Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01261988 - S.3 � t c TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIRM: Sunne Wright McPeak Costa� � t Introduced January 20, 1988 , for DATE: Action on January 26 , 1988 C"^ SUBJECT: Opposition to State Department of Health Services Guidelines for AB 2948 (Tanner -- Local Hazardous Waste Plans) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) @c BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Board of Supervisors oppose the State Department of Health Services guidelines for AB 2948 for Tanner local hazardous waste planning and direct the Hazardous Materials Commission to prepare the Tanner plan in conformance with the state statute. Further, request the Hazardous Materials Commission staff to inform the State Department of Health Services that: (a) Contra Costa County will not submit a plan that complies with the guidelines' requirement to plan for hazardous waste facilities to handle statewide wastes; and (b) respectfully suggest that the guidelines be revised to reflect the intent and language of AB 2948 . BACKGROUND AB 2948 (Tanner) became law January 1, 1987, and requires a local hazardous waste plan for each county. The Board of Supervisors designated the Hazardous Waste Commission to carry out the Tanner planning process in Contra Costa County. The fundamental premise embodied in AB 2948 is that each county shall be responsible for planning for the disposal of its own hazardous waste. It was anticipated that both economics and logic would dictate that not every kind of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facility would be located in each county. For example, it would not make sense for there to be 58 residual repositories in California (one for each county) . However, the need for regional and/or statewide facilities was to emerge out of every county doing its own planning. Unfortunately, the State Department of Health Services (DOHS) guidelines now require each county to plan for and designate land to accommodate regional and statewide hazardous waste facilities. This is the antithesis of "every county taking responsibility for its own hazardous waste." The importance of the guidelines relates to the CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S : ACTION OF BOARD ON J.AN-R R--iw APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT '� AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE: DE pATTESTED JA 2 UrATSHOWN.. CC: 1 19Q County Administrator _..S____.___..__ Health Services PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Assemblyman Tanner SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Hazardous Materials Commission M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY Opposition to State Department of Health Services Guidelines for AB 2948 (Tanner -- Local Hazardous Waste Plans) Page 2 findings that will be used under the law to override a local denial of a land use permit for a hazardous waste facility. AB 2948 provides for an appeal process to a state-appointed panel if a local jurisdiction disapproves a proposed hazardous waste facility. However, the panel must find the proposed facility consistent with the local plan to overturn the original denial. Therefore, if local plans are forced to accommodate regional and statewide facilities instead of planning to handle the local waste and voluntarily agreeing to share responsibilities in the region, then the state panel could overturn a local denial of an unwanted statewide or regional hazardous waste facility using the local jurisdiction' s own plan as the basis for the decision. This puts responsible counties in an untenable position. During 1987, I worked as Chair of the California Partnership for Safe Hazardous Materials Management as a member of the advisory committee on the guidelines and as a member of the CSAC Board of Directors to negotiate a compromise with DOHS and to reach consensus among all parties. DOHS has declined to reconsider its position and, therefore, the only option left is for counties to protest the regulations by preparing their local plans in conformance with the statute and not the guidelines. It is critical that each county carry out the spirit of the law to plan to better manage its own hazardous waste but not be put in a position of becoming a "dumping ground" for hazardous waste for the entire state. I'f enough counties respectfully protest the guidelines by submitting plans that comply with the statute instead of the guidelines, we can confront the issue effectively. Based on a conference I chaired on January 7, 1988, I expect both CSAC and LCC to take similar positions and recommend such action to its members.