HomeMy WebLinkAboutSanta Clara County - Hazardous Materials Activites Agreement
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
COORDINATION OF CITY AND COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACTIVITIES
This is an agreement between the County of Santa Clara,
hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Gilroy, hereinafter
referred to as the "City" relating to t:he efreclive management of hazardous
materials.
Recitals
Whereas, the effective management of hazardous materials is a
high-priority task both for the County and the City;
Whereas, both the County and the City have agreed to review their
mutual responsibilities in hazardous materials management, and to reassess
the need for program coordination and mutual support;
Whereas, the County and the City wish to reinforce a spirit of
cooperation, coordination, and mutual assistance, with the recognition that
flexibility will be required to adapt these local programs to changing local
conditions and to changing state and federal laws;
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. The County and the City hereby agree to pursue the tasks set
forth in the document entitled "Countywide Coordination of Toxics/Hazmat
Programs and Activities", hereinafter referred to as the "Coordination
Document", attached hereto and incorporated herein 0Y reference.
2. Both parties recognize that staff and resource constraints may
affect the ability of either party to meet fully all the responsibilities as
set forth in the Coordination Document. Each party shall be expected to
make a good faith effort in meeting their responsibilities.
3. The City and the County shall reassess the Coordination
Document periodically. Amendments to the Coordination Document may be made
by mutual consent of the parties, in writing, at any time.
-1-
4. In the event this agreement results in any inconsistency with
state or federal law, the state or federal law shall control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
agreement as of FE B 2 4 1987
County ,of Sa~ta 9"'J,a A
BOJr~~.A. ·
Llanne McKenna
Chairperson, p";aro of Slloervl>lOr!l
Title;
Date:
fEE 2 4 1987
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
KATHY KRETCHMER
Deputy County Counsel
KK/jcw
0129L/34
{y.~~:~-;s::. M'1:' A.I"": d{:erl".9-~. .........
tH3 "EJrv'1ra .
'\ ..!
\~-:~~."~-_.~, ~~
;J
H.
Mayor
Date:
March 2, 1987
-2-
_.~~
i.
ADDENDUM TO LETTER OF AGREEMENT
COORDINATION OF CITY AND COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACTIVITIES
This is the first addendum to the Letter of Agreement
between the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (COUNTY) and the CITY
OF Gilroy (CITY) entitled Coordination of City and
County H~~~r~~u~8fateria:s Activities entered into on
The parties agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 5 is added to the Letter of Agreement and
reads as follows: "Either party may terminate this Agreement
at any time by providing one hundred eighty (180) days prior
written notice to the other party."
2. The Coordination Document has been updated and is
amended in full by the "First Amended Countywide Coordination
of Toxics/Hazmat Programs and Activities" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
3. Except as stated herein. all the terms and conditions
of said Letter of Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties. through their duly
authorized representatives. have entered into this addendum OIl
the dates shown below:
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CITY OF Gilroy
By:
pervisors
/)
B4tl1t~"-d41 tC/l-t-
/ Roberta H. Hughf
1i tIe: Mavor v
l
Date: Mav 9. 1988
Title:
Date:
MJR 1 0 ~q83
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
+c/l'\A~
KATHY KRB.;'CHMER
Deputy Co nty Counsel
KK:ks WPPTL2 ID 117
AT~.....S~ '. Don:\:rj ijj\),",'" d.;.'J
Uh;J:Of s ~"'"~~
.---.---.. ..-.----\-
"
.,,;.....-~...~
FIRST AMRNDED
. . COUNTYWIDR:COORDINATION OF TOXICS/HAZMAT
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
I. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE ORDINANCES (HMSOs)
A. SummaI"Y of PI"o~I"ams
11 now implemented by 9 cities, CentI"al FiI"e PI"otection DistI"ict
(CFPD), and County Health DepaI"tment HazaI"dous MateI"ials Unit (County
Health Hazmat);
PI"ogI"arn implementeI"s cooI"dinate, exchange infoI"rnation via HazaI"dous
HateI"ials Subcommittee of Santa ClaI"a County FiI"e Chiefs Association
(Hazmat Subcommittee);
HMSOs authorize fee-based funding.
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
County Health Hazmat implements County HMSO in unincoI"poI"ated aI"eas,
city HMSOs in thI"ee cities, and compaI"able State law in one city;
CFPD implements city HMSOs in two cities;
Both pI"ogI"ams paI"ticipate in Hazmat Subcon~ittee.
C. Cities Roles/Responsibilities:
Nine cities implement HMSOs;
All p~ogI"arns paI"ticipate in Hazrnat Subcommittee.
II. WATERS BILL (AB 2185, 2187)
A. SummaI"Y of PI"o~I"am:
Modelled in paI"t on HMSOs;
Contained in thI"ee pieces of legislation: AB 2185 (1985); amended in AB
2187 (1986); naI"I"owamendments included in AB 3777 (1986 La Follette
Bill) ;
"Business Plans" by I"egulated businesses - similaI" to HMSO I"equiI"ements
but with additional pI"ovisions I"equiI"ing on-site emeI"gency I"esponse
tI"aining and pI"ogI"ams, and I"epoI"ting of annual hazaI"dous waste
thI"oughpu t;
"AI"ea Plans" foI" emeI"gency I"esponse, by local goveI"Tlments;
"AdministeI"ing Agencies" -- County Health Hazmat in Santa Clara County;
- 3 -
.
.
..;.,X;..-:
Public Right to Know;
i.
Development of_inspecti.Qn program;
D~velopment of data management system;
Legislation authorizes program to be funded through permit fees.
B. County Roles/Responsibilities:
Primary responsibility: County Health Hazmat designated Administering
Agency (January 1986);
Business Plans:
· County Health Hazmat, CFPD have expanded their own HMSO programs to
include Business Plan requirements (covering 6 cities plus
unincorporated areas);
. County Health Hazrnat chairs working group of Hazmat Subcommittee: to
ensure that all expanded HMSO/Waters Bill programs comply with Waters
Bill requirements, as defined in State legislation and "regulations
issued by the state Office of Emergency Services (OES); to define the
frequency a?d content of periodic information reports to County; to
develop consistent implementation of Right to Know provisions; and to
review status of inspection programs. Working group formed at
January 6, 1987 meeting of Hazmat Subcommittee, with members from
cities of Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara.
Area Plans:
. County OES has been delegated responsibility for Area Plan
development:
. County OES chairs Area Plan Working Group, formed under
sponsorship of Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Council
., _ _(IGC).
Membership: County OES; five cities; Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition. Santa Clara County ManUfacturing Group;
All cities submitted draft Area Plans to County OES;
County OES submitted draft countywide plan to State OES on
December 29, 1986.
Working Group has continued to 'develop final Area Plan;
County OES will retain lead responsibility for required
triennial reviews of Area Plan, involving cities as needed.
Develonment of Waters Bill Inspection Pro~ram:
. All HMSO programs have inspecti?n programs in place, although
frequency varies, These are be1ng extended to Cover additional
- 4 -
..
~-~....:"
activities required for Waters Bill Business Plans;
. County Health Hazmat, through working group of Hazmat Subcommittee,
will develop countywide goals for frequency of Waters Bill
inspections, priorities, and timelines for completion. If
appropriate, resource augmentation will be recommended.
Development of Waters Bill Data Mana~ement System:
. This function, which is also required of Administering Agencies, is
subsumed under Sec. IX, below.
Public Ri~ht to Know:
. The Waters Bill requires that Business Plan documents be accessible
to the pub~ic during normal business hours. County-led Hazmat
Subcommittee will develop guidelines for public access.
Enforcement and Penalties
. County has developed procedures to assure that fire departments are
notified promptly of all releases or accidents involving hazardous
materials, which are reported to County.
. County will cooperate with cities in appropriate enforcement actions,
and will share any penalties received with cities in an equitable
manner recognizing the involvement of each agency.
C. City RoleS/Responsibilities:
Implement Waters Bill Business Plan requirements in their jurisdictions;
Cities have made one mailing to HMSO permittees in order to assist
County Health Hazmat with implementation of La Follette Bill, Hazardous
,Waste MOU and Tanner Bill (see below for details). County and Cities
.-agree to determine mutually appropriate responses for those facilities
that do not respond to the data requests;
, .
Work with County Health Ha~at on task force of Haznlat Subcon~ittee
working group, and implement neces~ary program modifications;
Continue to cooperate with County OES in preparation and future updates
of Area Plan. .
D. Fundin!;
. ':.:... ....
County agrees to pay each City which performs tasks under the Waters
Bill as agent for the. County, pursuant to subsection "C" above, that
City's costs to perform such tasks.
Within 60 ~a~~after~receiving ~itten notice from a participating City
of that City's rea~onably estimated costs to perform Waters Bill tasks,
including costs of administration, 'County shall adopt by resolution or
ordinance a fee to be paid by businesses. The fee shall be sufficient
- 5 -
.' ,
..;..~~_...:-
to recover both the County's and the respective city's costs of
administering the Waters Bill program.
County by said resolution or ordinance shall delegate to each City the
right to collect such County fees as an agent of the County, and to
withhold from such funds collected sufficient funds to reimburse the
City for its costs pursuant to paragraph 1 'above. 'The balance of funds
shall be fot~rded by each City to the County.
In the event that the County fails to adopt an appropriate fee
resolution or ordinance within 60 days of receipt of City's request and
documentation of estimated costs, all obligations by the requesting
City to perform Waters Bill tasks on behalf of the County, pursuant to
this agreement, shall, at the option of requesting City, terminate.
III.LA FOLLRTTE BILL (AB 3777, 1059)
A. Summary of Pro~ram:
To be implemented by Waters Bill "Administering Agency" __ County
Health Hazmat;
Regulates businesses storing above threshold amounts of "Acutely
Hazardous Materials" (AHMs);
Additional reporting required of businesses, through standard
"Registration Form" promulgated by state OES, then submitted by all
businesses using AHMs;
Very detailed "Risk Management and Prevention Program" (RMPP) is
required of all new or modified facilities, and may be required by
Administering Agency of existing facilities. Administering Agency may
grant exen~tions;
Includes provisions for state reimbursement of local expenditures.
B, County Role/Responsibilities:
County has assumed responsibility for implementing the La Follette Bill;'
As Administering Agency, County Health Hazrnat is developing
implementation work plan. This work plan will include consideration of
en~loyee/consultant/resources needed;
County Health Hazrnat and the Office of the County Executive, in
cooperation with cities, proposed cleanup language to AB 3777, which
was adopted in large part in AB 1059;
County Health Hazmat will prepare a set of initial guidelines for
planning and building departments describing facilities that will be
subject to La Follette Bill requirements, inClUding RMPPs;
County Health Hazmat is developing, in cooperation with cities and
other interested parties, guidelines and criteria for deciding when to
- 6 -
. '.
""'.t;...~
require an RMPP from an existing facility;
County Health Haznlat prepared a foL.m letter and information package to
be transmitted to all HMSO permittees describing new requirements for
businesses handling ARMs, or generating hazardous wastes. These
materials were sent directly to all businesses regulated under County's
HMSO, and to other HMSO programs for mailing to their respective
permittees. Businesses were directed to return the foL.ms to County
Health Hazmat, either providing requisite data or affirming that no
ARMs are stored above threshold quantities nor hazardous wastes
generated;
County Health Hazmat will conduct inspections at least every three
years, as required by La Follette Bill.-- Possible coordination with
cities will he pursued.
County Health Hazmat is reviewing AB 1021 toxic gas report, and Article
80 to the 1988 Uniform Fire Code.
C, City RoleS/Responsibilities:
Cities mailed copies of County Health Hazmat's information package to
their respective permittees;
Cities transmitted to County Health Hazmat a list of all HMSO
permittees, as the basis for assuring that all permittees responded to
the data requests;
Cities will inform their planning and building departments and
applicants of La Follette Bill requirements, and will pursue
cooI"dination with the guidelines to be developed by County Health
Ha~nat regarding new and modified facilities using ARMs;
Cities assisted County in-developing proposed amendments to La Follette
Bill;
Cities will coordinate their work on any toxic gas regulatory pI"ograms
(see Sec. VI below) with La Follette Bill to the extent feasible,
through FiI"e Chiefs Association.
IV. HAZARDOUS WASTE MOU
A. Summary of PI"o~ram:
. .. '.
County Health Hazmat-has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the state Department of Health Services (DOHS) under which the
County will assume responsibility for regulating up to 2,000 geneI"ators
of hazardous wastes wi thin the ~ounty. The program would require: .
permi ts and inspect ions; __.l , .
I ~ :.' Ii'
Implementation will be undertaken during the fiI"st quarter of 1988;
I I 'i
Program wiII be 'fee-funded.
, :
7 -
"
, ",-.;~
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
County Health Hazmat will implement the MOU pLogLam;
County Health Hazmat will pLepaLe a waLk plan, to include peLiodic
repOLts;
The County-developed information package and data Lequest to HMSO
permittees (descLibed above in Sec. III) also addLessed hazaLdous waste
thLoughput - the legal authoLity is pLovided by AB 3777, but the
information is cLitical to MOU and TanneL Bill;
County will meet with peLsonnel fLam municipal waste wateL
plants'IndustLial PLetLeatment PLogLams to exploLe appLopLiate data
inputs fLam these pLogLams to the MOU (and Tanner Bill) pLocesses;
County Health Hazmat will develop the MOU inspection pLogLam in
coordination with existing city HMSO and pLetLeatment pLogLams. This
will include consideLation of potential contLactual agLeements undeL
which city peLsonnel would pLovide inspections wheLe appLopLiate (see
Sec. X).
C. City RoleS/Responsibilities:
City assistance with County-developed mailing to HMSO permittees also
pLovided irnpoLtant backgLound data to the HOU PLOgLam;
Cities will diLect IndustLial PLetLeatment ProgLarn peLsonnel to meet
with County Health Hazmat to discuss appLopLiate data exchanges;
Cities will consider pLovision of inspection seLvices to County, and
the terms undeL which such seLvices might be p~ovided.
v. TANNER BILL (AB 2948. etc,)
A. SumrnaLY of PLO!!;Larn:
Counties will pLepaLe a County HazaLdous Waste Management plan (dLaft
by March, 1988; final plan by OctobeL, 1988). Final plan must be
appLoved by a majOLity of cities with a majoLity of the county
population, and incorpoLated into GeneLal Plans. Plans aLe to consideL
pLesent and pLojected geneLation of hazaLdous wastes, and CLeate
mechanisms fOL siting of hazaLdous waste tLeatment facilities adequate
to tLeat all these wastes;
TanneL Bill pLovides fOL State financial SUPPOLt fOL hazaLdous waste
planning~'Pgocess.
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
County has assumed the lead fOL TanneL Bill implementation. The woLk
plan includes pLovision~ EOL city paLticipation;
County-city coopeLation in development of data LegaLding hazaLdous
- 8 -
'""-t::..--;'"
. '.
waste generation, described under La Follette Bill and MOU sections,
will also assist the Tanner Bill process.
C. Cities Roles/Responsibilities:
Cities participate in the Advisory Committee mandated by Tanner Bill
through 4 city members designated by the City Selection Committee;
Cities-County cooperation in development of hazardous waste data also
assist the Tanner Bill process.
VI. TOXIC GAS REGULATION
A. Summary of Pro~ram:
The California legislative appropriated $100,000 in 1985 (AB 1021) to
the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Association to study problems of
toxic gas storage use, to design a model regulatory program, and to
recon~end appropriate State legislation;
. Fire Chiefs Association sponsored an AB 1021 Task Force to undertake
program;
· Final products were submitted to legislature and California Air
Resources Board by July I, 1987;
Western Fire Chiefs Association modified Article 80 of the 1988 Uniform
Fire Code, to provide additional controls over hazardous materials,
including some toxic gases;
Programs address detection, prevention, and control of toxic gas leaks;
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
County has participated in review of the Task Force report to consider
_'feasibility of local implementation.
C, Cities Role/Responsibilities:
Cities' fire personnel we~e members of the AB 1021 Task Force;
City Managers Association is reviewing the AB 1021 Task Force report,
to consider the feasibility of local implementation of regulatory
controls on toxic gases.
VII PROPOSTTION.65
A. Sun1l1lary of Local Responsibilities:
Requires designated government en~loyees to notify the local County
Health Officer and Board of SupeL"visors of actual or threatened
unlawful discharges of hazardous wastes "likely to cause substantial
injury to the public health or safety";
- 9 -
. ..
,,:..~.:
~ i.
Proposition 65 contains no provisions for funding implementation of
local government responsibilities,
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
Developed procedures for County Health Department and Board of
Supervisors to receive from designated governmental employees reports
of discharges;
Designated County employees required to report discharge;
Developed procedures for notice to news media of reported discharges,
C, Cities ROles/Responsibilities:
Designated city employees are required to report discharges.
VIII,EXPANDED PARTICIPATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND
REGULATION-DEVRLOPMRNT REGARDING TOXICS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A. Summary of Pro~ram:
County, in cooperation with cities, has expanded participation in
toxics/hazrnat legislation and regulation activities at the State and
Federal level. These activities are designed to influence State and
Federal decisions, and to minimize inconvenient surprises to local
governments in Santa Clara County. Early priorities concerned
amendments to La Follette Bill, and involvement in EPA rulemaking
regarding Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
("SARA").
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
As lead agency, County informed County lobbyists to expand their
concern with toxics/hazrnat bills, and improve the County capability to
track legislation;
County provides periodic sunwaries to cities and IGC;
County promptly informs cities of all important developments.
C. Cities Roles/Responsibilities:
Cities have continued existing legislative efforts, contributed
information and expertise as needed, and informed County of any
imp~rtant developments of which cities learn independently. City of
San Jose has joined County in enhancing activities.
IX. CRRATION OF A COUNTYWIDE TOXICS/HAZMAT DATA MANAGRMEUT SYSTEM
A. Summary of Pr'o~ram:
Local, State, and Federal agencies now operate a wide range of programs
designed to protect the air, water, and land from toxic contamination,
- 10 -
I , ,
-~
and to protect public health from toxic risks. These programs create
and/or collect data. many in overlapping and/or inconsistent formats;
To ~ate. coordination and exchange of information among programs has
been limited, but growing;
The Waters Bill requires Administering Agencies to develop plans fOL
data management systems -- in Santa Clara County. such as a system
would involve the eleven HMSO programs in a countywide effort;
The County and cities reviewed the feasibility of an integrated.
computerized data management system to access certain critical elements
of information covering toxic and hazardous materials and wastes. and
de~ermined not to pursue such a project at this time;
A task force of personnel from County and cities and interest gLoup
representatives. is developing the for~mat for a proposed Annual Report
on the Status of Toxics Programs in Santa Clara County. which would be
sponsored by IGC.
B, County Role/Responsibilities:
Office of the County Executive has assembled and chaired a task force,
including personnel from toxics/hazmat progra~ms operating within Santa
ClaLa County;
County will consider support for a countywide Annual Report.
C. Cities Role/Responsibilities~
City personnel have served on the task force.
Cities will consider support for a countywide Annual Report.
X. COORDT!JATION OF INSPRCTIONS
A. Summary of Pro~ram:
By the end of 1987. local government toxics/hazruat programs include:
HMSOs; Waters Bill; LaFollette Bill; Ha~ardous Waste MOU: Industrial
Pretreatment Programs. Each program includes an inspection element;
. ~ ~
County and cities propose to review means to minimize undue duplication
of inspection efforts under these programs,
B. County and Cities Roles/Responsibilities:
: ,
Support creation of countYwide task force to investigate steps to
coordinate and/or consolidate inspection progr~ms. Participate in task
force.
, ,
11 -
-:.....
'..
.'
XI. COUNTYWIDE REVIEW OF FEE STRUCTURES FOR TOXIC/HAZMAT PROGRAMS
~ A. Sunwary of Pro~ram:
The many toxic/hazmat programs presently are funded through a wide
variety of fees and service charges on regulated businesses, and/or by
expenditures of general revenues;
The growing number of fee-based toxic/hazmat programs increases the
risk that fee structures may become confusing, and may create
unnecessary financial pressures;
County and cities propose to review fee structures for toxics/hazmat
programs, from time to time.
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
San Jose and the County co-chaired a task force to review fee
structures, which addressed hazmat fees.
County staff submitted the task force's informational report to IGC.
C, Cities Roles/Responsibilities:
Cities provided appropriate personnel to participate in the task force.
02/01188
jam/CRXl-127
- 12 -
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
COORDINATION OF CITY AND COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACTIVITIES
This is an agreement between the County of Santa Clara,
hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City
of Gilroy , here inaf ter ref er red to .as the "ci ty"
relating to the effective management of hazardous materials.
Recitals
Whereas, th€ effective management of hazardous materials is a
high-priority task both for the County and the City;
Whereas, both the County and the City have agree~'review
their mutual responsibilities in hazardous materials management, and
to reassess the need for program coordination and mutual support;
Whereas, the County and the City wish to reinforce a spirit of
cooperation, coordination, and mutual assistance, with the
recognition that flexibility will be required to adapt these local
programs to changing local conditions and to changing state and
federal laws;
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. The County and the City hereby agree to pursue the tasks
set forth in the document entitled "Countywide Coordination of
Toxics/Hazmat Programs and Activities", hereinafter referred to as
the "Coordination Document", attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
2. Both parties recognize that staff and resource constraints
may affect the ability of either party to meet fully all the
responsibilities as set forth in the Coordination Document, Each
party shall be expected to make a good faith effort in meeting their
responsibilities.
3. The City and the County shall reassess the Coordination
Document periodically. Amendments to the Coordination Document may
be made by mutual consent of the parties, in writing, at any time.
4. In the event this agreement results in any inconsistency
with state or federal law, the state or federal law shall control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
agreement as of H'PhrtlRry 24, 1987
County of Santa Clara
B~~
Ci ty of Gilroy
/~I!.~
Title: Mayor
Dianne McKenna
Title: Chairperson, Board
of Supervisors
Date:
February 24, 1987
Date:
April 3, 1987
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
1,,_~ ',' .>li+-Cl\_JV'\/\rL-r
TCHMER
nty Counsel
KK/jcw
0129L/34
of
-\\
ATTT<:, ~tL'" ~
COUNTYWIDE COORDINATION OF 'TOXICS/HAZMAT
PR(X;RAI1S AND ACTIVITIES
I. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS S'TORAGE ORDINANCES (Hr1S0s)
A. Summary of Programs:
- 11 programs now implemented by 9 cities, Central Fire Protection
District (CFPD), and County Health Department Hazardous Materials
Unit (County Health Hazmat);
- program implementers coordinate, exchange information via Hazardous
Materials SUbcommittee of Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs
Association (Hazmat SUbcommittee);
- HMSOs amended in October, 1986 to comply with AS 2185/2187 (Waters
Bill) ;
- HMSO authorizes fee-based funding.
B, County Role/Responsibilities:
- County Health Hazrnat implements county HMSO in unincorporated
areas, city HMSOs in three cities, and comparable state law in one
city;
- CFPD implements city HMSOs in two cities;
- Both programs participate in Hazmat SUbcommittee.
C. Cities Role/Responsibilities:
- Nine cities implement HMSOs;
- All programs participate in Hazmat SUbcommittee.
II. WATERS BILL (AS 2185, 2187)
A. Summary of Program:
- Modelled in part on HMSOs;
- Contained in three pieces of legislation: AS 2185 (1985); amended
in AS 2187 (1986); narrow amendments included in AS 3777 (1986 La
Follette Bill);
"Business plans" by regulated businesses - similar to HMSO
requirerrents;
"Area Plans" for emergency response, by local governments;
...~ <.~. ~
~ -'.....
"Administering Agencies" -- County Health Hazmat in santa Clara
Coon~;
- Public Right to Know;
_ Development of inspection program;
_ Development of data management system;
_ Legislation authorizes program to be funded throug~permit fees.
B. county Role/Responsibilities:
_ Primary responsibility: county Health Hazmat designated
Administering Agency (January 1986);
- Business plans:
County Health Hazmat, CFPD will expand their own HMSO programs
to include Business Plan requirements (covering 6 cities plus
unincorporated areas);
County Health Hazmat will chair working group of Hazmat
SUbcommittee: to ensure that all expanded HMSo/Waters Bill
programs comply with Waters Bill requirements, as described in
this section; to define the frequency and content of periodic
information reports to County; to develop consistent
implementation of Right to Know provisions; and to review status
of inspection programs. Working group formed at January 6, 1987
meeting of Hazmat SUbcommittee, with members from cities of
Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and santa Clara. Group will
report back to full subcommittee at meeting of February 3, 1987;
county will amend Ht1S0 on February 17,1987, to conform with new
requirement (AB 3777) that business plans include information on
total annual throughput of hazardous waste. (This data is also
needed for MOU and Tanner Bill programs. See below.)
- Area plans:
county Office of Emergency Services (OES) delegated
responsibility for Area Plan development:
- County OES chairs Area plan Working Group, formed under
sponsorship of Santa Clara county Intergovernmental Council
(IGC);
Membership: County OES; five cities; Silicon Valley
Toxics Coalition; Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group;
All cities submitted draft Area plans to County OES by
December 17, 1986;
- 2
County DES submitted draft countywide plan to State OES on
December 29, 1986;
Working Group will continue to develop final area plans by
August 27, 1987;
- County OES will be responsible for required triennial reviews
of Area Plan, involving cities throughout the process as
needed.
Development of Waters Bill Inspection Program:
All HMSO programs have inspection programs in place, although
frequency varies. These will be extended to cover activities
req~ired for Waters Bill Business Plans;
County Health Hazmat, through working group of Hazrnat
SUbcommittee, will develop countywide goals for frequency of
Waters Bill inspections, priorities, and timelines for
completion. If appropriate, resource augmentation will be
recommended.
Development of Ivaters Bill Data Management System:
This function, which is also required of Administering Agencies,
is subsumed under Sec. IX, below.
- Public Right to Know:
The Waters Bill requires that Business Plan documents be
accessible to the public during normal business hours.
County-led Hazmat Subcommittee will develop guidelines for
public access, in tandem with development of Business Plan
requirements.
C. City ROle/Responsibilities:
Implement Waters Bill Business Plan requirements in their
jurisdictions;
- Make one mailing to HMSO permittees by February 17, 1987, in order
to assist county Health Hazmat with implementation of La Follette
Bill, Hazardous Waste MOO and Tanner Bill (see below for details).
County and Cities agree to determine mutually appropriate responses
for those facilities that do not respond to the data requests;
Modify HMSO procedures to include ongoing references to La Follette
Bill and Hazardous Waste MOO programs;
- Work with County Health Hazrnat on task force of Hazmat SUbcommittee
working group, and implement necessary program modifications;
- Continue to cooperate with County DES in preparation of Area Plan,
through IGC-sponsored working group.
- 3
,<,.J,_.
III. LA FOLLETTE BILL (AS 3777)
A. summary of Program:
_ To be implemented by Waters Bill "Administering Agency" -- county
Health Hazmat;
_ Regulates businesses storing above threshold amounts of "Acutely
Hazardous Materials" (ARMs);
.
_ Additional reporting required of businesses, through standard
"Registration Form" to be promulgated by state OES by July 1, 1987,
then submitted by all businesses using ARMs by september 1, 1987;
_ very detailed "Risk Management and Preventlon Program" (RMPP) is
required of all new or modified facilities, and may be required by
Administering Agency of existing facilities. Administering Agency
must approve/disapprove/require modification of RMPP;
Include provisions for state reimbursement of local expenditures.
B. county Role/Responsibilities:
_ county will assume responsibility for implementing the La Follette
Bill;
_ As Administering Agency, County Health Hazrnat will develop
implementation workplan by February 27, 1987, This work plan will
include consideration of employee/consultant/resources needed,
based on information available at that time;
_ county Health Hazrnat and the Office of the County Executive, in
cooperation with cities, will propose cleanup language for the La
Follette Bill by January 30, 1987 (see Sec. VIII, below);
_ County Health Hazmat will prepare by April 2, 1987 a set of initial
guidelines for planning and building departments describing
facilities that will be subject to La Follette Bill requirements,
including R!~Ps;
_ County Health Hazrnat will develop, in cooperation with cities,
guidelines and criteria for deciding when to require an R!~P from
an existing facility by July 31, 1987;
_ County Health Hazrnat will prepare by January 30, 1987 a form letter
and information package to be transmitted to all HMSO permittees
describing new requirements for businesses handling ARMs, or
generating hazardous wastes. These materials will be sent directly
to all businesses regulated under County's Ht1S0, and to other HMSO
- 4
./
programs for mailing to their respective permittees by
February 17, 1987. Businesses will be directed to return the forms
to County Health Hazmat by March 2, 1987, either providing
requisite data or affirming that no ARMs are stored above threshold
quantities nor hazardous wastes generated;
_ County Health Hazmat will conduct inspections at least every three
years, as required by La Follette Bill -- coordinated with cities
(may contract with cities for specific inspections; see Sec, X);
_ county Health Hazmat will review AB 1021 toxic gas report.
C. City Roles/Responsibilities:
_ Cities will mail copies of county Health Hazmat's information
package to all their respective permittees, by February 17, 1987;
_ Cities will transmit to county Health Hazmat a list of all HMSO
permittees, as the basis for assuring that all permittees have
responded to the data requests;
_ Cities will inform their planning and building departments of La
Follette Bill requirements, and will follow the guidelines to be
developed by County Health Hazmat regarding new and modified
facilities using ARMs;
cities will assist County in developing proposed amendments to La
Follette Bill;
_ cities will coordinate their work on AB 1021 (TOxic Gas
Regulations; see Sec. VI) below with La Follette Bill through Fire
Chiefs Association,
IV. HAZAROOUS WASTE MOO
A. summary of Program:
County Health Hazmat is negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the State Department of Health Services (DOHS) under
which the County would assume responsibility for regulating up to
2,000 generators of hazardous wastes within the county. The
program would require permits and inspections;
It is expected that negotiations will be completed during the first
quarter of 1987;
- Program will be fee-funded.
B. county Role/Responsibilities:
- County Health Hazmat will implement the MOO program;
_ county Health Hazmat will prepare a workplan by January 30, 1987,
to include periodic reports;
- 5
./"
_ The county-developed information package and data request to HrffiO
permittees (described above in Sec. III) will also address
hazardous waste throughput - the legal authority is provided by AS
3777, but the information is critical to MOO and Tanner Bill;
_ County Health Hazmat will meet by February 27, 1987 with personnel
from municipal waste water plants' Industrial Pretreatment Programs
to explore appropriate data inputs from these programs to the MOO
(and Tanner Bill) processes;
County Health Hazmat will develop the MOU inspection program in
coordination with existing city HMSO and pretreatment programs.
This will include consideration of contractual agreements under
which city personnel would provide inspections where appropriate
(see Sec. X).
C. City Role/ReSpOnsibilities:
_ City assistance with County-developed mailing to HMSO permittees
will also provide important background data to the MOO program;
_ Cities will direct Industrial Pretreatment Program personnel to
meet with County Health Hazmat to discuss appropriate data
exchanges;
Cities will consider provision of inspection services to County,
and the terms under which such services might be provided,
V. TANNER BILL (AS 2948)
A. Summary of program:
_ Counties will prepare a county Hazardous Waste Management Plan
(draft by December 31, 1987; final plan by March 31, 1988). Final
plan must be approved by a majority of cities with a majority of
the county population. Plans are to consider present and projected
generation of hazardous wastes, and create mechanisms for siting of
hazardous waste treatment facilities adequate to treat all these
wastes;
_ Tanner Bill provides for state financial support for hazardous
waste planning process.
B. county Role/Responsibilities:
_ county will assume the lead for Tanner Bill implementation. A
proposed work plan will be developed by February 17, 1987. This
work plan will include provisions for city participation;
_ county-city cooperation in development of data regarding hazardous
waste generation, described under La Follette Bill and MOO
sections, will also assist the Tanner Bill process.
- 6
...,../
C. Cities Role/Responsibilities:
_ cities will participate in the Advisory Canmittee mandated by
Tanner Bill (3 city members to be designated by the City Selection
committee) ;
_ Cities-County cooperation in development of hazardous waste data
will also assist the Tanner Bill process.
VI. 'TOXIC GAS REGULATION (AS 1021)
A. summary of Program:
The California legislative appropriated $100,000 in 1985 (AB 1021)
to the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Association to study problems
of toxic gas storage use, to design a model regulatory program, and
to recommend appropriate state legislation;
Fire Chiefs Association sponsors Task Force to undertake program;
Final product to be submitted to legislature and california Air
Resources Board by July 1, 1987;
- program will address detection, prevention, and control of toxic
gas leaks;
B, County Role/Responsibilities:
County will participate in review of the Task Force report to
consider feasibility of local implementation.
C. Cities Role/Responsibilities:
- Cities' fire personnel are members of the Task Force;
- City Managers Association will review Task Force report, to
consider the feasibility of local implementation of regulatory
controls on toxic gases, should the proposal be adopted as state
law.
VII. PROPOSITION 65
A. summary of Program:
- Requires state to publish annually, beginning March 1, 1987 a list
of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity; and
annually beginning January 1, 1989 a list of chemicals required to
have been tested for potential to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity;
- prohibits discharge into water or source of drinking water of any
chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, beginning
20 months after appearance of State list;
- 7
VII I .
Requires warning labels on goods containing chemicals that cause
cancer or reproductive toxicity;
- Provides for the state to create exposure standards to allow
exposures that create "no significant risk;"
- Requires designated government employees to notify the local county
Health Officer and Board of Supervisors of actual or threatened
unlawful discharges of hazardous wastes "likely to cause
substantial injury to the public health or safety;".
- Proposition 65 contains no provisions for funding implementation of
local government responsibilities.
B. County Role/Responsibilities:
- Participate in IGC-sponsored review of implications of proposition
65.
C, Cities Role/Responsibilities:
- City of San Jose is proposing an IGC-sponsored review of
implications of Proposition 65;
Other cities will participate in IGC review.
EXP.~ED PARTICIPATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND
REGULATION-DEVELOPI.1ENT REGARDING TOXICS AND HAZAROOUS l1ATERIALS
A. Summary of Program:
- County, in cooperation with cities, will expand participation in
toxics/hazmat legislation and regulation activities at the state
and federal level, These activities are designed to influence
state and federal decisions, and to minimize inconvenient surprises
to local governments in Santa Clara County. Early priorities
concern amendments to La Follette Bill, state followup to AB 1021
projects, and involvement in EPA rulemaking regarding federal
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA").
B. county Role/Responsibilities:
- As lead agency, County will determine the level of county resources
to be committed to this effort, by February 26, 1987, County has
already informed County lobbyists to expand their concern with
toxics/hazmat bills, and improve the County capability to track
legislation;
County will provide periodic summaries to cities and IGC;
- County will promptly inform cities of all important developments,
- 8
. .
X. COORDINATION OF INSPECTIONS
A. SUmmary of Program:
By the end of 1987, local government personnel will be implementing
a host of toxicsjhazmat programs, including: HMSOs; Waters Bill; La
Follette Bill; Hazardous Waste MOU; Industrial Pretreatment
Programs, Each program includes an inspection element;
_ County and cities propose to review means to minimize undue
duplication of inspection efforts under these programs,
B. County and Cities Role/Responsibilities:
SUpport creation of countywide task force to investigate steps to
coordinate and/or consolidate inspection programs, participate in
task force.
XI. COUNTYWIDE REVIEW OF FEE STRUCTURES FOR TOXIC/HAZMAT PRcx;RAHS
A. summary of Prooram:
The many toxicjhazmat programs presently are funqed through a wide
variety of fees and service charges on regulated businesses, and/or
by expenditures of general revenues;
The growing number of fee-based toxicjhazmat programs increases the
risk that fee structures may become confusing, and may create
unnecessary financial pressures;
_ County and cities propose to review fee structures for
toxicsjhazmat programs.
B. county Role/Responsibilities:
_ County and San Jose will propose that the IGC assume sponsorship of
a task force to review fee structures, at the January 28, 1987
meeting of the IGC Environmental Safety committee, and the February
5, 1987 meeting of the full IGC. This review will address the
cumulative impacts of multiple hazmat fees, and ways in which fees
structures and billing arrangements can be developed to minimize
undue burdens and/or confusion.
_ County staff will submit the task force's report to County policy
makers, with appropriate recommendations.
C. cities Role/Responsibilities:
cities will provide appropriate personnel to participate in the
task force;
- cities' staff will submit the task force's report to cities' policy
makers, with appropriate recommendations,
kw
/0285 IWP #16
- 10 -
/-} :( ;..)
, .
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
AND THE CITY OF ___~!.:.::~______________
CONCERNING SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
This Memorandum of Understanding is made and entered into this
17th day of August I 1992, by and between the County of Santa
Clara ("County"), a political subdivision of the State of California, and the
City of Gilroy ("City"), a municipal corporation of
the State of California.
1. PURPOSE
The County of Santa Clara ("County"), together with the cities within the
County are contributing financial resources to commence work on a three
year work plan ("Program") for hazardous materials management as
developed by the Tanner Advisory Committee, supported by the City
Manager's Association and the Santa Clara County Cities Association, and
approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors ("Board"). This
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") will establish the rights and
responsibilities of the County and City of Gilroy
("City") with respect to implementation of the work plan and specifies each
participants financial commitment.
This MOU will also create the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials
Advisory CommitteE'" herein after, "Committee", The Committee'shall be
advisory to the County and City in developing annual program priorities and
ov~rseeing program implementation. The Committee and the Program (see
Attachment A) will become operative when there is financial participation at
the levels shown in Attachment B by the County of Santa Clara, the Santa
Clara Valley \Vater District and a majority of the cities representing a majority
of the popu~ation in the county.
2. TERM OF MOU
This MOU shall be effective for a three (3) year term beginning July I, 1992.
The MOU may be extended for successive periods upon written agreement
between County and City.
3, ROLE ,OF COUNTY
The County shall be responsible for implementing the three year work plan
which addresses hazardous materials issues in Santa Clara County. The
County shall provide staffing and related support necessary to implement the
Program,
4. REPRESENTATION ON ADVISORY COMMITIEE
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors shall appoint two of its
members of the Board to serve on the Committee.
The Santa Clara County Cities Association shall appoint three elected city
representatives and alternates to serve on the Committee. One
representative shall represent the North County Cities of Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. Oile representative shall
represent the Central County Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos,
Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Santa Clara, and Saratoga. One representative shall
represent the South County Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The City of
San Jose shall appoint one elected representative and an alternate from their
Council to serve on the Committee. The appointees will represent the cities
from the area they represent on all matters that come before the Committee
and shall report back to the cities on issues discussed by the Committee.
The SCVWD Board of Directors shall appoint one elected member and an
alternate to serve as their representative on the Committee.
The following groups shall each appoint a representative and alternate to
serve as their representative on the Committee: Santa Clara County
Manufacturing Group; Semiconductor Industry Association; a
representative for Small Quantity Generators of hazardous waste (i.e. a firm
who generates more than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste a month); Santa Clara County Fire Chief's Association;
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition; and the League of Women Voters.
Each member of the Committee shall have one vote.
5. COMMIITEE OFFICERS
The Board of Supervisors shall select one of its appointees to serve as the
Committee Chairperson. The Vice-Chairperson shall be selected from one of
the four city representatives serving on the Committee.
2
6, PRO~RAM PRIORITIES
The Committee will annually establish priorities for the individual work
items identified in the Program. Program priorities and specific work
elements shall be established by the Committee and approved by the Cities
and the County prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which funding is
to be provided. The elements of work to be accomplished in fiscal year 1992-
1993 are included in Attachment A ''Work Plan and Budget: Santa Clara
County Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee".
7, CHANGES IN PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
All changes in Program priorities shall first be approved by the Committee
and are subject to funding support by participating jurisdictions and the
private sector. In order for a change to be recommended by the Committee,
the change must be approved by the affirmative vote of not less than one-half
of the members present at a meeting at which there is a quorum. All
proposed changes must be in writing and included in the regular Committee
agenda packet.
Staff will provide the Committee with an annual evaluation and review of
work performed. Continuation of the Committee and its work shall be
contingent upon financial support from the County and a majority of cities
representing a majority of the population within the county. During the
third year, a comprehensive review of the work plan achievements, future
, activities, evaluation of whether to the Committee should continue to exist,
and identification of on-going responsibilities will be conducted.
8. BYLAWS
The Committee shall develop and propose By-Laws. The By-Laws must be
approved by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing
a majority of the population within the county.
9, STAFFING
The County shall provide staff, subject to funding availability, to work on the
Program, Staff hired to work on the Program shall allocate their time on
Program priorities as established by the Committee. Staff will provide the
Committee with verbal monthly Program status reports and a written report
on Program progress and expenditures during the second and fourth quarter
of the Program.
3
10. FUNDING
Annual funding levels during the next three years (commencing with FY 92-
93) for this Program are shown in Attachment B. City agrees to pay County
$ 2,400.00 as its annual funding commitment in support of the
Program. Attachment C shows all city contributions.
11. TERMINATION
This MOD shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following:
1) Withdrawal of the City from the MOD upon giving 90 days written
notice to the County.
2) Withdrawal by the County from the MOD upon giving 90 days written
notice to City.
In the event of termination, the City shall receive a prorata refund on that
portion of the unexpended funds City provided to the Program.
12, AMENDMENTS
Amendments to the terms or conditions of this MOD shall be requested in
writing by the party desiring such amendments, and any such amendment
shall be effective only upon the mutual agreement in writing by the County
and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population within
the county.
13, INTEGRATED DOCUMENT
This MOD contains the entire agreement between County and City with
respect to the subject matter hereof. No written or oral agreement with any
officer, agent, or employee of County or City prior to execution of this
agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in
this MOD.
14. MISCELLANEOUS
A. The c~ptions of this MOD are for convenience of reference only,
and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain,
modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning
of the provisions of this MOD,
B. All attachments attached hereto and referred to in this MOD are
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth fully herein.
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have authorized this agreement to be
executed,.
"CITY"
"COUNTY"
Gilroy
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political
subdivision of the State of California
,/~.....< ~
Cha;~~S~~~>~;;~1'2~
Board of SupenUsors
\"
Phyllis A, Pere~ TTEST:
/'Is~3i:;:ant Clerk
of U;;? 30ard of
SUf.ic!visors
DqNALD . RAINS,
Clerk, B rd of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
~cti:[~ ~ IU+Cli\/VlM,!\
Deputy Cou ty Counsel
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deputy City Attorney
5
ATTACHMENT A
WORK PLAN AND BUDGET
April 22, 1992
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mission Statement: The purpose of the Santa Clara County
Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee is to assist local agencies
and industry in effective hazardous materials management,
reduction and pollution prevention.
The objectives of the Committee are:
1. To reduce hazardous materials use and waste generation, thereby
reducing risks to people and the environment.
2. To promote cost-effective hazardous materials management.
3. To maintain the economic viability of the regulated community
while meeting hazardous materials management goals,
4. To address priority issues by providing practical solutions to
industry and government hazardous materials managers.
5. To monitor and evaluate issues when requested to do so by
government agencies
6. To facilitate the coordination or integration of programs when
appropriate, and when agreed to by the responsible jurisdictions.
The priorities for the Committee from 1992 through 1994 will be:
· Hazardous Waste Reduction
· Gener-ators of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste
· Streamlining Permitting, Inspection, and Enforcement
1
WORKPLAN REVIEW
1. Provide annual evaluation and review to the Committee.
2. All revisions to the Workplan require approval by the Committee
and are subject to funding support by participating jurisdictions
and industry.
3. During the third year, a comprehensive review of Committee
Workplan achievements, future activities, and assignment of on-
going responsibilities will be conducted.
2
COMMITTEE INITIATIVES
Hazardous Waste Reduction
Background
Reducing the volumes of hazardous waste generated locally reduces
the need for local hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facilities. Reducing waste also reduces risks to people and to the
environment. Some efforts to reduce waste generated are
mistakenly identified as reduction in pollution generation. These
efforts may result in a transfer of pollutant discharge from one
environmental media to another.
Several programs to address hazardous waste currently exist:
1. Major generator.s must plan for source reduction to comply with
state law (SB 14).
2. Local and state agencies collect data on releases of toxics to the
various environmental media, and on local waste stream volumes.
3. Cal EPA (Alternative Technology Division) has developed waste
minimization studies for various industries.
4. Cal EPA has training programs available to local government and
industry. Most training is oriented toward compliance with
regulatory requirements rather than pollution prevention.
5. The County conducts some training for local industry in
cooperation with community colleges, and the County and cities
conduct training as part of their compliance efforts.
6. Local agency staff obtain information on available techniques on
an ad hoc basis through the Bay Area Hazardous Waste Reduction
Committee (BAHWRC).
3
Current -Issues
Information which could be useful in reducing the volume of
hazardous waste generated locally is available. However, there is no
systematic mechanism to provide information on waste reduction,
such as the results of the Cal EPA-funded waste minimization
studies, to local waste generators.
Proposed Committee Activity
1. Working with local agencies and industry, compile available
waste stream data to identify reduction assistance priorities.
2. Provide technical assistance on source and waste reduction to
companies and agencies contributing to the priority waste
streams, including the use of information from SB 14 plans.
Technical assistance should be offered through existing education
efforts when feasible. Technical assistance will be based on
local industry experience and existing Cal EPA-funded waste
minimization studies.
3. Identify and publicize successful source and waste reduction
efforts by local agencies and industry.
4. Provide guidance for regional hazardous waste activities as
appropriate.
5. Evaluate effectiveness of Committee reduction assistance
activity and, to the extent possible, quantify waste stream
reductions. Examine opportunities to assign issues needing on-
'going or further consideration for implementation by various
jurisdictions.
Proposed Budget: $40,000
4
Generators of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste
Background
Numerous regulatory programs affect the hazardous materials
management of businesses which generate small quantities of
hazardous waste. These include permitting, inspection, and
enforcement for hazardous materials storage, use, and disposal.
Regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over these generators include
local fire departments, city sewage treatment plants, the County
Health Department, and regional agencies such as the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
These agencies focus on ensuring compliance with regulatory
requirements. In some cases, such as the local sewage treatment
plants and non-point source efforts, programs include hazardous
waste reduction components. There is some education regarding
source reduction and waste minimization, such as County programs
for particular industries.
Current Issues
Generators of small quantities of hazardous waste have identified
several issues of concern, including:
1. Waste disposal costs are high.
2. Disposal of very small quantities IS difficult.
3. Multiple levels of regulation and enforcement exist.
4. New sewage treatment plant requirements and non-point source
. programs have increased interest in technical assistance for
waste reduction.
5. Generators are interested in management assistance independent
of regulatory compliance activities. For example, Cal OSHA
conducts audits to assist companies in complying with regulatory
requirements.
5
Proposed Committee Activity
1. Provide technical assistance through industry-specific
workshops on source and waste reduction. As appropriate,
coordinate efforts with local trade associations, city and county
programs, sewage treatment plants, Santa Clara Valley Non-point
source program, educational institutions and other agencies.
2. Provide technical assistance on source and waste reduction by
leveraging existing resources:
a. Provide links between Cal EPA-funded waste minimization
programs and local generators of small quantities.
b. Provide links between local large quantity generators and local
generators of small quantities.
3. Determine options for more cost-effective small generator
hazardous waste disposal.
4. Work with other agencies and organizations to streamline
regulatory processes for generators of small quantities of
hazardous waste,
5. Evaluate effectiveness of these initiatives. Quantify results as
much as possible. Examine opportunities to assign issues needing
on-going or further consideration for implementation by various
jurisdictions.
Proposed BudQet: $1 05,000
6
Streamlining Permitting, Inspection, and Enforcement
Processes
BackQround
Government and industry incur substantial costs to comply with the
myriad regulatory requirements. For example, fire departments,
POTWs, County Health, and Cal OSHA may all need to inspect the
same manufacturing facility each year. Manufacturers must submit
separate reports for each of these jurisdictions regularly, even
though much of the information needed by each agency is the same.
Government agencies have made several attempts to address
concerns with the extensive costs incurred by government and
industry, These include:
1. The Gilroy Fire Department has combined pre-treatment and
hazardous materials inspections for underground storage tanks,
hazardous materials storage, toxic gases, and pre-treatment
requirements. They have two permit systems and one inspection.
The County still addresses hazardous waste,
2. The County and San Jose have developed a single form for
Environmental Health and Fire Department hazardous materials
purposes, They are working on incorporating information from
other agencies.
3. The Blackstone Project in Massachusetts has developed a program
for multi-media inspections, enforcement rooted in waste
prevention, and expanded technical assistance.
4. There is a four-County multi-agency, multi-media pilot program
underway in Southern California. This program focusses on
,inspections. We expect a progress report soon.
5. A local Fire Chiefs group attempts to promote the integration of
local. agencies' activities.
7
Proposed Committee Activity
1, Review programs noted above and identify possible local
applications,
2. To the extent possible, encourage the development of
standardized permits and inspection forms for use by local and
regional agencies,
3. Coordinate local streamlining efforts with SaG and data
management efforts. Monitor Cal EPA permit streamlining
effo rts.
4. Develop appropriate recommendations to Cal EPA, the U.S, EPA,
and legislative bodies for consideration by participating agencies
and industry.
5. Determine effectiveness of streamlining programs to the extent
possible. Criteria should include reduced costs for government
and industry, reduced delays for permitting, etc. Examine
opportunities to assign issues needing on-going or further
consideration for implementation by various jurisdictions.
Proposed Budget: $71,000
8
COMMITTEE MONITORING AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
1 . Tanner Committee Work.
A. Obtain state approval of the County-wide Tanner Plan.
B. Submit revised Plan in 1992, including use of 1990 data in place
of 1987 data.
C. Verify city actions to implement Tanner Plan:
1. Track city adoption of siting process in General Plans or
ordinances.
2. Assist cities in developing their facility siting. For example,
develop check list of elements, timeframes, etc. for EIR, Risk
Assessment, and LAC process. -
D. Produce an initial and regular status reports on progress in
meeting goals of the Tanner Plan,
E Monitor progress in meeting regional Fair Share capacity
allocation among participating ABAG jurisdictions,
Proposed Budget: $45,000
2. Household Hazardous Waste
A. Monitor progress of household hazardous waste program.
B. Initiate County-wide public education component in coordination
with other local efforts. All public education activities will
build on and not duplicate any local efforts.
C. Evaluate siting of permanent drop-off locations and investigate
alternative service delivery options.
D. Identify .measures of program effectiveness, and evaluate
program based on those measures,
Proposed Budget: $20,000
9
3. Oversee SCVWD Well-Head Protection Program
A. Serve as the Oversight Committee for the Santa Clara Valley Well-
Head Protection Program (see attached Workplan). Review and
comment on proposed Well-Head protection issues, Recommend
appropriate hazardous materials management practices to protect
sensitive regions of the groundwater basin,
Proposed Budget: $6,000
4. Data Management
A. The Committee work will result in the creation of a database
comprised of information from existing sources. The database
can be used to develop a variety af reports and to analyze a
number of issues. This Committee may be able to provide
assistance. Potential products include the development of a
multi-media environmental index, linking the information with
the Wellhead Protection database, providing public access to the
multiple data sources which can provide a composite picture of
each firm's progress in waste reduction, developing potential
routes for route service haulers servicing SQG's, and identifying
potential cross-media transfers that may be occurring.
Proposed Budget: $35,000
5. Monitor hazardous materials legislation and regulations
A. Monitor proposed regional, state and federal legislation and
regulations (e.g. track BAAQMD regulations regarding CFC's).
Facilitate sharing of analysis conducted by agencies, industry and
,other interested parties.
B. Identify issues requiring legislation and regulation
C. Provide "a forum for discussion, consensus building, and referral
for action to individual jurisdictions.
Proposed Budget: $6,000
10
6. Provide additional monitoring and referral services as
necessary
A. Serve as a forum for local issues related to hazardous materials
management; refer to appropriate institutions when possible.
B. Inform interested parties about activities related to Committee
activities,
Proposed BudQet: $22,000
7. Institutional structure for long-term toxics policy and
planning within Santa Clara County
A. Evaluate effectiveness of Committee work in dealing with issues
related to hazardous materials. Examine existing lines of
communication and referral network for hazardous materials
management. Develop recommendations for institutional
structure for long-term toxics policy and planning.
B. See "Work Plan Review", item 3.
Proposed Budget: $1 0,000
WORKPLAN NEW FINAL 4/22/92:ik
1 1
ATTACHMENT B
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PROPOSED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION
COUNTY
$180,000
PRIVATE SECTOR*
90,000
CITIES
45,000
S.C.V. WATER DISTRICT
45,000
$360,000
*Private Sector contribution to be in-kind
goods and services
ATTACHMENT C
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ANNUAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION BY CITY*
CITY BASE SHARE HAZ. WASTE SHARE TOTAL
CAMPBELL 1,500 65 1,565
CUPERTINO 1,500 450 1,950
GILROY 1,500 900, 2,400
LOS ALTOS 1,500 0 1,500
LOS ALTOS HILLS 1,500 0 1,500
LOS GATOS 1,500 90 1,590
MILPIT AS 1,500 1,060 2,560
MONTE SERENO 1,500 0 1,500
MORGAN HILL 1,500 25 1,525
MOUNTAIN VIEW 1,500 855 2,355
PALO ALTO 1,500 925 2,425
SAN JOSE 1,500 11 ,540 13,040
SANTA CLARA 1,500 3,870 5,370
SARATOGA 1,500 0 1,500
SUNNYV ALE 1,500 2,720 4,220
TOTAL $22,500 $22,500 $45,000
*The formula used to allocate city contributions is the same as that used to fund the
current Tanner Program, The "base share" is divided equally among the 15 cities and
the "hazardous waste share" is based on the amount of hazardous waste shipped off site
from each city. The data source is the 1989 Manifest information from the State
Department of Toxics Substances Control.
5/6/92:ik