HomeMy WebLinkAboutORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN and Amendments APPROVE D BY CITY C UNCIL ( _�
R T FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
r
Date
July 1, 1991
Y�+ttS
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City AdministratorU
Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developme
Subject: RESOLUTION NO. 6 a 59 ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE
COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 4 1P 6a 9
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE•
Transmitted for your consideration is a request by the County of
Orange to . approve amendments to the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (OCHWMP) .
RECOMMENDATION•
Motion to :
"ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 9 RATIFYING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE
COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO
FORWARD A COPY OF THE APPROVED RESOLUTION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS PROGRAM OFFICE. "
ANALYSIS•
On May 1, 1969, the City Council ratified the Orange County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan through Resolution No. 6019 . The
OCHWMP affects the entire Orange County area including all
incorporated cities . The Plan establishes a goal statement,
objectives, policies, and implementation programs which constitute a
city/county action program for addressing the management of
hazardous waste in Orange County between now and the year 2000 .
Attachment 1 is a Background and Plan Development Program Report
prepared by County Staff for the Orange County Board of
Supervisors . Detailed background information on the OCHWMP
development, its adoption process, and subsequent denial by the
State Department of Health Services (DHS) is contained in this
report .
1�
PI O 5/85
II . Chancres to Specific Siting Criteria
6 . Containment and Groundwater COMMENTS : This criterion does
Monitoring not put unreasonable
constraints on facilities . For
All Facilities : Facilities example, existing refuse
shall be fully enclosed by transfer facilities are
containment structures of typically constructed with a
impermeable materials which concrete or asphalt pad.
would contain any unauthorized Secondly, the hazardous waste
release of hazardous material . industry is getting away from
Facilities shall be equipped hazardous waste storage on
with leak detection and spill soil .
control and recovery
capability. Groundwater Any proposed facility will have
monitoring wells must be to meet proposed stormwater
located around each facility to regulations. This will
determine background vadose necessitate isolation of
zone and ground water quality, facilities from stormwater,
and to detect leaks and spills require a controlled drainage
from the facility unless plan and potentially require
demonstrated to be safe without some form of stormwater
them through the Health and treatment.
Safetv Assessment. An ongoing
groundwater monitoring program The requirement to provide
should be developed in monitoring wells regardless of
consultation with local , state the type of facility has been
a n d w a t e r d i s t r i c t modified. The initial
representatives. condition of a site will still
need to be determined. In that
process , wells and cores
drilled during a site
assessment could be developed
as monitoring wells at very
little cost if need is
demonstrated.
The modification regarding
groundwater monitoring wells
has been made to allow the
proj ect to demonstrate need via
the Health and Safety
assessment.
7 . Water Quality
All Facilities: Facilities Comments: The first sentence
shall not be sited within is s e l f explanatory .
watershed areas which Facilities shall not be sited
flow to open reservoirs or where runoff from the facility
aqueducts that contain drinking flows into storm drains,
water supplies. Facilities channels , or creeks which
shall locate such that discharge into reservoirs or
domestic water supply wells aqueducts which are drinking
cannot be adversely affected water sources. Typically
from unauthorized releases of reservoirs and aqueducts _ are
contaminants : As a guideline, located at high elevations.
facilities should locate at This sentence would prohibit
least one mile from domestic locating a facility above them.
supply wells in the Forebay For example, a facility shall
areas (principal recharge area not be located above Irvine
to the Orange County Lake in Orange County, or Lake
groundwater basin) , and at Mathews in Riverside County.
least one-half mile from The siting of facilities in the
domestic supply wells in the watershed above reservoirs
pressure area of the Orange which do not collect runoff for
County groundwater basin, drinking water purposes would
unless demonstrated to be safe not be affected by this
at closer proximity through the sentence. For example, San
Health and Safety Assessment. Joaquin Reservoir, which is an
Facilities shall not locate open domestic water reservoir
within well head protection surrounded by wall and receives
zones as identified by EPA no runoff.
guidelines or municipal water
supply agencies and local water The location of facilities one
districts, unless demonstrated mile from domestic wells in the
to be safe at closer proximity forebay and one-half mile in
through the Health and Safetv the pressure zone is presented
Assessment. Facilities shall as a guideline and not a
not impact the quality of prohibition. No absolute
surface waters ( lakes , minimum distance between the
reservoirs, streams, creeks, facility and domestic wells is
etc. ) or groundwater resources required. The actual safe
which have been identified for distance will be determined
beneficial uses by the Regional during the Health and Safety
Water Quality Control Board Assessment.
Basin Plan (per State Water
Resources Control board Policy Hydrogeologic evaluation of the
Resolution 88-63) . The Orange County groundwater basin
-required Health and Safety has shown that wells within a
Assessment will identify water proximity of one mile affect
quality issues. Facilities each other. If a hazardous
must meet Federal, state and waste treatment facility
l o c a l w a t e r q u a l i t y "leaks" into the groundwater
requirements . and is required to drill a well
to reverse groundwater flow,
then this remediation may
affect the production of
neighboring wells and impair
local water agencies from
delivering water to its
customers.
The prohibition of locating
facilities within well head
protection zones as stipulated
by Federal and state regulation
is stated in the criterion to
avoid conflict with Federal and
state regulation now and in the
future.
Treatment, recycling and Comments : The first sentence
collection facilities : has been modified to avoid
Facilities are siting facilities within areas
encouraged _ to designed and operated as
locate outside of }rinei-pe aquifer recharge areas. It is
structured recharge areas to understood that the entire
regional aquifers as defined in forebay contributes to the
local or state plans, including groundwater basin, but specific
the Forebay area. Facilities areas have been developed and
may locate in the following are operated to augment natural
areas only with increased groundwater replenishment.
engineered design features such Examples in the Orange County
as horizontal and vertical groundwater basin are: Anaheim
containment and monitoring lakes, Santa Ana River bed, and
systems to ensure protection: Santiago gravel pits. These
(a) Major aquifer recharge areas have been "structured" to
areas, (b) Areas of permeable m a x i m i z e groundwater
strata and soils, (c) Areas replenishment.
where the existing groundwater
has beneficial uses as The section from "Facilities
described in the Basin Plan. may locate. . . in the Basin
Facilities with subsurface Plan. " , could be considered
storage or treatment must be permitting criteria.
sited, designed and operated to
ensure that hazardous materials The requirement of siting
will be -_. ems=-five facilities with a minimum of
feet abeve the hizghest, five feet of unsaturated soil
has been changed to the siting
the of facilities above the
tension-saturated zone. tension-saturated zone. The
tension-saturated zone is the
term gaining acceptance over
the use of the tern capillary
fringe. It - is that zone above
the groundwater interface where
water completely fills the pore
space, and is held there by the
interaction of the size of the
pore space and the surface
tension of water. Within this
zone the same liquid-liquid
transport of contaminants and
chemical reactions can occur as
in the saturated zone. The
thickness of the tension-
saturated zone ranges from a
few centimeters in sands to as
much as 30 meters in certain
clays. The thickness of the
tension-saturated zone would be
determined during an initial
site assessment.
In addition, experience gained
through the underground tank
program has shown that the
failure of underground tanks is
highest in high groundwater
areas. This stipulation
recognizes that fact by
requiring avoidance of high
groundwater areas.
Attachment 2 contains the proposed amendments to the OCHWMP as well
as discussion as to why each amendment has been required. The
proposed amendments represent the negotiated efforts of DHS and
statewide county/city representatives on the following issues :
1. Interpretation of the fair share policy for the approval of
hazardous waste facilities;
2. classification of specific siting criteria concerning
containment/ground water monitoring and water quality;
3 . clarification of mapping criteria; and
4 . additional information for potential project proponents and the
general public concerning the County' s project review process .
In summary, the amendments to the plan primarily provide
interpretations, clarification, and additional information on the
goals, policies and programs of the previously approved OCHWMP.
Therefore, staff supports the County' s request and recommends that
the City adopt Resolution No. G a-q 9 (Attachment 3) ratifying the
proposed amendments to the OCHWMP.
Environmental Status :
On February 19, 1991, the County of Orange acting as the lead agency
found that Final Program EIR No. 490, as previously certified on
January 25, 1989, was considered prior to approval of the project
and determined adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project.
Therefore, all requirements of CEQA have been satisfied.
FUNDING SOURCE:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Motion to: "Deny the County' s request. "
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Background and Plan Development Process Report prepared by
County Staff
2 . Proposed Amendments
3 . Resolution No. (0199
MTU:MA:TR: lp
RCA - 6/1/91 -2- (9870d)
BACKGROUND AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Authority. In 1985,
Orange County joined with the counties of Imperial, Riverside, San
' Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura, and the cities
of Los Angeles , San Diego and the cities within the County of
Orange to form the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management
Authority (Authority) through a joint exercise of powers agreement.
The Authority provides a regional framework for local jurisdictions
to establish equitable policies regarding the management of
hazardous materials. The Authority adopted a "fair share" policy
by which each jurisdiction is expected to approve the siting of
hazardous waste facilities capable of managing approximately the
volume of hazardous waste produced in the community.
Tanner Legislation. In late 1986 , spurred by upcoming federal bans .
on landfill disposal of untreated hazardous wastes and insufficient.
treatment facilities in California, State legislation AB 2948
(Tanner) was approved. The bill authorized and partially funded
the preparation of countywide hazardous waste management plans.
The State Department of Health Services (Department) was charged
with developing plan preparation guidelines and approving county
plans. The legislation also established special provisions for
local hazardous waste facility permit processes and a state appeal
process for local siting decisions on facilities.
Phase I: Draft County Plan Development: 1987 . In February 1987 ,
the Board of Supervisors directed the preparation of a County Plan
under the Tanner process and solicited participation of the cities.
The 'Tanner Advisory Committee was appointed by the Board of
Supervisors in June 1987 to oversee plan development. Members
include representatives of cities , industry, environmental groups,
and citizens .
The Draft County Plan was prepared by a coordinated effort of staff
from county agencies. Fire Services/Hazardous Materials Program
acted as project lead for intergovernmental coordination and public
participation; Health Care Agency/Environmental Health compiled the
technical data base on hazardous waste generation and reduction;
and Environmental Management Agency/Planning developed the Plan and
EIR. In addition, five working subcommittees, a county inter-
agency technical committee, and staff from each city were involved
in development of the Draft Plan. Opportunities for public
involvement were provided through five public informational
meetings, extensive mailing list and media notification of
committee meetings, and Hazardous Materials Awareness Week
activities. The Draft Plan was completed in December 1987 .
Phase II: Revised County Plan and EIR Preparation: 1988. Eight
advertised public hearings were held across the county in February
and March 1988 to obtain comments on the Draft Plan. In addition,
numerous presentations were made to city planning commissions, city
• I �
councils, and civic and business organizations. More than 1200
copies of the Draft Plan were distributed to public and private
organizations and individuals. Two public cable television shows
were completed, and coverage of the planning process was provided
in local newspapers. Two workshops on waste reduction were held.
Well over 100 letters of comment on the Draft Plan were received.
Monthly meetings of the Tanner Advisory Committee and City/County
Coordinators were held to develop Plan revisions.
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 490 was prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
analyze potential effects on the environment which could result
from the Plan. A 45-day EIR public comment period was held in
October and November 1988 . The Final EIR No. 490 contains
responses to twenty-two letters of comment received.
Policy differences between local governments across California and
the Department extended the plan revision process. The primary
issue centered around the authority of local government in
determining criteria for use in siting hazardous waste facilities.
The County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) in
conjunction with the California League of Cities (League) formed
a Tanner Hazardous Waste Committee to organize local government
policy response. In August 1988 , the Southern California Hazardous
Waste Management Authority facilitated a policy discussion with the
Department resulting in a consensus report on fair share regional
facility planning, contaminated soils and the use of .incineration
in the South Coast Air Basin, and requirements for facility siting
criteria and mapping components of the county plans.
The Orange County Planning Commission recommended certification of
EIR No. 490 on December 20, 1988 . The revised County Plan was
approved by the Tanner Advisory Committee on December 21, 1988 .
Phase III : Plan Approval and Implementation by Local Government:
1989-90
The Board of Supervisors approved the revised County . Hazardous
Waste Management Plan and certified the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report No.. 490 on January 25, 1989 . The Plan and EIR were
then transmitted to all cities in the County for consideration.
Approval from 50% of the Cities representing 50% of the urban
population was required. After local approval, the State
Department of Health Services had 90 days to approve or disapprove
the Plan
The Plan was approved by Orange County Cities within the
legislative mandated time frame. The Plan was then transmitted to
the Department June . l, 1989 . The Department disapproved the Plan
in a letter transmitted to then Chairman of the Board, Supervisor
Riley on November 30, 1989 . Statewide there were 29 Plans
2
disapproved, 13 approved, and 16 either withdrawn or never
submitted. The disapprovals were mainly based on the inclusion of
the fair share language developed by Statewide CSAC and the
League Task Force on Hazardous Waste. Staff- from County Counsel
and the Fire Department represented the County on this task force.
Approved Plans to date include those from the counties of Alpine,
Calaveras, Contra Costa, Imperial, King, Los Anqeles, Monterey,
Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, Solano, Tulare and Ventura.
(Those underlined are represented at the Southern California
Hazardous Waste Authority. )
Subsequent to the Department ' s disapproval of so many Plans
statewide, Assemblywoman Sally Tanner held a hearing in Sacramento
on March 20 , 1990 to determine what the problems were and how to
resolve them. Following up on the results of the hearing, she
sponsored legislation (AB2595) that set forth guidelines for
resubmittal of disapproved Plans. The Governor approved the bill.
Beginning September 30, 1990 , the County and its cities have 270
days to ratify any amendments to the Plan and resubmit it to the
Department. Ratification requires approval from the Board of
Supervisors and from 5016 of the cities with 50% of the urban
population.
The legislation also dictates that the County may only resubmit
once. The date for resubmittal is on or about June 1, 1991 . The
Department will have 90 days to approve or disapprove the Plan as
amended.
Approval of Amendments to the Plan from State Department of Health
Services: Letter of December 10 , 1990 . A meeting was held on
October 3 , 1990 between the Department and the County. As a result
of the meeting, the County submitted draft revisions to the
Department for review. these revisions as submitted were found
acceptable by the Department and was so stated in their letter of
'December 10 , 1990 . (Attachment 2)
Based on the letter and subsequent conversations with the
Department representatives, Orange County and its cities can
reasonably be assured that the Plan as amended will finally be
approved. The proposed revisions were approved by the Tanner
Advisory Committee at its October 17 , 1990 meeting..
Implementation: 1991 The Tanner legislation, and subsequent
legislation AB 477 (Greene, 1987) specifies time frames and options
for local plan implementation. Within 180 days following final
State approval of the Plan, the county and cities shall either
incorporate applicable portions of the Plan into the local General
Plan, or enact an ordinance requiring all applicable zoning,
subdivision, conditional use permits, and variance decisions to be
consistent with the Plan' s siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities. Cities may also opt to adopt a city plan consistent
3
with the approved county plan.
summary of Plan. The Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
establishes a city and county action program for managing hazardous
waste between now and the year 2000 .
The Plan characterizes current and projected hazardous waste
generation in Orange County from industry, households, and
contaminated sites and identifies the need for - additional
facilities to collect, recycle, treat, and dispose of waste. Based
on the projection of approximately 119 , 000 tons per year of
hazardous waste requiring offsite treatment in the year 2000 ,_ the
following hazardous waste treatment facilities would be needed if
Orange County were to be self sufficient and treat all hazardous
waste generated by businesses within its boundaries : aqueous
. treatment facility for metals/neutralization, incinerator, solvent
and oil recycling facility, stabilization facility, residuals
repository, and transfer stations . The Plan also establishes
facility siting criteria pertaining to health and safety, land use
compatibility, hydrogeologic hazards , water quality, air quality,
environmental resources, transportation, and socioeconomic and
planning issues.
Countywide goals , objectives, policies, and implementation programs
are established in the Plan for a variety of hazardous waste
management issues: Reduction of hazardous waste; Facility siting
and permitting process to be established in the county and each
city; Household hazardous waste collection; Transportation of
hazardous waste; Cleanup of contaminated sites; Ongoing regulation
and enforcement of hazardous waste generators ; Public and industry
education; and Coordination with regional planning efforts .
The Plan contains continuing programs and new programs requiring
action within six months, one year, and three years after approval
by the Department. An annual plan implementation report will be
prepared to monitor progress. Update of the Plan is scheduled to
occur every three years.
Summary of the Amendments. (Attachment 1)
1. "Fair Share" language change to the County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. Specifically, the addition of the State
Department of Health Services policy letter language pertaining to
"fair share" to Section V. 3 Orange County Facility Siting Policy.
2 . Changes to Siting criteria, Table V-3 , Criteria Number 6
(Containment and Groundwater Monitoring) and Number 7 (Water
Quality) .
3 . Inclusion of descriptive overview of the Orange County Project
Review Process.
4 . Inclusion of mapping criteria classification as presented by the
4
Environmental Management Agency in memo dated October 10, 1990 .
5. Correction to the title on the General Study Map entitled
Treatment, Recycling and Collection Facilities to specify types of
facilities by adding descriptions of facility types: transfer and
storage, treatment, recycling solidification or stabilization, and
incineration.
6. Inclusion of the Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan Process Flow
Chart presented by the Environmental Management Agency.
Fiscal Impact: A major commitment of city, county, and state funds
is needed to implement the Plan in a time of significant reduction
of available public resources. Estimated countywide costs for
implementing new programs associated with the Plan are
approximately $1. 8 million dollars . These programs range from site
identification, permitting, small quantity generators and public
information and education. Until new funding sources are
identified these programs cannot be implemented.
The Hazardous Materials Program Office/Fire Services will continue
to identify program funding needs and explore potential revenue
sources for' Plan implementation. Approval of the Plan amendments
at this time does not obligate the Board to implement the new
programs as described in the Plan if funding is not available.
Recommendations:
1. Find that Final EIR No. 490 , previously certified on January 25 ,
1989 , was considered prior to approval of the project, was
determined adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project, and
satisfies all requirements of CEQA.
2 . Adopt the attached amendments to the County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan as submitted.
3 . Authorize the Hazardous Materials Program Office/Orange County
Fire Department to distribute the approved amendments to the County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan to all Orange County Cities for
their action by May 16 , 1991.
4 . Authorize the Hazardous Materials Program Office/Orange County
Fire Department to transmit the approved amendments to the County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan to the State Department of Health
Services.
5
I. Addition to V. 3 orange County. Facility Siting Policy
(Interpretation of Fair Share Policy)
Approval of proposed hazardous ANALYSIS :
waste manaaement facilities Hazardous - waste management
that do not exceed a facilities that meet the
jurisdiction ' s "fair share" County' s "fair share" can be
will depend on siting criteria approved depending upon
and other criteria required by criteria required. by law.
existing law, unless effective Exception: if other California
interjurisdictional agreements counties have the capacity and
provide for adequate hazardous agree to handle specific
waste management capacity for hazardous wastes.
the specific hazardous waste
which the facility would have
handled in another California
Countv.
A countv can reject a nromosed The County can reject a waste
hazardous waste management facility that exceeds its "fair
facility/project that exceeds share" . . .
its "fair share" if there are if suitable arrangements
effective interjurisdictional have been made with other
aareements for the management counties, or
of the specific hazardous waste 0 if the County has capacity
generated in the county or to handle the hazardous wastes.
there is adequate capacity to
handle these wastes in the
county.
If adequate capacity does not If the County doesn't have the
exist in the county, or capacity or no other
effective interjurisdictional arrangements have been made
agreements do not exist , a with other counties, the County
jurisdiction shall not reL ct shall not reject uneconomic
hazardous waste management "fair share" hazardous waste
proposals that exceed "fair facilities. Exception: Where
share" if the proponent the proposed facility could
demonstrates that the "fair adversely impact public health
share" facility (i. e. , smaller and/or the environment.
facility) is economically
nonviable, except in cases in
which the jurisdiction
demonstrates that there. are
appreciably increased public
health and/or environmental
risks associated with the
proposed facility. .
The "fair share" language COMMENTS : Per Department of
contained in this Plan is only Health Services letter of June
effective in conjunction with 13 , 1990 .
interjurisdictional county
agreements. "Effective" Interlurisdictional
Agreements - Counties have
asked about the meaning of the
term "effective" as used in the
preceding discussion of
interjurisdictional agreements
and their relation to
acceptable "fair share"
statements in CHWMPs. It is
the department ' s position that
at this early date it would not
be meaningful to attempt to
define the term in some precise
manner. A definition now might
ultimately work against
counties by foreclosing options
for such agreements which have
not yet been developed or
foreseen.
In any case, if a hazardous
waste management facility is
rejected by a county based upon
"fair share" provision in the
CHWMP and upon the facility' s
inconsistency with
interjurisdictional agreements,
and if an appeal board is
convened to review that local
decision, the appeal board will
review all aspects of the
decision in making its
determination of whether to
uphold or overturn it. The
appeal board will review all
documents and information which
are relevant to the local
agency' s decision to disapprove
a proposed facility, including
the CHWMP (approved or
disapproved) , the applicable
General Plan, - and any
documentation or evidence of
interjurisdictional agreements
to manage hazardous waste. In
other words, to the extent that
an appeal board must make such
a determination in order to
render its decision, an appeal
board would judge whether
"effective" interjurisdictional
agreements are in place._
'Residuals repositories : Comments: Orange County' s
Repositories are prohibited experience with repositories of
from locating in principal hazardous materials indicates
recharge areas to regional that they leak. Orange County
aquifers as defined in local or is dependent on its groundwater
state plans, including the to meet immediate needs and to
Forebay area. Repositories are provide protection from
prohibited in areas of high drought. Protection of the
permeability (such as sand and Forebay area from potential
gravel) per the requirements of contamination - from residual
the State Water Quality Control repositories is important. ,
Board and California Code of
Regulations , Title 23 , Residual repositories are not
Subchapter 15 , Section 2531 (b) . excluded from Orange County
Repositories may locate only since they may locate above non
where the uppermost water- water-bearing areas and areas
bearing zone or aquifer is where the upper most water
mineralized (by natural or man- bearing zone has no beneficial
induced conditions) to the uses as described in the Basin
extent that it is not Plans .
considered for beneficial use
by t h e . Basin Plan . The de minimus requirement of
Repositories must be sited, locating five feet above
designed and operated to ensure highest anticipated elevation
that hazardous materials will of groundwater has been changed
always be a—mire-ems to locating above the tension-
feet above the tension- saturated zone. This change is
saturated zone e-s-t incorporated to recognize the
importance of liquid-liquid
undeviyIng _ . transfer of hazardous
materials.
The following provides an overview of Orange County' s project
review process. The tasks are grouped under general category
headings for simplification of presentation. In fact, each process
will involve a number of additional steps depending on the specific
project proposal, along with Planning Commission and/or Board of
Supervisors review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESSES (one of the following)
• Environmental Impact Report
• Negative Declaration
• Categorical Exemption
DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL PROCESSES (one or more of the following)
• General Plan Amendment
• Zone Change
• Conditional Use Permit or Site Plan
NON-DISCRETIONARY PERMIT PROCESSES (requires all of the following)
• Grading Permit
• Building Permits
Building Inspection
� u9
q ra a?
County of Orange
DATE:
� �VV
TO: Karen Peters, Manager, Hazardous Materials Program
FROM: George Britton, Acting Manager, Advance Planning
SUBJECT: Mapping Criteria Clarification - Hazardous Waste Management Plan
In response to questions from Department of Health Services (DHS)
representatives during our meeting of October 3, 1990, Bob Aldrich of my staff
researched the criteria used in generating the composite maps in the proposed
Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The following provides
additional specificity as to the mapping procedures used for both the
"Residual Repositories" and the "Treatment, Recycling and Collection
Facilities" General Study Area Maps.
The "Residual Repositories" and "Treatment, Recycling and Collection
Facilities" General Study Area Maps were generated using a base map and
appropriate overlay maps to screen out areas clearly constrained by the
selected mappable criteria. As stated in the proposed hazardous waste plan,
the general criteria utilized for the "Residual Repositories" map were as
follows:
° Areas within 2,000 feet of existing or zoned residential development,
based on projected 1995 buildout data.
° Areas within 200 feet of active earthquake faults.
° Open space areas including national forest, state, and regional parks,
designated open space, and prime agricultural land.
° Military installations.
° Areas within 100-year floodplain and dam inundation areas.
° Areas of high groundwater (water level 5 feet from surface) .
° Areas subject to potential rapid geologic change, including landslides,
mudflows, liquefaction, or soil subsidence.
The general criteria utilized for the "Treatment, Recycling and Collection
Facilities" map included the following:
° Areas in existing residential use or zoned for residential use, using
1995 projected residential buildout data.
° Areas within 200 feet of active earthquake faults, per State
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones.
° Open space areas, including national forests, state and regional parks,
designated open space land, and prime agricultural land.
Fssa�ssclisat A
° Militar1 installations.
In addition to these general categories, staff developed additional mapping
criteria to address those areas within the County with potential for
landslide, liquefaction, expansive soils, mudflow or seismic activity. To the
best of my knowledge, these criteria were used in the generation of "the
"Residual Repositories" General Study Area Map only.
° Areas indicated" on the "landslide" overlay map with a moderately high,
high or eery high potential for landslide activity were screened out.
° Areas indicted on the "liquefaction" overlay map with high liquefaction
potential and all areas of soil gas accumulation were screened oust.
° areas indicated on the "expansive soils" overlay map with a moderate or
hi5h potential for soils expansion and potential peat. deposit areas
were screened out.
° All areas subject to mudflows indicated on the "mudflow" overlay map
were screened out.
° Areas indicated on the "seismic" overlay map with moderate or high
seismic potential were screened out.
During the October 3rd meeting, OHS officials also inquired whether the San
Juan Creek and Aliso Creek Basins (as shown on the "groundwater" overlay map)
include groundwater recharge areas. Upon staff review of the County's General
Plan Resources Element, staff has determined that these basins do not contain
groundwater recharge areas. The Santa Ana Riverbed, bet*.Teen Kacella Avenue
and Imperial Highway, is the principal recharge area for the coastal plain.
Lastly, a recommendation was made by DES to include a flowchart depicting the
required steps necessary for an applicant to secure government agency
approvals for siting a treatment or residual repository facility. (DES
specifically sited the flowchart in the San Bernardino plan as an example to
follow. ) For your review, I have enclosed a flowchart of the EMA development
review tasks. If this chart is too detailed for use within the Hazardous
Vaste Plan, let' s discuss what level of simplication is necessary and my staff
will assist in its preparation.
I hope that this provides the necessary background information on the mapping
criteria used in generating the composite maps as well as other issues raised
by DES. If you have any additional questions, or wish to discuss this
further, please contact Bob Aldrich at 834-2166.
George B itton
BA: tk
0100914350217
..! C , ........1.__....,,•Ip:':�.'f:!" ,i':i'.:::..,a'jJi!1:1'F'i%'j:l:. r.•..,:;A::::i�i:::::'la:....
.�.. q,, •.- ,.t..:..t...............__...,,.:va...:.,....,.•...._.,..::.a1•::•.:::L...,,..._..:.., _.-I,h•n.,•� .dP:.....a..,t. dV.... .. : ...Irt:r._,...
.i.........._.................:..... r ,... .. t,r..l t ., .t
,:a^.71 Nt. f: t4!:::'i.`::.i.::•:!.vr!::':'i.:.::::.:.::.':i!ir -... ... ............:...:..I:�._,hr^,......:r.,,;;•:,+'li.,....,m,...,...,;,;.,.51;k::r't,• r:I �` , , ..t�. r, �•,...!, :;;�z,�n.:
...•j .: r .......:.:....... ,rn:::.:.o . .: I,......,,I..1 .:n ,.�M•:: r { •,. .,.. •.4.�y'..,t,,:iy,v,.::.. i F'it r .•J.
• .:y!? t.l.r,'r::r.:rt.� G_ ,:�l•!w.'�,,� t,.t�Irl: i...o M�.�.h,1^.� , �1
fn.;.1.,i. �.,.:�,t, I:S•: r. r�, ,.f 6•,�! �.•:•f`I 1 DiEil..;,,ft.q'i p r4.: p+,�fl,:.':'::E'..�:.� - iiiYdiLii,irr, ;:':....
':ti. 1:1) G ,.....t,. r9r•��.+(7_i,z,.,I..• 1!.�•.{:r:•y.:r�Lr, u..a•fu:�r .!�`.tt:•• - .y � 9,•+l• YV.{y. t ..i.4.. ,!:.t.:..P"?irc :�' ..r:..":G:•:.::,.,:�: .....'•i
p•a. ,...p!;;:.lya.It•.•....f"4r.a, s.F. .t...)u.., .'?t.:.• IItSv4..u,t t 11I YN' Irl F.,t Lt•,,:..,e'F.... .r....._, .t•S .i.l i..,: ..; ..
,, }, N,: :,,..><�; .,.� ,�•I, .b rt.,•, .h,,r...,._t.:.:...t... t,.-a;.:r ��wJ�` r R� �..,1.,..._<...:.•.:•:•,': I,.. i :,•-.:��':`,! a:.,.....r..>:-�
..... al-:f lm.::......u'cSc!... .r...tJt _� I i:'':d.•.•. Jr' ,�. ...i ......•,.•',1.. t o .,,,.t�...... .,a �,..... ,.�• re::1, •.'�,�.,..x1!!;c?.n;L•:n;:u;;,.,1,..�11, .y1H:.. , f::tG* •:Y�t�f.z �h.k .L: ...k ;•:,t1,3,:�•!I:�,;::c::::a.,,...
:::•.5 .., r,�r r3. ,n:c'._.t,.•,,, s•. .u:,...._.....tt. P.. .. ..t...J c..•I. !} � r h �:. {,. .e. ,...e• ..J, I..n.� ... °iii>�•.,
.._... ,.... .. ..,... — ._.,......_. .vt..._�a.,••::r•... .. ,.t.......t.,..r.G1'� �:.
..............•v-' ......r r.....It.p..i,.,..4 ,.,...I. .. .:, t ,, .. a ul t , :.3 o„u....,u.r .r Ilte, •...: ?ail?i
_.. :,. �"• .� ... ....................t...rx t.,:,..:....._.........t..... t....d.,r I My t .�!• fi �.r.�.r.:�::rn.. '.,rv:; .. ..;r:;_:::r.:.::!:.:':::x,::^ %!fi�:ui
....s t .tc�•f....•:,.:•.1.. r. .....t....,,:n,;., .:I,�....._.........1..,...:..J. >"�4. Y.ir.:fyJ�L•5.:>:..•:;?:.:::::::::::..:...._ ,..'���,.•�ti':i:f:.
.y..r.?.,......_....4 .r.:., •.:..:....:....c.:, .;:......r ..>t.t �,..,y.u:�.�rt�� ;,:c J7aii1 ;y:n...x e.11, ri�' •;.1.. .:r:
G''
♦,vv'G.>,/r'• ve�i'ye � u ,ty i � �,� dtit S�i�1JiCb •,.�f !, l �� 1 �t tia < f'} 'Try
! Yty�l!{,l!i V,h. S''• �, � �t � lvrr to T�^ �t,s �',•t F 1#1 r t��� 1 Y .'1.��{{
t _
e
wUal
_ 5 •!Gy
or
Vy LIL j
o =
a
z c
W o Q � o
b o
Qw =0)
J C)
� m
o
ILJ0 A b
N
C)
JZQ � �
1� b
a � >
W W � ,� t
9 oc w a i d'
o Z wLL 1
W �=o
0W ! _ _
C3
r-
le
1po
1p
10
OY
o a.
\ / d
It,T \ LL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT./ SITE PLAN PROCESS
DPC REVIEWS
APPLICATION FOR PROJECT REVIEW AND EMA CONDUCTS INTIAL STUDY EMA PREPARES EMA NOTICES
YES COMPLETENESS REFERRAL FOR COMMENT AND DETERMINES REQUIRED REPORT TO THE HEARING IF REQUIRED
1:
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PLANNING
COMMISSION
AND RESOLUTION
NO e.COMPLY WITH d. ADEQUATE Ell?
ZONE CODE? DESIGN?
APPLICANT REVISES b.COASTAL •. ADEQUATE PREVIOUS EIR
DOCUMENTS PLAN/ ENGINEERING7
REGULATIONS7
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
C. GENERAL f. SPECIAL
PLANT COMM. POLICIES OR CATEGORICAL
PROFILE? REGULATIONS? EXEMPTION
1 MA PREPARES 1 1 rHEARING HELD IF� tl
HEARING HELD IF DE I E
CISION IS CLERK OF THE BOARD MAILS/
REPORT.RESOLUTION. REQUIRED.DECISION I
REQUIRED. DECISION APPEALLED. PUBLISHES NOTICE
MADE BY PLANNING APPELLANT PAYS FEE AND NOTICES FOR MADE BY BOARD OF
— ` — _ — _ SUPERVISORS — I
COMMISSION.ZONING CLERK OF BOARD
L_ L, .J
ADMINSTRATOR OR
STAFF AS REQUIRED
APPROVE DENY
NOTE: This chart depicts a generalized overview of Orange County's
END NO APPEAL APPEAL project review process for a use permit/site plan. In addition,
specific proposals may also require an amendment to the General
Plan, a zone change as well as grading and building permits.
RESOLUTION N0. 6299
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, APPROVING AMENDMENTS
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN PER AB 2595 (TANNER 1990)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
in cooperation with the County of Orange, participated in the
development of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan in
January 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Plan) to provide policy
direction and action programs to address current and future
hazardous waste management issues having local responsibility and
involvement in Orange County; and
Preparation of the Plan was directed by the Orange County
Board of Supervisors in February 1987 pursuant to State Assembly
Bill 2948 (Tanner 1986) ; and
The Plan was developed by Orange County staff in accordance
with the requirements and procedures of State Assembly -Bill 2948 and
the California Department of Health Services "Guidelines for the
Preparation of Hazardous Waste Management Plans" (June 30, 1987) ; and
The Plan was developed with the involvement and oversight of
the Orange County Tanner Advisory Committee and the participation -of
agency representatives from cities, County, State, and special
districts; and
An extensive public participation program was conducted
throughout the Plan development process, including public
information meetings, public hearings, workshops, presentations to
1
public agencies and private organizations , mailing list and media
notification, open committee meetings, and the receipt and response
to hundreds of verbal and written comments on the Plan from agencies
and citizens; and
The Tanner Advisory Committee approved the Plan and
recommended approval by the Board of Supervisors and City Councils
of Orange County; and
The Orange County Board of supervisors held a public hearing
to receive public testimony on the Plan; and
EIR 490 was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) , the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the County' s Environmental Procedures; and
Written and verbal comments on EIR 490 were received from
the public during and after a public review period; and
The Orange County Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to receive public testimony with respect to EIR 490; and
Comments received on EIR 490 were responded to through a
Response to Comments document submitted to the Orange County
Planning Commission; and
The Orange County Planning Commission has reviewed all
documentation comprising EIR 490 and has found that the EIR 490
thoroughly analyzes and documents environmental impacts of the Plan,
and that it fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the
State CEQA Guidelines; and
The Orange County Planning Commission recommended to the
Orange County Board of Supervisors that EIR 490 be certified as
complete and adequate; and
The County of Orange Board of Supervisors has reviewed and
2
has considered EIR 490 and certified Final EIR 490 for the Orange
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as complete and adequate in
that the EIR addresses the environmental impacts, mitigation
measures, and alternatives of the Plan, and complies with the
requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
As a result of the State Department of Health' s disapproval
of Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, as revised on
December 10 , 1990, revisions have been made to the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach hereby approves the Orange County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan as amended and makes the following findings :
1. Final EIR No. 490, previously certified on January 25,
1989 , and considered prior to approval of the project, was
determined adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this
project, and satisfies all requirements of CEQA.
2 . The following amendments to the County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan are hereby accepted and included:
a. "Fair Share" language change to the County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan. Specifically,. the addition of
the State Department of Health Services policy letter
language pertaining to "fairshare" to Section V. 3
Orange County Facility Siting Policy.
b. Changes to Siting criteria, Table V-3 , Criteria Number
6 (Containment and Groundwater Monitoring) and Number 7
(Water Quality) .
C. Inclusion of descriptive overview of the Orange County
Project Review Process .
d. Inclusion of mapping criteria classification as
presented by the Environmental Management Agency in
memo dated October 10, 1990 .
e. Correction to the title on the General Study Map
entitled Treatment, Recycling and Collection Facilities
to specify types of facilities by adding descriptions
of facility types; transfer and storage, treatment,
recycling solidification or stabilization, and
incineration.
3
f . Inclusion of the Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan
Process Flow Chart presented by the Environmental
Management Agency.
3 . The Hazardous Materials Program Office/Orange County Fire
Department is hereby authorized to transmit the approved
amendments to the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to
the State Department of Health Services .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st
day of July 1991.
may r
ATTES APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk 6-/7-'?/C ity Attorney I
REVIEWED AND 4PPROVED: INITIA E Al APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Community
Development
4
Res. No. 6299
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE 3 ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting. thereof held on the 1st day
of July 19 91 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers-:
MacAllister, Silva, Green, Kelly, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Winchell
city Clerk and ex-offlcioewerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
j -
REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIPACT ON - -
3
Date May 1, 1989
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
Submitted b Paul E. Cook, City Administrat07 , S- ,p^
Y� _ M
Y�
Prepared b Mike C. Adams, Director, Community Development d
p
ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGE CIT CLE K
Subject:
Consistent with Council Policy? PC] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptions .
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
State legislation (AB 2948, Tanner, and others) mandate an immediate improvement in
management methods of nonradioactive hazardous waste in California. These statues
prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous waste after May 8, 1990. Under AB
2948, the local and state governments must plan together to provide adequate options for
siting of hazardous waste collection, treatment, recycling, and disposal facilities
throughout the State in order to protect public health and the environment and to avoid
local or regional economic disruption.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan by adopting the attached
Resolution.
ANALYSIS:
PLAN BACKGROUND
The Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as the
Plan) was the result of State Assembly Bill 2948. This legislation authorizes local
governments to develop comprehensive county hazardous waste management plans. The
purpose of the Plan is to provide basic overall policy direction and county-wide programs
to address current and future hazardous waste management issues having local
responsibility or involvement within Orange County. The Plan was developed for adoption
and implementation by both the County and Cities in Orange County.
The process and schedule for the development and adoption of county hazardous waste
management plans are specified in the authorizing legislation, AB 2948. Consequently,
preparation of a draft hazardous waste management plan for Orange County began in
earnest in mid-1987 with the issuance of plan preparation guidelines by the State
Department of Health Services.
Plo 5/85
A Draft plan was developed by County staff, with guidance from the Orange County
Tanner Advisory Committee, a thirteen-member committee appointed by the Board of
Supervisors. The Tanner Advisory Committee includes representatives of city officials,
industry, environmental groups, and citizens. City planning staff monitored the Tanner
Advisory Committee meetings and periodically commented on the draft plan.
The Plan was completed in December 1987 and transmitted to the State Department of
Health Services. The plan development process continued throughout 1988. During this
time, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to analyze potential
effects in the environment which could result from the Plan. The Draft EIR received a
45-day public review and comment period in October and November, 1988, as required by
State Law. The Orange County Planning Commission certified the EIR in December 20,
1988.
The County Board of Supervisors adopted the Plan on January 25, 1989. To date, ten
cities have adopted the Plan. These cities include Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana
Point, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Mission Viejo, Placentia, Stanton, and Tustin. Plan
adoption by four additional cities (total of 14 cities) is required by law prior to State
Department of Health Services (DHS) review and approval of the Plan. Opposition to the
Plan is not anticipated by County officials.
Once the required number of Cities have adopted the Plan, the DHS will review the Plan.
State law limits this review period to three months. This period is expected to run from
approximately June 1, 1989 to September 1, 1989. Following the DHS approval, cities
have 180 days to begin Plan implementation. According to this schedule the City must
begin implementation efforts between September 1, 1989 and March 1, 1990.
PLAN CONTENT
The intent of this Plan is to identify all important components of a comprehensive local
hazardous waste management strategy. The Plan identifies current and projected future
hazardous generation and management needs in Orange County and it provides a frame
work for the development of facilities to manage hazardous waste. The Plan also sets in
motion various policy directives toward developing county-wide programs.
Implementation programs are organized under four general areas: hazardous waste
facility siting, special hazardous waste issues, regulation and enforcement activities, and
remedial and emergency actions. Specific programs in these areas are detailed on the
attached chart.
This Plan represents an important first step in a process to implement needed hazardous
waste management activities at the local County and City level. The Plan necessitates
full cooperation and coordination by the twenty-seven Cities, the County, and local
communities for effective implementation. Along with plans of adjacent counties, the
Plan provides a basis for development of a regional hazardous waste management plan for
Southern California, prepared by the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management
Authority. In addition, a State-wide plan will be prepared by the California Department
of Health Services based on the fifty-eight county plans.
Planning staff has met with the City Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee to review
the draft plan with them and to solicit their comments. This Committee expressed
support for the Plan and suggests to Council that the illustrative and conceptual nature of
the draft maps depicted in Appendix A be recognized. Consequently, the Committee
recommends that Council adopt the Plan excluding Appendix A, as specified in the
attached resolution. Staff had also transmitted the Plan to the City Fire Department for
their review. Copies of their comments are attached.
(2388d)
A copy of the Plan and Appendix A are attached for Council's review. Appendices B
through E, which contain technical data, and the associated Final Environmental Imapct
Report have not been included with this report. These documents are available from staff.
FUNDING SOURCE:
No funding required.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may reject the Orange County Plan. However, pursuant to AB 2948, Cities that
choose to disapprove the County Plan must develop their own plan.
ATTACHMENTS•
1. Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Appendix A
(previously distributed)
2. Resolution
3. Implementation Programs Chart
4. Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee Comments
S. Fire Department Comments
PEC:MA:REL:lb
(2388d)
RESOLUTION NO. 6019
i
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION BY THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
(hereinafter referred to as the Plan) , has been prepared to provide
policy direction and implementation programs to address current and
future Hazardous Waste Management issues pursuant to State Assembly
Bill 2948 (Tanner 1986) ; and
The Plan was developed with the involvement and oversight of
the Orange County Tanner Advisory Committee and the participation of
agency representatives from cities, County, State, and special
districts; and
An extensive public participation program was conducted
throughout the Plan development process , which included public
information meetings , public hearings, workshops, presentations to
public agencies and private organizations, mailing list and media
notification, open committee meetings, and the receipt and response
to hundreds of verbal and written comments on the Plan from agencies
and citizens; and
The Tanner Advisory Committee and the Orange County Board of
Supervisors approved the Plan and recommended approval by city
councils of Orange County;
' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach has reviewed and hereby approves the Orange
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and recommends adoption by
-1-
6019
the State Department of Health Services .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of the Plan does not
constitute approval of draft maps contained in Appendix A and that
additional review is required for facility siting pursuant to the
full criteria stated in the Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of April ,
1989 .
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a
c
City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
I)
City Administrator Direct r of C mmunity Development
1
-2- 6019
APPENDIX A
FACILITY SITING
(COMPLETE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ORANGE COUNTY
JANUARY 1989 IN FILE NO. 124)
6019
No. 6019
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly appointed, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
r
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1 s t day
of May 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
MacAllister, Green, Winchell, Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
City Clerk and ex-offici Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
6019
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
PROGRAM NEW OR EXISTING RESPONSIBLE SOURCE OF
AGENCY FUNDING
A. HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITY SITING
I. Regional Hazardous Existing Cities, Count To Be Determined
Waste Planning
2. General Plan, New Cities To Be Determined
Ordinance Provisions
For Facility
Siting & Permitting
3. Site Identification New Cities To Be Determined
Program
B. SPECIAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE ISSUES
I. Waste Reduction & Existing County Generator Fees,
Onsite Treatment State
2. Small Quantity New Cities,County To Be Determined
Generators
3. Household Hazardous Existing County, Cities County, State
Waste
4. Information & New Cities, County To Be Determined
Education
5. Review Of Land Uses Existing Cities City Fees
For Hazardous
Waste Implications
6. Transportation Of Existing County To Be Determined
Hazardous Waste
C. REGULATION &
ENFORCEMENT
I. Hazardous Materials Existing Cities City Fees
Disclosure &
Inventory
2. Regulation Of Existing County County Fees
Hazardous Waste
Management
Practices
3. Underground Storage Existing County County Fees
Tasks
4. Wastewater Disposal Existing County County Fees
fMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
PROGRAM NEW OR EXISTING RESPONSIBLE SOURCE OF
AGENCY FUNDING
5. Hazardous Materials Existing County County, Cities
Strike Force
6. Pest Management New Agricultural County State
Commission
D. REMEDIAL & EMERGENCY
ACTIONS
1. Remediation Of Existing County State, Federal
Contaminated Sites
2. Emergency Incident Existing City, County Federal, State
Response
3. Groundwater Existing County County
Protection
4. Public Notice Of Existing County Generator Fees
Hazardous
Discharges I
(2392d)
COMMENTS OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING OF MARCH 23. 1989
A meeting of the Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee was held on March 23, 1989.
The purpose of the meeting was to review the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan and to formulate Committee comments on the Plan for presentation to
City Council.
The Committee expressed support for the Plan in general and made the following specific
comments:
Policy Direction and Plan Implementation (Part VI)
VI.1 Goal Statement. The Committee supports the Goal Statement as expressed in the
Plan.
VI.2 Ob' ctives. The Committee supports all Plan objectives. The Committee
particularly stressed the importance of Objective 1 pursuant to efforts and
programs to encourage waste minimization, Objective 3 for small quantity
generators and household hazardous waste and Objective 4 for public education on
waste issues.
VI.3 Policies. The Committee supports all Plan policies.
VIA Implementation Programs.
Section A - Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
A-1 Regional Hazardous Waste Management Planning. The Committee supports
the existing program.
A-2 General Plan and Ordinance Provisions for Facility Siting and Permitting.
The Committee supports the program. Committee suggests that zoning
ordinances be revised to address facilities that generate hazardous waste as
well as potential locations for transfer stations, treatment or disposal
facilities. They realize, however, that this action may be cost prohibitive
unless the City can work in coordination with the efforts of other cities.
A-3 Site Identification Program. The Committee supports the program.
Committee notes that outside environmental consultants or representatives
from waste generating industries, may be useful in assisting the City in
developing appropriate siting criteria.
Section B - Special Hazardous Waste Issues.
B-1 Waste Reduction and Onsite Treatment. The Committee supports for the
existing program.
(2368d)
B-2 Small Quantity Generators. The Committee supports the program.
Committee suggests that the City compile information for small generators
that is available from industry trade groups, environmental regulatory
agencies, the Orange County Chamber of Commerce and other sources.
B-3 Household Hazardous Waste. The Committee supports the ongoing program.
Committee commented that siting criteria developed by City should include
criteria for semi—permanent collection sites proposed under this program.
B-4 Information and Education. The Committee expressed strong support for this
program. Committee made several suggestions pursuant to this program.
These include development of educational information on products used by
small and household generators. Software programs and library resources
may be useful. Emphasize waste minimization education for these waste
generators.
B-5 Review of New Land Uses for Hazardous Waste Implications. The Committee
expressed general support for this program, with certain reservations. They
are concerned that the review proposed may require staff expertise and
staffing levels which the City does not have available. Consequently, the
Committee suggests close coordination with other cities and the County in
this effort.
B-6 Transportation of Hazardous Waste. The Committee supports the existing
programs.
In summation, the Committee approves of the goals, objectives, policies, and programs
detailed in the Plan. Although funding sources for some programs are uncertain, support
for the programs is strong. The Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the
Plan as requested by the County of Orange.
In addition, the Committee noted that conceptual study areas, as depicted in Appendix A
on the General Study Area Maps, are merely illustrative in nature. The maps associated
with the Plan represent working draft maps and are subject to change. As specified in the
Plan, facility sites are evaluated on a case—by—case basis subject to State Environmental
Review (CEQA) and application of all twenty—one siting criteria as established by State
Law AB 2948. The maps associated with the Plan evaluated areas on the basis of only
four criteria. Consequently these maps should be recognized as conceptual working drafts
only, and should not be adopted by the City Council in their present form.
(2368d)
Southern California Edison Company
7333 BOLSA AVENUE
WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 92683
March 20 , 1989
M. D. MARTIN TELEPHONE
MANAGER.HUNTINGTON BEACH (714)895-0255
Ruth Lambert , Ass ' t Planner RECEIVED
Dept of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
P . O . B o x 190 MAP 211989
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
DEPARTWIF^IT OF
SUBJECT : Hazardous Waste Management 'T
County of Orange
Dear Ruth , `
In follow-up to our conversation on March 16 ,
1989 , I apologize for not being able to attend the next
Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee Meeting scheduled for
March 23 , 1989 . I have reviewed the plan, however , and my
only comment is that the plan is compatible with the /I
Southern California Edison Company ' s daily business
concerning hazardous waste management .
I hope this information will be useful to you . If
you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call me .
Sincerely ,
MDM: ct
cc : M. C . Adams
ILA, a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
to" . INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Mike Adams From Raymond C. Pi ar
Development Services Director Fire Chief �'%
Subject COMMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY Date April 11, 1989
HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
As requested, the Fire Department Petro Chem Section reviewed the Orange County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan and submits the following comments:
Part I, Page 4, Part IV - Contaminated Site
This paragraph states that programs are in place for remediation of contaminated
sites, including state and federal superfund sites. Not all superfund sites are
funded. Ascon landfill in Huntington Beach is on a superfund list, but at this time
is not scheduled to be funded with these monies. It is presently too low on the
priority list to receive funds.
Part 1, Page 4, Part IV - Military Installations
A system must be established to insure that military installations adhere to the
same standards applied to other facilities in the county.
Part II, Page 5, Table II-2
In the item in the waste group titled, "Non-metallic Inorganic Liquids," "Inorganic
Liquids" should be indented to avoid confusion. Also, no alternative treatment
method is specified for these nonmetallic inorganic liquids. If there is no
alternative treatment method, then the word "none" should be included in the
report to avoid confusion. Was an alternative method inadvertently omitted, or is
there no acceptable alternative method? This is not clear in the report.
Part VI - Policy Direction and Plan Implementation, V.2 - Objectives; Objective 7
- Clean Up of Previous Disposal Sites
This paragraph states that we should assist "federal, state, and local agencies
responsible for clean ups of previous hazardous waste disposal sites." Not all
disposal sites will be cleaned up by federal, state, or local agencies. Private
industry has a share of responsibility also, and should be included in the agency
list.
r
Comments - OC Hazardous Waste Management Plan
April 11, 1989
Page 2
Programs A-1, A-2, A-3, B-2, B-4, B-6
Sources of funds for these programs are "to be determined." If this program is to
be viable, funds must be determined as a part of the plan when it is adopted.
There is no guarantee that funding will be made available for these sections of the
plan if funding sources are not determined in advance.
Program B-3, Page VI-7 - Household Hazardous Waste
Second Paragraph - The phase three program talks about "roll off boxes" for
disposal of toxic waste. Such sites must be manned or there may be significant
problems with industrial users utilizing these sites, improper materials disposal,
possible breakage of items disposed, etc.
Program C-1, Page VI-10 - Hazardous Materials Disclosure and Inventory
Although there is a very large computer data base established by the Orange
County Fire Department for the Hazardous Waste Management Program, 'this
information is not compatible with computer systems being installed in some fire
departments in the county. There is no unified computer type in use in fire
departments throughout Orange County. Computer systems will not be
compatible with this data base unless a standardized computer network is
established on a county-wide basis through the Orange County Fire Chiefs or
another similar organization. This data base will, therefore, be of limited use to
some departments (the system currently being installed in the Huntington Beach
Fire Department is compatible with the data base).
No mention is made of closure programs in this section. In order for the
regulatory and enforcement procedures to be effective, closure programs must be
closely monitored and strictly enforced as closure is one of the major problems we
face in hazardous materials enforcement, especially in companies that go out of
business.
Program C-2 - Regulation of Hazardous Waste Management Practices
No mention is made in this section of interfacing county inspection and regulation
activities with local agency inspection activities. An interface must be
established to avoid duplication, to facilitate the transfer of information, etc.
Program D-1 - Remediation of Contaminated Sites; Section f - Source of Funds:
State or Federal Superfunds Paid for Clean Up Actions
Not all superfund sites are funded at this point. Funds must be obtained either
through additional superfund authorization or through other funding sources in
order to clean up these problems.
Comments - OC Hazardous Waste Management Plan
April 11, 1989
Page 3
Program D-2, Section f - Emergency Response; Source of Funds
Superfund or California Superfund sources may be available for emergency
responses, but the filing process (and bureaucracy) is. so burdensome that most
agencies have ignored this funding source.
Appendix A, Facility Siting
The distance requirement for all hazardous materials facilities is defined as at
least two hundred (200) feet from active earthquake faults. Although I am not
familiar with the criteria set forth in the "State Alquist-Priolo Special Study
Zones," I am hesitant to place these hazardous materials facilities in such close
proximity to major active earthquake faults. In all cases, I feel that this distance
should be substantially increased so that the chances of hazardous materials
releases due to earthquake activity are minimized.
RCP/DG/sr
9292f