State Department of toxic Substances Control Must Send “Strong Message” to Evergreen Oil Re-Refiner Over Repeated Safety Lapses, Accidents

Consumer Watchdog called on the Director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Debbie Raphael, to indefinitely close the Evergreen Oil waste-oil re-refinery in Newark, Ca. in a letter sent today.  On July 6, a pipe leak spewed “superheated oil” and triggered an emergency evacuation of the facility.  The company and Newark police warned the surrounding community, including a nearby elementary school, to expect a wave of “strong odors” from the leak.

Read today’s letter to Raphael here

Consumer Watchdog cited repeated problems at the facility as an example of DTSC’s failure to take tough action against toxic industries that continue to operate after repeated safety violations near homes and schools in testimony and a letter presented at Debbie Raphael’s State Senate confirmation hearings in April.

The confirmation letter said several companies, including Evergreen, “appear to have manipulated or ignored the DTSC and other agencies to the detriment of concerned and frustrated local residents.”

The accident marks the latest in a string of problems at the plant that re-refines used motor oil, including a burst pipe and major fire in March 2011 and repeated citations by the DTSC for safety violations and carelessness.

“Consumer Watchdog is appalled to learn of yet another accident at the Newark-based used oil recycler Evergreen Oil,” said Liza Tucker, an advocate at Consumer Watchdog.  “We call on the DTSC to shut this refinery down indefinitely.   Evergreen needs to know that sloppy safety procedures, and refusal to fix or replace shoddy infrastructure, is simply unacceptable.”

The DTSC has let the company off the hook with consent decrees and hand-slap fines for at least a dozen years, said Consumer Watchdog.  The group called for the new leadership at the DTSC to send toxic industries a strong message that there is a new sheriff in town who won’t allow careless endangerment.

The letter sent today to Director Raphael said in part:

“Your department has repeatedly cited Evergreen Oil for cracks and gaps in waste container storage and transfer areas, failing to track contaminated petroleum waste coming in and out of the facility, careless soil contamination, and omissions in its own inspection system.

“Still, the DTSC fined this company that generates some $36 million in annual revenues less than $60,000 under six separate consent decrees between 2006 and 2011.  This practice of accepting promises that Evergreen will police itself, instead of taking the company to court, has been an abject failure. The DTSC has cited the company for failure to follow even its own simple safety procedures.

“At the same time, members of the local community say that for 25 years Evergreen has ignored federal and state laws and polluted their neighborhoods.”

The department has a special responsibility to working and middle class families in the small cities where companies produce and recycle toxics including PCBs, dioxin, and heavy metals near homes and schools, Consumer Watchdog said.  Too many of these companies have mastered the arts of delay to avoid fixing leaks, improving infrastructure, and following adequate internal safety controls.

“Evergreen Oil has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted,” said Tucker.  “The DTSC and other regulators need to put community safety first and show zero tolerance for such polluters.”

Consumer Watchdog has previously described problems at several hazardous waste sites, and also called for reforms at the DTSC to address a lack of transparency, a disconnect between inspection and enforcement, and a preference for weak settlements instead of more aggressive prosecution of serial violators.

Read Letter to Director Raphael

Also read Consumer Watchdog’s April 9 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

– 30 –

State Department of toxic Substances Control Must Send “Strong Message” to Evergreen Oil Re-Refiner Over Repeated Safety Lapses, Accidents

Consumer Watchdog called on the Director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Debbie Raphael, to indefinitely close the Evergreen Oil waste-oil re-refinery in Newark, Ca. in a letter sent today.  On July 6, a pipe leak spewed “superheated oil” and triggered an emergency evacuation of the facility.  The company and Newark police warned the surrounding community, including a nearby elementary school, to expect a wave of “strong odors” from the leak.

Read today’s letter to Raphael here

Consumer Watchdog cited repeated problems at the facility as an example of DTSC’s failure to take tough action against toxic industries that continue to operate after repeated safety violations near homes and schools in testimony and a letter presented at Debbie Raphael’s State Senate confirmation hearings in April.

The confirmation letter said several companies, including Evergreen, “appear to have manipulated or ignored the DTSC and other agencies to the detriment of concerned and frustrated local residents.”

The accident marks the latest in a string of problems at the plant that re-refines used motor oil, including a burst pipe and major fire in March 2011 and repeated citations by the DTSC for safety violations and carelessness.

“Consumer Watchdog is appalled to learn of yet another accident at the Newark-based used oil recycler Evergreen Oil,” said Liza Tucker, an advocate at Consumer Watchdog.  “We call on the DTSC to shut this refinery down indefinitely.   Evergreen needs to know that sloppy safety procedures, and refusal to fix or replace shoddy infrastructure, is simply unacceptable.”

The DTSC has let the company off the hook with consent decrees and hand-slap fines for at least a dozen years, said Consumer Watchdog.  The group called for the new leadership at the DTSC to send toxic industries a strong message that there is a new sheriff in town who won’t allow careless endangerment.

The letter sent today to Director Raphael said in part:

“Your department has repeatedly cited Evergreen Oil for cracks and gaps in waste container storage and transfer areas, failing to track contaminated petroleum waste coming in and out of the facility, careless soil contamination, and omissions in its own inspection system.

“Still, the DTSC fined this company that generates some $36 million in annual revenues less than $60,000 under six separate consent decrees between 2006 and 2011.  This practice of accepting promises that Evergreen will police itself, instead of taking the company to court, has been an abject failure. The DTSC has cited the company for failure to follow even its own simple safety procedures.

“At the same time, members of the local community say that for 25 years Evergreen has ignored federal and state laws and polluted their neighborhoods.”

The department has a special responsibility to working and middle class families in the small cities where companies produce and recycle toxics including PCBs, dioxin, and heavy metals near homes and schools, Consumer Watchdog said.  Too many of these companies have mastered the arts of delay to avoid fixing leaks, improving infrastructure, and following adequate internal safety controls.

“Evergreen Oil has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted,” said Tucker.  “The DTSC and other regulators need to put community safety first and show zero tolerance for such polluters.”

Consumer Watchdog has previously described problems at several hazardous waste sites, and also called for reforms at the DTSC to address a lack of transparency, a disconnect between inspection and enforcement, and a preference for weak settlements instead of more aggressive prosecution of serial violators.

Read Letter to Director Raphael

Also read Consumer Watchdog’s April 9 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

– 30 –

Cross-Posted at California Progress Report and America’s Voice Education Fund.

By Frank Sharry, Executive Director, America’s Voice Education Fund:

Years ago, California tried to take the punitive and xenophobic approach to immigration with Prop 187 — a 1994 ballot initiative whose stated goal was to keep undocumented immigrants from receiving public benefits, but would have essentially turned California into a police state for immigrants. Fortunately, Proposition 187 was invalidated by the courts.  But instead of learning from California, states like Arizona, Alabama, and a handful of others are repeating the same mistakes and passing similar laws designed to turn anyone who looks or sounds “like an immigrant” into a suspect and make them feel unwelcome in their own homes.

But last week, the California State Senate showed just how far the state has come-by passing Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s (D-San Francisco) TRUST Act, the antithesis of Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB 1070 law.

Arizona’s law attacks immigrants by making local cops turn them over to the federal government for deportation-destroying the trust between immigrants and local police. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is also pushing for local-federal cooperation on immigration through its so-called “Secure Communities” program, which turns routine police work into an immigration status check, and has led to record deportations of immigrants who have never committed a crime.  Under “Secure Communities,” undocumented persons are often detained for very minor violations, such as driving without a license, and end up on the path to deportation.  In California alone, more than 75,000 immigrants have been deported since Secure Communities began there in 2009, and more than half of those immigrants were either convicted of no crime or convicted only of minor offenses.

The TRUST Act, which has the support of over 100 immigrant rights groups, police chiefs, and mayors, seeks to restore the public trust police need for community safety. The TRUST Act would address some of the problems with Secure Communities by telling police to only send immigrants who have serious convictions to ICE for deportation.  It would allow hardworking immigrant mothers and fathers to go to work and live their lives with less fear of harassment and deportation, and would mend the rift between immigrant communities and the police that is vital to the success of community policing.  This makes the TRUST Act essentially the opposite of Arizona’s SB 1070: while SB 1070 treats every immigrant as a priority for deportation, the TRUST Act lifts up legitimate threats and zeroes in on true public-safety priorities.

The bill has moved on from the California Senate to the Assembly, which is highly likely to pass it.  Next, it will move to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk, and Latino and community leaders are expecting the Governor to sign it and show the rest of the country what smart and fair immigration policy looks like.

The TRUST Act is simply a common-sense policy-in a world of limited resources and police power, law enforcement should target dangerous criminals for deportation, not hardworking mothers and college students.  And when criminals at large threaten all of us, those with information must be encouraged to come forward-not scared away from doing so. Opponents of the bill are simply relying on their tired talking point that anything short of deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants is “amnesty.” They’ve got nothing else to offer.

We hope that Governor Brown is ready to lead California full-circle, rejecting its Proposition 187 past and sending a message to states like Arizona and Alabama that mass deportation is not the answer.  Immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is.

Here is a quick list of the even-numbered districts, which will be up in 2014.

SD-02 (North Coast): Noreen Evans (D)

SD-04 (Northern Sacramento Valley): Doug LaMalfa (R) – currently running for CA-01, but will almost guaranteed be succeeded by another Republican.

SD-06 (Sacramento): Darrell Steinberg (D)

SD-08 (Sierras): Tom Berryhill (R)

SD-10 (Hayward/Fremont): Open; safe DEM

SD-12 (Western Central Valley): Anthony Cannella (R)

SD-14 (Fresno/Kings/Bakersfield): Michael Rubio (D)

SD-16 (Bakersfield/San Bern County): Jean Fuller (R)

SD-18 (San Fernando Valley): Open; safe DEM

SD-20 (Pomona/Ontario/Fontana): Open; safe DEM

SD-22 (West Covina/El Monte/Baldwin Park): Ed Hernandez (D)

SD-24 (Downtown/East L.A.): Kevin DeLeon (D)

SD-26 (Coast from West Hollywood to Palos Verdes): Ted Lieu (D)

SD-28 (Riverside County): Brian Nestande (R)

SD-30 (Culver City): Curren Price (D)

SD-32 (Gateway Cities and Buena Park): Open; safe DEM

SD-34 (Seal Beach/Garden Grove/Santa Ana): Open; safe GOP

SD-36 (San Clemente to Oceanside): Open; safe GOP

SD-38 (Most of San Diego County): Joel Anderson (R)

SD-40 (Imperial County/Chula Vista): Ben Hueso (D)

Here are my ratings for the State Senate races. See the extended.

California’s 1st State Senate District – SAFE GOP

Geography: Northeastern corner of the state (Redding, Folsom, South Lake Tahoe)

November ballot: Ted Gaines (R-inc) vs. Julie Griffith-Flatter (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 59-32

Governor 2010: Whitman 55-37

President 2008: McCain 54-42

California’s 3rd State Senate District – GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Napa Valley (Petaluma, Vallejo, Davis)

November ballot: Lois Wolk (D-inc)

Senate 2010: Boxer 57-35

Governor 2010: Brown 60-34

President 2008: Obama 66-31

California’s 5th State Senate District – TOSS-UP

Geography: San Joaquin County (Stockton, Tracy), Modesto

November ballot: Bill Berryhill (R) vs. Cathleen Galgiani (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 49-42

Governor 2010: Brown 47-46

President 2008: Obama 53-44

Description: This will be one of the Senate races to watch closely, with two Assemblymembers facing off. Berryhill won twice in an Obama-voting district, while Galgiani recently came out as a lesbian and is vocal in her support for high-speed rail. Democrats have had a better history of winning victories in districts that included Stockton though.

California’s 7th State Senate District – SAFE DEM

Geography: Concord, Antioch, Livermore

November ballot: Mark DeSaulnier (D-inc) vs. Mark Meuser (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 52-41

Governor 2010: Brown 53-41

President 2008: Obama 62-35

California’s 9th State Senate District – GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland

November ballot: Loni Hancock (D-inc)

Senate 2010: Boxer 82-12

Governor 2010: Brown 83-12

President 2008: Obama 86-11

California’s 11th State Senate District – SAFE DEM

Geography: San Francisco, Daly City

November ballot: Mark Leno (D-inc) vs. Harmeet Dhillon (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 75-16

Governor 2010: Brown 77-18

President 2008: Obama 82-14

California’s 13th State Senate District – GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: San Francisco Peninsula (San Mateo, Redwood City, Sunnyvale)

November ballot: Jerry Hill (D) vs. Sally Lieber (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 65-29

Governor 2010: Brown 64-31

President 2008: Obama 73-24

Description: This intraparty battle does not have much drama. Hill represents more of this district, so he has an advantage.

California’s 15th State Senate District – GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Silicon Valley (San Jose, Cupertino, Los Gatos)

November ballot: Jim Beall (D) vs. Joe Coto (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 61-32

Governor 2010: Brown 59-35

President 2008: Obama 68-29

Description: This intraparty battle has a much deeper split, with Beall hailing from the richer western side and Coto the poorer eastern side. Beall being a current member of the Assembly probably has an edge.

California’s 17th State Senate District – SAFE DEM

Geography: Northern Central Coast (Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo)

November ballot: Bill Monning (D) vs. Larry Beaman (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 54-28

Governor 2010: 56-38

President 2008: Obama 64-33

California’s 19th State Senate District – LIKELY DEM

Geography: Southern Central Coast (Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Oxnard)

November ballot: Hannah-Beth Jackson (D) vs. Mike Stoker (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 49-43

Governor 2010: Brown 49-43

President 2008: Obama 60-37

Description: Jackson made it out of a bruising primary. Stoker came close in a Santa Barbara-based Assembly district in 2010, but with turnout at UCSB likely to be much higher, it is unlikely he would get much closer.

California’s 21st State Senate District – SAFE GOP

Geography: Palmdale, Santa Clarita, Victorville

November ballot: Steve Knight (R) vs. Star Moffatt (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 54-36

Governor 2010: Whitman 51-39

President 2008: McCain 50-47

California’s 23rd State Senate District – SAFE GOP

Geography: Inland Empire (Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino, Hemet)

November ballot: Bill Emmerson (R-inc) vs. Melissa Ruth O’Donnell (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 54-37

Governor 2010: Whitman 50-40

President 2008: McCain 51-46

California’s 25th State Senate District – SAFE DEM

Geography: Glendale, Glendora, Pasadena

November ballot: Carol Liu (D-inc) vs. Gilbert Gonzales (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 51-41

Governor 2010: Brown 52-40

President 2008: Obama 60-36

California’s 27th State Senate District – LEAN DEM

Geography: Western San Fernando Valley, Eastern Ventura County (Thousand Oaks, Woodland Hills, Simi Valley)

November ballot: Fran Pavley (D-inc) vs. Todd Zink (R)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 47-46

Governor 2010: Whitman 47.2-46.5

President 2008: Obama 57-40

Description: Pavley’s district became much more Ventura-centric and less Democratic. Zink won more of the June vote, so the November vote might go more to Pavley.

California’s 29th State Senate District – SAFE GOP

Geography: Diamond Bar, Chino Hills, Fullerton

November ballot: Bob Huff (R-inc) vs. Greg Diamond (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 54-38

Governor 2010: Whitman 53-39

President 2008: McCain 49-48

California’s 31st State Senate District – TOSS-UP

Geography: Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley

November ballot: Jeff Miller (R) vs. Richard Roth (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 45.6-45.5

Governor 2010: Brown 48.2-43.1

President 2008: Obama 56-41

Description: This is the Senate version of the uncharted Riverside-centric territory with a known Republican entity.

California’s 33rd State Senate District – GUARANTEED DEM

Geography: Long Beach, South Gate, Lynwood

November ballot: Ricardo Lara (D)

Senate 2010: Boxer 69-22

Governor 2010: Brown 70-22

President 2008: 75-21

California’s 35th State Senate District – SAFE DEM

Geography: Carson, San Pedro, Torrance

November ballot: Rod Wright (D-inc) vs. Charlotte Svolos

Senate 2010: Boxer 71-20

Governor 2010: Brown 72-21

President 2008: Obama 77-20

California’s 37th State Senate District – SAFE GOP

Geography: Central Orange County (Orange, Irvine, Costa Mesa)

November ballot: Mimi Walters (R-inc) vs. Steve Young (D)

Senate 2010: Fiorina 58-34

Governor 2010: Whitman 52-35

President 2008: McCain 49-47

California’s 39th State Senate District – SAFE DEM

Geography: San Diego, Coronado

November ballot: Marty Block (D) vs. George Plescia (R)

Senate 2010: Boxer 49-43

Governor 2010: Brown 49-44

President 2008: Obama 60-37

My predictions are 13 DEM seats, 5 GOP seats, and 2 toss-ups. The other seats are 12 DEM and 8 GOP, so the best Democrats can do is 27-13, enough for 2/3 (though it is unlikely we will get there in the Assembly; I will post that diary later), and the best Republicans can do is status-quo 25-15. (Spoiler: Interesting that the best-case Republican scenario in the Senate is status quo, while the best case Democratic scenario in the Assembly is status-quo, 52-28.)

Fracking for natural gas is perceived as an issue east of the Rocky Mountains – Texas, North Dakota, and the Marcellus Shale. California runs on natural gas and hydropower. Fracking is happening in California, but it’s a secret.

How much of a secret? The state literally doesn’t know:

Its actual words were: “The Division is unable to identify where and how often hydraulic fracturing occurs within the state.” It also said that “the Division has not yet developed regulations to address this activity.”

A February 2012 report (PDF) by the Environmental Working Group found that the state has long turned a blind eye to fracking. Its regulators have simply asked the frackers, nicely, to make voluntary disclosures. In Ventura County, the voluntary disclosures show that one well has been fracked, but the state estimates that virtually all of the 240 wells in a local field have been fracked.

The state is planning a new set of regulations. For now, it’s wiped its website clean of fracking information. It’s holding workshops up and down the state, ostensibly to listen to the concerns of Californians before crafting new regulations.

I attended the one of the first workshops, held on May 30 in Ventura. A reporter estimated 175 people in attendance; I counted about 25 speakers in opposition to some degree (mostly calling for a ban), and 3 people (all involved in the industry) favoring fracking. By an interesting coincidence, every person who specified a desired regulation was asked to submit comments in writing, but every person who opposed fracking entirely was simply thanked with a pained smile and glazed eyes.

A Culver City workshop on June 12 had an even stronger response: the standing room only crowd of several hundred wanted a total ban. In Salinas on June 29, the strawberry growers’ industry – not normally perceived as environmentally friendly – joined with greens to query fracking safety.  A Santa Maria workshop will take place tonight, with the final workshop July 25 in Sacramento.

There’s a lot of reasons why fracking anywhere is a bad idea. There’s a lot more specific reasons why a water-intensive process that may cause earthquakes is a bad idea in California. California has showcased alternatives, from distributed generation (rooftop) solar to massive desert solar. People who show up at workshops are speaking. Are the regulators listening?  

Consumer Advocates Say Prop 33 Means Auto Insurance Rate Hikes of 33% or More

The newly numbered Proposition 33, funded by Mercury Insurance’s billionaire Chairman George Joseph, is a replay of Mercury’s unsuccessful 2010 initiative aimed at raising auto insurance premiums on millions of Californians.

According to the Attorney General’s official title of the initiative, Prop 33: “Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.” The Attorney General’s summary explains that Prop 33 “Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.”

Prop 33 aims to change over 20 years of insurance law by repealing a key anti-discrimination provision from the 1988 voter initiative Proposition 103. In addition to broadly reforming insurance rates in California, Proposition 103 specifically prohibited an insurance industry redlining scheme first brought to public attention by the 1985 California civil rights case King v. Meese. While Prop 103 made that scheme illegal 24 years ago, Prop 33 would rollback that protection and revive this discriminatory practice by insurance companies that particularly targets low-income and other Californians struggling financially.

Consumer advocates opposing Prop 33, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of California and Consumer Watchdog, say that Prop 33 is another deceptive insurance company trick to raise auto insurance rates for millions of responsible drivers in California. While the insurance industry backers of Prop 33 promise that it will give people discounts, the measure is actually designed to get around an existing law that prevents unfair surcharges on good drivers.

Prop 33 allows insurance companies to charge dramatically higher rates to customers with perfect driving records, just because they had not purchased auto insurance at some point during the past five years. Drivers must pay this unfair penalty even if they did not own a car or need insurance at the time.

“The insurance companies are at it again with another deceptive initiative that says one thing but does another,” said consumer advocate Douglas Heller with Consumer Watchdog Campaign. “When an insurance billionaire spends millions of dollars on a ballot measure, hold onto your wallet. Prop 33 is the newest edition of Mercury’s long-running effort to give insurance companies a new way to unfairly raise auto insurance premiums.”

Mercury Insurance Chairman George Joseph has already spent eight million dollars on Prop 33 and will likely spend more than the $16 million spent by Mercury for its 2010 initiative, according to consumer advocates. Prior to his serial attacks on consumer rights at the ballot box, Joseph and his company pushed for legislative repeal of the consumer protection laws, but that change was ruled illegal by the California Court of Appeal.

About ten years ago, Mercury was caught illegally surcharging many of its customers using the same so-called “continuous coverage” scheme proposed in Prop 33. At the time, Mercury added a 40% surcharge on drivers with perfect records who did not have prior insurance coverage at some point in the past, even if they did not need coverage. In other states where Mercury is allowed to add the Prop 33 surcharge, rates jump by 50% to 100% and sometimes more.

“Wherever Mercury has imposed the financial penalty that would be allowed under Prop 33, premiums for many drivers skyrocket,” said Heller. “When California voters go to the polls in the November, they should ignore the insurance industry’s slick ad campaigns and simply remember that Prop 33 will raise auto insurance rates by 33% or more.”

Prop 33 would increase premiums for Californians who stopped driving for legitimate reasons, including:

• graduating students entering the workforce;
• people who dropped their coverage while recuperating from a serious illness or injury that kept them off the road
• Californians who previously used mass-transit; and
• the long-term unemployed.

Californians who had chosen not to drive for a time and did not need insurance would be surcharged when a new job, move or some other circumstance requires them to buy insurance again. Prop 33’s unfair penalty would punish drivers with premium surcharges that could reach $1,000 a year or more just because they took a hiatus from driving their automobile.

For more information about Prop 33, Consumer Watchdog Campaign has created: www.StopTheSurcharge.org

– 30 –