-
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
-
|
| E-Mail Forum |
| RETURN |
| Agencies Mine Richmond for
Environmental Damage Money to Spend Elsewhere October 26, 2007 |
|
For the second time in months, government agencies have cynically reached tentative settlements resolving environmental damage in Richmond caused by Richmond businesses but have exploited Richmond’s history of environmental degradation by secretly diverting the settlement proceeds largely outside of Richmond.
In the most recent incident, The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced a settlement with Republic Services (successor to Richmond Sanitary Services and operator of the West County Landfill) for $725,000 for violations relating to the maintenance of the a closed Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Site at the West County Landfill in Richmond.
As excerpted below from the finalized settlement (http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/WCCSL_ENF_CO.pdf), the $725K will be dispersed as follows:
Of the $725,000 total, only $100,000 was committed to projects in West Contra Costa County where the violations occurred and where the environmental damage was sustained.
Paul Kewin, who is Unit Chief in the DTSC's Statewide Compliance Division and supervised the case (916-255-3718 or pkewin@dtsc.ca.gov), explained Cal EPA Enforcement Policy on Supplementary Environmental Projects (SEP) for remediating health or environmental harm (http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Enforcement/Policy/SEPGuide.pdf). Under DTSC policy, this legal settlement process is conducted secretly without public input on what to do with the fine funds. Furthermore, only the finee may propose SEP projects. Apparently, neither DTSC nor Republic Services were aware of East bay Regional Park District’ 's interest in restoring the former Breuner Marsh and acquiring the 955 acres of land (primarily tidal wetlands) for sale at the mouth of San Pablo Creek adjacent to the Landfill.
All this was a particular surprise to me because I hade made multiple inquires to both Republic Services and DTSC about the matter in June of 2007. Nancy Cook of DTSC responded in exquisite detail but failed to mention the matter of fines and disposition of the proceeds:
From: Nancy Cook [mailto:NCook@dtsc.ca.gov]
Council Member Tom Butt,
Thank you for taking the time to talk with Paul Kewin, DTSC Enforcement Supervisor, and me last week. I*d just like to recap the information that was shared.
You had a question about the leachate extraction wells at the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill. You were concerned about an enforcement order issued by DTSC that stated the leachate wells were not working and asked if the leachate was discharged to the Richmond sewage plant. The facility discharges their treated leachate to the West County Wastewater District treatment plant.
We informed you that DTSC did indeed issue an enforcement order in February, 2006, regarding the leachate extraction wells and leachate treatment that included a finding of imminent and substantial endangerment. We required the owners to undertake certain corrective actions. They are implementing those actions as required. These actions include:
* Installation of additional wells for leachate extraction, * Evaluation of adequacy of well placement for leachate control * Repair of existing wells, * Repair of leachate the pipelines, * Construction of a new treatment plant, * Evaluation of treatment plant performance, and * Submitted an application for a new permit.
We are working with the facility to address these and other changes, issues, and questions to ensure that their new permit is straightforward and enforceable, and meets the needs of both the facility and regulatory agencies. These changes will make their operation more protective of the community and the environment.
If you have any further questions about DTSC activities at this site, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul S. Kewin, Enforcement Supervisor (916-255-3718, or pkewin@dtsc.ca.gov), or Mr. Peter Bailey, DTSC Permit Project Manager, 916-255-3602, or pbailey@dtsc.ca.gov). You may also contact me for further community involvement at the information provided below.
Sincerely,
Nancy Cook Public Participation Specialist External Affairs Berkeley Office (510) 540-3923
This is yet one more instance in a long string of sad examples wherein penalties for environmental damages in Richmond are used to fund projects far from the location of the harm and at best marginally related to the type of damages incurred.
The last previous example is the settlement by two federal agencies and a state agency with Chevron for environmental damage in Castro Cove. These three governmental agencies, one with a blatant conflict of interest, quietly formulated a plan to move from Richmond to Solano County the major portion of millions of dollars intended to restore environmental resources damaged by Chevron in Richmond. See Triad of Agencies Conspire to Deprive Richmond of Funds for Resource Restoration, July 21, 2007, for details.
Dear Secretary Kempthorne, Ms. Cosentino-Manning, Dr. Welsh and Mr. McKinley:
I have heard from leaders in Richmond that there is a preliminary Chevron settlement regarding Castro Cove. Mayor McLaughlin has also brought to my attention serious concerns about the process and outcome of this settlement. I have attached her letter below for your review.
I represent Richmond in the state Legislature. I have long been troubled by the disproportionate share of environmental harm Richmond residents and their surrounding ecosystems face. I can see no reason to divert settlement monies from Castro Cove in Richmond out of the City.
I strongly suggest you direct this settlement to Richmond. I would also appreciate your clarification of the process for this decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Don Perata
Richmond mayor Gayle McLaughlin, with the blessing of the City Council sent the following letter: Subject: Castro Cove – Tentative Settlement with Chevron/Restoration Planning
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Congressman Miller:
We were shocked to learn on Friday, July 13, 2007, at a meeting of the City of Richmond/East Bay Regional Park District Liaison Committee that the U.S. Department of the Interior is planning to divert to Solano County over two-thirds of the proceeds from a settlement for damage to natural resources in the City of Richmond.
We are requesting that you meet with the Secretary of the Interior to review how and why this preliminary decision was made and to find a way to make sure the entirety of the funds are used in Richmond where the damage has occurred.
We understand that this action was taken pursuant to provisions of 42 USC Section 9607(f) and provisions of CERCLA and OPA for damage to Castro Cove in Richmond by Chevron over a period of many years. As we understand the process, two agencies of the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA) and the California Department of Fish and Game/Office of Spill Prevention and Response are designated as trustees to negotiate or litigate recovery of damages and to determine how and where the proceeds are used.
We first became aware of this action in late 2006 when a representative of NOAA met with former Mayor Irma Anderson and Richmond City Manager Bill Lindsay to brief them on the action and the process. Following that meeting, Richmond City Council member Tom Butt was told by Natalie Cosentino-Manning of NOAA to expect a public meeting in Richmond in January, 2007, where use of the funds in Richmond could be explored. That public meeting never occurred.
At the same time, we were advised by several natural resource advocates, including Rich Walkling, Senior Restoration Planner of the Natural Heritage Institute, to pay close attention to the matter because there were indications that the federal agencies involved wanted to move the proceeds of any settlement out of Richmond to Solano County. There was similar situation some five or so years ago when funds for environmental damage along Richmond's shoreline were used for a restoration project also in Solano County. This did not sit well with Richmond residents, and they have not forgotten it.
Representatives from Richmond and the East Bay Regional Park District indicated to NOAA that they felt strongly that any funds should be used for projects in Richmond.
During the early part of 2006, there were additional meetings between representatives of NOAA and Richmond City Manager Bill Lindsay and East Bay Regional Parks District staff. Both the City and the District representatives continued to make strong pitches for using the settlement proceeds in Richmond. Richmond City Council member Tom Butt had several communications with Natalie Cosentino-Manning of NOAA who told us she was compiling a list of Richmond sites that could be beneficiaries of the settlement.
Then, on July 13, Daniel Welsh, Chief, Division of Environmental Contaminants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Charles C. McKinley, Assistant Field Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, San Francisco Field Office, appeared at the City of Richmond/East Bay Regional Park District Liaison Committee meeting to inform the group that the recommendation of the trustees is to reserve $750,000 for restoration of 30 acres of tidal marsh in the 210-acre Breuner marsh project in Richmond and to reserve $1,900,000 for 173 acres of the 1,500-acre Cullinan ranch wetland restoration in Solano County.
This was exactly the outcome we had been warned about in 2006, and it appeared that the decision had been pre-ordained.
In the discussion that ensued, Welsh and McKinley defended their decision by saying:
· The Cullinan project was ready to go, whereas Richmond projects would require time to plan and conduct environmental reviews. They said they were constrained to spend the money for a project sooner than later. · They went through a complex “natural resource damage assessment” process that they couldn’t explain very well but which included terms such as “bird years.” The upshot, they said, was that the Cullinan Ranch project would provide more resource benefit than any Richmond project. · They said that Chevron had tentatively approved the settlement and that to change its terms might jeopardize it.
In response, we established the following:
· The Breuner Marsh project, alone, will require some $7 million to complete. The East Bay Regional Parks District is committed to the project and prepared to move it along as quickly as possible. It can be phased, so that if the entire $2,650,000 from the Castro Cove settlement were made available, the funds could go into the project in the near future. · There are other ideal projects in Richmond, such as restoration of historic Castro Cove wetlands shown in old USGS maps, the filled, contaminated and otherwise degraded western end of Hoffman Marsh east of Baxter Creek (South 51st Street), which includes the Liquid Gold site, and may be within boundary of Eastshore State Park. And, of course, there is the forest of rotting pilings in the Bay in vicinity of Point San Pablo and just north of the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge where the Richmond/San Rafael auto ferry was located before the bridge was opened. · There are decades of abuse of the Richmond shoreline by industry, and there are significant environmental justice issues related to this abuse. It is inconceivable that funds resulting from this abuse should be funneled into another County instead of being used in Richmond. · Our understanding is that Chevron would rather see the funds used in Richmond.
Welsh and McKinley were not moved. They informed us that a draft Restoration Plan would be prepared, and that there would be an opportunity for public input. Even though that public input could include suggestions for alternate plans, we fear that the train will have left the station, and it will be difficult to turn it around.
We are concerned that the proposed allocation of funds and the justification thereof was constructed to fit a decision that had been made before the evaluation process started. We believe that once the amount of settlement had been negotiated, the trustees have substantial flexibility within the law as to how they are used.
We also believe that the Trustee agencies have an apparent conflict of interest in diverting the Castro Cove settlement funds from restoration of Richmond's shoreline to lands the USFWS owns and jointly administers with DFG as part of the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Cullinan Ranch was purchased by the USFWS in 1992. See http://www.fws.gov/sfbayrefuges/San%20Pablo/San%20Pablo%20Gen.pdf for a map and info about the Refuge.
Contact information for the federal staff mentioned in this letter is listed below:
Natalie Cosentino-Manning Marine Ecologist/Restoration Specialist NOAA Fisheries 777 Sonoma Ave Santa Rosa , CA 95404-6515 707-575-6081
Charles C. McKinley Assistant Field Solicitor San Francisco Field Office U.S. Department of the Interior 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 735 Oakland, CA 94607 510/817-1461
Daniel Welsh, Ph.D. Chief, Division of Environmental Contaminants U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 916-414-6591
To date, there has been no input from the Richmond environmental justice, toxic remediation and natural resource preservation communities who should be part of an open-ended discussion. Without your timely intervention, it appears that the people of Richmond will continue to be the victims of environmental abuse that can be quantified in so many ways, including high rates of cancer, asthma and childhood obesity. Our people and the wildlife that use our shoreline for habitat deserve to benefit from the repair of this abuse, not Solano County.
Gayle McLaughlin Mayor, City of Richmond
Incensed at this pattern of exporting resources from fines and sanctions levied for environmental damage in Richmond to other remotelocations, Councilmember Jim Rogers placed on the November 6, 2007, City Council agenda, a measure that would direct City staff to:
Said Rogers, “The settlement of the DTSC suit against Republic Services is one more example of Richmond being left out in the cold when it comes to settling lawsuits for damage and degradation to Richmond's environment. I have attached TRAC chair Bruce Beyaert's letter which explains more eloquently than I can how this settlement adds insult to Richmond's environmental injury.” “We need a specific plan to proactively find pending environmental lawsuits, including ones where the settlements are being negotiated in secret by public agencies that are supposedly acting on behalf of the public, and to attempt to get some degree of environmental justice for Richmond.” “We also need immediate legal review of whether we can challenge the settlement which is a travesty of open government and a tragedy for our residents. We should also appropriate representatives of DTSC and Republic services to discuss with us why, assuming the attached article is correct, they both choose to go forward with a settlement which, once again, does little or nothing for Richmond.” From October 23 West County Times: Toxic waste landfill to pay $725,000 fine RICHMOND: State agency says company needs to improve leak-prevention system Article Launched: 10/23/2007 03:02:27 AM PDT
A state agency has fined a closed Richmond hazardous waste landfill $725,000 for alleged flaws in its system to prevent leaks of still-toxic material that could pollute San Francisco Bay. In a settlement with the state announced Monday, the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill agreed to pay the fine and improve the leak prevention system at its 28-acre toxic waste disposal area on Parr Boulevard. In making the deal, the company did not admit to a state allegation that the hazardous waste area was an "imminent threat" to the bay in February 2006. "We are pleased that the West County landfill will step up to the plate to protect San Pablo and San Francisco bays," Maureen Gorsen, director of the state Department of Toxic Substances Control said in a written statement. "The toxic waste water from any landfill can be hazardous, but what comes out of hazardous landfill is even worse." The waste dump along the Richmond shoreline stopped accepting hazardous waste in 1985, and it later began measures to contain and treat rainwater and other moisture that percolated underground and became contaminated by the leftover hazardous waste. In a report last year, state inspectors said poor maintenance caused the failure of pumps used to extract the tainted water and ensure that any water penetrating a clay wall around the dump flowed into, not out of, the disposal area. "All 28 extraction wells in the hazardous waste facility are currently not operating," the report said. Hazardous waste had topped a clay containment wall and has "has migrated toward San Pablo Creek, a slough and San Francisco Bay," the inspectors wrote in a pollution order. Lead and cancer-causing solvents were detected in ground water outside the disposal facility, investigators wrote. The dump owners dispute that its closed landfill leaked. The owners have invested heavily in pumps and other equipment to make sure the tainted water collection and cleaning system is working, said Sue Vaccaro, a spokeswoman for Republic Services Inc. The company in 2002 bought the toxic landfill, an adjacent garbage dump and a municipal dump in Solano County from owners of the Richmond Sanitary Service. "We do not believe there was any wrongdoing, and this agreement settles the issues with (state) DTSC," Vacarro said. Paul Kewin, a manager for the toxic substances agency, said he is satisfied with progress on the leak prevention system since February 2006 when his agency declared the landfill an "imminent" danger to the environment or people. "We believe the agreement sets the tone for protective measures," he said, "and should keep things on track." Reach Denis Cuff at 925-943-8267 or dcuff@bayareanewsgroup.com.
PAYMENT OF PENALTIES AND COSTS
|