.
This unit removes water and salt from the crude to reduce its corrosivity. After this step,
the oil is separated by the distillation tower into fiwdons by its molecular weight. The
distillation tower produces six fractions (listed from lightest to heaviest): wet
gas/butanes, gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, gas oil and residuum.
The heaviest fractions contain molecules that are too large to be utilized in motor fiats
and they must be further processed to make them smaller. The resid fraction is sent to
vacuum distillation units for treatment prior to being sent to the Coker unit. The Coker E-88
thermally cracks the heavy resid molecules into lighter components that can be further
refined to produce products. The Coker unit also produces petroleum coke, a fine black
powder.
I
Gas oil fractions from the crude units, vacuum distillation units and the Coiter are then I
catalytically cracked by the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) and/or the
Hydrocracker Unit. These units utilize catalysts to perform the cracking reaction;
catalytic cracking is more selective than thermal cracking. The FCCU cracking process
breaks long chain hydrocarbons into short chains and multi-ring compounds into smaller
Page 1 of 5
Letter E continued
ring compounds. In addition, olefin compounds .(unsaturated hydrocarbons) are
generated. The cracking process in the Hydrocracker is similar, however, in this unit the
cracking is performed in the presence of Hydrogen. Olefins and other unsaturated
a compounds are saturated during hydrocracking in addition to the production of smaller
compounds. The FCCU and the Hydrocracker are the principal producers of the motor
fuels products.
i
The refinery has several hydrotreating units. Hydrotreaters are key units for removing 11
sulfur and nitrogen and for destroying olefins. These units are critical for the production
of cleaner burning gasoline and diesel. Sulfur, nitrogen and olefins are undesirable
components in motor fuels because they contribute to the formation of smog as a result of
engine combustion. Hydrotreater units are highly specialized to ensure maximum
removal of these undesirable components. The Golden Eagle refinery has hydrotreating i
units specific far treating the feedstock for the FCCU and the feedstock to the
Hydrocracker: In addition, the refinery has hydrotreating units that are specialized for
treating near-final product prior to blending the gasoline.
The refinery also has a myriad of other units for processing hydrocarbons. There are
reformer units that rearrange the hydrocarbons from straight chains into brancbed chains,
etc. The products of these units are used to blend into gasoline to raise the octane rating. E_gg
The alkylation unit combines small fractions of branched hydrocarbons and olefins to
create a larger branched hydrocarbon that is the "right size" to be blended into gasoline. cont.
p This process generates "alkylate", which is a high octane blending component for
gasoline. The refinery also has several units dedicated to purifying the very small
hydrocarbons generated by the cracking units. These units, often called gas plants, are
crucial for the recovery of gasses seat to the refinery flare system.
Steam is critical for both heating and cooling refinery processes. Boilers create high
pressure, high temperature steam for use in nearly every process at the refinery. The
boiler units are critical for operation of the entire refinery. Refinery waste water.(created
when water is removed from crude oil)is treated by the waste water treating units. These
units clean the waste water by utilizing several steps of separation and biological
treatment.
The sulfur and nitrogen in the"sour water"created by the hydrotreating,units is removed
by specialized stripping units. At this point, the sulfur and nitrogen are. sent to the I.
chemical plant for conversion into anhydrous ammonia and elemental sulfur that will be
used in fertilizer. The chemical plant itself consists of five process units specialized for
this conversion. All processing units involved in removing nitrogen and sulfur from
refinery streams are critical for the entire refinery operation.
i
! Process units and storage tanks are connected via a complex network of piping_ Products
from one unit travel through pipes to become the feedstock for another unit. The
complex interrelationship of process units requires that routine maintenance and
turnaround maintenance be performed in a timely and well thought .out manner_
Maintenance delays cannot be tolerated as will be described below.
Page 2 of 5
Letter E continued
The proposed amendment to the industrial Safety Ordinance(ISO)restricts our ability to
hire contractors to only those who employ workers presumably trained by the California
Apprenticeship Council (CAC). The ETR has identified that this restriction would not
impact refinery safety because there is a 48 hour exception and an emergency exception.
Neither option is viable for conducting timely and necessary maintenance on process E-89
units. The 48 hour exception creates a delay of two days before maintenance work can
be performed. The emergency exception covers failure that meet the criteria of a
"sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding
immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, property or j
essential public services". Neither of these exceptions allows for timely maintenance in
the following situation.
A.key process unit in the refinery, such as a crude unit, experiences an unexpected
turbine failure. This equipment can easily and safely be repaired while the process unit is j
on line. Under a situation such as this, the unit is put into recirculation until the repairs
are complete and then the unit is returned to normal operations. The typical repair time
for this type of equipment is a few hours. The length of time a process unit can be in
recirculation is limited, and therefore the repair must be completed within that timeframe
or the unit will have to be shut down. Assuming this is a peak workload year and no E-90
CAC workers are available, the proposed amendment would require that 48 hours must
pass before non-CAC workers could be hired and the work could be performed. Given
this scenario, the unit would have to be shut down until the work could be performed. j
The unit would then be restarted after the work was complete. Without the proposed
amendment, the equipment could be repaired within a few hours and no unit shutdown or
restart would be required. In this instance, •the proposed amendment forces an
unnecessary shutdown and startup of the unit. This situation does not meet the criteria
for an emergency because although it was unexpected, it did not pose a "clear and
imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage
to,life,health,property or essential public services".
The EIR lists a number of incidents and,according to the EIR,none of the incidents were
caused by inadequate training of contractors. However, a significant number of the '
incidents occurred during start up or shutdown of process units. . It is difficult to !
understand how this amendment can have no identifiable impact on safety when it will
force unnecessary unit shutdowns*and start ups. Furthermore, if the unit forced to shut ; E-91
down is a boiler or another unit that supports the entire refinery, it compromises
operations of many process units by causing a steam shortage situation. The ETR listed
that normal operations would not be affected by this proposed amendment. Given the
above information, that simply is not true. Based on the conclusions in the EIR, there is
no justifiable need for this proposed amendment and the safety impacts created by this
amendment were not adequately identified nor analyzed.
The 48 hour exception will also negatively impact safe and timely completion of
turnaround maintenance. A turnaround is maintenance that is performed with the process.
unit is shut down. It presents an opportunity to inspect the internals of unit vessels as E-92
i
Page 3 of 5
Letter.E continued
well as repair of portions of the unit that are not accessible during unit operations.
Turnaround planning is complex and it takes months to years to develop the plan for `
turnaround execution. The scope of the turnaround is developed based upon the unit E-92
history and results from equipment inspection. Once the scope is developed, then the ; cont.
specific skills needed to perform the work are identified. Current practice is to employ
the best qualified contractor, with the most skilled and experienced workers, to perform
the work.
While turnarounds are planned in advance, there are times when the work scope must
change abruptly based upon the internal inspection of a vessel. While a reasonable
estimate can be made regarding what will be found on the vessel internals, there are '
instances where the inspection yields unexpected results. In this event, the scope of that
P portion of the turnaround is immediately changed and depending upon the findings, may
result in requirements to retain additional contractors with specialized skills. Examples
include: finding unexpected reactor tray damage or retubing heat exchangers. Currently, E-93
without the amendment, these changes can result in hiring the right contractor (the one
best suited to do the job) within a few hours with no resulting delay in the turnaround
schedule. With the proposed amendment, there are limits on which contractors can be
hired, even if they are not the best qualified to perform this work, and if there is a
shortage of CAC-qualified workers, 48 hours must pass before other contractors can be
retained to do the work. This exception only serves to lengthen the duration of the
turnaround. The environmental impacts of lengthening refinery unit turnarounds has
already been discussed in Alan Savage M's statement.
A key aspect to executing a successful turnaround is hiring the right contractors to
perform the work. For example, the skilled metal trades workers include pipefitters,
boilermakers, welders, fitters, etc. It is imperative to have turnaround maintenance
performed properly so that when the unit is restarted, it will run safely and reliably. A
skillod metal tradesman who bas specialized in welding boiler tubes in place is not
interchangeable with a skilled metal tradesman who has specialized in welding reactor
cyclones or one who has specialized in welding reactor trays. Although each of these is a E-94
task that is performed inside unit vessels, the tasks are highly specialized and require the
contractor and the worker who has the specific knowledge of how to perform the task. It
is also critical that each of these tasks be executed properly to ensure that the unit will
operate safely and reliably. The proposed amendment would preclude selecting a
contractor based upon their expertise in favor of the training school attended by the
contractor employees. Again, it is difficult to understand why this proposal has been put
forward given that the EM has identified no contribution to incidents from contractor
training.
Turnarounds will often require the performance of multicraft work assignment in parallel.
Examples of this work include the following. Reactor cyclones will be lifted and placed j
inside a vessel. To safely and properly perform this task many craft skills are required to ;E-95
be present simultaneously, including crane operators, riggers, specialized welders,
scaffold builders, skilled metal tradesman, and laborers. During a recent Coker
turnaround, there were five different crafts from five different contractor employers
i
Page 4of5
0
Letter E continued
p
working together inside the coker reactor to clean it, remove the old cyclones and E-95
associated equipment and then install the new internal equipment. Simultaneous cont.
execution of work is imperative to keep the turnaround schedule and avoid delay.
CAC apprenticeship programs do not address all of the needed skills required to perform '
refinery maintenance. Advances in maintenance are always being made. In the recent
Coker turnaround, robotic equipment was utilized to clean out and chip coke from the E-96
interior of the reactor. This is a new skill and there is no CAC approved training for this i
skill.
The EIR states the following: "The CCAINCCER training focuses on training for
refineries and similar plants, such as chemical plants, while the CAC approved training
provided by the union shops also covers skills for other types of ;Facilities, such as E-97
refrigeration. Because of this specialization, the CCAJNCCER training may be more
directly applicable to skills needed for the affected facilities." Based on this statement
contained within the Elk2, it is difficult to understand how the Etat has concluded that E
there is no safety impact from the proposed amendment
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. Executed on this 14th day of November 2404 in Martinez, 1 E-98
California.
M' 1 '
Page 5 of 5
Letter E continued
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ISO ORDINANCE
DECLARATION OF JOEL ELMORE
I,Joel Elmore,declare as follows:
I presently hold the position of Maintenance Manager for the Tesoro Golden Eagle
Refinery in Martinez, California. In this position, I am responsible for both routine
maintenance and turnaround maintenance activities at this very complex 170,000 BPD
refinery.. 1 have worked in the refining industry since 1968. I have been a Refinery ;
Maintenance Manager for-the last 17 years at four different refineries. I have been E-99
Maintenance Manager at the Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery for the last four years. [have
personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declamation and could and would
testify to the contents of this declaration if called upon to testify as a witness.
P A. Refinery Maintenance
Refinery maintenance consists of both routine maintenance activities and turnaround
maintenance activities. Routine maintenance includes predictive and preventative
maintenance as well as repair of equipment, Routine maintenance can typically be
performed while process units are still operating. Predictive maintenance involves
utilizing technological methods of inspection to determine equipment condition
(examples include using techniques such as ultrasonic testing, vibration monitoring, and
thermographic surveys). Preventative maintenance is the performance of equipment
inspection and repair based on time and historical knowledge of the equipment(examples
include pump lubrication, calibration of analyzers, and cleaning high voltage insulators). E-100
The frequency and type of repairs performed on equipment is dictated by the predictive
and preventative maintenance program.
Routine maintenance is conducted to keep operating equipment in good condition and to
keep it running safely. Timely execution of routine maintenance is critical to maintaining
safe operations; delays in performing these key maintenance tasks cannot be tolerated.
Tesoro has maintenance employees dedicated to performing maintenance activities;
however, there are periods where there are high demands for routine maintenance. At
these times, contractor workers must be retained ensure that routine maintenance is
p completed promptly.
1. Selection of Contractors
Only contractor employers that have passed our safety qualification process are utilized at
the Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery. Our qualification process includes evaluations of the
contractor employer's safety training programs, the contractor's safety performance and
the experience and qualifications for particular types of work. We maintain a list of E-101
qualified contractor employers for use in routine maintenance acclivities, turnaround
maintenance and new construction projects. Currently, the particular training program
attended by contractor employees is not a consideration for qualification to work at our
facility. Contractor employers that employ workers presumably trained by the California
Page 1 of 5
Letter E continued
Apprenticeship Council (CAC) are qualified as well as contractor employers that employ
workers trained through other programs.
Allowing refineries to use workers who have training and experience in refinery work has
significant benefits. In refineries, workers may be trained in multiple or cross-fields, E-101
such as pipefitters and boilermakers. Using workers trained in cross, or blended fields,
enables the refineries to use fewer workers with more flexibility and have a smaller cont.
workforce with better communication skills. Our workforce becomes more cohesive,
knowledgeable, and efficient. This translates to better safety records and a work force
more experienced in working on equipment which has been taken out of service for
maintenance activities. Further, insulators, carpenters and laborers are frequently cross-
trained to this same end.
2. Impact of TSO Amendments
The proposed amendment to the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) serves to shrink the
pool of qualified contractor workers to only those trained by CAC programs. This
severely limits the number of contractors available to perform crucial safety tasks. This ! E-102
restriction on the labor pool will hinder our abilities to complete safety critical
maintenance. Although the amendment allows for other contractor workers to be hired
P after 48 hours of attempting to get enough'CAC-trained workers, this exception is
unworkable for our facility.
The following is a scenario depicting how the 48 hour exception does not mitigate the
significant safety impacts created by the proposed amendment. Vibrational tests
performed during a predictive maintenance examination of a compressor indicate that the
compressor's bearings are wearing more quickly than previously anticipated. Based on
the results, it is imperative that repairs be performed immediately. However, no CAC-
trained workers are immediately available due to it being a peak workload year. E-103
According to the proposed amendment,48 hours would have to pass before other workers
could be retained to perform this ess atial maintermce. De emergency excensinn
refer ' able in this instance use there has not been an emergency—
���Without the proposed amendment, there its no limitation on rnigutg in a qualified
contractor immediately to perform the work on the compressor. With the proposed
amendment, there are restrictions on when vital safety work can be completed. It is
unclear why the EIR claims there is no safety impact by this proposed amendment when i
it so obviously impedes important safety work
The EIR claims that the emergency exception as well as the 48 hour exception provide
relief froin the restriction on hiring non-CAC workers and therefore concludes there is no
safety impact from the proposed amendment. This is not the case. The above mentioned i
scenario further serves to demonstrate that the emergency exception also, does not
mitigate the significant safety impacts created by the proposed amendment. The i E-104
proposed amendment allows for hiring of non-GAC workers in the event of an
emergency. The emergency exception would mean that an there was an event that met
the criteria of a "sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger,
demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of or damage to, life, health,
Page 2 of 5
Letter E continued
property or essential public services". The most amazing aspect of this conclusion is that E-104
predictive and preventative maintenance programs strive torep vent emergencies! cont.
Furthermore, the EIR states as follows: "If the amount of contractor-covered labor that
satisfies the proposed amendment is insufficient doming intervals when the demand is the
greatest, projects could be delayed.: The strict safety protocols followed by these
facilities, which were described earlier in the section "Contractor Selection" would
prevent projects from going forward unless an adequate workforce is available, and E-105
delays would reduce the risk of accidents." This statement does not accurately reflect the
situation regarding maintenance work at refineries. The underlying assumption in .this
statement is that maintenance work is optional and does not necessarily need to be
performed when there are too few CAC-trained workers available. Again, this is simply
not the case_ Timely routine maintenance is essential for safe operations at refineries.
B. Turnaround Maintenance
Timely performance, of turnaround maintenance activities is also key for safe, reliable
operations at refineries.• Turnaround maintenance is performed when the process unit is
shut down and cleaned for internal inspection and maintenance. Generally, a turnaround
is.required on refinery units every one to five years. During the turnaround period, I.
which can lest from a week to many weeks; vessels,boilers, heat exchangers, heaters and
piping systems are opened for inspection and maintenance. This very elaborate
inspection and maintenance process is required to assure the.continued safe and reliable
operation of the refinery units themselves and in some cases to assure the state and others
that the subject equipment is safe to operate.
P
A successful turnaround involves several complex phases. The first phase involves
E-106
scheduling. Typically, refinery turnarounds are scheduled well in advance-- up to two
yeah. Scheduling a turnaround is a long,drawn out process. Turnarounds are scheduled
based upon business needs and availability of specific contractor worker skills, crafts or
trades. Turnaround schedule is also determined by the type of unit, the history of the unit
and specific government regulations. The second phase involves determining and
planning the scope involved in the turnaround. This will define what work needs to.be
done and which specific skills are needed to perform this work. Also during this
planning phase, the order in which jobs are performed during the turnaround is
determined. The final phase is the execution of the turnaround maintenance where the
contractor workers are onsite performing the work.
I. Selection of Contractors
When conducting refinery turnarounds, we use contractors whose workers have
comprehensive training, experience and qualifications for this particular type of work.
Workers who have training and experience only with ordinary construction projects (and
are not experienced on chemical and refinery equipment) are not adequately qualified to I E-107
P perform the highly specialized workrequired for refinery turnarounds. if workers are not
trained specifically in refineries, and thus not used to the refinery environment,the noise,.
heat, and congestion tends to distract them from their work, making them less safe.
Page 3 of 5
Letter E continued
Furthermore, workers trained on different materials have different skill sets. For example ! E-107
boilermakers who received their training on ships would not be qualified to use their ; cont.
boilermaker skills in the refinery.
A person who has been enrolled in or graduated from a CAC approved apprenticeship
program for a specific occupation does not necessarily obtain the required skills and
training to work on refinery turnarounds. Apprenticeable occupations are much more
closely translated to construction than refinery turnaround or maintenance activities. E-108
Workers trained and qualified to work on refinery turnarounds are a smaller portion of
the workforce. This is particularly true of pipefitters, electricians,instrument technicians,
and boilermakers who can do very different things to support various construction
activities as opposed to with refinery maintenance activities.
Selection of contractors for turnaround work is thus based primarily upon the knowledge
and experience of the contractor and its workers, not whether the workers have received
training approved by some particular entity. As a result, we do not make distinctions
based on whether a contractor's workers have or have not received CAC-approved
training_ For example, B&W, presumably a CAC-trained worker employer, has
tremendous knowledge about boilers. Planned turnarounds for boilers would likely
include their work because of their vast knowledge and expertise. Another example is E-109
Timec, a non-CAC-trained worker employer. They have a tremendous amount of
knowledge about Coker units. They would be a logical choice to work a Coker
turnaround. Selection of a contractor that has specific expertise in the unit undergoing
turnaround is important to ensure that work on the unit is excellent. A well-performed
turnaround will result in safer and more reliable operation of the process unit when it is
put back on line.
Similarly, we do not make distinctions based upon whether a contractor hires workers in
the three counties specified in the ISO amendment, or even in Califomia_ In my
experience, most of the workers who are experienced and qualified to work on refinery
turnarounds come from outside California. Additionally, the local labor pool (Contra E-110
Costa, Solano and Alameda counties) is not sufficient to independently support local
industrial projects (refining, chemical and power), much less those required for
maintenance and turnaround activities as well.
2. Impact of the ISO Amendment.
i
The proposed ISO amendment would make ineligible for work on refinery turnarounds a
large portion of the limited pool of workers who currently have the sldlls, experience and j
expertise required for this work -- either because they do not have CAC-approved
training or because they do not hire out of the three counties. The proposed amendment E-111
would preclude selecting the best contractor for the turnaround unit and instead force
selection based solely on the training school attended by contractor's employees. Again,
it is unclear why the EIR claims there is no safety impact by this proposed amendment
when it prevents hiring the most qualified and experienced contractor and workers to
execute the work properly.
Page 4 of 5
Letter E continued.
Also of importance in selecting a contractor employer is the presence specific skills of
their employees. For example, not all skilled metal tradesmen are the same. Some have
become specialized in particular tasks such as installation of cyclones in a reactor or
retubing a boiler. These two types of skilled metal tradesmen are not interchangeable. In
addition, apprenticeship programs often do not focus on the specialized needs of E-112
industrial facilities. The EIR appears to acknowledge this when it states the following:
"The CCA/NCCER training focuses on training for refineries and similar plants, such as i
chemical plants, while the CAC approved training provided by the union shops also
covers skills for other types of facilities, such as refrigeration. Because of this
specialization, the CCA/NCCER training may be more directly applicable to skills
needed for the affected facilities."
Based on this statement, it is unclear how the EIR could have reached the conclusion that
P the proposed amendment has no safety impact, since there is unquestionably a close
relationship between how experienced a worker is in a particular task and how safely that E-113
worker performs that task. Stated differently,the less experience a worker has, the more
likely it is that mistakes will be made and safety potentially compromised.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. Executed on the IIt° day of November 2004 in Martinez,, E-114
amore
Page 5 of 5
Letter E continued
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ISO ORDINANCE
DECLARATION OF ALAN SAVAGE III
I,Alan Savage III, declare as follows:
I presently hold the position of Emviroranental Manager for the Tesoro Golden Eagle
Refinery in Martinez, California. In this position, I am-responsible for environmental
compliance at this very complex 170,000 BPD refinery. I have worked in the refining E-115
industry since 1994. 1 have held engineering positions responsible for design,,and ;
installation of Instrument and Electrical equipment. I have also been responsible for the
entire engineering department at the refinery when I was the Technical Manager for the
Golden Eagle Refinery. I became the Environmental Manager in 2002. 1 have personal
knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and could and would testify to the j
contents of this declaration if called up to testify as a witness.
As Environmental Manager, I am knowledgeable of the many environmental regulations
that affect petroleum refineries. I am also experienced with the challenges of meeting all
environmental requirements. Conducting timely routine maintenance, timely turnaround
maintenance and timely construction of new projects are all key elements to keeping the
refinery in compliance with environmental regulations and avoiding environmental
impacts. Delays in beginning any of these activities or delays that prolong the execution E-116
of these activities can have environmental impacts in any of the following areas: air
quality, water quality, increased hazardous waste, noise, visibility, transportation and
energy consumption. The draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed i
Amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance, County Ordinance
Code Chapter 450-8 (hereafter referred to as the.EIR), failed to adequately identify and
analyze the environmental impacts that will result from this proposed amendment.
According to the EK only 64%of the total available contractor labor force may meet the
training criteria in the proposed amendment. Based on this shortfall, it is not difficult to
imagine that there will be delays in any work that requires contractor labor to complete.
The EIR states that the 48-hour notification exception or the emergency exception would
allow for hiring of the rest of the contractor labor pool. Neither of these options is a
viable solution for avoiding environmental impacts. The 48 hour notification exception
is a delay of 48 hours prior to commencing work. The emergency exception would mean E-117
that an there was an event that met the criteria of a "sudden, unexpected occurrence,
involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or
mitigate loss of, or darhage to, life, health, property or essential public services". An
event that meets this criteria most likely has had an environmental impact. Furthermore,
much of the work in a refinery that fits the routine maintenance, turnaround maintenance
and new project construction definition is work that is aimed at improving safety,
environmental and reliability performance. Timely performance of work of this nature is
critical to preventing the emergency event.
The science of atmospheric chemistry is quite complex. Based on atmospheric reactions
that occur and health data, air quality standards for"criteria pollutants'have been set by E-118
Page 1
Letter E continued
both the state and federal government. The local Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) regulates various sources of these criteria pollutants and chemical E-118
p species that create these criteria pollutants as part of the overall effort to improve air cont.
quality. Hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides (SOx) are some of the
refinery emissions regulated by the BAAQMD to improve air quality.
Hydrocarbon emissions create an impact on air quality because hydrocarbons react with
NOx in the presence of:sunlight to create ozone(smog). For this reason, the BAAQMD
has many rules to control hydrocarbon emissions. Petroleum refineries are one of many
industries that are subject to these rules. As such, we have numerous programs and E-119
procedures in place td actively control potential hydrocarbor) emissions- Routine
maintenance activities, turnaround maintenance and installation of new projects are all 1
means to comply with the BAAQMD rules and to improve air quality. Delays to
beginning any of these activities or delays that prolong the execution of these activities
can affect refinery emission of hydrocarbons and cause a negative impact on air quality.
Hydrocarbon emissions.are actively controlled utilizing our predictive and preventative .
maintenance (all part of routine maintenance) programs. The maintenance associated 1
with our tank program ensures that the tanks, all associated piping,-flanges, pumps, etc.
are in good order and free of hydrocarbon leaks. The fugitive emissions program !.
addresses prevention of hydrocarbon emissions from valves, flanges, pumps,
compressors,fittings,etc. This program includes repair of this equipment,including such
p items as replacement of pump seals. Skilled metal tradesmen and pump mechanics are
exarnples of some of the types of contractor employees that would be required to perform E-120
repairs to equipment under the fugitive emissions program. Hydrocarbon vapors are
actively recovered from activities such as ship loading and gasoline dispensing. Flare gas
recovery compressors play a key role in limiting the amount of hydrocarbon going to the
flare system_ Timely repair to any equipment covered by the above mentioned programs
is critical to ensuring there are no increased hydrocarbon emissions. The EIR mentions
that this amendment limits the contractor worker pool and would cause delays mi
maintenance work. Delays on commencement of this type of work would cause a
negative impact on air quality due to increase in hydrocarbon emissions. The E1R failed
to identify or analyze this impact on air quality.
Maintenance on pressure relief valves is also important to minimizing hydrocarbon
emissions. Maintenance is also critical on pressure relief valves that vent to flare. beaks
of this nature to the flare system can increase the flare load and negatively impact the
ability to recover all of the flare gasses and minimize flaring. Increased flaring is a
negative impact to the community with respect to noise and increased visibility. Again, E-121
timely and skilled maintenance is key to minimizing hydrocarbon emissions. Delays on i
commencement of repass to pressure relief valves would cause a negative impact on air
quality due to increase in hydrocarbon emissions. The EIR failed to identify or analyze
this impact on air quality. The E1R further failed to identify or analyze the impacts of
increased noise and visibility from potential increased flaring. j
Page 2
Letter E continued
Numerous new projects are constructed at our facility to improve air quality. These
projects may be required to address compliance for an existing or new regulation from
the BAAQMD. As part of our tank program, there is a tank replacement project which
replaces tanks of older design (a tank of riveted design) with a newly designed tank with
improved seal technology. Tanks without rivets and improved seals have fewer
bydrocmWn emissions. Dae to a recently adopted rule, projects will be built to reduce
hydrocarbon emissions from refinery sewers. Additional equipment will also be required ; E-122
to meet the new vessel depressurization rule to minimize hydrocarbon emissions when
vessels are opened. Furthermore, future projects may be needed to further reduce
emissions at the flare system. Projects of this nature are necessary to reduce bydrocarbon
emissions and improve air quality_ Without the proposed amendment, a sufficient
contractor workforce exists that can be retained to construct these projects. However, the
proposed amendment limits the available contractor pool, which, according to the EIP,
can cause delays of project construction. Delays of these projects would have a negative i
impact on air quality dare to continued emission of hydrocarbon that would have been
reduced with no delay in the absence of this proposed amendment. The Elk failed to
identify or analyze this impact on air quality.
As part of the ozone reduction strategy, BAAQMD also regulates NOx emissions. The
refinery keeps down NOx endssions by keeping NOx producing equipment well
maintained and/or having control devices on NOx producing equipment. It is critical to
keep furnaces maintained in a timely fashion to prevent increased NOx emissions. This
is also true for any Vs.turbines or internal combustion engines on compressors. These E-123
types of equipment (furnaces, turbines, eta) are common to many process units. Timely
maintenance is critical on Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) devices that limit NOx
output Delayed maintenance on SCRs will result ib an increase of Ammonia emissions_
Delays on commencement of this type of work would cause a negative impact on air
quality due to increase in NOx or Ammonia emissions. The EIR failed to identify or
analyze this impact on air quality.
Sulfur Oxide (SOx) emissions are also minimized because Sox can Tract with moisture
in the air to form acid rain. Refineries limit the potential for Sox emissions by keeping
the Hydrogen Sulfide content in the fuel gas low. It is critical to conduct timely E-124
maintenance at our chemical plant process units (includirig turnaround maintenance) as
well on the amine scrubbers to keep the fuel gas clean. Delays on commencement of this
type of routine maintenance or turnaround maintenance would cause a negative impact on
air quality due to increase in SOx emissions. The EIR failed to identify or analyze this
impact on air quality.
As part of the overall effort to improve air quality, the fuel specifications are changed to
produce cleaner burning fuel. Refiners must meet these new fuel specifications. This
often will require construction of new projects designed to produce the cleaner fuel.
Because the timelines ;to meet environmental standards are dictated by government E-125
agencies, it is importW that there is a steady pool of workers to complete projects on
time. The clean fuels'projects of the mid-1990s were fuels upgrade projects_ New
processing units and modifications to existing processing units were constructed to meet
Page 3
i
Letter E continued
the new gasoline standards. In 2006, refiners will be required to produce low sulfur
diesel to meet new cleaner burning specifications for diesel. Diesel combustion products
have been linked to asthma. While there is a specific date that these fuels must be
available to the public, production will often start as soon as the projects are complete i E-125
and ready to produce the new fuel. Delays of these projects would have a negative ; cont.
impact on air quality due to continued use of fuel that does not meet new specifications.
In the absence of this the proposed amendment, cleaner feels would be available with no
delay.. The EIR failed to identify or analyze these impacts on air quality and public
health.
Controls modernization projects are critical to benefit air quality. Upgrades to process i
controls can fine tune furnace operation, thus keeping the NOx emissions low.
Modernized process controls can also reduce the amount of flaring that occurs during unit
operation. Digital Control System technicians, instrument technicians and electricians
are all critical crafts to complete controls modernization projects. The EIR states that this
proposed amendment would cause no change in the operations at facilities. However, j E-126
this is not the case. Without the proposed amendment, the controls moder iization
projects would go forward without delay. These upgrades would improve refinery
operations resulting in improved enviromnental performance. The proposed amendment
has potential to delay construction of these projects to improve refinery operation which
benefits air quality. The MR.failed to identify or analyze this impact on air quality.
Water quality improvements are also made through construction of new projects. The
above mentioned tank project that benefits air quality also benefits water quality. Newly
constructed tanks include double bottoms which prevent leaks and avoid contamination
of underground water. The refinery operates under a National Pollutant Discharge E-127
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SWRCB). When the permit is renewed, it often identifies
changes needed to meet new water quality criteria_ These permit changes will most
likely result in construction of projects to meet the new discharge limits. Again, the
proposed amendment offers potential to delay construction and start up of projects to
benefit water quality. The EIR failed to identify or analyze this impact on water quality.
Refineries utilize a great deal of energy, particularly as it relates to the generation of
steam. Energy consumption can be reduced through installation of oew projects that
minimize steam utilization. Two examples of this type of project include switching from i
steam, driven turbines to electrically driven ones and modifying processes to provide
additional cogeneration capacity. Steam driven turbines require substantially more i E-128
energy than electrically-driven ones due to the large amount of energy required to
generate steam from water. Without the proposed amendment,the energy saving projects
would proceed without!possibility of delay. Once again, the proposed amendment has
potential to delay construction of the projects that would reduce consumption of energy
thereby causing an unnecessary consumption of energy. The EIR failed to identify or
analyze this impact on energy resources.
Page 4
P '
Letter E continued
Refinery turnaround maintenance is where the entire process unit is shutdown for
cleaning, inspection and repair. Turnarounds take anywhere from six to twenty-four
months of planning depending upon the complexity of the unit. During turnaround
maintenance, upgrades to process units are often made that result in increased safety
performance, decreased emissions and increased energy efficiency. Executing the
to around according to the timeline established-during the planning phase is critical to
minimizing impacts to the environment. The type of impact will vary with the service of I E-129
the unit. For example, when some units are shutdown, there is an increase of
hydrocarbons sent to the wastewater treatment plant (WWI?). The longer the unit
shutdown lasts,the greater the hydrocarbon emission from the WWTP. This would be an
air quality impact This increase in unit downtime also results in increased solids to the
WWTP. This increases the frequency of dredging the WW'IT, which in turn results in
increased hazardous waste generation. This impact was also not identified or analyzed in
the ETR Finally,when units with flare gas recovery function are not operating, flaring is
increased. Delays in completing turnarounds on these units will increase the amount of
refinery flaring. This has already been discussed regarding the impacts that were not
identified or analyzed.
Process Hazard Analysis(PHA)is a study of the refinery process units that identifies the
hazards present in the process and determines if the safeguards in place are adequate to
prevent the hazards from causing accidents. The PITA will identify and recommend j
additional measures that need to be added to the unit to increase safety performance.
Conduct of PHAs is required by several state and federal regulations as well as by the j
Contra Costa County Wustrial Safety Ordinance(ISO). The ISO further requires that all E-130
PHA recommendations be implemented within one year or the next turnaround By
restricting the available contractor workforce, the proposed amendment will delay
implementation of these safety- measures. Installation delay of these safety
recommendations inhibits our accident prevention programs. Without the proposed
amendment, there would be no delay in adding these safeguards that decrease the
potential for accidents.. This proposed amendment increases the potential for accidents
due to the potential delays of implementing these safeguards. This is a safety impact that i
was not identified or anilyzed in the EIR
Transportation of feedstocks from one process unit to another is also an area of potential
environmental impact. Some process units-are dedicated to treating the feedstock for
major process units. The treated feedstock is then sent to the major process unit via E-131
pipeline within the fa6lity. If a feedstock treating unit is subject to delays in
maintenance or turnaround, then feedstock for the major process unit will have to be
obtained from outside sources. The feedstock may be shipped to the refinery using
trucks,rail or barge. This is an impact on air quality that was not identified or analyzed
in the EIR.
The EIR states that during the evaluation, there was assumption that future activities,
such as new projects, would not be affected by the proposed amendment. This is clearly j E-132
not the case. The restrictions on the available contractor workforce have numerous
environmental and safety impacts. Timely completion of routine maintenance,
Page 5
Letter E continued
n
turnaround maintenance and construction of new projects is critical to avoiding E-132
environmental and safety impacts. : cont.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. Executed on the I Vh day of November 2004 in Martinez, E-133
California.
Ma
Alan Savage, III
P
P
Page 6
I
J
Letter E continued
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ISO ORDINANCE
DECLARATION OF JAMES DARNELL
I,James Darnell, declare as follows:
I presently hold the position of Health and Safety Manager for the Tesoro Golden Eagle
Refinery in Martinez, California. In this position, I am responsible for health and safety
regulatory compliance, practices and procedures at this very complex 170,000 BPD
refinery. I have been an instructor on Hazardous Materials Management at the University
of California at Irvine. I have also been an Environmental Health Specialist for the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. I have held several industrial % E_134
positions where I was responsible for environmental compliance. In addition, I have held
positions responsible for Industrial Hygiene. I have worked in the refining industry since
1997. Since 1998, I have been the Health and Safety Manager at two different refineries
in the state of California. I became the Health and Safety Manager at the Golden Eagle
Refinery in 2000. My department at the Golden Eagle Refinery is responsible for the
safety qualification to allow contractor employers to work at our facility. I have personal
knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and could and would testify to the
contents of this declaration if called up to testify as a witness.
I have grave concerns regarding the superficial analysis of the proposed amendment to j
the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO)contained within this Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). Page H-1 of the EIR identifies that the greatest area of controversy for the
proposed amendment "includes concerns related to public safety; specifically, whether E-135
the amendment would lead to a greater risk of accidental release and accidents at the
affected facilities." However, given the identification of this area of controversy, it is
troublesome that the EIR contains an inadequate analysis of the safety issues posed by
this proposed amendment.
There are many safety impacts posed by this amendment that are not adequately .
identified nor analyzed by this EIR. The objectives of the proposed amendment are listed
on page III-3 of the EIR as 1) to ensure that the contractor-covered workers at covered
facilities are trained to achieve-the highest possible level of safety and 2) to achieve and E-136
maintain a reduction in accidents at affected facilities. However, none of the incidents
listed in the EIR identify contractor training as a root cause of the incident. It gives one
pause to question how this proposed amendment will reduce incidents when there is no
established nexus between the causes of these incidents and contractor training.
The qualification process for contractor employers is quite rigorous at the Golden Eagle
Refinery. The process includes an evaluation of the safety programs and safety
performance of a contractor. Their safety training programs, experience, and aptitude to
perform the work are also reviewed. Whether a contractor's employees have attended E-137
training by the California Apprenticeship Council (CAC) or another type of training
program is not relevant to whether or not a contractor is qualified to perform work at this
facility. The qualification is based on the merits of the contractor employer with respect
to safety performance.
Page 1 of 3
Letter.E continued
As a Health and Safety professional, I have observed over the years that stable refinery
operations are safe operations. This means that maintenance and turnaround work must
be done in a timely fashion. The proposed amendment serves to place limits on the pool
of available contractor workers to those that have been trained by attending a CAC E-138
training program, which I am concerned will serve to delay critical maintenance work.
Delays of key maintenance work can result in unnecessary startups and shutdowns of
process units. Start ups and shutdowns are times when the process unit is at greatest risk
of an upset. Other statements submitted (see statements for Mike HolIingshaus and Joel
Elmore) have already mentioned this impact on safety that was not addressed nor
analyzed in the EIR.
A refinery is a complex industrial facility with a complicated interrelationship between
the process units. I am concerned that the proposed amendment imposes training
requirements for contractor workers that do not truly prepare these individuals to work on
live process units within the refinery. This type of work is not quite the same as
performing green-field construction. Several quotes from the EIR serve to illustrate my
point quite well:
Page IV.A-3 of the EIR "CAC-approved training programs for apprenticeships such
as steamfitters, plumbers and refrigeration division of the steamfitters/pipefitters 1 E-139
union last five years. The training classes are not specialized for refineries."
I
Page IV.A-4 of the EIR"The skills training provided by TD EC are similar to those
provided by the trade unions, except that these skills are focused on refineries.
Besides providing classroom instruction, the TIlVIEC facility contains mockups of
refinery equipment where apprentices can achieve hands-on skills."
Page IV.A-4 of the EIR"The CCA/NCCER training focuses on training for refineries
and similar plants, such as chemical plants, while the CAC approved training
provided by the union shops also covers skills for other types of facilities, such as
refrigeration. Because of this specialization, the CCA/NCCER training may be more
directly applicable to skills needed for the affected facilities."
Experience is critical for workers to perform refinery work safely. Specialization is also !1
key for safe work performance. The hazards present within a refinery are unique. An i
example includes: Refinery electrical systems are at a much higher voltage (at several
thousand volts) than residential systems (at 120 volts). An electrician who works at a
refinery must have experience with and specialization in high voltage systems. An
electrician who has only wired houses would not be qualified to work on high voltage I E-140
systems. Furthermore, by mandating training for contractor workers that lacks
specialization in refinery equipment, the proposed amendment negatively affects the
personal safety of the workers doing the work. An electrician who has attended a CAC-
approved training program, but only has experience wiring houses is not qualified to
work at a refinery. The impact this amendment will have on the field safety of the
workers has not been identified or analyzed in this EIR. Based on the EIR's own
Page 2of3
Letter E continued
conclusion, this amendment will serve to replace a highly experienced labor pool with a
less experienced one. It is unclear why the EIR reaches this conclusion but then states E-140
that the impact on safety is less than significant. cont.
The EIR cites two studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of training programs with
respect to improving safety. The studies are:
■ Gibson, Pamela, Workplace Safety for the U.S. Petroleum Industry 1992-
2001,American Petroleum Institute,February 24, 2003 and
■ Murray, Glen, Manager of Downstream SH&E Operations for ExxonMobil,
presented at API conference,Arlington,VA June 13,2001.
However, these studies cited are not studies'on the effectiveness of training programs. E-141
The study by Gibson is simply a collection of safety statistics for a variety of industries
and it does not attribute the safer performance of the refining industry to training
programs or any other programs or system. There are a myriad of programs and systems
utilized by the refining industry to continuously improve safety performance. The
presentation by Murray highlights a number of safety elements, including training. Well
designed equipment, good procedures, robust safety policies and procedures, and safety
leadership from management are all elements that contribute to the improved safety
performance observed in the refining industry. To conclude that only training has
resulted.to good safety performance is a superficial reading and understanding of these
studies.
In closing, I am concerned about the conclusion of the EIR that the mandating of a
training program for contractor workers that does not specialize inour industry has no
negative impact on safety. The EIR has not identified nor analyzed all the safety impacts E-142
posed by the proposed amendment.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and ref Executed on the 1 i th day of November 2004 in Martinez, E-143
Californi
J es Darnell
Page 3 of 3
Letter E continued
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ISO ORDINANCE
DECLARATION OF NANCY ROSS
I, Nancy Ross, declare as follows:
1 am currently the Manager, Security for Tesoro's Golden Eagle Refinery in Martinez,
California. In this position, I am responsible for overall security program for this very
complex 170,000 BPD refinery, which includes two marine terminals (one in the City of
Martinez). The facility has an approved Facility Security Plan that has been implemented
as required by federal and state regulations. I have 23 years of experience in the oil
industry, and have held numerous positions during that time. At the Corporate level, I
have managed government relations and health, safety and environmental compliance E-144
programs. At the refinery level, I have been responsible for external affairs, emergency
planning, and incident investigation. At a synfuels facility, I held positions in public
relations and served as resident manager of a 30,000 acre property. I assumed the newly
created position of Security Manager at Tesoro last year. I have personal knowledge of
a the matters set forth in this declaration,and could and would testify to the contents of this
declaration if called as a witness.
In the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) identified the petrochemical industry as a potential terrorist target. To
address this threat, the U.S_ Coast Guard implemented extensive facility security
regulations for marine facilities in December, 2003. Tesoro's 2,300 acre site in Contra
Costa County must comply with these extensive regulations.
Access control measures are in place to ensure only authorized personnel are allowed to
enter the refinery_ An electronic badging system is used at the refinery's perimeter gates E-145
for employees, and select contractors, onsite business personnel, vendors and delivery
firms also are issued electronic badges as approved by Tesoro and meeting the regulatory
requirements for permitting access, including identification requirements. A short-term
clearance process controls access for daily entrants and visitors. The large refinery
property has three different levels of restriction that control where non-employee entrants
have access. Non-employee badges are coded for access, and all vebicles entering the
facility are required to be carry Tesoro identification (decal, placard, etc.) while in the
facility.
Major turn-around projects at the refinery require a large workforce of contracted
workers plus additional support personnel ranging from administrative work to food
service to equipment deliveries. For the 2004 Coker Block turnaround, an additional
workforce of approximately three thousand people was processed and electronically
badged. A temporary security clearancelbadging facility was opened with personnel E-146
working 2417 to process entrants, staffed by as many as five employees at a time over
eight weeks in order to complete documentation, clearances and badging in a timely
fashion. Additional security personnel were hired to conduct vehicle security screenings
(there is a federally mandated screening rate), direct traffic, screen carry-on items
workers were taking onto buses, and to monitor badge codes and check vehicle
Page i of 2
Letter E continued
identification to ensure that only authorized personnel were allowed to enter restricted I E-146
areas. cont.
Contractors must complete paperwork to request electronic badges for their personnel,
and it must be authorized by a Tesoro supervisor. Identification requirements ;ire
mandated by Coast Guard, and 100% of refinery entrants must comply by presenting a
permanent photo identification card. Tesoro is in the process of implementing a E-147
corporate-wide policy requiring background checks to further enhance security. This
policy is planned to be in effect for our 2005 turn-arounds and will expand the processing
time for entrants. Currently,background checks are completed for company employees.
Given the length of time needed to properly complete security clearances, the 48-hour
exception in the proposed amendment is unworkable. Contractors need to have their
employee roster finalized and begin the security process weeks before the turnaround
commences_ Delays created by the 48-hour clause will only make the security screening E-148
more difficult by shortening the time frame needed to complete the process. The security
clearance process cannot be abbreviated — it is critical to safety. The safety impact on
security created by this proposed amendment was not identified nor analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report,
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. Executed on the 11th day of November 2004 in Martinez, E-149
California.
ancy Ros
Page 2 of 2
Letter E continued
Shell Oil Products US
Martinez Refinery
PO Box 711
Mortinez,CA 94553-0071
Tel 1925)313-3705
Fax (925) 313-3065
November 11, 2004
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
Re: Proposed Amendment to the ISO (County File CP#02-30
("Amendments") - Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Dear Mr, Roche:
The following comments on the above EIR are submitted on behalf of the Shell
Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery ("Shell").
I am the manager of the Environmental Affairs Department of Shell's Martinez
Refinery. The Environmental Affairs Department is charged with environmental
regulatory compliance for the Refinery. I have worked in the refining field for 24
years and in the environmental compliance field for 9 years. The refinery is
subject to a multitude of state, federal, and local rules and regulations covering
the areas of air quality, water quality, and hazardous wastes and substances E-150
(environmental rules). These environmental rules are generally designed to
prevent or limit the release of contaminants known to be harmful to humans or
the environment at certain levels or concentrations. Such regulations are
continually being revised and updated and new environmental initiatives enacted,
all designed to reduce the volume of contaminants emitted to air, discharged to
water or disposed of at landfills.
In order to achieve compliance with many, if not most, of the regulatory
requirements, new construction or major modifications to existing facilities, and/or E-151
the addition of pollution control equipment is required.
Letter E continued
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
November 11, 2004
Page 2
While examples of such required environmental projects are too numerous to list,
the following are some examples of major projects undertaken at the Martinez
Refinery which were mandated by environmental laws:
1. Installation of Marine Vapor Recovery to capture hydrocarbon
emissions from the loading of ships mandated by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8 Rule 42.
2. The Clean Fuels Project to make modifications needed to produce
cleaner burning reformulated gasoline mandated by the State of California to
reduce pollution caused by vehicles.
3. Modifications needed to remove MTBE from gasoline to prevent it from
contaminating ground and surface water. The project was mandated by an
executive order issued by the Governor of California. This project involved
modifications to 15 separate units including, but not limited to, the following:
alkylation, cat cracker, cat gas hydrotreater, gas depentanizer, dimersol,
distallate saturation, hydrocracker, heavy gasoline hydrotreater, isomerization, E-151
plus numerous tankage service changes. An average of approximately 90 cont.
contract workers were required each year over a 2-year period. The work
involved energized, pressurized, and/or control systems in the specific skill areas
of electrical, metals, instrumentation and rotating equipment.
4. A major new unit needed to remove selenium from wastewater streams
to prevent its discharge into the bay. This project was mandated by the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
5. Installation of ultra low Nitrous Oxides (NOX) burners to reduce NOX
emissions from refinery heaters. This project has been on-going since 1998 and
will not be completed until 2008. It is required by BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule
10. The work requires contractor employees with specific skill in electrical,
metals, instrumentation and rotating equipment working in the energized,
pressurized, and/or control systems.
6. Installation of flare flow meters, sampling systems and video equipment
to monitor flare emissions, required by BAAQMD Regulation 12, Rule 11.
Letter E continued
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
-November 11, 2004
Page 3
This project lasted approximately 10 months and required contractor employees
in the skill areas of electrical and instrumentation.
7. A current project mandated by the BAAQMD will result in the control of E-151
hydrocarbon emissions from the refinery's approximately 4000 waste water
system components (BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 8). This project has already cont.
started and will require contractor workers until April of 2007. It is estimated that
approximately 60 contractor employees will be required per year for this project.
Each of the above projects, and many others like them, are environmentally
beneficial in preventing or reducing the release of significant amounts of known
contaminants into the environment. All such initiatives have regulatory deadlines
for completion and compliance with the applicable rule, regulation or order. Such
deadlines are not optional as suggested in the EIR, which wrongly asserts that
projects would simply not go forward if an adequate workforce was not available.
Any delay in achieving compliance not only puts Shell at risk of violating the E-152
applicable rule or regulation, but also has a direct adverse impact on the
environment by delaying the control or reduction of the particular target
contaminant. In many of the specific examples listed above, the environmental
requirement applies to all refineries and all must compete for skilled manpower to
complete the projects by the statutory deadlines.
Even new projects unrelated to environmental requirements will usually result in
a net reduction of contaminants released to the environment. Permitting rules
are such that the best available control technology must be utilized in new
construction, and offsets of contaminants must be obtained at ratio greater than 1
to 1 for any increases in emissions. . Accordingly, delays in new projects
unrelated to environmental requirements also have the potential to delay the
reduction of contaminants released to the environment. E-153
One of the keys to ongoing compliance with environmental regulations is regular
maintenance of refinery equipment, which includes pollution abatement
equipment used to minimize emissions. The potential for an increase in
emissions of contaminants to the environment . results from improper
maintenance or delayed maintenance.
Letter E continued
Contra Costa County.
Community Development Department
November 11, 2004
Page 4
Because much of the refinery equipment operates continuously at high
temperature and high pressure, it is essential that it be maintained on a regular
basis. This maintenance takes the form of regularly scheduled routine
maintenance and turnarounds. From an environmental perspective, such E-153
maintenance is not optional, but is mandatory to insure the safe and proper
operation of the refinery in compliance with environmental laws. Delays in such cont.
maintenance have the very real potential to result in releases of contaminants,
which could have a direct adverse impact on the environment.
The EIR recognizes that the proposed ISO Amendments would limit the available
labor force to conduct refinery projects, which include new projects, turnarounds,
and routine maintenance, and would thereby result in such projects being
delayed. As indicated above, the delay of any of such activities has the potential
to lead to adverse environmental consequences by delaying the control of E-154
contaminants released to the environment or due to the failure to complete
maintenance in a timely fashion. The EIR fails even to identify, much less
analyze in any meaningful way, the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Amendments that would be caused by delay, including impacts to air
quality and to water quality.
The EIR also fails to analyze the potential environmental impacts that may result
from refineries having to shut down equipment or processes that are in need of
maintenance, repair or even replacement, but for which an adequate workforce
would not be available because of the labor restrictions of the proposed ISO
Amendments. These shutdowns, and the subsequent startups, are the periods E-155
when refineries are most vulnerable from the viewpoint of a potential release of
contaminants, and when a highly skilled and ample workforce is most needed.
Again, the EIR does not even mention these impacts, let alone evaluate them.
There are many other potential consequences resulting from the shutdown of
parts or all of a refinery. They include potential shortages of California clean
burning fuel and consequent increases in vehicle emissions. They also include
increased transportation impacts. Most of the crude oil processed by the refinery
is currently delivered by pipeline. E-156
If that crude could not be processed because of shutdowns mandated by a lack
of labor, then ship, rail, and truck traffic could all increase in order to provide
Letter E continued
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
November 11, 2004
Page 5
necessary intermediates to the refinery required to maintain gasoline production. I E-156
All such transportation increases have potential adverse environmental impacts. cont.
The EIR authors erroneously conclude that the emergency and 48-hour
notification exceptions included in the proposed Amendments would somehow
cure the labor shortage and any resulting environmental impacts. First, the
emergency exemption is narrowly defined and only applies to the "Contractor
Responsibilities" Section of the Amendments. The Stationary Source must still
comply with the 50% rule found in Section IV 2(E) of the Amendments. Thus, the E-157
labor force remains limited even during emergencies. Since emergencies (i.e.
fires, etc.) often result in the release of contaminants, the potential for a delayed
response due to labor shortages could clearly have an adverse environmental
impact.
In addition, maintenance, turnarounds, and new projects are planned months or
years ahead of the actual work. Extensive engineering, material and labor
procurement, and scheduling both for the activity itself and for related and
affected equipment are required. It is not unusual for there to be hundreds of
contractor workers needed at any one time for such projects, which often cost
tens of millions of dollars. Typically, labor is arranged for these activities months
in advance of the work. Under the provisions of the proposed Amendments, it is E-158
unclear how this could be done. The Amendments are currently drafted in a way
such that, under some circumstances, neither the refinery nor the contractors
doing the work will know if there will be sufficient labor for the work until some
period in excess of 48 hours after the work needs to commence. This is an
unworkable provision, and there is no explanation in the proposed Amendments
or the EIR as to how this provision might work in the real world (i.e. can the
contractor contact the labor hiring facilities and start the 48-hour clock when the
work is being planned, months ahead of the time when the work will be
commenced, or do they have to wait until the work is ready to begin?).
For all of the above reasons and contrary to the conclusions of the EIR, the
Amendments have very real potential to result in .significant environmental E-159
impacts.
Letter E continued
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
November 1.1, 2004
Page 6
These impacts need to be carefully and thoroughly analyzed in a revised EIR so E-159
that the public and the County are accurately informed about the real impacts of
the proposed ISO Amendments. cont.
Sincerely yours,
Teresa K. Makarewicz
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Bay Valley Manufacturing Complex
Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery
Letter E continued
Shell Oil Products US
Martinez Refinery
November 11,2004 PO Box 711
Martinez, CA 94553-0071
Tel (925) 313-3143
Fax (925) 313-3005
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor
Martinez,CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
Re: Proposed Amendment to the ISO (County File CP#02-30) ("Amendments") -
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report. ("EIR")
Dear Mr Roche:
The following comments on the above EIR are submitted on behalf of the Shell Oil Products US,
Martinez Refinery ("Shell").
I am currently the Reliability and Maintenance Manager for the Shell Martinez Refinery located in E-160
Martinez,California. I am responsible for all routine and turnaround maintenance activities at this
160,000 barrel/day refinery. I began my career with another major oil company in 1980 in Texas
and have been in the refining since that time. I began my employment with Shell in 2002. I have
held positions in engineering,maintenance, turnarounds,project management,and refinery
management.
To insure the continued safe operation of the facility and its processes,three types of maintenance
are necessary: predictive,preventive and reactive. Predictive maintenance is scheduled based on
inspections and observation of equipment and its performance. Preventive maintenance includes
repairs at set intervals to prevent unexpected breakdowns or shutdowns and system testing to ensure
proper function. Reactive maintenance is the repair of equipment or systems that have failed or are
showing signs of imminent failure.
E-161
The timeliness of maintenance activities can be critical,especially where the equipment or system
involved is essential to refinery operations. Delays in maintenance activities can increase the risk of
equipment failures and breakdowns,which can have adverse safety impacts on workers or the
community. Delays in maintenance activities may also require the refinery to interrupt or shut down .
production. These interruptions or shutdowns can also cause adverse impacts,by increasing the risk
of flaring and equipment or system malfunctions.
Letter E continued
There are many specific types of maintenance activities required at the refinery, including:
• General repair of all equipment failures: If the equipment is critical to
the operation of the unit,immediate repair would be necessary.
■ Turnarounds of complete process units
• Pump/Compressor servicing and repairs
■ Protective Instrument System(PIS)Testing
■ Electrical Distribution servicing (resting Transformer Oil,System E-161
tests, etc.) cont.
■ Testing and calibrations of Continuous Emissions Monitor("CEN-1")
■ Testing and calibration of pressure relief devices
■ Testing and calibration of steam turbine over-speed trips
• Testing and calibration of process analyzers
• Testing and calibration of critical alarm limits
Delays or postponements of the maintenance activities listed above could result in upsets,
breakdowns, failures or other malfunctions causing a variety of adverse impacts. For example,
delays in PIS testing,CEM testing, or critical alarms testing could hinder the refinery's ability to
prevent, detect,and respond to a release to the environment. Delays in PIS testing or
pump/compressor repairs could result in unit trips/shutdowns with associated flaring. E-162
Furthermore,delays in pressure relief testing or steam turbine overspeed trip testing could result in
catastrophic equipment failures such as vessel or turbine case ruptures. The County's EIR
recognizes that the proposed amendments would restrict the labor pool and that refinery projects
could be delayed as a result,but the EIR does not disclose,explain or evaluate any of the potential
impacts listed above. The EIR needs to be revised.
There is also another type of impact that the EIR does not adequately address. It is essential that
workers at refineries have specific experience with refinery operations,processes and equipment.
Workers performing maintenance activities need to understand the hazards of working around live
process equipment and how one's actions can impact the operating unit and the safety of other
workers. Workers who do this type of work are selected based on demonstrated safety
performance,effectiveness and ability to perform the work in a timely fashion,and,finally,costs.
The proposed ISO amendments,however,would adversely alter our worker selection process and E-163
thereby hinder our ability to choose the best qualified and safest workers for the job,regardless of
whether they have completed a CAC-approved training program or some other training. Instead,
under the proposed amendments,we would be required to select workers with CAC-approved
training, even though in our experience some of the non-CAC program contractors are the safest.
The County's EIR does not discuss or address the potential safety impacts of restricting refineries'
access to the best qualified and safest workers for the job,regardless of affiliation.
Thus,the ISO amendments have the potential to cause impacts because it would result in delay of
needed refinery maintenance projects,and because it would restrict the available labor pool. The
48-hour"exception"in the proposed amendments would not solve these problems or mitigate the
adverse impacts. We run a 7-day-a-week,24-hour-a-day business,and 48 hours is an unacceptable
delay when critical equipment has failed or is showing signs of imminent failure. Indeed,any critical
Piece of equipment(large compressor, furnace, control valve or large pump) that is not spared E-164
(duplicated) will bring a unit down if it fails. When this type of equipment fails,work must often
start immediattely,and it proceeds around the clock to restart the unit safely. Moreover,if there is an
equipment failure,environmental regulatory requirements may require us to get the equipment back
Fettercontinued
on line as soon as possible, ae proposed ISO amendments wou inconsistent with any suc i
requiremcnt.
The emergency "exemption"is also of little use. First of all, the definition of"emergence'" is quite
specific and narrow and may not apply to the maintenance activities described above. Second,who
decides what constitutes an emergency? If the refinery makes this determination,will the County.
second-guess that finding? Third, the exemption applies only to"contractor responsibilities," and
does not alter the "stationary source responsibilities"under the proposed amendments. Thus, the
exemption does not apply to the"50%rule" that the amendments would impose on the refineries E-164
and,accordingly, the labor pool would still be limited even during emergencies. Finally, the very
reason for the refineries'stringent maintenance requirements is to avoid emergencies and their cont.
potential on-and off-site consequences. The proposed amendments,by hindering our ability to
conduct this maintenance in an efficient and timely fashion,will likely create more emergency
situations.
In summary, the proposed ISO amendments would have negative,not positive,impacts. Those.
impacts must be-My disclosed and analyzed in a revised EIR E-165
Sincerely y ,Zs
Shawn Costner
Letter E continued
Shelf Oil Products US
;Martinez Refiners-
PU Brix 711
Martincz,CA 94553-0071
.I.U1 (925)313-3748
November 11,2004 Fax (935)313-3059
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street,4th Floor
Martinez,CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
' Re: Proposed Amendment to the ISO (County File CP#02-30)
("Amendments")-Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR'r)
Dear Mr. Roche:
The following comments on the above EIR are submitted on behalf of the Shell Oil Products L'S,
Martinez Refinery- ("Shell'D.
I am currently the Turnaround Planning Manager for the Shell Martinez Refinery located in
Martinez, California. I am responsible for all turnaround maintenance activities at this 160,000 E-166
barrel/day refinery. I began my career with Shell in 1987 in Los Angeles and have worked at the
Martinez refinery since 1992. During my time with Shell,I have held positions in management in
pressure equipment integrity,operations and turnaround maintenance.
Turnaround maintenance occurs when one or more process units are shutdown for cleaning,
inspection and repairs of equipment The scope of turnaround maintenance varies widely from unit
to unit and year to year and requires many months of advance planning. Turnarounds are scheduled
based on the unit's specific historical performance,legal requirements, and industry standards(e.g.,
American Petroleum Industry Standards). The length of time that a process unit may run before
turnaround maintenance is determined years in advance to allow adequate time for planning.
Typically,the planning process begins 18 months prior to the unit shutdown date;with numerous
process units,planning occurs concurrently on many parts of the refinery.
Numerous individuals are involved in the planning of a turnaround. A variety of specialists (e.g.,in E-167
operations, control systems,electrical,mechanical,pressure equipment and heat transfer)provide
important planning input,with detailed scopes of work for inspection and repairs to assure a safe,
reliable turnaround. Additional input from safety and environmental personnel is incorporated in
order to meet industry standards and comply with changing environmental regulations. In the end,
the work to be done is vast in its scope and in most cases is extremely complex in nature.
After the scope of work has been determined,contractors are selected to conduct the work based
upon their past safety and performance records, their ability to do the work, their ability to supply
qualified people and, finally, their cost. Qualified workers receive training from the BATC and
Shell-specific safety training before starting work. To n,ini*nize product interruptions to the
Letter E continued
consumer, turnaround Ivor. .ten compressed into tight do vntim doves. Large-scale E-167
turnarounds are often executed in 25 to 40 days,even.though they invoive several hundred thousand
man hours. cont.
The proposed ISO amendments would restrict the availability of qualified workers in several wags.
First, the amendments would require refineries and contractors to use workers with CAC-approved
training, and would restrict the ability to use workers with other types of training. Second, the
amendments would require contractors to use labor hiring facilities in Contra Costa,Alameda and E-168
Solano Counties. In addition,I have no doubt that many employers and workers,including those
who have extensive refinery-specific experience_-and skills,will not seek the necessary qualifications
to do work in Contra Costa County due to cost and administrative constraints.
In my opinion,the labor restrictions imposed by the ISO amendments will lead to safety and
environmental incidents and product supply interruptions—impacts that were not addressed in the E-169
Countv's EIR.
Literally hundreds of qualified employers have offices outside the Bay Area and employ tens of
thousands of specialty-trained workers who also live outside the Bay Area. The proposed ISO
amendments effectively elirninates these workers.from the available labor pool, or at least severely E-170
restricts access to these workers. And by limiting the supply of qualified workers, this hinders our
ability to hire the best trained and safest workers for the job and to ensure the safe and reliable
operation of our refinery.
Shell also enjoys the benefit of sharing their contractors from refinery to refinery in the case of large
turnarounds. For instance,during a large turnaround we employ Timec supervision and workers
from our Anacortes,Washington,Bakersfield and Los Angeles refineries. They are not only
specialists in the type of work they do,but have the added benefit of understanding Shell's specific
safety requirements and work processes to conduct the maintenance activities in a safe and timely E-171
manner. Timec has been the primary contractor for Shell Martinez for the last several years and has
a tremendous knowledge base of our equipment and work processes. As Timec is not a Trades
Union company,it is unlikely they will qualify as a CAC-trained employer and, therefore, they may
lose the work that have conducted and continue to conduct at Shell Martinez most competently and
most safely.
As I sit here today,Valero has a plant-wide turnaround underway and Tesoro and ConocoPhillips
are conducting large-scale turnaround maintenance and employing thousands of contract workers.
Had the proposed ISO amendment been in place at this time and we needed to shut down a major E-172
process unit for inspection or repairs,we would be.severely limited in the ability to bring in the best
qualified and safest workers.
The County must revise the EIR to include an accurate and thorough description of the negative
safety and other environmental impacts that would result from the proposed ISO amendment. E-173
Sincerely yours,
l 0
William Mc ally ,
� r
Letter E continued
10 Shell Oil Products US
:Martinez Refinery=
November 11,2004 PO Box 711
Martinez,CA 94553-0071
Tel (925) 313-3460
Fax (925) 313-3163
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street,4th Floor
,Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
Re: Proposed Amendment to the ISO (County File CP#02-30) . ("Amendments") -
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report . ("EIR")
Dear Mr Roche:
The following comments on the above EIR are submitted on behalf of the Shell Oil Products U'S,
Martinez Refinery ("Shell'D.
I presently hold the position of Manager of Projects and Construction for the Shell Martinez
Refinery. In this position, I am responsible for both detailed project design and field construction E-174
for all project activities at the refinery. I have worked in the refining industry for over 30 years at
four different refineries. The majority of my work experience during this period has been in
Routine Maintenance,Turnaround Maintenance,and Projects.
Currently, for Capital Projects,the refinery uses only contractor employers that have passed Shell's
contractor pre-qualification process. This rigorous process includes:
• Review and evaluation of contractor recent safety performance
• Review and evaluation of contractor safety programs
• Review and evaluation of contractor field of expertise
• BATC safety training E-175
• Martinez site-specific safety training
I
Many Capital Projects are completed during peak work periods("Turnarounds"). A significant
number of these projects are required to meet changing environmental regulations. The proposed
amendment to the Industrial Safety Ordinance would limit the pool of qualified contract workers to
those with CAC-approved training. This would severely limit the number of contractors and
workers available to perform required environmental projects.
Furthermore, the EIR states as follows: "If the amount of contractor-covered labor that satisfies the
proposed amendment is insufficient during intervals when the demand is the greatest,projects could
be delayed...". Since many environmentally driven projects are completed during unit turnarounds E-176
and have legally required compliance dates,we cannot simply delay the completion of these projects;
we are required to satisfy the requirements and the deadlines of the environmental regulations.
Letter E continued .
A current example is an F1 _indared project to reduce emissions itrous Oxides (NOx) that
must be completed by December 31, 2008. The project will require modifications,to the
burners/heaters in 7 units; namely, the CFH, HP-1,CRU, CCU, HCL•,Crude Unit and HP-2. Each
of these units is scheduled for only one turnaround between now and the end of 2008. If because of
a limited work force we are not able to complete this.project in a timely fashion, the result would be
either to: (1) delay EPA-mandated reductions in emissions of NOx,,a criteria pollutant under the
federal Clean Air Act;or (2) to shut down one or more of the units (or extend unit downtime) after E-177
2008,which could curtail production and thereby reduce the availability,and increase the cost,of
gasoline and other fuels in the Bay.area. This is significant from an environmental point of view,
since Contra Costa refineries supply approeimately 25%of the cleaner-burning reformulated
gasoline in California.
The EIR does not address the potential air quality impacts from delaying reductions in NOx
emissions, nor does it address the potential energy and air quality impacts of a possible reduction in E-178
supply in cleaner-burning gasoline. The EIR needs to be revised to address the negative impacts of
the proposed ISO amendments.
Sincerely yours,
William Quinn
i
Letter E continued
Declaration of David Erfert
I, David Erfert declare as follows:
I am the Technical Manager at the ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery. I
serve on the Refinery Leadership Team, and I am responsible to the Refinery E-179
Manager for issues concerning safety, environmental compliance and regulatory
interface.
Rodeo refinery operations and construction projects are subject to the strictest and
most comprehensive environmental and safety regulations anywhere in the world.
Specialty contractors,with the skills and knowledge necessary to achieve
compliance with these regulations, are in high demand throughout the United
States. Depending upon availability and the nature of the contract work to be E-180
performed, local contractors are not always available in the Bay Area. The
requirements, under the ISO amendments,to force refineries to employ only those
workers who have completed local testing,does little to improve safety or
technical expertise, and potentially serves to limit the available pool of qualified
workers to perform much needed services.
Air emissions, for example, are regulated by agencies of the U.S. Government
under the auspices of the Federal Clean Air Act. Equally stringent local and state
air mandates are administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Specialty contractors are utilized to support compliance with the array of air
quality regulations that govern our facility. For example, contractors must have
the skills necessary to conduct stack testing of the fired sources to measure air E-181
emissions,and must have an expertise in tank roof seals. The BAAQMD
regulations in these areas of refinery operations are complex, demanding and
require the utmost attention to detail. Relying on overworked, underskilled
laborers will undermine the stated goal of improving health and safety.
In some instances, specialty contractor work requires the ability to understand and
apply state-of-the-art computer systems,optical sensory systems (FLTR/GLM)
i and inspection techniques. Only a handful of individuals in the United States are
qualified to do this work.Further, the majority reside outside the Bay Area.
Although we utilize professional contractors with specialized expertise,it is E-182
unclear how specialty contractors could or should be treated under the proposed
amendments.
Additionally,all refineries in the Bay Area must comply with the provisions of
the federally imposed Title V permit requirements. Title V requirements are
comprehensive in nature and require facilities like the San Francisco Refinery to E-183
engage in detailed recordkeeping and inspection.
sF►21590672.2
Letter E continued
The refinery also employs skilled contractors to assist in compliance with the
federal Clean Water Act,as well as state and local water quality standards. For
example, the Refinery's wastewater and stormwater discharges are regulated
under the permit provisions of the National Permit Discharge Effluent Standards E-184
(NPDES). This facility must employ contract personnel to complete very
rigorous sampling of effluent streams, manage bioassay laboratory equipment and
complete specialized analytical water testing.
Remediation projects and hazardous waste handling and disposal are regulated by
a number of different regulatory agencies at the federal, state and local level.
Because of the comprehensive nature of waste disposal regulations, this refinery
employs contractors with specific expertise to treat hazardous waste on-site in
order to recover recyclable materials or render waste to a non-hazardous
condition. These professional contractors must meet strict regulatory
requirements required under the facility Waste Treatment Permits, and be trained E-185
in the use of techniques and equipment to perform these important tasks.
Examples of techniques and equipment used include: testing of waste to
determine hazardous/non-hazardous, technical knowledge of waste streams;
ability to write waste manifests and requirement to have certified waste
qualifications.
In addition, remediation projects that require subsurface investigation and'
groundwater monitoring require the use of contractors with drilling rigs and
expertise in drilling boreholes and wells. Examples of remediation projects E-186
include installation/management of groundwater oil recovery systems, soil boring,
contaminated soil treatment,and facility capping.
Oftentimes,drill rigs and crews from outside the Bay Area are utilized. We are �I
not aware of the need for any formal refinery apprenticeship program for these y
types of contractors who only work infrequently within the refinery and who are E-187
covered by a myriad of other safety and industrial requirements. Consequently,it
is difficult to assess the full range of potential impacts and provide a
comprehensive comment at this time.
Although the expertise needed in remediation efforts is generally only required
several times per.year depending on the nature of the applicable regulations,we
must plan ahead and schedule projects months in advance. Given that we have
other'ongoing projects and maintenance efforts that draw from the same pool of
workers,it is possible that a shortage of qualified and experienced workers could E-188
occur, thereby hindering our compliance efforts. Consequently, this additional
layer would negatively impact,rather than support the goal of enhancing refinery
safety,and could serve to add confusion and added costs to small business
contractors.
The refinery routinely makes investments in equipment to comply with--or to
exceed-- air,water or hazardous waste regulations. Ultimately, our goal in E-189
SF/21590072.2
Letter E continued
considering such projects is to reduce emissions,recycle waste and conserve
energy to the extent possible. Limitations on available contractors would delay E-189
emission reductions and could negatively impact compliance.
cont.
1111210 V
SFI200(i 72.2
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
LETTER E - BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
Response E-1 Comment noted.
Response E-2 The comments made on the formerly proposed Negative Declaration
were considered during the analysis conducted for this EIR. However,
after the Negative Declaration was completed in 2002,the proposed
amendment was revised to address the comments on the Negative
Declaration. Rather than responding to specific comments on the
Negative Declaration, the County revised the proposed amendment and
decided to prepare an EIR using a different analytical approach and
conducted a more comprehensive analysis,taking into consideration the
changes in the proposed amendment in response to public comment on
the Negative Declaration. As stated in responses to other comments
above,the proposed amendment would allow affected facilities to hire
non-CAC-approved contractor-covered workers but who have the
appropriate skills and experience if there is not a sufficient number of
CAC-approved contractor-covered workers available with the right skills
and experience. The DEIR analysis relied on information supplied by the
affected facilities, as well as information from the County and from
organizations that represent contractor-covered workers. The EIR team
evaluated the training programs for contractor-covered workers(both
CAC-approved programs and non-CAC-approved programs) when
carrying out the analysis. The safety record of the contractor-covered
workers at affected facilities was also examined. The DEIR also included
an analysis to estimate the number of contractor-covered workers that
would be available under worst-case conditions(i.e.,when all the
affected facilities need workers on large projects at the same time). This
analysis was based on information on worker supply for past large
projects. The information was supplied by the affected facilities and by
organizations in the area that provide training for contractor-covered
workers.
To meet the requirements of CEQA,the DEIR also evaluated the
environmental impacts of a number of alternatives(see DEIR Chapter V,
Alternatives), including those proposed by the affected facilities.
Therefore,the DEIR addressed the requirements of CEQA.
Response E-3 This comment refers to the Negative Declaration that the County
proposed but never adopted for a previous version of the proposed
amendment. Since the County originally proposed the Negative
Declaration, it has revised the proposed amendment and prepared this
EIR.Please see Response E-2.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-113
II.RESPC)NSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
The DEIR recognizes that,under certain conditions, implementation of
the proposed amendment could delay a project. It also states that these
delays can be minimized since the proposed amendment allows the
hiring of non-CAC approved workers if a two-day search does not result
in a sufficient workforce. In addition, if operators of the affected facility
are concerned that this short waiting period might result in an imminent
danger,the emergency exception clause contained in the proposed .
amendment would allow the affected facilities to hire additional workers
who are not CAC-approved to eliminate these delays. Contra Costa
Health Services(CCHS)will verify that the emergency exception clause
.of the Proposed Amendment is properly implemented by the affected
facilities.
Response E-4 This comment refers to the Negative Declaration that the County
proposed but never adopted for a previous iteration of the proposed
amendment. Since the County proposed the Negative Declaration,it has
revised the proposed amendment and.prepared this EIR. Please see
Response E-2. In addition,the declaration of Dr. Finkelman is made in
reference to the formerly proposed Negative Declaration;not the DEIR.
Because the proposed amendment has since been revised, the issues
contained in Dr. Finkelman's declaration do not apply to the version of
the proposed amendment that was analyzed in the DEIR.
Response E-5 This comment refers to the Negative Declaration that the County
proposed but never adopted for a previous iteration of the proposed
amendment. Since the County proposed the Negative Declaration,it has
revised the proposed amendment and prepared this EIR. Please see
Responses E-2 and E-3.
Response E-6 This comment again refers to the Negative Declaration that the County
proposed but never adopted for a previous iteration of the proposed
amendment. Since the County proposed the Negative Declaration,it has
revised the proposed amendment and prepared this EIR. Please see
Response E-2.
Response E-7 The commenter is correct that in December 2002,the Board of
Supervisors voted to prepare an EIR.The commenter is also correct that
as requested by the County and ESA,the affected facilities submitted
information regarding contractor/worker needs, worker training and
qualification requirements,and contracting practices. In addition,the
affected facilities submitted information regarding the potential impacts
that they assumed the proposed amendment would have on refinery
operations. The EIR team considered this information in its DEIR
analysis.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-114
II:RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response E-8 Information provided by the refineries was included in Section IV.A,
Public Safety and Hazards, and the Safety Plans adopted by.the affected
facilities were included in DEIR Appendix C. DEIR Section IV.A,
Public Safety and Hazards contained an analysis of the proposed
amendment's potential to adversely impact staffing of contractor-covered
workers as it related to a potential adverse impact to public safety. The
DEIR concluded that because of the exception and emergency clauses
contained in the proposed amendment,which would allow the affected
facilities to hire additional contractor-covered workers that are not CAC-
approved, safety would not be compromised. It is out of the scope of
CEQA and this EIR to determine the ways in which the affected facilities
would comply with the hiring requirements of the proposed amendment.
Response E-9 CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 does require an EIR to include areas of
controversy known to the lead agency including issues raised by agencies
and the public. DEIR page I1-1 states"[k]nown areas of controversy for
the proposed project include concerns related to public safety;
specifically, whether the amendment would lead to a greater risk of
accidental release and accidents at the affected facilities." As stated in
Response E-2, above,after the Negative Declaration was completed in
2002,the proposed amendment was revised to address the comments on
the Negative Declaration. Rather than responding to specific comments
on the Negative Declaration,the County revised the proposed
amendment and decided to prepare an EIR using a different analytical
approach and conducted a more comprehensive analysis,taking into
consideration the changes in the proposed amendment in response to
public comment on the Negative Declaration. Areas of controversy
raised included.concerns regarding the required hiring practices for
contractor-covered workers and how those practices would affect safety
at the affected facilities.While other concerns were raised;those issues
were outside the scope of CEQA and the EIR. CEQA only requires
evaluation of a project's environmental impacts to the environment.
Purely social or economic effects cannot be treated as significant effects
on the environment(CEQA Guidelines Section 15131).
The DEIR included an analysis of the proposed amendment's.potential to
impact all the environmental topic areas, as required by CEQA. Based on
the known areas of controversy identified in DEIR Chapter II,Summary,
and analysis conducted for the DEIR, it was determined that most of the
impacts that could result from the proposed amendment would be related
to public safety.In addition,the DEIR analyzed four alternatives to the
proposed amendment in addition to a No Project Alternative. Please refer
to DEIR Chapter V,Alternatives.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR I1-115
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response E-10 The comment refers to previous comments made on the Negative
Declaration in 2002 when the earlier version of the proposed amendment
had more restrictions on the hiring practices for contractor-covered
workers. The proposed amendment has been changed, and it allows for
the hiring of contractor-covered workers who are not CAC-approved if
after a two-day search there are not sufficient workers that satisfy the
needs of the affected facilities. Although the proposed amendment
specifies that candidate workers receive CAC-approved training,this can
be considered as a floor when hiring workers for the assigned tasks.
Previous to the proposed amendment, there were no restrictions on the
contractor-covered workers who can be hired. In addition, when hiring
contractor-covered workers, there are several additional steps that the
affected facilities carryout before assigning work to the individual
workers. This includes onsite screening which enables the affected
facilities to verify the qualifications of the candidate workers and can
reject those workers who are not qualified to perform the required tasks.
If after the screening there are not sufficient CAC-approved workers
available to perform the work, the exception clause again would allow
the facility to hire other nonCAC-approved workers who have the right
qualifications.
I
The DEIR states that implementation of the exception clause may result
in delays in getting the right contractors on-board. However, if such
delays would result in imminent danger,other workers who are properly
trained can be hired without delay.
The commenter states that the restrictions and requirements contained in
the proposed amendment are irrelevant to public safety.Whether or not
the proposed amendment contains requirements that do not pertain to
safety is beyond the scope of this EIR. The purpose of the DEIR is solely
to assess the environmental impacts that could or would occur with
implementation of the proposed amendment. In addition, at least the
training provided in CAC-approved programs.
Response E-11 The commenter is incorrect in stating that the DEIR does not discuss the
mix of union and nonunion contractor-covered labor at affected facilities.
DEIR pages IV.A-7 and IV.A-8 provide a discussion on the mix of union
and non-union contractor-covered workers at the affected facilities on
past projects. Based on estimates provided by the affected facilities and
the union and non-union labor organizations, it was determined that on
some of the projects in the past,between 30 to 40 percent of the
contractor-covered workers consisted of union labor. The DEIR
concluded that there would not be a sufficient union labor force(CAC-
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-116
i
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
approved workers)to meet the needs of the affected facilities if several
large projects are undertaken at the same time. The DEIR acknowledged
the potential for delays; however, it determined that delays can be
minimized since it allows the affected facilities to use non-CAC-
approved workers after two days of searching. In addition, if operators
of the affected facilities are concerned that a two-day delay would pose
an imminent danger,then other available workers can be hired.
Response E-12 The proposed amendment does not include details regarding the selection
process of contractor-covered workers. The purpose of the DEIR is
solely to assess the environmental impacts that could or would occur
with implementation of the proposed amendment. In doing so,the DEIR,
with respect to public safety, evaluated whether or not the proposed
amendment would result in the affected facilities' inability to meet their
labor needs,thereby resulting in delays which would cause a safety
impact. Beyond whether or not it would be possible to fulfill their labor
needs,it is beyond the scope of CEQA and this EIR to determine the
impact the.proposed amendment would have on the affected facilities'
hiring practices. The DEIR evaluated the internal safety requirements of
the affected facilities and determined that implementation of these safety
requirements would prevent the hiring of workers who could not safely
perform the required tasks.
Response E-13 Please see Responses E-11 and E-12.
Response E-14 The commenter states that under the proposed amendment, contractors
could only employ CAC-approved workers or workers who obtained a
certificate of equivalent training;however,this is inaccurate. While the
proposed amendment would require the use of CAC-approved workers
(or those with a certificate of equivalent training),the DEIR indicates
that the exception clause contained within the proposed amendment
would allow affected facilities to hire non-CAC-approved workers that
have the proper skills and experience if CAC-approved workers with the
appropriate skills are not available or in cases of emergency.. The
commenter is correct that the DEIR does not provide detail as to the
definition of a certificate of equivalent training. The CAC would be
required to determine what would be considered to be acceptable
training. The way in which that is defined is outside of the scope of this
EIR.
Response E-15 The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts
that could or would occur with implementation of the proposed
amendment as proposed by the County.This EIR cannot make a
determination regarding the reasons behind the County's decision to
propose the amendment as it is. Such purely economic effects with
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-117
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
respect to where the labor force could be drawn from cannot be treated as
significant effects on the environment(CEQA Guidelines Section
15131).
Response E-16 The DEIR contained an analysis of the facilities that provide CAC-
approved training and workers to the affected facilities. The training
provided by these facilities was described in the DEIR, and the types of
skills provided by CAC-approved training, as compared to what would
be needed, is identified in DEIR Table IV.A-1. The EIR had data from
the affected facilities and the union and non-union worker
representatives regarding the worker hours used on special projects in the
past. The DEIR states that because the data from the various sources
sometimes conflict, an exact determination of how much each group has
met the needs at the affected facilities on special projects in the past
could not be determined. However,the data were sufficient to show that,
during periods when the greatest number of CAC-approved workers was
used by the affected facilities, there would not be sufficient labor on
some future projects. The DEIR concluded that,because the exception
clause contained in the proposed amendment would allow affected
facilities to hire non-CAC-approved workers if CAC-approved workers
are not available,a sufficient force of trained workers would be
available. Therefore there would be no significant change in safety.
Please see also Response E-15 regarding hiring workers from the three
Bay Area counties.
Response E-17 The DEIR states that data on contractor-covered worker hour estimates
that were received from the various sources were very limited, and the
data covered different years of operation.The DEIR states that,because
the data are limited, only approximations can be made to characterize
trends in the hiring of contractor-covered workers on past projects at the
affected facilities. The intent of the DEIR was to determine whether the
highest utilization of CAC-approved workers in the past had been
sufficient to supply the needs of the affected facilities. Although these
data are limited,they show that there would be an insufficient workforce
of CAC-approved workers to supply all of the needs of the affected
facilities in the future. To improve on the data limitations,an extensive
time-consuming study would have to be conducted involving many
interviews and questionnaires. However, the overall conclusion that
there would not be a sufficient number of CAC-approved workers would
not change; only the magnitude of the difference might change.
Response E-18 The DEIR does not speculate on the ways that an affected facility can
implement the proposed amendment clause referenced in the comment. It
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 1I-118
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
is beyond the scope of this EIR to determine ways in'which the affected
facility could utilize their resources to satisfy the requirement.
In addition, the footnote to Comment E-18 makes reference to
differences in the statement on the 50 percent requirement between the
proposed amendment and the wording in the DEIR. The DEIR left out
the words"working for contractors,"but the assumption in the DEIR was
that the employees in the apprenticeable occupations work for the
contractors, since the affected facilities work through the contractors.
The phrase"working for contractors" will be added to the text of the
EIR.
Response E-19 The commenter is correct that the DEIR acknowledges there is ambiguity
in the 48-hour exception clause in the proposed amendment. It could be
interpreted to be two days after the planning phase,which could be six
months to a year or two before the actual day the workers are needed,or
it could be two days after the contractor contacts the hiring facility that
workers are needed in the next few days. It is Contra Costa Health
Services opinion that, in the planning phase,the contractors are not in
contact with a hiring facility yet;rather,the affected facility may be in
discussions with various contractors to arrange for the project. Closer to
the actualtime. workers are expected to be on site, contractors
would usually then contact a hiring facility for workers. In such a case,
there could be delays,especially for short-term projects. For longer term
projects these delays would be slight and would not affect the overall
project duration. The Proposed amendment should be clarified to ensure
consistent interpretation.
Response E-20 Please see Responses E-17,E-18,and E-19..In addition,the general
conclusion of the DEIR was that,under the greatest demand for
contractor-covered workers by the affected facilities, there would not be
a sufficient number of CAC-approved workers,regardless of the 50
percent requirement. Under such circumstances,the 50 percent goal
would not be met because the exception clause would allow other
workers to be hired. This may be especially the case for smaller facilities
because of the limited number of contractor-covered workers that might
be needed on a project. The proposed amendment does not specifically
state whether the affected facility would be out of compliance or whether
the exception clause would permit this condition. The proposed
amendment should be changed to clarify this issue.
Response E-21 The DEIR did not do an exhaustive search of all of the CAC-approved
training programs for workers at the affected facilities; however, it did
include those training programs that supplied most of the CAC-approved
workers to affected facilities. Besides reviewing the written training
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-119
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFr EIR
program material and requirements,the EIR team visited the training
facilities and discussed the steps that are conducted to train apprentices.
The DEIR stated that although public safety and the means to minimize
chemical releases which may impact the environment surrounding a
facility are not specific topics listed in the formalized training materials,
the primary focus is on,skill development and steps to maximize personal
safety. Skills and personal safety training are the major factors that are
required to minimize accidents and consequently enhance public safety.
The safety training provided by the CAC-approved training and the
additional BATC training required by the affected facilities, as described
in the DEIR,provide the needed information for contractor-covered
workers on process safety hazards.
Response E-22 DEIR page IV.A-1 identified turnarounds at the affected facilities as one
of the special projects in which the affected facilities utilize contractor-
covered workers.These projects are scheduled ahead of time and often
involve work covering several months duration. Please see Responses E-
17, E-18,and E-19.
Response E-23 The comment is noted that turnarounds are complex operations involving
many months of planning, scheduling, and implementation. The
proposed amendment does not preclude the affected facilities from
taking the points mentioned in the comment into consideration when
hiring contractor-covered workers. The DEIR describes the steps that
the affected facilities take to screen potential workers to ensure that only
those workers who are qualified are hired for the required tasks. These
steps are over and above the training requirements specified in the CAC-
approved training. If the candidates do not meet these requirements,the
affected facilities can reject the candidate workers. The comment fails to
recognize that the proposed amendment allows the affected facility to
hire other workers through the contractors if after two days of searching
there are not sufficient workers that meet the specific needs of the
facility.
Response E-24 The DEIR relied on standard approaches commonly followed when
evaluating the risk of accidents at facilities that store or use acutely
hazardous substances. The DEIR states that the methodologies for
ranking hazards that are used in this analysis are consistent with those
identified in the California Accidental Release Prevention Program
(CaIARP Program).This is the approach that has been used in other EIRS
where acutely hazardous substances are involved(for example, the
ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Modernization Project EIR). A
common hazard ranking matrix that was used on the ConocoPhillips
Project EIR(Contra Costa County,2003)is shown as Figure II-1,
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-120
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
below. The definition of"moderate"or"high", as defined in the DEIR,
relied on the definition established in the CalARP Regulation for injury
(California Code of Regulations,Title 19. Public Safety, Section
2735.3(t)), where"injury"means any effect on a human that results
either from direct exposure to toxic concentrations,radiant heat,or
overpressures from accidental releases or from direct consequences of a
vapor cloud explosion(such as flying glass,debris, and other projectiles)
from an accidental release and that requires medical treatment or
hospitalization. Moderate is defined as causing moderate property
damage that would not affect the function of property and which can be
repaired, and injury that would not be serious enough to impair someone.
The definition for high consequence would correspond to major damage
and serious (irreversible) injury or fatality.
The DEIR states that an impact would be significant if a consequence
that would result from implementation of the proposed amendment
would be moderate or high, and if the impact is expected to occur within
a reasonable time period. For example, as shown on Figure II-1, a
frequency of once per year or once per decade would be frequent enough
to be significant, if the consequence were moderate or high.
The DEIR used these same criteria to evaluate the potential
consequences that could result from implementation of the proposed
amendment. For the purposes of this DEIR,a fundamental assumption of
the analysis was that accidents will happen at the affected facilities with
or without the proposed amendment.The DEIR then evaluated the
likelihood of accidents to increase with the implementation of the
proposed amendment. The DEIR provided, on page IV.A-10,an eight
year history of accidents that have occurred at the affected facilities, and
it concluded that contractor-covered workers have rarely been involved
with these accidents. In this context,the DEIR examined whether or not
this rate would change with the implementation of the proposed
amendment.
The DEIR used these criteria to qualitatively evaluate the impacts of the
proposed amendment,because the proposed amendment deals with the
hiring practice of contractor-covered workers for a wide variety of jobs,
rather than for a specific change to a facility.The DEIR concluded that
implementation of the proposed amendment would not significantly
change the qualifications of the contractor-covered workers. This is due
mainly to the additional screening tools that the affected facilities utilize
before hiring workers. The additional screening tools enable the affected
facilities to hire qualified contractor-covered workers. This would
include both CAC-approved contractor-covered workers and contractor-
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-121
Il.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
FIGURE II-1
RISK MATRIX FOR RANKING POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS
Frequent More than once
h per year(0 to 1 years)
R
d
°J Periodic Once per decade
C (1 to 10 years)
Occasional During
facility lifetime(10 to 100
years)
0
a. Improbable
(over 100 years)
Very Low Low Moderate High
(no injury or damage) (minor injury or (moderate injury or (severe injury or
damage) damage) fatality)
Consequence of Release
These combinations of severity and likelihood identify situations of major
concern that are considered significant
SOURCE:California OES(1989)
covered workers not approved by the CAC, when CAC-approved
workers are not available.
Response E-25 The commenter states that the proposed amendment would restrict the
ability of affected facilities from using workers with the most appropriate
skills,training,and experience for a project. Please see Responses C-26,
C-35,and E-23.
Data regarding workers that was provided was conflicting and therefore,
could not be used to conduct a detailed quantitative analysis of the
impacts to public safety. The declarations from workers do not
specifically address the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment
that was analyzed in the DEIR eliminates the concerns expressed by the
declarations,because other workers could be used on projects if there
were insufficient CAC-approved workers with the skills and experience
necessary to carry out the work safely.Please see Responses C-26,C-35,
and E-23.
Response E-26 The statement in the DEIR is not tautological. The statement rather,
explains that it was assumed that there would be little differences with
regard to safety on future projects planned for the affected facilities,with
or without the proposed amendment.Plans for future projects at the
affected facilities are driven by the needs of a facility to efficiently
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-122
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
produce product that the market demands. The proposed amendment;
which includes an exception clause,would not restrict a facility from
carrying out these future goals. If the proposed amendment might cause
delays in executing a project and if these delays are shown to affect safe
operations,then the delays could be eliminated by relying on the
exception clause contained within the proposed amendment, and
additional workers with the appropriate skills and experience can be
hired.; Therefore,a delay in the project that could affect safety would not
occur.. The assumption in the DEIR that there would be no change in
operations with the proposed amendment refers to those operations
where delays could compromise safety. For these conditions, the
contractor-covered workers that are needed to complete a job safely and
on schedule could be used.
Response E-27 The DEIR analysis was limited by the amount of data that was available
on previous years of operation. To comply with CEQA,the DEIR chose
a worst-case scenario from the past when the affected facilities were
carrying out large projects simultaneously. The DEIR does not examine
other years when there would be fewer projects and a smaller number of
contractor-covered workers would be needed. It is the worst-case
scenario that could lead to the greatest possible impacts because of the
high demand for contractor-covered workers.
Response E-28 The DEIR described the safety programs that the affected facilities have
adopted to ensure safe operations. Many of these requirements are over
and above those taught in apprenticeship training for both CAC-
approved approved workers and for other apprentices with training that is
not CAC-approved. The DEIR emphasizes the point that,even if a
contractor-covered worker is CAC-approved,the affected facility can
reject that worker if he does not meet the additional requirements of the
affected facility. Under.this condition,a contractor-covered worker who
meets the requirements of the affected facility could be used if there are
no CAC-approved workers found in a reasonable time who would meet
those qualifications.
Response E-29 The DEIR does not avoid the issue of a safe and adequate workforce.
The commenter ignores the exceptions contained in the proposed
amendment that permit the affected facilities to hire a safe and adequate
workforce,whether CAC-approved or not. As stated in previous
responses,such as.C-26,C-35 and E-23,standard approaches were used
in the analysis. The EIR team reviewed the safety procedures adopted by
the affected facilities and the DEIR and concluded that these procedures
were determined to be adequate. Because the proposed amendment
contains an exception clause,the affected facilities can reject contractor-
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-123
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
covered workers who do not meet these safety and training requirements;
whether or not they are CAC-approved. Hence,the proposed amendment
would not hinder affected facilities from hiring an adequate workforce.
The main between the existing ISO and the proposed amendment is that
the proposed amendment would provide a safety net by requiring that
contractor-covered workers be hired with CAC-approved training.
Without the proposed amendment,there is no safety net. If this training
is not adequate to meet the skills and experience requirements of a
specific assignment,then other workers with these skills could be hired
by utilizing the exception clause contained within the proposed
amendment.
Response E-30 The commenter incorrectly assumes that the proposed amendment could
cause delays that would compromise safe operations. The commenter
incorrectly assumes that the exception clause would restrict the affected
facilities from using workers with the appropriate training and skills to
perform the needed tasks. On the contrary,the exception clause has been
worded to require that a good-faith effort be carried out to attempt to hire
CAC-approved contractor workers before hiring non-CAC-approved
workers. Any potential delay that might compromise safety could be
avoided, and workers with the appropriate skills and training could be
hired. Also,please see Responses C-26,C-35, and E-23.
Response E-31 Please see Response E-2 and E-3.
With respect to the comment's reference of Dr. Finkelman's 2004 letter,
the comment fails to acknowledge that the requirements of the affected
facilities regarding the selection of contractor-covered workers for their
projects could disqualify those workers that do not meet the
skills/experience requirements of the specialized tasks.The overall labor
pool would therefore not be diminished since other workers with the
appropriate skills could be included in the selection under the conditions
of the exception clause contained within the proposed amendment.
Please see Responses C-26,C-35,and E-23.
Response E-32 Please see Responses C-26, C-35,E-23,and E-31.
Response E-33 The DEIR acknowledges that projects could be delayed because there
may not be sufficient workers with the proper skills if only CAC-
approved workers were hired. The DEIR also states that, if these delays
would result in compromises to safety,then other non-CAC-approved
workers with the appropriate skills and experience could be hired for
these projects. The DEIR concluded that,because the proposed
amendment contains the exception clause, safety would not be
compromised. Please see Responses B-1,C-8,C-12,and C-19.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-124
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response E-34 Please see Response E-33.
Response E-35 The commenter only discusses the exception clause with respect to
emergencies. As discussed in the DEIR, the exception clause contained
within the proposed amendment would allow affected facilities to hire
non-CAC-approved workers if after two working days, there is an
insufficient amount of CAC-approved workers with the appropriate
skills. Please see Response E-33.
Response E-36 Please see Response E-35.
Response E-37 The emergency exception clause and the 48-hour exception contained
within the proposed amendment,provide sufficient flexibility in allowing
the affected facilities to meet both short-term(emergency)needs and
long-term needs when hiring contractor-covered workers. These
exceptions would allow for the prevention of the occurrence of delays
that might be caused by an insufficient contractor-covered labor force.
Please see Response E-33.
Response E-38 The DEIR provided a summary of the internal safety programs that are
created and implemented by the affected facilities. The DEIR evaluated
those safety programs and procedures and determined that because under
the proposed.amendment,the affected facilities would continue to utilize
those procedures, the affected facilities would continue to be able to
sufficiently screen and determine which workers were or were not
appropriately trained in safety. Therefore, if the affected facilities,
based on their existing safety programs,were to make a determination
that candidate workers would not be appropriately qualified for each
specific contract project,the affected facility could hire other workers
under the exception clause contained within the proposed amendment.
Thus,a safety impact would not occur when compared to the No Project
Alternative scenario.
Response E-39 The commenter assumes that the proposed amendment would result in
delays in implementation of contract projects thereby resulting in a
reduced safety scenario. Please see Response E-38.
Response E40 Please see Response E-38.
Response E-41 The commenter identifies examples of projects for which contractor-
covered labor is used at affected facilities. This comment is a general
statement and does not state a specific concern or question regarding a
significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the DEIR.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-125
,t
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Regarding potential project delays that could result in safety impacts,
please see Response E-38.
Response E-42 The commenter is correct that the DEIR acknowledged that the proposed
amendment could cause delays in projects; however, it also states that
these delays could be eliminated by the affected facilities' hiring of
additional contractor-covered workers when sufficient CAC-approved
workers with the appropriate skills and experience are not available,
which would be allowable under the exception clause contained with the
proposed amendment. Regarding potential project delays that could
result in safety impacts,please see Response E-38. Because the proposed
amendment contains an emergency clause and an exception clause,
affected facilities would still have the ability to hire a sufficient
workforce for their contractor-covered projects.
Response E-43 The letters and declarations that are summarized in the comment discuss
a common theme: that the proposed amendment would cause delays that
would prevent the facilities from operating safely. Many of the letters
and declarations were written prior to release of the DEIR for the revised
version of the proposed amendment. Since that time,the proposed
amendment has been revised. As stated in response to several comments,
the revised proposed amendment contains an exception clause(see
Response E-38)and an emergency clause(see Response E-8)which
would allow affected facilities to hire additional non-CAC-approved
workers if a sufficient number of CAC-approved qualified workers were
not available. Because the proposed amendment contains an exception
clause and an emergency clause, it would not result in project delays that
could result in potential impacts to safety. Please see Response E-38.
Response E-44 The commenter states that the inclusion of the emergency and exception
clauses in the proposed amendment and existence of existing safety
programs at the affected facilities is not sufficient to determine that the
proposed amendment would not result in safety and other environmental
impacts.Please see Response E-38.
Response E-45 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to"describe a
reasonable range of alternatives to the project...which would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The DEIR
determined that all environmental impacts of the proposed amendment
would be less than significant; however,DEIR Chapter V,Alternatives,
provided an analysis of four alternatives that addressed alternative
training programs and alternative hiring practices in addition to
evaluation of a No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative and
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-126
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFr EIR
the four other alternatives will be considered by the County prior to
adoption or rejection of the proposed amendment. The EIR will be used
to guide decision-making and inform the public by providing an
assessment of the potential environmental impacts that may result from
the proposed project. However, the County will ultimately determine
which option(or alternative)to adopt(or not adopt).
Response E-46 Please see Response E-45.
Response E-47 Although the proposed amendment may be the most restrictive of all the
alternative in terms of limiting the labor pool,the DEIR concluded that
this restriction would not result in safety impacts,because the affected
facilities would be able to use the exception clause contained within the
proposed amendment(see Response E-38). Please see response E-45.
Whether or not the proposed amendment contains requirements that do
not pertain to safety is beyond the scope of this EIR. The purpose of the
DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts that could or would
occur with implementation of the proposed amendment.
Response E-48 Please see.Responses E-38, E-45, and E-47.
Response E-49 Please see Responses E-1 through E-48.
Response E-50 Several of the declarations cited in the comment letter were made in
2002.. Please see Response E-43. Regarding the declarations made in
2004 on the DEIR,responses follow.
Response E-51 The commenter states that the County should evaluate the environmental
effects of the proposed amendment in a revised EIR. As described in
numerous responses in this EIR,a thorough analysis was conducted to
determine the environmental effects of the proposed amendment for the
DEIR. The DEIR determined that the proposed amendment would not
result in any significant environmental impacts. See specifically
Response E-38. The DEIR neither condones nor objects to the adoption
of the proposed amendment. The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess
the environmental impacts that could or would occur with
implementation of the proposed amendment.
Response E-52 Regarding a reduction in safety as a result of implementation of the
proposed amendment,see Response E-38.As described on DEIR page
I1I-3,the objectives of the proposed amendment are to: [1] ensure that
contractor-covered workers at covered facilities are trained to achieve the
highest possible level of safety and [2]to achieve and maintain a
reduction in accidents at the affected facilities.The purpose of the DEIR
is solely to assess the environmental impacts that could or would occur
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-127
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
with implementation of the proposed amendment as proposed by the
County. This EIR cannot make a determination regarding the reasons
behind the County's decision to propose the amendment.
Response E-53 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-54 Please see Response E-52 regarding the objectives of the proposed
amendment. DEIR Chapter IV.A,Public Safety and Hazards provided a
sufficient analysis to determine whether or not adoption and
implementation of the proposed amendment would result in significant
safety impacts; the DEIR concluded that the proposed amendment's
impacts to safety would be less than significant. Please see Response E-
38.
Response E-55 Please see Response E-38. The proposed amendment would not restrict
the affected facilities from hiring contractor-covered workers with the
specialized skills needed for projects at the affected facilities. Rather,the
proposed ordinance would require affected facilities to attempt to hire
workers with the appropriate specialized skills needed for projects that
are CAC-approved before non-CAC-approved contractor workers could
be hired. However,if CAC-approved workers with the appropriate skills
were not available,the proposed amendment would allow the affected
facility to hire non-CAC-approved workers. Consequently,the proposed
amendment would not result in significant safety impacts.
Response E-56 The commenter's statement that industrial job experience is an important
factor in ensuring workplace safety is noted. Please see Response E-55.
DEIR page IV.A-6(Contractor Selection)describes the methods that the
affected facilities follow in selecting contractor-covered workers. In
summary,the affected facilities require that potential contractors submit
descriptions of safety programs that the workers have taken,descriptions
of their Injury and Illness Prevention Plans(IIPP), verification of
attendance at BATC training classes,and results of drug and alcohol
screening tests for individual workers. In addition,the affected facilities
require that a screening qualification questionnaire be completed, and
documentation of the workers' experience must be provided. The
affected facilities follow these steps to ensure that only contractor-
covered workers with safe, credible records are selected as candidates for
projects. In addition,the affected facilities often require testing for some
trades by a third-party inspection firm to determine if the contractors
possess the required level of skill in their trade.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-128
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
The proposed amendment would not prevent the affected facilities from
continuing to follow these procedures when selecting contractors. Rather,
the proposed ordinance would require affected facilities to attempt to hire
workers with the appropriate specialized skills needed for projects that
are CAC-approved before non-CAC-approved contractor workers could
be hired. However, if CAC-approved workers with the appropriate skills
were not available,the proposed ordinance would allow the affected
facility to hire non-CAC-approved workers.
Response E-57 The proposed amendment would not mandate the use of CAC-approved
workers,while restricting the use of workers trained in other programs. If
a worker with CAC-approved training does not satisfy the skills and
experience requirements for the job, including the worker's safety
record,then other workers that meet these requirements can be hired;
however, another CAC-approved worker would be required to be hired
before a non-CAC-approved worker could be. Please see Responses E-38
and E-55.
Response E-58 It is difficult to assess the specific cause of an incident in complex,
interrelated,processing facilities, such as refineries and chemical plants,
and to differentiate individual worker responsibility for an incident
between CAC-approved workers and non-CAC-approved workers at the
affected facilities.However,there are data available on incidences that
have occurred at the affected facilities in Contra Costa County in the past
several years, and these data are presented on DEIR Tables IV.A-3 and
Table IV.A-4. The DEIR states that these data show contractor-covered
workers have rarely been involved with incidents at the affected
facilities. Even though the data do not differentiate between incidents
involving CAC-approved and non-CAC-approved contractor-covered
workers,they do show that these workers have not generally been
involved in or caused incidents at the affected facilities. Please see
Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-59 The DEIR does not conclude that CAC-approved training is more
beneficial or effective than other types of training. However, it does
conclude that the CAC-approved training meets the requirements for
many of the skills needed at the affected facilities. The purpose of the
DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts that could or would
occur with implementation of the proposed amendment. In doing so,the
DEIR,with respect to public safety,evaluated whether or not the
proposed amendment would result in the affected facilities'inability to
meet their labor needs,thereby resulting in delays which would cause a
safety impact. Except for determining whether or not it would be
possible to fulfill their labor needs, it is beyond the scope of CEQA and
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-129
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
this EIR to determine the impact the proposed amendment would have
on the affected facilities' hiring practices. Please see also Response E-12.
Response E-60 Please see Responses E-17 and E-38.
Response E-61 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-62 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-63 Please see Response E-62.
Response E-64 The DEIR relied on information supplied by the affected facilities on
contractor worker demand on past projects and on workers supplied for
these projects. Based on that information,the DEIR concluded that there
would not be a sufficient workforce of CAC-approved workers to meet
that demand(a worst=case scenario)in the future. However,the DEIR
did not assume that to be the only workforce available to meet the needs
of the affected facilities. The exception clause contained in the proposed
amendment would allow the affected facilities to hire additional
contractor-covered workers that are not CAC-approved if qualified CAC-
approved workers were not available. Please see Responses E-38 and E-
55.
Response E-65 As explained in Responses E-38 and E-55, the exception clause
contained in the proposed amendment would allow the affected facilities
to hire additional contractor-covered workers that are not CAC-approved
if qualified CAC-approved workers were not available. Therefore,
affected facilities would have a sufficient workforce to draw from for
projects. However, if a delay were to occur due to the affected facilities'
decision not to comply with the hiring requirements of the proposed
amendment, it was assumed that projects that were delayed would not go
forward until a sufficient workforce could be attained,thereby not
compromising safety.While the delay of a future project at an affected
facility may ultimately result in a delay in a project that would result in a
beneficial impact to the environment,this EIR cannot analyze that
scenario. This EIR can only analyze the change that would result from
implementation of the proposed ordinance to existing conditions(at the
time of release of the Notice of Preparation for this EIR).
Response E-66 Because the proposed project consists of the proposed amendment and its
future implementation,the analysis in the DEIR assumes that the
provisions of the proposed amendment would be adhered to. Therefore,
as explained in Responses E-38 and E-55,potential delays that could
compromise safety would not occur as a result of the proposed
amendment. It is acknowledged that possible delays in projects could
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-130
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
occur,thereby resulting in decreased safety conditions. However,this
would not be an environmental consequence of the proposed amendment
since if properly implemented,the proposed amendment would not result
in an insufficient workforce and any delays would be caused by
unrelated circumstances or improper implementation of the proposed
ordinance. Therefore,the proposed ordinance's impact to safety would
be less than significant.
Response E-67 Please see Response C-24 for a clarification of the 48 hour exception
clause contained within the proposed amendment. The purpose of the
DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts that could or would
occur with implementation of the proposed amendment as proposed by
the County.
Response E-68 The condition described in the comment can be considered as a condition
posing as an"imminent danger'.',which means that an event hasn't
happened yet but could happen if action isn't taken. This condition
would qualify as an emergency according to the definition in the
proposed amendment, and the facility would not be required to delay the
hiring of the needed workers.
Response E-69 The EIR will be used to guide decision-making and inform the public by
providing an assessment of the potential environmental impacts that may
result from the proposed project. However,the County will ultimately
determine which option(or alternative)to adopt(or not adopt). Please
see also Response E-52(regarding the objectives of the proposed
project).
Response E-70 The DEIR does not conclude that CAC-approved training is more
beneficial than other types of training,nor does it assume that CAC-
approved training(versus other similar training)would result in
increased safety. The DEIR did conclude that CAC-approved training is
sufficient for many tasks required at the affected facilities(as is the
NCCER-approved training), and that safety impacts as a result of
implementation of the proposed amendment would be less than
significant. The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the
environmental impacts that could or would occur with implementation of
the proposed amendment as proposed by the County.This EIR cannot
make a determination regarding the reasons behind the County's decision
to propose the amendment.
Response E-71 Alternative 3,Additional Allowable Training Programs(DEIR page V-5)
considers other training programs in addition to CAC-approved
programs,such as NCCER-approved programs, and it concludes that this
alternative would be similar to the No Project Alternative. The
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-131
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
alternatives analysis for Alternative 4 concluded that the other training
programs would increase the pool of eligible workers, similar to the
proposed amendment(with the exception clause). Please refer to
Response E-45.
Response E-72 The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts
that could or would occur with implementation of the proposed
amendment as proposed by the County. This EIR cannot make a
determination of whether or not the proposed amendment would actually
meet any of its proposed objectives.
Response E-73 The commenter provides a summary of the comments addressed in the
letter. Please refer to Responses 51 through 72.
Response E-74 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-75 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-76 The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts
that could or would occur with implementation of the proposed
amendment as proposed by the County. It is beyond the scope of this EIR
to determine whether or not non-building trades could or could not gain
access to CAC certification. However, other programs that provide
training for contractor-covered workers for the affected facilities were
evaluated in the DEIR. The DEIR included Alternative 3 which allows
the certification of other training programs, such as NCCER-approved
training programs(see also Response E-71). Please refer to Response E-
38 regarding the exception clause contained with the proposed
amendment. Under the exception clause, it is possible for non-CAC-
approved workers to be hired at the affected facilities.
Response E-77 The commenter provides a description of turnaround events.The
comment is noted. This comment is a general statement and does not
state a specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR.
Response E-78 The commenter provides refinery data which compares the safety record
of non-building trade workers to building trade workers, concluding that
i the rate for non-building trade workers is the lower of the two. The
I
proposed amendment applies to those operations involving regulated
substances,and it does not cover other activities at the affected facilities.
Apparently the statistics cited in the comment covers all tasks at the
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-132
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFr EIR
affected facilities. Data in the DEIR obtained from the County on
accidents related to operations involving acutely hazardous substances at
the affected facilities over the past ten years show that either the
contractors (both CAC- and non-CAC-approved)were not involved,or
the contractors were judged not to be responsible for the accidents. The
DEIR concluded that,with implementation of the proposed amendment,
this rate would not change significantly.
The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts
that could or would occur with implementation of the proposed
amendment as proposed by the County. It is beyond the scope of this EIR
to analyze the potential safety impacts that could result from different
requirements than set forth in the proposed amendment.
Response E-79 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-80 In general,the estimate of CAC-approved workers provided in the
comments is in agreement with the DEIR estimate of CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers supplied to the affected facilities in the past
(30 to 40 percent). The DEIR determined that there would be an
insufficient number of CAC-approved workers available for future needs
under maximum project conditions (worst-case scenario). Please see
Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-81 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-82 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-83 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-84 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-85. Please see Response E-65.
Response E-86 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR.The comment is noted.
Response E-87 The commenter provides a description of processing at the Golden Eagle
refinery. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
i
Response E-88 The commenter provides a description of the process of crude oil
processing. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
L
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005 I
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-133
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFTER
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-89 The condition described in the comment would qualify as an emergency
situation,because the operator of the facility would consider this to be an
"imminent danger"if there is a delay in addressing the condition. Under
this emergency condition,an affected facility would not be required to
wait two days prior to seeking other non-CAC approved workers to
perform the necessary work.
Response E-90 Please see Response E-89.
Response E-91 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55 regarding availability of labor and
its impacts to safety. The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the
environmental impacts that could or would occur with implementation of
the proposed amendment as proposed by the County. This EIR cannot
make a determination regarding the reasons behind the County's decision
to propose the amendment.
Response E-92 Please see Response C-24
Response E-93 The situation described in the comment may qualify as an"imminent"
danger if the operator believes that a 48-hour delay would affect
schedule such that unsafe conditions could occur. CCHS will conduct
routine monitoring to ensure that a 48-hour search is conducted for those
conditions where there is no perceived imminent danger due to delays.
Response E-94 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55. The purpose of the DEIR is solely
to assess the environmental impacts that could or would occur with
implementation of the proposed amendment as proposed by the County.
This EIR cannot make a determination regarding the reasons behind the
County's decision to propo§e the amendment.
Response E-95 The commenter describes work assignments typically required during
turnarounds. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR.The comment is noted.
Response E-96 The commenter states that CAC apprenticeship programs do not address
all of the needed skills required to perform refinery maintenance and that
new skills may be needed in the future that could not be fulfilled by
j CAC-approved workers. Please refer to Responses E-38 and E-55.
i
Response E-97 The DEIR concluded that the proposed amendment would result in less
than significant safety impacts; rather than no impact at all. The
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-134
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
commenter cites text from DEIR page IV.A-4,which states that"the
CCA/NCCER training focuses on training for refineries and similar
plants, such as chemical plants,while the CAC approved training
provided by the union shops also covers skills for other types of
facilities, such as refrigeration. Because of this specialization, the
CCA/NCCER training may be more directly applicable to skills needed
for the affected facilities." The DEIR concluded that,because the
affected facilities would not relax their standards when hiring contractor-
covered workers,the proposed amendment would not result in a
significant impact to safety when its implementation was compared with
existing conditions. The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the
environmental impacts that could or would occur with implementation of
the proposed amendment as proposed by the County. This EIR cannot
make a determination regarding the reasons behind the County's decision
to propose the amendment as it was proposed.
Response E-98 This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR.—The comment is noted.
Response E-99 The commenter provides a summary of its background and
qualifications. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-100 The commenter provides a description of refinery maintenance activities.
This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-101 The commenter provides a description of the Golden Eagle Refinery's
contractor selection process. This comment is a general statement and
does not state a specific concern or question regarding a significant
environmental impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is
noted.
Response E-102 Please see Response E-89.
Response E-103 Please see Response E-89 regarding the emergency clause and
Responses E-38 and E-55 regarding the exception clause of the proposed
I
amendment.
i
i
Response E-104 Please see Response E-89 regarding the emergency clause and
Responses E-38 and E-55 regarding the exception clause of the proposed
amendment.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 1I-135
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response E-105 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-106 The commenter provides a description of turnaround events. This
comment is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or
question regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of
the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-107 The commenter provides a description of the contractor selection
process. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. Please see Responses E-38 and E-
55.
Response E-108 The commenter states that a CAC-approved apprenticeship program for a
specific occupation does not necessarily obtain the required skills and
training to work on refinery turnarounds. A typical turnaround requires a
number of different skills, some of which are covered by CAC-approved
training. The proposed amendment contains an exception clause which
would allow the affected facilities to hire non-CAC-approved workers if
there were an insufficient number of qualified CAC-approved workers
with the appropriate skills.Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-109 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-110 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55. The proposed amendment would
allow affected facilities to hire contractor-covered workers with the
appropriate skills who reside outside of the three-county area, if such
personnel were not available within Contra Costa, Solano,and Alameda
counties.
Response E-111 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-112 While the DEIR acknowledges that CAC-approved training covers other
skills besides those needed at the affected facilities,the DEIR also
acknowledges that the affected facilities would not be required to hire
CAC-approved workers that do not have the proper training and skills.
Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-113 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-114 This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
i
! Response E-115 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications.This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
I
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-136
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-116 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-117 Please see Responses C-24, E-38, E-55,and E-93.
Response E-118 The commenter provides a description of the science of atmospheric
chemistry. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR.The comment is noted.
Response E-119 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-120 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-121 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55. Under the proposed amendment,
while some of the hiring practices of the affected facilities would need to
change,these changes would not prevent the affected facilities from
hiring a sufficient labor force.. Therefore,any delays that result from
implementation of the proposed amendment at the affected facilities
would result in a less than significant impact to safety. The proposed
amendment would not impact the level of operations or future
expansions at any of the affected facilities. Any future development of
affected facilities would be subject to the CEQA process and approval by
the County on a project-by-project basis.
Response E-122 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-123 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-124 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-125 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-126 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-127 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-128 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-129 Please see Response E-121.
I
i
I
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-137
11.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response E-130 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-131 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-132 Please see Response E-121.
Response E-133 This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-134 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-135 Please see Responses E-9,E-38, and E-55.
Response E-136 As described on DEIR page III-3, the objectives of the proposed
amendment are to: [1] ensure that contractor-covered workers at covered
facilities are trained to achieve the highest possible level of safety and [2]
to achieve and maintain a reduction in accidents at the affected facilities.
The purpose of the DEIR is solely to assess the environmental impacts
that could or would occur with implementation of the proposed
amendment as proposed by the County. This EIR cannot make a
determination regarding the reasons behind the County's decision to
propose the amendment as it is.
Response E-137 The commenter provides a description of the Golden Eagle Refinery's
contractor selection process. This comment is a general statement and
does not state a specific concern or question regarding a significant
environmental impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is
noted.
Response E-138 Please see Responses E-23 and E-121.
Response E-139 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-140 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-141 The DEIR cites the two studies(Gibson, 2003 and Murray,200 1)as
examples of studies that discuss safety at the types of facilities that
would be subject to the proposed amendment. It does not conclude that
good safety performance can only be attributed to training programs;it
i
merely acknowledges that it is a critical element. The DEIR also
describes the elements that the affected facilities include when selecting
i
I
i
i
i Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-138
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
contractor-covered workers, including factors such as the safety records
of the candidate workers.
Response E-142 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-143 This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-144 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR.The comment is noted.
Response E-145 The commenter describes the security regulations that Tesoro must
comply with since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This
comment is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or
question regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of
the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-146 The commenter describes the security clearance process at Tesoro during
the 2004 Coker Block turnaround. This comment is a general statement
and does not state a specific concern or question regarding a significant
environmental impact or the adequacy of the DEIR.The comment is
noted.
Response E-147 The commenter describes the identification requirements that Tesoro
complies with. The commenter also states that Tesoro will be
implementing a corporate-wide policy requiring background checks to
further enhance security. This comment is a general statement and does
not state a specific concern or question regarding a significant
environmental impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is
noted.
Response E-148 The commenter states that the exception clause contained within the
proposed amendment is"unworkable"in the instance of properly
completing security clearances and that the proposed amendment would
therefore result in safety impacts. The 48-hour time period (in the
exception clause)is a minimum time period to ensure that a good-faith
effort was taken in attempting to locate CAC-approved workers with the
appropriate skills and experience. The proposed amendment would not
restrict affected facilities from taking additional time to ensure that a i
thorough security clearance check can be completed for each candidate
workers prior to hiring them. While the proposed amendment may alter
i
the hiring schedule of the affected facilities, it would not altogether
I
I
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-139
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
prevent affected facilities from hiring properly-trained workers in a
timely manner. Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-149 This comment is a general statement and does not state a specific
concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the
adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-150 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-151 The commenter provides a listing of some of the major projects
undertaken at the Martinez Refinery which were mandated by
environmental laws. This comment is a general statement and does not
state a specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-152 The DEIR concluded that,during periods of major construction
activities,there would not be a sufficient workforce of CAC-approved
workers to meet the labor needs of the affected facilities. The DEIR
stated that during such periods,there could be delays in completing
construction projects. However,the DEIR also states that delays can be
eliminated by hiring additional workers with the appropriate skills and
experience who are not CAC-approved workers,which would be
allowable under the exception clause of the proposed amendment. As a
result,the DEIR concluded that,because delays can be eliminated by
hiring additional qualified workers(CAC-approved or not), impacts to
safety would be less than significant. While the proposed amendment
may alter the hiring schedule of the affected facilities, it would not
altogether prevent affected facilities from hiring properly-trained
workers in a timely manner. Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-153 Please see Response E-152.
Response E-154 Please see Response E-152.
Response E-155 Please see Response E-152.
Response E-156 Please see Response E-152.
Response E-157 The commenter erroneously assumes that the exception clauses in the
proposed amendment are narrowly defined. However,they were included
in the revisions to the proposed amendment to specifically cover the
j situations described in the comment. The two exception conditions are
i
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-140
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT'EIR
designed to cover both short-term(emergency)conditions and longer-
term conditions that would not involve emergencies or result in a
potential hazard(emergency)that could lead to an accident. Please see
Responses E-38, E-55,and E-152.
Response E-158 Please see Responses E-38, E-55,and E-152.
Response E-159 Please see Responses E=153 through E-159.
Response E-160 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-161 Please see Response E-38;E-55, and E-152.
Response E-162 Please see Response E-38,E-55,and E-152.
Response E-163 The DEIR described the steps taken by affected facilities in choosing
contractor-covered workers to ensure that the chosen workers have the
right skills and experience. Because the proposed amendment contains
the exception clause, it would not prevent the affected facilities from
following similar procedures to ensure that skilled and experienced
workers are hired; whether or not they are CAC-approved. Please see
Response E-38,E-55,and E-152.
Response E-164 The scenario described in the comment would qualify as an emergency
condition, and the proposed amendment would not result in delays in
hiring qualified worker(s)The emergency condition also considers
potential accidents if action is not taken immediately. Please see
Responses E-8,E-38, and E-55.
Response E-165 Please see Responses E-38,E-55, and E-152.
Response E-166 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-167 The commenter provides a description of turnaround maintenance
activities. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant.environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR.The comment is noted.
Response E-168 Please see Responses E-38, E-55, and E-152.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-141
i
It.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response E-169 Please see Responses E738,E-55, and E-152.
Response E-170 Please see Responses E-38, E-55,and E-152.
Response E-171 The EIR team reviewed the training program at the TIMEC Facility.
DEIR page IV.A-4 states:
The CCA apprenticeship training provided by TIMEC focuses on
personal safety, similar to CAC-approved training. Public safety and
minimization of hazardous materials releases did not appear as special
courses taught in the formal training under the TIMEC program;
however,these topics are included in the personal safety portion of the
training.
The DEIR concludes that,while neither the TIMEC training program nor
the CAC-approved training programs cover all of the skills needed at the
affected facilities,both programs are, generally, equivalent. In addition, ,
under the proposed amendment, workers trained at the TIMEC facility
would not be excluded from hiring should the need for those workers
arise. Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E- 172 Please see Response C-24,E-38, and E-55.
Response E-173 Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-174 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-175 The commenter provides a summary of the contractor pre-qualification
process at Shell and states that the proposed amendment would restrict
the pool of qualified contract workers to those with CAC-approved
training. However,while the proposed amendment would require that the
affected facilities hire qualified CAC-approved contractor workers first,
it would not limit the affected facilities to only hiring CAC-approved
workers.Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-176 Please see Responses E-38,E-55,and E-152.
Response E-177 Please see Responses E-38, E-55, and E-152.
Response E-178 Please see Responses E-38, E-55,and E-152.
Response E-179 The commenter provides a summary of its qualifications. This comment
is a general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-142
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT'EIR
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-180 Please see Responses E-38, E-55, and E-152.
Response E-181 Please see Responses E-38, E-55, and E-152.
Response E-182 Please see Responses E-38, E-55, and E-152.
Response E-183 The commenter states that all refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area
are required to comply with the provisions of Title V permit
requirements. This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-184 The commenter states that it employs skilled contractors in compliance
with the Clean Water Act. This comment is a general statement and does
not state a specific concern or question regarding a significant
environmental impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is
noted.
Response E-185 The commenter states that it employs contractors for remediation
projects and hazardous waste handling and disposal.This comment is a
general statement and does not state a specific concern or question
regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the
DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-186 The commenter states that it employs contractors for remediation
projects that require subsurface investigation and groundwater
monitoring.This comment is a general statement and does not state a
specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental
impact or the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment is noted.
Response E-187 The commenter states that it often uses drill rigs and crews from outside
the Bay Area. It states that it not aware of the need for any formal
refinery apprenticeship program for these types of contractors who only
work infrequently within the refinery and who are covered by other
safety and industrial requirements. The proposed amendment would
require affected facilities to hire CAC-approved contractor workers first,
before turning to other sources for contract labor. If the CAC cannot
produce trained workers in these areas,then the affected facilities would
be able to hire other qualified contract workers as set forth in their safety
plans. Please see Responses E-38 and E-55.
Response E-188 Please see Response E-187.
Response E-189 Please see Responses E-38,E-55,and E-152.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR I1-143
Letter F
ANDERSEN & BONNIFIV30'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW n!,
TELEPHONE:(925)602.1400 ONE CORPORATE CENTRE FACSIMILE:19251 825-0143
1320 WILLOW PAS ROAD-SUITE 500'"
CONCORD.CALIFORNIA 94520.5269
November 12, 2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Patrick Roche
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4"' Floor
Martinez, California 94553
RE: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Rep2rt ("Draft EIR") to the
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety
Ordinance ("ISO"), County Ordinance Code Chapter 450-8.
Dear Mr. Roche:
This office represents the interests of the California Contractors Alliance, as well as the
Citizens for a Safer Environment, in the above referenced matter. The Draft EIR was
published in or about September, 2004, and the statutory comment period was extended, upon F-1
request, to November 12, 2004.
As a preliminary matter, our April 30, 2003 letter to Patrick Roche, Principal Planner,
regarding the Notice of Preparation("NOP") of an EIR , and all itemized documents
referenced therein, is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.1 Further, on October 26, 2004,
this office propounded a Public Records request to Contra Costa County. Such request is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The County responded F-2
to our request on November 10, 2004 and produced approximately 2000 pages of documents.
As of the date of this response to the Draft EIR, this office and its retained experts are
continuing to evaluate the data provided in the voluminous documents produced in response to
our Public Records request.
For reasons more fully set forth below, no action should be taken to certify the EIR nor
should any action be taken with respect to the adoption of the proposed ISO amendment until F-3
I The April 30,2003 letter is included as part of Exhibit D,"Notice of Preparation, Notice of
Scoping Session, and Responses to Notice of Preparation", Draft EIR.
Letter F continued
Mr. Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 2
the continents have been fully addressed and the required analysis performed. Based on the
Declarations and supporting evidence submitted concurrently with these comments, additional
analysis would be necessary to fully respond to the comments as set forth below and would F-3
require a recirculation of the Draft EIR in accordance with the California Environmental cont.
Quality Act ("CEQA")2. Accordingly, proper analysis of the Draft EIR is a prerequisite to
any consideration of the proposed ISO amendments.
CHALLENGE TO THE DRAFT EIR
A. Overview of Comments to the Draft EIR
Under the CEQA analysis, the adequacy of an EIR rests on the fundamental
requirement that an EIR serves to provide public agencies and the general public with
information about the effect a proposed.project [ISO] is likely to have on the environment and
to identify ways environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
The purpose of the EIR is to inform the public and responsible officials of the
environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. A failure to include
relevant information in the EIR precludes informed decision making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. Courts have held an F-4
EIR deficient where 1) the information relied upon was outdated and there was evidence
presented by parties challenging the EIR that there existed more recent data which refuted or
otherwise brought into question the conclusions/alternatives assessed; and/or 2) the EIR failed
to include relevant information (absence of information) precluding informed decision making
and informed public participation thereby "thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process."
(Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v.Board of Port Commissioners of the City of
Oakland et al. 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598 (2001)].
Based on the Declarations and evidence supporting these comments, the Draft.EIR is
deficient in its analysis of the availability of the "Labor Pool of CAC Trained Workers."
What is fundamental to the issue as to whether the proposed ISO amendments will have a
significant impact on one or more environmental factors is whether there will be a sufficient
number of workers that have graduated from a CAC approved apprenticeship program ("CAC F-5
trained workers") to meet the project demands of the refineries subject to the amendments
including emergency needs. If, as a result of the adoption of the ISO amendments, there
will be an insufficient number of CAC trained workers to meet projected demands, the
z California Public Resources Code (PRC)section 21000 et M.
A
Letter.F continued
Mr. Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 3
proposed ISO amendment will significantly impact the timely completion of major
projects. As will be more fully set forth below, the Draft EIR contains several areas that we F-5
believe should be further analyzed in order to assess whether there would be an available labor cont.
pool of CAC trained workers.
The deficiencies in the Draft EIR, as supported by the supporting Declarations include
1) the failure to include current relevant studies or data that should have been analyzed in
developing the conclusions set forth in the Draft EIR; 2) utilizing gross and outdated
information in the methodology thereby resulting in faulty and misleading conclusions as to the
availability of a CAC trained labor pool; and/or 3) failure of the Draft EIR to include an F-6
analysis of fundamental and significant information that is readily available and would have a
significant impact on the analysis of the availability of CAC trained workers.
Inherent in the Draft EIR conclusions is that there is an available supply of CAC
trained workers and that these workers are qualified (or more qualified) that the current non-
CAC trained workers. This is apparently why the "No Project Alternative" option is rejected
although no analysis is provided.3 The Draft EIR analysis of the "No Project Alternative" is
summarily provided on approximately two pages of the document. [Draft EIR, pages V-2-4.1
F-�
Further, the comparison of whether the proposed ISO amendments are superior to the existing
ordinance is necessary to ascertain potential significant impacts that may result from the
adoption of the amendments and should be included as part of the Draft EIR.
As an example, the Draft EIR concludes that the impact of the "No Project" alternative
to public safety would be essentially the same as under the proposed ISO amendments;
however, the pool of eligible contractor-covered workers would be greater with the existing
ordinance than under the proposed amendments. [Draft EIR, pages V-3-4]. Without F-8
adequate analysis, the conclusion appears to be that there would be a greater available pool,
albeit not CAC-trained workers, under the current ordinance.
The California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights_ Improvements Assn. v. Regents of
University of California 47 Cal.3d 376, 403-405, 253 Cal..Rptr.426 (1988) held that the EIR
was defective where the document simply concluded that certain alternative sites [for the
location of biomedical facilities] were infeasible. The Court further found that the EIR F-9
contained "no meaningful analysis of any alternatives whatsoever." The Draft EIR provides
virtually no substantial evaluation of any alternatives to the proposed ISO amendments.
3 The"No Project Alternative"option simply means that the proposed ISO amendments would
not be implemented and that the current ISO language would remain in effect.
Letter F continued
Mr. Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 4
In preparing this public comment, the Declarations of Charles Fletcher, Norm Hattich
and the analysis of the Draft EIR prepared by Steven Moss of M.Cubed Consultants are F-10
submitted and incorporated herein.
B. The Draft EIR is Deficient in Its Analysis of Data and Potential Significant
Impacts to Public Safety of the Proposed ISO Amendments.
In the analysis of the Draft EIR prepared by M.Cubed Consultants, there are
three "key findings" or "conclusions" reached by Mr. Moss:
1. The EIR's conclusions that there will be no significant environmental
impacts from the proposed amendment is statistically inaccurate.
2. There are indications that the available labor pool would not be
sufficient to meet the proposed amendment requirements. F-11
3. There is little basis to support the EIR's conclusion the "the risk of
accidents would not significantly increase, and the impact would be less
than significant"because of escape clauses contained in the proposed
amendments.
Under the CEQA provisions, Moss's analysis of the Draft EIR clearly requires
additional analysis regarding the pivotal assumptions underlying the conclusions of the Draft
EIR that the proposed amendments to the ISO would have no significant environmental
impacts. Such analysis is required prior to the adoption of the proposed EIR.
As supported by the Declarations and expert evaluations of the Draft EIR, the Draft
EIR is deficient based on the following:
1. Tables IV. -2 and IV.A-5: An accurate assessment of hiring trends is crucial
to the analysis of whether the proposed ISO amendments create significant
adverse impacts that have not been fully evaluated in the Draft EIR. The Draft
EIR states that "Since the data [used for Table IV.A-2] from the three entities F-12
did not cover the same years, a direct comparison of labor usage (i.e. CAC
approved contractor-covered workers versus CCA-approved workers) could not
be made. Therefore, only approximations can be made to characterize trends in
the hiring of workers on past projects." As is illustrated in both Table IV.A-2
and Table IV.A-5, there is no information concerning available work hours
provided by the labor unions after 1996. Why the gap? Declarations in support
Letter F continued
Mr. Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 5
of this public comment suggest that reliance on the availability of a qualified
labor pool based on 1994-1996 data is misleading resulting in inaccurate F-12
conclusions, Information concerning the annual union provided hours is cont.
available as employers are required to provide the unions with certified payroll
data.
In December 2002, the County contracted with the Department of City and
Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley ("University") to
study the impact of out-of-state workers on economic issues. On April 22, F-13
2003, the University published a scope of work. The study was apparently
completed as it is referenced in the Draft EIR; however it is unclear as to how
the information was used in preparing the Draft EIR if at all.
Further, the data reflecting the alleged number of available CAC trained
workers relied upon in these Tables is misleading. Not all union workers have
CAC approved training and there is no breakdown of the alleged available labor
pool by trade. Moreover, concluding that the proposed ISO amendments would
not significantly impact the available labor pool based on gross annual labor F-14
hours as has been done in the Draft EIR is unconscionable. The Draft EIR fails
to analyze short term labor pool fluctuations in the context of potential labor
demands for major projects.
2. Page IV.A-15: The proposed ISO amendments would have a "significant
impact if it resulted in ". . .nonconformance with regulations or generally
accepted industry practices related to operating, policies, and procedures
concerning design, construction, security, leak detection, spill containment or
fire protection. . ." The proposed ISO amendments (as opposed to the existing F-15
language) would reasonably result in nonconformance with industry practices,
particularly with respect to hiring and training practices as outlined in the
supporting Declarations. Accordingly, there may be a significant impact that has
not been analyzed in the Draft EIR and, therefore, the Draft EIR is deficient.
3. Page IV.A-17: The Draft EIR provides that "It is difficult to determine how
easily the conditions could be met while not compromising safety at the affected
facilities, because the procedures for complying with these exceptions are not
documented in the proposed amendments." The potential impacts to public F-16
safety are paramount and can, according to the express language of the Draft
EIR, only be assessed if the procedures for complying with the proposed ISO
amendments are identified. Inasmuch as there are no procedures provided in
Letter F continued
Mr. Patrick Roche
November 12, 2004
Page 6
the proposed ISO amendments, the Draft EIR is clearly deficient in its analysis F-16
of potential significant environmental impacts. cont.
Given that we have just received the documents in response to our Public Records
Request, we reserve the right to submit additional comments to the Draft EIR following a F-17
review of these documents.
R pectfully Submitted,
j
R. M. Bonnifield
ANDERSEN & BONNIFIELD
ATTORNEYS FOR CCA &
CITIZENS FOR A SAFER ENVIRONMENT
cc: Silvano Marchesi
County Counsel
JACCACILTMOMMENTS TO DRAFT EIR.wpd
Letter F continued
Declaration of Charles Fletcher in
Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
to the Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County
Industrial Safety Ordinance
1, Charles Fletcher, declare as follows:
1. 1 have more than twenty years of experience in the construction industry
and have served as president of the statewide Associated General Contractors of
California and as president of the California Contractors Alliance. I have personal
knowledge of the matters set forth below and, if called as a witness, could and would
testify to the contents of this declaration.
2. 1 was employed by Corey Delta Constructors, Benicia, California, from
1982 to 2003 serving as vice-president, asst. constructor manager, human
resources/industrial relations director, and health and safety director. I hold a Bachelor
of Science degree in business and a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and F-18
have completed two years of law school.
3. While at Corey Delta, I was responsible for the company's training
program. Corey Delta received a three-year accreditation as a NCCER training sponsor
and offered classes in the NCCER core curriculum, pipefitting, welding, and a master
craftsman apprentice job site work team program. NCCER is a non-profit, nationally
recognized educational foundation serving the construction and maintenance industries.
4. 1 have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") to the
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance ("ISO")
and contend that the analysis is based on incomplete data that I am certain is available F-19
and that the analysis of the data presented is skewed and the conclusions flawed.
5. What is critical to the analysis as to whether the proposed ISO amendments
have a significant impact on public safety and hazards is whether there will be a
F-20
sufficient labor pool of workers graduating from an apprenticeship program certified by
Declaration of Charles Fletcher 1
Letter F continued
the California Apprenticeship Council ("CAC") if the proposed ISO amendments are
passed. The Draft EIR simply has not included relevant information nor has sufficiently F-20
analyzed whether there will be a sufficient labor supply to service existing projects or cont.
keep pace with new project developments.
6. Table IV.A-2, page IV.A-8 of the Draft EIR reflects that the Unions only
provided information of"Hours of Contractor-Covered Labor" for the years 1994, 1995,
1996. No information was provided for more recent years. During 1994-1996, the
refineries covered under the ISO were recruiting a substantial number of workers due to
the increased work demands generated by the Clean Fuels Act. Accordingly, the
number of hours for union-covered labor during this time period would have been
significantly higher than in recent years. During 1994-1996, Corey Delta needed to
conduct a nationwide recruitment in order to meet its contract work demands as the F-21
local labor supply of qualified workers was insufficient. Most of the out-of-state workers
were hired on a temporary basis. There is no analysis in the Draft EIR concerning the
number of out of state workers hired during 1994-1996. Out-of-state workers would
most likely not have CAC training.
7. To conclude as the Draft EIR did that the ". . .percentage of CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers for all three refineries during the period is estimated to
range from 30-40 percent of the total contractor-covered workers at these facilities
[three refineries]." is completely erroneous. [Refer to page IV.A-8]. The number of F-22
contractor-covered labor hours was particular high during 1994-1996 thereby artificially
inflated the percentage of covered workers to industry provided hours.
8. 1 have no explanation as to why Table IV.A-2 fails to include "Union
Provided Hours" after year 1996. The unions clearly have this information available to
them as employers are required to provide certified payrolls of union contractors. I
F-23
believe that if this information was analyzed, the percentage of covered labor hours to
total industry hours as depicted on Table IV.A-2 would be much lower than 30 percent
Declaration of Charles Fletcher 2
Letter F continued
F-23
thereby reducing the available.labor pool should the ISO amendments be adopted.
cont.
9. Also, Table IV.A-2 fails to.identify those union workers in the various trades
that have actually completed CAC training. Based upon my experience with the
NCCER training program and hiring qualified workers, I believe that the Table IV.A-2
numbers concerning the "union-provided hours per year" would be significantly lower if F-24
the number of CAC trained worker hours were identified. Again, this would
significantly impact the number of CAC trained labor pool available should the proposed
ISO amendments be adopted.
10. Finally, Table IV.A-2 reflects yearly totals of available hours and fails to
account for short term fluctuations in the labor supply that may be generated through,
for example, major shut downs . By projecting an available labor pool based on gross F-25
annual labor hours, the analysis provided in the Draft EIR fails to assess the potential
impacts of fluctuations in the tabor supply.
11. The problems I have identified in Table IV.A-2 are exacerbated when
reviewing the analysis of the "Estimation of CAC-Approved Labor Availability for Peak
Refinery Project Demands" provided by Table IV.A-5. [Draft EIR, page MA-171. There
is no indication of the source of the information analyzed other than it was generated by
Environmental Science Associates (2004). Further, as in Table MA-2, the data used
appears to be from 1994-1996. Again, it is my opinion that the Draft EIR fails to
F-2H
incorporate available relevant and recent Union data concerning the potential available cont.
CAC labor pool and consequently the analysis and conclusions are deficient. For
reasons I have discussed in the above paragraphs, it is my contention that a proper
analysis would demonstrate that the available CAC trained work force would be
significantly lower than 64% as suggested in Table IV.A.-5.
12. One of the potential impacts that would be created by the adoption of the
proposed ISO amendments would be that the industries impacted by the amendments
F-27
would terminate any and all local NCCER (or merit shop) training programs. There
i
Declaration of Charles Fletcher 3
Letter F continued
clearly would not be any incentive to continue sponsoring NCCER programs for
example. As a result, the available labor pool would decrease even more dramatically.
Such reduction in the available labor pool could have a significant impact on the ability
to respond to emergency situations. It is my opinion that the Draft EIR should analyze F-27
the variables (e.g. closure of other training programs) impacting the availability of non cont.
CAC trained workers to ascertain whether the labor pool to respond to emergency
situations is sufficient. If such labor pool is insufficient, then there would be a significant
impact on public safety.
13. The Draft EIR fails to provide any analysis of the breakdown of the
available CAC-trained trade classifications that would be available should the proposed
ISO amendments be adopted. Generally, most refinery work requires boiler makers
and pipe fitters, not electricians as referred to in Table IV.A-2. An analysis of the F-28
potential CAC-trained workers by trade is essential to determining whether the,labor
supply can produce sufficient workers to meet the projected maximum labor demands of
the industries subject to the proposed ISO amendments.
14. With respect to the proposed ISO amendments regarding the "48 hour
waiting period"and the "emergency" provisions, the Draft EIR states that:
It is difficult to determine how easily the conditions could be met while not
compromising safety at the affected facilities, because the procedures for
complying with.these exceptions are not.documented in the proposed
amendments. [Draft EIR, page IV.A-171.
F-29
Given standard.hiring practices in the industries impacted by the proposed ISO
amendments, identification of the procedures and further analysis of these procedures
is necessary to determine whether there would be any significant impacts to public
safety resulting from an inability to provide an available labor pool, especially in
emergency situations.
Declaration of Charles Fletcher 4
Letter F continued
15. As a general rule, it takes approximately four days to process new
applicants. Such processing includes preemployment tests, background evaluations,
and drug testing. Further, once hired, newly recruits are provided site specific
orientations as well as the required BATC (Bay Area Training Corp.) and CSOP
(Contractor Safety Orientation Program) programs. Unlike NCCER training, the CAC F-30
training is not industry specific which is why on the job orientations and training are
critical. The Draft EIR at pages IV.A-4, 5, 6, and 7 correctly states the differences in
training including the non-CAC on-site training programs.
16. The Draft EIR fails to provide an analysis of training time lines with the
requirement imposed by the proposed ISO amendments that after the first three yeas of
adoption , ISO covered contractors would be required to: 1) employ only journey level
workers in an apprenticeable occupation approved by the CAC or who have obtained a
certificate of equivalent training; 2) employ only apprentices in an apprenticeable
F-31
occupation who are enrolled in an apprenticeable program for that occupation that has
been approved by the CAC; and 3) Employ only journey level workers in an
apprenticeable occupation who have completed at least 20 hours of training in skills,
construction techniques, and safety (for that occupation) within 12 months at a bonafide
apprenticeship program for that occupation. [Draft EIR, pages 111-6, 7].
17. The Draft EIR provides no analysis of whether these employment
requirements of the proposed ISO amendments would significantly impact the available
labor supply. Based on my experience with the NCCER program, an accelerated
training program would encompass approximately six months or more to complete.
This would necessitate a more accelerated than normal training effort which would have F-32
a significant cost impact. Without sufficient analysis, there is no way to determine
whether the labor pool of qualified CAC trained workers would be available within the
three-year period after adoption of the ordinance.
Declaration of Charles Fletcher S
Letter F continued
18. The Draft E1R is deficient in its use of outdatlsd and over inclusive data and
in its failure to adequately analyze the necessary elements comprising the available
labor pool. If there is an insufficient labor supply of CAC trained workers as a result of
the adoption of the proposed ISO amendments, then there are indeed significant F-33
impacts created by the proposed amendments to the ISO which must be identified and
analyzed.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this. H" day of November 2004 in Concord, California, Contra F-34
Costa County.
Charles Fletcher
Declaration of Charles Fletcher 6
Letter F continued
PEN4050 Lilt SCLI'tld SIICV1. SL11k: L
4898
���� Bcni.icl. 7071 46- 94510-1001)
EAU
NC FAX t 71 07 ;46-499S
Electrical Pole Line • Engineerint- Communication Instrumentation • U.L.. Listed Panel Shop
Declaration of Norm Hattich in
Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
to the Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County
Industrial Safety Ordinance
I, Norm Hattich, declare as follows:
1. . If sworn to testify, I could testify of my own personal knowledge as set
forth herein.
2. 1 have more than thirty years of experience in the construction trades. l
am presently the Chief Financial Officer of Aspen Timco, Inc. ("Aspen Timco"). I am the
responsible managing owner and employee of Aspen Timco and hold the following
Contractor Licenses: A (General Engineering),*B (General Contractor) and C-10
(Electrical) in California, Nevada, Arizona and Idaho.
3. In approximately 1969, 1 completed the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Electrical Apprenticeship Program and worked as a union electrician
for approximately seven years. From approximately 1976 on, I was a 50% owner and
F-35
was employed by Aspen Construction of California Inc. in various positions that
included field work, construction management, human resources, industrial relations,
health and safety and general management. After the merger of Aspen Construction of
California Inc. with Timco Construction, Inc., I served as the President of the merged
entity,Aspen Timco, Inc. Thereafter, in 1992, 1 became the Chief Financial Officer of
Aspen Timco. As such, I am familiar with and responsible for the daily business
activities of Aspen Timco.
California Lic.#318571 Nevada Lic.#017430 Idaho Lic. #17909
Letter F continued
4. In 1989, 1 was the President of the Associated Builders and Contractors
Golden Gate Chapter("ABC'). Prior to becoming President, I held a number of other
positions in that organization. I am also a past Chairman and still serve on the Board of
the Unilateral Apprenticeship Committee for ABC. This is the Board that oversees all of
the California Apprenticeship Council ("CAC") approved apprenticeship programs for F-35
cont.
ABC, including plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry and laborer.
5. In early 1994, ABC was approved by the CAC for an electrical
apprenticeship program. Presently, Aspen Timco is a licensed electrical contractor that
uses the ABC electrical apprenticeship program for training.
6. 1 have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") to the
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance ("ISO")
F-36
and contend that the analysis is based on incomplete data that I am certain is available
and that the analysis of the data presented is skewed and the conclusions flawed.
7. What is critical to the analysis as to whether the proposed ISO amendments
have a significant impact on public safety and hazards is whether there will be a
sufficient labor pool of workers graduating from an apprenticeship program certified by
the CAC if the proposed ISO amendments are passed. The Draft EIR simply has not
included relevant.information nor has sufficiently analyzed whether there will be a
sufficient labor supply to service existing projects or keep pace with new project F-37
developments. Currently, there is a severe shortage of trained workers in the
construction field. At this time, Aspen Timco is having a very difficult time hiring trained
workers to complete its present contract work. If an emergency occurred today as
referenced in the proposed ISO amendments, Aspen Timco would not be able to
provide trained workers to meet the emergency situation since it does not have an
excess available workforce.
8. Table IV.A-2, page IV.A-8 of the Draft EIR reflects that the Unions only
provided information of"Hours of Contractor-Covered Labor"for the years 1994, 1995, F-38
2
Letter F continued
1996. No information was provided for more recent years. During 1994-1996, the
refineries covered under the ISO were recruiting a substantial number of workers due to
the increased work demands generated by the Clean Fuels Act. Accordingly, the
number of hours for union-covered labor during this time period would have been
significantly higher than in recent years. During 1994-1996, Aspen Timco needed to
conduct a significant worker recruitment campaign in order to meet its contract work
F-38
demands as the local labor supply of qualified workers was insufficient. A substantial cont.
number of the contractors that worked on the Clean Fuels Projects obtained a
significant number of their workforce by recruiting and hiring out-of-state workers.
There is no.analysis in the Draft EIR concerning the number of out of state workers
hired during 1994-1996. Based upon my experience in hiring workers at Aspen Timco,
it is likely that out-of-state workers have not graduated from a CAC-approved
apprenticeship program.
9. To conclude as the Draft EIR did that the ". . .percentage of CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers for all three refineries during the period is estimated to
range from 30-40 percent of the total contractor-covered workers at these facilities
[three refineries]." is completely erroneous. [Refer to page IV.A-8]. The number of F-39
contractor-covered labor hours was particular high during 1994-1996 thereby artificially
inflated the percentage of covered workers to industry provided hours.
10. 1 have no explanation as to why Table IV.A-2 fails to include "Union
Provided Hours" after year 1996. The unions clearly have this information available to
them as employers are required to provide certified payrolls. I believe that if this
information was analyzed, the percentage of covered labor hours to total industry hours F-40
as depicted on Table IV.A-2 would be much lower than 30 percent thereby reducing the
available labor pool should the ISO amendments be adopted.
11. Also, Table IV.A-2 fails to identify those union workers in the various trades
that have actually completed CAC training. Based upon my experience with Aspen F-41
3
Letter F continued
Timco and the ABC apprenticeship programs, I believe that the Table IV.A-2 numbers
concerning the "union-provided hours per year" would be significantly lower if the
number of CAC apprentice trained worker hours were identified. Again, this would F-41
cont.
significantly impact the number of CAC trained labor pool available should the proposed
ISO amendments be adopted.
12. Finally, Table IV.A-2 reflects yearly totals of available hours and fails to
account for short term fluctuations in the labor supply that may be generated through,
for example, major shut downs or other large non-refinery construction projects. As an
example, power plant construction and maintenance periodically requires a large F-42
number of skilled workers. By projecting an available labor pool based on gross annual
labor hours, the analysis provided in the Draft EIR fails to assess the potential impacts
of fluctuations in the labor supply or demand.
13. The problems I have identified in Table IV.A-2 are exacerbated when
reviewing the analysis of the "Estimation of CAC-Approved Labor Availability for Peak
Refinery Project Demands" provided by Table IV.A-5. [Draft EIR, page IV.A-171. There
is no indication of the source of the information analyzed other than it was generated by
Environmental Science Associates (2004). Further, as in Table IV,A-2, the data used
appears to be from 1994-1996. Again, it is my opinion that the Draft EIR fails to F-43
incorporate available relevant and recent Union data concerning the potential available
tabor pool of CAC graduates and-consequently the analysis and conclusions are
deficient. For reasons I have discussed in the above paragraphs, it is my contention
that a proper analysis would demonstrate that the available CAC trained work force
would be significantly lower than 64% as suggested in Table IV.A.-5.
14. One of the potential impacts that would be created by the adoption of the
proposed ISO amendments would be that the contractors impacted by the amendments
would terminate specific training programs related to refinery work and would F-44
concentrate on training workers to meet other specific client requirements. There
4
Letter F continued
clearly would not be any incentive to continue sponsoring training programs specifically
related to refinery activities. As a result, the available labor pool would decrease even
more dramatically. Such reduction in the available labor pool could have a significant
impact on the ability to respond to emergency situations. It is my opinion that the Draft
EIR should analyze the variables (e.g. closure of other training programs) impacting the
availability of non CAC trained workers to ascertain whether the labor pool to respond to F-44
emergency situations is sufficient today and whether it would be sufficient in the future. cont.
If such labor pool is insufficient, then there would be a significant impact on public
safety. Based upon my experience with Aspen Timco, ABC and my many years in the
construction trades, there is presently a severe shortage of available trained workers in
the Bay Area. The proposed ISO amendments would substantially limit the labor pool
of trained workers available to work in the refineries.
15. The Draft EIR fails to provide any analysis of the breakdown of the
available CAC-trained trade classifications that would be available should the proposed
ISO amendments be adopted. As referenced in Table IV.A-2, a specific refinery
construction project could require a cross-section of workers from all the different
trades. Generally, each refinery job is different and a larger or smaller number of F-45
workers from a specific trade would be required based on the specific project. An
analysis of the potential CAC-trained workers by trade is essential to determining
whether the labor supply can produce sufficient workers to meet the projected maximum
labor demands of the industries subject to the proposed ISO amendments.
16. With respect to the proposed ISO amendments regarding the "48 hour
waiting period" and the "emergency" provisions, the Draft EIR states that:
It is difficult to determine how easily the conditions could be met while not F-46
compromising safety at the affected facilities, because the procedures for
5
Letter F continued
complying with these exceptions are not documented in the proposed
amendments. (Draft EIR, page IV.A-171.
Given standard hiring practices in the industries impacted by the proposed ISO
amendments, identification of the procedures and further analysis of these procedures
F-46
is necessary to determine whether there would be any significant impacts to public
cont.
safety resulting from an inability to provide an available labor pool, especially in
emergency situations.
17. Asa general rule, it takes approximately four to six days to process new job
applicants. Such processing includes preemployment tests, background evaluations,
and drug testing. Further, once hired, newly recruited workers are provided site specific
orientations as well as the required BATC (Bay Area Training Corporation)training
F-47
before the workers can actually work in a refinery. The CAC training is not industry
specific which is why on the job orientations and other training activities are critical. The
Draft EIR at pages IV.A-4, 5, 6, and 7 correctly states the differences in training
including the non-CAC on-site training programs.
18. The Draft EIR fails to provide an analysis of training time lines with the
requirements imposed by the proposed ISO amendments that after the first three years
of adoption , ISO covered contractors would be required to: 1) employ only journey level
workers in an apprenticeable occupation approved by the CAC or who have obtained a
certificate of equivalent training; 2) employ only apprentices in an apprenticeable
occupation who are enrolled in an apprenticeable program for that occupation that has F-48
been approved by the CAC; and 3) Employ only journey level workers in an
apprenticeable occupation who have completed at least 20 hours of training in skills,
construction techniques, and safety (for that occupation)within 12 months at a bonafide
apprenticeship program for that occupation. [Draft EIR, pages 111-6, 71.
19. The Draft EIR provides no analysis of whether these employment
requirements of the proposed ISO amendments would significantly impact the available F-49
6
Letter F continued
labor supply. Without sufficient analysis, there is no way to determine whether the labor
F-49
pool of qualified CAC trained workers would be available within the three-year period
cont.
after adoption of the ordinance.
20. The Draft EIR is deficient in its use of outdated and over inclusive data and
in its failure to adequately analyze the necessary elements comprising the available
labor pool. If there is an insufficient labor supply of CAC trained workers as a result of
F-50
the adoption of the proposed ISO amendments, then there are indeed significant
impacts created by the proposed amendments to the ISO which must be identified and
analyzed.
21. Since there are no hiring halls for non-signatory contractors, non-signatory
contractors generally hire workers from their own internal lists of previous or potential
workers or use local, statewide or national recruitment programs to find available trained
workers. As indicated above, there is a severe shortage of trained workers in all
construction trades in the Bay Area. Since there is a shortage of available workers
F-51
already, it is likely that the proposed ISO amendments would further reduce the
available workforce which could have significant impacts on the refineries' ability to
complete in a timely fashion needed construction, repair and maintenance work. The
Draft EIR fails to provide an adequate analysis of the available workforce if the ISO
amendments are adopted.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on thi 1 i day of November 2004 in F-52
Concord, California, Contra Costa County.
Norm hTh
Letter F continued
Declaration of Steven Moss in
Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
to the Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County
Industrial Safety Ordinance
I, Steven Moss, declare as follows:
1. I am currently employed as a Partner at M.Cubed and am an adjunct
lecturer at the Public Administration Program, San Francisco State University.
2. 1 have attached as Exhibit A, a copy of my Curriculum Vitae identifying my
education, work experience and expertise. I was retained by the California Contractors
Alliance ("CCA") to review and prepare an analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report ("Draft EIR")to the Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial
F-53
Safety Ordinance ("ISO").
3. A copy of my analysis is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated
herein by this reference. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently
testify to the contents of my analysis.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this_10 _day of November 2004 in
Concord, California, Contra Costa County.
I.
�S ven Moss
Letter F continued
Analysis of"Chapter IV, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation" in
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance, Draft
EIR
Developed by M.Cubed'
M.Cubed was asked by the California Contractors Alliance to examine Proposed
Amendment to the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance, Draft EIR., with a
emphasis on "Chapter N,Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation." The purpose
of this examination was to determine whether key chapter conclusions were supported by
the information and analyses contained in the document. In particular, whether the F-54
EIR's finding that under the proposal "...the risk of accidents would not significantly
increase, and the impact would be less than significant"2 is supported by the evidence
presented.3
M.Cubed's examination resulted in the following key findings:
(1) The EIR's conclusion that there will be no significant environmental impacts from the
proposed amendment is statistically inaccurate.
The EIR mixes two, and perhaps more, sources in an attempt to develop a six
—year time-series for contractor hours worked.° However, without a
comprehensive examination of how the data was derived by each of the
sources it cannot be determined whether they are accurate, or compatible with F-55
one another. As indicated by the consultant who compiled these data, "it was
not possible to determine precisely the actual labor pool that was provided to
the refineries. We used this data to represent ranges."5
• Even a casual examination of the limited number of apparently consistent data
sources presented in the report indicates that there are large annual variations
in total contractor hours worked—in some cases more than 100 percent
increases between years. These fluctuations could translate into 1,000 full-
time workers or more.6 The EIR does not address what these trades-people do F-56
when not employed in the area during peak,years;where they are typically
located;or what credentials or qualifications they have. As a result,at any
M.Cubed Partner Steven Moss was responsible for this analysis,with support from Sanjay Gaur. Mr.
Moss has conducted analyses on a number of labor-related issues,including proposed state and federal
ergonomic and privatization policies,and has substantial experience examining environmental impact
reports and other analytical documents. He is an Adjunct Lecturer in Public Administration at San
Francisco State University,and has a Master of Public Policy from the University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.
'-Page IV.A-17.
'Environmental impacts could occur if the proposal induces a scarcity of qualified labor,thereby delaying
necessary projects,and increasing the risk of accidents at the affected facilities.
There is a typographical error on page IV.A-16,third paragraph, in which the 1995 value is stated as
4.36 million,"while Table IV.A-2 indicates a 1995 value of 4.73 million and a 2003 value of 4.36 million.
5 Memo to File from Bob Vranka,ESA and Dave Powell,ATI,October 18,2004.
6 Assuming a 2,000-hour work-year,
Analysis of Chapter IV I
Letter F continued
point in.time it is substantially unknown whether or not these individuals
would be available when needed, how quickly they could be called.upon, and ,
what percentage of them would meet the proposal's requirements. Without F-56
these data it is not possible to come to a statistically-valid conclusion that the cont.
proposed Amendment will have"no significant impacts."
• Average annual data may mask weekly, or even daily, fluctuations in work
force needs. For example,it is unknown whether the roughly 2.9 million
work hours estimated for 2003 were concentrated in several months, or
stretched out evenly over the entire year. Depending on the timing of work F-57
patterns,the available labor pool could be more or less stressed at any given
moment, making it more or less difficult to call on additional qualified
workers when needed.
• The EIR's use of averages based on limited and potentially inconsistent data
points to calculate the number of total contractor-covered labor hours during a
maximum-year likewise masks the potential for higher, or lower, peaks than
estimated. For example, depending on what base year is employed to
calculate averages using the available data, the"average"labor pool could
account for between 68 and 121 percent of peak labor demand, excluding any F-58
considerations related to qualifications and credentials. Without a better
understanding of likely.demand for and related characteristics of contractor
labor in the future the use of averages based on limited historical data
provides little insight into potential proposal impacts.
• No information is provided about the supply of,or demand for, workers in
particularly trades. As with the other factors discussed above, without this
information it is infeasible to determine whether or not there is likely to be a F-59
sufficient labor pool at a given point in time for the particular skills
demanded.
• The EIR provides inconsistent information related to the universe of affected
facilities(i.e., five versus seven).$ To fully understand supply and demand for
contractor labor,and the concomitant safety and environmental impacts
associated with the proposed amendment, information related to the number
and characteristics (e.g.,historical employment patterns; worker F-60
characteristics; anticipated projects)of the affected facilities is required.
Given the small number of these entities,it would seem feasible to be able to
develop a comprehensive labor-related data set for them, and this information
should have been included in the draft report.
(2) There are indications that the available labor pool would not be sufficient to meet
the proposed amendment requirements.
Page IVA-16. .
a Pages 1-2;IV.A.-16.
Analysis of Chapter IV 2
Letter F continued
• The data presented in the EIR related to the number of hours worked,
rather than the available number of qualified workers. Based on a limited
number of data sources, the EIR indicates that"the percentage of CAC-
approved contractor covered workers for all three refineries during the
period is estimated to range from 30to 40 percent of the total contractor-
covered workers used at this facility."o Given that year-to-year demand F-61
for workers appears to regularly increase by 100 percent or more,this
information implies that there is a significant probability that in a peak
year—which, according to the data presented in the ETR, occurs every two
or three years—there would not be a sufficient pool of qualified workers
available under the proposed amendment.
• As indicated in the EIR, the creation of additional, qualified contract
workers takes time and resources—up to five years or more.10 That is,
other than relying on out-of-the-area contractors, who are unlikely to meet F-62
the proposed amendment's requirements, there are no means to rapidly
enlarge the labor pool.
• It is likely that the available supply of qualified workers is steadily
decreasing due to retirement. For example,nationwide the median age of
skilled trades-and crafts-people is expected to reach 41.4 years in less .
than a decade, creating the oldest workforce since 1962.11 Reductions in
the supply of qualified workers combined with slow creation of suitable F-63
replacements(see above) could lead to a labor force"bottlenecks,"
particularly under the more stringent Amendment requirements.
• Supporting documents provided by the EIR consultant contradicts the
EIR's findings the available Iabor pool would be sufficient to meet
proposed amendment requirements. As indicated in a memo explaining
Chapter IV's methodological basis:
If there were a sufficient amount of CAC-approved labor for the
maximum labor demand,then the implementation of the proposed ISO F-64
amendment should not impact the completion of special projects at the
refineries in the future. However, if the CAC-approved labor supply
cannot provide sufficient workers to meet the projected requirements
for a maximum labor demand, then implementing the proposed
Amendments could impact the timely completion of major projects at
these refineries.12
Page MA-8. For example,not all union—and few of the out-of-state--workers have graduated from
CAC programs. M.Cubed is unable to confirm or deny the accuracy of this estimate.
10 Page MA-3-4;6.
11 Toosi,Mitra,"Labor Force Projections to 2012: The Graying of the U.S.Workforce,"Monthly Labor
Review,U.S.Department of Labor,February 2004.
12 Memo,opsit.
Analysis of Chapter IIS 3
Letter F continued
Our estimate shows that, under worst case conditions, CAC approved
labor is not sufficient to meet all labor needs during periods when all F-64
of the refineries in the region would be undertaking special projects.13 cont.
(3) There is little basis to support the EIR's conclusion that "the risk of accidents
would not significantly increase, and the impact would be less than significant"
because of escape clauses contained in the proposed amendments. ChapterIv
concludes with a paragraph stating that clauses in the proposed amendment which
...allow facilities to employ qualified workers without CAC-approved
training after an attempt is made over two working days to secure CAC-
covered workers with the proper skills...
or in cases of emergencies would empower the affected facilities to ignore
amendment requirements, and hire the necessary workers to ensure safety.
However, the EIR also states that F-65
It is difficult to determine how easily the conditions could be met while
not compromising safety the affected facilities,because the procedures for
complying with these exceptions are not documented in the proposed
amendments.14
Based on this analysis,without additional analyses and review it is not possible to
determine whether or not the escape clauses would effectively serve to enable the
affected facilities to gain access to qualified workers in a way that does not
noticeably delay implementation of projects that may have safety consequences.
In summary, the draft EIR is based on a flawed methodology and incomplete data
sources; does not support the conclusion of"no significant impacts"from the proposal;
and,to the contrary, there is evidence suggesting that the policy, if adopted, could result F-66
in significant impacts.
"[bid. Emphasis added.
"Page IV.A-17.
Analysis of Chapter IV 4
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
LETTER F -ANDERSEN & BONNIFIELD
Response F-1 Comment noted.
Response F-2 Comment noted.
Response F-3 Responses to comments put forward by the public are contained in this
Response to Comments document(this Final EIR). The County Board of
Supervisors will certify the Final EIR if it determines that the EIR for the
proposed amendment has [1] been completed in compliance with CEQA;
[2] was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency(the
Board of Supervisors),and that the decision-making body reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving
the project;and[3]reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and
analysis(CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a)).
Response F-4 Comment noted.
Response F-5 The DEIR utilized the available data regarding contractor-covered
workers for the affected facilities and concluded that there would be an
insufficient number of CAC-approved contractor-covered workers
available for large projects at the affected facilities. This is not in
disagreement with the comment. However,the comment disregards the
exception clause that is contained in the proposed amendment when it
concludes that a significant impact would result. In contrast,the DEIR
assumes that the exception clause would be in effect under these
conditions,and the affected facilities would be able to hire other
contractor-covered workers with the appropriate training that would not
necessarily be CAC-approved. With the inclusion of the exception clause
contained in the proposed amendment(which was not included in earlier
versions of the proposed amendment)which allows for the hiring of
additional contractor-covered workers with the appropriate training,the
DEIR concluded that there would be a sufficient workforce available to
perform the needed work. This response was explained more fully in the
General Response and in response to several other similar comments.
Response F-6 The comment erroneously assumes that the DEIR concludes there would
be a sufficient workforce of CAC-approved workers under the high
demand case. This was not concluded in the DEIR. See Response F-5.
Response F-7 While the comment is correct in stating that the DEIR concludes there is
an available supply of CAC-trained workers, it does not conclude that all
of these CAC-trained workers are qualified for all tasks required by the
affected facilities,as the comment implies. The DEIR describes the
safety programs that the affected facilities rely on to qualify only those
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-168
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
contractor-covered workers(whether or not they are CAC-approved)
which have the appropriate skills and training. Information was
requested from the affected parties, including the affected facilities,the
facilities that provide training for CAC-approved training,and from
facilities that provide training for the CCA which are non-CAC workers.
This information, which was received from the organizations most
involved with contractor-covered work at the affected facilities, was used
to carry out the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Also, the comment
is incorrect in stating that the DEIR states that CAC-approved workers
are more qualified than non-CAC-approved workers. In fact, the DEIR
draws little or no distinction in that respect. The DEIR compares the
training programs and concludes that both are sufficient to train workers
needed for certain tasks at the affected facilities. The comment is
incorrect in stating that the DEIR assumes the project(the proposed
amendment) is superior to the No Project Alternative. The DEIR
concluded that, with the exception clause included in the amendment,the
affected facilities would have the flexibility needed to hire contractor-
covered workers with the appropriate training and skills to satisfy their
needs. As a result,the DEIR concluded that the impacts would be less
than significant.
Response F-8 The DEIR does conclude that if only CAC-approved contractor-covered
workers were considered to be hired at the affected facilities,the pool of
eligible workers would be less than under the No Project Alternative.
However,the DEIR goes on to conclude that this pool could be extended
to include non-CAC-trained workers with the appropriate training and
skills, and therefore,the supply would not be reduced. Thus the change
(impact)to safety at the affected facilities would be less than significant.
Response F-9 The DEIR evaluates a number of alternatives, and it covers the varieties
that would be available,which is not changing the amendment(No
Project)to providing a number of different training approaches aside
from the CAC-approved training approach.These alternatives were
developed after discussions with the affected facilities, with union
contractors,with nonunion contractors, and with facilities that provide
training. The various alternatives that evolved from these discussions are
included in DEIR Chapter V,Alternatives. The limited scope of the
proposed amendment,which includes narrow changes to an existing
ordinance, limits the number of alternatives that might be available.
Response F-10 Comment noted.
Response F-11 The findings stated in the comment tend to trivialize the exception clause
that is contained in the proposed amendment and they fail to see the
importance of the clause to allow for the hiring of contractor-covered
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-169
i
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
workers with the appropriate training. The DEIR concludes that, under
high demand for workers by the affected facilities,there would not be a
sufficient workforce of CAC-approved workers. However, it does not
conclude that there would be an insufficient workforce if other non-
CAC-approved workers were included in the mix,which would be
allowed by the proposed amendment through its exception clause.
The DEIR recognizes that there is the potential for accidents at the
affected facilities because of the complex nature of operations and
because of the presence of hazardous substances. However,The DEIR
concluded that the proposed amendment would not result in a significant
increase in accidents, mainly because contractor-covered workers would
continue to be hired for the special projects. The DEIR analysis supports
these conclusions.
Response F-12 The DEIR relied on data that was received from the three entities
involved: the affected facilities,the unions supplying CAC-approved
workers, and the Independent Contractors supplying non-CAC approved
workers. This was the data that was available to-carry out the analysis.
The DEIR states that the data supplied by the labor unions cover the
years when the affected facilities were hiring the greatest number of
contractor-covered workers in recent years,during the Clean Fuels
Projects. The DEIR used this data to determine the maximum number of
labor hours that could be provided by the labor unions,and it showed
that this number would not be sufficient when all of the affected facilities
would need workers. Since data for these years were not supplied by the
affected facilities,the DEIR scaled up the hours that were supplied based
on anticipated demand.
If the exception clause were not included in the proposed amendment,
the DEIR would probably have concluded that the impact of the
proposed amendment would be significant,since the affected facilities
would not be permitted to hire other workers with the appropriate
training who are not CAC-approved to make up for the shortfall of
available supply of CAC-approved workers. However,the comment fails
to consider the exception clause that permits this hiring when posing the
question. Hours provided by labor unions in later years when the demand
has not been as great would not be an indicator on what the labor unions
can actually supply. However, even when considering the maximum
labor that has been supplied in the past,the DEIR still concluded that
there would not be a sufficient labor force of CAC-approved workers for
the affected facilities under greatest demand. Using later years would not
be an indicator of what the labor unions could actually supply.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-170
ii.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response F-13 The DEIR references the UC Berkeley Study in the Section IV.B.
Population and Housing and Public Services. Information contained in
the Study were used to define the proportion of workers from the area
who work on the affected facilities,as compared to the proportion from
out of the area. The DEIR concludes in the Impacts Section that the
proposed amendment would not change the number of workers
contracted by ISO-covered facilities;rather it may change the
composition of the workforce.
Response F-14 The DEIR does not conclude that there is sufficient CAC-approved labor
available to meet the demand of the affected facilities. In fact, it
concludes the opposite. The commenter disregards the exception clause
in the proposed amendment when reaching its conclusion. If short-term
labor pool fluctuations affect the available number of CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers to the affected facilities, other workers with
the appropriate skills and training could be hired to meet the demand of
the affected facilities.
Response F-15 There is nothing to indicate in the comment that restricts the affected
facilities from conforming to hiring and training practices with
implementation of the proposed amendment. The affected facilities
specify the type of training that is required for certain special projects.
These facilities would maintain the same standards when considering
candidates for their projects. The only change is that the affected
facilities would be required to consider CAC-approved workers as a
safety net to ensure that workers with at least this level of training are
first considered. If this is not sufficient for the needed tasks,then other
non-CAC-approved workers that have the appropriate training and skills
could be considered.
Response F-16 The DEIR does state that the procedures for complying with the
proposed amendment are not documented.in the proposed amendment.
The DEIR assumed that detailed documentation would force the affected
facilities to adopt prescriptive procedures that could constrain the hiring
practices in ways that would compromise safety. In contrast,the
proposed amendment would provide considerable flexibility while still
requiring the affected facilities to first consider CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers for special projects. Because of this
flexibility that would be permissible through the exception clause,the
affected facilities are permitted to use contractor-covered workers with
the appropriate training and skills to ensure safe operations, as the
facilities have done in the past. The additional requirement of first
considering CAC-approved workers provides a safety net to ensure that
workers who do not meet these requirements are not hired. The DEIR
i
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-171
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
assumed that,because of this flexibility,the affected facilities would be
able to hire contractor-covered workers with the appropreiate skills to
ensure continued safe operations. As a result,the DEIR concluded that
the impacts to safety would be less than significant.
Response F-17 Comment noted.
Response F-18 Comment noted.
Response F-19 The EIR team worked with the available data that was received from the
affected facilities and from organizations that represent both CAC-
approved contractor-covered workers and those who are not CAC-
approved.
Response F-20 Contrary to the assumption stated in the comment,the DEIR concluded
that,under conditions with high demand for contractor-covered workers,
there would not be a sufficient supply of CAC-approved workers with
the appropriate training and skills. In addition,the DEIR concluded that
there are tasks that cannot be met by workers under CAC-approved
training and that other workers with the appropriate skills and experience
whom are not necessarily CAC-approved would need to be hired. In its
analysis, the DEIR recognized that the exception clause contained in the
proposed amendment would allow the affected facilities to hire workers
to meet these needs, and therefore, impacts to safety would be less than
significant.
Response F-21 The DEIR evaluated the worst-case condition, which is the period when
the affected facilities would require a large number of contractor-covered
workers because of the number of projects that would be undertaken at
any given time. In recent years,this occurred during the Clean Fuels
Programs. The situation described in the comment about recruiting
workers during the peak periods of 1994-1996 only confirms the
conclusion drawn in the DEIR that there would be an insufficient supply
of CAC-approved workers during this worst case scenario. The DEIR
assumed that,during this peak period,the additional workers were non-
CAC-approved workers,whether out-of-state or not and under the
proposed amendment,affected facilities would continue to be allowed to
hire non-CAC-approved workers after the supply of qualified CAC-
approved workers has been exhausted.
Response F-22 The 30-40 percent estimate for this worst-case situation was reported in
the DEIR to show that under the greatest demand by the affected
facilities,not all of the demand for labor could be supplied with CAC-
approved workers. Worst-case conditions were analyzed to conduct a
conservative environmental analysis.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-172
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response F-23 In order.to conduct the most conservative analysis of impacts under the
proposed amendment, worst-case conditions were evaluated. Choosing
other years to assess the impacts would not serve the purpose of a
conservative analysis. By choosing a year where the demand for workers
was the greatest,the DEIR was able to determine if the workforce of
CAC-approved workers would be sufficient. The result of the analysis
indicated that it was not. However, it ultimately concluded that because
the exception clause contained in the proposed amendment would allow
affected facilities to hire non-CAC-approved workers after the available
supply of qualified CAC-approved was exhausted, impacts to safety
would be less than significant.
Response F-24 DEIR Table IV.A-2 reported the number of hours of labor supplied to the
affected facilities rather than the number of workers because it better
represents the amount of work carried out by that workforce. If the
number of workers were reported instead,there would be no information
on the actual work that was provided to the facilities, since some workers
may work for only a short interval while others may work over a longer
period.
Response F-25 Analyzing short-term fluctuations in the labor supply is not necessary,
since the DEIR already determined that there would be a shortage of
CAC-approved workers during high demand periods over the long term.
This would also be the case because of short-term fluctuations. The
DEIR considered this and determined that the exception clause in the
proposed amendment would go into effect in these situations,allowing
the shortage to be eliminated by hiring other qualified non-CAC
approved workers,as the affected facilities presently do.
Response F-26 The DEIR explains how the estimated numbers reported in DEIR Table
IV.A-5 were derived. Instead of relying on speculation provided by the
labor unions regarding the availability of CAC-approved workers for the
affected facilities(as was suggested in the comment), which can be
vague and subject to interpretation,the DEIR relied on actual hours of
CAC-approved workers that were provided to the affected facilities on
past projects during a high demand period. These numbers were used to
determine the number of hours that could be provided to the affected
facilities in the future under a condition of similar high demand.
Response F-27 The assumption that the affected facilities would close all local NCCER
training programs if the proposed amendment were approved and
implemented is not likely since the exception clause in the proposed
amendment would permit the affected facilities to use contractor-covered
workers that are trained under the NCCER program(if qualified CAC-
approved workers are not available). In addition,the affected facilities
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-173
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFr EIR
presently require that CAC-approved workers receive BATC training at
the NCCER facilities in addition to their CAC-approved training before
being cleared to work at the facilities. Therefore, it is not accurate to
assume that the affected facilities would close these operations as such
an action would not be beneficial to the affected facilities.
Response F-28 The labor classifications reported in DEIR Table IV.A-2 include
boilermakers and pipefitters, as well as electricians. These classifications
are consistent with those classifications(identified in Table IV.A-I)that
were identified by the affected facilities as being required for special
projects. The hours for the various skill classifications were supplied by
the labor unions, and by the CCA programs. However, only total hours
were supplied by the CCA and were not classified by skill type. The
DEIR clearly states that workers trained in CAC-approved programs
would not be sufficient to meet the needs under high demand. This
would include the number of workers that might be needed and all of the
skills that would be needed. The DEIR states that the exception clause in
the proposed amendment would permit the facilities to hire workers with
the required skills and training, whether or not they were CAC-approved.
Therefore,any demand for contractor-covered workers would be
satisfied.
Response F-29 The DEIR assumed that,because the proposed amendment does not
specify the procedures to be followed to comply,there is considerable
flexibility that'the affected facilities can follow, including using
approaches that are presently used when hiring contractor-covered
workers. Because of this flexibility, the exception clause in the proposed
amendment would permit the hiring of a sufficient number of contractor-
covered workers with the appropriate training and experience that would
not compromise safe operations, similar to the approaches presently
used. In addition,the proposed amendment would provide a safety net to
prevent the hiring of contractor-covered workers who do not possess the
training and experience equal to CAC-approved workers.
Response F-30 Comment noted.
Response F-31 Timelines for achieving the requirements identified in the comment are
not specified in the proposed amendment,and it would be speculative to
guess what those timelines would be. The DEIR assumed that these
requirements are included as goals to be achieved sometime after the first
three years of the implementation of the proposed amendment. Because
of the exception clause contained in the proposed amendment,it would
not necessarily be mandatory that these requirements be strictly followed
after the first three years if the available supply of qualified CAC-
approved labor had already been exhausted.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-174
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response F-32 Although the proposed amendment identifies the requirements to be
implemented after three years, it does not prescribe an accelerated
training program to meet these goals,and it does not prevent the affected
facilities from hiring non-CAC-approved contractor-covered workers
with the appropriate training and experience after that time period. As a
result,the proposed amendment is not expected to affect the labor supply
over existing conditions. As stated in Response F-29,the proposed
amendment would add a safety net to ensure that contractor-covered
workers with at least CAC-approved training be hired for projects at the
affected facilities. In addition, please see Response F-31.
Response F-33 The comment-erroneously assumes that there would be an insufficient
labor supply. See Response F-31.
Response F-34 Comment noted.
Response F-35 Comment noted.
Response F-36 The DEIR relied on the data that was available, which was data supplied
by the organizations that are the sources of the bulk of contractor-
covered workers for the affected facilities.
Response F-37 The DEIR clearly states that, under periods of high demand, there would
not be a sufficient workforce of workers that had graduated from an
apprenticeship program which is certified by the CAC. However,the
comment disregards the exception clause contained in the proposed
amendment that would allow the affected facilities to also hire other
workers with the appropriate training and experience. The shortage of
workers with the appropriate skills that was referred to in the comment
would be encountered with or without implementation of the proposed
amendment,and any decrease to safety would be less than significant.
Response F-38 The DEIR provided a conservative evaluation of environmental impacts
assuming a worst-case scenario,which would be a period when the
affected facilities would have the highest demand for contractor-covered
workers. The period of 1994-1996 can be considered as that most recent
period and was chosen because it would be indicative of a worst-case
scenario in which there was.not a sufficient supply of CAC-approved
workers available at that time. This scenario was used to determine
whether there would be a sufficient number of CAC-approved workers in
the future if and when such an event occurs again. It is meaningless to
examine other years when the demand would not have been as great as
during the years from 1994-1996.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-175
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response F-39 The numbers reported in the table that are referenced in the comment are
not erroneous. These estimates indicate how much support CAC-
approved workers could supply under high demand conditions. If the
percentages are lower during other years,it would indicate that the
affected facilities chose not to hire proportionately as many CAC-
approved workers during that period. It does not indicate how many
CAC-approved workers were actually available.
Response F-40 Please see Responses F-38 and F-39.
Response F-41 The options identified in the comment would not be indications of the
number of available CAC-approved workers. These options would only
indicate the numbers that the affected facilities chose to hire on past
projects. See also Responses F-38 and F-39.
Response F-42 Any of the scenarios discussed in the comment would only fortify the
same conclusion given in the DEIR,that there would not be a sufficient
supply of qualified CAC-approved contractor-covered workers available
under high demand conditions. Other scenarios would not change the
conclusion that the exception clause in proposed amendment would
allow affected facilities to hire qualified non-CAC-approved workers if
qualified CAC-approved workers are not available.
Response F-43 The DEIR text explains how the numbers reported in Table IV.A-5 were
estimated(to develop a worst-case scenario of the affected facilities'
demand for labor, where the demand for contractor-covered workers
would high at all of the facilities in the local area over the same time
period). The purpose was to determine whether there would be a
sufficient number of CAC-approved contractor-covered workers
available for such a scenario. The DEIR concludes that there would not
be a sufficient workforce unless other non-CAC-approved workers with
the appropriate experience were hired, which would be allowed by the
exception clause contained in the proposed amendment. See also
Response F-42.
Response F-44 There is no indication that training facilities not approved by the CAC
would cease operations if the proposed amendment were adopted. The
DEIR analysis clearly shows that there would not be a sufficient number
of CAC-approved workers available for the affected facilities during
periods of high demand for labor,and that the affected facilities would
continue to hire other workers who are not CAC-approved,as would be
allowed by the proposed amendment's exception clause. Therefore,there
would be no reason for these other facilities to cease training activities
because the demands for training at these facilities would continue. As a
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-176
H.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
result the impacts to public safety would not change significantly from
existing conditions.
Response F-45 There are a number of different skills required of contractor-covered
workers. DEIR Table IV.A-I shows those skills that can be provided by
CAC-approved training. The DEIR clearly shows that there are skills that
CAC-approved training normally does not cover. Thus, the DEIR
concludes that if CAC-approved training cannot supply the affected
facilities' demand for contractor-covered workers,the exception clause
in the proposed amendment would allow the affected facilities to hire
other qualified non-CAC-approved workers.
Response F-46 The proposed amendment does not contain specific procedures for
implementing the exception clause. Therefore,considerable latitude
would be available to allow the affected facilities to implement it. The
main purpose of the exception clause is to ensure that a good-faith effort
be made by the affected facilities to'hire CAC-approved workers with the
appropriate training and experience, while not compromising safety.
Placing specific requirements in the exception clause could hinder the
ways that contractor-covered workers are hired, and safety could be
compromised. By not defining the specific procedures,the proposed
amendment would allow the affected facilities to use the most efficient
methods that are consistent with their existing hiring practices.
Response F-47 Although CAC-training may not be industry-specific,as stated in the
comment and in the DEIR,many of the tasks(welding,pipefitting,etc.),
which are taught in CAC-approved training,are required for projects at
the affected facilities. Presumably,CAC-trained workers that have
passed the pre-employment tests,the background evaluations, and the
drug testing,would have been cleared for further evaluation,before
being hired. Site-specific orientations at the affected facilities, as well as
BATC training are then required for all potential contractor-covered
workers,whether or not they are CAC-approved. After all of these
requirements are satisfied,the contractor-covered worker can be certified
to work on special projects at the affected facilities.
Response F-49 The DEIR reported that since the labor pool of CAC-approved workers
was not sufficient for projects at the affected facilities during high
demand on past projects,there would similarly not be a sufficient
workforce of CAC-approved workers in the future under high labor
demand conditions.This would be the case because there is no indication
that there will be a major increase in training programs to provide
additional workers in the future. The DEIR assumes that,in spite of the
goals stated in the proposed amendment,the exception clause contained
in the proposed amendment would allow the hiring of other non-CAC-
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-177
i
IL RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
approved workers if a sufficient number of qualified CAC-approved
workers were not available. As a result,there would not be a shortage of
available workers compared to existing conditions. Consequently, the
question asked in the comment regarding the need for further analysis of
the availability of CAC-approved workers three years after the proposed
amendment would take effect has already been addressed in the DEIR.
Response F-50 Please see Responses F-21 through F-25.
Response F-51 The DEIR assumes that there would be a shortage of CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers under high labor demand conditions, and it
assumes that the exception clause contained in the proposed amendment
would allow this shortage to be addressed by allowing the hiring of non-
CAC-approved workers after the supply of qualified CAC-approved .
workers has been exhausted. Because of this condition,the situation
described in the comment would not occur.
Response F-52 Comment noted.
Response F-53 Comment noted.
Response F-54 Comment noted.
Response F-55 As stated in the DEIR,the data that were used for the analysis were
obtained from the organizations directly involved with contractor-
covered labor,which include the affected facilities,organizations
providing CAC-approved labor,and organizations providing non-CAC-
approved contractor-covered labor. As the DEIR states,the numbers are
estimates made by the three entities,based on logs of past projects.
Although the numbers are only approximate,they are sufficient to show
that the CAC-approved workforce has supplied less than the amount
demanded by the affected facilities on past projects during high labor
demand periods,and that CAC-approved workforce would not be
sufficient to meet affected facility demand on future projects. Since the
numbers that led to this conclusion would have had to change
significantly for the conclusion to change, a more detailed and thorough
analysis would not change the conclusions
Response F-56 The DEIR discusses the training programs provided to CAC-approved
workers,and it compares the training programs with those provided to
non-union workers. The analysis determined that, in general both,are
sufficient for the affected facilities. However,the purpose of the DEIR is
solely to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed amendment as
it is currently written and proposed.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR II-178
Ii.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Response F-57 The comment would be correct if the affected facilities were not
permittedto consider contractor-covered workers other than those .
receiving CAC-approved training. However,the DEIR already
determined that there would be conditions similar to that described in the
comment, i.e.,when there would not be a sufficient workforce of CAC-
approved contractor covered workers available during periods of high
labor demand. However,because of the exception clause contained in the
proposed amendment,the affected facilities would not be constrained to
the CAC-approved labor pool alone, and conditions described in the
comment would be alleviated through the addition of other qualified non-
CAC-approved contractor workers to the labor pool (after the supply of
available CAC-approved workers had been exhausted). Consequently,
there would be no significant change in safety impacts.
Response F-58 Averages were not used in the analysis. The methodology employed for
the analysis in the DEIR consisted of a worst-case scenario approach, in
which periods of high labor demand would exist. . Also,please see
Response F-57.
Response F-59 Please see Responses F-57 and 58.
Response F-60 The DEIR is consistent when referring to different numbers of facilities
in different sections of the report. DEIR page 1-2 states that there are
seven existing facilities that would be subject to the proposed
amendment. However, when estimating the number of contractor-
covered hours that would be needed in the area under high demand
conditions on DEIR page IV.A-16, the estimated labor demand for five
refineries in the area was used,because these facilities would have by far
the greatest fraction of contractor-covered worker demand in the area.
DEIR page IV.A-16 states that all five refineries were used to estimate
high demand for contractor-covered workers,even though only two of
them would be under jurisdiction of the proposed amendment. However,
all five facilities would contribute to an overall labor demand in the area
for contractor-covered workers under worst-case conditions.
Response F-61 The number of worker hours was used in the analysis rather than the
number of workers because hours worked is more reflective of the level
of effort needed by the affected facilities. With respect to the remainder
of the comment,please see Response F-60.
Response F-62 The comment is correct;however the out-of-state workers referred to in
the comment would not be excluded from being hired if a sufficient
supply of qualified local CAC-approved workers were unavailable.
Under the exception clause contained in the proposed amendment,
affected facilities would be able to hire out-of-area workers after a good
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-179
II.RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
faith effort had been made to hire qualified local CAC-approved
contractor-covered workers.
Response F-63 The comment incorrectly suggests that the proposed amendment could
lead to increased labor-force"bottlenecks"when hiring contractor-
covered workers. There is no indication that the proposed amendment
would hinder the hiring of a sufficient workforce,because the exception
clause contained in the proposed amendment would allow the hiring of
additional qualified non-CAC-approved workers once the available
supply of qualified CAC-approved workers had been exhausted to meet
the affected facilities' demands for contractor-covered labor.
Response F-64 The comment neglects to consider the entire statement in the DEIR
regarding the possibility of an insufficient workforce of CAC-approved
workers. The DEIR recognizes this, especially under worst-case
conditions when the affected facilities' demand for labor is high. The
DEIR continues on to state that,under the proposed amendment's
exception clause,the affected facilities would be permitted to hire other
qualified non-CAC-approved workers once the available supply of
qualified CAC-approved workers had been exhausted. With this
exception clause,the DEIR concludes that there would be a sufficient
workforce,and safety impacts that could result from an insufficient labor
supply would be less than significant.
Response F-65 Although the DEIR states that the proposed amendment does not give
specific details regarding the steps that would be taken to implement the
exception clause, it assumes that the lack of specificity gives the affected
facilities a wide latitude in exercising the exception clause in order to
ensure that qualified workers are hired. The exception clause requires
that the affected facilities carry out a good faith effort to attempt to hire
CAC-approved workers before hiring non-CAC-approved workers,as
long as the effort would not cause delays that could compromise safety.
Response F-66 This comment summarizes the points made in previous comments,and
responses to these points were made. There is nothing provided in the
comment to support the suggestion that the policy could result in
significant impacts.
REFERENCES
California Office of Emergency Services Hazardous Materials Division (California OES),
Guidance for the Preparation of a Risk Management and Prevention Program,
Figure 6,November 1989.
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 11-180
CHAPTER III
TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
The following text changes are made to the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR). The
changes are shown by page number in the Draft EIR and identified as to the location of the
change in the body of the text or table.
Where changes are shown inserted in the existing Draft EIR text,revised or new language is
underlined, deleted language is indicated by str-ikethfeugh, and the original text is shown without
underline or strikethrough.
Where not ambiguous,new or replacement text is shown without markings.
PAGE IDENTIFICATION/TEXT CHANGE
Page 1V.A-9
As Indicated in Table IV.A-3, of the 2830 reported incidents,contractor-covered workers were
involved in one serious incident in which a fatality was involved. In this instance, according to a
root cause analysis conducted by Contra Costa County,contractor-covered workers were
provided with insufficient safety instructions.
Page IV,A-17
If the amount of contractor-covered labor that satisfies the proposed amendments is insufficient
during intervals when the demand is the greatest,projects could be delayed,because- 4it-strict
safety protocols followed by these facilities, which were described earlier in the section
"Contractor Selection,"would prevent projects from going forward unless an adequate workforce
is available,and delays would reduce the risk of accidents. However, in certain cases,the 48-
hour exception delay while searching for CAC-approved workers delays,-may compromise safety.
Under such conditions,the affected facility can use other contractor-covered workers who are not
CAC-approved if it is determined that there is imminent danger. As a result,safety would not be
compromised eithe..the 48 t,e„F Mfif:e.,t:en e eptien of the emer-geney e eptien , ..;tte« into
the pFepesed amead , nt would elle .fer-the hir-ing of tithe eeflapetent. Eke ..he afe et
CAG ., ,,,,ea
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR III-1
IV. TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Page IV.B-3
Impact BA: The proposed project could indirectly induce substantial growth by restricting
jobs to County and nearby-County residents. This would be a less than significant impact.
The proposed amendment would not change the number of workers contracted by ISO-covered
stationary sources; rather it would change the composition of the workforce. Therefore,the
proposed amendment would not directly affect population growth in the County. The proposed
amendment to the ISO would restrict contract employees working at County ISO-covered
stationary sources to workers obtained from hiring facilities in Fesidetsof ontra Costa,
Alameda,and Solano Counties, thereby potentially indirectly inducing growth within the County.
i
I
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR III-2
CHAPTER IV
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE AS AMENDED
The wording in the proposed ordinance, as amended,has been changed from that published in the
Draft EIR. The changes are minor, and they only clarify statements contained in the proposed
amendment. The changes do not affect the assessment as reported in the EIR, and they include
the replacement of the word"obtain" in section 450-8.016(i)(3)(B)to"hire"and the addition of
the definition of "hire" in section 450-8.016(i)(3)(D). The final version of the proposed
ordinance, as amended, is given below:
i
I
I
Proposed Amendment to the Contra Costa County November 2005
Industrial Safety Ordinance Final EIR 1V-1
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-
(AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 450-8,
ON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY)
450-8.002 Background and findings.The board of supervisors of Contra Costa County
finds as follows: (a)Recent incidents in Contra Costa County at industrial chemical,
petrochemical, and oil industry facilities have prompted the consideration of reviews,inspections,
and audits that supplement existing federal and state safety programs and the imposition of
additional safety measures to protect public health and safety from accidental releases. (b) Section
112(r)(7)of the Clean Air Act(42 U.S.C.A. Section 7412(4))required the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency("EPA")to promulgate the rule known as the"Risk Management Program,"
which is intended to prevent accidental releases of regulated substances, as defined in the federal
program,and reduce the severity of those releases that do occur. All facilities subject to this
federal regulation must prepare a risk management plan(RMP)based on a risk management
program established at the facility,that includes a hazard assessment of the facility, an accidental
release prevention program, and an emergency response program(40 CFR Section 68). The
facility must submit the Federal RMP to the EPA by June 21, 1999(40 CFR Section 68-150-
68.185). The federal RMP will be available to state and local government and the public. (c)The
California Health and Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.)of Chapter 6.95 was amended
effective January 1, 1997 to implement the federal EPA's risk management program rule with
certain state-specific amendments. The state's risk management program is known as the
California Accidental Release Prevention(CalARP)Program. (d)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 information 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. (Ord. 9848 § 2).
January 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 1 -
DRAFT
450-8.004 Purpose and Goals. (a)The purpose of this ordinance is to impose regulations
which improve industrial safety by:
(1)requiring the conduct of process hazard analyses for covered processes handling
hazardous materials not covered by the federal or state Accidental Release Prevention Programs;
.(2)requiring the review of action items resulting from process hazard analyses and
requiring completion of those action items selected by the stationary source for implementation
within a reasonable time frame;
(3)requiring the review of accidental release prevention efforts of stationary sources and
providing for the conduct of investigations and analyses for the determination of the root cause
for certain incidents;
(4)providing review, inspection, auditing and safety requirements that are more stringent
than those required in existing law and regulations;
(5)providing for public input into the safety plan and safety program and public review
of any inspection and audit results;
(6) facilitating cooperation between industry,the County, and the public in the prevention
and reduction of incidents at stationary sources;
(7)expanding the application of certain provisions of the federal and state Accidental
Release Prevention Programs to processes not covered by the federal or state Accidental Release
Prevention Programs;
(8)verifying that an approved security and vulnerability study is performed, and that the
recommendations are addressed within a reasonable time frame;
(9)requiring the development and implementation of a written human factors program;
and
(10)preventing and reducing the number,frequency,and severity of accidental releases
in the County.
(Ords. 2004-_§ 1; 9848 § 2.)
Jmuuy 29.2004 ORD. 2004-
-2-
DRAFT
SECTION II. Section 450-8.010 of the County Ordinance Code is amended, to clarify that
storage tanks containing a material that has a flashpoint above 141°F and below 200°F are not
exempt from Chapter 450-8, and to make other non-substantive changes,to read:
450-8.006 Authority.The ordinance codified in this chapter is adopted by the county
pursuant to its police power for the purposes of protecting public health and safety by prevention
of accidental releases of hazardous materials and to assure protection of the environment. (Ord.
98-48 § 2).
450-8.008 Administration.The department is charged with the responsibility of
administering and enforcing this chapter. (Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.010 Applicability. (a) This ordinance shall apply to stationary sources; and except
that:
(b)The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except Sections 450-
8.016(c) and(e), and 450-8.018 (f)and(g):
(1) storage tanks containing a non-regulated substance,except for storage tanks that
contain a material that has a flashpoint above 141°F and below 200°F in accordance with the
definition of combustible liquid in 49 CFR 173.120(b);
(2)drum storage of. (A)a non-regulated substance; (B) less than 10,000 pounds of a
Hazard Category B material located such that the drums could reasonably be expected to be
involved in a single release; and(C)a Hazard Category A material, located such that the drums
could reasonably be expected to be involved in a single release,at less than the quantity specified
as the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Substances list(Appendix A to
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter J,Part 355,as amended from time to time)or 500 pounds,
whichever is less;
(3)activities in process plant laboratories or laboratories that are under the supervision of
a technically qualified individual as defined in Section 720.3 (ee)of 40 CFR. This exemption
does not apply to specialty chemical production;manufacture,processing or use of substances in
pilot plant scale operations; and activities conducted outside the laboratory;
January 2e.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 3 -
DRAFT
(4)utilities, except for fuel gas and natural gas systems to the battery limits of a process
unit; and
(5) any waste tanks,containers or other devices subject to the federal and state hazardous
waste laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA),40.CFR Chapter I,
Subchapter I, commencing with Part 260, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, .
California Health and Safety Code,commencing with Section 25100 and the California Code of
Regulations,Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of
Hazardous Waste.
(Ords. 2004-_ § 2; 98-48 § 2.)
450-8.012 Inspection.The department shall be allowed reasonable access to any part of
the stationary source subject to the requirements of this chapter, Sections 450-8.016 and 450-
8.018 and to supporting documentation retained by the source for the purpose of determining
compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 98-48 § 2).
SECTION III. Section 480-8.014 of the County Ordinance Code is amended,to modify the
definition of"major chemical accident or release,"and to add definitions for"California
Accidental Release Prevention Program,""catastrophic release,""human error"and"human
factors,"and to make other non-substantive changes, to read:
450-8.014 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter the definitions set forth in this
section shall apply. Words used in this chapter not defined in this section shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Clean Air Act Regulations(40 CFR § 68.3)and in California Health and .
Safety Code article 2 (§ 25531 et seq.)of Chapter 6.95,unless the context indicates otherwise.
(a) "Covered process"means any process at a Stationary Source.
(b) "Department"means the Contra Costa County Health Services Director and any
Director authorized deputies.
(c)"Feasible"means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time,taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social,and
technological factors.
Jammy 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-4-
DRAFT
(d) "Hazard Category A Materials"are substances which meet the Hazard Category A
Material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016.
(e) "Hazard Category B Materials"are substances which meet the Hazard Category B
Material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016.
(f) "Industry codes,standards, and guidelines" means the edition of the codes, standards,
and guidelines in effect at the time of original design or construction for the design, construction,
alteration, maintenance or repair of process units, industrial equipment, or other industrial
facilities, structures or buildings published by,but not limited to,the American Petroleum
Institute(API), the American Chemistry Council(ACC), the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME)or the American National Standards Institute(ANSI), and meets Recognized
and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices(RAGAGEP).
(g) "Inherently safer systems" means"inherently safer design strategies"as discussed in
the 1996 Center for Chemical Process Safety Publication"Inherently Safer Chemical Processes,"
and means feasible alternative equipment,processes,materials, lay-outs, and procedures meant to
eliminate,minimize,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.
(h) "Major chemical accident or release"means an incident that meets the definition of a
Level 3 or Level 2 Incident in the Community Warning System incident level classification
system defined in the Hazardous Materials Notification Policy,as determined by the Department;
or results in the release of a Regulated Substance and meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1)results in one or more fatalities;
(2)results in greater than 24 hours of hospital treatment of three or more persons;
(3)causes on and/or off-site property damage(including clean-up and restoration
activities)initially estimated at$500,000 or more. On-site estimates shall be.performed by the
stationary source. Off-site estimates shall be performed by appropriate agencies and compiled by
the Department;
Janes 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 5 -
DRAFT
(4) results in a vapor cloud of flammables and/or combustibles that is more than 5000
pounds.
(i)"Regulated substance"means (1)any chemical substance which satisfies the
provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 25532 (g),as amended from time to
time, or(2) a substance which satisfies the provisions of Hazard Categories A or B in section 84-
63.1016. Mixtures containing less than 1%of a regulated substance shall not be considered in the
determination of the presence of a regulated material.
(j) "Risk Management Program"means the documentation,development,
implementation, and integration of management systems by the facility to comply with the
regulations set forth in 40 CFR,Part 68 and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 2,
commencing with Section 25531.
(k) "RMP" means the Risk Management Plan required to be submitted pursuant to the
requirements of the 40 CFR§ 68.150-68.185 and the California Health and Safety Code article 2
(Section 25531 et seq.')of Chapter 6.95.
(1) "Root cause"means prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems,
that allow faulty design, inadequate training,or improper changes,which lead to an unsafe act or
condition, and result in an incident. If root causes were removed,the particular incident would not
have occurred.
(m) "Safety plan"means the safety plan required to be submitted to the
Departmentpursuant to the requirements of Section 450-8.016 of this chapter.
(n)"Safety program"means the documentation,development, implementation,
andintegration of management systems by the stationary source to comply with the safety
requirements set forth in Section 450-8.016 of this chapter.
(o)"Stationary source"or"source"means a facility which includes at least one process
as defined in 40 CFR 68.10 that is subject to Federal Risk Management Program Level 3
requirements and whose primary North American Industry Classification System code(NAICS)
is 324(Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing)or 325 (Chemical Manufacturing).
I
,anuwy 28,2004 ORD. 2004-
-6-
i
DRAFT
(p) "California Accidental Release Prevention Program"means the documentation,
development, implementation, and integration of management systems by a facility to comply
with the regulations set forth in California Code of Regulations,Title 19, Division 2,Chapter 4.5.
(q) "Catastrophic release" means a major uncontrolled emission, fire, or explosion,
involving one or more highly hazardous chemicals, that presents serious danger to employees in
the workplace and/or the public. As used in this section,"highly hazardous chemical'has the
meaning ascribed to it in 29 CFR 1910.119(b) as of May 21, 2003.
(r)"Human Factors"means a discipline concerned with designing machines,operations,
and work environments so that they match human capabilities, limitations, and needs. "Human
Factors"can be further referred to as environmental, organizational, and job factors,and human
and individual characteristics that influence behavior at work in a way that can affect health and
safety.
(s)"Human Systems"means the systems, such as written and unwritten policies,
procedures, and practices, in effect to minimize the existence/persistence of latent conditions at
the stationary source. It also includes the broad area of safety culture of a stationary source to the
extent that it influences the actions of individuals or groups of individuals.
SECTION IV. Section 450-8.014 of the County Ordinance Code is amended,by adding
subdivisions(p)through(u),defining specified terms, to read:
(t) "Bay Area Training Corporation Safety Orientation Program"means the eight
hour safety orientation program administered by the Bay Area Training Corporation and required
for all contractor employees before they may work in an oil refinery.
(u)"Contractor Covered Worker"means an employee of an oil refinery contractor
engaged in new construction,maintenance,repair,or turnaround work at an oil refinery involving
energized,pressurized,or control systems in the skill areas of electrical, metals,rotating
equipment, and instrumentation.
(v) "Drug and Alcohol Testing Program"means the Bay Area Training Corporation
Substance Abuse Testing Program for a mobile contractor work force or an equivalent substance
abuse testing program that includes pre-employment testing,annual random testing of at least
50%of the workforce and for cause testing.
lanumy 28,2004 ORD. 2004-
-7 -
DRAFT
(w) "Oil Refinery"means a facility with a primary North American Industry
Classification System Code("NAICS")of 324 (Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing).
(x) "Oil Refinery Contractor"means an independent contractor that provides labor
and/or services to oil refineries for new construction, maintenance,repair, or turnaround work.
(y) "Refinery Safety Skills Test Program" means the refinery safety skills test program
administered by the Bay Area Training Corporation on the effective date of this Chapter,as it
may be subsequently modified or amended by the Bay Area Training Corporation.
(Ords. 2002-_ § 2; 98-48 § 2.)
(Ords. 2004-_§ 3;98-_§ 2.)
SECTION V. Section 450-8.016 of the County Ordinance Code is amended in its entirety,to
make a number of clarifying and non-substantive changes,to read:
450-8.016 Stationary Source Safety Requirements. The stationary source shall submit
a safety plan to the Department within one year of the effective date of this ordinance or within
three years of the date a facility becomes a stationary source,that complies with the provisions of
this section and that includes the safety elements listed in subsection(a)below. In addition,the
stationary source shall comply with the safety requirements set forth in subsections (a)through
(e)of this section and shall include a description of the manner of compliance with these
subsections in the safety plan. A new covered process at an existing stationary source shall
comply with subsections(a)through(a)prior to initial startup.
(a) Safety Program Elements.All covered processes shall be subject to the safety
program elements listed below.The safety plan shall include a description of the manner in which
these safety program elements listed below shall be applied to the covered process. These safety
program elements shall be implemented in conformance with the California Accidental Release
Prevention Program and the safety plan shall follow Chapters 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Contra Costa
County Health Services Department RMP CalARP Program guidance document.
(1)Process Safety Information. (A)The stationary source shall complete a compilation of
written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis as required by
this chapter.The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the stationary
ianumy 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 8-
DRAFT
source and the employees involved in operating the covered process to identify and understand
the hazards posed by the covered process. This process safety information shall include
information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process,
information pertaining to the technology of the process, information pertaining to the equipment
in the process, and information pertaining to the hazards of the Regulated Substances in the
process.
(i)This information shall consist of at least the following: toxicity information;
permissible exposure limits; physical data; reactivity data; corrosivity data;thermal and chemical
stability data; and hazardous effects of inadvertent mixing of different materials that could
foreseeably occur.
(ii)Material Safety Data Sheets meeting the requirements of Section 5189,Title 8 of
California Code of Regulations may be used to comply with this requirement to the extent they
contain the information required by this subsection.
(iii)Information pertaining to the technology of the process shall include at least the
following: a block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram;process chemistry;
maximum intended inventory; safe upper and.lower limits for such items as temperatures,
pressures, flows or compositions; and, an evaluation of the consequences of deviations. Where
the original technical information no longer exists, such information may be developed in
conjunction with the process hazard analysis in sufficient detail to support the analysis.
(iv)Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include: materials of
construction;piping and instrument diagrams(P&ID's); electrical classification;relief system
design and design basis;ventilation system design;design codes and standards employed;
material and energy balances for processes built after the compliance date of this Chapter;and
safety systems(e.g. interlocks,detection or suppression systems).
(B)The stationary source shall document that equipment complies with recognized and
generally accepted good engineering practices.
(C)For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes,
standards,or practices that are no longer in general use, the Stationary Source shall determine and
document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected,tested, and operating in a safe
manner.
,anwmr 28,zoos ORD. 2004-
-9 -
DRAFT
(2) Operating Procedures. (A)The stationary source shall develop and implement written
operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in
each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the
following elements:
(i) Steps for each operating phase: initial startup; normal operations; temporary
operations; emergency shutdown, including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is
required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that
emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner; emergency operations; normal
shutdown; and, startup following a turnaround,or after an emergency shutdown.
(ii) Operating limits: consequences of deviation; and steps required to correct or avoid
deviation.
(B) Safety and health considerations. Properties of,and hazards presented by, the
chemicals used in the process; precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering
controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment; control measures to be taken
if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs;quality control for raw materials and control of
hazardous chemical inventory levels; and,any special or unique hazards.
(C) Safety systems.and their functions.
(D)Operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who work in or
maintain a process.
(E)The operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they
reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process
chemicals,technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources.The stationary source
shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
(F)The stationary source shall develop and implement safe work practices to provide for
the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening
process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary source by maintenance,
contractor, laboratory,or other support personnel. These safe work practices shall apply to
employees and contractor employees.
January 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 10-
i
DRAFT
(3) Employee Participation. (A)The stationary. source shall develop a written plan of
action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by this chapter.
(B)The stationary source shall consult with employees and their representatives on the
conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the other
elements of the safety program in this chapter.
(C)The stationary source shall provide to employees and their representatives access to
process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under this chapter.
(4) Training For Each Employee in Such Covered Process. (A)Initial training. (i)Each
employee presently involved in operating a covered process,and each employee before being
involved in operating a newly assigned covered process, shall be trained in an overview of the
process and in the operating procedures as specified in Section 450-8.016 (A)(2). The training
shall include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations including
shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to-the employee's job tasks. In lieu of initial
training for those employees already involved in operating a process, on an owner or operator
may certify in writing that the employee has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely
carry out the duties and responsibilities as specified in the operating procedures.
(B) Refresher training. Refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and
more often if necessary,to each employee involved in operating a covered process to assure that
the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the covered process.
The stationary source, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process,shall
determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.
(C)Training documentation. The stationary source shall ascertain that each employee
involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by this section.
. y
The stationary source shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee,the date
of training,and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
(5)Mechanical Integrity,Including the Use of Industry Codes, Standards, and
Guidelines. (A)Application. Paragraphs (B)through(F)of this subsection apply to the following
process equipment: pressure vessels and storage tanks;piping sub systems(including piping
k
components such as valves);relief and vent systems and devices; emergency shutdown systems;
controls(including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks)and,pumps.
January 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 11 -
DRAFT
(B) Written procedures. The stationary source shall establish and implement written
procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
(C) Training for process maintenance activities.The stationary source shall train each
employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of
that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks to assure
that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner.
(D) Inspection and testing. (1)Inspections and tests shall be performed on process
equipment. Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices. The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be
consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices,and
more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. The stationary
source shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment.
The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test,the name of the person who
performed the inspection or test,the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which
the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the
results of the inspection or test.
(E)Equipment deficiencies. The stationary source shall correct deficiencies in equipment
that are outside acceptable limits(defined by the process safety information in Section 450-
8.106(A)(1))before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to
assure safe operation.
(F) Quality assurance. In the construction of new plants and equipment,the.stationary
source shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable for the process application for
which they will be used. Appropriate checks and inspections shall be performed to assure that
equipment is installed properly and consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer's
instructions. The stationary source shall assure that maintenance materials, spare parts and
equipment are suitable for the process application for which they will be used.
r%
(6)Management of Change. (A)The stationary source shall establish and implement
written procedures to manage changes (except for "replacements in kind")to process chemicals,
technology,equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered
process.
,any ze.zoo-, ORD. 2004-
- 12 -
DRAFT
(B)The procedures shall assure that the following considerations are addressed prior to
any change: the technical basis for the proposed change; impact of change on safety and health;
modifications to operating procedures; necessary time period for the change; and, authorization
requirements for the proposed change.
(C)Employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees
whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process shall be informed of,and trained in,
the change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process.
(D)If a change covered by this section results in a change in the process safety
information required by Section 450-8.016(a)(1), such information shall be updated accordingly.
(E) If a change covered by this section results in a change in the operating procedures or
practices required by Section 450-8.016(a)(2),such procedures or practices shall be updated
accordingly.
(7)Pre Start-Up Reviews. (A)The stationary source shall perform a pre-startup safety
review for new stationary sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is
significant enough to require a change in the process safety information.
(B)The pre-startup safety review shall confirm that prior to the introduction of regulated
substances to a covered process: construction and equipment is in accordance with design
specifications; safety,operating,maintenance,and emergency procedures are in place and are
adequate; for new covered processes, a process hazard analysis has been performed and
recommendations have been resolved or implemented before startup; and modified covered
processes meet the requirements contained in management of change, Section 450-8.106(a)(6);
and training of each employee involved in operating a process has been completed.
(8)Compliance Audits. (A)The stationary source shall certify that they have evaluated
compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years to verify that the
procedures and practices developed under this Chapter are adequate and are being followed.
(B)The compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the
process.
(C)A report of the findings of the audit shall be developed.
,ani 28,2004 ORD. 2004-
- 13 -
DRAFT
(D)The stationary source shall promptly determine and document an appropriate
response to each of the findings of the complianceaudit, and document that deficiencies have
been corrected.
(E)The stationary source shall retain the two most recent compliance audit reports.
(9)Incident Investigation. (A)The stationary source shall investigate each incident which
resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance.
(B)An incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible,but not later than
48 hours following the incident.
(C) An incident investigation team shall be established and consist of at least one person
knowledgeable in the covered process involved, including a contract employee if the incident
involved work of the contractor,and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to
thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident_
(D) A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a
minimum: date of incident; date investigation began;a description of the incident; the factors that
contributed to the incident; and,recommendations resulting from the investigation. The written
summary shall indicate whether the cause of the incident and/or recommendations resulting from
the investigation are specific only to the process or equipment involved in the incident, or are
applicable to other processes or equipment at the stationary source. The incident investigation
report shall be made available to the Department upon request.
(E)The stationary source shall establish a system to promptly address and resolve the
incident report findings and recommendations. Resolutions and corrective actions shall be
documented.
(F)The report shall be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant
to the incident findings including contract employees where applicable.
(G)Incident investigation reports shall be retained for five years.
(10)Hot Work. (A)The stationary source shall issue a hot work permit for hot work
operations conducted on or near a covered process. . .
,mom 28,2004 ORD. 2004-
- 14-
DRAFT
(B)The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in §
5189 of Title 8 of California Code Regulations have been implemented prior to beginning the hot
work operations; it-shall indicate the date(s)authorized for hot work; and identify the object on
which hot work is to be performed. The permit shall be kept on file until completion of the hot
work operations.
(11)Contractors. (A)Application. This section applies to contractors performing
maintenance or repair,turnaround, major renovation,or specialty work on or adjacent to a
covered process. It does not apply to contractors providing incidental services which do not
influence process safety, such as janitorial work, food and drink services, laundry,delivery or
other supply services.
(B) Stationary Source responsibilities. (i)The stationary source, when selecting a
contractor,shall obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator's safety
performance and programs. (ii)The stationary source shall inform contract owner or operator of
the known potential fire,explosion,or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and
the process. (iii)The stationary source shall explain to the contract owner or operator the
applicable provisions of the emergency response program Section 450-8.016(a)(12). (iv)The
stationary source shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent with Section 450-
8.016(a)(2),to control the entrance,presence,and exit of the contract owner or operator and
contract employees in covered process areas. (v)The stationary source shall periodically evaluate
the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations as specified in
Section 450-8.016(a)(11)(C).
(C)Contract owner or operator responsibilities. (i)The contract owner or operator shall
assure that each contract employee is trained in the work practices necessary to safely perform
his/her job. (ii)The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee is
instructed in the known potential fire,explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job
and the process,and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan. (iii)The contract
owner or operator shall document that each contract employee has received and understood the
training required by this section. The contract owner or operator shall prepare a record which
contains the identity of the contract employee,the date of training,and the means used to verify
that the employee understood the training. (iv)The contract owner or operator shall assure that
each contract employee follows the safety rules of the stationary source including the safe work
practices required by Section 450-8.016(a)(2). (v)The contract owner or operator shall advise the
,mom 28,zoos ORD. 2004-
- 15 -
DRAFT
stationary.source of any unique hazards presented by the contract owner or operator's work,or of
any hazards found by the contract owner or operator's work.
(12)Emergency Response Program. (A) The stationary source shall develop and
implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the
environment. Such program shall include the following.elements: (i)an emergency response plan,
which shall be maintained at the stationary source and contain at least the following elements:
procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental
releases, emergency planning, and emergency response; documentation of proper firstaid and
emergency medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposures; and procedures and
measures for emergency response after an accidental release of a regulated substance; (ii)
procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection,testing, and
maintenance, including documentation of inspection,testing, and maintenance; (iii)training for
all employees in relevant procedures and the Incident Command System; and(iv)procedures to
review and update, as appropriate,the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the
stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes.
(B)A written plan that complies with other federal contingency plan regulations or is
consistent with the approach in the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan
Guidance ("One Plan")and that,among other matters, includes the elements provided in Section
450-8.016(a)(12)(A), shall satisfy the requirements of this section if the stationary source also
complies with Section 450-8.016(a)(12)(C).
(C)The emergency response plan developed under this section shall be coordinated with
the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. §11003. Upon request of the
local emergency planning committee or emergency response officials,the stationary source shall
promptly provide to the local emergency response officials information necessary for developing
and implementing the community emergency response plan.
(D)The stationary source whose employees will not respond to accidental releases of
regulated substances need not comply with(a)(12)(A)through (a)(12)(C)above provided that
they meet the following: (i)for stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a
process above the threshold quantity,the stationary source is included in the community
emergency response plan developed under Section 11003 of Title 42 of the United States Code
(USC); or(ii)for stationary sources with only regulated flammable substances held in a process
januu.28,2004 ORD. 2004-
- 16 -
DRAFT
above the threshold quantity the stationary source has coordinated response actions with the local
fire department; and(iii)appropriate mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders
when there is a need for a response.
(13) Safety Program Management. (A)The owner or operator of a stationary source
subject to this Chapter shall develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the
safety program elements.
(B) The owner or operator shall assign a qualified person or position that has the overall
responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the safety program
elements.
(C)When responsibility for implementing individual requirements of this chapter is
assigned to persons other than the person identified under subsection a(13)(B),.the names or
positions of these people shall be documented and the lines of authority defined through an
organization chart or similar document.
(b)Human Factors Program. (1) Stationary sources shall develop a written human
factors program that follows the human factors guidance document developed or adopted by the
Department. The program shall be developed within one year following the issuance of the
Contra Costa County guidance documents, the effective date of this section,or as otherwise
allowed by this chapter, whichever is later. The human factors program shall address:
(A)the inclusion of human factors in the process hazards analysis process;
(B)the consideration of human systems as causal factors in the incident investigation
process for major chemical accidents or releases or for an incident that could reasonably have
resulted in a major chemical accident or release;
(C)The training of employees in the human factors program;
(D)Operating procedures;
(E)Maintenance safe work practice procedures and maintenance procedures for
specialized equipment,piping, and instruments,no later than December 31,2008; and
,ani 29.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 17-
DRAFT
their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide
early warning of releases(acceptable 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. PHAs should also include consideration of external
events except for seismic analyses,which are only required when criteria listed in 450-
8.016(d)(2)are satisfied. 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 the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5189,
and/or the 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
every 5 years after completion of the initial process hazard analysis. Updated and revalidated
process hazard analyses completed to comply with the California Code of Regulations,Title 8,
Section 5189,and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2760 are acceptable
for meeting the update and revalidation requirement. 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, Section 2750.3 is
within the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint as defined in California Code of Regulations,
Title 19,Chapter 4.5, 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 feasible. If a stationary source
concludes that an inherently safer system is not feasible,the basis for this conclusion shall be
documented in meaningful detail.
,ani 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-20-
DRAFT
(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 from the initial PHA's and from PHA revalidations, 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.
(e)Accident History. (1)The stationary source shall include an accident history in the
safety plan of all major chemical accidents or releases from June 1, 1992,through the date of
safety plan submittal to the Department. For each major chemical accident or release the
stationary source shall report the following information,to the extent known:
• date,time and approximate duration of the release;
• chemicals released;
• estimated quantity released in pounds;
• type of release event and its source;
• weather conditions at the time of the release;
• on-site impacts;
• known off-site impacts;
• initiating event and contributing factors;
• root cause(s);
• whether off-site responders were notified; and
January 28.20M ORD. 2004-
-21 -
DRAFT
• operational or process changes that resulted from the investigation of the release.
(2)The stationary source shall annually submit a report of the accident history to the
Department. The first report shall be due two years after the effective date of this chapter, and
subsequent reports shall be due by June 30 of each year.
(f) Certification.The owner or operator shall submit in the safety plan a single
certification that,to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry,the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete.
(g) Security and Vulnerability Assessment. Each stationary source shall perform and
document a Security and Vulnerability Assessment as defined in the Contra Costa County
CalARP Program Guidance Document,by ,and at least once every five
years after the initial assessment, or as prescribed by federal regulation. The Stationary Source
shall document its process for assuring that recommendations are addressed.
(h)Safety Culture Assessment.The stationary source shall conduct a Safety Culture
Assessment. The assessment shall be based upon a method listed in the Contra Costa County
CalARP Program Guidance Document or shall be reviewed by the Department to determine
substantial equivalency. The initial assessment shall be performed by , and at least
once every five years thereafter. The Safety Culture Assessment will be reviewed during the audit
and inspection of the Stationary Source. The Department may perform its own Safety Culture
Assessment after an a Major Chemical Accident or Release or the occurrence of any incident that
could reasonably have led to a Major Chemical Accident or Release,or based on Department
audit results of the Stationary Source.
(Ords. 2004-_§ 4; 2000-20 § 1; 98-48 § 2.)
SECTION VI. Section 450-8.016 of the County Ordinance Code,on Stationary Source Safety
Requirements, is amended as follows:
(i)Contractor Safety. (1)Application. This section applies to contractors performing
new construction,maintenance or repair,turnaround,major renovation, or specialty work on or
adjacent to a Covered Process. It does not apply to contractors providing incidental services
which do not influence process safety,such as janitorial work,food and drink services, laundry,
or other supply services.
January 28,2W4 ORD. 2004-
-22 -
DRAFT
(2) Stationary Source responsibilities.
(A)The Stationary Source, when selecting a contractor, shall obtain and evaluate
information regarding the contractor's safety performance and programs.
(B)The Stationary Source shall inform the contractor of the known potential fire,
explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process.
(C)The Stationary Source shall explain to the contractor the applicable provisions of the
emergency response program in subsection(12)of subdivision(a) of this section.
(D)The Stationary Source shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent
with subsection(2)of subdivision(a)of this section,to control the entrance,presence, and exit of
the contractor and contractor employees in Covered Process areas.
(E)During the first three years after the effective date of this subdivision the Stationary
Source shall hire contractors such that at all times at least 50%of the employees in each
Apprenticeable Occupation working for contractors to whom this section applies either(i)work
for a contractor who has executed an apprenticeship agreement with a bona fide apprenticeship
program for each Apprenticeable Occupation employed by the contractor at the Stationary
Source; or(ii)are graduates of an apprenticeship program approved by the California
Apprenticeship Council for the Occupation in which the employee is employed at the Stationary
Source.
(1)The Stationary Source shall maintain records documenting compliance with the
provisions.of this subdivision.This documentation shall include the names of every employee
employed by a contractor to whom this section applies,the dates of employment,the
Apprenticeable Occupation in which the employee worked,evidence that the employee worked
for a contractor who has executed an apprenticeship agreement with a bona fide apprenticeship
program for each Apprenticeable Occupation employed by the contractor at the Stationary
Source,and evidence that the employee was a graduate of an apprenticeship program approved
by the California Apprenticeship Council The Stationary Source shall provide this documentation
to the County when requested by the County in order to verify or audit compliance with this
subdivision.
Jmuu,28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-23 -
DRAFT
(2) Employees who are graduates of or enrolled in a California Apprenticeship Council
approved apprenticeship program shall be employed only in the Apprenticeable Occupation for
which they were trained or are being trained in the apprenticeship program. The determination of
the work included in an Apprenticeable Occupation shall be consistent with the apprenticeship
standards for that Occupation approved by the California Apprenticeship.Council andthe
prevailing practice for that Occupation as determined by the Department of Industrial Relations
pursuant to Labor Code Section 1770 et seq.
(F) The Stationary Source shall hire only contractors who comply with the provisions of
subsection (3) (Contractor Responsibilities)of this subdivision.
(G)The Stationary Source shall periodically evaluate the performance of contractors in
fulfilling their obligations as specified in.subsection (3)of this subdivision.
(3) Contractor responsibilities.
(A) Commencing three years after the effective date of this subdivision; each contractor
performing work to which this subdivision applies pursuant to subsection(1) of this subdivision
shall employ(i)only Journey Level Workers in an Apprenticeable Occupation who have
successfully completed all of the tests required to graduate from an apprenticeship program for
that Occupation approved by the California Apprenticeship Council or who have obtained a
certificate of equivalent training as provided in subsection(3)(C)below,of this subdivision, (ii)
employ only Apprentices in an Apprenticeable Occupation who are enrolled in an apprenticeship
program for that Occupation that has been approved by the California Apprenticeship Council,
and(iii)employ only Journey Level Workers in an Apprenticeable Occupation who have
completed at least 20 hours of training in skills,construction techniques,and safety for that
Occupation within the last 12 months at a bona fide apprenticeship program for that Occupation,
or at a four year.or a two year public college that is administering a test approved by the
California Apprenticeship Council for a certificate of equivalent training for that Occupation.
(B)Each contractor is required to meet its need for workers by hiring Trained Workers in
each Apprenticeable Occupation to the extent that Trained Workers are available from labor
hiring facilities or offices,whether organized or unorganized, in Contra Costa,Alameda,and
Solano Counties. If a contractor attempts to hire Trained Workers from labor hiring facilities in
Contra Costa, Alameda and Solano Counties for two normal business days and is unable to hire
,ani 28.20M ORD. 2004-
-24 -
i
DRAFT
all the workers it needs,it may hire other workers only to the extent that Trained Workers are
unavailable. In the event of workforce reductions, a contractor shall lay-off other workers before
Trained Workers. A contractor who hires workers other than Trained Workers shall comply with
subsection(G) below; and the contractor shall provide such supplemental supervision as may be
necessary for workers other than Trained Workers.
(C) A Journey Level Worker may obtain a certificate of equivalent training for an
Apprenticeable Occupation by completing a test consisting of both a written examination and a
manual skill demonstration which shows that the skills of the worker are at least equivalent to the
skills of a worker who has graduated from a bona fide apprenticeship program for that
Occupation. The test shall be one that is administered by a bona fide apprenticeship program for
that Occupation or one that has been approved by the California Apprenticeship Council for that
Occupation and administered by an accredited four or two year public college with adequate
facilities for both the written and manual portions of the test for that Occupation.
(D)The terms"Apprentice"and"Apprenticeable Occupation"shall have the same
meaning in this section as those terms do in the California Labor Code. The term"Occupation"
refers to an Apprenticeable Occupation.The term"Journey Level Worker"shall have the same
meaning as the term"journeyman"in the California Labor Code. A bona fide apprenticeship
program is one that has been approved by the California Apprenticeship Council and that has
graduated Apprentices in each of the most recent five years,except, until November 2005, in the
case of an apprenticeship program for an Occupation that was determined to be an Apprenticeable
Occupation by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards within the last nine years,one
that has graduated Apprentices in each of the most recent three years.The term"Trained Worker"
means(i)during the three years after adoption of this ordinance: a Journey Level Worker who has
successfully completed all of the tests required to graduate from an apprenticeship program for
that worker's Occupation approved by the California Apprenticeship Council; or(ii)more than
three years after adoption of this ordinance: a Journey Level Worker in an Apprenticeable
Occupation who has successfully completed all of the tests required to graduate from an
apprenticeship program for that worker's Occupation approved by the California Apprenticeship
Council or who has obtained a certificate of equivalent training as provided in subsection(CD)
above and, in either case, who has completed at least 20 hours of training in skills,construction
techniques and safety for that worker's Occupation within the last 12 months at a bona fide
apprenticeship program for that Occupation or an Apprentice enrolled in an apprenticeship
,ani 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-25 -
DRAFT
program for that Apprentice's Occupation that has been approved by the California
Apprenticeship Council. The term"hire"means to enter into an agreement to engage services for
pay.
(E) Contractors subject to the requirements of this subdivision shall maintain records
documenting compliance with the provisions of this subdivision. This documentation shall
include the names of the employees, the dates of employment, the identity of the Stationary
Source at which the employee worked,the Apprenticeable Occupation in which the employee
worked, evidence that the employee was enrolled in an apprenticeship program as required by
this subdivision, evidence that the employee was a graduate of an apprenticeship program as
required by this subdivision,and evidence that the employee had completed 20 hours of training
within the last 12 months as required by this subdivision. Contractors shall provide this
documentation to the County when requested by the County in order to verify or audit
compliance with this subdivision.
(F) Employees who are graduates of or enrolled in a California Apprenticeship Council
approved apprenticeship program shall be employed only in the Apprenticeable Occupation for
which they were trained or are being trained in the apprenticeship program. Employees who have
obtained a certificate of equivalent training shall be employed only in the Apprenticeable
Occupation in which they received the certificate of equivalent training. The determination of the
work included in an Apprenticeable Occupation shall be consistent with the apprenticeship
standards for that Occupation approved by the California Apprenticeship Council and with the
prevailing practice for that Occupation as determined by the Department of Industrial Relations
pursuant to Labor Code Section 1770 et seq.
(G)(i)The contractor shall assure that each contract employee is trained in the work
practices necessary to safely perform his/her job. (ii)The contractor shall assure that each
contract employee is instructed in the known potential fire, explosion,or toxic release hazards
related to his/her job and the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.
(iii)The contractor shall document that each contract employee has received and understood the
training required by this section. The contractor shall prepare a record that contains the identity of
the contract employee,the date of training and the means used to verify that the employee
completed the training. (iv)The contractor shall assure that each contract employee follows the
safety rules of the Stationary Source including the safe work practices required by subsection(2)
of subdivision(a)of this section. (v)The contractor shall advise the Stationary Source of any
ia,umy 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-26-
DRAFT
unique hazards presented by the contractor's work or of any hazards found by the contractor's
work.
(H) Contractors performing work immediately necessary to respond to an emergency
shall be exempt from the provisions of subsections (3)(A) through(F)of this subdivision. For
purposes of this subsection an emergency means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a
clear and imminent danger,demanding immediate action to prevent of mitigate loss of, or damage
to, life,health,property,or essential public services.
(4) Oil Refinery Responsibilities.
(A) Safety and Skill Training and Testing. (i) An Oil Refinery shall only employ Oil
Refinery Contractors whose Contractor Covered Workers have completed the Bay Area Training
Corporation Safety Orientation Program. (ii)Oil Refinery Contractors shall require Contractor
Covered Workers that work independently within an Oil Refinery and/or who are the lead
workers on an Oil Refinery job to have passed the Oil Refinery Safety Skills Test Program.
(B)Drug and Alcohol Program. Oil Refinery Contractors shall require their Contractor
Covered Workers to participate in a Drug and Alcohol Testing Program that includes
preemployment testing, annual random testing of at least 50%of the workforce and"for cause
testing,"and shall verify that their Contractor Covered Workers are actively enrolled in such
program prior to allowing their Contractor Covered Workers to work in any Oil Refinery.
(C)Contractor Safety Record. In hiring Oil Refinery Contractors whose Contractor
Covered Workers otherwise meet the requirements of this section,an Oil Refinery shall also
consider the contractor safety record of the Oil Refinery Contractor,including three most recent
years for each of the contractor's OSHA defined Total Injury and Illness Incident Rate and
Worker's Compensation Experience Modification Rate records for the Oil Refinery Contractor. If
OSHA determines that an Oil Refinery Contractor has knowingly failed to report a work related
illness or injury,for a period of twelve months after the date of such OSHA determination,an Oil
Refinery shall not hire such Oil Refinery Contractor unless there are no other Oil Refinery
Contractors whose Contractor Covered Workers otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
(Ords. 2002-_§ 2,2000-20 § 1, 98-48 § 2.)
January 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-27 -
DRAFT
SECTION VII. Section 450-8.018 of the County Ordinance Code is amended,to make a number
of clarifying and non-substantive changes,to read:
450-8.018 Review,Audit,and Inspection.(a)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 from receipt of the notice of deficiencies to make any corrections. The stationary
source may request, in writing,a.one-time 30 day calendar day extension to correct deficiencies.
By the end of the 60 calendar days or any extension period,the stationary source shall resubmit
the revised safety plan to the Department. After the Department determines that the safety plan is
complete, the Department shall schedule a public meeting on the stationary source's safety plan
to explain its contents to the public and take public comments.Public comments on the safety
plan shall be taken by the Department for a period of 45 days after the safety plan is 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. The public meetings shall be held in the affected
community on evenings or weekends. The Department shall respond in writing to all written
comments received during the 45-day comment period and to all oral comments received and not
addressed at the public meeting. The Department shall make portions of the Safety Plan,which
are not protected trade secret information,available to the public for the public meeting.
(b) (1)The Department shall,within one year of the submission of the stationary source's
safety plan, conduct an initial audit and inspection of the stationary source's safety program to
determine compliance with this Chapter. Based upon the Department's review of the safety plan
and the audit and inspection of the stationary source,the Department may require modifications
or additions to the safety plan submitted by the stationary source,or safety program to bring the
safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. Any
determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required
shall be in writing,collectively referred to as the"preliminary determination."The preliminary
determination shall explain the basis for the modifications or additions required to bring the
safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this Chapter and provide a
timetable for resolution of the recommendations. The preliminary determination shall be mailed
to the stationary source.
4anumy2s.2004 ORD. 2004-
-28 -
DRAFT
(2)The stationary source shall respond in writing to the preliminary determination issued
by the Department. The response shall state that the stationary source will incorporate into the
safety plan or safety program the revisions contained in the preliminary determination or shall
state that the stationary source rejects the revisions; in whole or in part. For each rejected
revision,the stationary source shall explain the basis for rejecting such revision. Such explanation
may include substitute revisions.
(3) The stationary source's written response to the Department's preliminary
determination shall be received by the Department within 90 days of the issuance of the
preliminary determination or such shorter time as the Department specifies in the preliminary
determination as being necessary to protect public health and safety. Prior to the written response
being due and upon written request from the stationary source, the Department may provide, in
writing,additional time for the response to be received.
(4) After receiving the written response from the stationary source, the Department shall
issue a public notice pursuant to 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. The public meetings shall be held in the affected community on evenings
or weekends. The Department shall respond in writing to all written comments received during
the 45-day comment period and to all oral comments received and not addressed at the public
meeting.
(c)Based upon the Department's preliminary determination,review of the stationary
sources responses and review of public comments on the safety plan,the preliminary
determination and the stationary source's responses,the Department may require modifications or
additions to the safety plan submitted by the stationary source or safety program to bring the
safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. Any
determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required,
and any determination that no modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are
required shall be in writing(collectively referred to as"final determination"), shall be mailed to
the stationary source and shall be made available to the public.The Department may not include
,mumy 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-29-
DRAFT
(i)Nothing in this section shall preclude, limit,or interfere in any way with the authority
of the County to exercise its enforcement,investigatory,and information gathering authorities
under any other provision of law nor shall anything in the Chapter effect or diminish the rights of
the stationary source to claim legal privileges such as attorney client privilege and/or work
product with respect to information and/or documents required to be submitted to or reviewed by
the Department.
(Ords. 2004-_§ 5; 98-48 § 2.)
450-8.020 Trade secret. The disclosure of any trade secret information required by this
chapter shall be governed by California Health and Safety Code Section 25538,as amended from
time to time,or as otherwise protected or required by law. (Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.022 Hazardous materials ombudsperson.The department shall continue to
employ an ombudsperson for hazardous materials programs. The ombudsperson will serve as a
single point of contact for people who live or work in Contra Costa County regarding
environmental health concerns,questions,and complaints about hazardous materials programs.
The ombudsperson will be empowered to identify and solve problems and make
recommendations to the department. The ombudsperson's role will be one of investigating
concerns and complaints, facilitating their resolution and assisting people in gathering
information about programs,procedures, or issues. The ombudsperson may retain appropriate
technical experts in order to fulfill technical assistance requests from members of the public. The
cost of experts may be funded through programs established by the U.S. EPA or other appropriate
entities.
(Ords. 2000-20, § 2; 98-48 § 2).
450-8.024 Public information bank.The department shall collect and provide ready
access,including the use of electronic accessibility as reasonably available,to public documents
which are relevant to the goals of this chapter, including at a minimum,business plan inventories
and emergency response plans,risk management plans,safety plans,and department incident
reports.This section shall not apply to trade secret information or other information protected
from disclosure under federal or state law.The public information bank shall be completed by
December 31, 2000. (Ord. 9848 § 2).
January 28,20M ORD. 2004-
-32 -
i
DRAFT
450-8.026 Fees.The department may,upon a majority vote of the board of supervisors,
adopt a schedule of fees to be collected from each stationary source subject to the requirements of
this chapter. Any review, inspection,audit fee schedule shall be set in an amount sufficient to pay
only those costs reasonably necessary to carry out the requirements of this chapter, including
costs of staff and/or consultant time or public hearings and administrative overhead.The fee
schedule shall include the cost of the ombudsperson position. (Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.028 Penalties.Regardless of the availability of other civil or administrative
remedies and procedures for enforcing this chapter, every act or condition prohibited or declared
unlawful by this chapter,and every knowing or wilful failure or omission to act as required
herein, is a violation of this code and shall be punishable and/or subject to enforcement pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 14-67 of the County Ordinance Code specifically including but not
limited to Article 14-6.4 (public nuisance),and Article 14-8 (criminal enforcement),as
misdemeanors or infractions. (Ord. 98-48 § 2).
SECTION VIII. Section 450-8.030 of the County Ordinance Code is amended, to delete the
requirement that a summary of incident investigations conducted by stationary source,be
included in the annual performance review, and make other non-substantive changes,to read:
450-8.030 Annual Performance Review and Evaluation. (a)The Department shall
annually: (1)review its activities to implement this Chapter, and(2)evaluate the effectiveness of
this Chapter in achieving its purpose and goals pursuant to Section 450-8.004.
(b)An annual performance review and evaluation report shall be prepared by the
Department based upon the previous fiscal year's activities and shall be submitted to the Board of
Supervisors on or before October 31,2000 and each year thereafter. The report shall contain:
(1)A brief description of how the Department is meeting the requirements of this Chapter
as follows: (i) effectiveness of the Department's program to ensure stationary source compliance
with this Chapter; (ii)effectiveness of the procedures for records management; (iii)number and
type of audits and inspections conducted by the Department pursuant to this Chapter; (iv)number
of root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted by the Department; (v)the
Department's process for public participation; (vi)effectiveness of the public information bank,
including status of electronic accessibility; (vii)effectiveness of the Hazardous Materials
,ani 28,2004 ORD. 2004-
-33 -
DRAFT
Ombudsperson; (viii)other required program elements necessary to implement and manage this
Chapter.
(2)A listing of all stationary sources covered by the Chapter, including for each: (i)the
status of the stationary source's safety plan and program; (ii)a summary of all stationary source
safety plan updates and a listing of where the safety plans are publicly available; (iii) the annual
accident history report submitted by the stationary source pursuant to Section 450-8.016(e)(2);
(iv) a summary, including the status, of any root cause analyses and Incident Investigations
conducted or being conducted by the stationary source and required by this Chapter, including the
status of implementation of recommendations; (v) a summary, including the status, of any audits,
inspections, root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted or being conducted by
the Department pursuant to this Chapter, including the status of implementation of
recommendations; (vi) description of inherently safer systems implemented by the stationary
source; and(vii) legal enforcement actions initiated by the Department, including administrative,
civil, and criminal actions pursuant to this Chapter.
(3)Total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this Chapter.
(4)Total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for the
support of this Chapter.
(5)Total personnel and personnel years utilized by the jurisdiction to directly implement
or administer this Chapter.
(6) Comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of the local program
that raise public safety issues.
(7)The impact of the Chapter in improving industrial safety.
(c)The Department shall provide a copy of the annual performance audit submission
required by Title 19 Chapter 4.5 Section 2780.5 of the California Code of Regulations to the
Board of Supervisors on or before October 31 of each year.
(Ords. 2004-_§ 6; 98-48 § 2.)
,muwy 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
-34-
DRAFT
450-8.032 Construction.Notwithstanding any other provision of this code and for the
purposes of this chapter wherever it provides that the department shall act, such direction in all
instances.shall be deemed and is directory,discretionary and permissive and not mandatory.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
SECTION IX. SEVERABILITY.This ordinance shall be construed to achieve its purpose and
preserve its validity. If any provision of this ordinance,or the application thereof to any persons
or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of
this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application,and to this
end the provisions of the ordinance are declared to be severable and are intended to have
independent validity.
SECTION X. PREEMPTION.Nothing in this ordinance is intended, and nor shall it be
deemed,to excuse or prevent compliance with any state or federal law. If any provision of this
ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is found by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be preempted by any applicable state or federal law, the Board of
Supervisors declares its intent(1)that such provision be severable from the remainder of the
ordinance, and(2)that the remainder of the ordinance be given effect in accordance with the
provisions of Section IV of this ordinance.
SECTION XI.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.
I
January 28.2004 ORD. 2004-
- 35 -