sr-051380 (2)INFORMATION
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
Santa Monica, Califo', ~a, May 12, 1980
SUBJECT: Disclosure of Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous tdastes
Introduction
This report presents information requested by the City Council at the time Council
Members were discussing reopening of We11 Number 3 and considering a proposal
(see attachment I) to require the disclosure of toxic .chemicals and hazardous
wastes (Agenda of February 26,-1980; Item 13D).
Background
At the present time, the reporting of storage, use and disposal of hazardous
materials to governmental agencies is conducted on a fragmented basis depending
upon the regulatory mission of the particular agency involved. For example, the
use and disposal of carcinogenic substances must be reported to CAL OSHA for the
protection of workers. Transport and disposal of hazardous wastes in the County
is regulated by the Department of Health enforcing State law. Locally, the
Santa Monica Fire Department collects information from its annual inspection of
business and industry on many toxic and hazardous substances. However, the
Department's interest is primarily from the perspective of identifying potentially
flammable-substances, or toxicants which may endanger Fire Fighters during fire
suppression efforts.
In addition, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has, in the past,
been involved in regulating hazardous wastes, primarily from an air and water
quality standpoint. Recently, however, the EPA has been authorized to .collect
T0: Mayor and~City Coum ;
-2-
May 12, 1980
information on a more comprehensive basis from those who generate hazardous wastes.
These new EPA regulations will be published in the Federal Register on P4ay 16, 1980.
It is staff's understanding from contacts with the EPA Regional Office in San
Francisco that reporting will be required on approximately 416 chemicals, and on
waste products of 85 industrial processes, from those who generate more than 1000
kilograms (about 2200 pounds) per month.. For some very hazardous substances,
reporting will be required from those who generate more than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds)
per month. Information will a7 so be required on any additional substances which
fall within these four categories: toxic; ignitable, corrosive and water reactive.
The EPA plans to begin its inventory of all businesses which store, produce, treat,
transport or dispose of hazardous substances by the end of May and anticipates
most of the data will be available by the end of summer. The information will
be reported to the State Department of Health. It is yet to be established how
this information will be provided to localities, but it is likely it would be
available to Santa Monica through the County of Los Angeles. At a minimum, the
type of information available to the public will be: name of firm, location of
facility and type of hazardous substance. However, it should be pointed out that
there are many unanswered questions about these new regulations which cannot be
addressed until the City receives a copy sometime within the next few weeks.
In addition to these new EPA regulations, there are currently nearly twenty bills
in the State legislature relating to hazardous wastes. According to the State
Department of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Section, most of these
T0: Mayor and City Go!, _il
-3-
May 12, 1980
are designed to bring State law into conformance with existing Federal law
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (see attachment LI). They are
regulatory in nature and do not deal specifically with disclosure as such.
lementation of a Citv Disclosure
Should the City Council desire to establish its own data base with respect to
the handling of ,toxic chemicals and hazardous materials within the City limits,
there are some basic decisions which. must-be made. Some of the options are .
discussed below:- In addition, the City Attorney has prepared a report dealing
with various legal issues.
A. Type and Amount of Substances Requiring Disclosure
Several lists of hazardous substances are available for use by the City. Some
are, of course, more comprehensive than others.
The largest list is found in Section 66680 of the California Administrative Code
and contains a total of 791 substances: 545 termed "hazardous" and 246 designated
as "extremely hazardous" (see attachment III). This Section also contains a
listing of 73 common substances containing hazardous elements.
The EPA (water division) also has a list of 65 toxic pollutants (see attachment IV).
The EPA staff believes this is the list of priority organic pollutants to which the
proposed disclosure law refers. Ecological Systems Corporation, which is presently
working for the City under contract, is using a list of 123 Hazardous Substances
in its survey of local businesses (see attachment V). Finally, the EPA in its
new regulations previously discussed, lists approximately 416 hazardous substances
T0: Mayor and City Council
-4-
May 12, 1980
on which reporting will be required. Additionally, the Council may choose to
develop a list specifically for use in Santa Monica. In this case, staff
recommends the Council seek the advice of an independent technical consultant
to assist in developing such a list.
B. Application of Disclosure
It has been suggested disclosure requirements apply to all holders of business
licenses in the City {approximately 16,000). Should the Council desire to be
less inclusive, application could be further limited as follows:
- holders of business licenses exclusive of those engaged in the
business of lease or rental of residential or commercial property
(approximately 12,400).
- holders of business licenses engaged in manufacturing and processing
operations, engaged in sale of chemicals and other toxic substances
at retail or wholesale, and other users of hazardous substances such
as gas stations, dry cleaners, etc. (approximately 1,000).
The Council may also wish to include certain other entities. not required
to obtain a business license such as hospitals,. educationa] institutions
and governmental agencies.
Cost Estimate
The major work in the implementation of a toxic chemical and hazardous substance dis-
closure law falls into three main processes: information collection; verification; and
T0: Mayor and City Cou i May 12, 1980
-5-
storage and analysis. The amount of time and expense in each of these areas,
of course, depends upon the volume of information to be processed and the
number of handlers of hazardous materials upon which verification would be
desired. Staff has analyzed the three alternatives noted above in order to
provide the Council with a "ball park" idea of the manpower requirements and
costs involved and cast per business licensee .(see Table A).
A. Data Collection and Verification
It is estimated that data. collection from each of the City's 16,000 licensed
businesses would require approximately 6450 man-hours (equivalent to 3.1 positions).
This includes an initial mailing, a follow-up mailing to the estimated 10% who
delay in meeting the deadline, and a personal contact with the estimated 5% of
businesses which will fail to reply after a second mailing. The approximate
cost of data collection is $77,750, or about $4.90 per business licensee.
The estimated cost of data verification is based upon the assumption that each
disclosure form would be reviewed initially for completeness and accuracy. It
was further assumed the City would audit annually approximately 20% of the
businesses covered by the law to assure correct information was being provided.
Finally, data verification was also assumed to include a fairly comprehensive
annual on-site inspection of about 100 of the major handlers of toxic chamicals
and hazardous materials. Data verification would need to be performed by
individuals having some technical background, and would require approximately
4240 man-hours (equivalent to 2 positions). The cost is estimated at $88,500,
or about $5.50 per business licensee in the City.
Q
W
J
o]
Q
F-
W
N
Z
W
U
r-+
J
W
O..
H
V1
O
U
z
Q
to
H
Z
W
W
H
Q
W
C
W
O
a
Z
O
Z
Q
F-
N
O
U
W
O
W
H
H
F-
(n
W
O N
O C
O ~
+~ O
• +~
Ol N d' •r M -!•~
r I.C) O p M N iy-~ N M
Rf N Q <y ^ O ~ N N N
-N fl_ O
O t0 r+
O
O
O
W
Q
i- t0 ti M ti N ~
Es3 y? tR d' 44 64 • t4
N
C N N
O C C
6 O O
O ++
r-1
. Y .F.~
y
.~.~ N O N N N N ~
U ~ fl_ N tf) O n ~ O M
Q~ M ~} M O_ ~p M O_
d N ~ W
~ ..W N .~ N
H
N
O
O N
C ~
O -1•~ O C
O
~ \ O +>
U p l0 fl_ N N ~
'r N N O O O W n N p)
v- co ~ r+ ~ a ~ ~ Q ,--~
! ~
i f •r t0 GY •-~ N ~ d' d'
~N '6 t0 ra tI] ~--~
G4 6} b4 ~--~ V} ER {q
R
~ N
~ N C
C N O
O C
_ O +>
2 ~--~
M
• tO +~ IS] N
~y lp N I.n M O
OJ M O G M N d- O Q d'
d O ~ O
> M • O O_ N .
~ EPr M ER b4 N fPr H? {q
~ N N
O C C N
O O O
+' O
U +~ -N
U1 N 7 O i•>
N N ct N ip
n C l0 N O t0 W N ~p
O O_ OJ ~ O ~
( ^ O ~ Q
I~ ~-+ ~ ~ ~ cr d•
t6 N
+~ EH M ER EH N b} kA tR
R
D
d O N
N N N
C C C
v v d
i U i U i U
3 N ~
+~ r- +.~
O~ ,-
N O N N O
O O O ~
'O U G N U C ~ d
~ Q. ~ O_ t6 O_
N i
N > N N N
N O O O O
~ U U V U
r N
N N O O O
O N O O O
d N O V O
O
4- d l0 N ~--i
O U ti ~
,•r
O J
Z
T0: Mayor and City Council May 12, 1980
-6-
For the second alternative, all business licensees except 12ssors of commercial
and residential property, the cost of data collection is estimated at $60,250
and would require about 4900 man-hours to accomplish. The cost per business
license processed would be about $4.90, .the same as the first alternative.
Data verification (review, audit and inspection) is estimated to require the
equivalent of 1.6 positions at a cost of $70,500, or about $5.70 per disclosure
form processed.
Based upon disclosure requirements which would cover about 1,000 businesses,
the cost of data collection is about $4,860 and would require approximately
400 extra man-hours. This would require only the addition of as-needed personnel
at peak times during the business license process. The cost per licensee covered
is, again, about $4.90.
Data verification under the previously stated assumptions would cost about
$13,400 and require approximately 640 man-hours (equivalent of .3 position).
As this alternative continues to assume a yearly inspection of 100 businesses,
and the total number of businesses is decreased (from 12,400 to 1,000) the cost of data
verification per business licensee covered increases substantially to about $13.40.
In summary, data collection and verification for the first alternative would cost
nearly $166,000 and require two technical personnel, a clerk and probably two
additional clerks during peak periods. A fee to cover these costs would be
approximately $10.50. In comparison, the second alternative
would cost around $131,000, require somewhere between one and two technical
personnel, as well as one full-time clerk and one other clerk to work during
peak periods. Again, the required fee would be about $10.50. The third
T0: Mayor 'and City Cd..,;il May 12, 1980
-7-
alternative, at an estimated cost of approximately $20,000, would require
as-needed personnel during peak data collection periods. Inspection services
would require the. equivalent of one-third of a position. A fee to cover cost
of this alternative would be close to $20.00 annually.
B. Data Storage and Analysis
Storage and analys4-s #or each of-the terse -alter-not-i vies can -be-done-as -simply
as setting up a file, probably by location. Avery basic cross indexing
system could be developed to identify businesses maintaining large quantities
of a number of specific substances.
If a more sophisticated data base oriented computer system is desired, this
could be provided at a cost of $20,000 to $30,000 depending on the number of
items to be covered and level of analysis required. In such a case, staff
recommends a location system which in its final form would be able to aggregate
and locate various substances by geographic zone based on census tract.
Phase I of such a system would consist of data gathering, data entry into the
computer, and computer programming which would provide simple inventory-type
reports (addresses and hazardous substances at each, but no ability to locate
by geographic zone). PhaseI is estimated to cost between $10,000 and $20,000,
and take from two to four months to complete.
Phase II would add the geographic zoning capability allowing for the aggregation
of hazardous substances by census tract and address. This would take from one
to two additional months and cost about $10,000.
T0: Mayor and City Council May 12, 1980
-8-
C. Ongoing Costs
The forgoing cost estimates are based upon an annual disclosure rather than
a continuous updating of information as contained in the proposal discussed
by the City Council in February. Therefore, the ongoing manpower requirements
for data collection and verification remain the same. The increased cost of
-,administering data-collection and-verification i~ sobsequent years wili
primarily reflect increases in the cost of labor (see Table B). A major
portion of the data storage and analysis expenses would be incurred in the
initial year, primarily for development of the computer program. In subsequent
years the cost of data entry and the generation of reports is estimated to be
between $5,000 and $10,000.
TABLE B
Three Year Projection of Costs
1st Year* 2nd Year**
No. of Business
Licensees Covered
16,000 166,259 182,885
12,400 130,734 143,807
1,000 18,223 20,045
* add $20,000 to $30,000 for computerized data system
** add $5,000 to $10,000 for computerized data system
3rd Year**
201,174
158,188
22,050
Prepared by: JEANNE L. KENNEDY
Administrative Assistant