Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01191988 - S.3 TO; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Contra Itr Introduced January 12, 1988 for Costa DATE: Board Action January 19, 1988 Cointy SUBJECT: POLLUTION INVESTIGATION TEAM SPECIFIC RE ES7(S) OR RECOMMENDATION S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to the County Administrator, the Community Development Department, the Health Services Department, the District Attorney and the Finance Committee the concept of including in the programs budget related to the Solid Waste/Pollution issues funds for an "Illegal Waste Disposal and Pollution Investigation Team. " The team would be composed of inspectors and professional staffs from both the Health Department and District Attorney' s Office. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In a meeting in early December of east county residents and myself, concerns were raised regarding the true extent of efforts to control pollution to our environment by hazardous materials and toxic chemicals. . I believe we need a "Pollution Investigation Team" involving at least four staff positions in the Health Services Department and the District Attorney. I visualize a traveling team which makes unannounced inspections at various businesses and industries where pollution may be occuring and which investigates tips on where violations may be occurring. The existence of this team would have a tremendous deterent effect in having everyone who handles hazardous wastes and toxic chemicals to do so more safely. The fines that would be yielded from the investigations and prosecution of pollution incidences would be significant and could pay for much of the effort. I suggest the funds initially come from the revenue the county is requesting from the new landfill site or sites. Part of this effort could be organized in a manner similar to the Secret Witness Program that local police departments utilize. This team could be dispatched immediately to gather evidence and catch the violators in action. CONTINUED ON ATTACI-w ENT- YES SIGNATURE: �V II— __ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(SI: ACTION OF BOARD ON January 19, 1.988 .1F'?ROVED AS RECU,.'IAF:IJDED X OTHER L VOTE OF SUPERVISORS r 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSEfiT II ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:_ NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County,,. Administrator ATTESTED � /9 S Community Development Director PHI 6ATCHELO , CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Health Services Director District Attorney SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Finance Committee M382/7-83 BY .DEPUTY TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Contra Director of Community Development Costa DATE: January 19, 1988 C`.""' "l SUBJECT: California Waste Management Board Disapproval of County Solid . Waste Management Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(-S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept this report from the Community Development Department on the California Waste Management Board' s disapproval of the County Solid Waste Management Plan. L. Direct the Solid Waste Commission to work with County staff to develop a new Plan revision to meet the requirements of the California Waste Management Board. The revised Plan shall allow for separate recording of approvals for the Kirker Pass and East Contra Costa Sanitary landfills. FINANCIAL IMPACT Costs for revising the Plan are not substantial. The existing solid waste planning budget, funded by fees from landfill opera- tors, is adequate to complete the Plan revision. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND On January 1:3 , 1988 , the California Waste Management Board (CWMB) voted 5 to 3 (the Chairman not voting) to disapprove the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan revision. The Plan re- vision had been approved by the Board of Supervisors and the cities within the County. The County was represented at the CWMB meeting by Avon Wilson, Chair of the Solid Waste Commission; Roy Hawes, another member of the Solid Waste Commission; and David Okita of the Community Development Department. The CWMB staff had recommended partial approval of the Solid Waste Management Plan. This meant that all the Plan except for the landfill section would have been approved. The County would be required to revise the landfill section after the Board of Supervisors made a decision on landfill sites. County staff con- curred with this recommendation, since the Board is, very close to making a decision on the Kirker Pass and East Contra Costa land- fill sites and an amendment to the Plan would have been necessary for these two sites anyway. �/ r CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO E D TION CIF B RD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON January 19, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: I, II, IV NOES: V AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: -- ABSTAIN: III OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig. Dept. Community Devel. cc: County Administrator' s Office ATTESTED �� Solid waste commission via CDD PHIL BATC LOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY A 2. The major concern the CWMB had about the Solid Waste Plan was that it lacked specific future landfill sites. This deficiency was acknowledged by the County at the beginning of the planning process. The only reason why the County proceeded with a Plan revision without naming future landfill sites was that the CWMB required that the County complete the revision in nine months. This time trame would not allow for a Board of Supervisors ' deci- sion on final landfill sites. County staff and the County Solid Waste Commission preferred to delay the Plan revision until a final decision on landfill sites is made; however, the CWMB insisted that the Plan revision proceed. CWMB board members had other concerns about the Plan. One member felt that the recycling component of the Plan did not guarantee implementation to meet the stated goals. Another board member telt that the economic analysis was not understandable. Several other members expressed dissatisfaction with several other minor portions of the Plan. Staff and the Solid Waste Commission members attending the meet- ing strongly disagreed with the CWMB' s criticism of the Plan. However, State law dictates that the CWMB must approve the County Plan. The CWMB staff will now forward information to the County as to how the Plan should be revised to meet the requirements of the CWMB. Staff recommends that the same process for developing the Plan revision be used. Staff will work with the County Solid Waste Commission to develop a new revision. The revision will then be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and then to the cities for local approval. The Plan will then be sent again to the CWMB. The Solid Waste Commission will be discussing the Plan revision at their January ZU meeting. The Commission may wish to make some recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning this matter. DBO: jn 134 :cwmb.brd