The County Usually Fails To Conduct On-Site Investigations To Verify Reports In only 5 percent of serious incidents reported by industrial facilities did the County Hazardous Materials staff verify industry claims by going to the scene. In 95 percent of serious incidents, County staff relied on the facility's self-reported information to make decisions. This failure to verify incident reports may encourage the tendency noted above for facilities to underestimate the severity of incidents. Available data indicates that initial reports underestimated the severity of problems at least 29 percent of the time. The actual statistic may be far greater due to lack of on-scene investigation. Even in connection with major accidents, the County conducted an on-scene investigation only 20 percent of the time. Frequency of 1999/2000 On-Scene County Investigations to Verify Facility Claims The combination of industry's underestimation of the seriousness of incidents and government's failure to investigate impedes a full understanding of the nature, severity, and causes of accidents and inhibits the development of effective long-term solutions. Without adequate information about the problems, responses will likely be inadequate and workers and communities will remain threatened.. The fact that workers continue to be injured and killed as a result of chemical accidents suggests that more rigorous investigation techniques are justified. Investigation of the scene of an incident and verification of claims by industry officials are standard techniques that are key to compliance and enforcement. Rather than utilizing these techniques, the County has continued to rely on self-reporting by facilities that may be of questionable accuracy. In order to encourage accurate reporting and response to the serious problem of chemical accidents in Contra Costa County, CBE and CCBCTC continue to urge that onsite investigations of potentially serious incidents be conducted by County staff. Recurring Incidents Demonstrate a Failure To Remediate Problems Many of the serious incidents and major accidents at Contra Costa County refineries are due to recurring problems at certain process units that remain unresolved and result in continuing accidents. An examination of County records for 1999 and 2000 shows that, over and over again, incidents occurred in the same problem areas, even after the facility claimed to have solved the problem and resumed operations. Chevron's refinery was the worst facility for recurring problems in the County with a total of 33 incidents involving the same 4 units. Fourteen serious_incidents occurred at Chevron's FCC unit alone. Twelve serious incidents occurred at a related unit, the Isomax. Both the Isomax and the FCC units had experienced major accidents in past years. These units were involved in Chevron's controversial reformulated fuels project, which was challenged by community and environmental groups as increasing pollution and accident risks from increased intensive refining methods. Since Richmond has failed to adopt the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance approach, there is no adequate County oversight or public opportunity to examine and find root cause solutions. Instead Chevron controls self-investigations and solutions, which are apparently ineffective. Tosco's Rodeo refinery closely followed as the County's second worst facility for recurring problem units with a total of 22 incidents involving five units. Recurring problems caused serious incidents in the refinery's Unicracker unit, gas compressors, Catacarb, sulfur plant, and Coker unit, again and again. Several of these units have had major accidents in past years. The Tosco Rodeo Catacarb problems are particularly troubling due to the 1994 major accident that sickened hundreds of workers and thousands of neighbors. It appears that problems in the process have not been fully resolved by Tosco or the County. In 1994, a 16 day leak was blamed on delayed maintenance as officials sought to exceed past production records. Whether delays in maintenance continue to be a problem should be carefully investigated. Another factor in the accident was the County's failure to conduct an on-scene investigation to verify management's claims that emissions were not traveling offsite. Tosco Rodeo is also experiencing continuing problems at its gas compressors which apparently cannot accommodate various unit upsets. As a result, toxic gases have had to be released through flares and relief devices into the community and the environment. Again, gas compressor failures had been previously identified as a problem in a 1995 audit. Apparently company and County efforts were ineffective in preventing continuing problems. Likewise, problems at the facility's sulfur plant and at an area known as the sulfur pit are recurring. This area has experienced a number of fires over the years, which is of particular concern. One apparent success is the replacement of the old ground flare adjacent to Hillcrest school, which caused major accidents in 1999 and in previous years. However, this problem was identified in 1995 and thus took at least 4 years to solve. Is this the speed at which we can expect other serious problems to be solved? The Avon refinery, operated for most of the period by Tosco and recently taken over by Ultramar, was the fourth worst for repeat problems. Most of the problems resulted from the practice of attempting to repair units and problems while operations continued rather than shutting down the facility first. This troubling trend continued despite the tragic incident that killed four workers and seriously injured another while the workers attempted repair on an operating unit. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on review and analysis of Contra Costa County records of information reported by industry about incidents and accidents in the region, CBE and CCBCTC make the following recommendations to the County and other agencies: 1. Make data on incidents at Contra Costa County easily available in a timely fashion to fenceline neighbors and the public via the Internet and other effective methods. 2. Require County staff to compile and analyze incident data on a monthly basis and make it readily available to the public. Analysis should include the categories included in this study at a minimum. The County's Hazardous Materials Ombudsperson is the logical independent party to conduct this review and analysis. 3. Require County Hazardous Materials staff to conduct on-scene investigations during all potentially serious incidents in order to verify facility claims and to gauge appropriate response. In addition, County staff should be required to conduct onscene investigations of incidents on a regular basis by random selection to ensure accurate reporting by facilities. 4. Target recurring problems with repeat offender units and processes at Contra Costa County facilities by County officials for immediate action under the ISO and other appropriate regulations. Surprise inspections of such repeat offenders should be conducted immediately. 5. Mandate investigations by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that explore linkages between its reformulated fuels requirements and increased and repeat accidents and harmful emissions at Bay Area refineries. Existing problems with the production of reformulated fuels must be addressed immediately in a comprehensive fashion by all agencies. 6. Require facilities that violate the notification policy, either by delay or underestimation of the impact, to install state-of-the-art fence line monitoring systems, such as the one in use at Tosco Rodeo. Continued failure to report incidents in a timely and accurate fashion must be met with requirements aimed at providing the County with independent monitoring and with stiff penalties for the violators. 7. Implement basic video monitoring of facility flares and sites to enable officials to verify immediately the extent of possible offsite impact during incidents. Kentucky, for example, has operated such a system for years. Facilities should bear the cost of such a system. 8. Amend the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance to (a) expand the definition of a "major accident" to ensure more frequent investigations and root cause analyses in order to prevent more accidents, (b) give the Board of Supervisors the power to require safer systems rejected by the facility for cost or other inappropriate reasons, and (c) require adequate training of contract workers in accordance with the California State-certified apprenticeship training programs. 9. Enact a parallel Industrial Safety Ordinance in the city of Richmond in 2001 to ensure that facilities operate under the same safety programs as their competitors in the County. 10. Implement outreach programs to increase the meaningful participation of Environmental Justice communities in safety programs. Such programs should rely on the proven success of past efforts led by community-based organizations. 11. Investigate the implementation of the ISO and other programs designed to ensure the safety of industrial neighborhoods to determine whether it has violated the County's promise of equal protection under the new Environmental Justice Policy. The Board of Supervisors should lead this investigation. STATEMENT OF TAYLOR BOWLDEN, AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am Taylor Bowlden, vice president of the American Highway Users Alliance. The Highway Users represents both motorists and a broad cross-section of businesses that depend on safe and efficient highways to transport their families, customers, employees, and products. Our members pay the bulk of the taxes that finance the Federal highway program, and they want those taxes used to make highway travel safer and less congested. We are pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with the subcommittee the important issue of motor fuel consumption and demand in the development of our nation's energy policy. Today, I will address three specific issues in the purview of the Environment and Public Works Committee that should be considered in Congress' energy policy debates: tion; The importance of easing traffic congestion in order to reduce fuel consumpThe need to streamline the environmental review process to expedite congestion relief projects; and The adverse impact on fuel prices and highway improvements associated with legislative proposals to mandate ethanol use in motor fuels. Traffic Congestion and Fuel Consumption Most Americans observe it in their daily commutes, and more objective data verify that traffic congestion has grown worse in cities across the country during the past decade. Moreover, economic and demographic forecasts suggest that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, although most experts agree that the annual increase in highway travel demand should begin to slow relative to the dramatic jumps reported in recent years. A few statistics will illustrate the problem succinctly. Since 1970, America's population has grown by 32 percent, but the number of licensed drivers has doubled that pace, growing by 64 percent. The number of vehicles has increased by 90 percent, and the miles we drive those vehicles has skyrocketed by 132 percent! Yet, during the same period of time, road mileage has increased by a mere 6 percent. The statistics only make clear why congestion has grown. The adverse economic and social consequences are evident in the daily experience of ordinary commuters and commercial shippers and carriers across the country. Alan Pisarski, an internationally known_transportation consultant and author of the definitive study on commuting (called "Commuting in America”), made the following observations at a recent congressional hearing: When workers hit the road at 5 am and then sleep in their cars in parking lots at the office or at transit stations, the system is failing; When commuter routes are congested in the reverse direction-outbound in the morning; inbound in the evening-the system is failing;-When peak period spreads over so many hours that truckers cannot afford to get off the road and wait out the rush hour, the system is failing;-When small incidents cause monumental tie-ups or a fender-bender becomes a 100 car pile-up, the system is failing. And the system is failing in many parts of the country. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimates that in 1999 travel delay cost more than $75 billion in the 68 cities included in TTI's annual report and wasted approximately 6.6 billion gallons of fuel. Unless Congress and the states do something dramatic to alleviate congestion, the problems associated with it, including significant additional fuel consumption, will only get worse. A recent industry study shows that by the end of this decade, with only moderate economic growth, the number of Class 8 trucks is expected to increase by over 35 percent, and the number of Class 3, 4, and 5 trucks will double. Why? Lance Grenzeback, senior vice president at Cambridge Systematics, a highly respected transportation research firm, told a congressional panel recently, AWe are seeing a customer-driven shift toward customized, mass-market products and services. This has expanded the demand for highly tailored and reliable freight services. This trend is accelerating with the adoption of e-commerce and e-business. In other words, we're moving larger numbers of smaller shipments, requiring more trucks. Eliminating Congestion Chokepoints What can be done to ease congestion? There are many potential solutions, depending on circumstances in a particular area. There is no doubt, however, that a program targeted at eliminating the nation's worst traffic chokepoints would produce significant fuel and time savings in addition to other social and environmental benefits. Cambridge Systematics found that improving traffic flow at our nation's 167 worst bottlenecks (which comprise only a few hundred of the nearly four million miles of U.S. roads) would reduce gasoline and diesel consumption by 19,883,611,000 gallons over the next 20 years. These findings were contained in a study prepared in 1999 for The Highway Users, entitled Unclogging America's Arteries: Prescriptions for Healthier Highways. A followup study we commissioned-Saving Time, Saving Money-estimates the value of these fuel savings at $28 billion over the next 20 years, but again that number only considers improvements to the worst bottlenecks system-wide road investments would increase those fuel-saving benefits manifold! The fuel saving benefits associated with bottleneck relief are just the tip of the iceberg. In addition, Unclogging found that fixing the 167 traffic bottlenecks nationwide will, over the 20-year life of the improvements: • Prevent almost 290,000 crashes, including nearly 1,150 fatalities and 141,000 injuries; • Nearly halve pollution at the bottlenecks, reducing carbon monoxide by 45 percent and smog-causing volatile organic compounds by 44 percent; Slash emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, by 71 percent at those sites; and • Reduce truck delivery and motorist delays by an average of 19 minutes per trip-nearly 40 minutes a day for commuters who must negotiate a bottleneck in both morning and evening rush hours. The overall economic value of these beneficial by-products of congestion relief is astonishing. According to Saving Time, Saving Money, businesses, commuters, and other motorists nationwide would enjoy more than $336 billion in economic improvements as a direct result of fixing these bottlenecks. The average commuter traveling through one of the bottlenecks twice each workday could expect to save $345 each year in time and fuel alone if the improvements were made. Copies of both of these important studies can be accessed at our web-site at www.highways.org. It is important to note that alleviating congestion at a traffic chokepoint does not necessarily require additional road capacity at the particular site. Preliminary analysis of a proposed new highway connecting Rockville, Maryland with Fairfax, Virginia, for instance, indicates that the new route would carry 120,000 vehicles per day. That project would significantly reduce traffic volumes at the interchange of I-270 and the Capital Beltway, the fifth worst bottleneck in the country, because many commuters would no longer have to use the Beltway to travel from their home in one Washington suburb to their work in another. Other means of reducing congestion at a bottleneck may include new information technologies to help commuters choose other routes during heavy congestion, corridor access for bus or rail transit, flexible work hours at major employment centers nearby, and of course, additional lanes at the bottleneck. I11While a balanced approach incorporating all of these options may work best in many cases, it is also important to note that investments in transportation alternatives to the exclusion of additional highway capacity are unlikely to be successful. While noting that transit improvements, better highway operations, adjusted work hours, telecommuting and other efficiency options are vital components of an overall solution, TTI's Dr. Timothy Lomax testified recently that these same options "do not seem to offer the promise of large increases in person carrying capacity for the current system." Dr. Anthony Downs, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, observed in the same congressional hearing that transit carried 3.5 percent of work trips in 1995, compared to 90.7 percent in private vehicles. "Even if the total percentage of persons commuting by public transit tripled," Downs said, "that would reduce the percentage using private vehicles by only 11.6 percent. Any reduction in congestion achieved through increased transit usage would be more than overcome by sheer population growth." While we would strongly encourage Congress to develop a program targeted at eliminating bottlenecks in order to reduce congestion and conserve fuel, we recognize that some will deride such a program as folly because additional highway capacity will only lead to more travel and renewed congestion. Independent studies have differed widely on the question of whether and to what extent travel is “induced" by the addition of road capacity. Without entering that debate here, I would only repeat an observation made by Mr. Pisarski, the transportation consultant whose congressional testimony I cited previously: "Most trips we make have economic transactions at their ends, and if not, they have social interactions of great value to those making the trips. Given that, “induced travel," which seems to be so reviled today, seems like a very attractive concept to me. We should celebrate it, not condemn it." Finally, I would note that eliminating traffic bottlenecks to reduce fuel consumption is a win-win approach to energy policy. It is a policy aimed at accommodating the public's need and desire for greater mobility while, simultaneously, reducing the amount of fuel needed to meet the demand for transportation. Many other energy conservation proposals, including the proposed increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, are aimed at changing rather than accommodating consumer choices, an approach in which the odds are heavily weighted against success. Streamlining the Environmental Review Process Should Congress embrace the idea of funding a program targeted at eliminating traffic bottlenecks, its success will depend in large measure on streamlining the process for reviewing the environmental impact of major road projects. Today, it takes approximately 12 years for major highway construction projects to wend their way through the stages of planning, design, environmental review, and right-of-way acquisition. That's before a single spade of dirt can be turned! Typically, one to 5 |