HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 Hazardous Waste Mgmt Plan CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
and Proposed ABAG Bay Area Capacity Allocation
Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 . Letter Dated 1/14/92 from Waste Management
Authority Requesting Adoption of the Plan.
(Note: Full Copy of Plan was Distributed Earlier)
2. Siting Criteria (Chapter 9)
3. Implementation Program (Chapter 10)
4. Waste Management Authority Summary Titled
"Adoption of Bay Area Capacity Allocation Formula"
5. Proposed Resolution Approving Plan
RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Receive Presentation, Review Plan and Ask
\ Questions of Consultant.
2. Adopt the Resolution Approving the Plan.
3. Direct Staff to Notify the Waste Management
Authority of the City of Dublin's Support for
Alameda County to Approve the Bay Area Capacity
Allocation Formula.
4. Direct Staff to Notify the Authority of the
Following:
a) Preference for the Authority to take the
lead in coordinating a model ordinance for
consideration by the member agencies, which
would implement a State approved plan.
b) Inform the Authority that the approach to
Hazardous Waste regulation needs to strongly
consider the impact of regulation and avoid
duplication with agencies already mandated
to provide similar services.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The Plan identifies potential funding sources including local
agency assessments as well as regulatory fees. The Plan calls
for Waste Management Authority Staff to develop a funding plan
for review by the proposed Hazardous Waste Minimization
Committee.
DESCRIPTION: State Law establishes a procedure for counties to develop a
Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) . Alameda County submitted a Plan for State
approval in 1989. The State Department of Health Services did not approve the Plans
submitted by 45 Counties. The Alameda County Plan was among those which were
rejected. In 1990, State legislation was enacted which identified a process for
counties to bring their plans into compliance.
Alameda County Plan Development
Pursuant to the amended State law, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
created a Hazardous Waste Committee. This Committee worked with the Consultant,
Authority Staff, and the member agencies to make revisions to the 1989 Plan.
Councilmember Moffatt has served on the Hazardous Waste Committee.
Approval Process
State law requires approval by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the
population in order for the Plan to be submitted to the State. As noted in Exhibit 1,
this approval must occur by April 10, 1992. Once the Plan is submitted to the State
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) there can be a review period of up to six
months. The Waste Management Authority's Staff and Consultants have kept the State
Staff informed of the proposed content of the Plan and they are hopeful that it will
be approved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Rory Ressler, ACWMA
ITEM NO. ♦ CITY CLERK-ow
FILE 8
City Action Required Following State Approval
Once the State has approved the Plan, the City will have six months to take a local
action which will move towards implementation of the Plan. Three options are
available to the City, and State Law requires that one of the options be undertaken:
1 . The City could develop and adopt its own plan which must be consistent with the
approved County Plan. This effort would appear redundant and would not be the
preferred option.
2. The City could incorporate applicable portions of the County Plan by reference
into the City's General Plan.
3. The City could enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning,
subdivision, conditional use permit, and variance decisions are consistent with
the portions of the County plan which identify general areas or siting criteria
for hazardous waste facilities.
The Waste Management Authority has prepared general documents related to actions which
may be required at the local level. Given that the need for action will be faced by
all agencies in the County, it would seem appropriate for the Waste Management
Authority Staff to develop model language for agencies to utilize in the pursuit of
either Option #2 or Option #3. The intent of .model documents would be a flexible
document which could be modified by the local agency to meet local needs.
Ma-ior Policies Addressed in Alameda County Plan
The following are the major policies addressed in Chapter 2 of the Plan:
1 . Aggressive pursuit of the phasing out of the land disposal of hazardous waste
generated by industry in the County.
2. Pursuit of a policy which will limit the generation of hazardous wastes and
establishes the following hierarchy in order -of preference:
a. Source reduction.
b. Reuse and recycling on site.
C. Reuse and recycling offsite.
d. Treatment onsite.
e. Treatment offsite.
f. Incineration except as otherwise prohibited.
g. Secure disposal of residuals from recycling, treatment and incineration.
3. Hazardous materials use reduction should represent a top priority in Alameda
County and pursuit of the hierarchy noted in #2 above.
4. Source reduction and waste minimization are a priority.
5. Encouragement will be given to onsite treatment in preference of offsite
treatment.
6. Offsite hazardous waste management recycling and treatment activities should be
centralized in a relatively small number of facilities.
7. Development of transfer stations at appropriate (dispersed) locations in the
County should be encouraged.
8. Attention should be directed to small businesses that generate small quantities
of hazardous waste.
9. A program for household hazardous wastes should be developed.
10. Public participation in hazardous waste planning and facility siting should be
encouraged.
-2-
11 . An on-going public education program on hazardous materials and wastes should be
instituted in the County.
12 Alameda County's responsibility to help meet regional and statewide needs must
be addressed.
13. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority may consider developing hazardous
waste facilities.
14. The agencies in the County shall work together to address planning and siting of
facilities in accordance with adopted agreements.
Siting of New Facilities
One of the concerns with the previous plan adopted in 1989 was the manner in which
siting of facilities was addressed. The Proposed Plan provides that the authority for
siting facilities will rest with the local jurisdiction. The Proposed Plan contains
maps which on a very large scale identify environmental constraints which would not be
suitable for a facility, or would require mitigation measures. The maps show in
general areas where a facility might be located.
An important caveat contained in the Countywide Plan is language allowing the local
jurisdiction to consider specific criteria in relation to any proposal. The specific
language contained on each map is as follows:
"The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed
facility meeting the general criteria will be required to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act; any applicable requirements of federal,
regional, and local agencies; and the permitting processes and policies of the
local jurisdictions. Larger scale maps and field investigations should be used
to evaluate specific sites prior to permitting. In addition, local
jurisdictions should be contacted to obtain information on local siting criteria
and permitting processes. Local criteria may be more stringent than those
included in this plan."
The County Plan evaluates potential areas for excluding facilities or requiring
mitigating conditions..... ..The complete listing of the proposed siting criteria is
identified .in Exhibit 2, which is an excerpt from the Proposed Plan. As previously
noted, the eventual ordinance adopted by the City will play a large role in addressing
the future siting of a facility.
Waste Minimization Effort
As discussed under the section on policies, a major effort is being placed on
minimizing the waste generated in order to avoid future disposal needs. Current State
laws require businesses which routinely generate more than 26,640 pounds of hazardous
waste per year or 26.4 pounds of extremely hazardous waste to conduct a source
reduction evaluation. They must prepare a plan and report summaries which can be
requested by the California EPA Department.
The Alameda County Plan considers the fact that most businesses generating hazardous
waste do not meet the reporting threshold. This is the largest number of hazardous
waste generating businesses in the County. The Proposed Plan requires local
jurisdictions to apply the more stringent State requirements to all generators of
hazardous waste. The proposed plan would propose to require businesses to comply with
this requirement after they have received technical assistance.
In Chapter 10 of the Proposed Plan (Exhibit 3), it is suggested that the local
jurisdiction will ensure that generators within its borders are subjected to the
expanded reporting requirements. This section also identifies various methods for
achieving this. These range from inclusion in the current County Health Department
permit process to a local agency generating its own permitting and review. The exact
method has not been selected, and Waste Management Authority Staff have indicated that
the intent is to provide flexibility. The Plan also calls for the formation of a
Waste Minimization Committee.
The current status of Hazardous Materials Enforcement in the City of Dublin is that
the County Environmental Health Department conducts permitting. Staff is concerned
with the potential for local agencies to be required to carry out additional programs
-3-
without resources. In addition, there is a concern with the economic impact of
regulation and the potential for another bureaucracy. The Proposed Plan identifies
the general approach to addressing this issue. Staff would recommend that the City
Council- advise the Waste Management Authority of- the strong need to consider these
factors as the implementation is undertaken.
Bay Area Capacity Allocation Formula
The Association of' Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has been working with jurisdictions in
the Bay Area to develop a method for providing hazardous waste disposal capacity
throughout the region (Exhibit 4) . The proposed method would allocate responsibility
between different counties based on the contribution to the current deficit in
capacity. This process has also taken into consideration projections of waste in the
future as well as future disposal facilities which are planned. For example, San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties project that they will have capacity in excess of
what will be required to treat waste generated in those counties; therefore, they
would not have a requirement to identify new facilities. The current proposal
suggests that Alameda County would be required to provide for additional recycling
capacity.
The final interjurisdictional agreement will be between member Counties of the San
Francisco Regional Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee. The
Alameda County Waste Management Authority is requesting that the member cities
identify their support for Alameda County to enter into this regional agreement.
Conclusion
Waste Management Authority Staff and the Consultant will be in attendance and will
provide a brief presentation. Staff recommends that the City Council:
1 . Receive the presentation, review the Plan and ask questions of the Consultant.
2. Adopt the Resolution approving the Plan. (Exhibit 5)
3. Direct Staff to notify the Authority of the City of Dublin's support for Alameda
County to approve the Bay Area Capacity Allocation Formula.
4. Direct Staff to notify the Authority of the following:
a) Preference for the Authority to take the lead in coordinating a model
ordinance for consideration by the member agencies, which would implement
a State approved Plan.
b) The approach to Hazardous Waste regulation strongly consider the impact of
regulation and avoid duplication with, agencies already mandated to provide
similar services.
PSR/lss a:323HWMP.doc.agenda#10
-4-
JAN 1"," 19J2
ALAMEDA COUNTY
/77.4' r',
WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY "
Thomas M. Marlinsen
Executive Director
January 14, 1992
Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Adoption of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
and the Bay Area Capacity Allocation Formula
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
In the preceding year, a revised Alameda County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan was developed through a lengthy and comprehensive
study process, which included a series of four public hearings
before the Authority during the last months of 1991. This process
culminated on December 18, 1991 with adoption by the Waste
Management Authority of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste
! Management Plan. A copy of Authority Resolution #181 in this
regard is enclosed for your reference.
The Plan approval process includes a 90 day period ending April 10,
1992, during which cities will review the document and either
approve or disapprove it.- To be adopted, the Plan must be approved'
by the County Board .of Supervisors and a double majority of the
cities. Enclosed for your review with the Plan are additional
information sheets and a document entitled, "Hazardous Waste
Management Planning: Guidance for Local Jurisdictions" which has
been prepared by the Authority to assist cities in consideration
and implementation of the Plan.
Additionally submitted for approval by your City Council is the Bay
Area Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Formula. The
enclosed resolution was drafted by the Bay Area (ABAG) Capacity
Allocation Committee, and is being distributed by the Authority for
adoption by Alameda County jurisdictions. Information pertaining
to the capacity allocation process, in which Alameda County and
specifically the Waste Management Authority have actively
participated, is.__also enclosed for presentation to City Council..
if you would like any adaitional information or nave any comments,
please feel free to contact Ms. Rory Kessler-Bakke, Senior Planner
for the Authority at 639-2481. Authority staff and consultants are
available to appear before your City Council on either the
Hazardous Waste Management Plan or the Capacity Allocation Process.
Please advise as soon as possible if you would like any assistance
in presenting these matters to City Council and when they may be
scheduled for consideration.
Sincerely,
n
"IBIT
iii
Thomas M. Martinsen
Executive Director
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN -
. . ., -A-LAM-EDA . . 'OUNTY.. .
an
I `l
\
• wnn InWl \'.
Alameda County Waste Management Authority
FINAL PLAN
December 1991
1
4
r
ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY tF
Alameda County Mary King
- City of Alameda � Bill-Withrow
City of Albany Thelma Rubin
City of Berkeley Nancy Skinner; President
City of Dublin Peter Snyder, 2nd Vice President
City of Emeryville Walter Fertig 4.
City of Fremont Kurt Roessler
City of Hayward Michael Sweeney, 1st Vice President-
City of Livermore Ayn Wieskamp
City of Newark Louis M. Cortez
City of Oakland Wilson Riles, Jr.
r
City of Piedmont Katy Foulkes
City of Pleasanton Kenneth Mercer- -
City of San_Leandro John E. Faria
City of,Union-City Manuel Fernandez
Castro Valley, Sanitary District James Martin
Oro Loma Sanitary District Howard W. Kerr
HAZARDOUS'WASTE COMMITTEE
Michael Sweeney, Chair Paul Moffatt
Lil Arnerich Karin Mohr
Ellen Corbett - Thelma Rubin
Mary King Art Vargas
WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY STAFF
Thomas Martinson Executive Director ,
Dick Edminster Planning Manager
Rory Kessler-Bakke Senior Planner',,
Gwen Alie Associate Planner
Ana Cortez Assistant Planner
Clem Shute A_ uthority Counsel 1
' l
SF031609\AA\027.51
NOTE TO READERS
The original Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, dated March 1989,was
approved by local jurisdictions and submitted to the California Department of Health
Services (DHS) in 1989. .The DHS did not approve Alameda County's 1989 Plan, or the
Plans of 44 other California counties, primarily for the following reasons:
• The inclusion of the Fair Share principal, as defined by the County
Supervisors Association of California, which emphasizes local, as opposed to
regional, needs for hazardous waste facilities
• The inclusion of a local permitting rp ocess in the Plan, which gave DHS
some authority over the process
• The Plan's use of facility siting criteria different from those in the DHS
Guidelines, without sufficient justification from local adopted plans and
policies
• The Plan's lack of maps and designated general areas in which the siting
criteria might be applicable
Alameda County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan has been revised for resubmission
to, the DHS under the provision of Assembly Bill 2595 (1990). The revised Plan was
prepared by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority's Hazardous Waste
Committee, with the assistance of a technical consultant, Authority staff, and member
agencies.
The principal revision to the Plan were made in Chapters 1, 2, and 9. Chapter 1 is an
introduction to and summary of the Plan, and its revisions were made to reflect the
changes in Chapters 2 and 9. The policies in Chapter 2 were revised to recognize regional
as well as local needs and to condition the Fair Share language-upon the existence of an
interjurisdictional agreement for hazardous waste management between Alameda County
and one or more other jurisdictions. Chapter 9, which included the facility siting process
and the siting criteria, was the most extensively revised. The siting process itself was
removed, leaving authority with local jurisdictions, and the siting criteria were revised
through extensive Committee discussions and negotiations with DHS. Many of the siting
criteria could not be mapped because of insufficient existing information and the small
scale of the maps. Those criteria that could be mapped were used to create composite
maps showing general areas in which hazardous waste facilities might be located.
Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria will be required to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act; any applicable requirements of federal, regional,
and local agencies; and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
Larger scale maps and field investigations should be used to evaluate specific sites prior to
permitting. In addition, local jurisdictions should be contacted to obtain information on
local siting criteria and permitting processes. Local criteria may be more stringent than
those included in this plan. The notes that are included at the top of Figures 9-1 through
9-8 list the conditional criteria that each designated area must comply with and are an
essential part of these maps: The remaining chapters include the original analysis of
hazardous waste generation, existing capacity, facility needs, and implementation; the
Committee and DHS agreed that they needed no substantial revisions.
I
i
CONTENTS
Page
SECTION I - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
A. ALAMEDA COUNTY'S HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN: PURPOSE AND APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
B. MAJOR ISSUES AFFECTING THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
C. SCOPE OF PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
D. STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
CHAPTER 2. POLICY DIRECTIONS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
B. FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS . . . 2-1
C. EXISTING COUNTY GOALS AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
D. OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
E. ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
SECTION II - CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT: ISSUES AND
ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
CHAPTER 3. CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
PATTERNS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
B. DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
C. OVERALL TYPES AND VOLUMES OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
D. WASTE OILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
E. MANIFESTED HAZARDOUS WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
F. SMALL GENERATOR WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
G. WASTES FROM LEAKING UNDERGROUND TANKS . . . . . . 3-39
H. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
I. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
SF031609\AA\026.51 ].
CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER 4. CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN ALAMEDA COUNTY . . . . . . 4-1
A. OVERVIEW .. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
B. PAST PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
C. ONSITE WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
D. OFFSITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN FACILITIES
OUTSIDE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
E. SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS: PRACTICES AND
SPECIAL NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
F. MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES . . . 4-8
G. TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
CHAPTER 5. CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS AND COORDINATION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . 5-1
A. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (DHS) . . . . . . 5-1
B. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
(DEH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
C. SANITARY DISTRICTS AND PUBLICLY-OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
D. CITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
E. OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES
PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
F. COORDINATION WITH COUNTY SOLID WASTE
PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
SECTION III - FUTURE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND
ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
CHAPTER 6. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
A. ECONOMIC GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
B. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
C. DEMAND FOR NEW OFFSITE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
CHAPTER 7. HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS . . . . . . 7-1
A. FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
B. ALTERNATIVE WASTE STREAM PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
SF031609\AA\026.51 2
CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER 8. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
A. BASIC HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
AND ECONOMIES OF SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
B. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTIONS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
WASTES APPROPRIATE FOR TREATMENT ONSITE
OROFFSITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
C. POTENTIAL EXPANSION 'OF EXISTING KEY FACILITIES . . 8-12
D. IMPLICATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY IN ALAMEDA COUNTY . . . . . . 8-12
CHAPTER 9. MEETING CAPACITY NEEDS 9-1
A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
B. SITING CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
C. CRITERIA MAPPING AND DESIGNATION OF GENERAL
AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8
D. THE APPEALS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8
SECTION IV - IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
CHAPTER 10. HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM . . . . 10-1
TABLES
1-1 Hazardous Materials Program Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12
3-1 Hazardous Waste Summary - 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3-2 Hazardous Waste Manifest Data - 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3-3 Waste Oil and Solvent Recycling Facilities in Alameda County, 1986 . . . . . 3-8
3-4 Waste Stream Generation by City - 1986 Manifest Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3-5 Waste Stream by Geographic Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3-6 Largest Hazardous Waste Generators in Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3-7 Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste Alameda County - 1986 . . . . . 3-17
3-8 Hazardous Wastes Entering Vine Hill/Baker Facility from Alameda
County Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
3-9 Largest Alameda County Users of Vine Hill/Baker, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
3-10 No Survey Method Summary 1986 County Business Patterns -
Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
3-11 Distribution of Small Generators by City - Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
3-12 Small Quantity Generator Waste Stream - Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
3-13 Small Generators by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
3-14 Scope of Telephone Survey - Alameda County Small Generators . . . . . . 3-33
SF031609\AA\026.51 3
CONTENTS (Continued)
3-15 Contaminated Soil from Underground Tank Cleanups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
3-16 Total Hazardous Waste Generation, by Type - 1986 - Alameda County . . 3-43
3-17 Total Hazardous Waste Generation, by City -,1986 - Alameda County . . 3-44
4-1 Remedial Action Sites in Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4-2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection in Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
7-1 Business Sector and Population Growth - 1986-2000 - Alameda County . . . 7-2
7-2 Baseline Waste Growth by Industry - 1986-2000 - Alameda County . . . . . . 7-4
7-3 Baseline Waste Stream - 2000 - Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7-4 Baseline Summary - Manifested Waste Only - Year 2000 - Alameda County 7-8
7-5 Baseline Summary - Small Quantity Generators -Year 2000 -
Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
7-6 Total Projected Baseline Hazardous Waste Stream - Alameda County . . 7-10
7-7 Source Reduction Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11
7-8 Waste Generation 2000, Showing Baseline, Moderate, and Aggressive
Source Reduction Scenarios - Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12
7-9 Hazardous Waste Projections Based on Strict Source Reduction -
2000 - Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14
7-10 Summary of Alternative Projections of Hazardous Waste Generation . . . 7-16
8-1 Generic Treatment Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
8-2 Baseline Capacity Requirements, 2000 - Tons per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
8-3 Baseline Waste Stream - 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10
8-4 Needs Assessment Capacity Requirements with Different Waste Reduction
Scenarios - Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
8-5 Alameda County Potential Offsite Facility Development Requirements . . 8-13
9-1 Alameda County General Siting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
SF031609\AA\026.51 4
CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES
1-1 Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
3-1 Hazardous Waste Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3-2 Alameda County 1986 Manifested Hazardous Waste by City . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3-3 1986 Small Quantity Generators in Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
4-1 Hazardous Waste Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
8-1 Waste Treatment Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
8-2 Waste Treatment Sequences - Year 2000 - Baseline Capacities . . . . . . . . . 8-8
9-1 Land Use Criteria for Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facilities
and Industrial Transfer/Storage/Freatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10
9-2 Land Use Criteria for Residuals Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-11
9-3 Environmental Criteria for Small-Scale Transfer and Storage
Facilities and Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . 9=12
9-4 Environmental Criteria for Residuals Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-13
9-5 High Hazard/Physical Criteria for Small-Scale Transfer and Storage
Facilities and Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . 9-14
9-6 High Hazard/Physical Criteria for Residuals Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-15
9-7 Designated General Areas for Small-Scale Transfer and Storage
Facilities and Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . 9-16
9-8 Designated General Areas for Residuals Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-17
APPENDIXES
Appendix A. Glossary
Appendix B. Abbreviations and Acronyms
Appendix C. AB 2948 Tanner (l 986)
Appendix D. Technical Reference Manual Tables
Appendix E. Status of Cleanup of Alameda County Contaminated Sites
Appendix F. Basic Hazardous Waste Management Technologies
Appendix G. Key Offsite Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
Appendix H. Documentation of Capacity of New and Proposed Facilities in
Alameda County
Appendix I. Ordinance on Strict Source Reduction
Appendix J. Hazardous Waste Management Planning Interjurisdictional Agreement
Appendix K. Negative Declaration
SF031609\AA\026.51 5
SECTION I
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. ALAMEDA COUNTY'S HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN: PURPOSE AND APPROACH
PURPOSE
The purpose of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan is to develop and
implement hazardous waste management policies for the management of hazardous :-
waste in Alameda County. The primary focus of the plan is to encourage the reduction
of the amount of hazardous waste that is generated in the County to the greatest extent
feasible to minimize the number of hazardous waste management facilities that are
needed to manage the waste. Alameda County, its cities and special districts will act to
provide for the safe, effective management of hazardous wastes generated within the
County. As stated in Policy 14, Chapter 2 of this Plan, new offsite hazardous waste
management facilities will be primarily limited to a scale necessary to meet the
hazardous waste management needs of Alameda County; larger facilities may be
permitted in accordance with interjurisdictional agreements reached between Alameda
County and other jurisdictions or upon determination of the local governing body that
the project meets local planning criteria and serves public needs. Alameda County, its
cities, and special districts recognize their collective responsibility to cooperate with
other governments in the region and the state in planning for the effective management
of hazardous wastes generated in the region and the state in accordance with the
hazardous waste management hierarchy described later in this chapter.
Recent state and federal laws mandate the phase-out of land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes over the next few years. Alternative management approaches must
be implemented by May 1990, so that land disposal can be ended.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Alameda County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan dated March 1989 was
developed by the County Waste Management Authority's Hazardous Waste Committee
and an Advisory Committee, with the assistance of a technical consultant, county staff,
and the cities. A separate programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the
plan was prepared to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The 1989 Plan was not approved by the California Department of
Health Services (DHS) for a variety of reasons. The DHS also rejected the Hazardous
Waste Management Plans of 44 other California counties for many of the same
reasons.
Alameda County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan has been revised for resub-
mission to the DHS under the provisions of Assembly Bill 2595 (1990). The revised
Plan was prepared by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority's Hazardous
SF031609\AA\005.51 1-1
Waste Committee, with the assistance of a technical consultant, the Authority staff, and
the cities. To meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
The plan's goals are, first, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and
environment through eliminating land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes; second,
to maintain .economic vitality by_helping businesses and households reduce production
of hazardous wastes and manage their remaining wastes effectively; and third, to reduce
the tonnage of hazardous waste generated in the year 2000 by 30 percent from the
baseline year of 1989. While there are certain recognized barriers to minimizing the
generation of hazardous waste, the economic benefits to the generator and the
potential reduction in liability, as well as regulatory incentives and disincentives are
expected to result in an estimated 25 to 30 percent reduction in the generation of
hazardous waste by 2000. Economic well being and quality of life are related to
industrial, commercial, and household activities within the county and also have a
relationship to mismanagement of wastes. Waste reduction and waste recycling should
be the goal of industry, small business and households. The overall objectives of the
planning process include:
Accepting local responsibility to plan for effective management of
hazardous wastes produced by local businesses and households
• Encouraging maximum feasible source reduction
• Involving the public in planning and decisions on facility siting
• Determining local levels of source reduction, and resulting needs for
alternative treatment methods and facilities to manage hazardous wastes
Identifying designated general areas in which hazardous waste facilities
might be able to be located, based on siting criteria and local government
planning/permitting requirements. Any proposed facility will also be
subject to the local land use review process and this Plan does not
supersede the local process.
• Encouraging development of needed facilities by the private sector
APPROACH
The Alameda County Hazardous Waste Plan was prepared in response to AB 2948
(Tanner, 1986) which established procedures for preparation of the plan. AB 2948 has
three major components: a planning process; a hierarchy of waste management
strategies; and a facility siting process.
• The Planning Process requires each county to assess its current hazardous waste
stream, and make projections to 2000. Existing waste management approaches
SF031609\AA\005.51 1-2
and facilities within and outside the county are evaluated, and future needs
projected for expanded or new waste management facilities. Special attention is
paid to the problems of small quantity waste generators, household hazardous
wastes, and waste transportation issues. Each county develops criteria to
identify general areas appropriate for facility locations and involve the public in
preparing the county plan and siting criteria.
The plan must be approved by a majority of cities containing a majority of the
population of the incorporated area of the county, by the Waste Management
Authority, and by the Board of Supervisors; it must also be approved by the
State Department of Health Services. Once approved, the County and all cities
must incorporate the Plan into their general plans within 180 days.
• A Hierarchy of Waste Management Strategies is encouraged by AB 2948.
Figure 1-1 shows this hierarchy graphically. The hierarchy urges that the first
priority be to reduce hazardous wastes during manufacturing (and service and
household) activities through the use of fewer hazardous materials, material
substitutions, process modifications, and housekeeping measures. Once source
reduction has been pursued to the extent technologically and economically
feasible, the second priority is to recycle and reuse wastes. Remaining wastes
and the residuals left by recycling would then be treated or incinerated. Where
hazardous waste is amenable to forms of treatment other than incineration,
these other forms of treatment should be given preference over incineration.
The treatment residuals not capable of further reduction would be placed in
secure land disposal units. No untreated wastes will be placed on or in the land.
• AB 2948 establishes a new Facility Siting Process. Procedures to speed and
coordinate the permitting process at the state and local levels are provided. The
bill requires that all proposed offsite hazardous waste management facilities,
such as new treatment units, be consistent with the Plan's stated goals, policies,.
and siting criteria. .A Local Assessment Committee, supported by a technical
consultant, enters into dialogue with a facility developer on behalf of the host
community concurrent with the request for a land use permit. Regulations
relative to the membership and functions of the Local Assessment Committee
are in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 25199.7. The
following quote from HSC 25199.7 shows the functions of the Local Assessment
Committee:
"(2) The local assessment committee shall, as its primary
function, advise the appointing legislative body of the affected local
agency of the terms and conditions under which the proposed hazardous
sF031609\AA\005.5 1 1-3
Figure 1-1
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
SOURCE REDUCTION
REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS VILASTES2
F SITE RECYCLING
OFFSITE RECYCLING
A'" `MISSION' ONSITE TREATMENT
wvaR JIFFLUONT
AIR wj
`ISISL
wvrR •ffcurxr uaw OFFSITE TREATMENT
Ala iM11lION! INCINERATION
HAZARDOUS
WASTE RESIDUALS
RESIDUALS REPOSITORY
1 Materials Substitution 2 • Technology or Equipment
• Product Substitution • Improved Plant Operations
• In-process Recycling
waste facility project may be acceptable to the community. To carry out
this function, the local assessment committee shall do all of the following:
(A) Enter into a dialogue with the proponent for the proposed
hazardous waste facility project to reach an understanding with the
proponent on both of the following:
(i) The measures that should be taken by the
proponent in connection with the operation of the proposed
hazardous waste facility project to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare, and the environment of the city or county.
(ii) The special benefits and remuneration the facility
proponent will provide the city or county as compensation for the
local costs associated with the operation of the facility.
(B) Represent generally, in meetings with the project
proponent, the interests of the residents of the city or county and the
interests of adjacent communities.
(C) Receive and expend any technical assistance grants made
available pursuant to subdivision (g).
(D) Adopt rules and procedures which are necessary to perform
its duties.
(E) Advise the legislative body of the city or county of the
terms, provisions, and conditions for project approval which have been
agreed upon by the committee and the proponent, and of any additional
information which the committee deems appropriate. The legislative
body of the city or county may use this advice for its independent
consideration of the project."
As discussed in Chapter 9 of this Plan, local government land use decisions on facility
proposals may be appealed to a new seven-member state board. If the board finds that
the proposed facility would be consistent with the reasonable restrictions contained in
the approved Plan, the local decision may be overridden and the facility granted the
necessary land use permit.
This plan provides criteria for identifying environmentally suitable locations for needed
facilities. The process is intended to reinforce traditions of local home rule, and yet
still overcome the "Not in my backyard" (NIMBY) problem. This delicate balance is
achieved by encouraging counties to develop appropriate, responsible plans based on
equity and local need; to have these plans approved by the State and by the cities in
their jurisdictions: and to hold those local jurisdictions accountable through the new
Appeal Board for approval of facility siting proposals in environmentally sound
locations, consistent with the approved County Plan.
KEY POLICIES DIRECTING THE PROCESS
Plan policies are summarized in this section and described in full in Chapter 2.
SF03lW9\AA\005.51 j-$
• The Plan's top priority is to promote aggressive waste reduction, including
reduction in the use of toxic materials. New firms entering the county (or those
seeking to expand existing facilities) shall demonstrate how they will comply with
the waste management hierarchy as a condition of receiving land use and
business permits. All existing hazardous waste generators will be required to
implement the hazardous waste management hierarchy to the maximum extent
feasible both technically and economically.
• Provide a sound basis for source reduction and for planning and siting needed
new facilities which offer alternatives to continued reliance on disposal of
hazardous wastes in the air, water, or land.
• Encourage active involvement of the public, large and small industry, and civic
and environmental organizations, in the development and implementation of this
plan.
• Promote widespread ongoing education of citizens on hazardous materials and
waste management issues. A program will be developed to educate households
about their hazardous materials and wastes and the effects when they are
discarded into solid waste landfills; this program should include ways to collect
and treat household hazardous wastes effectively.
• Provide special,attention to small firms and small generators which have special
needs. Programs to provide technical and financial assistance will allow small
firms to pursue waste reduction and the hierarchy. Such programs will be
financially self-sustaining, yet with fees designed not to impose such a burden
that it discourages participation and responsible hazardous waste management.
• Encourage onsite treatment of hazardous wastes in preference to offsite
treatment. Where needed, however, offsite facilities should be located as close
as practical to the sources of hazardous waste generation--within the limits
reasonably imposed by economies of scale, market service areas, and
environmental suitability (including consistency with this plan's siting criteria).
In particular, transfer stations meet an important need, especially for the
county's many small businesses.
• Recognize local agency responsibility to assist other governments in the region
and state in planning for the effective management of hazardous wastes
generated in the region and state in accordance with the hazardous waste
management hierarchy. Local agencies will participate in and support efforts
designed to allocate and develop facilities among all jurisdictions according to
interjurisdictional agreements, each facility's environmental suitability, and each
facility's economic viability.
• Local agencies should prepare to approve siting proposals in environmentally
acceptable locations for modern treatment facilities, transfer stations, and
SFO31609\AA\005.51 1-6
residuals repositories sized to meet local needs and/or commitments in
_. interjurisdictional agreements.
B. MAJOR ISSUES AFFECTING THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In addition to the policies, a number of critical issues affect hazardous waste
management, and preparation and implementation of the plan in Alameda County.
The county's current and future hazardous waste stream must be understood and
appropriate criteria for designating general areas in which facilities might be located
must be developed and applied. Barriers include public concern over proposed nearby
facilities, shortages in funding for data and staff, and the lack of local government
experience in implementing the Tanner legislation. The public must be involved
throughout the process.
Understanding County Current and Future Waste Streams: A major requirement of the
planning effort involves evaluating the types and amounts of hazardous wastes currently
being generated within Alameda County, and estimating production through 2000. This
is a difficult task, given the uncertainties associated with current data and with
economic projections and the complexities of new treatment standards being
implemented.
Siting Criteria and Designation of General Areas: Under AB 2948, the siting criteria
apply only to offsite, multi-user hazardous waste management facilities, including
transfer stations, recycling and treatment facilities, incinerators, and residuals
repositories. The siting criteria (Chapter 9) are based on the criteria in the DHS
Guidelines for preparation of County Hazardous Waste Management Plans, but they
reflect the characteristics and adopted policies of Alameda County as well. As
recognized in the DHS Guidelines, some of the criteria are exclusionary, meaning that
some or all types of hazardous waste facilities cannot be located in areas identified by
these criteria. Others of the criteria are conditional, meaning that some or all types of
facilities may be located there if they can meet certain conditions. -
AB 2948 and the DHS Guidelines require that the County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan must either show specific sites for hazardous waste facilities, or
contain siting criteria and designated general areas in which hazardous waste facilities
may be able to be located. The DHS requires that the Plans contain maps showing the
county's siting criteria applied across the county area (to the extent that the criteria can
be mapped) and composite maps showing designated general areas for different types
of hazardous waste facilities. The Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan contains maps showing designated general areas for different types and sizes of
hazardous waste facilities. It is important to recognize that the designated general
areas might meet general siting criteria but represent only the results of a first
screening of county areas to eliminate those areas in which hazardous waste facilities
SF031609\AA\005.51 1-7
can clearly not be located (such as wetlands). The fact that the Plan maps show
designated general areas does not provide assurance to a facility developer that the
facility will be permitted to locate in that area nor does it imply a priori acceptance of
siting in these general areas.
When a hazardous waste facility is proposed, the facility developer must demonstrate
through the local permit process and environmental review that the specific facility at
the specific site is appropriate and will be protective of public health and welfare and
the environment. The facility developer must apply for a land use permit from the
local jurisdiction (the city, or the county if in an unincorporated area). The local
planning commission will review the proposal, and set forth its recommendations to the
local government. The local government, with assistance from the developer of the
proposed new facility, will comply with CEQA. A new Local Assessment Committee to
be appointed by the local governing body (under AB 2948) will meet with the
developer, assess the proposal, discuss appropriate mitigation strategies, and place its
recommendations before the local government. A new statute allows the local
government to acquire as compensation up to 10 percent of the gross receipts-of the
hazardous waste management facility.
The facility developer will also have to apply for all necessary federal and state permits
to construct and operate the facility; including permits from EPA, DHS, RWQCB, and
BAAQMD, and possibly from the Corps of Engineers, and BCDC and any other
regulatory agencies that may have regulatory oversight/approval authority over the
facility. New mechanisms for accelerated permit processing introduced by AB 2948 will
ensure coordination and assistance from the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (OPR).
AB .2948 created a seven-member State Appeal Board composed of three state
officials--the heads of Health Services, Air Resources Board, and Water Resources
Control Board; a county supervisor and city council member serving statewide; and a
county supervisor and city council member from the local area. Local decisions can be
appealed by:
• The facility proponent, if the locality rejects the proposal (or approves it
with onerous conditions tantamount to rejection).
• Any interested party (a person who participated in local hearings)
concerned about the facility's impact on public health or the
environment. The appeal must be based solely on the grounds that the
conditions imposed on the project by land use decisions do not
adequately protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
A developer must have all required state and federal permits which can be obtained
prior to construction before the appeal can proceed.
SF031609\AA\005.51 1-8
Implementation: An Implementation program is included in this plan, as required by
AB 2948. The strategy includes the following elements.
• Public participation and education programs
• Source reduction program
• Meeting small generators' special needs
• Dealing with household hazardous wastes
• Ongoing data collection and analysis
• Siting areas for new needed offsite, multi-user facilities
The Waste Management Authority (JPA) will continue to hold primary responsibility
for the long-term process of hazardous waste planning and management in Alameda
County. Chapter 10 includes a short and long range implementation program.
Public Participation: Involvement is sought from all sectors of the public, business, and
local governments throughout the process of developing and implementing this plan.
With release of the draft plan in March 1988, meetings were held throughout the
county. Each city council received a public briefing; and a number of formal public
hearings were held. Copies of the draft plan were available in public libraries, in
County Supervisors' offices, and in city halls.
In sum, the planning process has followed a logical sequence of steps:
• Identify key issues for Alameda County hazardous waste management to
2000
• Set goals, policies, objectives
• Compile best data available
• Conduct public involvement/education
• Stimulate maximum feasible source reduction _
• Determine needs for new facilities in the context of an interjurisdictional
agreement
• Lay the basis for private sector siting decisions (and review the need for
greater government role)
• Set milestones for actions by public agencies and the private sector
• Provide for effective program coordination
With these actions underway, Alameda County and the thousands of hazardous waste
generators within it should be in a strong position to accelerate source reduction, phase
SF031609\AA\005.51 1-9
out land disposal, and site those facilities needed to manage these wastes into the 21st
century.
C. SCOPE OF PLAN
KINDS OF WASTES
This plan covers hazardous wastes: not municipal solid wastes (garbage), not
radioactive wastes, not sewage sludge, not groundwater quality. Under California's
Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), passed in 1972 and amended on numerous
occasions since, hazardous wastes are those which: cause increased mortality, serious
irreversible illness or incapacitating reversible illness; or which pose substantial hazards
to human health or the environment. DHS has issued regulations for determining
hazardous wastes based on: toxicity; bioaccumulation; ignitability; reactivity; and
corrosivity.
Extremely hazardous wastes, under DHS rules, are those which would cause death,
disabling personal injury, or serious illness.
Restricted hazardous wastes form a subclass for purposes of bans on land-disposal, and
include hazardous wastes with cyanides, PCBs, strong acids, concentrated heavy metals,
and so on. The plan covers past wastes, present wastes, and future wastes. It
emphasizes protection of future needs (based on maximum feasible source reduction),
working from 1986 data.
STATUTORY COVERAGE
This plan is primarily concerned with those laws specifically directed at hazardous
wastes. These center around the general framework created by the California
Hazardous Waste Control Law,-which predated the analogous federal legislation,
embodied in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)--which
itself incorporates and expands a number of HWCL provisions. Similarly, a number of
the expansions of the HWCL have been incorporated into federal law through
subsequent amendments to RCRA.
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) is the state's lead agency
implementing HWCL, and those provisions of RCRA which can be assumed by states
that operate substantially equivalent programs. Between 1981 and January 1986, DHS
implemented RCRA provisions under interim authorization from the EPA, which is the
national lead agency for RCRA. This interim authorization expired in January 1986,
but DHS continues to implement HWCL provisions under a reversion agreement with
EPA while the state seeks final authorization. California allows county health
departments the option to implement certain HWCL provisions regulating hazardous
SF031609\AA\005.51 1-10
waste generators, under terms of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with DHS.
Alameda County Department of Environmental Services has an MOU with DHS.
Table 1-1 prepared in 1988 for the California Partnership for Safe Hazardous Waste
Management provides a concise summary of these levels of necessary program
coordination.
D. STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN
The Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan has six sections. Section I is
designed to provide the reader with background on hazardous waste issues, relevant
legislation, and the planning process (Chapter 1). This section also sets out the policy
direction for hazardous waste management in Alameda County: goals and policies to
be followed (Chapter 2).
Section II provides a comprehensive overview of current hazardous waste management
in this county. Patterns of waste generation in 1986 are summarized in Chapter 3:
types and volumes of wastes; types and locations of generators. This chapter discusses
wastes sent offsite with DHS manifests; wastes sent for recycling (oils and solvents);
wastes generated by small businesses; household hazardous wastes; and wastes from
cleanup of remedial action locations and from leaking underground storage tanks.
In Chapter 4, the various waste management practices are described. Here onsite
hazardous waste source reduction, storage, recycling, and treatment activities are
summarized. Descriptions are presented of the principal land disposal and treatment
facilities receiving wastes from Alameda County generators in 1986: in Contra Costa,
Solano, Kings, and Santa Barbara Counties.
Chapter 5 presents basic information on the many existing regulatory programs
affecting hazardous waste management. The chapter includes hazardous waste
programs; hazardous materials programs; and air quality and water quality programs.
In Section III, the focus of the analysis shifts from the present to the future: expected
patterns of hazardous waste management in 2000. Chapter 6 reviews basic factors
affecting hazardous waste issues in Alameda County in the next ten or more years:
public concerns, national and state policy, and economic factors. Tensions between
public and private roles, between onsite and offsite waste management, between new
firms and existing ones, and among source reduction, treatment, and land disposal are
all addressed.
Chapter 7 contains basic projections of hazardous waste generation in 2000. This
involves alterations to the 1986 baseline data to account for economic growth, and then
SF031609\AA\005.51 ]-11
Table 1-1
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM MATRIX ,
CALIFORNIA COUNTIES FOUNDATION - IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.
Ls- • - a • - • •
HAZARDOUS -PURPOSE/ - APPROACH/BASIC IMPLEMENTING COVERAGE KEY DEADLINES PERMITTING/ DATAMGMT. PUBLIC CRITICAL COMMENTS
MATERIALSLAW OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS AGENCIES INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS PARTICIPATION COORDINATION
(LOCAL/STATE) REOUIREMEHTS REQUIREMENTS NEEDS
STATE •Regulates to do •Monitorsezisting s)d •Cry •Hazardous •711185 Deadline b Instal •Permwt required •Slate has maln• •None •Report releases to •Exempts citieskounties
REGULATION OF ground hazardous new tanks •Slate Water materials and monitoring systems on every 5 yeah lained computer- RWOCB within 2a with equivalent local
UNDERGROUND substance storage .Construdbn standards Resources Control wastes stored existing lsnks •Annual report by Ized data from hours ordinance as of 111l84
STORAGE TANKS b prevent ground= for new tanks after Board regulations underground •911/88 Deadline by permiltes permit= •Coordinate with Fite
water contaml- 111/04 •Regional Water which final permit was •local a9eery Code/Waters Ball,waste
•Sher,Cortese Bills nation •Unaulhorized ds• Ouality Co trol b Ds approved a Inspection every 3 generator inspection
charges reporting Board denied. years •Now FICRApro-gram
will establish federal
requirements
HAZARDOUS •Reg�AS�*shazard •Countydealgnates •Cornty(mendstory) •Malerialsposkq •9/ND7 Business tn. •Business fibs •Overal hazardoutt •None •Dataconectbncrucial •Citiescan sell.
MATERIALS out materiels stor• adrttn agency •Cour(optional) heath and envfrorl kxkrdrg Plans for annual Inventory materials data •Public access b b AB 2940 planning designate
STORAGE AND age and emergency -Firms prepare twskass •State office of Emer• mental hazards Inspections and data of man hazardous management Information •Coordinate with La •69 cities self.
EMERGENCY response planning plans gency Services •Thresholds: in"b adman agency material(hazmat) totems Fanelte,waste general designated statewide
RESPONSE •puWfc"r{gM- •County prepare,area regulNbnf and =V.- 1/1/88 N local pr m amounts handeedd •Extensive data In Inspection UST reguta-
•Waters 118 b know" a response, ovd d use predated Water ins txisNe;haz waste business plans lion.SARA Title Ill
2t85/2t87 pia ens Compressed Gas- •12131W Area plans. estimates
•Cities may assume 200 cu.(1.(M STP) were due b State OES •Periodic
knptementstion Inspections
ACUTELY •pe�lates storage •Firms Mndng&cute •local adminlstering •Aeutey hazardous •WIW Registration •Inspections every •None ovwal •None •Waters Bin •Coordination with
HAZARDOUS and MndGdg d Mzmars(AHMs)must (tsame as mat Is defined forms available from 9 year •Each facility •Agency must •Uniform fire Code. SARA Title III is a major
MATERIALS RISK acutely hazardous file r*glst(Okm form lens BiIQ bbyy EPA(408 Office d Emergency keeps data coordinate public especially Article 80 Issue
MANAGEMENT malerialss •NewlmodifiedIsetklles •State Office d chemicals) Services access •SARA Title III
•La Follette Oil— with AHMs must pre• Emergency •Some threshold&as •u1/88 Registration •Risk Msnagemem •Budding/planning
AB 377711OS9 pare RUPP Services Wafers Bit lorm&due b admirals• Prevention Pro- departments
•local odminaqeacY tralbn agency gram includes oN-
may�e RUPP •utt"Rlsk Manage- site pessimistic
kom en yt{nq tea. ment Prevention Pro case copse-
Dons even no 111 gram requirement In quences
cations have been *lied assessment
made
•Exemptions available
EMERGENCY •ReOuMes sWewide •Goverrwt Oesfpnnas •State wide corn• •Extremely hazard- •5/17787 Businesses •No inspectlons •None required •Information availa• -La Follette Bill •Coordination with state
PLANNING AND and bent amen- agencies and drstrids mission ous substances were to notify state of •No permils •EPA b prepare ble to public •Waters Bin aters,La Folleue
COMMUNITY genet' nrtng and .EPA establishes*mar- •local planning eom• defined by EPA extreme hazmet data base d al •Local emergency •Uniform Fire Cade- ills)and local(Uniform
"RIGHT- pqArplfee tlpM Ile gency planning (wile* 406 eMmicals storage continuous planning corn- especially Article 80 Fire Code)reporting
TO-KNOW" knew"for handling requirements �ntkal b La •711M First annual bust• releases mission and emergency
•SARA Title 111 ailteme hezmals Follette Bill) nest report of conlinu- response programs are
(1986) •Additional reporting ous raises*& major issues
of other hazmals •10117188 Local*mer-
gency plan due
UNIFORM FIRE •Contako arliclas •Model standards •Local fire agencies •Al hazmal defined •Revised Article 80 •Inspection by lire •None •None •La Follette Bill •Discretionary program
CODE reputing hazard- devised by Western In Article 9•ktclud• promulgated 8/87 prevention sere- •Waters Bid (local adoption)
ous rriaterials Fire CMeh Association M9lonic gases (adopted locally) lie(lypicany •SARA Title 111 •localities can adopt
(nawmquirements •Specific exemptions annual) stricter requirements
1988 Uniform Fire
Code)
r
f
OTHER TOXICS LAWSAND PROGRAM
AfE ORINKINO •Prams Ginkirg •Develops list a chain• •HsallA and Wollare •Chemicals on list •?!27!88 Exposure warn• •None •Slate agencies •State Science •link to source reduction •Based on 1986 baiia
LATER AND water sources Iron cats known at sus. Agency(statewide) prepared by state Ings on firs)list(end of provided initial Advisory Panel priori ties lot listed initiative
OXICS ENFORCE- future Ionic con• pected to cause cancer .County board a •A8 hazardous waste grace period) data to Counties chemicals •Water companies
JENT ACT lamination or reproductive damage supervisors and Ion discharge •10127!88 No discharges (111187) •Link to La Fdlene a■amp(Lihaio
p►opo,nion 65 •Warns persons •Precludes"knowing county health officer reports of chemicals on firs!list B.IVSARA Tnlo III methane)
(1966) pootentiallye■posed discharge'to drinking unless"safe"(end ol
Io toxic• water sources grace period) •Implement atiOn Still
•Requires certain •Shifts burden of prod to •111189 Government list uncertain
government discharger reeggandirg of suspected can• •Extent d litigation
emp"s to report Salety('r10 risk"h certrep(oduclive toxicity •Ciwt pennies
discharges `sate use'1 (annual revisions) (S25000day)
•Criminal sanctions
)R1NKING WATER •Monitors public •Requires wale!put- •OHS—large drink- •Tests Ion numerous •119 major water sys• •None •Department of •None •Coordinated with •18%of wens statewide
SONITORINO drinking water wells veyors county health I g water systems chemicals and tems tested in Health Services groundwater prdec• had detectable con.
AS iaG3 lot organic departments to test (200 plus can- metals 1984.1985 received all data lions and cleanup lamination
chemicals wells,report findings to nett ons) •Small systems programs - •Issue:pudic"llics
stale •County health 1985.1988 •Federal and state lion of dNecied drink-
dept—small drink- .Ongoing Superfund will remove ing water contamination
ing water systems risks to groundwater
(5.199 connectional
(OXIC AIR •Controls risks of •Scientific study of risks •ASS sets •7 chemicals identi- •Ongoing •None until emir •Air Resources •None •Coordinated with led. •EPA contras other air
:ONTAMINANTS high priority toxic from toxic contaminants standards—input lied to date: $ions require- Board—air toxic$ enal Clean Air Act toxic$under Clean Air
Tanner Bill AS air cortarninants •Selz Initial priorities far from Science asbestos,benzene, manta established data •link to Prop 65 M
18177 •Sets standards study(benzene first) Advance Board cadmium,dioxins. t exposure warnings
ConxNeyfSIN rg •Develops emirs ions •Moves to enforceable •Ali Ouakty Manage• elMlara dicAlalde
•Bin AS¢588 eontrot regulations regulations ment DistriWAit Rol and hexavalent •RCRA/Calair a issi
•Monilons toxic"hol tulion Contra chromium
regarding air emissions
"a- Oistritts—emis•
lions contra
program
INDUSTRIAL •Protects sewn Sys. •Sewer systems imple- •Regional Water •Metals •Ongoing •Frequent inspec• •Pubficy owned •None(some pub- •Coordinated with all •Underutilized potential
WASTE terns from toxic ment pprrstrealment pro- Ouatily Corms •Organics lion d each treatment works licyowned treat• other inspections d for inleg(ation into
PRETREATMENT contamination gram locally Board facility —dalsonpermil ment works have same facilities(Waters. broader loxicsmanage-
PROGRAMS •Protects receiving •Nalionalestegarical •Local sewersg9s •Oiscnarge permits requirements and discharged advi• MOU.La Follene Bin, ment exert
•Control Ionic as• wales Irom toxic Standards under Clean agencies publicy rsquoed Irom disco arse charge• sory commission) etc)
charge into contamination Water Ad(enforced owned treatment publicly-owned terislics
sewers locally) works treatment worki
CLEAN AIR ACT •Protects and •Sets NAAOS •APCOIAOMO Ior •SOz.NO..a". •Ongoing u facilily •Permits for all •Air Pollution Con. •Public hearings •Coordinate with other •EPA proposing to
•Basic air quality enhances air •Controls emissions fixed sources:ARB bad,ozone •12191IS7 must meet all major facilities flat DislikilAil •Workshops Irispedlons of same extend National
nagutafions quaky from maim stationary for mobile sources .Tonic air emissions National Ambient Ali •Inspections Ouslitr Manage. •Formal public Ilcilitles Ambient Air Ouatoty
•AjWns National sources. (automobiles for Ouakty Standards(EPA ment District comments •RCRA/Calderon Bin Standards compliance
Ambient Act Ouality •Controls alga example) may extend) maintains permit regarding air emissions deadline lar into the
Standards emissions •EPA sets national Was future
•Pieventssignilicant slP aidslapproves
deterioration of ale
quality
WATER OUALITY •Protects Surface •Technical Standards for •Regional Water •Ponulants dis• •Ongoing •WDRs allow dis• •Regional Water •Regibnal Water •Underground storage •Controls over toxic drs-
CONTROL ACT and groundwater ant ma)or discharges Oustity Contra charged to naviga- charge to Ouslity Control Oualrly Contra lank regulation charges included in
•PorierCologne quality,to maintain •location standards to Board ble waters by Ind.at groundwater Board maintains Board meetings .Waters 8,11 basic permits
All "beneficial uses"at poled groundwater •Stale Water sewage plants •NPDES Permits permit dais public -
water .Waste Discharge Resources Contra Regional"basin regulate dis• •Le Generator Bill
Requirements Board •plans'for each charge Io surface •Generator inspections
h g •RCRA
ydrageOlOgiC walerf
region •Sell-reporting
RESTRICTED •Prevents contami• •Pie-use registration of •State Oepanmenl of •Pesticide can- •Ongoing •Annual registra• •DFA,county tom• •None •EPA standards •New restricted
MATERIALS nation of pesticides Food and Agncul• lamrrtanls ant other lion permits missioners •Groundwaler protection malertats need stale
•Pesticide Con- groundwater .Registration of specific lure sets standards organic chemicals (notice required receive reports programs approval
lamination •Regulates use of applications of pes. •County agricultural •State list of res• before applying) from pesticide
Prevention Act materials Iicides commissioners Irictedmaterrals •Inspection onsile applicators
and Restricted enforce •Additional condo.
Materials Act loons may bo put
On landowners
INFECTIOUS •Contras spread of •Slate regulations •County Environmen- •Infectious waste •Ongoing •OHS(permit) •None •None •Calderon 0.11 •None
WASTE inleclious disease governing treatment lal Health Division •County
•Ineectious Waste and disposal •Stale OHS (inspection)
Coritrd •Local enforcement
I
t-a
W
Table 1-1
cOUMtY •Caws Uu.esb •Carry pw sPpra•d •C.ov.In pprs •
AN nAGRleous •MJow D•psn"Id d .Hon. •No Mr IRpu.• •Ad•Hery caala• •W waanawn a Ulm •Non walrno.p,two
HAZAROOUG AgnAp•^• oMel"WOHS CHwMp .Rsssgwwred H.Mlh Saw pee► welA.Wo..IR. so.ewe«nw a.nb•wMOIA *.Osao.ba.«.r•
"NAVOawrsF Mrs reuq hurdo w"Me no n.pRCtrM dbcallanerM
valliE MANA0E• .Atoelsred Prsas •Cowry nu.Real •slob rJO.Yr. dr.n*c*%Wjb .P..oG herw•R •wr.MLS FORM d•c•rnR
sLEMt ptANS Wq d...nu arW.nw.Pb'r ppo.Maplw eN •18•J+oAanRSW •L?f7Weu.bOH�S E ppr�rd Loa plow RGRAN011ar. •Ha r•ICbr Mw
•l•nrlM-Ili RrRals ar••r sloped no bcalpt.Ir ofI3 i8C0 caper.oawry .Oparp�oe.•s E I.ponr nu
pal -am is •E.b•Pwti 1«il►s► •L.eea sd�haF Dols• b MM, •LolV88 W Dour► PWI • aubt Mnp 1w0• .mop•n...A M
•AppeW poo... 1nO pOIrI>wr r.iet epacloe •8000 plrM W.b OHS boll• .
pn R.Rrtod.local Dan►ptrr larclom Plans we b,~hu
Rirn•drtsMr •Frlraor Slrs •nm Mrrtlq
Appeals Based
fEDOIAL •R••lie++s Nosµ •PsrnlssllsD lo,". •COAmWa AN&Aho- •Hatord-■ores •Mm AE l.nd11R •0•p.Irlwr d •0.O•na•+•s d None •MOII p.nrra •Neal to %.*Dowry .
F&OMAT M(w sw err.V+'�•o' •TaawieY YandrW ML•dsFEMb d.Al.ed.r EPA ap•••e sow wls deft Nall.BRrven N.Mh8 doe b•p• r nureas.w..pry
NAZAIDOIIS bA ere•rRPa•tRI>• .Olpwld■al•r wlailr• RRawn.LJ RCM •seoralp.boo rasrnR ealAMrsl■••• s'I•p•csR Isere =7 aaon •Hu'JAM W Lys OW 'wg b MOG.YMsu
YanwM:WISM .�pGy TSCDd 1•acnMGGdacor wrlA.sawp•w dale Irq T.IRw r•owsaF Mats
•
0,40"o-al kv Iaplinwrtl IM ON8 GrrYw VA ar^WI^O M•^'+ r+�+r e.Wv L 6q •Cat.cMe ecbn b.
•RCRIL ILSVW IsNiYM •Oslrrra wRnllRSb "s JIM Pala •DRadMn M lone be• a IR•I• •bwb wrrgawr Mo. cl•aarp.n.n I W IW
•HSWA orno OR were ,*": .o•la.d,bna".b.Ic •Col-l-R-As
•'C 'ar"s" ��eIs w rRO.r .
No bnnd drew I IN more .rp4,"LA nA wb o'"A°"•d
aP�on bvre.rs.arr local ow.dbfbuA
OHS a"sm be
FEDt1ULL 1oIDC •L.Gew.o"'awas •Fbwb.d snd alssdlal •EM • •NRtorOarR errs •Sns SPOCAC •EM waralors •E.t•ner.R ere •1.88 SAM •caayww.in •Fed warnq aRnard•
FEDO I TONLI w dsw tq .csielr ••Wr fwO' .,lss Hqn a lbG• -DelovMwbrns gpkw crsnW pi'll o+N.Me a Bar wbn prWd.ra paeG.on pale sale rd lots
5��. parr WF Z" •Hrbrl hbAlF UM Ow%,ps by 7ode � .bd.icel Gonipb.h MIrrRQ M H.�Mh s_RR r . wm•:b�w• - •S��ono OrA.Mvwrs Wall
.us ssr •Mn.Relr.I•Rwu•woaa d or d ConM•ord w 1ceYEPA M .►«r Rd••o•f •Bar.Soprhsr ps Pa•••s
wrW!(I •FiweN ti leis► w F«sls■s►Sa.>' MDrrnM a Y+bvleur POOR. cs..41"Rows V..euppMnwM.P•••Cam M.O.R
sale prl.s a rrry.r OaprbwR d HRRa. 01. .o heal deal RYre sal Rp•cAK ■e••,.q-Od sale rAroved
•M � � �r.rm«G
•OwKnm saw 11" � Cowwry Mr
bbor.g. M .mr aNal .Ne local Prwn br
w rMM/. MaclrrY
•PIpYIOSS 60% w M..RS •P*a •M
400 sees an alas •C, 9' •"*am Sa a .Dprlmrr d •C ..Mrrcw• •CorarW*■�w W. ':rww C%61n 0I rye'
sLS 1 orom swb sal Non a NPL •( � � N.RrI k S a" 6RIVC.R son lop'onM �ari.r paicwn a� swag R•o'a`r W
kssJb.k bAS 8esa •R.m.Rbr action sr
aRC■y *a,." O.wF Crald•o«e.
•.1 .�A000wB •AGCalerre pwas w i s 1bill, .dp Crw •NR+pWd proPrn b
Ad cleanup of so"fall rwFrs bcrw..ry.vle.I
sal NPl •CM*n p ereq.wd
•►a+.dee aea
•ales lot desni d
iwaue ores
b an NPl
lOS1C plis •UNM WM al rr• .apanbwr.Reia •He•brr Wee« •AN sul.c. •IlwoC•r ad on M •R.palel star •14Paw wsrr •R.pa.Y Uhnw Coolbnrse■id+owr •M
d1ANU►AR bcariarlenao•Nwrddrrdp Ousw►Crdd M�aa�bwrs dews o.rl MwAsts.p OuMk/card OusatF tadrel Qruy Card •Vo Mpawd o^ROOM
F•-I Mals•lE. Bar hse.reaal Row vow"swa bald errs p!2 �� bald •adoW�::.s.m .16 wr•i pram•
AN 26er2121 . •A•Iw+�•r does suss on sae•V sra"c'naleals .apanbalrn y (A•2148) .
sonlsacwRd .No 6wad local als •Wmom Rated do...p .RCM
proam"pwd.sw ,rl�rapolrlerurr �YaOM—w.'s arnp
V, ls.cnr.oa.ecslow •sour slam
8rardrr saml.r slarrara W Vida
�ia9 Rpaenrs •���
•Cotlral M nra:gs a Mn•RWM8 b .AN ROM dl► •JIM Eerie O6.POose•Deprom"d •R•9ro•w Wale' •Mawr •err•b cS . •Nw«wan rRSpmle.
MM1r R.RS bROW.are ws Neon srvcn OuwFCaral •R.aAnGOVa+wed bwbnr.R rrM6Y
IItOliliflOSF•OP lsOlArs.i sni► •for■dw w w 4-Wi b�nee�bo1D pa+d see. as d Mr drs Yaw pamlr, fiord rd IW RwOCdMCO .csen n..M
HAZAlOOUS sb+r w b.dw .aaRe.awss a.A/CO Bar i .Yva lr.dli o�p.raae oeury rrrw�s OwMlr Yanp► «R+•"e
FAUD•slsis Psrilp atra s. •IW.ifan b no. Rni+slolr wen QstricWl• •CwuE Oam s.MaEls
Oftro"L arMlglbnw •rare d.rhq.ccwi •No dyad local mw ww cwisF Gan'POO'cr'�•+P«•b^e Pblealon conrd sr lots 1:::;:dd nu
a g64 •Esirn Y aerRe '�ro yob or ''r Ice'"q a eG� dr.0�� roow..re poprm
• nOl�•enlaAS dale o.s.eaN
Alla.ROM-as" Cwus adniip.
•N MVr 1setinBa
n •tnal.«Nrrdals • 'N Do OR-" Local F�110"o, part.VWOPWNM•ONS Aa hu.nrrr. Fb.tlo W.oc�Fwldq DHS (B G1 MAIMUS --M r Vwow we
WASTE Cowrpr GAY nRam IscBm .
KOUWEMCATI MISCI. .Ca allo-md.prl, d.pruwr WWN •MOL1 paaR NA RCM�WNin 6s.LA RK-oga am*
wr+e w.� MOtI MOtI spwnrd o.w. man Foa.n.M.ac.) rsaGaml
Valves r'w wAn oHBbpirailw w^LMDHS Mon.da
lw inspd war �PMDNSL sr•p
pnresors prww.d i60
.c+tre •Llrur M pro.^• •OHS••ls
•Aoorrw..nss •pvaia.e b•pand d •OirMwr al •
AN hoe.eow •Wa OeodslR bra► •Nw •Nrr 's1olr yb tows) priri reopb tl.rt
EdA•orA lrr M rrr..e.e►wle ow Naert Mn -an w bard power d .bone n.rRrw.n wri rrwrd•
•1labreMO• lea Yt.np.Reeldor..aaR C•a ls/DH5) Hoaftso c«rsRF wlrria--o
Ia0• •p►di.rs lrr b•pooa O.v+rlt sass arlas10R Rrlsc• •"wed la kedolrr lose •M'RMr clwpo�u
a tr+nRS.d.MSS •No brad bcal rdo 8.s Iwsw b SMZ! pasel.w Mrs b wsch be«r
IR•c.N for sA. a.ww.Ins21
dRaaspsl •RCRAR1MtL •A..p b Rash loco
•Frl:FID&O .IM •Osq:Oros d •brltRR.A sirlb •Onpo+q(er.r.r rytls 'Mar •Nay .Nmr
W. •P-"�fir' p Sew Mr+wR M bGw.n rweE Qvc•V •b.c PAa oar■aw ^•bEr ewwpn+r
fKANCIAL bFOrlaatolt •t:%Co Wall.oidfrl a w.dap4an rr+r+r•
NrrAt tb •d■le.a r Rme4• rw IAei.�sdi •U a c rirrwip. N*,A.p Noe done
IN Nrrdsus DirMrr d Ibnn •Canals •+Il•++o•o •..o•propRws •wvwrq bcw on
.Ivww@v*r• 6rNc+saar�Aran •Local Rwad Ood sT.•aM r.wsawob
•/sasytat • 0w 1"24" "a"ew.bplaRn Nsreoue..r.
.Kaa FN •D.rr.enb.bar,bea Owwo"n •.n.rm
A•2488•!490 •urrsaes .
•OrRnrl.a M
So 788
.•orran M
A•227+ .Sub wersory •IrKe.d•w CSWerP •e1a..
1gU8ENOl0 •EnoawRpn Reb •Cowry Sao RRa•b
I'Cvn&Bgudohms E.s wo P"W1Ve pogr•Ia dEaresrnb
a►MAOEYEM' ���aar�wr�pa Mr sal owed a la cant p•oo••a•+ .snAN CLAMS raprU b 6-r•wrw MHw
o...a.r...«.sale..
to show the impact of alternative levels of anticipated source reduction and recycling.
This chapter includes three different protections:
• An economic forecast, without any source reduction
• A market-driven protection, with moderate source reduction
• A. projection reflecting aggressive source reduction, and assuming
effective implementation of a series of local government efforts at both
new facilities and at existing plants.
Each projection defines waste stream quantities by types of wastes, locations of
generators, and types of industries generating the wastes.
In Chapter 8, these data are translated into a needs assessment. Waste stream profiles
for 2000 are structured to assess Alameda County's probable needs for new transfer
stations, treatment facilities of several kinds, hazardous waste incinerators, and residuals
repository, with sufficient capacity to ensure flexibility to meet unanticipated problems.
It is essential to note, however, that the needs analysis shown in Chapter 8 has been
superseded by the facility allocation process currently being conducted by the San
Francisco Bay Area Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee
(CAC) of the Association of Bay Area Governments, as part of the effort to develop an
interjurisdictional agreement among the nine Bay Area counties for siting new
hazardous waste facilities.
As part of the interjurisdictional agreement, the CAS has developed a Capacity
Allocation Plan for providing the capacity necessary to manage hazardous waste in the
region. The Capacity Allocation Plan is based on a "Fair Share" method for allocating
responsibility within the jurisdictional boundaries of the memeber counties. The
Capacity Allocation Plan shows that the nine-county region will have an overall
hazardous waste management capacity deficit of about 195,000 tons in 2000, assuming
existing capacity remains and no new capacity is added. The Capacity Allocation Plan
distributes responsibility for filling the regional capacity deficit among the participating
counties based upon their contribution to the deficit. According to the Capacity
Allocation Plan, Alameda County is responsible for providing siting opportunities for
managing continued hazardous waste recycling capacity in the region.
Chapter 9 contains siting criteria for the different types of hazardous waste facilities
and maps showing the application of those siting criteria to the County area. It also
contains composite maps showing designated general areas in which hazardous waste
facilities might be able to be sited.
Section IV of the Plan, Chapter 10 presents the Implementation Program for achieving
hazardous waste minimization; it includes recommendations on the roles of local
jurisdictions and the composition, responsibilities, and funding for a Hazardous Waste
Minimization Committee.
SF031609\AA\005.51 1-15
Chapter 2
POLICY DIRECTIONS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter explains the policy framework in which this plan was developed and which
is intended to guide its implementation in Alameda County through the turn of the
century. It also describes how the plan relates to the hazardous waste management
policies of other levels of government, as well as to existing county policies.
B. FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS
Recent state and federal legislation has established clear policies concerning manage-
ment of hazardous wastes. These policies express a preference for reducing waste
generation, and mandate a near-total phaseout of land disposal of all untreated hazard-
ous wastes between 1985 and 1992. These wastes are to be treated, greatly reducing
the remaining risks to public health and the environment.
In a significant break from traditional hazardous waste management approaches, Con-
gress in 1984 established a new policy direction. This policy states that land disposal
should only be used as a last resort for residues from waste treatment, and eliminated
as quickly and completely as possible for all untreated wastes. The 1984 federal Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (P. L. 98-616; 40 CFR Part 240 et. seq.) requires a nationwide phaseout
of disposal of all untreated liquid hazardous wastes on the land by 1992--including dis-
posal in landfills, pits, ponds, lagoons, surface impoundments, injection wells, or similar
facilities.
Congressional intention on this issue is specific. In the opening statement of its findings
and objectives in this legislation, the House-Senate conferees expressed the judgment
by Congress that the risks from land disposal were too great and made clear their pref-
erence for alternative management approaches for dealing with hazardous wastes:
The Conferees intent to convey a clear and unambiguous message to the regu-
lated community and the Environmental Protection Agency: reliance on land
disposal of hazardous waste has resulted in an unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment. Consequently, the Conferees intent that through
the vigorous implementation of this Act, land disposal will be eliminated for
many wastes and minimized for all others, and that advanced treatment, recy-
cling, incineration, and other hazardous waste control technologies should re-
place land disposal. In other words, land disposal should be used only as a last
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-1
resort and only under conditions which are fully protective of human health and
the environment'.
HSWA established a statutory presumption against land disposal of all untreated haz-
ardous wastes unless the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) specifically
found that such a ban for a particular waste was not required to protect human health
and the environment. The amendments established a set of specific deadlines for ban-
ning groups of hazardous wastes from land disposal. EPA can extend these deadlines
for up to 2 years only if there is a lack of alternate treatment capacity to handle those
wastes, thus providing the link to successful planning and siting.
HSWA brought small quantity generators (those producing less than 13.2 tons annually)
into the federal "cradle to grave" hazardous waste management system for the first
time; required generators to certify their efforts at reducing their waste production;
greatly strengthened operating, groundwater monitoring, financial capability, and clo-
sure standards for hazardous waste management facilities; and established a national
program to address leaking underground storage tanks.
In many respects, California has led the nation in acting to protect public health and
the environment by restricting the land disposal of hazardous wastes. This program,
begun in 1981, served as the national model for the 1984 federal HSWA. For example,
HSWA incorporates the so-called "California List" of hazardous wastes to be banned
from land disposal, so named because pre-existing California law provided for similar
restrictions. Through a large number of statutes, the state has restricted the ability of
generators to continue to rely on land disposal.
The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (Katz, 1984) required Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) inspections of surface impoundments and other pits, ponds, and
lagoons used for hazardous waste disposal, and-significantly limits their continued oper-
ation. In 1986, California accelerated this program through the hazardous Waste Man-
agement Act (SB1500, Roberti), which requires the state to promote reduction in haz-
ardous waste generation, increase recycling and treatment of hazardous wastes, and
allow land disposal of treatment residuals only. The California phaseout relative to
land disposal is more restrictive than that under RCRA and HSWA. The Legislature
declared:
The disposal of untreated hazardous waste in, or onto the land without adequate
technical safeguards threatens not only the quality of the state's land, air, and
water resources, but poses a direct hazard to health and safety by exposing the
public to substances that have been found to cause cancer, birth defects, miscar-
riages, nervous disorders, blood diseases, and damage to vital organs and
genes.... It is, therefore, in the public interest to establish a program to limit the
'Legislative History,Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.Public Law 98-616.98 Stat.3211,p.5651.
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-2
use of land disposal practices which do not meet certain prescribed standards
and promote alternatives for hazardous waste management2.
No untreated wastes may be placed on or in the land in California after May 1990, as
a result of SB 1500, which accelerates the federal mandate. This act, signed on the
same day as the AB 2948 planning and siting statute, extends state policies to reduce
the volumes of hazardous wastes being disposed on land. The act directs the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and State Department of Health Services
(DHS) to promote hazardous waste management practices following the hazardous
waste management hierarchy: reduction in hazardous waste generation, recycling, treat-
ment, and land disposal only of residuals from recycling and treatment.
Another significant policy directive, the federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthori-
zation Act (SARA) of 1986, requires each state to provide EPA by October 1989 with
assurance that adequate hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities will be avail-
able for handling the state's waste stream. This can be accomplished either within or
outside the state in accordance with an interstate or regional agreement, to provide
adequate capacity for the destruction, treatment, or secure disposition of all hazardous
wastes that are reasonably expected to be generated during the next 20 years. If this
assurance cannot be provided, EPA could withhold Superfund monies from the state to
provide for cleanup of known and yet to be identified hazardous waste sites.
Inherent in satisfying these state and federal laws, and the approximately 150 other
pieces of related legislation that have been passed over the last 3 years, is the need to
establish a comprehensive planning process to address hazardous waste management in
a rational way. This need has been recognized in AB 2948 (Tanner, 1986), which
established an opportunity for each county in California to develop and implement a
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. In adopting the Tanner Bill, the Legisla-
ture saw the need for reducing hazardous waste generation'as well as siting environ-
mentally appropriate alternatives to land disposal of untreated wastes:
Safe and responsible management of hazardous wastes is one of the most im-
portant environmental problems facing the state at the present time. This man-
agement is critical to the protection of the public health and the environment
and also to the economic growth of the state. If environmentally sound hazard-
ous waste facilities are not available to effectively manage the hazardous wastes
produced by the many industries of the state, the state's economic activity will
be hampered and cannot prosper, public health and the environment will be
threatened by the increased illegal disposal, and the use of outmoded disposal
practices will continue....3
2Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986(SB 1500, Roberti),as passed,p.l.
3Sec. 1(a)(2),Health and Safety Code
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-3
A solution to the safe and responsible management of hazardous wastes also
requires improved programs of waste source reduction and recycling, and en-
couraging onsite treatment of hazardous wastes, as preferable to the siting of
new land disposal facilities. The goal of this act, which recognizes the long-term
health, environmental, and economic risks of hazardous waste land disposal, is to
prevent hazardous waste from being permanently disposed into land, or emitted
into the air, without being processed by an economically and technically feasible
alternative technology. Attaining this goal will require the development of feasi-
ble programs which should result in the reduction of the volume and hazard of
hazardous wastes at their source, and the development of expanded recycling
programs for hazardous waste. This goal also requires that, as an alternative to
traditional land disposal methods, residuals repositories be utilized for the by-
products of preferred hazardous waste treatment technologies. Because of the
threat to public health and safety posed by the traditional land disposal of haz-
ardous wastes, it is necessary that these methods of dealing with hazardous
wastes come quickly into place4.
The Legislature, therefore, declares that it is in the public interest to establish
an effective process for hazardous waste management planning at the local level.
This process is consistent with the responsibility of local governments to assure
that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the hazard-
ous wastes generated within their jurisdictions 5.
C. EXISTING COUNTY GOALS AND POLICIES
Policies in the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan provide important start-
ing points for the comprehensive approaches to hazardous waste management planning.
COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Before AB 2948 was passed, county hazardous waste management planning was autho-
rized under state statutes mandating every county to prepare a County Solid Waste
Management Plan with triennial updates. The portion of the Solid Waste Management
Plan dealing with hazardous waste disposal was required to be reviewed by DHS for
conformity with state hazardous waste standards. DHS recommended that the discus-
sion of hazardous wastes be prepared as a separate element of the County Solid Waste
Management Plans.
The 1987 Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan contains a separate Hazard-
ous Waste Element, prepared after the passage of AB 2948 but before the
4Section 1(a)(4),Health and Safety Code
5Section 25135(b).Health and Safety Code
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-4
development of the DHS Guidelines for the preparation of County Hazardous Waste
._ Management Plans. This element represents "an interim approach to management of
hazardous waste in Alameda County that will be followed by a detailed County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan." This Hazardous Waste Management Plan will
supersede the information and programs contained in the Alameda County Solid Waste
Management Plan.
D. OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Goals, policies, objectives, and activities all have specific meaning in this plan:
• Goals, as broad statements of fundamental values, serve to orient policy
discussion and guide decisionmaking. They reflect consensus on basic
social,.political, and economic aims.
• Policies characterize the directions taken regarding major issues: steps
designed to achieve the goals. They reflect decisions -made after
consideration of specific alternative positions and are the basis for
directing development and implementation of the Alameda County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
• Objectives--specific statements of desired achievements over time--are
measurable. Progress toward reaching them can be assessed at specific
points during implementation of the Alameda County Plan. They are the
key milestones between 1988 and 2000 in carrying out the policies to
reach the goals.
• Activities are those steps needed to achieve the objectives in a timely
fashion. They describe the responsibilities, timing, and resources to
achieve objectives.
Basic goals and policies for hazardous waste management in Alameda County are dis-
cussed in this chapter; specific objectives and the activities that comprise the implemen-
tation effort, including the various new and revised programs to be developed for ac-
tion in Alameda County, are discussed in Section IV (implementation).
These goals and policies are based on extensive discussion by the Waste Management
Authority's Hazardous Waste Committee elected officials, Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Advisory Committee, city managers, industry, and the general public regarding
those major issues affecting Alameda County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
The primary goals of Alameda County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan are to
protect the public health, welfare and safety, and the environment, and to preserve and
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-5
enhance the economic vitality of the county by providing an overall framework for
responsibly managing hazardous wastes over the next decade or longer. Another goal
is to assist industry and government in meeting state and federal requirements to elimi-
nate land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes by 1990 with a minimum of economic
disruption or improper (or illegal) waste storage, management, or disposal. All areas
of California share responsibility for meeting these goals on an equitable basis.
In accord with the provisions of state law (AB 2948; Tanner, 1986), new hazardous
waste management facilities and significant expansions of existing facilities must all be
consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and siting criteria contained in each
county's Hazardous Waste Management Plan and must meet the demonstrated hazard-
ous waste management needs of each county.
The Waste Management Authority's Hazardous Waste Committee will continue to
make policy recommendations to the Authority.
E. ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT POLICIES
POLICY 1: LAND DISPOSAL
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHOULD AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE THE PHASEOUT
OF LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY INDUSTRY
IN THE COUNTY
Policy IA. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority will promote the responsible management of hazardous materials and wastes
by providing a sound basis for planning and siting those new facilities that offer alter-
natives to continued reliance on disposal of hazardous wastes in the air, water, or land.
Policy 1B. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority will continue to encourage economic development in Alameda County. Un-
der this plan, these agencies will require the responsible management of hazardous
wastes and the cooperation and compliance of all firms, existing and new, with restric-
tions on land disposal of hazardous wastes.
POLICY 2: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHOULD OVER TIME LIMIT THE OVERALL GENERA-
TION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Policy 2A. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority will assist local, regional, and state authorities in establishing, maintaining,
and monitoring standards necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare, and the
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-6
environment in managing hazardous materials and wastes. It is essential that
government at all levels ensure that any activities involving hazardous materials and
wastes comply with appropriate regulatory standards.
Policy 2B. In this plan, Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste
Management Authority shall all require all hazardous waste generators, including large
generators, small quantity generators, local governments and special districts, as well as
households--to adopt and implement the hierarchy of hazardous waste management
strategies to the maximum extent feasible both economically and practically. Whenever
possible, hazardous waste management decisions should give preference to those prac-
tices that are higher on the hierarchy:
1. Source reduction including toxics use reduction
2. Reuse and recycling onsite
3. Reuse and recycling offsite
4. Treatment onsite
5. Treatment offsite
6. Incineration except as otherwise prohibited
7. Secure disposal of residuals from recycling, treatment, and incineration
This fundamental hierarchy emphasizes the importance of preventing (rather than man-
aging or controlling) pollution--whether of air, water, or land--by giving highest priority
to reducing hazardous waste generation at the source. This can be accomplished in a
variety of ways, including substituting the use of less-hazardous materials in manufac-
turing and consumption, process modifications, and housekeeping measures.
Once source reduction has been pursued to the extent practical,second priority should
be given to recycling and reuse of wastes. All remaining wastes would then be treated
either onsite or offsite. If appropriate, recycling and treatment residuals would then be
incinerated, along with incinerable wastes. Where hazardous waste is amenable to
forms of treatment other than incineration, these other forms of treatment should be
given preference over incineration. The ash from incineration, plus other inorganic
treatment residuals, would then be placed in special land disposal units made secure
from liquids that might create leachate and contaminate groundwater.
Hazardous waste incineration should be considered the treatment technology of last
choice. Those wastes defined as incinerable wastes should be targeted as the highest
priority in source reduction and waste minimization efforts. Measures implementing
source reduction and minimization of incinerable wastes should be established in all
jurisdictions and. should be allowed sufficient time to show results before incinerator
proposals are considered.
Policy 2C. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority will require through regulation that firms adopt and follow this hazardous
waste management hierarchy to the maximum extent feasible both economically and
practically. Alameda County shall devise and implement a special comprehensive new
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-7
program to eliminate barriers and encourage and assist source reduction and waste
minimization actions by private firms and government agencies.
POLICY 3: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE REDUCTION
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE REDUCTION SHOULD REPRESENT A TOP
PRIORITY IN ALAMEDA COUNTY'S PLAN AND.PURSUIT OF THE HIERAR-
CHY
Policy 3A. Hazardous materials use reduction is a top priority of the Plan. The
county, its cities, the special districts, and the Waste Management Authority will pro-
mote an aggressive hazardous materials use reduction effort for all existing industry,
and will encourage existing industry to conduct hazardous materials use reduction au-
dits and develop plans for toxic use reduction. These agencies of government should
work cooperatively with industries, assisting and supporting them in efforts to use fewer
toxic materials in manufacturing processes whenever feasible. Reduction in materials
use is the most effective method of reducing waste from the standpoint of cost to indus-
try (manufacturing and disposal) and cost to government (less regulation and reduced
need for treatment and disposal facilities).
Policy 3B. Firms wishing to locate in Alameda County (or to expand existing
facilities significantly) shall demonstrate commitment to the policy of hazardous
materials use reduction as a condition for receiving land use approvals and business
permits. Industries may be required to supplement initial designs with mandatory plans
to further reduce the amount and toxicity of hazardous materials required for
manufacturing processes. Progress toward accomplishing this objective should be
assessed as part of the permit renewal process.
POLICY 4: SOURCE REDUCTION AND WASTE-MINIMIZATION
SOURCE REDUCTION AND WASTE MINIMIZATION ARE A TOP PRIORITY
IN ALAMEDA COUNTY'S HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Policy 4A. Source reduction and waste minimization are a top priority of the plan.
The county, its cities, the special districts, and the Waste Management Authority will
promote an aggressive effort for all existing industry. Special new efforts will be de-
vised and implemented to ensure maximum pursuit of source reduction and waste mini-
mization at these existing facilities.
Government agencies should encourage innovative private-sector waste reduction activi-
ties and should act to remove barriers to wider source reduction and recycling through
creation and implementation of a waste reduction program designed in concert with
both large and small generators in Alameda County. The Waste Management
Authority will develop a model source reduction,program as its highest-priority task in
implementing this plan. Where barriers exist that are beyond the direct control of local
governments and districts to resolve, local agencies will advise appropriate state or
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-8
federal authorities with recommendations for removing the barriers to accelerate source
reduction.
Policy 4B. Implementing an aggressive waste reduction program will require local
governments to work closely and cooperatively with industry and draw upon its exper-
tise. The policy of Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Manage-
ment Authority is to work collaboratively in a spirit of public-private partnership with
local firms, existing and new, in pursuing waste reduction and implementing the
hazardous waste management hierarchy. Waste reduction can be rapidly implemented
by each firm to the maximum extent economically feasible.
POLICY 5: ONSITE TREATMENT
THE PLAN SHOULD ENCOURAGE ONSITE TREATMENT IN PREFERENCE
TO OFFSITE TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM ALAMEDA
COUNTY GENERATORS
Policy 5. Alameda County, its cities, the special districts, and the Waste
Management Authority encourage firms whenever practical to employ onsite
management in preference to offsite management of hazardous wastes. Firms should
incorporate onsite management as part of overall manufacturing processes in order to
reduce transportation risks to the community. Special attention should be given to the
needs of small business generators for whom some types of hazardous waste
management may not be practical onsite. While regulatory measures to give priority to
onsite hazardous waste management may be needed, rigorous enforcement of standards
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare or the environment should be
undertaken.
POLICY 6: CENTRALIZED VS. DISPERSED FACILITIES
OFFSITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYCLING AND TREAT-
MENT ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE CENTRALIZED IN A RELATIVELY SMALL
NUMBER OF LARGE FACILITIES
Policy 6. Alameda County, its cities, the special districts, and the Waste
Management Authority strongly encourage locating offsite hazardous waste
management facilities as closely as possible to the sources of hazardous waste
generation, taking into consideration the siting of such facilities within the jurisdiction
where the predominant amount of waste to be processed by the facility is generated.
Within the practical limits reasonably imposed by economies of scale, market service
areas, and environmental suitability (including consistency with the siting criteria
contained in this plan), hazardous waste management facilities should be dispersed as
close as possible to clusters of hazardous waste generation sources. This is consistent
with implementation of the hazardous waste management hierarchy, and with Alameda
County's intention to distribute facility siting decisions fairly at the County's jurisdictions
according to their basic shares of local hazardous waste generation.
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-9
POLICY 7: TRANSFER STATIONS
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS AT
APPROPRIATE (DISPERSED) LOCATIONS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY SHOULD
BE ENCOURAGED
Policy 7. Alameda County, its cities, the special districts, and the Waste
Management Authority recognize the important role played by hazardous waste
transfer stations dispersed among clusters of generators, taking into consideration the
siting of such facilities within the jurisdiction where the predominant amount of waste
to be processed by the facility is generated. Easily-accessible transfer facilities will be
encouraged as a key to the county's ability to address the hazardous waste management
needs of its smaller generators and households. This is an essential element in
implementation of Alameda County's small quantity generator and household
hazardous waste programs.
POLICY 8: SMALL GENERATORS
ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO SMALL BUSINESSES THAT GENER-
ATE SMALL QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Policy 8A. The highest priority for immediate attention in this hazardous waste man-
agement plan is to meet the needs of the larger industrial firms that generate the great-
est volumes of hazardous waste. These generators will be expected to comply first with
the provisions of Policies 2B and 2C regarding the hazardous waste hierarchy. Small
firms and small generators of hazardous wastes have special needs and pose enormous
potential risks from possible illegal disposal of these waste. Special attention from local
governments should be directed to small generators. Alameda County, its cities, the
Waste Management Authority, and the special .districts address the special hazardous
waste management programs of small business/small quantity generators.by first identi-
fying such a generator and then by identifying and reducing barriers to improved
practices, especially waste reduction. The Plan encourages waste management firms to
provide regulatory and technical information, affordable waste audits, and pickup and
recycling services specifically tailored to small businesses. Special programs to provide
financial assistance (e.g., loans or loan guarantees) to allow smaller firms to pursue the
hazardous waste hierarchy are also needed on a high-priority basis.
Policy 8B. Programs to assist small business hazardous waste generators in Alameda
County should be designed to be self-sustaining by providing their own revenue
source(s) (e.g., through fees or the like). However, such a funding basis should be
designed not to impose such a burden on the program's target groups that it
discourages their participation and responsible hazardous waste management. The
availability of state grants, loans, and loan guarantees and of creative private-sector
financing mechanisms all deserve careful exploration.
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-10
POLICY 9: HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES
A PROGRAM FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES SHOULD BE DE-
VELOPED
Policy 9. An effective ongoing program should be developed to help educate
households.in .Alameda. County regarding.household hazardous materials and wastes
and the potential effects when these wastes are discarded into landfills. The program
must provide for effectively collecting household hazardous wastes. Funding for
household hazardous waste programs should be sought from the state. Alternatively, a
modest surcharge could be added to existing fees for garbage collection and disposal
under the provisions of AB 1.809 (Tanner, 1986). Provisions should eventually be made
to treat household hazardous wastes rather than disposing of them in hazardous waste
landfills.
POLICY 10: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN-
NING AND SPECIFIC FACILITY SITING IN ALAMEDA COUNTY SHOULD BE
ENCOURAGED
Policy 10. Active public involvement, on the part of both citizens and industry, in
developing and implementing the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan is essential. It forms the basis for a responsible program to protect public health,
safety and welfare, and the environment in order to move away from reliance on land
disposal. The economic vitality of Alameda County can best be maintained through the
cooperative involvement of local industry in developing and implementing the plan. All
sectors of the public, including large and small industry and civic and environmental
organizations, are encouraged to participate in plan development and implementation.
Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management Authority must
all encourage active public involvement in the hazardous waste planning and siting
process.
POLICY 11: PUBLIC EDUCATION
AN ONGOING PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM ON HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES SHOULD BE INSTITUTED IN
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Policy 11. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority will promote widespread ongoing education of citizens on hazardous
materials and waste management issues. Citizens have a right to know how these
materials and wastes are managed and ways in which people can contribute to
improving that management and the protection of their health, safety, and economic
well-being.
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-11
Local agencies will also make special efforts to include industry--especially smaller
businesses--as a target of educational and outreach efforts, and a vehicle for citizens'
education. Adequate funding will be sought to sustain a long-term public education
effort. The public participation effort undertaken as part of the development and
implementation process represents a major component of this education. The purpose
of a strong public participation/education program is to educate the public over the
long-term to improve the level of general understanding about hazardous waste man-
agement issues; to inform the public about the planning and siting process; to involve
the public in the process; and to incorporate the public's concerns and issues into the
Plan process.
POLICY 12: REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE RESPONSIBILITIES
THE PLAN SHOULD IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS ALAMEDA COUNTY'S RE-
SPONSIBILITIES TO OTHER COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA TO HELP MEET
OVERALL REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGE-
MENT NEEDS
Policy 12A. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority recognize their responsibility to join in with other governments in the region
and the state in planning for the effective management of all the hazardous wastes
generated in the region and the state in accord with the hazardous waste management
hierarchy set forth in Policy 2B. Legal constraints such as the Interstate Commerce
Clause in the U.S. Constitution limit local governments' ability to restrict use of
privately-owned hazardous waste management facilities to those generators located
within their own jurisdictions. Therefore, sound hazardous waste management
planning, waste reduction efforts, and appropriate facility siting are the mutual respon-
sibility of all governments. Alameda County, its cities, the special districts, and the
Waste Management Authority encourage multi-county-and regional efforts to plan and
implement alternatives to land disposal of hazardous wastes and to limit the risks posed
by large-scale transportation of hazardous wastes around the state. Local agencies will
participate in and support efforts designed to allocate and develop facilities among
all jurisdictions according to interjurisdictional agreements, each facility's environmental
suitability, and each facility's economic viability.
Policy 12B. Alameda County, its cities, the special districts, and the Waste
Management Authority encourage developing new hazardous waste management
facilities adequate by type and capacity to meet all of the expected or potential needs
of hazardous waste generators located within Alameda County, including sufficient
redundancy to ensure flexibility in responding to unanticipated future events.
Policy 12C. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority agree to consider as part of an intercounty compromise set forth in a formal
intercounty agreement to host an environmentally appropriate, economically viable
hazardous waste management facility (or facilities) within its own borders and designed
to serve the needs of hazardous waste generators in other counties as well as genera-
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-12
tors within Alameda County. Facilities that are built in accord with intercounty agree-
_. ments will receive local land use approval in accord with existing legislation.
Policy 12D. Local jurisdiction will assure that private firms located in Alameda
County and using out-of-county hazardous waste management facilities follow all
appropriate federal and state procedures; that they pursue aggressive source reduction;
that such facilities receive all necessary mitigation measures to protect the environment
and public health in their vicinity; and that host counties are adequately compensated
as provided under state law. Alameda County and the Waste Management Authority
similarly seek reciprocal agreements with other counties to provide mitigation and
compensation for hosting a facility intended to serve generators from outside Alameda
County.
Policy 12E. Alameda County, its cities, special districts, and the Waste Management
Authority will consider the feasibility and desirability of developing innovative new fee
and rebate mechanisms designed to provide specific fiscal incentives for local hazardous
waste generators to follow the hazardous waste management hierarchy and to make
maximum use of those hazardous waste management facilities located within Alameda
County (or to use those out-of-county facilities covered in a formal intercounty agree-
ment)-
POLICY 13: ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MAY
CONSIDER DEVELOPING CERTAIN PUBLIC HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGE-
MENT FACILITIES
Policy 13. If necessary, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, in
cooperation with local jurisdictions, will explore the possibility of developing facilities
needed to serve generators in the county that may not otherwise be developed
appropriately by private developers. Priority consideration will be given to developing
a residuals repository if needed to provide a positive economic inducement to private
development of new treatment facilities. Joint public-private combinations might be
explored as well.
POLICY 14: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND SITING
PRINCIPLE
The County and its cities will act to provide for the safe, effective management of haz-
ardous waste generated within the county. New offsite hazardous waste management
facilities shall be primarily limited to a scale necessary to meet the hazardous waste
management needs of this county: larger facilities may be permitted in accordance with
agreements reached between this county and other jurisdictions or upon determination
of the local governing body that the project meets local planning criteria and serves
public needs. The "fair share principle," as defined below, will guide the County's
efforts to provide for the management of hazardous wastes generated within the
county.
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-13
The County and its cities recognize their collective responsibility to cooperate with
other governments in the region and the state in planning for the effective management
of hazardous wastes generated in the region and the state in accordance with the
hazardous waste management hierarchy. Sound hazardous waste management
planning, waste reduction efforts, and appropriate facility siting are the mutual
responsibility of all governments. To this end, the County and its cities encourage
multicounty and regional efforts to plan and implement alternatives to land disposal of
untreated wastes and to limit the risks posed by transportation of hazardous wastes
around the state. Agreements for new facilities to provide the offsite capacity needed
for hazardous waste treatment and residuals disposal should be reached among
jurisdictions according to their fair share of the hazardous waste stream, each
jurisdiction's environmental suitability for different types of facilities, their economic
interests, and economic viability of different types and sizes of facilities. Any privately-
owned facility located in this county shall be available to serve generators from inside
and outside the County.
"Fair share" denotes that each county is responsible for the disposition of its own waste;
that is, responsible for its share of waste management. A county cannot be required to
accept a facility with a capacity that significantly exceeds the county's own needs, except
as provided by an interjurisdictional agreement. It is recognized that the waste streams
in each county will probably not support an economically efficient hazardous waste
facility of each type needed to handle a county's waste. Therefore, counties are
encouraged to enter into interjurisdictional agreements to balance economic efficiency
in the size of facilities and to responsibly handle their fair share of the wastes
generated. If the county has approved the siting of a facility or facilities that have a
capacity equal to or in excess of the county's total hazardous waste management needs,
the county will have achieved its fair share of hazardous waste management facilities
siting and cannot be forced to accept the siting of additional facilities except as
provided by interjurisdictional agreement. The county-recognizes that if it does not
fulfill its obligations under Implementation Objectives 1-3 below, county policy with
regard to the siting of facilities, will be to permit siting of environmentally appropriate
facilities, otherwise consistent with the Plan, without regard to the fair share principle.
The Fair Share language does not become operative until interjurisdictional agreements
are in place.
SITING CRITERIA
Any proposed specified hazardous waste management facility shall be consistent with
the goals and policies of this Plan. In particular, any proposed facility shall be consis-
tent with the fair share principle and with any interjurisdictional agreements on haz-
ardous waste management. Local needs are to be the primary basis for this decision,
along with regional commitments. Specifically, facilities are to be designed and sized
primarily to meet the hazardous waste management needs of this county, or to meet
the county's broader commitments under an interjurisdictional agreement or upon
SF031609\AA\003.51 2-14
determination of the local governing body that the project meets local planning criteria
and serves public needs.
IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES
(1) Siting Consistency: The county, and each city, shall require that all local land
use decisions on siting specified hazardous waste management facilities are consistent
with the goals and policies and the siting criteria contained in the Plan. Specifically, the
county will approve the siting of an environmentally appropriate facility that is consis-
tent with the policies of this plan and disapprove the siting of a facility that is inconsis-
tent with plan policies or is environmentally inappropriate.
(2) County Actions: The county will actively seek to meet its unmet hazardous
waste management capacity needs through any combination of the following: waste
reduction, facility siting, and interjurisdictional agreements. Proposals for hazardous
waste management facilities will receive.the full attention of the county planning staff
and governing body. The county will continue to actively seek to meet its hazardous
waste management capacity needs until such time as the county has met those needs
through any combination of waste reduction, facility siting, or interjurisdictional
agreements.
(3) Focus of Interjurisdictional Agreement Negotiations: The county shall enter
into negotiations with other jurisdictions for the purpose of negotiating one or more
interjurisdictional agreements for the siting of hazardous waste management facilities
adequate and necessary to meet the needs of the signatory jurisdictions. Such agree-
ments shall follow the principle of fair share and may take into account both the vol-
umes and degree of hazard for the wastes generated that require offsite management
within each participating jurisdiction and the degree of waste reduction effort made by
each participating jurisdiction.
If the siting of a particular type of hazardous waste management facility needed in this
county is not environmentally appropriate or economically viable, the county shall reach
an agreement with one or more other jurisdictions to facilitate the siting of a larger,
environmentally appropriate and economically viable facility (or facilities) to be located
elsewhere. This county and its cities, in turn, agree to actively consider and, if appro-
priate, to commit as part of an interjurisdictional agreement to approve the siting of an
environmentally appropriate facility (or facilities) within its own borders designed and
sized to serve the hazardous waste management needs of other jurisdictions as well as
of this county.
SFO316W\AA\003.51 2-1$
SECTION II
CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT:
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Chapter 3
CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
PATTERNS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
A. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to describe current patterns of hazardous waste
generation in Alameda County. In order to develop a set of policies for effective
future management of hazardous wastes in Alameda County, an understanding of the
composition of hazardous waste and the patterns of hazardous waste generation is
essential. This chapter provides an assessment of available data, an analysis of
Alameda County's current waste stream, and a profile of the county's hazardous waste
generators.'
B. DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS
This analysis of Alameda County's patterns of hazardous waste generation is based on
currently available data. The extent to which these data accurately and precisely
describe the waste stream limits the accuracy of this analysis. Unfortunately, detailed
reliable data are not readily available. While this analysis has extended beyond the
information provided by the Department of Health Services (DHS), many gaps and
uncertainties still remain. It will be essential to update and build upon these data in
the future to produce a more accurate description of current hazardous waste
generation in the county.
The analysis contained in this Plan does provide a.qualitative description of the overall
hazardous waste stream, and presents many quantifiable estimates for consideration by
decisionmakers. The analysis provides a model for further investigations, and identifies
possible areas of emphasis in Alameda County's future hazardous waste management
planning effort. Principal data gaps and technical restrictions that limit this analysis are
identified and discussed in the following paragraphs.
This plan uses 1986 manifest summaries from the DHS Hazardous Waste Information
System. These manifest data cover those hazardous wastes which generators shipped
offsite, accompanied by a DHS manifest form. These summaries are the most complete
and reliable data source currently available for purposes of this study. However, this
information clearly does not describe Alameda County's total hazardous waste stream.
The data are based on incomplete material obtained from the State manifest system and local generators. The Plan
implementation program calls for early review and update of the Plan where these deficiencies will be corrected. Comments
from State DHS on the data portion of the Plan were received too late to include in the final Plan.
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-1
By definition the manifests only contain information concerning wastes shipped offsite.
No information is included for those hazardous wastes managed onsite. The manifests
contain information about only a portion of the wastes shipped offsite. If a generator
fills out a manifest partially, or illegibly, these partial data are entered into a suspense
file. DHS estimate that approximately 20 percent of the manifests are in the suspense
file. It is not known what waste types or volumes this represents. Beyond the suspense
file data, the.".unknown"..manifest summaries were not received. The DHS summaries
contain errors. For example data from other counties were included. The tables in the
Plan have been corrected.
Although data theoretically describe all county wastes shipped offsite, in reality many
Alameda County generators do not fill out DHS manifests. Many small generators may
be unaware that they produce hazardous wastes, or that they are required to submit
information to the state and others are unwilling to incur the high costs of full `
compliance.
DHS has developed a series of formulas (based on an EPA survey of small quantity
generators) to estimate the number of unidentified small quantity generators (SQGs)
and the hazardous wastes they produce. This "No Survey Method" is described in the
DHS Guidelines for Preparation of Hazardous Waste Management Plans: Technical
Reference. Manual (TRM). This method provides calculations to estimate the waste
streams produced by 22 industry groups. The TRM lists several Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes of businesses in each industry group.
Calculations were made for each industry group using only businesses whose SIC codes
were included in the TRM. There may be businesses which were not included in
calculations, yet are potential generators; therefore the list of generators may not be
complete. Numbers of businesses in Alameda County came from the Bureau of
Census, 1985 County Business Patterns. This is currently the most reliable source for
information regarding county business profiles; however, it too may contain errors such
as listings of local business offices for out-of-county generators. The conversion factors
in the TRM for the amounts of waste generated by an industry group are single
numbers applied to all businesses within that industry group, regardless of their size.
This could lead to inaccuracies because large businesses typically generate more wastes
than do small ones. An effort was made to calibrate the conversion factors to business
size using DHS manifest data, but without success.
Estimations of waste oil generation outside the manifest system were made separately,
using conversion factors provided by DHS for industry groups and County Business
Patterns data and checked. These estimates seem reasonable according to
conversations with several California waste oil recyclers. However, it has been difficult
to justify the estimates in terms of known local waste oil sources.
One limitation affects all estimates included in this report: quantifying hazardous waste
streams is a relatively recent undertaking. Thus, benefits of long term experience and
practice that can add refinement to a process are lacking. This is evident in the
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-2
problems identified with the No Survey Method. Only a few studies are available to
help estimate household hazardous waste streams, and each of these has its own
limitations which are discussed later in this chapter. Inspection programs in Alameda
County are not completely developed. Much of the data available from the
Department of Environmental Health (DEH) about the 1,500 businesses it has
inspected to date were not complete enough for this analysis, or is in the process of
being coded. Some city fire departments.have extensive data on hazardous materials
storage, but not on hazardous waste generation. No commonly accepted system exists
to estimate hazardous wastes from leaking underground tanks. For these reasons, the
data presented in this analysis should be viewed as preliminary and subject to change as
data collection and analysis efforts continue and improve. A program of ongoing data
collection and analysis will be essential to monitor the changing hazardous waste stream
in the county.
C. OVERALL TYPES AND VOLUMES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
The current annual waste stream for Alameda County is summarized in Table 3-1 and
shown graphically in Figure 3-1. It includes manifested wastes, estimates of wastes from
small quantity generators, an estimate of wastes from leaking underground tank
remediation, and an estimate of annual household hazardous waste generation. The
total is just over 100,000 tons per year (200 million pounds).
Manifested wastes account for half of the estimated total county waste stream, and
wastes from recycling operations account for fully another 15 percent of the total.
These facts suggest that significant progress has been made in managing hazardous
wastes in Alameda County. In many counties, 80 to 90 percent of all hazardous wastes
appear to fall outside the formal manifest system. Recycling is desirable as a waste
management technique; few counties in California can count wastes headed for
recycling as up to one-quarter of their total manifested wastes.
Examination of manifest data reveals errors in the basic manifest listings, and shows
that some listings--such as those for recycled products--can be misleading. The original
total for 1986 manifest wastes in Alameda County was 66,694 tons, as shown on
Table 3-2. Corrections and adjustments, as shown, isolate those hazardous wastes--
50,267 tons--that comprise Alameda County's regular annual waste stream. The 15,834
tons of recycled wastes were isolated from other categories of the manifested wastes
The adjusted figure of 50,300 tons/year has been used in Table 3-1 for manifested
hazardous wastes, plus another 15,800 tons/year of wastes designated for recycling.
Table 3-1 also shows the impact of small quantity generators in Alameda County; fully
32 percent of the estimated hazardous waste stream comes from several thousand small
firms, outside the DHS manifest system. By comparison to the smaller generators,
household hazardous wastes (1,900 tons) and contaminated soils from cleanup of
leaking tanks (900 tons) are very small.
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-3
Table 3-1
Hazardous Waste Summary
19869
Tons per Year
Manifested Hazardous Wastes" 50,300
Waste Oils (16,500)
All Other Wastes (33,800)
Small Quantity Generator` Hazardous Wastes 32,100
Waste Oils' (22,600)
All Other Wastes (9,500) M
Waste from Cleanup of Leaky Underground Tanks goof
Household Wastesg 1,900
Subtotal 85,200
Recycled Wastes 15,800
Oils (13,300)
Solvents (2,500)
TOTAL 101,000
'All waste streams are rounded to the nearest 100 tons per year. For actual value,
see appropriate table.
"See Table 3-2 for correction method from formal DHS manifests.
`Equivalent to a yearly waste stream of less than 13.2 tons (1,000 kg per month)
dData generated from the No Survey Method outlines in the Technical Reference ,.
Manual developed by DHS.
'Adjusted to account for the amount of oil manifested in the county in 1986.
,Mean of range, 700 to 1,100 tons/year.
gBased on estimate of 3.44 kilograms per year (7.56 pounds per year) from recent
survey in Marin County. There are 492,271 households in Alameda County
according to the Department of Finance (January 1, 1988).
SF031609\AA\004A.51 3-4
r
FIGURE 3- 1
Hazardous Waste Summary
1986
60 , 000
50,300 TOTAL
101 9000 TONS a
o �
40 ,000
w � °�,
i 32, 100
Waste
Oils o
0
20 , 000 --
15,800
Solvents
All rrrsrr4 rrrr
��. 1
oQd�,QO�� Other Yr:sst:s�t. Oils
Wastes srsr��rcYS 1,900
900
1986 Small 1986 Estimated One-Time
1986 Household
Manifested Quantity Recycled Generation
Wastes
Wastes
• Generators Wastes
*Excludes One-Time And Recycled Wastes
Table 3-2
Hazardous Waste Manifest Data -
1986
Number Tons
Regular Manifestorsa 627 63,873
One-Time Manifestors 149 2,821
Subtotal 776 66,694
Corrections:
Wastes Incorrectly Manifested in Alameda Countyn (593)
Subtotal 66,101
Recycled Wastes`
Waste Oil Products (13,340)
Solvent Products (2,494)
Subtotal Corrections (15,834)
Total Corrected Manifested Hazardous Wastes 50,267
'Each manifestor has an EPA ID number, but one company can have multiple ID
numbers. A company may be included more than once.
"These wastes were generated in other counties but mistakenly included in the
Alameda county manifest list supplies by DHS.
`Wastes manifested by recyclers in Alameda County do not correlate with other
kinds of hazardous wastes. Recyclers are allowed to pick up wastes from their
customers without filling out a detailed manifest form. They complete a daily
form showing the volume of wastes they have collected which is entered in the
manifest system as if it were generated at the location of the recycler, when in
reality these wastes are being "imported" to that location. Moreover, these
recyclers pick up wastes from customers outside Alameda County, yet their
manifests are keyed to their location within Alameda County. These wastes are
so different that they deserve separate analysis.
WWastes such as contaminated soils, asbestos and PCBs, which result from one-
time occurrences, were not subtracted from the manifest total because in a large
county such as Alameda, with its sizeable industrial profile, such nontypical, one- ?
time occurrences are an expected waste stream element. Wastes from companies
which have gone out of business were included in the manifest total.
SF031609\AA\004B.51 3-6
D. WASTE OILS
In Table 3-1, waste oils represent more than twice the amount of all other wastes
estimated for small quantity generators. The total of waste oils from small generators,
combined with those from generators and recyclers covered on the DHS manifests,
accounts for 36 percent of Alameda County's estimated total hazardous waste stream.
Table 3-3 focuses on the six recyclers in Oakland, Pleasanton, and Newark in operation
in 1986. Together they manifested 24 percent (15,834 tons) of all 1986 manifested
county wastes. The three recyclers in Oakland and the one in Pleasanton transfer
hazardous wastes to their facilities in these cities, but are not the actual "generators" of
these wastes. DHS grants variances for oil and solvent recyclers, allowing them to
minimize the paperwork of filling out a manifest for each collection made during the
day by submitting only a summary manifest to report the total amount of waste
collected which shows only the address of the recycling facility, not the locations of the
original generators. Alameda County's recyclers collect from many counties, yet their
daily manifests show only these Alameda recycling facility addresses, even though some
were generated in other counties.
All American Oil Company in Pleasanton and Waste Oil Recovery Systems in Oakland
together account for over 90 percent of total waste recycling shown on 1986 manifests
for Alameda County. Artesian Oil Recovery in Oakland is much smaller. Waste Oil
Recovery Systems shows 5 tons of oily sludges sent for disposal, as well as the 5,275
tons of oils collected for recycling. All American Oil shows only the 6,149 tons of oil
for recycling, with no oily sludges for disposal.
Safety Kleen Corporation in Oakland operates a recycling system for waste solvents,
particularly from dry cleaners. This firm in 1986 showed 2,289 tons of solvents (over 97
percent nonhalogenated) headed for recycling in Oakland. Baron-Blakeslee recycled
196 tons of halogenated solvents in 1986. In Newark, RCA Oil Recovery is a waste oil
hauler, not a recycler. This hauler's wastes are collected from firms in several counties
and then deposited at a Santa Clara County transfer station each day. They are neither
stored nor recycled at Newark; only the hauler's business office is there. The wastes
are not necessarily generated in-county; and in-county efforts to reduce hazardous
waste generation are not likely to significantly affect these totals.2
E. MANIFESTED HAZARDOUS WASTES
Table 3-4 lists Alameda County's cities in decreasing order of their contribution to the
1986 manifested hazardous waste stream. Geographical distribution of hazardous
wastes shifts when recyclers are considered separately. Pleasanton manifests more than
2Evergreen Oil Inc.,started an oil recycling plant in Newark in 1986,producing no hazardous waste byproducts. Approximately
21,000 tons of waste oil were recycled in 1987. Of this amount it is estimated that 2.700 came from Alameda County. Capacity
of the plant is 35.000-42.000 tons per year. This plant significantly increases the County's waste oil recycling capacity.
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-7
Table 3-3
Waste Oil and Solvent Recycling Facilities in Alameda County
(By City,and Waste Category Manifested)
1986
Waste Oil Halogenated Nonhalogenaled Oily Sludge Percent of
for Solvents for Solvents for from Total City
Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Total Waste
Newark .,.-
RCA Oil Recovery 1,035 1,035
Baron-Blakeslee, Inc. 196 196
Total 1.035 196 1,231 24
::Oakland
Artesian Waste Oil Recovery 876 876
Safety Kleen Corporation 64 2,225 2,289
Waste Oil Recovery Systems 5,275 5 5,280
Total 6,151 64 2,225 5 8,445 49
Pleasanton:,:::..,.,..
_ .
All American Oil Company 6.149 9 6,158 82
Overall Total 13,335 269 2,225 5 15,834
Percent of total manifested wastes in Alameda County: 24 percent.
SFO31609\AA\004C.51 3-8
Table 3-4
Waste Stream Generation by City
1986 Manifest Data
Manifested Wastes
No. of (Corrected) All Manifested Wastes
City Manifests TPY Percent TPY Percent
Oakland 201 8,707 17 17,152 26
Emeryville 36 7,379 15 7,380 11
Hayward* 115 7,305 15 7,305 11
Fremont 118 5,637 11 5,637 9
Newark 29 3,901 8 5,132 8
Alameda 31 3,759 7 3,757 6
Livermore 25 3,352 7 3,351 5
Berkeley 70 3,267 6 3,266 5
Union City 20 3,032 6 3,032 5
San Leandro 78 2,173 4 2,174 3
Pleasanton 20 1,378 3 7,537 11
Piedmont 91 <1 91 <1
Albany 46 <1 46 <1
Dublin 24 33 <1 33 <1
Unincorporated 206 <1 206 <1
TOTALS 776 50,266 100 66,101 101
*The City of Hayward Fire Department reports that Davis Walker installed a dryer
in October 1987 to process metal containing sludge which reduces waste form 604
to 135 tons per year, a 78 percent reduction. In July-1988, Davis Walker installed
an acid recovery system eliminating disposal of 4,120 tons of metal containing
liquid. Total reduction of waste is from 4,724 to 135 tons per year, a 97 percent
total reduction. This significantly reduces the portion of the County waste stream
composed of metal containing liquids generated in the City of Hayward. As a
result, total waste generated in the City of Hayward has dropped from 7,305 tons
in 1986 to 3,716 tons in 1988..
SF031609\AA\004D.51 3-9
any other city except Oakland because it is the location of All American Oil Company.
When recyclers' manifests are excluded, however, Pleasanton drops.
Figure 3-2 shows this situation graphically. From the corrected data without recycling,
Oakland, Emeryville, and Hayward account for 46 percent of the county's total.
Although Emeryville contributed substantially to the manifested waste stream, only 36
generators,.as compared with 201 in Oakland and 115 in Hayward, produced this waste.
While two of these sources in Emeryville were large cleanups, the percentage of mid-
and large-sized manifested generators in Emeryville is greater than in other Alameda
County cities.
Inspection of the data shown in Table 3-5 reveals the types of manifested hazardous
wastes generated by each city in the County. These data include all manifested wastes,
the recycled ones among them (wastes from small generators are not included here).
Waste oils are manifested primarily in Oakland, Pleasanton, and Newark, locations of
the three oil recyclers and one hauler. These wastes were not necessarily generated in _
these cities. Hayward generates a significant volume (506 tons) of waste oils. The
Naval Air Station in Alameda also manifests a substantial amount (496 tons) of waste
oil (672 tons in the city as a whole).
Miscellaneous waste is the second largest manifested waste category in Alameda
County: 9,320 tons. Asbestos, inorganic solids, pharmaceuticals, aged organics, empty
containers, photo and lab wastes, and household wastes are all included. These wastes
represent a significant portion of almost every city's total manifested waste stream, but
are particularly large in Oakland (2,238 tons), Emeryville (1,568 tons), and
Berkeley(1,320 tons).
Metal-containing liquids compose the next largest portion of the waste stream: 6,922
tons. In Hayward, where 65 percent of the county's metal-containing liquids were
generated in 1986, the Davis Walker Corporation produced 92 percent (4,120 tons) of
these wastes. This company performs galvanizing processes which generate lead, zinc,
and iron-containing liquids.3 The 703 tons in Fremont come from several companies,
many of which are in the semiconductor industry. Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory generates 98 percent (852 tons) of the metal-containing liquids in
Livermore (total of 872 tons).
3The City of Hayward Fire Department reports that Davis Walker installed a dryer in October 1987 to process metal containing
sludge which reduces waste from 604 to 135 tons per year,a 78 percent reduction. In July 1988,Davis Walker installed an acid
recovery system eliminating disposal of 4.120 tons of metal containing liquid. Total reduction of waste is from 4,724 to 135 tons
per year,a 97 percent total reduction. This significantly reduces the portion of the County waste stream composed of metal
containing liquids generated in the Citv of Havward. As a result,total waste generated in the City of Hayward has dropped from
7,305 tons in 1986 to 3.716 tons in 1988.
sF031609\AA\004.51 3-10
Figure 3-2
is°%° 17% Alameda County
" ::.=. 1986 Manifested Hazardous Waste*
• A w w
co 16%
A w • w
'' By Cities
15% 15°i6
A w A .
A A •
�/yu� 14% .
+• AAAw A A A
A A
/� A • • . A A . A A A
`v A • A . w A A w A A w
A A A A A A A A A A 50,•266 Tons
w w w w w . w w w w .
w • . w A w A w w A
A 1 A + A A A A A A w
° A A A . A A . A A •
A A w . . w . A A w A
/o . • w . ' w • www 11°�(' Manifested
w A w w w w w A w A
A A . w A . • A A A
w . A . A A • A . AwA In 1986
A A • A +. • A w w w . w A A
• w A w w • • . w A w w w w
1 0% A A A . A A A A A A A • A A
A • w w w w , A • A A A A A
• • w A A • w • A . A •-•
• • • + = . •
' A ^ .
• • • w w w w . A A w
w w w + w A A w A^.^. w w w
• w w A w A . w w w . . . .
�%
A A A . A A A A A w A A A
• w w w A A A
AAA A . A A A
A • w • ^ A ^ A w AA A w w ° .
W 8% . A • A . • A AAA . www 7r6
v -&4^^A . w A w w w w . A • A w w w
A A A A w A A A..%,
A A
A & A w w . • A
A A • A A A A w A A w w w • A • A . 7% 6%
A w A A
^ A ^ • A A A A A w w ♦ A A
y A A A • A A A A w w A A A • .^.&A^. A A A 6%
• w A A A A w w w w w w w w w w „v
A w • • w A A A A A A A • A A A • . A A w ..A.^^,
6%- w w • . A A w w A w • A w A A w • A w w w A w w
• A A A A A A A A A • .^&^^ . A • w A A A w A A A w A A A
A • w w w w w w w w w A A w A w w w A A w A w . w A w A w w w w
A A w w A w w A A A A ♦ • A A A w A A A • w w w A A A A A A A
A w w w w w w A A A A w • w A • • A A • A w w A A • • A A .A w w
A • A A A A A A A A A A • A A w A A A w A w A A A A • A • . °
A A A A • A A
..A^. w • A A w A A . A A . A • • • A • A A wA . w A
A A • A w A • A w A A A A A . A w w w A A A w w . �j' /o
A • • . A A A w • A w w w w A w w A A A A A A A A A A A . A w w
A A w . . A • A A A . A A • • A A A A A . A A w A w A . + w w w
A • A A A A A A A • A w w w A . A ..A%...
w A A w • w A A A A . w A A A A
A A . . A A A A A A . A A w A . w A w A A A . A . A A A A w . A . •
A A w A A . . A A . A A . • A A A w w w w w w • w.
/\ . A . • w w w A A A . A A • .4.^.A^ A w w w A A A . A A.wA
W A A • w w w w A A w A A w A A . A A . .^..A.., . w
w A w w . w • w • A w• A w A w i. A A A ..IAA... . A . w .ww
A w w A • A . A w w w A w w w w A A A • A w AA,A • • A A A A w A • A A A A w A w w w AAA A A w A A A A A A A AAAwAwA w A A
2 %. - w A A w w w A w w A A • w w w A A w w A • A A
w w w . A w • A • w • • . A w • .4A' A A w w A w w w w A wwwwwww �AwwwA . w w
w A
A • A A A w w A w A A w w w w • A A A A w w w . A A w . • A . w w w
A w • w w A w w ^^&A . . • w . A . w A w w • w w A w A A w . . w A w w w w
A A A A w A - A A . • • w . • A A = w . . A . w . A A w . wA A A w w w A w Aw 1
• A A A A A A w A . A A w A A A • . w . A • w A
w • A w A A w • A A w w w A A . A A w w w w w A A A w w w www w
rA, w • A w ww A A w w w w A A w w w • A w A A w w • . w w w • w w w . ww
I o% • A A + A A . A w • w A.,%. A A A A A A A w A A A A A A A w w w www A A
A • A A . A A • A w . • A w A A A w A A A ..A^.. A A A A w w w w A A A A
C,^ MMA . w • w A A w w MMM w w wwww w w . .Awww
V, O \ / � W C � O
o 4 M Cn
d ° z
r d p y
tIi O z �
*Does Not Include Recyclers Or All Small Quantity Generators
** The City of Hayward Fire Department reports that Davis Walker installed a dryer in October 1987 to process metal
containing sludge which reduces waste from 604 to 135 tons per year, a 782 reduction. In July, 1988 Davis Walker
installed an acid recovery system eliminating disposal of 4,120 tons of metal containing liquid. Total reduction
of waste is from 4,724 to 135 tone per year, a 972 total reduction. This significantly reduces the portion of the
County waste stream composed of metal containing liquids generated in the City of Hayward. As a result, total
waste generated in the City of Hayward has dropped from 7,305 tone in 1986 to 3,716 tons in 1988.
Table 3-5
Waste Stream by Geographic Location"
1986 Manifest Data
Alameda County
Waste Categoryb Oakland Pleasanton Emeryville Haywardd Fremont Newark Alameda Livermore Berkeley
1. Waste Oil 6,974 6,195 166 506 132 1,267 672 201 89
2. Halogenated Solvents 370 12 14 59 21 132 24 190 4
3. Nonhalogenated Solvents 2,600 9 542 668 950 252 107 156 577
4. Organic Liquids 154 0 45 66 24 1,035 157 116 105
5. Pesticides 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
6. Dioxins and PCBs 2,372 6 3,001 51 48 0 266 202 11
7. Oily Sludges 457 2 333 794 344 127 174 78 5
8. Halogenated Organics Sludges & Solids 3 0 3 9 10 1 0 0 0
9. Nonhalogenated Organic Sludges & Solids 287 15 199 48 151 458 41 2 181
10. Dye & Paint Sludges and Resins 98 715 266 146 601 325 279 9 68
11. Metal-Containing Liquids 157 7 44 4,470 703 154 147 872 203
12. Metal-Containing Sludges 723 0 1 18 747 37 1 0 0
13. Metal-Containing Liquids (700 Series) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14. Cyanide & Metal Liquids 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 6
15. Nonmetallic Inorganic Liquids 232 408 356 84 445 100 267 724 18
16. Nonmetallic Inorganic Sludges 10 0 0 0 99 61 477 0 0
17. Contaminated Soil 472. 1 852 245 225 150 427 299 679
18. Miscellaneous Waste 2,238 167 1,568 138 1,134 1,033 718 502 1,320
TOTAL 17,152 7,537 7,380 7,305 5,637 5,132 3,757 3,351 3,266
Percentage of Total 25.95% 11.40% 11.16% 11.05% 8.53% 7.76% 5.69% 5.07% 4.94%
aGreater than 1,000 tons/year each in 1986.
bOf the 776 manifested generators in Alameda County in 1986, 12 generators(greater than 1,000 TPY waste)created 52.4 percent of the waste stream.
cExluding recycles,out of business manifestors and nontypical one-time wastes,5 generators(greater than 1,000 TPY waste)created 20.1 percent of waste stream.
dThe City of Flayward Fire Department reports that Davis Walker installed a dryer in October 1987 to process metal containing sludge which reduces waste form 604 to 135 tons per year,
a 78 percent reduction. In July 1988 Davis Walker installed an acid recovery system eliminating disposal of 4,120 tons of metal containing liquid. Total reduction of waste is from 4,724
to 135 tons per year,a 97 percent total reduction. This significantly reduces the portion of the County waste stream composed of metal containing liquids generated in the City of
Hayward. As a result,total waste generated in the City of Hayward has dropped from 7,305 tons in 1986 to 3,716 tons in 1988.
SF03160%M\004E.51-1
4
Table 3-5 (cont.)
Waste Stream by Geographic Location"
1986 Manifest Data
Alameda County
of Total
Union San Castro County
Waste Categoryb City Leandro Valley` Piedmont Albany Dublin Sunol` Total Waste
1. Waste Oil 57 269 0 0 4 0 3 16,535 25
2. Halogenated Solvents 175 9 0 0 0 3 0 1,013 2
3. Nonhalogenated Solvents 59 574 166 0 3 8 0 6,671 10
4. Organic Liquids 3 27 1 0 0 0 0 1,733 3
5. Pesticides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 <1
6. Dioxins and PCBs 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,975 9
7. Oily Sludges 852 48 6 0 1 1 0 3,222 5
8. Halogenated Organics Sludges & Solids 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 34 <1
IT 9. Nonhalogenated Organic Sludges & Solids 936 70 1 90 0 0 0 2,479 4
w 10. Dye & Paint Sludges and Resins 63 175 0 0 0 12 0 2,757 4
11. Metal-Containing Liquids 153 15 0 0 0 1 0 6,928 10
12. Metal-Containing Sludges 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1,530 2
13. Metal Containing Liquids (700 Series) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 <1
14. Cyanide & Metal Liquids 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 <1
15. Nonmetallic Inorganic Liquids 276 6 0 0 0 0 0 2,905 4
16. Nonmetallic Inorganic Sludges 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 661 1
17. Contaminated Soil 42 901 0 0 0 0 0 4,292 7
18. Miscellaneous Waste 359 69 0 1 38 8 29 9,320 14
TOTAL 3,032 2,174 174 91 46 33 32 66,101 100
Percentage of Total 4.59% 3.29% 0.26% 0.14% 0.07% 0.05% 0.05% 100%
Figures rounded to the nearest ton.
bWaste categories defined in TRM.
`Unincorporated Area
SF031609\AA\004E.51-2
Another 10 percent (6,671 tons) of manifested county hazardous wastes are
nonhalogenated solvents. Oakland manifests the major portion; here the Safety Kleen
Corporation recycles (but does not necessarily "generate") 86 percent of these. The
New United Motors assembly plant in Fremont is the other large nonhalogenated
solvent manifestor. Painting newly assembled cars accounts for most of this waste.
Other cities with relatively large contributions to the total include: Hayward (668 tons),
Berkeley (577 tons), San Leandro (574 tons), and Emeryville (542 tons).
"Dioxins and PCBs," often associated with one-time cleanups, represent the fifth largest
waste category manifested in Alameda County in 1986. Oakland's Schnitzer Steel
Company and Pacific Gas and Electric, in Emeryville, each had one-time cleanups in
1986 that involved large amounts of PCBs. These cleanups "account for the major
portion of wastes manifested in this category.
Another waste generated primarily in one-time spill or leakage events is contaminated
soil. It accounted for 6.5 percent of Alameda County's 1986 manifested waste stream:
4,296 tons. The County will probably continue to have a variable amount of
contaminated oil in its waste stream due to leaking underground tanks and unforeseen
industrial spills.
These six waste categories constitute 75 percent of Alameda County's 1986 manifested
waste stream.
Table 3-6 lists the 12 manifestors in Alameda County who generated more than 1,000
tons each of waste in 1986: of the County's largest generators, three are recyclers: the
County's largest, 10th, and 12th largest in the DHS manifest data. Two, Judson Steel
Corporation (No. 5) and Peterbilt Motors (No. 9), are now out-of-business and will not
generate hazardous wastes in the future. Pacific Gas and Electric (No. 8) and Schnitzer
Steel (No. 11) reported wastes from one-time cleanup events that will not continue to
contribute wastes.
Only five of the largest generators remain from the original list of 12: Davis Walker
Corporation;4 New United Motors Manufacturing; Alameda Naval Air Station,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and De Soto Incorporated.
In 1986, the 12 manifestors (0.5 percent of all manifestors) listed in Table 3-6
generated 52 percent of the county manifested waste stream. The adjusted total in
Table 3-6 illustrates that when large-quantity recyclers, out-of-business manifestors, and ,
generators of one-time cleanup wastes were eliminated, the adjusted total from large
generators was 13,257 tons. In this light, 0.01 percent of all manifestors created 20.05
percent of the waste stream, with the other 99.99 percent of the manifestors creating 79
percent of the wastes. It is evident that a few large generators have a large impact on
Alameda County's hazardous waste stream.
4See footnote 3.
SF031609\AA\004.51 344
Table 3-6
Largest Hazardous Waste Generators in Alameda Countya
Waste Category
Adjusted
Generator l 2 1 3 4 5 1 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 1 l3 14 15 16 l7 18 Total Total Comments
1. All American Oil,Pleasanton 6.149 9 6,158 Recycler.
2. Davis Walker Corp.,Hayward 604 4,120 4,774 4,724
3. Desoto Inc.,Berkeley 397 49 54 478 126 1,104 1,104
4. GM New United Motors,Fremont* 92 2 721 23 40 295 420 538 1 57 114 948 3,251 3,251
5. Judson Steel.Emeryville I I I I I 1 1 1,424 1,435 Out of business.
6. Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab,Livermore 95 58 37 80 194 67 852 21 299 345 2,048 2,048 r
7. Alameda Naval Air Station,Alameda 4% 16 85 86 95 107 18 55 66 1 248 394 463 2,130 2,130
8. PG&E,Emeryville 2 1 2.981 3 1 1 152 5 3,145 Nontypical one-time waste.
9. Peterbilt Motors,Newark 4 2 40 1,019 97 133 1 8 61 114 1,479 Out of business.
10. Safety Kleen Corp.,Oakland 64 2,226 2,290 Recycler.
11. Schnitzer Steel Co.,Oakland 1,849 1,849 Nontypical one-time waste.
I 12. Waste Oil Recovery Systems,Inc..Oakland 5,275 5 5,280 Recycler.
Totals 12.113 151 3,506 1,257 0 5,170 1,178 0 18 663 5.040 539 0 0 430 512 891 3,425 34,893 13,257
Percent of Total County 73.4 14.9 52.5 72.5 0 86.5 36.5 0 0.8 24.1 72.5 35.1 0 0 14.8 77.3 20.4 36.7 52.4b 20.1c
*New United Motors Manufacturing has provided the 62 5 690 5 349 374 389 115 1,007 2.9%
following corrected 1986 data for wastes shipped offsite.
aGreater than 1,000 tonstyear each in 1986.
bOf the 776 manifested generators in Alameda County in 1986,12 generators(greater than 1.000 TPY waste)created 52.4 percent of the waste stream.
cExcluding recyclers,out of business manifestors and nontypical one-time wastes,five generators(greater than 1,000 TPY waste)created 20.1 percent of the waste stream.
Waste Categories:
1. Waste Oil 7. Oily Sludges 13. Metal-Containing Liquids(700 series)
2. Halogenated Solvents 8. Halogenated Organic Sludges&Solids 14. Cyanide&Metal Liquids
3. Nonhalogenated Solvents 9. Nonhalogenated Organic Sludges&Solids 15. Nonmetallic Inorganic Liquids
4. Organic Liquids 10. Dye&Paint Sludges&Resins 16. Nonmetallic Inorganic Sludges
5. Pesticides II. Metal-Containing Liquids 17. Soil .
6. Dioxins and PCBs 12. Metal-Containing Sludges 18. Miscellaneous Wastes
SF031609\AA\004F.51
Table 3-7 provides data from the DHS manifests regarding the export and import of
hazardous wastes from Alameda County.
The vast majority (almost 90 percent) of all manifested wastes were exported. The
largest known recipient category (13,130 tons) is "unknown." Contra Costa County is
second, at 12,013 tons. These wastes presumably went to the large IT Corporation
complex in Martinez: Vine Hill/ Baker..(Note: most operations at this facility ceased in
December 1987, when IT placed this facility--and others--up for sale). Kings County
contains Chemical Waste Management, Inc.'s Kettleman Hills facility, and ranks next at
7,719 tons. Los Angeles County is the recipient for 6,623 tons. San Mateo is host to
the Romic Solvent recycling facility and transfer station; it received a designated 5,317
tons. Solano County was next, at 4,912 tons; presumably these went to IT's Panoche
landfill, closed in December 1986. Another 3,363 tons were shipped with DHS
manifests to Santa Barbara County, location of the Casmalia Resources landfill. And, of
the other flows over 1,000 tons, 1,979 tons were shipped to Santa Clara County,
presumably most to the Solvent Services Company's transfer station in San Jose.
The 1986 manifest data indicate that a total of 111 firms in Alameda County used the
Vine Hill/Baker complex in Contra Costa County. Now that this facility is closed, it is
not known where these wastes are being managed. Table 3-8 summarizes available data
on the 9,595 tons of wastes sent to this facility in Martinez in 1986; over 1,000 tons
each of waste oils, organic liquids, oily sludges and resins; and over 2,000 tons of non-
metallic inorganic liquids. Table 3-9 presents data on the 21 largest Alameda County
generators using Vine Hill/Baker in 1986, each sending over 100 tons there. The six
largest generators together sent almost 5,000 tons. All waste flows over 100 tons are
shown. Details on all the individual generators are included in Appendix C.
F. SMALL GENERATOR WASTES
The No Survey Method in the TRM lists several industries as typical small quantity
generators. The total number of Alameda County businesses in each of these industries,
based on County Business Patterns data, is multiplied by conversion factors developed
by DHS to determine the quantities of wastes each small generator produces. Tables.
3-10 and 3-11 present data and estimates calculated using the No Survey Method. In a
February 1988 survey of SQG, 305 of the 470 firms participating said they do not
generate any hazardous waste. This finding may indicate that the number and amount
of waste thought to be produced by SQG's may be high.
Because the wastes generated by these firms are diverse and the amounts generated
per firm are small, owners and managers often have a difficult time disposing their
wastes in an economical and environmentally-sound manner. Waste haulers are
accustomed to dealing with larger waste generators and are resistant to accepting small
amounts because of excessive per-shipment handling and disposal costs. The small
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-16
Table 3-7
+ Imports and Exports of Hazardous Wastes
Alameda County -- 1986
Tons Per Year"
Waste Generated 66,101
Waste Exported County Destination
Contra Costa 12,013
Fresno 972
Kern 290
Kings 7,719
Los Angeles 6,623
Orange 52
Sacramento 1,192
San Bernadino 225
San Francisco 121
San Mateo 5,317
Santa Barbara 3,363
Santa Clara 1,929
Shasta 164
Solano 4,912
Sonoma 20
Stanislaus 615
Unknown 13,130
Other (Out of State) 302 58,959
Waste Remaining in Alameda 7,142
Waste Imported
Contra Costa 68
Kings 1
Los Angeles 1,317
Continued
SF031609\AA\004G.51 3-17
Table 3-7
Imports and Exports of Hazardous Wastes
Alameda County -- 1986
Marin 33
Orange 21
Sacramento 181
San Diego 1
San Francisco 322
San Joaquin 84
San Luis Obispo 44
San Mateo 3,347
Santa Clara 203
Santa Cruz 72
Solano 7
Sonoma 2
Unknown 499
Other (Out of State) 15 6,217
Net Waste to Alameda County 13,359
'Corrected for 593 tons incorrectly manifested in Alameda County. See Table 3-2.
bFigures rounded to the nearest ton.
SF031609\AA\004G.51 3-18
Table 3-8
Hazardous Wastes Entering
Vine Hill/Baker Facility From Alameda County Generators
1 Waste Group/Waste Category Tons
WASTE OILS
221 waste and mixed oil 822
223 unspecified oil containing waste 241
1,063
2 HALOGENATED SOLVENTS
741 liquids w/halogenated organics
1,000 mg/1- 52
52
3 NONHALOGENATED SOLVENTS
212 oxygenated solvent 4
213 hydrocarbon solvent 8
214 unspecified solvent mixture 91
103
4 ORGANIC LIQUIDS
133 aqueous with organics 10 percent 16
134 aqueous with organics 10 percent 1,001
342 organic liquid with metals 7
343 unspecified organic liquid mixture 166
1,190
7 OILY SLUDGES
222 oil/water separation sludge 1,019
352 other organic solids 2
1,021
8 HALOGENATED ORGANIC SLUDGES AND SOLIDS
451 degreasing sludge 6
6
9 NONHALOGENATED SLUDGES AND SOLIDS
241 tank bottoms 173
252 other still bottoms 87
491 unspecified sludge waste 23
283
Continued
SF031609\AA\004H.51 3-19
Table 3-8
Hazardous Wastes Entering
Vine Hill/Baker Facility From Alameda County Generators
1 Waste Group/Waste Category Tons
10 DYE AND PAINT SLUDGES AND RESINS
291 latex paint 74
461 paint sludge 1,003
1,077
11 METAL-CONTAINING LIQUIDS
111 acids with metals 553
121 alkali with metals 739
132 aqueous with metals 359
1,651
12 METAL-CONTAINING SLUDGES
171 metal sludge 287
287
14 LIQUIDS CONTAINING CYANIDES
711 liquids w/cyanides 1,000 mg/L 3
3
15 NONMETALLIC INORGANIC LIQUIDS
112 acids without metals 214
113 unspecified alkali solution 18
122 alkali without metals 502
123 unspecified alkali solution 196
131 aqueous solution with reactive ions 1,041
135 unspecified aqueous solution 186
2,157
16 NON METALLIC INORGANIC SOLIDS AND SLUDGES
421 lime sludge 477
477
Continued
SF031609\AA\004H.51 3-20
Table 3-8
Hazardous Wastes Entering
Vine Hill/Baker Facility From Alameda County Generators
1 Waste Group/Waste Category Tons
18 MISCELLANEOUS
331 off-spec., aged, or surplus organics 27
541 photochemicals/photoproc. waste 6
561 detergent and soap 20
581 gas scrubber waste 175
228
GRAND TOTAL 9,598
SF031609\AA\004H.51 3-21
Table 3-9
Largest Alameda County Users of Vine Hill/Baker, 1986
(Tons)
PETERBILT MOTORS, INC. 1,078
Aqueous solution with organic residues (897)
Unspecified organics{nonsolvents) (102)
NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA 986
Lime sludge (394)
Alkaline solution with metals (169)
Waste oil and mixed oil (132)
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORP. I 824
Oil/water separation sludge (780)
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LAB 713
Alkaline solution with metals (519)
Acid solution with metals (121)
INTEL CORP. LIVERMORE CAMPUS 679
Aqueous solution with reactive anions (664)
NUODEX 677
Paint sludge (677)
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORP. II 451
Aqueous solutions with reactive anions (341)
Gas scrubber waste (111)
SAN FRANCISCO CAN PLANT 386
Waste oil and mixed oil 352
NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER OAKLAND -- ALAMEDA FACILITY 364 _
Paint sludge (148)
AC TRANSIT 359
Alkaline solutions without metals (191)
Oil/water separation sludge (157)
ARATEX SERVICES, INC. 331
Metal sludge (252)
FMC CORP. 203
Acid solution with metals (139)
Continued
SF031609\AA\0041.51 3-22
Table 3-9
Largest Alameda County Users of Vine Hill/Baker, 1986
(Tons)
CAMPBELL CHAIN DIV., MC-GRAW EDISON CO. 197
Unspecified alkaline solution (139)
CTS PRINTEX 169
PACIFIC GALVANIZING 160
Acid solution without metals (160)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 152
Unspecified aqueous solution (151)
NAVAL SUPPLY.CENTER OAKLAND 147
Off-spec., aged or surplus inorganics (105)
DEL MONTE CORP. 147
Unspecified oil-containing waste (147)
FLINT INK CORP. CALINK DIV. 145
Alkaline solution with metals (125)
H.B. FULLER CO. 127
Tank bottom waste (106)
INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICAL MFG. INC. 102
SF031609\AA\0041.51 3-23
T•6k 3.10
N.S•r..7 M.th•6 S•mm.ry
1966 C.•nty B.dn.w Panern•
AI-4.C.•nty
Taos
Per 9•f
le6•slry Ysar T.sal Na•f S•f All F,:.,Tw C S WC! WC1 WCS LL WCt WC9 WC10 WCII WCl2 WCI! WCII WCl3 WC16 WC17 WCII TOTAL
1 I
P.66de End Use. 4 0.01 s 0.01 3
74 207
Pertitide Appl.Ser. 207 OAS 210 1.0? 13J
Chemical 546 L70 23 033 465 19 19 15 1 1 4 1 17 4 546
Manufacturing
41
Wood Processing 41 O.It 10 014 41
Formulat— 174 Q54 49 071 1 45 1 45 26 6 4 6 2 29 11 174
Iaundrics 219 069 222 3.21 219 0 219
7 7 157
Othtr Services 157 049 204 195 1 1 141
Photopaphy 220 068 105 1.52 t 3 _ 2 51 51 1 2 106 220
0
Ta0ik 0 000 0 000
Manufacturing
6 6 145
Fquipmem Repair 145 045 265 56 3.83 56 X) 1
Vehicle 20.5Rt 61.16 LZRt 3199 15.810 L5? 253 4P 48 48 U3 3.980 20.5W
Maim--
8 69
Construction r413 1.89 1.?75 19.- 91 91 290 36 eo3
6 10
M.-Freight 10 013 8 012 1 1
Terminate
Metal QtJ9 '_0.70 829 11.97 5.089 66 66 19 9 9 31 IS &5 IS 1.132 b 6,669
Manufacturing
FumfWood Mfr'8 591 1.86 F4 1.21 494 14 14 19 2 2 43 7 597
and Refg
Printing and 299 093 387 5.59 36 16 5 3 11 ? 12 18 117 299
C—'-
1 25
Ckaning Agents 25 0.06 8 012
3 3 4 6 Oa 0 8
_ 6 6 960
Other 960 199 118 1.70 687 90 90 57 1 1
Manufacturing
Paper Industry 7 002 2 0.O.1 2 _ 2 0 0 1 0 7
Continued
SF031609\AA\0047.51
T.M.110
N.S—"M.th.J S.nans.ry
D•6 Caamy Basis—ft s
Al—J.Canty
Tam
0•• %of
1-4--y Year T.lal Na..f %.e All WC1a WC2 WC3 WC4 WCS WCJ WC7 WC• WC1 WCIO WC11 WCI2 WCU W. WCU wat; WC17 WCIS im".L
Pdueati.caland Q 0.0 I2J L78
v-shops
5 5 11 6 13 2 42
Analytical and 465 1.14 702 436 71 7I 71 66 3 78 3 365
Clinical Labs
Wholesale and 240 0.74 310 148 15 15 2 12 20 18 158 210
Rctail Sales
TDTAL 32.085 10010 (121 100.00 22,515 711 771 732 160 41 • u u2 t3"07 u2 113 f 60 4480 Wre!-T.t.l •.0 • 0.01 0.74 •.f/ a.as 0.0l 0.19 1.61. • • 1142 100.00
w.n..
WASTE CATEGORIFS -
1.Waste Oil 11.Mela6Containing liquids
L Halogenated Sol—. 12 MetalContaining Sludges
1 Nontud senated Sol—la 11 MetalContaining liquids
1 Organic liquids 14.Cyanide and Metal Liquids
5. Pesticides 15.Nonmetallic Inorganic Sludges
dns an
6. Dicd PCBs 16. N__(.Ilic Inorganic Sludges
7.Oily Sludges 17.Soil
B Halogenated Organic Shdges and Solids 11, Miscellaneous W-11
9.Nonhalogen ated Organic Sludges and Solids
IQ Dye and Paint Sludges and Resim
NOIES
aLw than QS tom per year.
bAdjwted for manifea cs!caste dl(see Table 4.1)
SF031609\AAW04J.51
Table 3-11
Distribution of Small Generators by City
Alameda County
(No Survey Method)
Vehicle (Ton.vVear) Metal All
City Maintenancea Conslructiona Manufacturing" Othera Total
Oakland 6.552 193 1,729 1.355 9,829
Fremont 3,026 89 570 626 4,311
Hayward 1.894 56 735 392 3,077
Berkelev 1.955 57 328 404 2,744
Alameda 1,389 41 379 287 2.096
Pleasanton 887 26 761 184 1,858
San Leandro 1.231 36 218 255 1,740
Livermore 1.033 30 338 214 1,615
Union City 918 27 305 190 1.440
Newark 722 21 518 149 1,410
Emeryville 91 3 741 19 854
Dublin 403 12 3 83 501
Albany 290 8 5 60 363
Piedmont 192 6 9 40 247
Totals 20,583 605 6,639 4,258 32,085
aThese wastes were distributed by city assuming that each city generates an amount of waste that is proportional to its
population.
"Metal manufacturing wastes by city were determined assuming that each city generates an amount of waste from this
business sector that is proportional to the amount of total corrected manifested waste for each city.
SF031609\AA\004K.51 3-26
generators are in the position of being required to dispose their wastes properly but
without reasonable and accessible means to do so.
Federal law (specifically, the Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Management
Amendments of 1984 to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) defines small
quantity generators as those who generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste per month. California law does not differentiate between those who
generate less than 1.00 kilograms per month and those who generate more, so
California laws and associated regulations apply to all hazardous waste generators no
matter what the quantity.
Small quantity generators are a highly diverse, broadly dispersed group. Many of them
are small businesses without highly-trained personnel or sophisticated waste
management practices such as auto repair shops, gas stations, dry cleaners, and printing
and duplicating shops. Typical wastes include: contaminated solvents, paint sludges,
plating solutions, photographic solutions, acids, and waste pesticides.
Table 3-12 summarizes the Alameda County small quantity generator waste stream
profile. The estimate for waste oil is large, accounting for 70 percent (22,545 tons) of
all small quantity generators generation.
Solvents (halogenated and non-halogenated combined) account for nearly 5 percent of
these wastes (1,540 tons). Vehicle maintenance, construction, and manufacturing are
the three industries that generate the most small generator solvent wastes. Each utilizes
heavy machinery which is commonly cleaned with solvents.
Closely following solvents, in order of contribution to the small generator waste stream
are non-metallic inorganic liquids (1,479 tons). These come primarily (77 percent) from
metal manufacturing. Many processes involved in metal work require use of strong
acids and bases.
Miscellaneous wastes compose a significant percentage (14 percent) of the small
generator waste stream: 4,627 tons. Table 3-10 shows that these miscellaneous wastes
are generated in large part by the vehicle maintenance industry. This estimate can be
misleading because lead-acid batteries are one waste included in this miscellaneous
waste category. In fact, the No Survey Method conversion formulas attribute
approximately 85 percent of all vehicle maintenance wastes to batteries. All waste
stream estimates are based on weight; thus, lead-acid batteries account for a
disproportionately large amount.
From the perspective of different groups of small generators, vehicle maintenance
accounts for 20,583 tons (64 percent of the total), and fully 33 percent of all the
businesses covered. Waste oils are dominant, of course, at 15,810 tons; miscellaneous
wastes account for most of the rest.
sF031609\AA\004.5 1 3-27
Table 3-12
Small Quantity Generator Waste Stream'
Alameda County
No Survey Method
Tons
Waste Category Per Year Percent
1. Waste Oil 22,545b 70.27
2. Halogenated Solvents '771` 2.40
3. Nonhalogenated Solvents 771` 2.40
4. Organic Liquids 732 2.28
5. Pesticides 160 0.50
6. Dioxins 41 0.13
7. Oily Sludges -- 0.00
8. Halogenated Organic Sludges and Solids 13 0.04
9. Nonhalogenated Org. Sludges and Solids 232 0.73
10. Dye and Paint Sludges and Resins 307 0.96
11. Metal-Containing Liquids 143 0.44
12. Metal-Containing Sludges 193 0.60
13. Metal-Containing Liquids (700 Series) 9 0.03
14. Cyanide and Metal Liquids 60 0.19
15. Nonmetallic Inorganic Liquids 1,480 4.61
16. Nonmetallic Inorganic Sludges 0 0.00
17. Soil N/A
18. Miscellaneous Wastes 4,628 14.42
Total 32,085 100.00
'Based on 1985 Alameda County Business Patterns.
bThis number has been adjusted to account for the amount of oil manifested in
1986.
`These categories were split evenly since no distinction was made in EPA survey
data.
SF031609\AA\004L.51 3-28
Metal manufacturing accounts for another 21 percent of all small generator wastes:
6,639 tons. Most (5,089 tons) are again waste oils, plus 1,132 tons of non-metallic
inorganic liquids. Together these two categories of small businesses account for almost
85 percent of all the wastes from these 6,923 firms; no other grouping comes to 3
percent by itself.
The estimates in Table 3-11 show the possible spread of hazardous waste generation by
small generators among the 14 cities of Alameda County. These estimates are very
approximate. Oakland accounts for 31 percent of the County's total: 9,973 tons.
Fremont comes next at 4,217 tons; Hayward and Berkeley follow (3,079/2,805
respectively). Together these four cities account for 63 percent of the County total from
small generators.
The summary in Table 3-13 illustrates that Alameda County's 6,923 small generators
are for the most part (46 percent) small businesses with less than five employees. Only
9.3 percent have greater than 50 employees. This is shown graphically on Figure 3-3. It
is significant to note that in the estimated waste stream small generators account for
approximately one-third (32,085 tons) of the total estimated County hazardous waste
stream, and that the major portion of these wastes comes from businesses with fewer
than 50 employees.
SMALL QUANTITY HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR SURVEY
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Alameda County Small Generator Survey was to confirm waste
stream profiles for the major SQG industries in the County, and to obtain basic
information about Alameda County's hazardous waste management practices and
attitudes, particularly regarding barriers to further waste reduction.
A questionnaire was developed and survey undertaken to aid Alameda County in
developing hazardous waste management programs suited to small quantity generators.
The survey was also designed to demonstrate the usefulness of identifying small
quantity generators by industry type.
Three types of industries in Alameda County were targeted for this survey of small
quantity hazardous waste generators: vehicle maintenance, construction, and metals
manufacturing. This selection was based on survey results from national studies,5 and
on the results of applying EPA/DHS "No Survey Method" techniques to the county's
5Ruder,E.; Wells,R.: Battaglia.M.:and Anderson. R.(AM Associates. Inc.)National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste
Generator Survey-Final Report,prepared for EPA.Office of Solid Waste, February 1985.
SF0316W\AA\004.51 3-29
Table 3-13
Small Generators By Size of Firm'
Number of
Employees Number of Percent of
Per Business Businesses Businesses
1-4 3,177 46
5-9 1,395 20
10-49 1,701 25
50-99 329 5
100-499 284 4
500+ 37 1 1
Total 6,923 101
aSource: 1985 Alameda County Business Patterns
SF031609\AA\004M.51 3-30
• •
IV
............
..........:•.•.0•.0•.00•.000•.00•.O•.:•.0 0•.:•.00. 1
•.,•r�,;,r.•r;rr;r..,.;r;r,.•.O•.r.10.JO:.•;,rh;Or�rr•Or•O i•:•:O•:O i•'•'•.;•;•;rOrr;POr.��'�.:.�♦:♦�♦�♦�.�♦�.�♦�♦�♦�
��;J�.•. •r;J00:;:00•Or0 ii:•:;:•:;i:;i i:;:•rJ ;r•:•:;rrr;i. •Ji••rir0•i:;Orr;r;JrO•:❖fir'.. ♦ ♦.♦♦♦...
,•i:1•�:,JO:;:�:•:•:•:rr,:•�i i:J�:• ,:i•Vii•:i•:•�:•:•i:'Pi:•i:;�Oi i Vii•:i�:;:;:•:S•:;:•i:;i•;i•�♦�•�♦�♦�♦�•�♦�♦�♦�•
00;r..0;�.,�;�r;i.;.•�,.;�,�;�;.,0�,.,�i JO�,�•JO�.� r•'•'•:•:•••'r•,�•�;�0•;i.O�,�;�;0�.;�D•�;�,.t�����������
O OAO,�,.,��;�O..r,�,�0 i0•'•r0 ii O:i•:•i:•:�•000:00•'•:•:•dd0:•:i•:•i.0•r O:iOL000 i{{,,����������
0.0 •0.O r.•OrOrrr rrrrr.r• rrOrr•rr.rrrrrrrr..rrr rr..0���������
�0.•:•0:4•:•:•:040r,�,�0,�p.r0,�..r.....0000 ....•....•.•••...•..•.•..♦ ��������
•000.0.,.;0.0•.;r006;r0;0.000000'•00 00100.•000P.00'000.MO �������
�':ti;:;:•::i:''''':::;.•r r,.S,.;r..00•r.•.0..•.-000••00•.0•.••00.0.0000••YO.00SOO•r \
• • 1:�:•:•0:•:•:•0.•'•O;.•00.•�.;A000;0.000;r000•••,;�O;rO;,••••,i0 ♦0.,0!
•Or.•.•O.0 OOOOr.0000 O�OSO 0.00•:•0• •'O i•OOOi DO
•..rrr ♦••rrr rr♦ r.r rr r.rr••♦•..00000.rrrrrr•
� 00;r00.OA'.00.00•:•.00•J O.00000000••O r000•r 0.00••'
1 nr r:•000.0:0•.•:0000•P:0•:000000•,�0:•OPO�DOOe•
1 • • •0.•,0:••r;.•d 04;0000 0000000 00 000•.•!.•••'
•.J�%Qw:iii:;:;:••:;:i�;.;'0.,��J,•J
overall business patterns.6 Firms in these categories were randomly sampled using
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for businesses in the three main
industrialized cities of Alameda County: Oakland, Hayward, and Fremont.
These three industry categories comprise the three largest groups of small quantity
generators nationally, and roughly 85 percent of all small quantity generators in
Alameda County based.on.the results of-the No Survey Method. Therefore, the results
of this telephone survey can be considered representative of small quantity vehicle
maintenance, construction, and metals manufacturing generators in Alameda County.
Each respondent was told that the survey was being conducted to provide background
information for Alameda County's preparation of its hazardous waste management
plan, and assured that all specific answers would be kept confidential. Respondents
were asked: (1) if their business used any of a few industry-specific hazardous
materials, and (2) if their business managed any other hazardous wastes not previously
mentioned. A negative response to both questions terminated the survey process at
that point. This could mean that the responses under-represent actual condition.
An initial pool of almost 1,200 businesses was drawn randomly from a recent listing of
Alameda County businesses by SIC codes.7 During the three-and-a-half day interview
period in February 1988, calls were placed to the telephone number listed for 874 of
the firms.
Of the 470 cooperating firms, 305 (65 percent ) said they did not generate any
hazardous wastes; another 29 (6 percent) said they did not generate the hazardous
wastes specified by the interviewer (from the lists supplied in the DHS TRM). These 29
firms were not asked the questions about how they managed the specific list of wastes,
but did respond to the questions about waste reduction practices.
One hundred thirty-six Alameda County small businesses reported that they did
generate one or more of the listed hazardous wastes, and responded to the complete
interview: 56 in vehicle maintenance; 51 in metals manufacturing; and 29 in
construction. Nearly all of these 136 firms generating hazardous wastes were small
generators under the federal EPA definition (that is, they generate less than
1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste monthly). Of the three industry groups surveyed,
small generators comprise 80 percent of vehicle maintenance, 90 percent of metals
manufacturing, and the entire set of respondents from construction.
6The"No Survey Method"provides estimates of hazardous waste generation by typical firms in different industry groupings.
These projections were applied to standard data on business patterns in Alameda County.
7The SIC codes used for each industry are listed in California Department of Health Services.Technical Reference Manual of
the Guidelines for the Preparation of Hazardous Waste Management Plans. California Department of Health Services.Toxic
Substances Control Division.Sacramento.California,June 30, 1987.
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-32
Table 3-14
Scope of Telephone Survey -- Alameda County Small Generators-F Business Identified (Total) 1,200
Telephone calls placed 874
Telephone contact impossible 341 39 percent
Firms contacted 533 61 percent
Firms declining to disclose information 63 12 percent
Firms cooperating 470 88 percent
Firms reporting no hazardous waste generation 305 65 percent
Firms generating no hazardous wastes on DHS list 29 6 percent
Firms generating hazardous wastes on DHS list 136 29 percent
Firms responding to questions on waste reduction 165
Firms responding to complete questionaire 136
Vehicle maintenance firms 56 (41 percent)
Metals manufacturing firms 51 (38 percent)
Construction firms 29 21 percent
5
SFO31609\AA\004N.51 3-33
In the first section of the survey,. companies were asked to provide information about
their years in business, size, and membership in trade associations. Responses to these
questions helped situate these companies with respect to expected waste management.
For example, some fairly new companies with few employees might not have any
hazardous waste management policy whatsoever; yet other new companies may be
more likely to be educated and aware of hazardous waste issues. The survey was partly
designed to determine how and why.such.a business would or would not have a waste
management or waste reduction plan.
The following three sections summarize each industry's waste streams and their disposal
practices. Section 5 then discusses current and future waste reduction efforts, and
crucial issues facing each of the three industries surveyed.
2. THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE INDUSTRY
Fifty-six businesses in the Alameda County vehicle maintenance industry were covered
in complete interviews: 27 "service only" stations; 16 "gas and service" stations; and 13
sales or rental companies. Half of these 56 companies had been in business less than
10 years. Most were small companies; 85 percent reported fewer than 40 employees,
and half reported less than 8 full-time employees. Roughly one-third of these stations
belonged to one or more of 9 different trade associations.
The major hazardous wastes generated by this industry grouping consisted of waste oils,
brake fluids, cleaning solvents, lead-acid batteries, spent catalytic converters, and
oil-based paints. Ninety-four percent of the waste oil generated by businesses in this
sector was sent offsite to one of a dozen oil companies or oil recycling firms. The
annual rates of waste oil generation ranged from 5 gallons to 13,000 gallons, with half
of the businesses reporting that they generated 1,000 gallons or less annually.
Nearly all of the lead-acid batteries generated by service stations were sent offsite
either to battery companies or to battery recycling firms. Roughly half of the firms
generated 100 batteries or less annually, though one firm generated as many as
2,600 batteries each year.
Small amounts of brake fluid were generated by approximately half of the respondents,
generally in the range of 20 gallons per year per company. A few franchise outlets of
major oil companies produced much larger amounts, and one generated as much as
3,300 gallons of waste brake fluid annually.
A little over half of the stations surveyed reported that they generated cleaning
solvents, most of which were disposed by the solvent hauling and recycling company
Safety-Meen. The average amount produced annually was roughly 190 gallons. Old
catalytic converters and oil-based paints were generated in very small amounts.
sF031609WA\004.5 1 3-34
3. THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
The construction industry is made up of many different contractor services.
Twenty-nine interviews were completed with construction industry companies. These
companies included firms specializing in:
1) Concrete pouring
2) Roofing
3) Heat and air conditioning installation
4) Glass installation
5) Painting and drywall installation
6) Insulation
7) Floors and tile installation
8) Refinishing
9) Metals/Plastics
Half of these companies had been in business 15 years or less, with a range of 2 to
68.years. These were small companies, half of them employing less than 10 employees.
Almost two-thirds of the companies surveyed belonged to a trade association.
Roughly half of these companies reported that they disposed their waste thinners,
paints, acids, and solvents offsite. The other half reported that they recycled their own
hazardous wastes onsite. The largest waste streams consisted of thinner (1 to 1,040
gallons per year) and solvents (1 to 440 gallons per year).
Respondents were asked questions about waste pre-treatment at two different points in
the survey. When asked if they pre-treated their wastes before disposing them into
sewers, respondents consistently replied "yes." The answers were more useful in finding
out if businesses pretreated wastes at all than in -discovering whether or not people
actually poured hazardous wastes into their sewers. This is true for all respondents in
the three industry types surveyed.
Inferences made from the responses of these industry members can only be tentative
due to the small sample size and the diverse nature of the businesses grouped under
the "construction industry" category.
4. THE METALS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Fifty-one completed interviews were obtained from diverse businesses in the metals
manufacturing industry which consists of machine shops, sheet metal workers, sign
manufacturers, metals manufacturing shops, tool and die shops, and wrought iron
shops. Half of these companies had been in business nine years or more. Typically,
these were larger businesses than those in the vehicle maintenance industry; half of
them employ 16 or more employees. Almost two-thirds were members of trade
associations.
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-35
Acids, oil-based paints, oxidizers, cleaning solvents, and rinse water from plating baths
were all cited as wastes generated by this industry. Approximately two-fifths of the
companies surveyed reported that they generated waste acids and alkalis; half of these
wastes were hauled offsite, and the other half recycled onsite. Half of the companies
generating waste acids produced less than 153 gallons annually.
Eighty percent of the respondents said that they generated waste cleaning solvents, half
of them at levels below 60 gallons per year, but some as much as 13,000 gallons
annually. One quarter of these businesses generated waste paint, mostly at levels below
100 gallons per year. Almost all of the wastes mentioned above were hauled away by
recyclers or solvent-hauling companies. -
5. CURRENT WASTE REDUCTION PRACTICES AND PLANS
The second part of the Alameda County Small Generator Survey focused on waste
management efforts that these companies have made, as well as programs that they
have planned for the future. By asking whether or not a company had already made
efforts to reduce their wastes, the survey determined what means businesses had used
to achieve waste reduction, along with a qualitative assessment of their success rates.
When asked if their companies had taken steps in the last three years to reduce the
amount of hazardous waste generated, a little over one-third of the construction
industry respondents answered "yes." Waste reduction actions were reported by
two-fifths of the service stations and half of the metals manufacturing industry
respondents.
Those companies that had reduced their hazardous waste streams were asked if they
had achieved reductions through:
• Onsite Recycling
• Process or Procedure Changes
• Substitution (of production inputs)
• Pretreatment of Wastes
• Use of Consultants
• Internal Waste Audits
• Other Steps
Respondents were also asked if they felt that a given reduction scheme had reduced
their waste streams "as much as possible," or if there was still "room for improvement."
Process changes rated consistently highest among all "waste reducers." A significant
amount of product substitution also occurred in all three industries, (approximately
60 percent of all waste reducer respondents reported trying some form of product
substitution). Roughly two-thirds of the vehicle maintenance and metals manufacturing
respondents who had used process changes and substitution reported that their efforts
had reduced wastes "as much as possible." Answers from the construction industry
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-36
revealed that construction businesses had even more success with process changes and
substitution.
Of the "waste reducers," one-quarter of the vehicle maintenance and construction
industry respondents, and one-third of the metals manufacturing respondents had used
the services of a consultant. The two respondents from the construction business who
had used a.consultant reported.having improved their.waste reduction efforts as much
as possible, while a small number of vehicle maintenance and metals manufacturing
industry respondents said that there was still room to improve upon the waste reduction
they had achieved with the services of a consultant. Two-thirds of the metals
manufacturing businesses who had reduced their waste production had performed an
internal audit of their hazardous waste generation streams. Audits had been done by a
smaller proportion of vehicle maintenance (42 percent) and construction (30 percent)
industry respondents, though this level of interest in use of waste audits is still quite
impressive. Only the vehicle maintenance respondents reported that there was still
significant room for improvement after completing their internal waste audits.
Of the 'other methods" cited for reducing hazardous wastes, most were either onsite
recycling plans (very prevalent among construction industry respondents), process
changes that discontinued the use of a class of chemicals, or changes in the spectrum of
services offered.
Both "waste reducers" and "nonreducers" were then asked if and how they had received
information on waste reduction: from seminars or meetings, trade associations,
suppliers, or the government. Approximately one-half of the respondents reported
receiving information from trade associations. Suppliers generally reached more of the
companies (60 percent). This was somewhat less true of metals manufacturing
businesses; here 40 percent were reached by suppliers. Government agencies reached
40 to 50 of the companies surveyed.
Evidently, information about hazardous waste management is available and being
distributed to many small quantity generators. For example, only 11 percent of the
vehicle maintenance respondents reported receiving no information from trade
associations, suppliers, or government agencies. A quarter of this group had received
information from all three of these sources. This same group was less well-supplied
with new information on changing laws and regulations regarding hazardous waste
disposal (a final section at the end of the survey asked respondents how well they were
kept abreast of ongoing legislation and administrative rule changes concerning
hazardous waste management). Almost a quarter of the respondents had received no
information on changing laws from either their trade associations, suppliers, or the
government; indeed, only 17 percent of those who answered the "changing laws"
questions received information from all three sources.
These results were mirrored fairly closely by the construction industry respondents, but
substantially fewer metals manufacturing businesses reported receiving very much
information--from any source. It can be inferred from the survey results that no single
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-37
source of information consistently supplied industry members with both general
hazardous waste management information and follow-up information at regular
intervals on changing laws and regular requirements. It should also be noted that this
issue is a relatively minor one to many small generators, in contrast to large businesses,
academics, consultants, and lawyers who pay attention to these issues. Dry cleaners
and service stations rarely have time to do so. They care most about those regulations
actually in effect that directly affect them--usually limited to those requirements actually
being enforced by local health, sewer, or fire agencies.
In the next section, respondents were given five questions concerning various forms of
aid for managing and reducing hazardous wastes. These included assistance with
regulations and permits, information on waste minimization techniques, onsite
consultations, financial assistance, . workshops, printed information, or toll-free
information lines.
Members of the metals manufacturing industry expressed the most interest in these
possible assistance packages. Approximately half said they would request help with
laws, minimization techniques, and onsite consultations.
Only a quarter of these respondents expressed any desire for financial assistance,
however. This may mean that they did not fully understand the question. For example,
they might not want a loan if they were afraid they could not pay it back; or some may
be so unaware that they do not realize that effective regulatory compliance costs
money.
Roughly two-thirds of the construction industry respondents reacted favorably to the
idea of receiving assistance in understanding laws and regulations, in learning about
waste minimization techniques, and in receiving onsite consultations. Only a quarter of
these respondents expressed any desire for financial assistance, however.
Similarly, approximately two-thirds of the vehicle maintenance industry respondents
reacted favorably to receiving assistance in understanding laws and regulations, in
learning about waste minimization techniques, and in receiving on-site consultations. In
this industry, a larger number (two-thirds) of the companies said that they would
request financial assistance if it were available.
Most of the respondents preferred a mix of toll-free information lines and printed
information to acquire information on managing and reducing their hazardous wastes.
Construction industry respondents favored the toll-free lines slightly more than the
printed information option.
Regardless of business type, almost all of those businesses who achieved some waste
reduction did so with their own capital. Of those companies that did reduce their
hazardous wastes, few expressed any interest in seeking financial assistance to further
their waste reduction programs (62 percent 'no,' 27 percent 'yes,' the remainder 'not
sure'). On average, two-thirds of all the respondents who did not reduce wastes were
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-38
also uninterested in seeking financial assistance for waste reduction. Almost no
respondents reported using any other financing arrangements such as bank loans, Small
Business Administration (SBA) loans, or leasing schemes for waste management and
reduction equipment.
6. PROGRAM PROPOSALS
An information center for hazardous waste management and reduction, could be
accessed by a toll-free information line. Operators of an information center could be
very efficient if they had access to on-line data that covered general issues as well as
process-specific waste management details. A highly cross-referenced data base and/or
links to appropriate agency officials and waste management firms should, ideally,
enable information center operators to maintain a short turn around time for
consultations.
G. WASTES FROM LEAKING UNDERGROUND TANKS
A small but predictable element of Alameda County's hazardous wastes will be
contaminated soils from leaking underground tanks. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) is the lead agency monitoring identification and cleanup
of contamination from leaking tanks. Table 3-15 presents estimates, based on RWQCB
data and manifest data for tank cleanups, for the amount of contaminated soil that
leaking underground tank excavations will produce in a typical year. There are 5,614
tanks in Alameda County. Approximately 10,520 tons of contaminated soil will require
excavation due to leaks in these tanks. Based on a 10- to 15-year remediation
schedule, this will generate approximately 900 tons of hazardous waste each year until
remediation is complete.
H. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES
An estimated 1,900 tons of hazardous waste are generated annually by Alameda
County's 492,000 households, 7.56 pounds per year each, based on a recent survey in
Marin County.
Households were recognized as a significant source of hazardous waste in the early
1980s. Pilot programs in Seattle, Washington and in Massachusetts inspired
communities across the United States to learn more about the hazardous wastes
generated by households; to educate residents about safer use, storage, and disposal;
and to organize collection events to promote safer and more environmentally-sound
disposal. Other problems associated with household hazardous waste include:
contaminated leachate from municipal landfills, safety hazards to refuse collectors into
and landfill operators, contamination of septic tanks, contamination into sanitary and
storm sewers, and air pollution in urban areas due to evaporation of volatiles.
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-39
Table 3-15
Contaminated Soil From Underground Tank Cleanups'
Fuel Tanks 4,187
Farm Fuel Tanks 92
Other Tanks 1,335
TOTAL TANKS 5,614
Estimated Leaking Tanks 1,965`
Estimated Tanks Requiring Soil Excavation` 561
Soil per Excavation 25 Tons
Estimated Soil Excavation Requirement 14,025
0.75e
Estimated Probable Soil Excavation 10,520 Tons
Yearly Contaminated Soil Generation 700-1, 050 Tons Per yrf
'Tank census based on data from RWQCB Underground Container Program, 5/87
bother than fuel storage; e.g., waste oil, solvent, etc.
`Based on national surveys, approximately 35 percent of all underground tanks will
leak and another 10 percent of all tanks have required soil excavation.
dBased on 11 soil excavations in Alameda, Sonoma, and Marin Counties from
DHS manifest summaries that clearly showed excavation for fuel tank
remediations.
eAssume 75 percent of all leaking tanks are identified (consultant estimate).
(Based on a 10- to 15-year tank remediation schedule (consultant estimate).
SF031609\AA\0040.51 3-40
The generation of household hazardous waste in Alameda County can be described in
two ways: (1) in terms of estimated average amounts generated by each household in
the county, and (2) in terms of amounts collected during household hazardous waste
collection programs sponsored by various cities around the county. The first method is
an extrapolation with many remaining uncertainties, and the second, though an actual
measured volume, represents only the contribution of a highly motivated sector of the
population.and includes at least some..-material stored over a long period of time, not
generated in one year.
Two studies have been conducted in the Bay Area in the last few years to determine
the average amount of hazardous waste generated by individual households each year.
Both studies were sponsored by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
A 1985 study investigated household hazardous waste generated in the Bay Area and
analyzed possible management approaches. The study included an analysis of use and
disposal of hazardous household products in Hayward. Homeowners and tenants were
questioned about the following product types:
* Household Cleaners
* Chemical Drain Openers
* Auto/Furniture Polishes
* Engine/Gasoline Cleaners
Antifreeze
* Paints/Paint Thinners
* Wood Preservatives
Pesticides (Insecticides)
* Herbicides
Pool Chemicals
* Motor Oil
* Radiator Flushes
The respondents were also asked about how these products were discarded and in what
volumes. Disposal methods included:
* Poured into Storm or Sanitary Sewers
* Discarded in Municipal Trash Collection
Poured on the Ground
* Poured onto the Street
* Stored in a Basement or Garage
* Recycled
This study estimated a range of average annual volumes of hazardous waste from 1.8 to
3.5 gallons per household. More than half the homes surveyed used cleaners,
pesticides, polishes, and paints/thinners. About a third discarded motor oil and
antifreeze, even more so in suburban residential areas. The most common disposal
method was in the municipal trash. Though motor oil was more frequently recycled
SF031609\AA\004.51 3-41
than other products in 1985, falling crude oil prices since that time have decreased the
availability of free oil recycling services and the practice has become less common.
Using a 1987 California Department of Finance estimate of 492,000 households in
Alameda County, the data from this ABAG study would indicate a countywide annual
generation rate of between 886,000 and 1,723,000 gallons per year.
Another ABAG-sponsored study was conducted in 1986 by University of Arizona
anthropologists. This study involved collecting waste material directly from the curb in
several Marin County neighborhoods (about 1,000 households). The hazardous
materials were then identified and weighed (the container weight was not included).
Wastes included toilet bowl cleaners, bleach, cleansers, oil, antifreeze, batteries, pool
chemicals, hobby products, and many other associated materials. Researchers
estimated that the average household generated about 66.2 grams of hazardous waste
each week, or about 3.44 kilograms per year (7.56 pounds per year). Extrapolating this
estimate for the 492,271 households in Alameda County, this second ABAG study
would indicate an annual countywide generation of about 1,860 tons.
It is important to remember. that household hazardous waste is a relatively new area of
study and average per household estimates are somewhat controversial. Study criteria
tend to vary, and weight estimates cannot be directly compared to volume estimates.
As more and more corroborating data are collected, the volume of hazardous waste
generated by households will be more accurately determined.
I. CONCLUSIONS
Table 3-16 and 3-17 are designed to pull all these data together in a concise form.
Types of waste are shown in Table 3-16, from those 770 firms using the manifest system
plus 6,923 firms not using manifests and the households and-underground tank cleanup
estimates. These summary data exclude only the recycled wastes.
The countywide total of 85,107 tons is dominated by waste oil (30%), almost entirely
from small generators outside the manifest system (88%). Miscellaneous wastes
account for another 18 percent of the countywide total; here they split 60/40 between
those using the manifests and those outside the system. Several other large total waste
streams are worthy of note.
• Metal-containing liquids, 7,070 tons, 98% manifested
• Non-halogenated solvents, 5,217 tons, 85% manifested
• PCBs and dioxins, 6,016 tons, 99% manifested (one-time cleanup wastes).
Table 3-17 summarizes total hazardous waste generation in Alameda County by
location. As expected by its size and industrial base, Oakland is the largest source by
far of waste generation: 19,330 tons (23% of the county total). This sum is split rather
equally between those small firms outside the manifest system and those using
SF031609\AA\044.51 3-42
Table 3-16
- Total Hazardous Waste Generation,By Type--1986
Alameda County
(Excludes Recycled Wastes)
Small Tank
Manifested Generators Household Cleanup
Waste Category Waste Wastes Wastes Wastes Total
Waste Oil 3,196 22,545 -- 25,741
Halogenated Solvents 744 771 1,515
Nonhalogenated Solvents 4,446 771 -- 5,217
Organic Liquids 1,733 732 -- 2,465
Pesticides 6 160 -- 167
Dioxins + PCBs 5,975 41 -- -- 6,016
Oily Sludges 3,222 -- -- 3,222
Halogenated Organic Sludges and Solids 34 13 47
Nonhalogenated Org.Sludges and Solids 2,479 232 -- 2,711
Dye and Paint Sludges and Resins 2,757 307 - 3,064
Metal-Containing Liquids 6,927 143 7,070
Metal-Containing Sludges 1,530 193 -- 1,723
Metal-Containing Liquids(700 Series) 1 9 10
Cyanide and Metal Liquids 37 60 97
Nonmetallic Inorganic Liquids 2,905 1.480 -- 4,385
Nonmetallic Inorganic Sludges 661 0 661
Soil 4,292 N/A 896 5,188
Miscellaneous Wastes 9,320 4,628 1,860 15,808
TOTALS 50,266 32,085 1,860 896 85,107
SFO31609\AA\004P.51 3-43
Table 3-17
Total.Hazardous Waste Generation, By City -- 1986
(Excludes Recycled Wastes)
Manifested Small Tank
Wastes Generation Household Cleanup
City (Corrected) TPY Wastes TPY Wastes' Wastes' Total
Oakland 8,707 9,829 536 258 19,330
Emeryville 7,379 854 7 4 8,244
Hayward 7,305 3,077 155 75 10,612
Fremont 5,637 4,311 247 119 10,314
Newark 3,901 1,410 59 28 5,398
Alameda 3,759 2,096 114 55 6,024
Livermore 3,352 1,615 85 41 5,093
Berkeley 3,267 2,744 160 77 6,248
Union City 3,032 1,440 75 36 4,583
San Leandro 2,173 1,740 100 48 4,061
Pleasanton 1,378 1,858 73 35 3,344
Piedmont 91 247 16 8 362
Albany 46 363 24 11 444
Dublin 33 501 33 16 583
Unincorporated 206 ' 176 85 467
50,266 32,085 1,860 896 85,107
'Assumed proportional to population.
SF031609\AA\004Q.51 3-44
manifests (45% manifested). Clearly small-generator wastes from Oakland (9,973 tons)
_. are a major priority for attention under this plan.
Three other cities appear as large sources of waste generation; here, however, the
relative proportions of manifest/small generator are quite divergent:
• Hayward, 10,612.tons, 69.percent.manifested
• Fremont, 10,314 tons, 55 percent manifested
• Emeryville, 8,244 tons, 90 percent manifested
Emeryville is dominated by larger generators using DHS manifests; Fremont has a very
large small-generator component; and Hayward falls into the more-balanced category.
Together these three cities account for another 34 percent of the county total.
Seven more cities fall into the net range in terms of their waste generation (from 3,323
to 6,309 tons). Again, the relative importance of small businesses to the total is quite
varied.
• Berkeley, 6,248 tons, 52 percent manifested
• Alameda, 6,024 tons, 63 percent manifested
• Newark, 5,398 tons,72 percent manifested
• Livermore, 5,093 tons, 66 percent manifested
• Union City, 4,583 tons, 66 percent manifested
• San Leandro, 4,061 tons, 53 percent manifested
• Pleasanton, 3,344 tons, 41 percent manifested
Together these seven account for 41 percent of the county total.
SF03lW9\AA\004.51 3-45
Chapter 4
- CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
A. OVERVIEW
It is estimated that some 7,700 hazardous waste generators in Alameda County use a
wide array of treatment and disposal practices but sound data on which to quantify
these activities reliably is not available.
Many hazardous waste generators ship their wastes offsite for treatment or disposal:
776 manifests were completed in 1986. This includes the few large generators who
account for a sizeable proportion of all manifested wastes. Many of these manifested
wastes were exported to other counties. Based on 1985 County Business Patterns, it is
estimated that more than 6,900 firms generated hazardous wastes but did not use a
manifest in disposing them. Results of the phone survey of small generators described
in Chapter 3 indicate that this estimate may be high; 65 percent of the small businesses
surveyed indicated that they do not generate hazardous waste.
B. PAST PRACTICES
Alameda County is typical of many older industrialized areas where facilities use
hazardous materials and generate hazardous wastes. In the past, hazardous wastes have
been disposed in unlined industrial and municipal landfills, or at surface impoundments
used solely 'to minimize costs with no particular regard to their environmental
implications. Hazardous materials were stored -underground in single-walled tanks.
Double-walled tank systems, which would guard against leakage, were not considered
necessary until the late 1970's. The lack of information or financial incentives to
handle hazardous wastes properly led to many corporate and governmental decisions
which resulted in inadequate management of these materials through the end of the
1970's, and early 1980's.
More recently, even with new hazardous waste regulatory legislation in place, full
compliance has been difficult to achieve. While much has been accomplished already
(including county inspections of some 1,500 hazardous waste generators in Alameda
County, and extensive hazardous materials regulatory programs in effect in seven of the
fourteen cities), far more remains to be accomplished. For generators, hazardous waste
management laws represent extra expense for transport and disposal and fees for
generator permits, as well as extra effort to comply.with a complete set of laws from
which they will not immediately or directly profit. Also, because of inadequate
education, many generators, especially small quantity generators, still remain unaware
that they even .produce hazardous wastes which require special (and increasingly
expensive) control.
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-1
Alameda County's District Attorney has been one of the most aggressive in California
in identifying and prosecuting those caught in acts of illegal hazardous waste disposal.
Enforcement of hazardous waste laws and programs has led in recent years to the
discovery of several contaminated sites in Alameda County. The 22 sites listed on
Table 4-1 are currently under investigation and corrective action under the Hazardous
Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984; 30 more sites have been identified under the
Calderon Bill (AB 3525/3374). Further details are presented in Appendix E. Soils and
groundwater at these locations in two different cities are contaminated with solvents,
waste oils, metals, and other hazardous wastes.
Private responsible parties are providing resources for cleanup at 14 of the 22 Bond
Act sites. Two other Bond Act sites are federal facilities. The 30 Calderon sites are
contaminated landfills. They are ranked, at 12 levels, according to the degree of threat
they pose to public health. This is determined by investigating the landfill's potential to
contaminate groundwater, and the amount of suspected hazardous waste dumping
which has occurred at the site. A ranking of l indicates the most serious threat; 12, the
least. Rankings for the 30 Alameda County Calderon sites are also listed in Appendix
E.
The local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) monitors investigation and
cleanup of contamination from leaking underground tanks. The RWQCB and DEH
implemented an underground tank inspection program. Approximately 560 leaks from
underground tanks which will require soil excavation are expected for Alameda County.
With continual inspection and cleanup programs in place, this should generate
approximately 900 tons of contaminated soil per year, for the next 15 years. By that
time, leaks from older tanks will have been cleaned up and soil excavation needs will
decline greatly. Newer tanks are designed to avoid the leaks to which the older tanks
were susceptible.
As education about potential dangers of hazardous waste is expanded, and enforcement
programs gain strength, it is probable that more contamination from the past will be
discovered. It is essential that both private industry and public agencies are responsive
and effective in cleaning up these sites as they are identified.
C. ONSITE WASTE MANAGEMENT
Many firms using the manifest system, and others, also employ a wide variety of onsite
hazardous waste management practices. These include onsite recycling of solvents,
neutralization of acids, and precipitation of metals in onsite treatment units. A few
firms may still employ onsite land disposal: in pits, ponds, lagoons and other surface
impoundments. These techniques are increasingly being phased out under regulatory
pressure from the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Toxic Pits Cleanup
Act (TPCA) of 1985 (Katz, AB 3566).
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-2
Table 4-1
" Remedial Action Sites in Alameda County
Alameda Alameda Naval Air Station
Albany Western Forge and Flange*
Berkeley Berkeley Auto Repair
Emeryville Electro Coatings
Pacific Gas and Electric
Westinghouse Electric
Fremont Amchem Products
Livermore Lawrence Livermore Lab
Newark FMC Corporation
Leslie Salt
Oakland Aero Quality Plating
Clorox Company
Ekotek Lube
L and M Plating
Port of Oakland
Southern Pacific
San Leandro 100 - 39th Street
Factor Avenue Plume
Trojan Powder Works
Union City Pacific States Steel
U.S. Pipe and Foundry
[-*This site was mitigated in June of 1987.
SF031609\AA\01451 4-3
In an effort to identify the types of onsite waste management currently utilized in
Alameda'County, interviews were conducted with businesses which have applied to
DHS for variances. These are permits to treat, store, or dispose wastes onsite. This
information is not representative of all businesses in the County. Those which have
applied for variances are aware that they generate hazardous wastes, and that they
must comply with certain regulations for its effective onsite treatment.
The industrial profile of Alameda County's hazardous waste generators--a small base of
large quantity generators and a broad base of small quantity .generators--shows
potential for successful use of onsite waste treatment technologies. Alameda County's
large quantity generators are also large businesses, which typically can most easily
afford and accommodate onsite treatment systems.
The Department of Health Services (DHS) lists 24 TSD facilities in Alameda County.
Of these, three (All American Oil Co., Pleasanton; Evergreen Oil, Inc., Newark; Waste
Oil Recovery Systems, Inc., Oakland), are commercial waste oil recyclers, and two
(Baron-Blakeslee, Inc., Newark; Safety Kleen Corporation, Oakland) are commercial
solvent recyclers. CP Inorganics, Inc. in Union City commercially recycles spent
etchants from the electronics industry to retrieve copper. One other facility uses onsite
recycling techniques. Engelhard Industries West, Inc., in Union City recovers precious
metals from waste metal solutions. Currently, they do not recycle their rinse water, but
are interested in doing so. Pfizer, Inc. in Emeryville has a TSD permit so that onsite
aqueous treatment of metal-containing solutions and neutralization can be practiced at
the plant.
Three landfills were listed in the DHS data: Altamont in Livermore, which in addition
to Municipal Solid Waste, accepts infectious and asbestos wastes, Durham Road in
Fremont also a sanitary landfill, and the State of California Department of
Transportation in Oakland. The East Bay Disposal Company in Fremont is listed with
DHS as a transporter, as a Registered California Hazardous Waste Hauler, for the
purpose of hauling a limited list_ of hazardous wastes such as asbestos and infectious
waste. Five of the TSD facilities listed (Electrofusion Corp., Fremont; Myers Container
Corp., Oakland; National Starch and Chemical Corp., Berkeley; and two Naval Supply
Centers, Oakland and Alameda) have permits for storage of hazardous wastes beyond
90 days. DC Chemical in Union City no longer produces hazardous waste, and EZ
Kleen Manufacturing in Castro Valley is closed. The remaining TSD facilities listed
could not be reached to explain in what capacity their TSD permits are used.
One hundred fifty-three businesses in Alameda County have applied to DHS for
variances in order to treat, store, or dispose hazardous wastes onsite. Several of these
companies were contacted to find out how they intend to use their variances. The
majority of firms contacted applied for a variance to store their hazardous wastes for a
period longer than 90 days. Fourteen variance applicants were metal plating shops. In
most of these cases onsite treatment such as neutralization, and dewatering of
metal-containing sludge is being performed. Then, sludges are drummed and
transported to hazardous waste disposal sites. One firm, Alta Plating in Oakland
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-4
recycles its rinse water. Most platers interviewed were very receptive to the idea of
working together with other platers and with Alameda County to find cost effective
means of treating and disposing their hazardous wastes. A common complaint was that
the regulatory requirements regarding hazardous wastes are complicated and confusing.
They encountered difficulty in getting explanations regarding the regulations.
All companies..contacted _were.-interested-in..recycling and other waste treatment and
reduction methods. However, they cited the expense of onsite treatment as a major
barrier. Permitting and regulatory compliance were mentioned by several businesses as
factors deterring onsite treatment.
There are an estimated 6,923 small generators that do not appear to be covered by the
manifest system. Yet together they account for 22,600 tons of waste oils and 9,500 tons
of other hazardous wastes. Some of these smaller businesses probably used the
manifest system incorrectly, and thus ended up in the suspense file. Others may
dispose their hazardous wastes in ways that range from misguided to illegal. Some
wastes may be stored for long periods of time (without the RCRA permit formally
required for storage beyond 89 days). Many liquid wastes may be sewered--others are
sent to municipal solid waste landfills along with the firm's regular refuse collection.
And some unknown amount may be poured into storm sewers or "dry" wells, or placed
directly onto the land.
D. OFFSITE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN FACILITIES
OUTSIDE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
Appendix G presents details on the four major facilities listed below that received
hazardous wastes from sizeable numbers of Alameda County generators in 1986. Both
of the IT facilities closed in 1987.
• IT's Panoche facility (Solano County)
• IT's Vine Hill/Baker facility (Contra Costa County)
• Chemical Waste Management's Kettleman Hills facility (Kings County)
• . Casmalia Resources' landfill (Santa Barbara County)
E. SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS: PRACTICES AND
SPECIAL NEEDS
Federal law (specifically, the 1984 Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Management
Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) defines small quantity
generators as those who generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste
per month. California laws and associated regulations apply to all those who generate
hazardous waste regardless of the quantity.
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-5
Small quantity generators are a diverse and dispersed group. Many of them are small
businesses without highly-trained personnel or sophisticated waste management
practices. Typical small generators include auto repair shops, gas stations, dry cleaners,
and printing and duplicating shops. Typical wastes include: contaminated solvents,
paint sludges, plating solutions, photographic solutions, acids, and waste pesticides.
Some small generators in Alameda County may throw hazardous wastes into trash
dumpsters or pour them down drains. Federal, state, and local laws now prohibit this
type of disposal. Other small generators are now using alternative methods for
managing their waste streams--methods that are more environmentally sound yet within
economic reach. These practices, some down-sized versions of large-volume generator
hazardous waste management methods, include: .
Milk-Run Pickups. These pickups involve transport firms specializing in hazardous
substances who make arrangements with a variety of companies in a single geographic
area. The firm maps out a collection route; sends out a truck to pick up materials
from the various companies; then delivers the waste to recycling, treatment,
incineration, or landfill facilities as appropriate. The idea is to limit the number of
trips to pick up waste materials, and, if possible, to consolidate similar wastes for more
economical treatment and disposal. The Chemistry Department at U.C. Berkeley set
up a milk run for solvents from labs at the University in early 1988, for example.
Pickups by Distributors. Chemical distribution companies sometimes pick up used
solvents, etc., and then return them. to the customer in a reclaimed form. This is
analogous to bottling companies taking back empty bottles for cleaning and reuse.
Commingling. Similar types of oils and solvents can be picked up from a group of
similar businesses and then "commingled" in a tank on the truck. The wastes are later
reclaimed for reuse or sale. Segregation of waste streams at the source is important if
this option is used since inappropriate mixing of wastes renders the whole mixture
unusable.
Waste Exchanges. A waste exchange is a clearinghouse for information about wastes
that may be reused by other companies: one company sells or gives away waste output
to another company that then uses the waste as an input. The State of California
operates a waste exchange and regularly publishes a Newsletter listing these wastes
available for exchange.
Recycling. A wide variety of recycling options exist. The appropriateness of recycling
depends on the type of waste produced, the degree and type of contamination, and the
volume produced. Oil and solvents are the wastes most commonly recycled at present.
Attractive new waste recycling technologies are rapidly entering the market.
Transfer/Collection Station. A transfer/collection station is a permanent structure
designed for the collection of diverse waste streams; consolidation of compatible
wastes; and transport for treatment, recycling, incineration, or secure landfill disposal as
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-6
appropriate. Wastes are transported to the facility by a milk-run pickup; or brought by
the generators themselves. The stations are operated by personnel trained in
hazardous waste management. Three transfer stations are currently operating near
Alameda County: in Richmond, Contra Costa County; at the Romic facility in East
Palo Alto, San Mateo County; and in San Jose, Santa Clara County.
Source Reduction. Small,generators' waste streams can also be managed by making
attempts to reduce either the volume or the toxicity of the waste at its source. .This is
accomplished by substituting less hazardous input materials or by changing the
engineering of the process so that it results in a less hazardous product. Details about
present and potential small generator source reduction practices in Alameda County
are still minimal. Collecting more information will be an important part of
implementing the Plan. Source reduction is the Plan's highest priority.
Special Needs of Small Generators
Because the wastes generated by these firms are diverse and the amounts generated
per firm are small, owners and managers often have a difficult time disposing their
wastes in an economical and environmentally-sound manner. Waste haulers are used
to dealing with larger waste generators and may be resistant to accepting small amounts
of waste because of excessive per-shipment handling and disposal costs.
Small quantity generators lack incentives to comply voluntarily with hazardous waste
regulations. They may be faced with inadequate financial resources, inadequate and
unaffordable insurance, inadequate technical expertise, and lack access to technical and
regulatory information. Limited enforcement of existing regulations places those firms
who want to comply and invest in proper waste disposal at a competitive disadvantage
with firms that continue to dispose their hazardous wastes cheaply, though illegally.
This situation is likely to change as MOU inspection data, AB 2185/2187 (Waters Bill)
data, AB685 data (Farr Bill) and RCRA reports all provide more information to
Alameda County about who is using which substances and in what quantities. The high
costs of disposal for small quantities remains a very significant disincentive. Disposal
charges can be up to $600 per drum; and expensive waste analyses are also often
required before disposal companies will agree to take the wastes.
Educational and technical assistance programs are an alternative means for improving
waste management practices, but reluctance by generators to participate often make it
difficult for agencies to gather the information needed to design and implement useful
programs. Trade associations and companies aggressively marketing transport/
treatment/disposal services, especially for small generators, are sometimes in the
position of providing information and advice to those mistrustful of government
involvement.
The Department of Environmental Health in Alameda County has taken the lead role
for small quantity generator programs so far. The department has a Memorandum of
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-7
Understanding with DHS and conducts inspections of large and small generators.
About 1,500 generators had been inspected through the end of 1987. SQG programs
are planned to continue at the county level or may develop out of AB 2185 programs
and hazardous materials storage ordinances being implemented by city fire departments
in Berkeley, Fremont, Newark, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Hayward, and Union City.
In 1987, the County Department of Environmental Health initiated a pilot small
quantity generator program in cooperation with an Association of Bay Area
Governments program for household hazardous wastes. Fifteen hundred letters were
sent to very small quantity generators to inform them of their obligation to properly
dispose the hazardous wastes they generate and invited them to participate in a
multibusiness pickup route with discount prices. The response to this program was low
and was not followed up by the department.
The Alameda County Department of Environmental Health Services has recently
implemented a Waste Minimization Technical Assistance Program. This program
includes outreach, education, and technical assistance to hazardous waste generators
within Alameda County not subject to the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and
Management Review Act of 1989 (Senate Bill 14). Under this program, 270 waste
minimization assessments have been completed and a goal of assessing 500 facilities per
year has been established. Selected inspectors from the Waste Generator Program are
being trained to offer technical assistance to generators in conducting waste minimiza-
tion assessments; completing waste minimization plans; providing educational materials;
and developing a follow-up assessment when deemed necessary by the Department.
Specific categories of businesses (Standard Industrial Codes) are being targeted to
receive such assistance, and include auto repair shops, metal finishing facilities, and
printed circuit board shops. In addition, a series of educational workshops on specific
waste minimization techniques will be conducted for hazardous waste generators in
Alameda County during 1991 and 1992.
F. MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES
The household hazardous waste program in Alameda County has been developed by
and is implemented by the Household Hazardous Waste Division of the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health. The household hazardous waste genera-
tion data included in the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) of the Inte-
grated Waste Management Plan take precedence over data in this Plan. Generation
data included in this Plan were based on a literature review of per capita generation
rates in other counties. Generation data included in the HHWE is based on data
collected specifically for Alameda County.
A collection event at a temporary location is now the most common method for collect-
ing household hazardous waste for disposal other than through the municipal trash
collection system. Residents bring their waste to an advertised location and it is segre-
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-8
gated and lab-packed in a 55-gallon drum for disposal in a Class I hazardous waste
landfill. To the degree possible, some of the wastes are recycled, treated, or inciner-
ated rather than landfilled.
The first collection event in Alameda County was held by the City of Oakland in
September 1984. Since then, Hayward and the Tri-cities (Union City, Fremont, and
Newark) have held repeated collections. Several other cities have sponsored programs.
In 1987, ABAG co-sponsored a multicity collection program in Alameda County.
Table 4-2 shows the number of households participating and the number of drums
collected at these various collections. The average amount collected from each house-
hold in the ABAG program was about a third of a drum (including containers and
absorbent material).
These collections were advertised using press releases, flyers, direct mailings, and/or
garbage can notices. Funding was provided by garbage collection fees or city general
funds. Types of wastes collected included: paints, solvents, pesticides cleaners, acids/
bases, and waste oil. A single sole-source contract for packaging and disposal services
was signed with the Oakland Scavenger Company, who is the franchised garbage collec-
tion company for 11 of the 14 cities and two sanitary districts in Alameda County.
Oakland Scavenger subcontracted with Chemical Waste Management. This arrange-
ment was preferred by most of the cities involved and facilitated the use of garbage
collection fees as a funding source.
Experience shows that repeated collections increase the awareness of homeowners and
tenants in the area, and succeeding collections are likely to attract more participants
and more wastes. Multicity collections may be a continuing trend because collaborating
cities can share advertising, planning, and site set-up costs. Cities, especially city fire
departments, play an important role in organizing these collections and in developing
refinements and innovations in the collection .program process. Sanitary districts are
likely to be important players in the unincorporated areas of the County, including
Castro Valley Sanitary District and Oro Loma Sanitary District. Other cities in Cali-
fornia have instituted permanent locations where household wastes are accepted on a
continuous basis or by appointment. This option will be considered in Alameda
County.
The definition of municipal waste in garbage collection franchises may be an important
legal consideration if Alameda County or its cities increase their involvement In the
household hazardous waste arena. Existing definitions can.be interpreted in several
ways and the implications for collection of hazardous wastes from households are still
somewhat unclear.
Participation rates in household collections have been shown to vary by the size of
community. Smaller communities tend to have higher participation rates (up to 1.5
percent), possibly due to:
• A smaller, more effective communication and notification.network
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-9
Table 4-2
Household Hazardous Waste Collection in Alameda County
Number of Number of Number of
Households in Households Drums
Date City the Service Area Participating Collected
9/84 Oakland 144,600 362 64
2/85 Albany 6,900 105 50
9/85 Tri-cities 74,100 185 84
9/85 Tri-cities 74,100 272 112
9/85 Hayward 36,950 400 127
9/86 Tri-cities 77,700 278 98
9/86 Tri-cities 77,700 320 123
10/86 Hayward 37,560 418 94
ABAG COLLECTIONS
6/87 Oakland 146,859 383
Alameda 29,011 179
Piedmont 3,769 90
Other* --- 29
Total 179,639 681 330
7/87 Berkeley 45,422 726
Albany 6,932 203
Emeryville 2,725 4
Other -- 69
Total 55,079 1,002 335
5/87 Fremont 54,133 643
Union City 14,879 148
Newark 11,366 126
Other --- 69
Total 80,378 986 238
6/87 Livermore 18,828 194
Pleasanton 15,212 57
Dublin 5,709 30
Other -- 69
Continued
SF031609\AA\015.51 4-10
Table 4-2 (cont.)
Household Hazardous Waste Collection in Alameda County
Total 39,749 350
*Residents from cities not included in the group of participating cities were allowed to leave
wastes, but were asked to pay a small user's fee to defray costs of disposal.
Note: These are preliminary data from the ABAG collections. The volumes listed do not include
the 91 cubic.yards of latex paint that were collected. This paint was dried and disposed in a
municipal landfill, as approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Meiorin, Emy Chan. Alameda County Pilot Collection Program for Small Quantity Generators of
Hazardous Wastes. Association of Bay Area Governments. 1983.
SFO31609VW\015.51 4-11
• Shorter travel distances to a collection site
• A generally higher sense of community identity and cooperative spirit
Large communities tend to have lower participation rates (down to 0.2 percent). Con-
tributing factors might include:
• A more difficult and complex notification process
• Longer travel distances
• A higher percentage of apartments and rental units, which are thought to
have somewhat lower waste accumulation rates than owner-occupied
homes
These factors may become less important if a countywide program is implemented, and
collections are well-publicized and extremely convenient.
The ABAG pilot project identified areas in the county thought to be appropriate geo-
graphical divisions for the multicity collection program. Census tract density, expected
participation rate, and predicted manageable size for one-day collections were taken
into account when grouping the cities. The groups were chosen as follows:
Area l: Oakland, Alameda, and Piedmont
Area 2: Berkeley, Albany, and Emeryville
Area 3: Hayward and Castro Valley
Area 4: Fremont, Union City, and Newark
Area 5: Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin
Area 6: San Leandro and San Lorenzo
Depending on the direction and emphasis of county and city programs for collecting
and managing household hazardous waste, these may continue to be useful divisions for
planning purposes. The jurisdictions of franchise agreements and sanitary districts
would also be important logistical and funding considerations.
G. TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Alameda County still exports the major portion of hazardous waste generated within its
boundaries. Thus, consideration of potential threats to public health and the environ-
ment from hazardous waste in transit is essential in any evaluation of the County's
hazardous waste management practices.
A few major routes are used in the County. Various agencies are responsible for
regulating and enforcing safe transport. Several problems exist, and possible solutions
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-12
can be identified for current hazardous waste transport management in Alameda
County.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING REGULATIONS
Transportation of hazardous wastes is regulated by several federal, state, and local
agencies. The federal,..government has enacted the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (Superfund). This legislation requires the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the federal Department of Transportation to establish regulations for
handling and transportation of hazardous wastes. The regulations in part are set forth
in the Code of Federal Regulations No. 40, Parts 260 and 263 and 40 CFR, Parts
171-179.
The federal regulations define and categorize hazardous wastes, establish a uniform
manifest system, establish a uniform marking system on the transport .vehicles, and
mandate specific responsibilities to the states. The federal Department of Transporta-
tion has issued a Table of Hazardous Materials which is used as a basis for hazardous
waste transport regulations by California agencies.
State and local laws and regulations on transport of hazardous wastes assign specific
duties and responsibilities to the producers, transporters, and receivers of hazardous
wastes. These regulations also define responsibilities of certain agencies for the regula-
tion and monitoring of hazardous waste transport, and for emergency response to
hazardous waste spills.
On state highways and freeways, the CHP and Caltrans have primary responsibility for
the cleanup of hazardous waste spills. On surface streets in unincorporated areas, the
local fire authority and the County Health Department's Emergency Response Van will
respond to hazardous waste spills. Within cities, the local fire department has primary
responsibility for the cleanup of hazardous waste spills. The County's Emergency
Response Van.may be called in to assist in the identification and cleanup of the waste.
EXISTING MODES AND ROUTES
Hazardous waste is transported in Alameda County along city and county streets, the
state highways, interstate freeways, and on the major railroad lines. The primary routes
for hazardous waste transport are Interstate I-580, I-680, and I-880. These freeways
connect the major industrial areas of the County and provide the major routes for
hazardous waste transport from outside the County. Large volumes of hazardous
wastes pass through Alameda County from generators in Santa Clara County to facili-
ties in Contra Costa, Solano and Kings Counties.
Three major railroad lines operate in Alameda County: Southern Pacific, Western
Pacific, and Santa Fe. Southern Pacific (SPRR) is the major rail carrier of hazardous
waste. Figure 4-1 shows these major routes for hazardous waste transport.
SF03l W9\AA\006.51 4-13
n
L fipreg4. Nozordoas W46e- Srillt , (985— 1987
LA
t ` » O C•I�r•r�t Rscorls, Ittq
4 O C•14wns R•cer•.Is, 1916
Rf- '
i3 O C•11+.»t Iltso..ls, 1917
i
•
AL EDA
a
O IPM '
wiu
t w►' Rr 58o t fD
.�. t L ERJN0 1
HAYWARD
9 ` I
Ord �` 1
s • U ION CITY I
o w��
q 4 ` • FREMONT
o
Some 80 percent of the manifested hazardous waste generated in Alameda County
originates in the areas along I-880. It is likely that I-880 serves as the primary transport
route for this part of the total county waste stream. Major receiving counties for this
waste stream in 1986 (see data in Chapter 3) were Contra Costa, Kings, Los Angeles,
San Mateo, and Solano Counties. There are currently no data available on the amount
of hazardous waste transported through Alameda County from sources outside the
county. However, because of the .proximity of Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties
and the major transportation corridors connecting these areas through Alameda
County, this amount is likely to be significant when compared with the locally-generated
waste stream.
Preferred Routes. As previously discussed, Interstate 580, 680, and 880 are the most
heavily-used routes for hazardous waste transport. Until waste minimization programs
become effective these freeways will continue to be the major hazardous waste trans-
port routes for Alameda County in the foreseeable future because of their importance
to regional transportation. Since the freeways also serve as the major commuter traffic
routes in the County, it is essential that a plan be developed to accommodate the needs
of both commuter and hazardous waste transport along these roadways. It is also
important that alternative management practices be instituted in all counties to reduce
the amount of waste transported on highways.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Alameda County Health Department. In response to the problem of hazardous waste
spills in the County, the Health Department has purchased a special Emergency Re-
sponse Van and equipped it with state-of-the-art instrumentation for providing prelimi-
nary identification of materials at spill sites and communication to other authorities for
scene management and clean-up. The Emergency Response Van also maintains a log
of spill data, which includes information. on dates, .location, and.types of material.
Review of these data for the period of June 1986 through December 1987 indicates
that approximately 75 percent of the hazardous waste spills reported on local streets in
Alameda County occurred along the I-880 corridor, with most of the remaining spills
occurring along the I-580 corridor. These locations are shown on Figure 4-1.
Highway Patrol and Caltrans. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) maintains an
ongoing program to inspect trucks on state highways to see that they are displaying
proper placards and conforming to the other state regulations regarding transport of
hazardous waste. Trucks are inspected at the truck scales on I-580, 680, and 880 for
proper manifest records, special containment features, and compliance with other legal
requirements.
Hazardous waste spill data for the state highways in Alameda County were collected
from the CHP and Caltrans for 1985 through 1987. The data plotted on Figure 4-1.
show a pattern of incidents on I-880. It should be noted that the data presented in
Figure 4-1 do not include spills of all hazardous materials recorded in the county; only
hazardous waste spills have been included.
SF031609\AA\006.51 4-15
Chapter 5
CURRENT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS AND COORDINATION ACTIVITIES
This chapter describes the most important existing agency programs which address
hazardous materials and wastes. Chapter 10 of this Plan describes additional efforts to
support Plan goals and implementation strategies.
Three primary relationships exist between the Hazardous Waste Management Plan and
these toxics management programs:
• Agency data on hazardous waste generators can help the Waste
Management Authority (and others) more accurately assess local
hazardous waste streams.
• Information on the Plan's goals, policies, and specific programs (e.g.,
recycling) can be distributed to hazardous waste generators through
existing agency programs.
• Source reduction assistance program can be carried out through some of
these ongoing inspection and regulatory efforts.
A. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (DHS)
DHS is responsible for implementing both the state Hazardous Waste Control Law and
(through delegation of a number of related. responsibilities) much. of the federal
hazardous waste laws in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DHS
is presently attempting to qualify for delegation of additional responsibilities under
federal law (especially elements of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 [HSWA]). These state and federal laws provide for so-called "cradle-to-grave"
regulation of all aspects of hazardous wastes: generation, treatment, storage,
transportation, and ultimate disposal. They also provide for extensive technical and
financial assistance efforts. In addition, DHS has established an incinerable waste
program aimed at achieving a 50 percent reduction in generation of incinerable waste
by the end of 1992.
Despite these ambitious legislative goals, resource constraints and competing
commitments to date have prevented DHS from implementing its broad mandates fully,
in Alameda County or statewide. DHS actually inspects and permits only the few
major federally-defined Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) facilities out of over
700 which used the manifest system in 1986, plus an estimated 7,000 small hazardous
waste generators. The state inspects only 13 facilities in Alameda County. DHS is able
SF031609\A►A\007.51 5-1
to inspect even these few facilities only once every 12 to 24 months. DHS also receives
the hazardous waste manifests.
As a practical alternative to noncompliance, DHS has executed memoranda of
understanding (MOUs) with the health departments of 17 counties, 3 cities, and the
Los Angeles Sanitation Districts. These MOUs establish hazardous waste generator
inspection and permit .programs.for all but the few federal TSD facilities. Alameda
County has signed such an MOU, which is implemented by the County Department of
Environmental Health; this program is described below.
B. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (DEH)
Alameda County has assigned most county authority over hazardous materials and
hazardous wastes to its DEH, adding new statutory and programmatic goals over time.
Most recently, on October 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors assigned a 10-point
multi-year "Hazardous Materials/Waste Management Program," to a separate
Hazardous Materials Management Division of DEH. This program includes:
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR INSPECTIONS (MOU)
This effort will implement the county's MOU with the state Department of Health
Services. Local regulation is being phased in, as DEH identifies and develops the
resources and expertise to regulate them effectively. Through the end of 1987, roughly
1,500 generators had actually been inspected, out of DEH's estimated total of 3,000.1
Unlike a number of other DEH programs, the generator inspection program operates
countywide, including not only the unincorporated areas but also in all the cities.
HAZARDOUS WASTE HAULER INSPECTIONS
Hazardous waste haulers are regulated primarily by the Federal Department of
Transportation, but local agencies retain limited authority over notice, timing, and
routing. DEH will implement a program to inspect waste haulers to assure their
compliance with permit, manifest, and safety requirements.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) REGULATION
Two pieces of state legislation passed in 1983 require counties to regulate the
underground storage of hazardous materials and wastes--which includes fuel storage at
gasoline service stations and fleet yards, some pesticide storage, and other underground
storage of such materials. Cities were given the opportunity to assume implementation
through adoption of municipal ordinances, and could "grandfather" pre-existing
1Reasons for the apparent discrepancy between this estimate and the much larger number(7,000)from the No Survey Method
(See Chapter 3)are still being explored.
SF031609\AA\007.51 5-2
programs with certain conforming amendments. The Cortese Bill (AB 2013) required
UST owners to register their tanks by July 1, 1984. The Sher Bill (AB 1362)
established technical standards for the construction and installation of UST, including
requirements that all UST installed after January 1, 1984 provide double containment
(e.g., double-walled tans) and a method to monitor the UST for leaks. Pre-1984 UST
were required to install monitoring systems.
The county's UST program (implemented by DEH) does not operate countywide;
instead, seven cities took their opportunity to establish city programs (Berkeley,
Fremont, Hayward, Newark, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City). DEH
estimates that 3,000 USTs are located. in the areas covered by its county program
(roughly half of the countywide UST total); 1,001 had been inspected through the end
of 1987.
These inspections and monitoring efforts have identified hundreds of contaminated sites
within Alameda County. DEH and the fire departments have taken responsibility for
removal of gross contamination (floating gasoline, piles of leaky drums, etc.), but have
deferred decisions about final cleanup to SWRCB and its RWQCBs, DHS, and the
federal EPA.
ABANDONED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Over time, DEH has been directed to participate in the identification, classification,
and cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste sites, under state and federal law (e.g.,
Superfund). A total of 22 remedial action sites, and many smaller leaks, have already
been identified in Alameda County.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DEH operates a hazardous materials emergency response unit countywide. This unit
was acquired with grant support from the state.
DEH is also the county's "Administering Agency" under the Waters Bill
(AB 2185/2187). One major responsibility of each Administering Agency is the
preparation of an "Area Plan" for cooperative emergency response to hazardous
materials/wastes emergencies throughout its geographic area. Area Plans were due at
the end of 1987, with triennial updates to follow. The Alameda County plan also
coordinates with plans prepared to cover the six cities that chose to "self designate" to
administer the Waters Bill within their jurisdictions (the same cities implementing UST
laws, less San Leandro).
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE DATA
DEH's many hazmat program elements collect and store vast amounts of data. The
Division is now designing and implementing a computerized data system intended to
store and manage all this information. This process will take several more years.
sF031609\AA\007.5 1 5-3
RECYCLING, WASTE RECOVERY, AND WASTE EXCHANGE
DEH's activities and plans in this area are described in Chapter 4, as regards small
quantity generators and household hazardous wastes. In addition, the Division's long
term plans call for an Alameda County Waste Exchange Program. This effort is
modelled on DHS's California Waste Exchange, through which waste generators can
advertise offering.-their.hazardous and.other wastes to.others for recycling or reuse.
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL/WASTE DISCLOSURE (WATERS BILL)
This element is based on the "Business Plan" provisions of the statewide Waters Bill,
which is administered by DEH (plus the six self-designated cities) as the second major
component of that law. Every business facility that "handles" more than threshold
quantities of hazardous materials (hazmat) must prepare a Business Plan that contains
a detailed hazmat inventory, basic facility ownership and operational information, a
detailed site map showing the locations of hazmat storage and emergency response
equipment, and an onsite emergency response plan that includes training for
employees. The 1986 amendments added an additional requirement that each Business
Plan also estimate total annual throughput of each hazardous waste--a very useful data
source for Tanner planning. Business Plans were to be submitted to the local
Administering Agency no later than January 1, 1988. Each Administering Agency must
maintain public access to the Business Plans (right-to-know element), and must operate
a permit and inspection program to assure business compliance.
As of the end of 1987, DEH had inspected 130 of the 2,000 hazmat-using businesses it
estimates to be located within the areas it serves directly. Many of these facilities are
the same ones covered by the UST and MOU programs.
This program element will also be expanded -to -include the 1986. La Follette Bill
(AB 3777/1059), which requires Waters Bill Administering Agencies to enforce greatly
expanded reporting and planning requirements for a narrower set of 406 "acutely
hazardous materials." Businesses that handle above threshold quantities of "AHMs"
must prepare detailed Risk Management and Prevention Programs for their facilities,
designed to identify and prevent potential AHM releases that would endanger the
community. While Administering Agencies have the option of requiring RMPPs at
existing facilities, they must require an RMPP at any new or modified facility before
that facility begins operations, or must issue a written finding that no RMPP is
necessary. While the La Follette Bill is not focused directly on hazardous wastes, those
wastes that contain more than one percent (1%) AHMs will still be considered under
this new program. No reliable estimate of AHM-handling facilities in Alameda County
yet exists.
SF031609\AA\007.51 5-4
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES
DEH receives frequent inquiries from development interests relating to contaminated
sites. DEH provides technical assistance to development interests and local land use
planning agencies upon request.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INFORMATION REGARDING
HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS/WASTE
DHS will continue as an information source.
C. SANITARY DISTRICTS AND PUBLICLY-OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS
The federal Clean Water Act and the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
regulate all discharges to the state's waters. Sewage and wastewater treatment plants
operated by cities and special districts must comply with these statutes and associated
regulations. These same federal and state laws provide authority (some mandatory,
some optional) for these agencies to regulate discharges into their sewers. Each of the
seven municipal or district plants in Alameda County implements an Industrial
Pretreatment Program that requires certain industrial, commercial., and government
facilities to pretreat sewered wastes to neutralize acids and bases, and remove heavy
metals or toxics. All include frequent onsite inspections of these firms. The seven
districts are:
• Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District
• East Bay Municipal Utility District (East Bay MUD)
• Hayward
• Livermore
• Oro Loma Sanitary District [which also handles waste from the Castro
Valley Sanitary District]
• San Leandro
• Union Sanitary District
These programs can be important sources of information for the hazardous waste
planning process. In addition, the POTWs are important sources of expertise in
dealing with a range of hazardous waste issues. Finally, the relative intensity of these
SF031609\AA\007.51 5-5
programs indicates that efforts to assure effective coordination or integration with other
hazardous waste programs could be important to minimizing unnecessary overlaps or
gaps in coverage.
D. CITIES
Each of the 14 incorporated cities in Alameda County has accepted for its own
implementation a unique subset of the legal authority over hazardous materials and
wastes available to them. Rather than 14 repetitive listings, this subsection describes
briefly the general authority available.
FIRE CODE
Each city adopts a municipal fire code. Generally, this code incorporates most or all of
the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), often with amendments to particular articles or
sections. The UFC contains a variety of provisions dealing with the storage and
handling of classes of potentially dangerous materials. The impending 1988 Edition of
the UFC will present extensive amendments to Article 80, which addresses hazardous
materials, including hazardous wastes. Cities will have the option of amending their
municipal fire codes to adopt the newly-revised Article 80--many of these new
provisions parallel requirements in the Waters and La Follette Bills (the UFC covers
other states in addition to California).
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE ORDINANCES (HMSOs)
In 1983, seven cities in Alameda County (Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Newark,
Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City) adopted HMSOs, based on a model
developed in neighboring Santa Clara County.--These ordinances-address above ground
and underground storage of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All the
HMSOs are being implemented by fire departments, except that Berkeley assigns this
role to the Division of Environmental Health of the city Department of Health and
Human Services. —
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REGULATION
As mentioned above, the seven cities with HMSOs also implement the state UST laws,
as extensions of their HMSO programs.
WATERS AND LA FOLLETTE BILLS
All the cities with HMSOs except San Leandro also self-designated to implement the
Waters Bill; San Leandro left this new program to the county. These six cities
therefore have inherited full La Follette Bill responsibilities as well.
SF031609\AA\007.51 5-6
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES
Chapter 4 describes efforts by cities and special districts to address household
hazardous wastes. This authority follows clearly from local control over solid waste.
Cities also receive additional authority from recent state legislation: AB 1809 (Tanner,
1986) and AB 2448 (Eastin, 1987).
E. OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES PROGRAMS
In addition to the programs just described, a wide variety of other local, regional, state
and federal programs regulate other aspects of hazardous materials and wastes within
the geographic confines of Alameda County. Many include reporting, inspection and/or
permit requirements that could be coordinated or integrated with the hazardous waste
programs just described, including:
• Protection of drinking water, and water generally. The state
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act assigns a broad range of water
protection responsibilities to the State Water Resources Control Board,
and to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB--in
Alameda County the Bay Area RWQCB). 'These include oversight of
cleanup of leaks and spills of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes;
however, resource constraints have severely restricted RWQCB's
accomplishments in this area.
• Prevention of leaks from toxic pits, and from disposal sites for solid and
hazardous wastes. The Bay Area RWQCB is primarily responsible for
this program in Alameda County under AB 3566 (Katz). As surface
impoundments are closed, this may increase the need for new hazardous
waste management facilities.
• Protection of air quality, including regulation of toxic air emissions. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District implements a variety of
federal and state laws within Alameda County. Any new hazardous waste
management facilities would be subject to BAAQMD regulation of air
emissions. BAAQMD's air toxics program includes a health risk
assessment for new and modified sources, an inventory of emissions in
the Bay Area, an ambient monitoring network, and development of toxic
air contaminant regulations (in conjunction with Air Resources Board).
• Regulation of infectious wastes. County Health is responsible for this
program.
• Regulation of pesticides and "restricted materials." The County
Agriculture Commissioner is responsible.
SF031609\AA\007.51 5-7
• Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
of 1986 creates the "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act," which creates a variety of toxics reporting requirements similar to
state laws. Title III has required the creation of a statewide commission,
and local planning districts. The planning district which includes
Alameda County is from Santa Cruz to the Oregon border.
• Other federal toxics and hazardous materials programs. Implemented by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or delegated to state agencies,
these laws are expanding steadily.
• Regulation of Waste Haulers. This is primarily a federal function, but
state DHS establishes certification requirements: Transportation
enforcement agencies can enforce: California Highway Patrol on federal
and state highways and county roads, county sheriff on roads in
unincorporated areas, city police departments in incorporated areas.
• Local Emergency Plans. The County Office of Emergency Services is
responsible for the preparation of the County Multi-hazard Functional
Plan, which plans for response to various types of emergencies, including
the accidental release of hazardous materials and wastes. Examples of
procedures covered in the plan are warning the public, communication,
rescue, and evacuation. Each city in the County has a comparable plan
using a similar format to aid in coordination.
F. COORDINATION WITH COUNTY SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
Prior to the passage of AB 2948, county hazardous waste management planning was
authorized under state statutes mandating every county to prepare and to update a
County Solid Waste Management Plan on a triennial basis. The portion of the Plan
dealing with hazardous waste disposal was required to be reviewed by the California
Department of Health Services for conformity with state hazardous waste standards.
DHS recommended that the discussion of hazardous wastes in County Plans be
prepared as a separate element rather than appearing in several of the required
elements of the Solid Waste Management Plan.
The 1987 Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan contains a separate
Hazardous Waste Element, prepared after the passage of AB 2948 but before the
development of the DHS Guidelines for the preparation of County Hazardous Waste
Management Plans. This element represents "an interim approach to management of
hazardous waste in Alameda County that will be followed by a detailed County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan." The present County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan should be viewed as superseding any relevant information or
programs contained in the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan. There are
SF03160%AA\007.51 5-8
no gaps or problems in using the Hazardous Waste Management Plan to replace the
Hazardous Waste Element of the Solid Waste Management Plan.
Issues of household hazardous waste are included in the relevant section of the
Hazardous Waste Management Plan, which will supersede all references to household
hazardous wastes in the 1987 update of Alameda County's Solid Waste Management
Plan. Future...updates. of the Solid ..Waste .Management Plan will incorporate by
reference plans and programs in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan dealing with
household hazardous wastes.
The Oakland Scavenger Company (OSC) employs a chemist at its Davis Street
Transfer Station to analyze suspicious materials in the municipal waste stream to
prevent hazardous wastes from being commingled with the municipal waste stream.
The OSC chemist is available to the Durham Road Landfill to provide the same
service. A chemist is also employed at the SWETS Transfer Station to analyze San
Francisco wastes prior to its being hauled to OSC's Altamont Landfill.
SF031609\AA\007.51 5-9
SECTION III
FUTURE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Chapter 6
MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
In this chapter, the major issues and trends are addressed by three main questions:
(1) What will be the pattern and extent of Alameda County's growth and
development?
(2) How will future hazardous waste management improve over present practices?
.s (3) What will be the demand for new offsite facilities to manage hazardous wastes?
A. ECONOMIC GROWTH
The extent, type, and manner in which Alameda County's economy changes over he
next dozen years will affect hazardous waste management problems and needs in the
County. For example, the biotechnical industry has expanded rapidly in Alameda
County in recent years. This may affect the type and amount of hazardous waste
generated. New industry may also find ways to minimize waste as a way of reducing
expenses.
The mix of industry types as well as the mix of new versus old will also influence the
hazardous waste system here. These mixes are important because there is greater
opportunity for new firms--or significant expansions at existing ones--to adopt
improvements in their hazardous waste practices. Such improvements may stem from
two sources: first, new construction can incorporate technical improvements to reduce
waste generation; this may be more difficult or costly at older facilities. Second, new
firms may be required to adopt even more aggressive waste reduction measures as a
condition of receiving their local business permits.
B. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT CHANGES
Future hazardous waste management will depart radically from the way hazardous
wastes were handled in the past. Greater knowledge of how to manage hazardous
materials and wastes, greater regulatory scrutiny, and increasingly strong economic
incentives should significantly reduce future contamination. Yet, it is likely that
SF031609M\008.51 6-1
additional contaminated sites will be discovered, adding to the volume of wastes
requiring treatment and disposal. With the emergence of new and more effective
technologies, SARA's (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986)
demand for site remediation may be especially suited to onsite cleanup. Here,
bioremediation and mobile incineration may prove to be quite effective, thereby
reducing the impact of contaminated soils and perhaps other types of wastes on offsite
hazardous waste management facilities in Alameda County.
As noted earlier (particularly in Chapters 1 and 2), public attitudes play a critical role.
A gradual reduction in the level of fear about toxics, often termed "chemophobia," can
'be expected as a result of greater public education and understanding about hazardous
materials and waste management. Greater public awareness of such issues also leads
to demands for new approaches to toxics management. These include public pressures
to significantly reduce (or even eliminate) the use of toxic substances and reduction of
other wastes at the source--thereby significantly reducing, and for some potentially
eliminating, the need for new offsite treatment, incineration, and residuals disposal
facilities.
Future hazardous waste management may also be affected by new regulatory
developments. Some will arise in response to the emergence of new technologies, or
approaches such as seen already in mobile treatment. Other regulatory changes will
take place as a result of greater awareness of the extent of problems (as in the growth
of the federal Superfund from $1.8 billion in 1980 to $9 billion in 1986), or in response
to heightened public pressures. A trend toward even more stringent regulations in the
future is expected. On the other hand, the ability of government agencies to more
carefully craft regulatory approaches to reduce their burden, while improving the level
of protection is also expected to increase. For Transportable Treatment Units (TTUs),
EPA has suggested relaxing somewhat the rigid permitting requirements that are
imposed on large treatment and disposal facilities;-in order-to encourage greater use of
TTUs.
C. DEMAND FOR NEW OFFSITE FACILITIES
Currently, the largest proportion of hazardous wastes generated in Alameda County are
disposed at offsite land disposal facilities. What alternatives to land disposal are
needed? Where can and should these facilities be located? For whom shall they be
built? By whom?
These questions are central to this Plan, and are addressed in subsequent chapters on
waste stream projections, facility needs assessment, and siting criteria. However, future
demand for new offsite facilities depends on the type and size of firm being addressed.
The following forces influencing different kinds of firms and their responses, in general
terms.
SF031609\AA\008.51 6-2
Large companies, especially those experienced in chemicals handling and production,
are driven by economic goals, liability, concerns, and, to a lesser extent, regulatory
pressures. In Alameda County, about 10 firms account for 25 percent of the total
waste stream; another 60 or so firms account for another large portion of all hazardous
wastes. Together this group of largest generators account for 50 to 60 percent of all
manifested wastes. Rapidly rising costs for hazardous waste management, especially
offsite; great potential liabilities for cleanup of disposal sites; and regulatory demands
for waste minimization are pushing these firms rapidly to source reduction and onsite
treatment. This trend appears to be well underway. Companies may also feel public
pressure to continue waste reduction. A positive corporate image is a critical asset.
These firms, while they were once major waste generators, and accounted for the
largest volumes of manifested wastes, are moving away from the need to use offsite
facilities making projections of the future based primarily on 1980's manifest data
inaccurate.
Many medium-sized companies have also begun to feel the pressures of economics,
liability, and regulation. In Alameda County 700 medium size generators account for
the remaining 40 to 50 percent of the wastes included in the manifest system data.
Their waste management costs are growing rapidly. These firms may change and adapt
to these pressures somewhat more slowly than their larger colleagues. They may
require government assistance. Their demands for offsite hazardous waste
management facilities are not easily predicted. In the short run, these demands are
likely to increase as land disposal is phased out; but they should decline as these firms,
too, adapt and are able to implement greater source reduction and onsite treatment.
Smaller firms will have the greatest difficulty responding to the new set of pressures.
Many appear to operate outside of the hazardous waste management system today--
possibly out of ignorance of their need or of their ability to comply. Instead, these
firms are driven by economic forces; liabilities far- less of a-factor compared to large
firms. They are far less likely to practice onsite treatment. In Alameda County nearly
7,000 small firms not using the manifest system are estimated to account for about
one-third of total wastes, and some 22 percent of hazardous wastes when waste oils and
recycled wastes are excluded. In the near term, these firms may add to the demand for
offsite facilities, as their hazardous wastes enter the system for the first time. Their total
contribution to the county's waste stream appears to be small.
Smaller firms often lack the experience with chemicals and waste management to
institute a great deal of source reduction. But they may be encouraged by good will
and a desire to achieve a healthy environment, provision of information or training, or
banks conditioning loans or insurance companies offering premium discounts for
complying with waste audits.
A household hazardous wastes education or collection effort may divert some of these
materials from Class III refuse disposal sites to recycling, treatment (or Class I)
facilities.
SF031609\AA\008.51 6-3
i
The situation reflects pressures to reduce the demand for offsite hazardous waste
management facilities, with a much smaller counter-demand for increased handling of
hazardous wastes offsite. The former pressures discourage development of those offsite
facilities needed to manage the wastes not eliminated by source reduction or managed
onsite by larger generators, plus those of smaller generators and households.
The problem is potentially very serious: many land disposal deadlines may be extended
if sufficient alternative capacity is not available. Market demands will determine
capacity--and be defined by its availability (or is absence). The solution is to
disaggregate the waste stream analysis and, especially, the implementation strategy. The
priority called for in the plan's policies is on source reduction, then onsite recycling and
treatment, especially by larger generators. These priorities may apply differently to
different waste streams.
Facility development is likely to require a greater public sector role. This could take
three forms. First, because of the uncertainly surrounding the demand for offsite
facilities by large generators and the trend towards greater onsite management, some
offsite facilities may be sized to meet regional needs. This will be facilitated by
inter-county cooperation on siting large offsite facilities. This approach reflects an
understanding of economic realities affecting the future of the county's waste stream
and the sizing of offsite facilities to meet economies of scale, with a recognition that it
necessitates greater transportation distances, as one or more facilities is likely to be
more removed from the county's sources of hazardous waste generation. Secondly,
other facilities--transfer stations, for example, and stabilization units, plus transportable
technologies--will be sized and sited primarily to meet local needs. Third, the
possibility of public sector involvement in meeting the offsite facility needs of small
generators and households should be considered. This may also be true in the case of
residuals repositories for all generators.
sF03160%AA\008.51 6-4
Chapter 7
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
General economic trends will influence overall patterns of industrial and commercial
development. These changes, in combination with source reduction, recycling, and with
use of new onsite waste 'treatment technologies-=by existing firms and by new firms--
will determine the volumes and types of hazardous wastes to be generated in Alameda
County in 2000.
A. FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .
ABAG, for its Bay Area Regional Hazardous Waste Management Plan, has carried out
a series of analyses regarding future economic development. These analyses included
such topics as:
• General economic trends
• Industrial growth
• New product
• Local land use
A complete description of the methodology developed by ABAG can be found in the
technical appendices of the Bay Area Regional Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Table 7-1 summarizes these growth projections for Alameda County. The highest
growth is in services, construction, finance, insurance, real estate, and wholesale trade.
Much of this growth, is expected to be in the I-680/I-580 corridor.
Of greatest importance to projections of future hazardous waste generation is the
estimate of a 46 percent growth in he manufacturing sector (2.72 percent compounded
annually).
B. ALTERNATIVE WASTE STREAM PROJECTIONS
In order to determine Alameda County's future waste management needs, three
projections for waste generation were calculated: baseline, moderate and aggressive.
Each of these corresponds to a different level of effort to minimize waste at the
generating source.
Baseline estimates assume no future increased source reduction effort. They project
county development due solely to economic factors.
Moderate estimates include the assumption that modest waste minimization efforts will
be in effect. Essentially, this source reduction alternative is driven by market forces
SF031609\AA\009.51 7-1
Table 7-1
Business Sector and Population Growth'
1986-2000
Alameda County
Annually Compounded
Overall Percent Increase Growth %
Services 109.12% 5.41%
Construction -77.25% 4.17%
Finance, Insurance, and 64.38% 3.61%
Real Estate
Wholesale Trade 60.24% 3.43%
Manufacturing 45.61% 2.72%
Retail Trade 43.91% 2.63%
Transportation, 37.78% 2.32%
Communication, and
Utilities
Government 18.17% 1.20%
Residences 10.46% 0.71%
Agricultural and Mining -15.74% -1.22%
Unclassified 0.00% 0.00%
'Derived from ABAG projection data--developed by Ray Brady.
SF031609\AA\009A.51 7-2
(costs of hazardous waste treatment and disposal), as the most important determinant
of companies' decisions, without any special efforts by local governments or the state.
These estimates reduce baseline waste generation rates in 2000 according to predictions
of what low-level source reduction could achieve.
Aggressive projections estimate hazardous waste generation in 2000 assuming onsite
waste minimization will be maximized at both existing and new firms. For these
projections, baseline generation estimates were reduced using estimated maximum
values for waste minimization potential.
All these projections assume only onsite source'reduction and waste minimization; they
do not include any further reductions in waste volumes that can be achieved by use of
onsite waste treatment technologies or transportable treatment systems.
Although several factors can influence the county waste stream, both moderate and
aggressive projections apply reductions to the strictly economically-driven baseline
estimates. Other factors, such as regulatory changes, could have significant impact on
the projected waste stream. These factors are very difficult to predict and even more
difficult to quantify in terms of their effect on waste generation. Therefore, the
projections presented here are subject to the effects of regulatory changes, unforeseen
overall economic trends, and other potential influences not included in the baseline
development data for hazardous waste generation.
It is important to clarify what is meant by "source reduction" here. This term applies to
waste minimization techniques which actually reduce the amount of hazardous wastes
requiring treatment. These techniques include various "housekeeping" procedures such
as reducing spillage; purchasing hazardous materials in bulk containers to eliminate
generation of many contaminated, empty packages; and extending the use of solvents.
"Source reduction" as used in this chapter-does not -include onsite-treatment.
Another important consideration for this chapter is the effect of industry participation
on the projected waste stream. The baseline projection assumes no increased source
reduction activity in any industry. Moderate and aggressive projections assume 100
percent industry participation at each level of average effort. With less involvement,
these projections would have to be adjusted accordingly. Also, the projections assume
that there is potential for increased source reduction in all industries. This is not true
in every case. Contact with several small businesses indicates that in order to reduce
hazardous materials and disposal costs, source reduction techniques are already being
used "as fully as possible." Projections in this chapter do not take this into account.
BASELINE PROJECTIONS
Table 7-2 shows ABAG's calculations of growth in Alameda County hazardous waste
generation by industry categories, without any source reduction. Note the large growth
in:
sF031609\AA\009.5 1 7-3
Table 7-2
Baseline Waste Growth By Industr&
1986-2000
Alameda County
Annually
General Percent Compounded
SIC Waste Growth
Business Sector Code Industry Group Growth Percent
Agriculture 700 Agriculture Services -16.13 -1.25
800 Forestry -15.61 -1.20
Construction 1500 General Building Contractors 77.25 4.17
1600 Other Construction 77.09 4.17
1700 Special Trade Construction 77.27 4.17
Manufacturing 2000 Food and Kindred Production 2.75 0.19
2500 Furniture and Fixtures 8.45 0.58
2600 Paper and Allied Products 8.44 0.58
2700 Printing and Publishing 100.22 5.08
2800 Chemicals and Allied Products 57.76 3.31
2900 Petroleum Refining Industries 48.70 2.87
3000 Rubber and Misc.Plastic Products 29.59 1.87
3200 Stone,Clay,Glass,and Concrete Products 22.42 1.46
3300 Primary Metal Industries 27.87 1.77
3400 Fabricated Metal Products 10.14 0.69
3500 Nonelectrical Machinery 171.51 7.40
3600 Electrical&Electronic Equipment 270.55 9.81
3700 Transportation Equipment 23.45 1.52
3800 Instrumentation and Related Products 211.44 8.45
3900 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 212.53 8.48
Transportationc 4000 75.90 4.12
4100 Local and Interurban Transport 75.90 4.12
4200 Trucking and Warehousing 43.51 2.61
4400 Water Transportation 75.91 4.12
4500 Air Transportation 75.92 4.12
4700 Transportation Services 75.87 4.12
4800. Communication 110.88 5.47
4900 Electrical,Gas,and Sanitary Services 24.13 1.56
Wholesale Trade 5000 Durable Goods 6024 3.43
5100 Nondurable Goods 60.25 3.43
Retail Trade 5200 Building Materials 43.91 2.63
5300 General Merchandise Stores 44.06 2.64
5400 Food Stores 43.97 2.64
5500 Automotive Dealers and Service Stations 43.91 2.63
5600 Apparel and Accessory Stores 43.94 2.64
5700 Futiture Stores 43.18 2.60
Finance, 6100 Credit Agencies 69.83 3.86
Insurance and 6400 Insurance Agents,Brokers,and Services 64.29 3.61
Real Estate 6500 Real Estate 63.62 358
Services 7200 Personal Services 14.19 0.95
7300 Business Services 134.99 6.29
7500 Auto Repair Services 14.19 0.95
7600 Miscellaneous Repair Services 13.90 0.93
7900 Amusement and Recreation 47.28 2.80
8000 Health Services 22.61 1.47
8200 Educational Services 40.46 2.46
8900 Miscellaneous Services 135.05 6.29
Continued
SFO31609\AA\009B-51 7-4
Table 7-2(Cont.)
Baseline Waste Growth By Induslrya,b
1986-2000
Alameda County
Public 9100 Executive,Legislative,General Government 7.93 0.55
Administration 9200 Justice,Public Order,and Safety 8.02 0.55
9400 Human Resources Administration 7.87 0.54
9500. Environmental and Housing Programs 7.72 0.53
9600 Economic Programs 7.92 0.55
9700 National Security and International Affairs 7.92 0.55-7 Nonclassifiable 9900 Nonclassifiable Establishments 0.00 0.00
aDerived from ABAG projection data--developed by Ray Brady.
bDoes not correct for waste minimization or onsite treatment.
cIncludes communications and utilities.
SFO31609\AA\009B.51 7-5
• Electrical and electronic equipment: 271%
• Miscellaneous manufacturing: 213%
• Instrumentation and related products: 211%
• Non-electrical .machinery: 172%
Table 7-3 summarizes the baseline hazardous waste streams in 2000 in tons per year for
each of the 10 basic business sectors; again, without any source reduction. This table
applies compound growth rates to the 1986 waste streams from each category.
Manufacturing (67,844 tons) and Services (30,577 tons) are dominant in 2000.
Table 7-4 provides detailed projections to 2000 for each of the 18 waste categories
defined by DHS in its Technical Reference Manual (TRM). Some 86,500 tons are
assumed to be manifested. Similarly, Table 7-5 presents baseline projections for small
quantity generators to 2000, again in each of the 18 waste categories. The total is
50,265 tons. And Table 7-6 pulls all this together, and adds in baseline projections for
one-time cleanups and households. The grand total for 2000--without source
reduction--is 139,536 tons of hazardous wastes. The seven largest individual
components are:
• Waste oil from manufacturing: 29,457
• Waste oil from services: 12,413
• Metal-containing liquids from manufacturing: 8,012
• Non-halogenated solvents from services: 6,492
• Non-metallic inorganic liquids from manufacturing: 6,248
• Non-halogenated solvents from manufacturing: 5,113
MODERATE AND AGGRESSIVE SOURCE REDUCTION
In Table 7-7 are shown the best available-estimates for-moderate and aggressive source
reduction for several key waste streams. These are drawn from the December 1987
Jacobs Engineering study prepared for DHS: "Hazardous Waste Minimization Potential
Workbook." The range is from 10 percent to 25 percent reduction for the moderate
category, and 25 percent to 55 percent for the aggressive approach. Aggressive
estimates were extrapolated from the moderate ones utilizing prior experience with
waste reduction programs and hazardous waste generating industries.
Moderate estimates include adoption of one specific waste reduction technique by a
typical firm; aggressive estimates include adoption of two or three specific measures by
an average firm. The high reduction potential for household wastes may be attributed
to the current lack of education about these wastes and about techniques to reduce
them. An aggressive education program could yield significant results in this area.
Solvents, dye and paint sludges, and resins have high reduction potential because
implementing source reduction techniques for these wastes is simple and effective.
Table 7-8 shows three projections for each of the 18 waste categories defined in the
TRM. The general Alameda County projected waste stream profile is consistent with
SF031609\AA\009.51 7-6
Table 7-3
Baseline Waste Stream-2000
Alameda County
Business Sector SIC Codes TPY, 1986' TPY, 2000b Business Sector
Growth (%)
Agriculture 700-800 100 119 -1.22
Construction 1500-1700 1,751 3,102 4.17
Manufacturing 2000-2700 46,595 67,844 2.72
Transportation 4000-4900 10,292 14,189 2.32
Wholesale Trade 5000-5100 2,672 4,285 3.43
Retail Trade 5200-5700 7,688 11,058 2.63
Finance, Ins. and Real Estate 6100-7000 ill 182 3.61
Services 7100-8900 14,623 30,577 5.41
Public Administration 9100-9700 3,219 3,804 1.2
Nonclassifiable 9900 --- 4,376 0.0
87,051 1139,536
'Percent growth compounded annually, 1986-2000; TPY = tons per year.
bDerived from ABAG projection data--developed by Ray Brandy.
`Includes manifested, SQG, and household waste projections.
SF03160%AA\009C.51 7-7
Table 74
Baseline Summary--Manirested Waste Only
Year 2000
Alameda County
Waste Category
Total
Business Sector Tons/Year l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 l5 16 l7 IS
Agriculture&Mining 3 1 1
Construction 148 10 9 6 52 71
Manufacturing 57,225 21,529 162 4,932 1,709 0 466 3,230 51 2,605 3,299 7,938 1,382 10 4,541. 257 5,114
Transportation, 7,339 782 447 160 108 0 3,966 637 0 439 36 97 38 587. 42
Communication,&
Utilities
Wholesale Trade 3,571 6 194 144 51 2,968 14 12 3 0 17 1 13 22 126
Retail Trade 224 12 1 50 14 9 23 49 1 4 61
Finance,Insurance, 183 39 48 61 1 8 22 4
&Real Estate
Services 12,400 660 626 6,030 305 2 523 255 d4.42 218 63 2 146 764 58 750
Government 3,805 753 29 125 211 0 308 245 66 278 141 1 296 515 837
Unclassified 1,565 483 186 157 4 16 113 59 120 141 6 83 10 186
TOTAL 86,463 24,275 1,645 11,608 2,456 11 8,308 4,570 3,519 3,796 10,481 2,148 0 54 5,600 808 0 7,120
Growth Percent 3.95 2.77 3.55 4.02 2.34 2.83 237 2.48 2.51 2.31 2.98 2.42 0.00 2.77 4.67 1.43 0.00 1.81
Compounded 1
Annually
Waste Categories
1. Waste Oil 11. Metal-Containing Liquids
2, Halogenated Solvents 12. Metal-Containing Sludges
3. Non-Halogenated Solvents 13. Metal-Containing Liquids(700 series)
4. Organic Liquids 14. Cyanide&Metal Liquids
5. Pesticides 15. Non-Metallic Inorganic Liquids
6. Diaims and PCBs 16. Non-Metallic Inorganic Slidges
7. Oily Sludges 17. Soil
& Halogenated Organic Sludges&Solids 18. Miscellaneous Wastes
9. Non-Halogenated Organic Sludges&Solids
10. Dye&Paint Sludges and Resins
SFO31609WA\009d.51
Table 7-5
Baseilne Summary-Small Quantity Generators
Year 2000
Alameda County
Waste Category
Total
Business Sector TonsiTear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 tO 11 12 13 14 l5 16 17 18
Agriculture 116 75 41
Construction 2,955 1,448 184 184 518 103 4 27 487
Manufacturing 10,621 7,928 181 181 79 9 60 15 15 44 74 137 9 70 1,707 112
Transportation, 6,849 5,208 106 106 23 18 15 50 1,323
Communication,&
Utilities
Wholesale Trade 713 472 25 25 12 7 1 1 11 8 1 23. 127
Retail Trade 10,834 8,129 153 153 30 11 45 25 92 2,196
Services 18,177 11,753 462 462 552 98 2 460 261 121 142 6 10 335, 3,513
TOTAL 50,265 34,938 1,111 1,111 1,214 200 60 0 18 476 482 203 324 15 80 2,234; 0 0 7,799
Growth Percent 3.26 3.13 2.65 2.65 3.69 1.61 2.76 3.28 2.35 5.24 3.24 2.53 3.77 4.59 2.20 2.99 0.00 0.00 3.80
Compounded
Annually
Waste Categories
1. Waste Oil 11. Metal-Containing Liquids
2. Halogenated Solvents 12. Metal-Containing Sludges
�O 3. Non-Halogenated Solvents 13. Metal-Containing liquids(700 Series)
4. Organic Liquids 14. Cyanide&Metal Liquids
5. Pesticides 15. Non-Metallic Inorganic Liquids
6. Dioxins and PCBs 16. Non-Metallic Inorganic Slidges
7. Oily Sludges 17. Soil
8. Halogenated Organic Sludges&Solids 18. Miscellaneous Wastes
9. Non-Halogenated Organic Sludges&Solids
10. Dye&Paint Sludges and Resins
SFO31609VWx009e.51
Table 7-6
TOTAL PRDJBCT D BASELINE HAZARDOUS
WASTE STREAM
ALAMEDA COUNTY
General Total Waste Category
Business Sector SIC Code Tons Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18
Agricultural 700-800 119 1 1 75 1 41
Construction 150O-17Q0 3,102 1,458 184 193 524 52 71 103 4 27 487
Manufacturiag 2000-3900 67,844 29,457 343 5,113 1,788 9 526 3,230 66 2,620 3,343 8,012 1.519 9 80 6,248 257 5,226
Transportation, 4000-4900 14,188 5,990 553 266 131 $.966 637 439 54 97 15 38 637 1,365
Coasunication,
t Utilities
Wholesale Trade 5000-5100 4,284
478 219 169 63 7 2,%8 14 13 4 11 25 2 36 22 253
Retail Trade 520G-5900 11,058 8,141 154 203 44 20 23 49 4S 1 25 92 4 2,257
Finance, 6100-6900 183 39 48 61 1 B 22 4
Insurance, L
Real Estate
Services 7100-8800 30,577 12,413 1,088 6,492 857 100 523 255 2 678 324 2,267 906 6 10 393 4,263
Governseot 9100-9700 1.805 753 29 125 211 308 245 66 278 141 1 296 515 837
v Unclassified 9900 4,376 483 166 157 4 0 16 113 1 59 120 141 0 0 6 83 10 900a 2,097b
1
C:) TOTAL 139,536 $9,213 2,756 12,719 3,670 211 .8.366 4,570 82 3,995 4,278 10,684 2,472 1S 134 7,834 808 900 16,630
Growth Percent 3.341 3.011 3.181. 3.90\ 2.781 1.671 2.381 2.481 3.971 2.831 2.451 2.971 2.601 4.591 2.431 4.1% 1.43 - -
Compounded
Annually
aFroe underground tank renedlation.
bincludes projected household hazardous waste generation.
WASTE CATEGORIES
1. waste Oil 11. Metal-Containing Liquids
2. Halogenated Solvents 12. Metal-Containing Sludges
3. Non-Halogenated Solvents 13. Metal-Containing Liquids
4. Organic Liquids 14. Cyanide L Metal Liquids
S. Pesticides 15. Non-Metallic Inorganic Liquids
6. Dioxins and PCBs 16. Non-Metallic Inorganic Sludges
7. Oily Sludges 17. Soil
S. Halogenated Organic Sludges t Solids 18. Miscellaneous Wastes
9. Non-Halogenated Organic Sludges i Solids
10. Dye C Paint Sludges and Resin
SFA59/056
Table 7-7
Source Reduction Potential
(Percent)
Moderate Aggressive
Solvents 20 50
Metal Solutions 15 40
Dye & Paint Sludges and Resins 25 50
Other Wastes 10 25
Household Hazardous Wastes 25 55
Based on Jacobs Engineering study "Hazardous Waste Minimization Potential
Workbook," December 1987.
SF031609\AA\009G.51 7-11
Table 7-8
Waste Generation,2000,Showing
Baseline,Moderate,and Aggressive Source Reduction Scenarios
Alameda County
Waste Category
Overall Total
Approach Reduction To:=Iar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It l2 t3 U l5 l6 176 l8c
Baseline' 0 138,636 59,212 2,757 12,719 3,669 211 8,368 4,571 82 3,996 4,278 10,683 2,470 15 135 7,837 ��j 0 16,828
Moderate 11.6;h 122,549 52,343 2.437 11,243 3,243 186 7,397 4,041 72 3,532 3,782 9,443 2,183 13 119 6,925 0 14,876
Aggressive 28.7% 98,843 42,218 1,965 9,069 2,615 150 5,966 3,259 58 2,849 3,050 6,616 1,761 11 96 5,586 0 11,948
Waste Categories
1. Waste Oil 11. Metal-Containing Uquids
2. Halogenated Solvents 17 Metal-Containing Sludges
3. Non-Halogenated Solvents 13. Metal-Containing Liquids(700 series)
4. Organic Liquids 14. Cyanide&Metal Uquids
5. Pesticides 15. Non-Metallic Inorganic Liquids
6. Dioxins and PCBs 16. Non-Metallic Inorganic Slidges
7. Oily Sludges 17. Soil
8. Halogenated Organic Sludges&Solids 18. Miscellaneous Wastes
9. Non-Halogenated Organic Sludges&Solids
10. Dye&Paint Sludges and Resins
'Assumes no source reduction;economic growth only.
bDoes not include contaminated soil.
ry cDoes not include household wastes.
N
SF031609W1W09h.51
estimates for 1986: waste oil,.miscellaneous wastes, solvents, metal-containing liquids,
and dioxins and PCBs are the five major waste categories. Together these five
categories account for 80 percent of the total waste stream. Contaminated soils (Waste
Category 17) are not included because it is not possible to predict accidental spills
which would generate these wastes. The baseline projection of 138,636 tons represents
a 37 percent increase from 1986. This corresponds to the projected 37 percent
increase in county economic development.
The projection assuming moderate source reduction is 22 percent greater than the 1986
estimate: 122,549 tons in 2000. One hundred percent participation in a moderate
source reduction effort (an average of one measure per firm) would yield an overall
11.6 percent reduction from baseline generation. Reduction in various waste categories
would range from 10 percent in 9 categories to 25 percent in dye and paint sludges and
resins. This level of overall source reduction effort would yield 13 to 20 percent
reduction of various metal solutions and solvents.
With an aggressive source reduction effort, metal solutions and solvents could each be
reduced by 40 to 50 percent. Overall reduction from the baseline generation would be
28.7 percent. The aggressive source reduction effort would yield a countywide total of
98,943 tons of hazardous waste. This is 2 percent less than estimated total hazardous
waste generation in 1986. The importance of economic growth, to increased waste
generation is evident; an aggressive source reduction program based on the Jacobs
Engineering study's numbers, when combined with ABAG's projected economic growth,
means that Alameda County will not increase in terms of volumes of hazardous waste
generation.
This DHS-sponsored approach appears to miss the distinction between source
reduction potential at existing facilities (along proportions set out in the Jacobs
Engineering Study) and source reduction-potential-at -new facilities, where much lower
levels of hazardous waste generation can be demanded by local ordinance. By
implementing a strict local ordinance, new growth in manufacturing and services can
take place without commensurate increases in hazardous waste generation. These
"New Source Performance Standards" can ensure that all new facilities (or significantly
expanded facilities) in Alameda County practice a high degree of hazardous waste
efficiency in their production processes.
Table 7-9 presents a set of projections for this strict source reduction alternative. This
analysis has been completed for key business sectors, not for the 18 waste stream
categories shown in Table 7-8. These data were devised using the following
assumptions:
• Existing waste generators will, on average, practice aggressive source
reduction (as defined by Jacobs): adopting two or three specific waste
reduction measures each. Some will adopt more, others less, given an
average overall reduction of 28.7 percent from 1986 levels.
SF031609\AA\009.51 7-13
Table 7-9
Hazardous Waste Projections Based on
Strict Source Reduction-2000
Alameda County
(Tons/Year)
Hazardous
Waste Percent
Generation-2000 Decrease
With Baseline 2000 From
Strict Source With No Source Baseline
Business Sector Reduction Reduction 2000
Agricultural and Mining 85 119 29
Construction 1,919 3,102 38
Manufacturing 43,708 67,844 36
Transportation, 9,256 14,189 35
Communications, and
Utilities
Wholesale Trade 2,704 4,285 37
Retail Trade 7,144 11,058 35
Finance, Insurance, and 115 182 37
Real Estate
Services 18,359 30,577 40
Public 2,579 3,804 32
Administration
Nonclassifiablea 979 1,379 29
Residences 1,348 2,097 36
TOTAL 88,196 138,636 1 36
EDoes not include contaminated soil.
SF031609\AA\009I.51 7-14
• New growth in Alameda County will, on average, be associated with a 50
percent source reduction rate compared to 1986 practices.
ABAG's estimates for hazardous waste generation from industrial growth in each
business sector were reduced by 50 percent. Overall source reduction potentials for
different industries vary from approximately 35 percent to 70 percent; 50 percent is the
midpoint. Some of the industrial growth projected by ABAG will come from expansion
of existing facilities; the rest will come from the addition of new facilities. The latter
can be expected to attain maximum source reduction potential (70 percent or more, on
average), whereas the expanded facilities can be expected to attain only the aggressive
source reduction potential. Fifty percent seemed a reasonable overall factor to account
for various source reduction potentials and different regulatory requirements. These
two levels of reduced hazardous waste generation were then added together to produce
the strict source reduction estimates shown on Table 7-9.
Table 7-9 shows total countywide hazardous waste generation to be. 88,196 tons:
50 percent from the manufacturing sector, and another 21 percent from the services
sector. The average amounts to 36 percent less waste than the baseline projection
(with no source reduction) and 11 percent below the aggressive source reduction
alternative that fails to distinguish between new and existing facilities.
Projections for 2000 thus range from a 37 percent increase in hazardous wastes if no
increased source reduction is achieved, to a 2 percent decrease below the present level
if a 28.7 percent reduction in baseline (year 2000) generation were achieved through an
aggressive source reduction effort and a 36 percent reduction below baseline if strict
reduction is pursued. Table 7-10 summarizes these alternatives. Unforeseen factors
such as changes in regulatory or economic trends, and limited potential for increased
source reduction in some businesses, may influence these projections. They illustrate
that utilizing onsite waste minimization techniques-will significantly reduce the amount
of hazardous waste requiring treatment. In addition, they show that substantial
requirements for hazardous waste treatment will still remain in Alameda County, needs
to be met either by use of existing offsite facilities; by use of onsite waste treatment
techniques; and--finally--by siting of new hazardous waste management facilities within
Alameda County.
SF031609\AA\009.51 7-15
Table 7-10
Summary of Alternative Projections
Of hazardous Waste Generation
(Rounded to the nearest 100 tons)
Scenario Tons/Year Overall Change
1986 Waste Stream 100,900 ---
2000 Baseline 138,600 +37%
(No Source Reduction)
2000 Moderate Source 122,500 +21%
Reduction
2000 Aggressive Source 98,943 -2%
Reduction
2000 Strict Source 88,200 -13%
Reduction
0
SF031609\AA\009J.51 7-16
Chapter 8
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAPACITY
NOTE: It is important to note that the needs analysis shown in this chapter has been
superseded by the capacity allocation process currently being conducted by the
Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee of the Association of
Bay Area Governments as,part of the effort to develop an interjurisdictional agreement
among the nine Bay Area counties for siting new hazardous waste facilities.
CAPACITY ALLOCATION PROCESS/STATUS OF
INTERJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS
The Bay Area Regional Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee
(CAC) was created to develop a regional approach for providing hazardous waste
management facility capacity in the Bay Area. Providing for capacity is required by
State law for individual jurisdictions (counties) unless interjurisdictional agreements are
in place. As part of the regional effort, the member counties of the CAC have entered
into a hazardous waste interjurisdictional agreement. The Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Planning Interjurisdictional Agreement is included in Appendix J of this
document. As 'an essential part of the interjurisdictional agreement, the CAC has
developed a Capacity Allocation Plan for providing the capacity necessary to manage
hazardous waste in the region.
The Capacity Allocation Plan is based on a "Fair Share" method for allocating
responsibility within the jurisdictional boundaries of the member counties. In order to
implement the Capacity Allocation Plan, the Committee has collected the latest
available data on generation of off-site managed hazardous wastes and hazardous waste
management capacity within the nine-county Bay Area region. The data used in the
Capacity Allocation Plan supersede the 1986 generation data shown in the Alameda
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
The CAC estimated the need for future offsite hazardous waste management facilities
using a model developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments to project
hazardous waste generation based on projected economic growth of generators. The
projections also assume a 25 percent reduction in hazardous waste generated due to
aggressive waste minimization and source reduction programs considered to be the
highest priority in the interjurisdictional agreement. The region's offsite hazardous
waste management capacity is projected to be approximately 300,000 tons annually in
the year 2000. This projection includes existing facilities only. The region's projected
capacity requirement is about 495,000 tons per year in 2000. Therefore, the nine-
county region will have an overall capacity deficit of about 195,000 tons in 2000
assuming existing capacity remains and no new capacity is added.
SF031609\AA\010.51 8-1
The Capacity Allocation Plan distributes the responsibility for filling the regional
capacity deficit gap among the participating counties based upon their contribution to
the deficit. Those counties contributing to the capacity deficit are assigned
responsibility for specific treatment method groupings depending on the size of the
deficit contribution. Treatment methods have been ranked by desirability and less
desirable methods (those lowest on the waste management hierarchy) have been
assigned to the counties with the greatest deficit contributions. Each member county is
being requested to provide siting opportunities, consistent with its own County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan, for treatment or disposal capacity. The outcome
of this process allocates responsibility in the following manner:
Santa Clara County Residuals Repository Capacity
Contra Costa County Incineration Capacity
Sonoma County Stabilization Capacity
Solano County Aqueous Metals Treatment Capacity
Alameda County Other Recycling Capacity
Napa County Other Recycling Capacity
Marin County Other Recycling Capacity
San Mateo and San Francisco Counties` No Allocation
For more details on the Capacity Allocation Process and the interjurisdictional
agreements contact the Association of Bay Area Governments for a copy of Staff
Report, prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Hazardous Waste Management
Capacity Allocation Committee, August 28, 1991.
A. BASIC HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
OPTIONS AND ECONOMIES OF SCALE
Alameda County's many hazardous waste generators, even with aggressive source
reduction, will generate a large volume of hazardous wastes well into the 21st century.
Estimates range from a low of 88,200 tons/year to a high of 1.38,600 tons/year. These
wastes require effective management, either onsite or offsite, in a range of appropriate
facilities:
• Transfer
• Storage
• Recycling
San Mateo and San Francisco Counties have met their fair share responsibility pursuant to the criteria set forth by the CAC
and described in detail in the Staff Report.
SF031609\AA\010.51 8-2
• Aqueous treatment (including physical, chemical and biological
.. treatment)
• Incineration, except as otherwise prohibited
• Solidification or stabilization
• Mobile treatment
• Residual repositories (for land disposal of treatment residues)
Moderate and aggressive (and strict) source reduction estimates already include
significant onsite and offsite recycling capacity.
BASIC HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Basic information on the typical characteristics and sizes of hazardous waste
management technologies or facilities is provided in Appendix F. This information will
assist in understanding the environmental implications of each type of facility found to
be needed in Alameda County.
B. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTIONS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
WASTES APPROPRIATE FOR TREATMENT ONSITE OR OFFSITE
Some of these treatment capacity needs could be shifted away from commercial offsite
capacity needs if, after maximum waste minimization is achieved, onsite treatment was
employed. To predict the reduction in commercial capacity need achievable by onsite
actions is difficult, unfortunately, because of the many factors which affect a generator's
ability to participate in onsite treatment. Any degree of onsite treatment will reduce
offsite needs. More widespread use of onsite treatment will reduce offsite treatment
needs to a greater extent.
There are several barriers to implementing a widespread onsite treatment program.
First, some onsite treatment technologies may be quite costly. In Alameda County,
approximately 66 percent of all businesses included in the No Survey Method had
fewer than 10 employees; 90 percent had fewer than 50 employees. Small businesses,
such as the majority of Alameda County's predicted (and manifested) hazardous waste
generators, cannot easily afford the investments required to install equipment for onsite
treatment. Usually these small businesses have very slim profit margins. The No Survey
Method (NSM) estimated a total of approximately 7,000 small generators. DEH esti-
mates that they have identified 3,000 generators. A phone survey of a sample of the
7,000 small quantity generators identified was conducted in February 1988. Approxi-
mately 65 percent of the firms participating in this survey stated that they do not gener-
ate hazardous wastes. This finding may explain the discrepancy between the NSM
sF031609vAA\010.51 8-3
estimate and the DEH estimate. After the generators have been identified, education
and funding plans must be developed to help these firms participate in any onsite
effort. Also, appropriate technologies to handle small amounts of waste must be
developed and made easily available. Thus, there are significant barriers associated
with widespread participation in an onsite treatment program.
It is likely that the large quantity generators in the county, which tend to be large,
profitable businesses (see Chapter 3), could increase significantly the amount of onsite
treatment they use. While it is thought that a large amount of onsite treatment is
currently in place with large generators, it is probable that many local businesses have
not yet installed waste treatment technologies. This is encouraging because these large
generators contribute a significant amount to the Alameda County hazardous waste
stream; are easily identified (they are probably manifestors); and there is a strong
possibility that they could fund installation of onsite treatment equipment. Also, tech-
nologies to reduce large quantities of waste do exist and are readily available. Alameda
County could, with reasonable probability of success, reduce its offsite treatment needs
significantly by encouraging large generators to utilize onsite treatment technologies for
wastes remaining after aggressive source reduction.
Alameda County's needs for offsite hazardous waste treatment capacity may be
differentiated in several different ways:
• By type of waste
• By type of industry generating the waste
• By location of generating industries
• By type of facility
- Recycling
- Treatment
- Transfer
- Storage
- Incineration, except as otherwise. prohibited
- Residuals repository
Several different types of treatment can be used to make hazardous wastes as safe as
possible before final disposal. Alameda County's needs for these various types of
treatment can best be estimated based on the County's projected hazardous waste
stream for 2000.
Precipitation, neutralization, carbon adsorption, and solvent recovery/distillation are the
four primary treatment methods for hazardous wastes. Secondary treatments include
incineration and stabilization. After wastes have been fully treated, any hazardous
residuals must then be deposited in a repository. Figure 8-1 shows this sequence of
actions.
The 18 waste categories defined in the DHS Technical Reference Manual can be
regrouped into five waste groups based on treatment requirements. These groups are
SF031609\AA\010.51 8-4
WASTE METAL
SOLUTIONS PRECIPITATION
HIGH OR LOW NEUTRALIZATION
PH SOLUTIONS
AOUEOUS ORGANIC
SOLUTIONS CARBON ADSORPTION
SPENT SOLVENT
OR WASTE OIL DISTILLATION
SOLID OR LIOUIn
WASTE ORGANICS INCINEIIATION STAIIILI7ATION AIPOSI TOIIY
Figure 8-1
WASTE TREATMENT SEOLIENCES
F 24669 AO
waste metal solutions, high or low pH solutions, aqueous organic solutions, spent
solvents or waste oils, and solid or liquid waste organics.
Table 8-1 summarizes waste reduction efficiencies of each basic treatment method. A
particular hazardous waste can be reduced only as much as its required treatment
sequence will allow. For example, waste metal solutions use precipitation as the
primary treatment method. Here they are reduced, in the maximum case, by 90
percent. Precipitation residuals are then stabilized, which increases their weight a
minimum of 20 percent. The net reduction potential for waste metal solutions is 88
percent. For high or low pH solutions 100 percent reduction is possible. The potential
for aqueous organic solutions is 98.8 percent. Spent solvents can be reduced by as
much as 97 percent, waste oils by 97.6 percent. Solid or liquid waste organics have a
reduction potential of 88 percent. With proper treatment, only 2.4 to 12 percent of
hazardous wastes generated actually require ultimate disposal in a repository..
Figure 8-2 summarizes the different waste treatment capacity requirements in 2000
were no source reduction to be practiced (Baseline projection).
Table 8-2 shows the various treatment capacity needs for this economically-driven
baseline generation projection, year 2000, without source reduction. (NOTE: This
ignores possible use of onsite treatment systems and transportable treatment units.)
Baseline facility capacity needs are summarized in Table 8-3.
These requirements can be reduced, as discussed above, with moderate, aggressive, or
strict source reduction efforts and maximum treatment reduction efficiencies. (Average
values for efficiency were used in this table.)
Manufacturing represents the highest capacity need in all 'categories of treatment type,
except out-of-state incineration for-dioxins and PCBs: Services shows the next greatest
demand for distillation, carbon adsorption, precipitation, incineration, stabilization,and
repository disposal. Waste reduction would reduce these treatment, incineration, and
disposal capacity requirements--the more reduction in wastes, the more reduction in
capacity needs.
Table 8-4 illustrates the treatment capacities needed in Alameda County for 2000 waste
generation projections at each of the projected levels of onsite source reduction.
Moderate source reduction reduces capaciy needs by 10 to 20 percent. Aggressive
source reducion reduces capacity needs by 25 to 50 percent. And strict source
reduction gives an across-the-board reduction of 38.7 percent.
As expected from the county waste stream profile, the greatest need is for oil and
solvent recovery. With no increased source reduction efforts, full recovery would yield
1,421 tons (2.4 percent of baseline generation) of waste oil residuals and 464 tons
(3 percent of baseline generation) of solvent residuals requiring disposal. In contrast,
an aggressive source reduction effort combined with full recovery would yield 1,066 tons
(1.8 percent of baseline generation) of waste oil residuals and 232 tons (1.5 percent of
SF031609\AA\010.51 8-6
Table 8-1
Generic Treatment Efficiencies
Generic Treatment Percent Reduction by Weight
Oil Recovery 70-80%
Solvent Recovery/Distillation 70-75%
Carbon Adsorption 80-90%
Incineration 85-90%
Precipitation 50-90%
Neutralization (Non-Metal) 85-100%
Stabilization Adds 20-40%
SF0316M9 \010A.51 8-7
DIOXINS 8368 METAL CONTAINING 2470
----up- TO OUT—OF—STATE INCINERATION SLUDGES
&PCBs
7683, WATER TO
SEWER OR RECYCLE
WASTE METAL 10833 3260
SOLUTIONS PRECIPITATION
HIGH OR LOW 7834 7834 WATER OR SLUDGES TO
pH SOLUTIONS NEUTRALIZATION SEWER OR CLASS III DISPOSAL
AND SLUDGES
262 1428, WATER TO
' SEWER OR RECYCLE
AQUEOUS ORGANIC 1678
SOLUTIONS CARBON ADSORPTION
66016, RECOVERED MISCELLANEOUS _ 16828
OIL/SOLVENT WASTES
SPENT SOLVENT 74688 18672
DISTILLATION
OR WASTE OIL
4268
LIQUID OR SOLID 16129
WASTE ORGANICS INCINERATION STABILIZATION REPOSITORY
34063 26806 34848
NOTES: 29796
ALL UNITS ARE IN TONS PER YEAR LOST TO COMBUSTION
AVERAGE VALUE USED FOR WEIGHT
REDUCTION, SEE TABLE J
Figure 8-2
WASTE TREATMENT SEQUENCES
YEAR 2000
BASELINE CAPACITIES
F24494.A0
'Fable 8-2
Alameda Countyb,c
Out-of-State
Dioxin&
Oil/Solvent Carbon PCB
Business Sector Distillation Adsorptiona Precipitation Neutralization Incineration Stabilizatlond'e Repository Incineration
Agriculture 2 77 51 66
Construction 1,835 6 27 1.204 642 835
Manufacturing 34.913 1,204 8,101 6,505 18.760 11,516 14,971 526
Transportation, 6,809 101 135 637 2,877 1,780 2,314 3.996
Communication and Utilities
Wholesale Trade 866 25 58 329 304 395 2,968
Retail Trade 8.498 1 96 2306 2.571 3.342
Finance, Insurance and Real 39 48" 22 26 7 9 61
Estate
Q� Services 19.993 187 2.283 393 7,055 6,736 8.757 523
�D Government 907 130 141 811 917 995 1.294 308
Unclassified 826 2 147 93 502 293 391 16
Total 74,688 1,678 10,833 8,642 34,053 26,8061' 34,848( 813"
aSome of the organic wastes that can be treated via carbon adsorption could not be specifically identified in the No Survey Method:this column represents manifested waste
oniv.
bl-his table does not include capacity for contaminated soils from a variety of sources. Also,the focus on onsite treatment is intensifying.
cAverage values for weight reduction were used in calculating capacity requirements for processes.
dMiscellaneous wastes,e.g.,batteries,lab packs,and metal dust are assumed to be stabilized without pretreatment.
eincludes household hazardous wastes.
(Totals recognize that stabilization reduces toxicity.but adds mass.
SFO31609\AA\O10B.51
Table 8-3
Baseline Waste Stream-2000
Alameda County
Business Sector Growth TPY, TPY,b•` Business Sector
(%) SIC Codes 19868 2000 Growth
Agriculture 700-800 100 119 -1.22
Construction 1500-1700 1,751 3,102 4.17
Manufacturing 2000-2700 45,595 67,844 2.72
Transportation 4000-4900 10,292 14,189 2.32
Wholesale Trade 5000-5100 2,672 4,285 3.43
Retail Trade 5200-5700 7,688 11,058 2.63
Finance, Ins. and 6100-7000 111 182 3.61
Real Estate
Services 7100-8900 14,623 30,577 5.41
Public 9100-9700 3,219 3,804 1.2
Administration
Nonclassifiable 9900 4,376 0.0
'Percent growth compounded annually, 1986-2000; TPY = tons per year
bDerived from ABAG projection data--Developed by Ray Brady
`Includes manifested, SQG, and household waste projections precipitation and
stabilization capacities. Requirements for final disposal at a repository are greatest
in the manufacturing and services sectors, where most wastes are oils and solvents
which yield only 70 to 80 percent reduction with distillation.
SF031609\AA\OIOC.51 8-10
Table 8.4
Needs Assessment Capacity Requirements
With Different Waste Reduction Scenarios
Year 2000
Alameda County
Tons Per Year
Baselinea Moderate Baseline Aggressive Baseline Strictd
Oil Distillationc 59,212 53.291 90%n 44,409 75% 36,292
Solvent Distillationc 15.476 12,381 80% 7,739 50% 7,700e
Carbon Absorption 1,678 1,510 90% 1,259 75% 1,028
Precipitation 10,833 9,208 85%n 6,500 60% 6,500e
Neutralization 8,642 7,778 90% 6,482 75% 5,297
Incineration 34,053 30,261 89% 24,573 72%n 20,871
Stabilization 26,806 23.627 88% 18,828 70% 16,430
Repository 34,848 30.715 88% 24,476 70% 21,359
Out-Of-State Incinerationb 8,398 8.398 100% 8,398 100% 8,398
allo source reduction
bout-of-state incineration is not affected by source reduction since PCB discovery and abatement is'an ongoing program
based on past practices.
°These categories were separated from each other since their reduction potentials are different.
dDetailed calculations were not possible for each waste treatment category. Instead,the same proportional reduction(some
38.7 percent)was applied to each Baseline category once the out-of-state incinceration total was eliminated from both
groups.
eAssumes lower aggressive total.
SFO31609\AA\010D.51 8-11
baseline generation) of solvent residuals. The combined effect of maximum source
reduction and full treatment yields the greatest possible reduction in hazardous wastes
requiring ultimate disposal.
C. POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF EXISTING KEY FACILITIES
AB 2948 requires that each county's. hazardous wase management plan include an
analysis of the probable extent to which that county's future waste stream can be
managed in existing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). As
documented in Chapter 3, four facilities received a large proportion of Alameda
County's manifested wastes in 1986; Casmalia, Kettleman Hills, Panoche, and Vine
Hill/Baker. Current operations at these facilities and potential future expansion are
described in Appendix G.
D. IMPLICATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
On the assumption that the need for new facilities results from strict source reduction
shown in Table 8-4, not requiring further onsite, treatment, and that facilities are
developed along the size projections set forth earlier in this chapter, Alameda County's
apparent offsite facility requirements are summarized in Table 8-5. These estimates
incorporate adequate flexibility to meet actual siting requirements. Numbers are
rounded to the nearest 100 tons.
One large oil recycling plant" appears warranted; this capacity might be met by
expansion of one or more of the three facilities already operating here, or by siting of a
new facility. The aggressive source reduction estimates from Jacobs Engineering's
report include a component for offsite recycling, which requires siting.
Some additional capacity for solvent distillation and recycling appears to be needed.
Alternatively, this need might be met by expanded use of the Romic facility in San
Mateo County if sufficient capacity exists there. Romic has applied to the City of
Newark to site a rail transfer facility capable of handling 23,000 tons of waste annually.
Plans are to transport waste from the East Palo Alto facility to the Newark facility via
the Dumbarton Bridge. Waste would be loaded on outbound rail cars at the Newark
facility. The Newark facility would handle Alameda County and other county wastes
thus serving as a regional facility.
�REvergreen Oil Inc.,began operating its oil recycling facility in Newark in 1986. The state of the art recycling process used at
this facility produces no hazardous waste byproducts. In 1987,Evergreen recycled approximately 21,000 tons of waste oil.
Evergreen estimates that it collected about 2.630 tons of waste oil from within Alameda County with the remaining 18,370 tons
coming from other counties. The facility has enough capacity to handle between 35.000 and 42.000 tons of waste oil each year.
This facility substantially increases the County's existing waste oil recycling capacity and also serves as a regional facility for other
counties.
SF031609\AA\010.51 8-12
Table 8-5
Alameda County
Potential Offsite Facility Development Requirements
(tons*)
Number and
Scale
Typical of Potential
Waste Requiring Facility Facilities
Technology Treatment' Scale Required`
Oil Distillation 36,300 40,000 1 Large
Incineration** 20,900 30,000 1 Smalld
Stabilization 16,400 50,000 (Designed to
(varies) scale)
Solvent Distillation 7,700 10,000 1 Small
Carbon Adsorption 1,000
Precipitation 6,500 70,000 Mobile Systems
Neutralization 5,300
Repository 21,400e 75,000 Of
Transfer Facilities Large volumes 10,000 2 or 3
from small
generators
'Estimated; assumes a comprehensive waste management program with aggressive
source reduction by existing generators and strict requirements for all new
facilities.
bBased on typical economies of scale for private-sector hazardous waste
managment facilities. Installation of new facilities in 1987-1989 will reduce
requirements for new facilities.
`Assumes basic comparability between capacity requirements and facility scale.
dAssumes limit import of incineratable wastes to meet minimum facility size
capacity.
eAnnual capacity requirement.
(Assumes export of wastes; repository siting not ruled out, but would require
significant imports of wastes to meet minimum facility capacity.
*Rounded to the nearest 100 tons.
**See Policy 2B.
SF031609\AA\010E.51 8-13
The County's needs for aqueous waste treatment are much smaller than the typical
economic and technical facility scale needed. Use of mobile treatment technologies
would seem appropriate--or export to fixed treatment facilities located in other
counties.
The data indicate that the need for rotary kiln incineration seems close to the smaller
scale of a modern facility.(about 70.percent). It seems that Alameda County should
include such a facility in its Plan. Formal permitting proposals for new incinerators are
already underway in the Martinez area by Stauffer Chemical Co.; in southern
California, the Vernon proposal; and in Kings County at the Kettleman Hills facility.
Moreover, some liquid incineratable wastes could go to the cement kiln incinerator in
Lebec, Kern County. New incineration capacity is now under construction in Arizona.
Nevertheless, the presence of over 20,000 tons per year of incineratable wastes from
Alameda County generators even after strict source reduction (and over 34,000 tons in
the baseline alternative) requires careful attention in this planning process. It seems
unrealitic to assume much onsite incineration of these wastes, and unreasonable to
assume that they can all be sent entirely out-of-county forever.
A residuals repository in Alameda County does not seem warranted by these data. The
smallest commercial-scale facility is estimated at some 75,000 tons/year of use. This is
approximately three-and-a-half times larger than the wastes requiring disposal in the
strict source reduction alternative, and more than twice the size even of the baseline
waste stream estimate with no source reduction. These wastes presumably would have
to be exported to a facility sited in another county, such as the Kettleman Hills facility
in Kings County, or the Casmalia facility in Santa Barbara County. These exports
would have to be included in -an intercounty agreement. Alternatively, the local
treatment residues requiring disposal could be placed in a repository located in
Alameda County. This facility would either have to be subsidized by local governments
(given its small scale), or important -larger volumes of waste -residues from other
counties.
Small transfer stations appear to be needed in North County and South County as well
as in the Livermore Valley to responsibly meet the needs of the hundreds of small
waste generators located in these areas.
The County's priority siting requirements under these assumptions are for:
• Two or three transfer stations
• A small incinerator, except as otherwise prohibited
• A small solvents recovery facility
• Expanded waste oil recycling capacity (need will be diminished based on
planned new facilities)
SFO31609\AA\010.51 8-14
• A designed stabilization unit
The information on which these assumptions are based are uncertain. The estimates of
existing and projected waste generation are uncertain. Most development and siting
proposals will be prepared by private developers using their own estimates of
regional--or even statewide and national--markets. A portion of the identified facility
needs may be addressed through intercounty agreements. For example, importation of
some hazardous wastes for treatment in facilities, such as oil recycling or an incinerator,
designed and sized primarily to meet local needs in Alameda County might
counterbalance exports of residuals to an economically-sized repository unit located
elsewhere. In this event the facility's scale would have to be adjusted upward
accordingly.
SFO31609\AA\010..51 8-15
Chapter 9
MEETING CAPACITY NEEDS
A. INTRODUCTION
Health and Safety Code Section 25135.1 (d)(6) states that instead of identifying specific
facilities and sites, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Plan) may include
siting criteria to be used in selecting sites for new hazardous waste management facili-
ties. In that case the Plan must also "designate general areas where the criteria might
be applicable." These general areas are to be shown on maps in the Plan.
The purpose of this Chapter is to describe the siting criteria and designate general
areas where the criteria might be applicable, to the extent possible. However, because
of the small scale of the maps (1" = 3 miles) and the fact that some of the criteria are
not mappable, the maps cannot be used to select a specific site for a facility. Before
considering any specific site for a facility, whether in a designated area or not, each
developer should consult the local jurisdiction for site specific data.
It is important to note that any proposed facility will be subject not only to the criteria
included in this plan, but also to the permitting process of the local jurisdiction in which
the facility is proposed. Local permitting processes may be more stringent than the
County criteria and are likely to require compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and preparation of a risk assessment.
B. SITING CRITERIA
The siting criteria are intended to apply to siting decisions in unincorporated areas of
the county as well as in incorporated cities. They are to be used whenever a land use
decision is required to site and construct a new offsite multi-user hazardous waste man-
agement facility, significantly expand or modify an existing hazardous waste manage-
ment facility, or expand or modify an existing onsite hazardous waste management
facility to become an offsite facility for other generators.
Siting criteria have been developed to identify potentially environmentally appropriate
locations for hazardous waste management facilities. These criteria will help facility
developers conduct a preliminary screening of sites and understand the major issues of
concern to the community. The criteria developed for Alameda County include major
requirements of federal and state laws and regulations and of local planning documents.
This should assist developers in finding locations that are consistent with current legal
and policy requirements.
SF031609\AA\011.51 9-1
Two categories of siting criteria have been developed for use in this Plan. They are as
follows:
1. Conditional: Designated facilities may be located in areas that meet these crite-
ria, if an engineered solution can be found to mitigate potential incompatibilities
between the facility and surrounding land uses and/or potential impacts of the
facility.on its .environment. . Other_conditions could include funding an investiga-
tion, designing special mitigation features, conducting a risk assessment to iden-
tify appropriate buffer zones, etc.
2. Exclusionary: Designated facilities cannot be located in areas described in these
criteria due to incompatibility between the facility and the surrounding land
area, based on environmental, public service/health, or land use constraints.
The criteria have been defined for three categories of facilities which have a potential
to be sited in Alameda County. The three types of facilities are as follows:
1. Small-scale transfer and storage facilities: Facilities with wastestreams small
enough to be exempt from manifest requirements as described in California
Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 6. Wastes from any
given generator must not exceed a total volume of five gallons or a total weight
of 50 pounds. Household hazardous waste collection facilities may be consid-
ered small scale at the option of each individual jurisdiction.
2. Industrial transfer/storage/treatment facilities: Any hazardous waste manage-
ment facility which is not a small-scale transfer and storage facility or a residuals
repository. This facility category includes but is not limited to:
a. Manifested waste transfer station
b. Recycling facility
C. Aqueous treatment facility
d. Stabilization and solidification facility
e. Bioremediation
3. Residuals Repositories: A hazardous waste disposal facility for collection of
residual wastes, defined as the residues from hazardous waste treatment facilities
after treatment, and other irreducible stabilized or detoxified hazardous wastes.
Table 9-1 presents the criteria for each of the three categories of facilities described
above.
SF031609\AA\011.51 9-2
Table 9-1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 1 of 5
DHS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Slorage/Trealment Facility Residuals Repositories
A. Seismic Exclusionary Exclusionary I Exclusionary
No facilities shall be placed within 200 feet of an active or recently active fault. CCR Title 22,Section 66391(a)(fll)A(1)and(2).
B. Floodplains Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
100-yr.floodplains and areas subject to flooding by dam or May be built in areas subject to 100-year flooding if protected by engineered solutions May not be located in areas subject to
levee failure and tsunamis,seiches,and coastal flooding designed to preclude failure,such as berms,raising above flood levels,etc. 100-year flooding even with protection
CFR Title 40,Section 264.18(b);and
CCR 22,Section 66391(a)(11)(b)).
C. Wetlands Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
Saltwater,freshwater,and brackish marshes,swamps and No facilities shall be located in wetlands.
bogs inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency
to support,a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life which
requires saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction,as defined in adopted regional or state policies.
D. Habitat of Endangered Species Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
WPlant and animal rare,endangered,and critical habitat areas. No facilities shall be located within critical habitats of endangered species,defined as areas known to be inhabited permanently or
seasonally or known to be critical at any stage in the life cycle of any species of wildlife or vegetation identified or being considered
for identification as"endangered"or"threatened"by the U.S. Department of the Interior or the State of California.
E. Unstable Soils Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Steep slopes and areas subject to liquefaction and subsidence Facilities located in these areas should have engineered design features(i.e.,containment May not be located in areas with
due to natural causes. structures)to assure structural stability. 25 percent slope or greater or in
areas subject to liquefaction or
subsidence.
F. Major Aquifer Recharge Areas Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Areas known or suspected to be supplying principal recharge If located in these areas,facilities should provide properly designed,constructed,and Should be prohibited in major aquifer
to a regional aquifer,as defined in adopted general,regional, maintained engineering spill containment features,inspection,and monitoring measures and recharge areas.
or state plans. other environmental protection controls to prevent runoff from the facility.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality
Act;any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609\AA\002.51
Table 9-I
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 2 of 5
MIS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/rreatmenl Facility Residuals Repositories
G. Distances From Residences* Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Residences Proximity to residential areas is desirable Treatment,storage,or transfer facilities No residuals repository shall be
to encourage facility use. handling ignitable,explosive,reactive,or located such that the active portion of
acutely hazardous wastes must provide a the facility is within 2,000 feet of a
minimum buffer zone of at least 2,000 feet permanent residence(including
between the nearest residence and the facility, residences located in industrial zones
unless the developer can demonstrate by risk or areas designated industrial in the
assessment and as part of the local permitting applicable general plan and legal
process that a smaller buffer zone provides livehvork uses)or any area designated
adequate protection for the public in the event for use in the applicable general plan,
of an accident. For other facilities,including (unless developer can demonstrate by
recycling,transfer,or storage of other types of risk assessment and as part of the
hazardous wastes,a buffer zone of at least 500 local permitting process that a smaller
feet is required between the operational area buffer zone provides adequate protec-
within the facility and the nearest residence lion for the public in the event of an
(again, unless the developer can demonstrate accident).
by risk assessment and as part of the local
permitting process that a smaller buffer zone
provides adequate protection for the public in
the event of an accident).
H. Distance From Immobile Populations* Conditional Conditional Conditional
Schools,hospitals,convalescent homes,prisons,facilities for Proximity to residential areas is desirable Larger buffer zones are required between a Larger buffer zones are required
the mentally ill,day care centers,homeless shelters,etc. to encourage facility use. transfer station,storage,or treatment facility, between a residuals repository and
and any immobile populations where any immobile populations because
evacuation in the event of an accident at the evacuation in the event of an accident
facility is likely to be difficult or inadvisable. at the facility is likely to be difficult
This is especially true for facilities handling or inadvisable. This is especially true
ignitable,explosive,or reactive wastes. A for repository facilities handling
minimum buffer zone of 5,000 feet between a ignitable,explosive,reactive,or
facility and any immobile population is acutely toxic wastes. A minimum
therefore required,unless the developer can buffer zone of 5,000 feet between a
demonstrate by risk assessment and as part of facility and any immobile population
the local permitting process that a smaller is therefore required unless the
buffer zone provides adequate protection for developer can demonstrate by risk
the immobile population. assessment and as part of the local
permitting process that a smaller
buffer zone provides adequate
protection to the immobile
population.
Note: 'I'he purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
*These criteria are not mappable due to lack of information and the scale of maps to be appropriate produced for the Plan.
SF03160%AA\002.51
Table 9-1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 3 of 5
DHS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility Residuals Repositories
1. Proximity to Major Transportation Routes Conditional Conditional Conditional
Should be located so as to minimize distances to major transportation routes which are Should have good access to major
designed to accommodate heavy vehicles. transportation routes,but may have to
be more distant from waste
generation sites than other types
because of their need for larger land
areas.
All Facilities: Road networks leading to major transportation routes should not pass through residential neighborhoods,should
minimize residential frontages in other areas,and should be demonstrated to be safe with regard to road design and construction,
accident rates,excessive traffic etc.
J. Permeable Strata and Soils Conditional Conditional Conditional
Permeability requirements are defined in CCR Title 23, Facilities should avoid locating on highly permeable soils or sediment. Facilities located in Facilities must conform to
Chapter 15. areas where surficial soils are principally permeable materials such as sand and gravel should requirements of SWRCB.
provide for spill containment and monitoring measures.
K. Nonatlainment Air Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Areas not in compliance with national air quality standards All facilities must comply with requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
�Q for one or more measured air pollutants.
llhh L, PSD Air Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Prevention of significant deterioration areas are those in All facilities must comply with permitting requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
compliance with national air quality standards.
M. Prime Agricultural Lands Conditional , Conditional Conditional
Areas designated as prime agricultural lands in the applicable Prime agricultural lands under California law may not be used for urban purposes unless an overriding public need is demonstrated
general,regional,or state plan. by the.applicant.
When siting hazardous waste management facilities in these areas,overriding public service needs must be demonstrated by the
applicant.
N. Depth to Groundwater Conditional Conditional Conditional
Facilities may be located in high groundwater areas if the engineered design of the Facilities must conform to
containment structure is capable of withstanding failure because of geologic or soil failures requirements of SWRCB.
which may arise.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609\AA\002.51
Table 9-1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 4 of 5
DHS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility Residuals Repositories
O. Proximity to Public Services Conditional Conditional Conditional
Public utilities(sewer,water etc.),and emergency services, For transfer or storage facilities,self-sufficient services may be appropriate,where these For residuals repositories,self-
including fire,police,medical,and hazardous materials facilities are necessary to serve remote rural areas. In urban areas,public services should be sufficient services may be necessary
response personnel/facilities/equipment. Other public available. For other facilities,public water and sewer services and emergency services should (i.e.,emergency fire,wastewater
facilities such as corporation yards,roads,large open spaces be readily available. facilities,etc.).
on military reservations,and state school lands in remote
areas.
Potential adverse impacts which could occur because of proximity to public facilities shall be determined as a part of the risk
assessment conducted in the permitting process. This should consider the physical and chemical characteristics of the wastes that will
be handled and the design features of the facility. Proximity to other public facilities such as corporation yards, utilities,roads,large
open spaces on military reservation,and state school lands in remote areas may be acceptable..
P. Proximity to Waste Generation Stream Conditional Conditional Conditional
Transportation of hazardous waste should be minimized to Collection centers should be close to TSDFs should be located close to waste Repositories may be located more
decrease risk of accidental spills. residential zoned and small quantity generation sources to minimize the risks of distant from waste generation sources
generator areas to encourage their use. transportation. than other facilities because of the
need for large land areas.
Q. Appropriate Zoning Conditional Conditional Conditional
Specified by the appropriate jurisdiction. All jurisdictions Commercial and industrial zones near TSDFs are basically industrial facilities. Because repositories usually require
should have some type of zoning which will allow siting of residential areas are appropriate. However,the siting of hazardous waste large land areas,it may not be practi-
different types of hazardous waste management facilities. management facilities is not required to be cal or economical to site them in
limited to these zones if special zones are developed commercial or industrial
created. areas. Specially zoned areas or rezon-
ing of other areas may be appropriate.
The intent is to locate Residuals Re-
positories in more remote open areas.
R. Recreational,Cultural or Aesthetic Areas Conditional Exclusionary Exclusionary
Historic preservation,Indian reservations,and other cultural Low-volume transfer and storage facilities Other facilities should not be allowed in these areas.
and scenic areas,as defined in locally adopted general plans. may be allowed in these areas if necessary
to handle hazardous wastes generated by
visitors,workers,or residents in these
areas. Other recreational,cultural,aesthet-
ic areas,including all local City parks and
recreation areas,are located throughout
the County at specific sites too small to
map.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609\AA\002.51
Table 9-1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 5 of 5
DIIS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility Residuals Repositories
S. Mineral Resources Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Defined as Sand and Gravel in Alameda County General No facilities should be sited so as to'preclude extraction of minerals necessary to sustain the economy of the State.
Plan.
T. Military Lands Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
It is the policy of the Department of Defense(DOD) that military land shall not be considered for siting of public hazardous waste
management facilities. 'Phis policy is considered nonnegotiable by DOD.
U. Other State,Federal and Indian Lands Conditional Conditional Conditional
The criteria listed above are suitable for use in determining the suitability of lands within these areas for siting of hazardous waste
management facilities.
ADDITIONAL ALAMEDA COUNTY CRITERIA
Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/Preatment Facility Residuals Repositories
Airport zones Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
No facility may be located within an FAA approach zone,air installation compatible use zone,or safety zone as described in the
�p Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan,generally defined as the area immediately surrounding a public or military airport,
V including the immediate approach and take-off paths.
ffte: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609WA\002.51
C. CRITERIA MAPPING AND DESIGNATION OF GENERAL AREAS
AB-2948 and the DHS Guidelines require that counties which include siting criteria in
their plans must also identify "general areas where the criteria might be applicable"
(DHS Guidelines, p. 3-11; Sec. 25135.7 (a)(3), California Health and Safety Code).
Several of the criteria shown in Table.94 are-not mappable due to lack of information,
the scale of the maps and/or the site specific nature of the criteria.
The mappable siting criteria are illustrated on Figures 9-1 through 9-8. Figures 9-1,
9-3, and 9-5 show land use, environmental, and high hazard/physical criteria, respective-
ly, for small-scale transfer and storage facilities and industrial transfer/storage/treatment
facilities. Figures 9-2, 9-4 and 9-6 show the same criteria for residuals repositories.
Figures 9-7 and 9-8 are composite maps showing all areas meeting the mappable crite-
ria for small-scale and industrial transfer/storage and treatment facilities and residuals
repositories, respectively. These are the designated general areas where the criteria
might be applicable.
The purpose of the siting criteria is to designate general areas only. Larger scale maps
and/or field investigations should be used by the developer to evaluate specific sites
before permitting. Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria will be required
to comply with the California Environmental Act and any applicable requirements of
federal, regional, and local agencies and jurisdictions, any of which may be more strin-
gent than the general criteria included in this Plan.
The developer of a proposed facility will have to perform extensive evaluations to de-
termine whether a site satisfies all of the siting criteria.
D. THE APPEALS PROCESS
AB 2948 created a new process to appeal local land-use decisions concerning hazardous
waste management facilities (Title 22, Sec. 25199.10, California Health and Safety
Code). It is intended to provide a regional or statewide perspective to assure that the
public health, safety and welfare are adequately protected by new facilities, on the one
hand, and on the other, to assure that an environmentally sound facility needed to
serve the local area is not inappropriately denied by a local land-use authority. That is,
the local area--Alameda County, its 14 cities and the JPA--is expected to fulfill its com-
mitment to approve facilities proposed which comply with these siting criteria (including
their conformance with local needs or inter jurisdictional agreements). The state ap-
peal board has the Authority to overturn a local land-use decision concerning a
multi-user hazardous waste management facility which is found to be consistent with
this Plan.
SF031609\AA\011.51 9-8
NOTE TO READERS
ANY PROPOSED FACILITY MEETING THE GENERAL CRITERIA WILL
BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT; ANY APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL,
REGIONAL, AND LOCAL AGENCIES; -AND - THE. PERMITTING
PROCESSES AND POLICIES OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTION. LARGER
SCALE MAPS AND FIELD INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD BE USED TO
EVALUATE SPECIFIC SITES PRIOR TO PERMITTING. IN ADDITION,
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SHOULD BE CONTACTED TO OBTAIN
INFORMATION ON LOCAL SITING CRITERIA AND PERMITTING
PROCESSES. LOCAL CRITERIA MAY BE MORE STRINGENT THAN
THOSE INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN. THE NOTES THAT ARE INCLUDED
AT THE TOP OF FIGURES 9-1 THROUGH 9-8 LIST THE CONDITIONAL
CRITERIA THAT EACH DESIGNATED AREA MUST COMPLY WITH AND
ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THESE MAPS.
9-9
i
r
1},, NOTE:
1Low-volume transfer end storage facilities may be 3 It is the land policy*a ltn Department re for sits(DOD)that
' Aljpll allowed In these areas If now to handle hazardous military land shall not be considered for siting of public
we
also generated by visitors,workers,or residents In hazardous waste management facilities.This policy Is
these areas.Other recreational,cultural,and aesthetic considered nonnegotiable by DOD.
.'IEIIEIEI i � areas Including all City parks and recreation areas,are
'\ located throughout the County at speclgc sites too small The purpose of these criteria Is to designate general areas only.
,\ \\ to map.Industrial transfedstoregeltrealment facilities Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria will be requlred
should not be allowed In these areas. to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;any
'\ applicable requirements of federal,regional,and local agencles;
'\ Eta IIII 2 No facility may be located within an FAA approach zone, and the permitting processes and policies of the local
air Installation compatible use zone,or safety zone as jurisdictions.Larger scale maps and field Investigations should be
described In the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy used to evaluate specific sites prior to permitting.In addltlon,local
\ We ' II 11a111111 ll Plan,generally defined as the area Immadlately jurisdictions should be contacted to obtain Information on local -(
surrounding a public or military airport,Including the siting criteria and permitting processes.Local criteria may be more
Immediate approach and takeoff paths. stringent than those Included In this plan. /
\ ;IAIIANI r I
nil \•� �� 'a�� I
6
—\ AA E NIII Easlra
Will
\\\ Aaa laraaia `' IIEAAImr I +
ie
i
\ IAIIIAII
\ i
1 IIIIIIITI` _' I
a,
LEGEND
Recreational,Cultural or Aesthetic \\ IanrY FIEti11T
Areas 1
Airports and Air Terminals 2 \\ l
® Military Lands 3
Incorporated Areas ------------------------- -----------
8
\ :, -----
•\ Figure 9-1
LAND USE CRITERIA FOR SMALL-SCALE TRANSFER
AND STORAGE FACILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL
j
TRANSFEWSTO RAG&TREATMENT FACILITIES
I
1�
/ NOTE:
Facilities should not be allowed In these areas. The purpose of these criteria Is to dealgnete general areas
only.Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria Will
/ r 2 No facility may be located within an FAA approach be required to comply with the California Environmental'
IEIIEEEE zone,air Installation compatible use zone,or safety Quality Act;any applicable requirements of federal,
zone as described In the Alameda County Airport Land regional,and local agencies;and the permitting processes
Use Policy Plan,generally defined as the was Immedl• and policies of the local jurisdictions.Larger scale maps
•\ - -\ stely surrounding a public or military airport,Including and field Investigations should be used to evaluate specific
I the Immediate approach and take-off paths. sites prior to permitting.In addition,local jurisdictions
\ En E HII r �~ should be contacted to obtain Information on local siting
3 It Is the policy of the Department of Defence(DOD)that criteria and permitting processes.Local criteria may be
Flllull -j military lend shall not be considered for ailing of public more stringent than those Included In this plan. /" J
hazardous waste management facilities.This policy Is 'f
considered nonnegotiable by DOD.
� y IAlllll ; �
\ 61str/YIIIfrF Illlli°III
Mir CITY
•\ js11 Ureln - - FlUS lEll�. �
�\ IAEIIAII � -
\\\ I
LEGEND \
Recreational,Guttural or Aesthetic
Areas t \ i It
Airports and Air Terminals 2 \\ %
® Military Lands 3 \ \
- l
L incorporated Areas
\ —— ---—— ------------------------------------ ---------
Figure 9-2 /
LAND USE CRITERIA FOR
RESIDUALS REPOSITORIES
NOTE:
1 Prime agricultural lands under California law may not be 3 No facilities shall be located In wetlands.
1(- used for urban purposes unless an overriding public need
Is demonstrated by the applicant.When siting hazardous 0 No facilities should be sited so as to preclude extraction of _
AIAlq 111 waste management facilities In these areas,overriding minerals necessary to sustain the economy of the State.
public service needs must be demonstrated by the i
applicant ` The purpose of these criteria Is to designate general areas only.
`IEIIEIEI ( Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria will be required
\ - 2 No facilities shall be located within critical habitats of to comply with the California Envlronmental Ouallty Act;any
\ \ endangered spades,defined as areas known to be applicable requirements of federal,regional,and local agencies;
Inhabited permanently or seasonally or known to be critical and the permitting processes and policies of the local
at any stage In the life cycle of any species of wildlife or Jurisdictions.Larger scale maps and geld Investigations should
vegetation Identified or being considered for Idantlflcatlon be used to evaluate specific sites prior to permitting.In addition,
as"endangered"or."threatened"by the U.S.Dopartmenl of local Jurisdictions should be contacted to obtain Information on i
'\ >rs•-•"' PII��!!(. 1 the Interior or the State of California. local siting criteria and permitting processes.Local criteria may /, l
be more stringent than those Included In this plan. i
\ �Al1YE 1
\ 1lAli!
=\ SA It Castro Ylllq i
S!!Illueln lIEIAA f
IIreA11 � E '•�. ri.-.
1110 Llil t
12 -
m, c y''. Y I
LEGEND
Prime Agricultural Lands 1.
i Potential Critical Habitat 2 \\ � M: ;: NlatrA- FIE�IMi ,\
Wetland 3
Mineral Resources Areas 4
Q Incorporated Areas
^attt;et — ---------——---------------------------------- ----------
'.° :p" Figure 9.3
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA FOR SMALL-SCALE
TRANSFER AND STORAGE FACILITIES AND
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFER/STORAGE/
TREATMENT FACILITIES
NOTE:
1"�• 1 Prime agricultural lands under California law may not be _3 No facilities shall be located In wedands.
used for urban purposes unless an overriding public need
Is demonstrated by the applicant.When siting hazardous 4 No facilities should be sited so as to preclude extraction of
AlhlT t _ waste management faellitles In these areas,overriding minerals necessary to sustain the economy of the State:
_ �• public service needs must be demonstrated by the
applicant. The purpose of these criteria Is to designate general areas only.
1t1AflB Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria will be required
\ -'- 2 No facilities shall be located within critical habitats of to comply with the California Environmental Ouellty Act;any
\ endangered spades,defined as areas known to be applicable requirements of federal,regional,and local agencies;
\ Inhabited permanently or seasonally or known to be critical and the permitting process"and policies of the local
at any stage In the life cycle of any species of wildlife or jurisdictions.Larger scale maps and Held Investigations should I
\ we T all _ . vegetation Identified or being considered for Identification be used to evaluate specific sites prior to permitting.In addition,
\ as"endangered"or"threatened"by the U.S.Department of local jurisdictions should be contacted to obtain Information on
pillull .=-� local aping criteria and permitting processes.Local criteria may
tee the Interior or the State of California. i l
\ - be more stringent than those Included In.this plan. 'f
Atli
Casts Yajlaj'
\ .. �• �' I` Imo.
'\ Sao larllzl llfatAll. _ _ _ __ I
\
\\ 1Artu11
AAIO HTT
LEGEND !"\\ �s ,r.:: ��• w"''�A I
EM Prime Agricultural Lands t
Potential Critical Habitat 2 'Ilnrt Tetrall
Wetland 3
Mineral Resources Areas 4 �R......,
Incorporated Areas \ VVU 1
tly
Figure 9
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
FOR RESIDUALS REPOSITORIES
NOTE:
No facilities shall be placed within 200 lent of an aeUVS The purpose of these criteria Is to designate general areas only. j
\ a a \ or recently active fault, Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria will be required
IEIIEEEY�\ to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;any
2 May be built In areas subject to 100-year flooding If applicable requirements of federal,regional,and local agencies;
\. ♦♦ protected by engineered solutions designed to preclude and the permitting processes and policies of the local
failure,such as berme,raising above flood levels,eta jurisdictions.Larger scale maps and field Investigations should
l \ �� ? 100-year flood plains and other flooding areas are defined be used to evaluate specific sites prior to permitting.In addition,
\ Eta III! \ -~�) to Include Inundation areas subject to flooding by dam or local jurisdictions should be contacted to obtain Information on
Y _ / levee failure. local s1Ung criteria and permitting processes.Local criteria may
be more stringent than those Included In this plan.
IIIEIII `� ------------- I
� tastrs YalleE � ', Isllh r � � `
---'� `• � ](III •..„."� , #
� .. •\ <:tiTFtii?iiF'tt r;.' - - � \ i
_� Ft,tF rtttd:}ti/ NEIN il1Y �♦ �Qr \\. I
LEGEND \ !frtfNz ?'yFti JF.,. FT. �•
' •� K>j1 ti�,Fi±rft a rji�t :2'`'� _ �.ytt+ I
0 Seismic Areas 1
.:'i<i`?.>.>:'`'i`:2�`..•:i::is.Ci;:s. i
Gi;�i
100 Year Flood Plain t `.:it`ll;::<�' ' ., .:��-`°.��� ���::•-_'-.
.. Inn �
Dam and Reservoir Inundation 2 � S:+:t!F�tiT. .; Agitl::;;.:::;<:: ':<:::::;::;;:;;:;;:;�s:' \
. '1�,'f ".:,. i i:a.....
0 incorporated Areas
•\ r�rF!t��,;y;i2;: �F rrbtFrTFr,. y, ♦'<�:
•� 'F2{FT . �F ttitti r'!1'. T'it.,rt - ,N-, ----------,.:,-G.:o.----------------------------------- -------
FfN>+rJ yf�ji�+FF1r{Fijt�i ♦�-
T•� ;,�rttFlFFtt?rttEt+}Fi F�rF�f F'irl�i rs<;1�; Figure 9-5
HIGH HAZARD/PHYSICAL CRITERIA FOR SMALL-SCALE
TRANSFER AND STORAGE FACILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL
l TRANSFER/STORAGFJTREATMENT FACILITIES
i
,�,.��•� \ NOTE:
1 No facilities shall be placed within 200 feet of an active The purpose of these criteria Is to designate general areas only.
\ ♦♦ \ or recently active fault Any proposed facility meeting the general criteria will be required
IEiIEIEI♦♦ to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;any
'\ ♦♦ \, 2 May not be located In areas subject to 100-year Hooding applicable requirements of federal,regional,and local agencies;
�\ even with protection.100-year Hood plains and other nd t elpermitLarg proses es as a dlicie Invest!I cal should be
,\ \ flooding areas ere defined to Include Inundation areas I g P g
♦♦ �\ subject to flooding by dam or levee failure. used to evaluate specific sites prior to permitting.in addition,local
`\ jurisdictions should be contacted to obtain Information on local
E�lrJ III! ♦♦ siting criteria and permitting processes.Local criteria may be more
♦ i stringent than those Included In this plan.
'� >ra Pieiult♦ A�-r
\ AEANE A �;,,
\ �� 1!1111:', �
.: .::.:.....:::.: ::.
\ ♦ 6astr1 Aall1J =1 _ i I
`\ r.y,�t.t. M I
11f.: I
\ i riTF . .F IMINOR[ i`
'\ '�, lal llrean tf! �� � j �� la
tt t ♦
{ff�al4lrTrlN ' �� I
\ 1FFtrf{J,'rFi!F'Flt rFftf'�..:. ♦♦:--. ,
:� alt?1Fjj�>ft:fi 1lf�t!ii�i3�S�+i: .:� - �♦..: - �,.•✓ -
" 'tl:rfr�f,lift 1 F�r{�.�;: "�♦;.'�'2�::,: I
LEGEND !�\ f{flt; f<rFitlff t-_ aa� t.
' \ !Ti�rttFlr?rr'tTf/ti.i '' a{ff1 i I
fft {ryfNt7 . ;;� >t I
Seismic Areas 1 \ il�lF�lj:i:, .. O
100 Year Flood Plain 2 \ ?trjf'.:.»> > j/���
t{. L t i L
i Dam and Reservoir Inundation 2 y.�t{l,Frt.. ::. ::,,.;,,.:;:;;;;;::;.,..:.:;::::::>:;;; �� I �� �„\�.-.
\ rFtj Ffirf yF! .....6...... ;iii ii:i i:>:,"'>ii :♦ ��
0 !nco orated Areas \ !!.':ryfrf{!�Tt. »:: ♦ ���
IP \ i r�tf{t:!ttl r <:. >::;.:::::.: iiiii. -:.......�: ,��� I �� \
\{i.. .'i'. j:-:-i::iii. 111 ♦ I " \�
\ .1.,:yr� :�:;t:ii:/f;ry�_f:�>:;:::.i 1 _—_ --_—_ _—_—_—_—_ ` _—_---_—_— '¢�
f�Ffr. !": tt?ydl tf�y ytrrff�i,4 fiA —___—_ _—_—___—___—_—__—_—___—__ __ _— —_- y
•\ _F{l f r.. ft{1'�,l{l�l{/t?F;t,.�trfr.F/f,, e ,..,,n,.,,c !
Tl arj!F tl:':f tf f!:r:f f7�E i J:rt O l .-r
�`•\ rjffft{rfliri{'fljfft��ri{fl{rtiFTffy� I Flgure 9-6
m \,�! I HIGH HAZARD/PHYSICAL CRITERIA
1 FOR RESIDUALS REPOSITORIES
I
NOTE 1:ANY PROPOSED FACILITY MEETING THE GENERAL Unstable Solla: Nonadalnmerd Air Arun: i Proximity to Waste Oanndlon Stream:
CRffER1A WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;ANY steep alopas and areas 1ublecf m IqueleW on and Areas not In compliance wins national air quellry Traneportatlon of hazardou3 waste eMdd be
APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL,REGIONAL, auasloence due to natural causes. standards for one of more measured air pollutants. mlNmhed to tlachime dsk of ecdclentd splits.
f —W'! '� x AI - l Major Adulrer Recharge Areas: PSD Air Areas Appropriate Zoning:
AND LOCAL AGENCIES;AND THE PERMITTING PROCESSES
�- �-�- AND POLICIES OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.LARGER Areas known a suspected m be supplying principal Prevention of significant deterioration area&are those Specified by the appmpiete jurlsol Won.All
\ \. SCALE BAPS AND FIELD INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD BE USED
recharge m e reglond aquifer,as defined In adopted In compliance with national ear quality standards, jurisdictions should have some type of zoning
IEIIEIEI �!tu}y ' TO EVALUATE SPECIFIC SITES PRIOR TO PERMITTING.IN geneml,ragbnal,a stale plans. Depth to Oruundwater which wig allow siting of different types of.
Dlet:=From Residence Pmxlmlty to Public Services: hazardous waste management facilities.
ADDITION,LOCAL JURISDICTONS SHOULD BE CONTACTED
TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON LOCAL SITING CRITERIA AND Dldana From ImmoDlla Populations: Public utilities(sewer,water etc.),and emergency Other Slate,Federal and Indian Lands:
\ \`
PERMITTING PROCESSES.LOCAL CRITERIA MAY BE MORE Sdwots,hospitals,corawmacan[homes,pnaona, seMCea,meldsInp fire,polka,medical,ard flu" a AA alarm are suitable for use In oelertNning[ns
\ _ STRINGENT THAN THOSE INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN. tacillb a for me mentally III,day care centers, metedel3 response personneel/fadlldowequlprnent adtabillry of larch wlmin these areas fa aging of
•'i•� ha=$staffers,etc. Omer W bile facilities such as corporation yards, rd
a, hazardous waste management mcgloes.
NOTE 2:THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE NOT MAPPABLE Proximity to Major Transportation Route large open spaces on rrd tary reservation,and sm a
( Eye)IIII a.
\ DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION AND THE SCALE OF MAPS psrmehla 91rete and 90118: edwd lends In remora&rasa.
\ tm 11lAUlt- TO BE APPROPRIATELY PRODUCED FOR THE PLAN. Permeability requirements we defined In CCR Title 23, /-
Chapter 15.
_
I
\, ..,.~a.~+u,us`: - ... �r �: .\ � l� 1. .f!!• - - I
.r?.u�u..k .~::. :- __ � .._•.r - _ _ '=fib€<t€� Y ::,
: r r
A
f 1 • i
--� � IA E 1181 �•• '6asira Yalle 4 - --� i j
\ [ifE1111AE
\ la Urelzl �1I0 —
*n I
:
`\ rEq ::•i(S+,\..�- �• �"�L'tu ice, _I—
LEGEND '-ur`=``... '`:5,:;:. ' •ti`i};" �a+w�•';v"'' '��, .
Unsuitable for Small-Scale Transfer
and Storage Facilities and Industial
'41101 CITY
Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facilities .\
Pursuant to the Following Criteria: `s�'r'�t,.gs r rr�'rti;r �_�'"" '°'�?� �•'.�::IFf
•
Seismic Areas `'`=r:,'h?::rrr, ;'P ::ii�x.. � •:rF2!^i I
•Wetlands ,,r?,.,�;rF`.'�'°`rG+r,ll?.'r;-r '.•!:r:; '�` q::; 'r' ,'•
Potential Critical Habitat
ru.
•
Military Lands =�Er:*rst,?.�t_'?`�i,=' ,`s`' '4tt11��� x;,'•
-
•Airports and Air Terminals ?�g?�;„.:e:;;:::r:.-:. v! '=:i�4 =� •.:,;,•:E:..:.�•
'\ +:��FY:%E�ri`:: mod= -�;.. ...::.:•::
_I
?.. Tliiial ::r
Unsuitable for Industrial Transfer/
reatment Facilities Pursuant to \ ;:•u:r,;r.ra,:r;7'?��?':?`�""` �, -`''{cz ^_
. StoregtA/T ^„dpi'':F'�;:: °'ii�ijiiii'ciii:�:.�:, •?'•:ic I
Criteria for Recreational,Guttural or `::+.a; .::.: �i -a'a'Y�:.i::4.'. """'�''•' -•
, ..~. •,.,.;`Eras ....;..:r.^•.........:..
Aesthetic Areas '::e.e,:,. ::,:_.� _.,:,-.:r:.�..,._::_.. ....: :..:::•,. .•...
err:tEt::~.�.. e,:~m:.....: - •:.. .....•:••• '
Q Incorporated Areas
\ I /
f
T�
\ 1.
- LE::t , Figure 4-7
DESIGNATED GENERAL AREAS FOR'SMALLSCALE
TRANSFER AND STORAGE FACILITIES AND
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFER/STORAGERREATMENT FACILITIES
i NOTE 1:ANY PROPOSED FACILITY MEETING THE GENERAL
CRITERIA WILL BE REWIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE Unstable Solis: NonaHalnmem Air Areas: Proximity to Waste Generation Strewn:
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;ANY Steep elopes and areas subject m liquefaction and Areas not In compliance with national air qu ry Transportation of hazardous waste should be
subsidence due to natural cauaea. aandards rot one a more measured air Pohiants. minimized a decrease risk of accidental aphis.
„cosr,i AI + APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL,REGIONAL,
•=�? ` AND LOCAL AGENCIES;AND THE PERMII-rING PROCESSES Major Aquifer Recharge At-.: PSD Alt Areas: i Appropriate Inning:
Areas known or suspected m be supprying Principal Prevention of algNlasnt deterioration areas ere these Spedaed by the app opiate Jurisdiction.All
v AND POLICIES OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.LARGER
SCALE MAPS AND FIELD INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD BE USED recharge to a regional aquifer,es tleMetl In adopted In mmptience with national air gvallry standards. jurbektions should have some type of zoning
IEIIEIEI TO EVALUATE SPECIFIC SITES PRIOR TO PERMITTING.IN generel,regional,a state plans. Depth to Oroun=w I which witi allow alting of different"a of
\ ADDITION,LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SHOULD BE CONTACTED Distances From Reeldences Proximity to Public Services: hazardous waste management facilities.
_ TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON LOCAL SITING CRITERIA AND Distance From Immobile Populations: Public Wlleea(aewer,water std.),and emerpenry Other Stele,Federal and IrMlen Lends:
\ PERMITTING PROCESSES.LOCAL CRITERIA MAY BE MORE Sdtocts,hospitals,convalescent homes,Pdaona, services,Including tire,police,med".and hazardous Ati criteria are sultable for use In determining the
STRINGENT THAN THOSE INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN. facilities fa rite mentally III,day core centers, =*data response personn.Vladlittes/equlprtlent eUlreblory of lands within these areas for aldng of
\ NOTE 2:THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE NOT MAPPABLE hOmelesa shelters,etc. Other public fa slides such as owporatlm yarda.roads• hazardous waste management facilities.
Eft r III[ Proximity to Major Transportation Routes large open spaces on military reservations,and sate
\ •• - DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION AND THE SCALE OF MAPS Permeable Strata and Sails: ecrtod ands In remote areas.
TO BE APPROPRIATELY PRODUCED FOR THE PLAN. Pearmabiliry requirements we dented In CCR Title 23, i J
'\ >m PI[Inll• eeE;Eie., Chapter 15.
\ i�:.e'iieeeiie•
:.•iiiiis'iiy
•\•TT "BAIIANI �'itii ----;;.,;,;,y\ I ��� :ieeei:,EEeeEEiei I
\. I AIAY 1
Il
I -
,..
I'
I
.~xi'i .r .
• I
•iris •
IIr111'
--Eastrt Yalle�•
1
I
I
i
•Sae laretzt ti
.a
,•xis
I
.?.....
4 I
I
�i€. ..
.ir
"lee
I
I
i,rei
I
` R :tub
A..
=\ ei
it
i
i
r.
.......:.::::::::::tell: •.. :::::::::.:::..:: ..
LEGEND
+. I
•iii: •
I
i.ii.�.iii�iite;ii�.•:e alai:'.:.9iii'.iii.iiiiEi''.'�,.;,,:;i;��?ieF......•''•`.'i'r'I�ii;:::
Repositories
Unsuitable for Residuals Re I
O P
Pursuant to the Following Criteria:
Cnt
I
I
••iii:
•ieeiiieeeieeieeieeeeuee°i
• Seismic Areas ...............:::::::•� •............ .: .............. ....: •. '..•.,y:::;:. •':�!
4eeeii::ec:eceee::::',;::..... „• ..... ':.:::,:•:•:•. :ii::i.•i'+i:•:.:-.
• Floodplain5 and DafNReservoir Inundation �i;;;;;::•,•• •..... .'44l; 4..:•.•.•,•.•.,., ..................:.,
'ii:`irlrii'ii
•Wetlands \ i'sieein:iiiiieeeeei�...:.' •i:•;5t:•.•; -
ir�':ii::::iii::::i :•:lee: i�:°iiiiiiiEs:ee: -..
• Potential Critical Habitat '�"•'•' `•� ••
Aesthetic Areas
\ i
1
R
ecreational Cultural or Aest -
ee :...Fciie•�. i . iiii.;ei ` .'.iiiE•.i. ................ ..
• Milha Lands ^ "'"'�'•"••'
ry
\ �.\
Airports and Air Terminals
in lei••
I
t /
Into orated Areas •:'..�'..•'.•'.•'.'•�.•`..-'.••••••..' ;'7i ';S`:---- -------------'' • ----------------------------------' --------•
°e pee
T. '
Flgure 9-8
DESIGNATED GENERAL AREAS
FOR RESIDUALS REPOSITORIES
MAPPABLE CRITERIA ONLY
Three types of appeals are authorized. The developer can appeal a disapproval deci-
sion, or an approval decision with such onerous restrictions that it amounts to disap-
proval. Alternatively, an interested person can appeal an approval on the grounds that
the conditions imposed on the project do not adequately protect the public health,
safety, or welfare. An "interested person" is anyone who attended a public meeting or
" hearing held on the project's application for a local land-use decision. An appeal must
be made to the Governor (or designee) within 30 days of the local jurisdiction's final
land-use decision on the project. The Governor (or designee) must determine whether
to authorize the appeal. In order for the appeal to be authorized, the developer must
demonstrate that all permits required from state agencies which can be obtained prior
to project construction have been obtained. Once those permits have been obtained
and an appeal authorized, the state Appeal Board is constituted.
The Appeal Board consists of seven members, five of them permanent and two ap-
pointed only for a specific appeal. Three permanent members come from the state
agencies that regulate hazardous waste management in California: the Director of the
Department of Health Services, the Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board,
and the Chair of the Air Resources Board. Two permanent members are local elected
officials, who serve four-year terms: a member of a county board of supervisors ap-
pointed by the State Senate Committee on Rules from a list of nominees by the County
Supervisors Association of California (CSAC), and a member of a city council appoint-
ed by the Assembly Speaker from a list nominated by the League of California Cities
(LCC). In addition, two local elected officials are named to the Appeal Board to hear
a particular appeal. One is a member of the Board of Supervisors from the county
where the project would be located, and is appointed by.the Assembly Speaker from a
list nominated by CSAC. The other is a city council member from the city where the
project would be located (or, if the facility is proposed for an unincorporated area,
from the city which would be most directly affected), appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee from the list nominated by LCC. If-a•permanent -member of the Appeal
Board is from the county where the project would be located, the temporary (i.e., ad
hoc) member must be from a different county.
Within a month of an appeal being authorized by the governor, the Appeal Board
holds a public hearing in the city or county where the project would be located to hear
arguments from both the land-use authority and the developer (or interested party).
The Board must decide within 15 days of this hearing whether to accept the appeal. An
appeal of a local government disapproval of the developer's application may be accept-
ed by a vote of four Board members if there is evidence that there are compelling
reasons to review the local decision when weighing the reasons for the local decision
against statewide, regional, or county hazardous waste management policies, goals, and
objectives. An appeal of a land-use approval (by a developer appealing one or more
onerous conditions, or by an interested party appealing a lack of adequately protective
conditions) may be accepted by a vote of five Board members if there is a substantial
likelihood of the appellant prevailing on the merits of its appeal.
SF031609\AA\011.51 9-18
If the Appeal Board accepts the appeal, it convenes a second hearing in the affected
city or county to hear evidence. The statute provides a specific timetable for holding
the hearing and issuing a decision; it also provides guidelines for deciding the appeal.
The Board must adopt the rebuttable presumption that the local land-use decision was
correct and supported by substantial reasons. To overturn a local land-use decision
disapproving a project, the Board must make a number of mandatory findings which
include: that the proposed project is consistent with the Plan, if one has been adopted
by the county and approved by the state; that the project's environmental impacts will
be mitigated; that the project, if not a land disposal unit, is consistent with the applic-
able general plan; and that alternative locations evaluated in the project EIR (and
identified in the state-approved Hazardous Waste Management Plan) have been ade-
quately considered.. If the Appeal Board finds that one or more conditions imposed on
the project by the land-use decision are so onerous and restrictive that the imposition is
the same as a disapproval, or that one or more conditions necessary to protect public
health, safety, or welfare should be imposed, it may approve the appeal and require the
local government to modify its decision accordingly.
An Appeal Board decision overturning a local land use decision may be enforced by
referral to the state Attorney General, if the local government does not modify its deci-
sion within 60 days.
SF031609\AA\011.51 9-19
SECTION IV
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Chapter 10
HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explains the need for the implementation plan and details the short and
long range plan, which are based on the policies in Chapter 2. The waste minimization
program will be the top priority of the implementation plan. (See Policy 4) The plan
calls for the cooperation of all segments of government, private industry and business,
- and the public. One of the key elements is education programs directed to all these
groups.
TANNER LEGISLATION
Tanner legislation Article 3.5, Section 25135 (8) calls for "a schedule which describes
county and city actions necessary to implement the hazardous waste management plan
through the year 2000, including the assigning of dates for carrying out the action."
The implementation plan is based on this section of the legislation. In addition to the
legislative requirement, it is incumbent upon local agencies, industry and the public to
prepare and implement. implementation plans as a means of protecting the public
health and safety, protecting the environment and resources.
DHS GUIDELINES
Section 3.6 of the Guidelines calls for a description of the steps that will be taken to
implement the goals and findings of the plan to include:
1. Schedules for specific actions and milestones, such as zoning changes, public
hearings, actions needed by cities, etc.
2. The allocation of resources necessary to achieve the goals of the plan.
3. Plan updating and revision processes.
4. Identification of specific departments responsible for specific programs.
5. Other significant milestones identified in the plan.
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-1
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
After adoption of the final plan by the Authority, County, Cities and State, the imple-
mentation process will include:
1. Amendment of City and County General Plan.
2. Amendment of City and County zoning ordinances where necessary.
3. Continuance of Hazardous Waste Committee.
4. Establishment of Technical Committee.
PLAN POLICIES
Implementation policies in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Chapter 2) call for
responsible management of hazardous wastes through the hierarchy (Policy 2).
1. Source reduction including toxics use reduction.
2. Reuse and recycling-onsite.
3. Reuse and recycling offsite.
4. Treatment onsite.
5. Treatment offsite.
6. Incineration
7. Secure disposal of residuals from recycling treatment and incineration.
The basis for the hierarchy is prevention of pollution to the air, water and land through
reduction of waste generation at the source. This is the major policy in regard to im-
plementation of the plan--to reduce the waste as the means to reduce the need for
facilities.
Plan Policy 3 calls for promotion; through education;-assistance, and possible regulation
of adoption and implementation of the hierarchy by firms in the county.
Firms wishing to locate in Alameda County or those wishing to extensively expand their
facilities must demonstrate their commitment to hazardous materials use reduction as a
condition for receiving land use approvals and business permits.
Plan Policy 4 states that source reduction and waste minimization are a top priority of
the plan. Governmental agencies should encourage innovative private sector waste
related activities and should act to remove barriers to reduction and recycling. New
firms must demonstrate commitment to waste reduction as a condition for receiving
land use and business permit approval. Local agencies and industry must work closely
and cooperate in pursuing waste reduction and implementation of the hazardous waste
management hierarchy.
Plan Policy 5 calls for onsite treatment in preference to offsite treatment as a means of
reducing transportation of hazardous waste.
SF031609\AA\012.51 I0-2
The Implementation Plan is based upon the above policies which should be reviewed in
their entire context in Chapter 2.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION PLANNING REQUIREMENT
The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 or
Senate Bill 14 .(HWSRMRA) requires businesses which routinely generate more than
26,640 pounds of hazardous waste per year or 26.4 pounds of extremely hazardous
waste to plan for and implement source reduction measures or, where source reduction
is not feasible or practicable, to encourage recycling. Businesses that are covered by
this requirement must, by September 1, 1991, conduct a source reduction evaluation
and review, and prepare a source reduction plan for each facility that generates
hazardous waste. Each generator covered by the law must also prepare plan and
report summaries to be submitted to the California EPA Department of Toxic
Substances Control upon request.
The HWSRMRA however, does not address the need to encourage hazardous waste
minimization planning by those businesses which routinely produce less than 26,640
pounds of hazardous waste. This latter category of firms is not only the most prevalent
in Alameda County (estimate of 3,200 businesses) but in most cases, also the least well
equipped with the information, expertise and resources which will enable them to
implement a waste minimization program.
Therefore, it is proposed that local jurisdictions be required to apply the provisions of
HWSRMRA to all generators of hazardous waste within Alameda County that are not
currently subject to these requirements (e.g., those which generate less than 26,640
pounds of hazardous waste or 26.4 pounds of extremely hazardous waste).
Under this Alameda County planning -requirement; all.-businesses that generate
hazardous waste and are not covered by the requirements of the HWSRMRA will be
phased-in to a requirement to submit source reduction evaluations and plans as part of
an existing permit or inspection process or procedure. Firms will be required to
comply with this requirement as they receive initial technical assistance.
Meeting the New Requirements--Role of Local Jurisdictions
Each local jurisdiction will be required to ensure that, for generators within their
borders, extended HWSRMRA requirements are implemented as part of an existing
permit process, licensing procedure, inspection process or other procedure as listed
below. If needed, a uniform local ordinance will be developed to carry out this
requirement.
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-3
This requirement may be met by requiring the submittal and/or review of such plans
through one or more of the following processes:
a. As part of the local hazardous waste generator permit and waste
minimization technical assistance process which is being conducted by the
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health or through an
MOU between County Health and a_specific jurisdiction
b. As part of the industrial wastewater or waste discharge permit process
which is conducted by Industrial Pretreatment Programs
C. As part of the AB3777 risk management and prevention program which
is conducted by local fire departments
d. As part of the hazardous materials user permitting process (HMSO)
which is conducted by local fire departments
e. As part of the business license or certificate of occupancy process which
is conducted by both local planning and fire departments
Review of both the source reduction evaluations and plans should be performed by
trained personnel who are competent to recommend waste minimization practices
applicable to specific industries. The review of such plans may also be conducted by
trained staff available through a cooperative agreement between jurisdictions or with
the Waste Management Authority to share staff resources, or by a qualified outside
firm.
Local jurisdictions that wish to pursue options b, c, d, or a should do so through
ordinance and in coordination with-the County-Department.of Environmental Health,
as this agency is responsible for administering State Hazardous Waste Control Law in
Alameda County.
Formation of Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee
It is recommended that pursuant to the adoption of the Alameda County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, that the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(ACWMA) develop and convene a countywide multimedia (agencies concerned with
air, water, and land issues) waste minimization committee or an existing group be
utilized to ensure that the overall waste minimization planning and implementation
process in Alameda County is moving forward; and to develop mechanisms for the
transfer of technologies and processes which result in economically feasible waste
minimization. The Committee will be advisory to the ACWMA.
SF031609\AA\012.51 104
The responsibilities of the Committee will include:
• Examination and recommendation of funding options sufficient to
implement the waste minimization planning requirement
• Preparation of a schedule of specific implementation procedures and
actions
• Consideration of the need for additional staffing
• Development of specific requirements for documents and submittal dates
that will be required of generators to fulfill the waste minimization
planning requirement
• Assistance to County and Cities in waste minimization education
• Preparation of information and recommendations for local jurisdictions
on adopting the waste minimization planning requirement and drafting a
model ordinance as required
• Consideration of the issuance of annual or biennial reports on waste
minimization progress in Alameda County by jurisdiction
Composition of Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee
Members of the Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee will be appointed by the
ACWMA Authority Board and shall include the following:
• Four local elected officials representing member agencies
• One representative from large industry
• One representative from small business
• One representative from an environmental organization
• One representative from County Department of Environmental Health
Services
• One representative from the Hazardous Materials Subcommittee of the
Alameda County Fire Chiefs Association
• One representative from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• One representative from a local Industrial Pretreatment program
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-5
• One representative from the local academic community
Funding
Initial funding to convene the Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee will be
provided by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. A report on startup
and ongoing program funding options is being prepared by Authority staff and will be
presented to the Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee for consideration at their
first meeting. It should also be noted that funding for the receipt and/or review of
waste minimization planning documents may be provided by imposing a fee for plan
review as part of the existing permitting or licensing process which is selected by the
local jurisdiction.
Below is a listing of funding options that will be examined by the Hazardous Waste
Minimization Committee.
A. Fees, e.g., regulatory and plan/permit review fees
B. Fees on local,offsite waste management facilities
C. State and federal grants, e.g., AB685 waste reduction demonstration grant
program
D. Local User Fee on hazardous products
E. Violation penalties
F. Local agency grants
G. Private industry
H. Local foundations
I. Member agency contributions/assessments
J. Benefit assessment district
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-6
- -
- . APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A Amendment - Formal changes to an adopted CHWMP. The CHWMP amendment process
Includes revision of the CHWMP at either scheduled intervals or as often as
GLOSSARY seen necessary. All or part of the CHWMP may be revised and amended as needed
with the approval of the county, a majority of its cities containing a
Acid - A large class of substances that form solutions having a low pH. majority of the incorporated population, and the State DHS.
Stronger acids are corrosive to metals and other materials. Acids may be
neutralized by mixing with bases or akalis to form salts. Anaerobic - Occurring in the absence of oxygen.
Acid Waste - A waste with a pil less than 7.0. Appropriate Agreements - When this term is used in the State Department of
Health Services Guidelines, the Department is expressing its understanding
Activated Sludge Treatment - Exposing wastes to microorganisms and air. A that agreements between jurisdictions will be individually developed to meet
portion of the organic matter is oxidized to carbon dioxide and waste and the unique goals and should not be expected to be carbon copies of agreements
other portion is synthesized into new microbial cells. reached between other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the agreements should
address the hazardous waste issues and express the agreements reached between
Acute - Effects which are manifested soon after exposure to a hazardous the signatory parties in a legally binding manner.
material.
Approved Plans - County, multi-county or regional hazardous waste management
Acutely hazardous materials - Any chemical on the ltat prepared by EPA and plans approved by the State Department of Health Services.
classified as an acutely toxic material according to the criteria set forth in
the Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program Interim Guidance document on Aqueous - Of, relating to, or comprised mostly of water.
November 1, 1985, and any supplemental amendments to the document. The list
Is in 40 CFR Part 355. Aquifer - A geological formation, group of formations or part of a formation
capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to wells or springs.
Adsorption - A process for removing low concentrations of organic materials (CAC, Title 22, Section 66011.1)
from gaseous and liquid waste streams. The organics are attracted to the
surface of a substance, usually carbon. At-Sea-Incineration - Wastes are burned in a conventional single-chamber
Incinerator which is mounted on a ship.
AdvisoryCommitt�ee - The Advisory Committee which is required in AB 2948,
Section 25135.2. Although the law specifies some of its members as to the Authority to Construct - An authorization Issued by APCDa and AQMDs. These
Interest groups they represent, the Committee can be as large as desired by are required prior to construction of proposed facilities which will emit a
the planning agency developing the Plan. Its meetings should be open to the signtficant amount of pollutants into the atmosphere.
public; It should represent major interest groups in the planning area and
should meet frequently throughout the development of the Plan. Although the Base - A substance which forms a salt when it reacts with an acid. Bases have
Plans developed by regional agencies are not required to be developed with the a pH greater than 7.0.
help of an Advisory Committee, one could be helpful in identifying Issues and
developing support for the Plan. Beat Feasible Hazardous Waste Management Technology - The best demonstrated
available technologies as determined by DHS, or technologies which meet the
Aerobic - Occurring in the presence of oxygen. current state and federal requirements for treatment and/or disposal.
Alkaline Waste - A waste with a pH between 7.0 and 14.0. An alkaline waste is Binding Arbitration - A process for the resolution of disputes. Decisions are
hazardous when Its pil is 12.5 or greater. made by an impartial arbitrator. The decisions of the arbitrator are final
and acceptance of these decisions must be made in advance.
Alternative Technology - Defined by DIIS to mean the application of technology
to the reduction of waste generation, promotion of recycling, and reuse of Btoaccumulative - Substances that increase in concentration in living
waste produced, as alternatives to land disposal of hazardous waste. organisms (that are not readily metabolized or excreted) as they breathe
contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Ambient - Existing conditions of air, water and other media at a particular
time. Biological Treatment - Treatment processes utilizing living microorganisms to
decompose organic hazardous waste Into simpler organic or inorganic
Ambient Air Quality - Specified maximum average concentration of pollutants substances. The five principal techniques include activated sludge, aerated
over stated lengths of time, allowed by air quality regulations of local, lagoons, trickling filters, waste stabilization ponds, and anaerobic digestion.
state or federal agencies.
-A - 1- -A - 2-
Bloaludge - Sludge generated in biological treatment of organic wastes, Chemical Oxidation - Adding strong oxidizing chemicals to a waste stream to
composed primarily of microorganisms. effect a reaction, producing less toxic substances and reducing quantities of
such substances, e.g., cyanide can be detoxified by reaction with hypochlorite
Buffer Zone - An area of land which surrounds a hazardous waste facility and or some other oxidizing agent.
on which certain land uses and activities are restricted to protect the public
health and safety, and the environment from existing or potential hazards Chemical Reduction - The addition of chemicals to wastes which cause partial
caused by the migration of hazardous waste. or complete decomposition of particular waste components into their basic
nontoxic parts.
Business Plan - A separate plan for each facility, site or branch of a
business which includes an inventory of each chemical handled, the name and 24 Chemical Treatment - Treatment processes which alter the structure of
hour phone number of the Emergency Coordinator, identification of emergency hazardous waste constituents to produce an innocuous or less hazardous
response equipment on site, emergency response procedures to be followed in material. Principal techniques include neutralization, precipitation, ion
the event of a release, an evacuation plan and procedures for coordination exchange,
with local emergency response oraganizations. Health and Safety Code Section chemical dechlorination, and chemical oxidation/reduction.
25501 (d) Chronic - Effects which are manifested following repeated exposures over a
Calderon Bill - The popular name for legislation that requires the owner period of time or long-term exposure. Also refers to effects which linger.
and/or operator of each solid waste disposal facility to test for and report
toxic air emissions and hazardous waste leachate. Class I Land Disposal Facilities - Land disposal facilities which conform to
requirements of the regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board for
Cap - A layer of clay or other highly Impermeable material installed over the Class I units, and which shall be located where natural geologic features
top of a closed landfill to prevent entry of rainwater and minimize production provide optimum conditions for Isolation of wastes from the waters of the
of leachate. State. Currently, these facilities may accept solid and dry hazardous waste.
After 1990, they will be precluded from accepting any untreated hazardous
Capacity Excess or Shortfall - The needs assessment compared to the existing wastes. They may not be located In areas subject to flooding by 100 year
capacity. floods, areas subject to rapid geologic changes, or areas subject to tsunamis,
seiches and surges, or within 200 feet of a fault zone active within the
Carcinogen - Substance or agent which causes higher than normal production of period defined.
abnormal cells; i.e. cancer.
Class II Land Dis oral Facilities - Land disposal facilities which must be
Catalyst - A substance, usually present In small amounts relative to the locate where site c aracteriatics and containment structures Isolate wastes
reactants, that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without being from the waters of the State. They may be located within areas subject to
consumed In the process. tsunamis, selches and surges, If they are designed, constructed and maintained
to preclude failure in protecting the waters of the State. Class II land
Caustics (Bases, alkalis) - A large class of substances which form solutions disposal facilities are suitable for wastes which have been granted a variance
having a high pH. Stronger caustics are corrosive to many materials. from hazardous waste management requirements pursuant to Section 66310, Title
Caustics react with acids to form salts. 22, CAC. (See definition of Designated Waste.)
Cell - A portion of compacted solid wastes in a landfill that is enclosed by Code of California Regulations - The compilation of regulations issued by
natural soil and/or cover material during a designated period. California state agencies to implement state laws.
Cement Kiln Incineration - The burning of organic wastes as a supplementary Common Name - Any designation or identification, such as a code name or
fuel. at very high temperatures during the production of cement. number, trade name, or brand name, used to identify a hazardous substance
other than by its chemical name.
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Number - The unique identification number
assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service to a specific chemical substance. Composting - A controlled microbial degradation of organic waste yielding a
humus-like product of potential value as a soil conditioner.
Chemical Name - The scientific designation of a. substance in accordance with
the International Onion of Pure and Applied Chemistry or the system developed
by the Chemical Abstracts Service.
-A - 3- -A - 4-
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) - A discretionary permit, issued by cities and Department - The California State Department of Health Services.
counties, which is required for certain projects that are allowable by special
permit only. A conditional use permit imposes conditions on a project which Designated Waste - Hazardous waste which has been granted a variance from
are designed to assure that the project is compatible with the local general hazardous waste management requirements pursuant to Section 66310, Title 22,
plan and zoning ordinances and that adverse impacts to neighboring land uses CCR. A variance may be granted if the waste is insignificant as a potential
are minimized. hazard to human health and safety, livestock or wildlife because of Its small
quantity, low concentration or physical or chemical characteristics.
Corrosive - Any substance which can, upon contact, dissolve standard Designated wastes must be handled, stored or disposed in a manner which will
materials, toxic contaminants or cause destruction of living tissue by not result in hazard to human health and safety, livestock or wildlife.
chemical action.
Developer - A person, government unit, or company that proposes to build a
Council of Governments (COG) - Chapter 1504 of the 1986 State Statutes (AB hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
2948, Tanner) references four specific COGS to receive funding for Regional
Plan development. Associations of Governments, Joint Powers Agreements, etc. Discretionary Project or Permit - A project or permit which requires the use
may be the mechanisms through which multi-jurisdiction hazardous waste of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve
management plans are developed which will have the same validity as those COG or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where
Plans specifically funded under the .legislation. the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been
conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations.
Count - a county that notifies the State Department of Health Services
SDIIS that it will prepare a hazardous waste managment plan in accordance with Disposal - The discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or
this article and receives a grant pursuant to Section 25135.8. "County" also placing of any hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such
means any city, or two or more cities within a county acting jointly, which hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be
notifies the. SDIIS that it will prepare a county hazardous waste managment emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters.
(Chapter 1504 of the 1986 State Statutes (AB 2948, Tanner), Section (Section 66042, Title 22, CCR)
25135.1 (a))
Disposal Site - Location where any final deposition of hazardous waste
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP) - A hazardous waste management occurs. (Title 22 Health 6 Safety Code, Chapter 30, Article 1)
plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 1504 of the 1986 State Statute (AB 2948,
Tanner). This bill authorized ...a county, in lieu of preparing the Dissolution - To dissolve in water or an organic solvent.
hazardous waste portion of the solid waste management plan, to adopt, by
September 30, Distillation - A process for separation of liquids with different boiling
1988, a county hazardous waste management plan pursuant to guidelines adopted points by heating the mixture to vapor and retrieving certain components by
by the State Department of Health Services..." recondensation. (An Important application Is solvent recovery.)
County Solid Waste Management Plan (COSWMP) - A plan which sets forth a Drum Decantation - To pour only the liquid material from a drum leaving
comprehensive program for solid waste management pursuant to California settled solids in the drum
Government Code Section 66780.
Electrostatic Preci stators - Devices that remove particles from a gas°stream,
Countywide - The area of a county, including the cities and other entities by passing the gas t roug an electric field to charge the particles. The
(such as Indian, federal or state lands) within the boundaries of the county. particles stick to the oppositely charged plate and are removed mechanically.
Criteria air pollutant - Pollutants for which the EPA has published a Criteria Eminent Domain - The right of a government to appropriate private property for
Document and which are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. Criteria necessary public use, with compensation paid to the landowner.
pollutants include PM10, ozone, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and carbon
monoxide. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - A detailed statement prepared pursuant to
the CEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA). An EIR describes and analyzes the
Dechlorination - Removal or neutralization of toxic concentrations of chlorine significant environmental effects of a project and discusses ways to mitigate
from a substance. or avoid the significant adverse effects. The term "EIR" may mean either a
draft or a final EIR, depending on the context. (Section 15362, CEQA
Deepwell Injection - Disposal of wastes by Injecting them into a geological Guidelines)
formation deep In the ground. Wastes are often pretreated to prevent plugging
the Injection equipment and underground disposal zone.
-A - 5- -A - 6-
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Stream Code - The identification habitats of Threatened or Endangered Species - Areas known to be inhabited
number assigned to a specific chemic cal waste or type of chemical waste permanently or seasonally or known to be critical at any stage in the life
pursuant to regulations of the EPA. cycle of any species of wildlife or vegetation identified or being considered
for identification as "endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Department of
Epidemiology - The study of prevalent diseases in humans. Interior or the State of California.
Evaporation - A process for concentrating non-vo.latlle solids In solution by Halogenated - Substances having a chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or Iodine atom
vaporizing the liquid portion, usually water. Solar evaporation utilizes in their structure.
uncovered ponds.
Halogenated Organics - A broad class of synthetic organic chemicals
Exempt Waste - Wastes exempt from the permitting process and from reporting characterized by the addition of halogens (mainly chlorine, bromine, fluorine)
requirements, such as wastes which are recycled on-site and some wastes which to hydrocarbon compounds.
are treated prior to dlschargae to sewers.
Hazardous Material - A substance or combination of substances which, because
Exposure - Contact with a hazardous material. The most common routes of of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
exposure are dermal (skin), oral (mouth), and inhalation (breathing). characteristics, may either:
o Cause, or significantly contribute to an increase In mortality or
Extremely Hazardous Material - A substance or combination of substances which, an Increase in serious irreversible, or Incapacitating reversible, illness; or
If human exposure should occur, may likely result in death, disabling personal o Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or
Injury or serious illness caused by the substance or combination of substances environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed or
because of its quantity, concentration, or chemical characteristics. CCR, otherwise managed.
Title 22, Section 66060.
Hazardous Substance
Extremely Hazardous Waste - Any hazardous waste or mixture of hazardous wastes Any su stance designated pursuant to Section 1321 (b) (2) (A) of
which, if human exposure should occur, may likely result in death, disabling Title 33 of the United States Code.
personal injury or serious illness caused by the hazardous waste or mixture of (2) Any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated
hazardous wastes because of its quantity, concentration, or chemical pursuant to Section 102 of the Fecerat Act (42 U.S.C. 9602).
characteristics. Health and Safety Code, Section 25115. (3) Any hazardous waste 'having the characteristics identified under or
listed pursuant to Section 6921 of Title 42 of the US Code, but not
Filtration - Separating liquids and solids and collecting the suspensions by including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste
passing solutions through various types of porous materials. Disposal Act has been suspended by act of Congress.
(4) Any toxic pollutant listed under Section 1317 (a) of Title 33 of the
Fixation - A process whereby waste is made unchangeable and/or stationary. US Code.
(5) Any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 7412 of Title 42 of
Flammable - Materials which will burn below 1400 F, either spontaneously or the US Code.
through handling as a result of coming in contact with already flaming (6) Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect
material. to which the Administrator of the EPA has taken action pursuant to
Section 2606 of Title 15 of the US Code.
Fluidized-Bed Incineration - Wastes are injected Into agitated beds of inert (7) Any hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste as defined by
granular material and burned. Suitable for sludges and liquid wastes; solid Section 25117 and 25115, respectively, unless expressly excluded.
waste may need grinding. (Health and Safety Code Section 25316)
General Areas - Areas within the planning area which can be Identified by Hazardous Substances Account - A state fund derived from fees paid by persons
specific boundaries. who submit more than 500 pounds per year of hazardous or extremely hazardous
waste to on- or off-site hazardous waste disposal facilities. This is the
Generator - The person or facility who, by nature or ownership, management, or primary funding source for the state Superfund program.
control, Is responsible for causing or allowing to be caused, the creation of
hazardous waste. Hazardous Waste - A waste, or a combination of wastes, which because of Its
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics
Groundwater - Water below the land surface In a zone of saturation. (22 CAC may either:
Section 66079)
-A - 7- -A - 8-
• cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an Incentives -
increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, o Measures which provide benefits to communities above and beyond the
Illness. costs associated with hazardous waste management facilities.
• pose, a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or Incentives would make a community better off than it was before a
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or hazardous waste management facility is sited.
disposed, or otherwise managed. o Certain measures (such as low interest loans, tax breaks, etc.)
Unless expressly provided otherwise, the term "hazardous waste" shall be taken by government to stimulate the development and implementation
understood to also Include extremely hazardous waste. (Section 25117, Health of Improved technologies for managing hazardous waste.
and Safety Code.)
Incineration - A process for reducing the volume or toxicity of hazardous
Hazardous Waste Control Account - An on-going state fund, derived from fees wastes by oxidation at high temperatures.
paid by operators of on- or off-slte hazardous waste disposal facilities,
which is the basic funding source for the State Department of Health Services' Inert - Exhibiting no chemical activity; totally unreactive.
hazardous waste management program.
Ion Exchange Irritant - Substances that are not corrosive, but can injure or
Hazardous Waste Element - That portion of a CoSWMP which addresses hazardous inflame living tissue.
waste management.
Iona - Chemical constituents of a solution having a positive or negative
Hazardous Waste Facility - All contiguous land, structures, other electrical charge.
appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for handling, treating,
storing or disposing of hazardous wastes. (22 CCR Section 66096) Irritant - Substances that are not corrosive, but can induce inflammation of
living tissue.
Hazardous Waste Facility Permit - A document issued by the State Department of
Health Services to Implement the requirements of Chapter 6.5 of Division 4, of Joint Powers Agreement OPA) - An agreement between two or more public
the health and Safety Code. (22 CAC Section 66099) agencies for the joint exercise of any power common to the contracting parties.
Hazardous Waste Management - The systematic control of the collection, source Judicial Review - Refers to legal evaluations made by the courts concerning
separation, storage, transportation, processing, treatment, recovery and administrative agency decisions and actions.
disposal of hazardous waste. (22 CCR Section 66130)
Land Disposal - Disposal, storage or treatment of hazardous wastes on or into
Heavy Metals - Metallic elements having a high density (75 g/cm3) and that are the land, Including, but not limited to deepwell Injection, land spreading,
toxic for, the most part. co-burial with municipal garbage, using landfills, surface impoundments and
waste piles.
Herbicide - A chemical used to kill plants. A class of pesticides.
Land Disposal Restrictions - Refers to the state and federal programs to
High Priority Wastes - Wastes which have properties particularly hazardous to progreafvely ban the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes.
human health (toxicity), can accumulate In living organisms (bloaccumulation),
remain hazardous for long time periods (persistence), pose increased potential Landfarming (Land Application, Land Spreading) - A treatment technique which
for air emissions due to their volatility, and cause groundwater contamination involves spreading the waste on land and utilizing evaporation and microbial
due to seepage through soil (mobility). They are wastes which contain action to degrade the wastes. (Not the same as landfilling.) Used primarily
pesticides, PCBs, cyanides, toxic metals, halogenated organics, or for crude oil wastes.
non-halogenated volatile organics.
Leachate - The liquid that leaks out of a landfill. Leachate frequently
Hydrogeology - The geology of ground water, with particular emphasis on the contains contaminates dissolved from the waste in the landfill.
chemical composition and movement of the water.
Leachate Collection System - A system that gathers Leachate nod pumps It. to
Immobile Populations - Populations which are particularly difficult to the surface for treatment.
evacuate, such as hospitals, nursing homes, schools, prisons, and jails.
Lead Agency - The public agency which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project. The lead agency will decide whether an
EIR or Negative Declaration will be required for the project and will cause
the document to be prepared.
-A - 9- -A - 10-
Lethal Conceutratlon Fifty (LC50) - A calculated concentration of a substance measurements, and the public official cannot use personal subjective judgment
In air or water, exposure to which for a specified length of time Is expected in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. Common examples
to cause death of 50% of an entire defined experimental animal population. of ministerial permits Include automobile registration, dog licenses, and
marriage licenses.
Lethal Dose Fifty (LD50) - A calculated dose of substance which is expected to
cause death of 50% of an entire experimental animal population. Minor Routes - City street, boulevard, or undivided highway.
Liner - A relatively Impermeable barrier designed to prevent leachate from Mitigation - Includes:
leaking from a landfill. Liner materials include plastic sheets, dense clay,
etc. (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action
Listed Waste - Wastes "listed" by the EPA as hazardous by definition, even In
Instances where the "characteristics" may not apply. (2) minimizing Impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation
Loral Assessment Committee - Review group created by a host or abutting
community to analyze a proposed hazardous waste management facility. In some (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
states, including California, such committees have the authority to negotiate impacted environment
with the facility proponent (on behalf of the community) regarding the
conditions under which the hazardous waste management facility may be built. (4) compensating for the Impact by replacing or providing substitute
Management - ' The systematic control of the storage, transportation, resources or environments
processing, treatment, collection, source separation, recovery, and disposal
of hazardous wastes. It includes administrative, financial, legal, and Monitoring Well - A well drilled near a hazardous waste management facility to
planning activities as well as the operational aspects. allow groundwater to be sampled and analyzed for contamination.
Manifest (California Waste Hauler Record) - State form which indicates Mutagenic - Causing alterations in the structure of genetic material of living
generator, transporter, disposer, operator, quantity and type of waste for organisms.
each shipment of hazardous waste disposed of In off-site facilities.
Multi-County - An area including two or more counties.
Major Routes - State and interstate divided highways.
Need for Facility - .A present or projected shortfall of facilities to meet
Mediation - A voluntary negotiation process In which a neutral mediator local or multi-county waste mangement purposes. This Includes facilities
assists the parties In a dispute to reach a mutual agreement. A mediator may which provide more desirable or economical means of hazardous waste management
be appointed by OPA to resolve disputes between a developer and an LAC, and may serve greater than local needs.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - a written Needs Assessment - The determination of the total required capacity (treatment
record between administrative agencies which clarifies or establishes joint and/or disposal . The needs assessment ignores existing capacity.
procedures or authorities necessary to administer a program.
Negative Declaration - A written statement by the lead agency and subject to
Microorganisms - In the context of biological treatment of wastes, formal public review which briefly describes the reasons why a proposed
microorganisms are microscopic bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and other living project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the
matter which degrade organic wastes. environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an EIR.
(Section 15371, CEQA Guidelines)
Milk Run - A system in which properly equipped, permitted vehicles collect
small amounts of compatible hazardous wastes from SQGs and transport them to Negotiation - A process through which tradeoffs are made by parties in a
off-site recycling or treatment facilities. dispute, to reach an agreement satisfying them all.
Ministerial - A governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment Neutralization - A treatment technology whereby acids and alkalis are reacted
by the public official as to the decision or manner of carrying out the to form salts and water with a pil approaching neutral (7.0).
project. The public offical merely applies the law to the facts as presented,
but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A
ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective
-A - 11- -A - 12-
New Source - Within the context of air pollution control, this refers to a new RCRA Generator - Generators producing more than 1000 kg (HSWA expands
facility or a modification of an existing facility which is a source of air regulation to facilities generating over 100 kg) of hazardous waste per month.
pollution. (May cause restrictions on the development of some hazardous
waste facilities.) Reactive - Having properties of explosivity or of chemical activity which can
be a hazard to human health or the environment.
Non-attainment Area - Area whose ambient air levels of pollutants exceeds
federal or state standards. Recharge Zone - A land area where rainwater, infiltration from surface streams
or impoundment areas, or other sources soak into the ground and enters an
Nonhalogenated - Substances which do not contain halogens, such as chlorine, aquifer.
bromine, fluorine or iodine, and which evaporate at relatively low
temperatures. Recycle - To redirect or utilize a hazardous waste or a substance from a
hazardous waste, and includes recovery of resources from hazardous waste.
No Survey Method - A methodology presented by DHS which provides calculations (health and Safety Code Section 25121)
to estimate the waste streams produced by each of the 22 industry groups, to
be applied when county-specific data are lacking. Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) - The combustible, or organic, fraction of municipal
solid waste which has been prepared for use as a fuel by any of several
Offsets - Emission reductions required to be made at other facilities or on mechanical processing methods.
other equipment of the same owner in order to (more than) mitigate the
Increased emissions caused by a new source. Regional Facility - A hazardous waste management facility which accepts wastes
from more that one county.
Offslte hazardous Waste Facility - A hazardous waste facility that is not an
onsite facility. (health and Safety Code Section 2117.11) Regional Plan - A plan prepared by one of the Council of Governments
designated under Chapter 1504 of the 1986 State Statute (AB 2948, Tanner) or
Onsite Hazardous Waste Facility - A hazardous waste facility at which a by joint agreement between two or more counties under a legally constituted
hazardous waste is produced and which is owned by, leased to , under the agency covering the planning area, which has the delegated authority to
control of, the producer of the waste. (Health and Safety Code Section prepare a
25117.12) Regional Plan.
Organics - Chemical substances of animal or vegetable origin, of basically Release - Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
carbon structure, including hydrocarbons and their derivatives. discharging, injuecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment.
Organometallic Compounds - Organic molecules which Incorporate metal atoms
Into their molecular structure. Research Development and Demonstration Units (RD&Da) - Either:
o DIIS- esignated facilities located onsite, at the source of
Permit Streamlining Act (AB 884) - A California statute, enacted in 1977, generation (which are exempt from the CHWMP consistency
which Imposes time frames and requirements on governmental agencies' requirement); or
permitting process for the development of projects. o DIIS-designated facilities located in Industrial zones or in other
zones, where, because of their temporary and experimental nature,
Physical Treatment - Treatment processes which separate components of a waste they are granted a limited life conditional use permit by local.
stream or change the physical form of the waste without altering the chemical government. Since they must be operated under the conditions of the
structure of the constituent materials. local land-use permit, such facilities are consistent with the CiIWMP.
Pickling Liquors - Corrosive liquids used for removing scale and oxides from Residuals Repository - A storage facility which accepts solid materials
metals. resulting from the treatment of hazardous wastes to standards established by
the state Department of Health Services, or hazardous organic waste which Is
Precipitation - The changing of a substance held yin solution by adding a stabilized, solidified or encapsulated. No free liquids will be accepted.
chemical to cause change Into a solid form, thus allowing the solids to be The residuals are solids, with relatively insoluble toxic material content and
gathered and removed from the liquids. are kept dry by the design of the facility.
Pyrolysis - heating toxic materials in an enclosed oxygen deficient space,
resulting In a residual material of lower toxicity.
-A - 13- -A - 14-
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - A federal statute which gives Special Wastes - A waste which Is a hazardous waste only because it contains
the EPA the authority to develop a nationwide program to regulate hazardous an inorganic substance or substances which cause it to pose a chroalc toxicity
wastes from "cradle-to-grave". Enacted in 1976, the Act was established to hazard to human health or the environment and which meets all of the criteria
"protect human health and the environment from the Improper handling of solid and requirements of Section 66742 and has been classified a Special Waste
waste and encourage resource conservation". pursuant to Section 66744. (22 CCR Section 66191)
Resource Recovery - The reuse or reclamation of any hazardous waste or any Stabilization - A treatment process for limiting the solubility of or
recyclable hazardous material (except those that are exempted by Section detoxifying hazardous wastes by adding materials which ensure that hazardous
25127.5 of the Health and Safety Code). constituents are maintained In their least soluble and/or toxic form.
Stabilization of treatment or Inclnceration of residuals may be required prior
Responsible Agency - A public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a to their final
project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or disposition in a residuals repository. Stabilization typically Increases the
Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. For the purposes of CEQA, the term volume of the waste materials.
"responsible agency" Includes all public agencies other than the lead agency
which have discretionary approval power over the project. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code - Identification number assigned
to specific types of businesses which systematically classifies all economic
Rotary Kiln Incineration - The combustion of liquid or solid wastes in large activities in the U.S., dividing them into groups and subgroups. The U.S.
cylinders lined with fire-brick and rotated to Improve turbulence in the Government publishes the Standard Industrial Classification Manual which lists
combustion zone. skid describes all SIC code classifications.
Seiches - Vertically oscillating standing waves usually occurring in enclosed State Override - Provision under which a state agency can override a local
bodies of water such as lakes, reservoirs, and harbors caused by seismic government's decision. This describes the state authority over hazardous
activity, violent winds, or changes in atmospheric pressure. waste management facility siting.
Siting Criteria - Factors which must be met to determine the physically State Preemption - In the context of hazardous waste management facility
appropriate site or area for the location of a hazardous waste management aping, state preemption refers to the state preempting local decision-making
facility. authority over hazardous waste management facility siting such that no local
decision Is required to site such facilities.
Sludge - Waste materials in the form of a concentrated suspension of waste
solids. Storage Facility - A hazardous waste facility at which hazardous waste is
contained for a period greater than 144 hours at an offaite facility or for a
Small Quantity Generator (SQG) - Not defined In California regulation; period greater than 90 days at an onalte facility; a state permit is required
however, it is accepted to mean one who generates 1,000 kilograms (2,200 for such activity.
pounds) or less of hazardous waste per month.
Superfund - Refers to Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Solid Waste - Generally, under California law, all putreacible and Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund
nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes such as garbage, rubbish, paper, Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the California Hazardous
ashes, Industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned Substance Bond Act of 1984 (Article 7.5 of Division 20 of the California
vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, Ilealth and Safety Code). These provide funding for cleanup of sites
vegetable or animal solid and semisolid wastes, and other discharged solid and contaminated with hazardous waste.
semisolid wastes; but excluding hazardous waste. (Section 66719 of the
California Government Code, as amended by AB 1920, 1983) Surface Impoundments - A hazardous waste facility or part of a facility which
Is a natural topographic depression, man-made excavation, or diked area which
Solidification - A treatment process for limiting the solubility of or is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes containing free
detoxifying hazardous wastes by producing blocks of treated waste with high liquids, usually in order to treat the wastes. These facilities are being
structural integrity. phased out under the TPCA and RCRA.
Solvent Extraction - Treating a solid or liquid waste to extract hazardous Synergistic - The action of two materials together which is greater In effect
constituents so that It may be discarded as non- hazardous, along with the than the sum of their individual actions.
bulk of the waste stream.
Source Reduction - Onsite practices which reduce, avoid or eliminate the
generation of hazardous waste.
-A - 15- -A - 16-
Technical Reference Manual (TRM) - A multi-part document dated June 30, 1987,
prepared by DIIS which supports their Guidelines for the preparation of the
C1H1MP.
Teratogenic - Causing malformation of a fetus.
Toxic - Capable of producing injury, illness, or damage to humans, livestock
or wildlife through Ingestion, Inhalation, or absorption through any body
surface.
Toxic Substance Control Act - A federal law which, among other provisions,
Mows designated agenc es to ban sale, use, or manufacture of certain
compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Toxic Waste - A waste which can produce injury upon contact with, or by
accumulation in or on the body of a living organism.
Transfer Station - Any hazardous waste facility where hazardous wastes are
loaded, unloaded, pumped or packaged. (22 CCR Section 66212)
Transportable Treatment Unit (TTU) - Hazardous waste treatmnent works which
are designed to be moved either intact or in modules and which are intended to
be operated at a given location for a limited period of time.
Transportation Route - Any major freeway or Interstate highway designated
under Chapter 814 of the 1985 State Statutes (AB 1861, Campbell) which is used
to transport hazardous waste or materials.
Treatment - Any method, technique, or process, Including neutralization,
designed to change the physical, chemical or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to
recover energy or material resources from the waste, or so as to render such
waste nonhazardous or less hazardous; safer to transport, store or dispose; or
amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduce in volume. (22 CAC
Section 66216)
Variance - An exemption from the DVS's permitting process which to granted
under special, stated conditions. Notification of variances are sent to the
local environmental health and land use planning departments and such
facilities are still subject to local land use permits.
Waste - Any waste for which no use or reuse is intended and which Is to be
discarded.
Waste Exchange - Clearinghouse approach to transferring treated and untreated
hazardous wastes to an industrial user for use as raw material.
-A - 17-
APPENDIX B
ABBREVIATIONS - ACRONYMS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACL Alternate Concentration Limits
AHMs Acutely Hazardous Materials
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BCDC Bay Conservation Development Commission
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations (formerly California
Administrative Code)
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHWMP County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
COSWMP County Solid Waste Management Plan
CWRCB California Water Resources Control Board
DEH Department of Environmental Health
DHS California Department of Health Services
DOE Department of Energy
DRE Destruction and Removal Efficiency
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EP Extraction Procedure
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FWQC Federal Water Quality Criteria
HHW Household Hazardous Waste
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to RCRA
HWCL (California's) Hazardous Waste Control Law
HWIS DES Hazardous Waste Information System
JPA Joint Powers Agreement
RHF Rettleman Hills Facility
LAC Local Assessment Committee
MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
OES Office of Emergency Services
OPA Office of Permitting Assistance
OPR (Governors's) Office of Planning and Research
PG & E Pacific Gas and Electric
POTWs Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMPPs Risk Management and Prevention Programs
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SIC Standard Industrial Classification code
SQG Small Quantity Generators
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TPCA Toxic Pits Cleanup Act ,
TTU Transportable Treatment Units
-B-1-
Ch. 1504 _2—
APPENDIX C - AB 2948 TANNER (1986) department in administering the program.and for providing grants.
to council$of governments,counties,and cities in carrying out these
provisions.
CHAFM 1601 The bill would transfer to the Hazardous Waste Management
An act to add Sections 660631 and 667809 to the Government Planning Subaccount $10.000.000 of the funds appropriated to the
Code,and to amend and renumber Section 25117.7 of,to add Sections Hazardous Control Account from the rocpro received b the state
151173,25173.3,25200.1.and 252003 to,to add Article 33(eommenc- horn say settle of tin wader specil�ed provision of t� Outer
Lug with Section 23135) and Article 6.7 (commencing with Section Continental Shea Lands Act
25199) to Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of,and to repeal Sections 251359 wee site for the a ice neon the operator of a hazardous
and 2 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to hazardous concerning hazardous waste regulatioa�diag specified activities
5201
warts. This bill would authorize a city or county In which there is located
t4ww,,d by C*, : 3k ML FUW w" an off'site.mulduser hazardous waste facility,as defined. to impose
r ,�3k isaa.l a tax,for general purposes,or a user fee upon the operation of the
f cility.up to as amount equal to 10% of the facilid tybp annual gross
L�taTm CotIMM S DICES$ receipts for hazardous waste treated,stored.or of at that
AB 2910. Tander. Hazardous waste: management plans and hcility.except as specified.
facility siting procedures. ' (3) Existing law requires public endes to approve applications
(1) Existing law requires c a ties and cities to adopt general for development projects.as deSng within specified time
plans and requires counties to adopt a solid waste management else. faduding projects for the dLscharge or disposal of waste.Existinn law
h the hazardous waste portion of which b subject to review by the State also requires the department to issue hazardous waste. ties
i Departt of Health Services. ..j permits to use and operate hazardous waste facilities.
This bill would authorize a county. in lieu of preparing the 'Ibis bill would expressly provide that the development project
hazardous waste portion of the solid as management plan, to approval provisions applyy to the making of a land use decision or the
adept, by September 30, 1988, a county hazardous waste issuance of a permit.as defined,by a public agency,fora hazardous
management plan t to guside$aes adopted by the waste tadllt)►project which is not a lead disposal facility.
department, d specify the procedures for the preparatioq The bill would also establish procedures for the approval and
eevL$oq adoption,approval,and amendment of these plans.The bill review of applications for a land use decision concerning a hazardous-
would authorize a eoumty to delegate the authority to prepare the waste fariuty Ercoec as defined,by a local agency.The bill would
plan to a city a Joint powers agency.or say other Axial planning require the Permit Assistance In the Office of Planning and
agency.The 96 would authorize a city,ar 2 or more cities acting Research to perform specified duties concerning a hazardous waste
Jointly within a county, to prepare the county hazardous waste facility project.including providing information and assistance,and
management plan if the county In which the city or cities are located convening meetings applications.on project applicatio .The bill would require
does not elect to prepare a plm.The bill would authorize specified that a person applying to a local agency for a land use decision
councils of governmeob to adopt regional hazardous waste. �ab�g m offsite hazardous waste facility to pay a fee. as
management plans.The bill would require the Southern California i`tab by the Office of Permit Assistance.and would require the
Assodation of Governments to transfer the re:ponsil)i y to prepare office to deposit these fees in the Local Agency Technical Assistance
the regional plan to the Southern California Hazardous Waste Account, which the bill would create in the General Fled The
Management Authority,if the authority b created by a Joint ewe money in the account would be available for expenditure by the
agreement The bill would prohibit any person Exam establishing or office. upon appropriation by the Legislature, to make technical
«=pausing m offsite facility,unless the city's or county's legislative assistance grants to local agencies The bill would specify procedures
body Brads that the establishment or expansion Is consistent with the for the processing of applications by public agenda for hazardous
county hazardous waste man, ement plan, waste facilities projects pending certain judicial actions.
The bill would create, within the Hazardous Waste Control The bill wasld also establ4h procedures for appealing a local
Account in the General Florid. the Hazardous Waste Management agency land un decision concerning the siting and constructions,or
Planning Subaccocmt and would authorize the department to expansion ol,an ofUte hazardous waste &cMty saving more than
e�cpend the moneys in the subaccount. upon appropriation by the one hazardous waste generator.The bill would require m to
T Tri Lure, fuw the purpose of paying far the coat of the state be authorized by the Governor or the Governor's designee.would
R[1fi1NT
94 so 94 so
-3— Ch. 1504 Ch. 1504
provide for the establishment of an appeal board to review the not available to effectively manage the hazardous wasted produced
appeal,and would specify the procedures and determinations which by the many industries of the state,the state's economic activity will
the appeal board is required to follow in agreeing with.reversin&or be-hampered and cannot prosper, public health and the
modifying a local agency's land use decision environment will be threatened by the increased illegal disposal.and
The bW would prohibit the department from issuing a hazardous the use of'oubnoded disposal practices will continue.
waste facility permit after January 1. 1841. unless the department (3) A. solution to the safe and responsible management of
makes a specified Minding. hazardous wastes requires an effective planning process'that
The bill would prohibit the department from bluing a permit to Involves local and state governments,the public,and industry.The
a hazardous waste land disposal facility which commences operation process must provide a more expeditious method than presently
after January 1.1997.except as specified,and the department would ebb for siting needed hazardous waste management facilities and
also be required to prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous �� the necessary permits. The process also must provide a
waste after January 1.19W,except as specified 71ib provision would meant r ensuring that needed facilities are environmentally sound,
not become operative if SB 1500 is enacted and becomes operative. do not paee a threat to the public health and safety.and will not be
(4) The bill would also make a statement of legislative intent and acted because of{ opposition.'
would make conforming changes. (4) A solution to the safe and responsible management of
(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse hazardous wastes also requires improved programs of waste source
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the reduction and recycling. and encouraging onsite treatment of
.state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for makin that hazardous wastes, as prefe le to the siting of new land dis;mxW
reimbursement,iucludia the creation of a State Mandates (3aims facill ties.The oaf of this acts,which recognizes the long-term health.
Fund to pay the coat ofmandates which do not exceed +300000. envisonmen:1 and economic risks of hazardous waste land
statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide coats Is to t hazardous waste from.bein disposed prevent g permanently into
exceed$300.000. land. or emitted-Into the air. without being processed bby� an
A This bQ would Impose a state-mandated local program by economically and technically feasible alternative technology.
Nrequiring cities, camties. and districts to take q,�:sffied idiom Attaldng this goal will require the development of feasible programs
i eoncernin p for hazardous waste management and making which should result in the reduction.of the voluxne and hazard of
land useow for hazardous waste facili ties and by creating hazardous wastes at their source.and the development of expanded
certain crimes concerning payment of a fee to operate a hazardaa fecYchsg programs for hazardous waste.This goal also requires that.
waste facility. as an alternative to traditional land disposal methods, residuals
The bill would provide that reimbursement shall be made repositories be utilized for the byproducts of preferred haza rdous
pursuant to those statutory rocedures and,if the statewide coat does waste treatment technologies.Because of the threat to public health
not exceed$300.000,shall payable from"State Mandates Claims and safety posed by the traditional land disposal of hazardous wastes,
Fund,except that,for certain costa, the bill would provide that no It is necessary that tbese methods of dealing with hazardous wastes
teimbsasement is required for a specified reason. come quickly into place.
M?e a of the State of Cal Porn&do enact arfallowm (5) The safe transport of hazardous wastes from the source of
PsuPJ generation to the point of ultimate disposal Is an important element
SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature hereby Minds and dedar ea all of in the total management of hazardous waste.Strong enforcement of
the following. Ong �g the manifest system, vehicle safety, and
g' emergency response preparedness must be assured to provide for
(1) The quality of life of the citizens of this state is based upon a the full protection of public health and the environment.
large variety of consumer goods produced by the manufacturing (6) Monitoring of hazardous waste management facilities and the
economy of the state.The complex industrial processes that produce effective enforcement of eadsting federal and state hazardous waste
these goods also generate waste byproducts, some of which are regulations are also essential to protect the public health and
hazardous to the public health and the environment. environment and to meet the public's concerns regarding the
(8) Safe and responsible management of hazardous wastes Is one acceptance of needed now hazardous waste management tecrlities.
of the most important environmental problems facing the state at the M An assurance of an adequate system which provides for full
present tune.This management L critical to the protection of the p � for fury and damage found to be caused by
public health and the environment and also to the economic growth huardous waste is central to protecting the public health,safety,and
of the state.If environmentally sound hazardous waste facilities are welfare.
w fie
94 140
r
—s— Ch. 1504 Ch. 1504 —6—
(b) The Le stature. therefore, declares that it is in the public the granting of variances, )he subdivision of property, and. the
interest to establish a state policy that has the objective of ensuring modification of existing property lines pursuant to this division or
that safe,effective,and economical facilities for the management of Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7, and, for
hazardous wastes are available when they are needed,and that these p es of this chapter,"project"includes an activity requiring any
facilities are of a type, and operated and monitored in a manner, of those actions.
which protects public health and the environment. The principles (b) The issuance of hazardous'waste facility permits by the State
underlying this policy include all of the following: Department of Health Services pursuant to Chapter 6.5
(1) Because the state's economy and quality of life are dependent (commencing with Section 25100) of Division 20 of the Health and
on many substances and products that result in the production of Safety Code.
hazardous wastes,all Californians must share in the responsibility for • (c) The issuance*of waste discharge requirements by California
finding safe and effective solutions to the management and disposal regional water quality control boards pursuant to Article 4
of hazardous wastes, including efforts to reduce the amount and (commencing with Section 13260) of Chapter 4 of Division 7 of the
hazard of this waste. Water Code.
(2) Local government,state government,the public,and industry (d) The issuance of authority to construct permits by the district
need to form a partnership in an effort to plan for,and site,needed board of an air pollution control district or an air quality
treatment and disposal facilities. management district pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with
(3) Even though suitable sites for treatment and disposal facilities Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code.
may be limited,it j}necessary that all local communities in the state (e) The issuance of solid waste facilities permits by the
be willing to share the burden of hazardous waste management and enforcement agency pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with
that all local governments consider the feasibility and Section 66796.30) of Chapter 3 of Title 7.3.
appropriateness of identifying suitable sites for treatment and SEC. 3. Section 66780A is added to the Government Code, to
disposal facilities In their general plans. read:
(4) While local land use planning and health. safety, and 66780.8. In lieu of preparing a hazardous-waste portion of the
environment1l requirements must be the basis for siting needed county solid waste plan as provided in this article,'&county may,at
hazardous waste facilities, local facility siting decisions may not its discretion.prepare a county hazardous waste management plan
adequately consider the waste management needs of the region or for the management of all hazardous wastes produced in the county.
of the state. Because of the need to consider the region's or state's If a county decides to prepare a hazardous waste management plan
waste management needs, procedures should be established for instead of the hazardous waste portion of a county solid waste plan,
appealing the local rejection of needed and technically and the county shall notify the department of the decision.The county
environmentally sound hazardous waste facilities to a body with a hazardous waste management plan shall be prepared,adopted,and
regional or statewide perspective. However. an appeal of a- approved pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 25135)
•hazudous waste facility.pursuant to Section 25199.9 of the Health of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
and Safety Code,which is proposed for a rural area and which would A county may delegate the authority to prepare the county
receive hazardous waste from urban areas should not be approved, hazardous waste management plan to a city. an agency established
unless the hazardous waste facility is found consistent with the by a joint powers agreement.or any other special planning agency.
applicable city or county general plan and the county hazardous SEC. 4. Section 2511732 is added to the Health and Safety Code.
waste management plus, as specified in subdivision (f) of Section to read:
25199.11 of the Health and Safety Code. 25117.2. "Hazardous waste management" means the. disposal.
SEC. 2.- Section 65967.1 b added to the Government Code, to handling, processing, storage, and treatment of hazardous waste.
read: SEC.5. Section 25117.7 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
65963.1. Except as otherwise provided in Article 8.7 and renumbered to read:
(commencing with Section 25199) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of tl:e 25:17.1. "Hazardous waste facility" means any structure, other
Health and Safety Code,this chapter applies to the making of a land appurtenances, and improvements on the land. and all contiguous
use decision or the issuance of a permit for a hazardous waste facility land, used for the treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery,
project by a public agency,as defused in Section 25159.1 of the Health disposal, or recycling of hazardous waste.
and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, all of the following SEC.6. Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 25133) is added to
actions: Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read.
(a) The approval of land use permits and conditional use permit,-,
94 160 94 190
-7— Ch. 1301 CIL 1504 =8—
Article 33. Hazardous Waste Management Plans hazardous waste facilities, or proposed site* for these facilities, are
compatible with their operation; and that the plans are prepared
43135. (a) The L.egislarure finds and declares as follows: with the full and meaningful involvement -of the public,
(1) An effective planning process involving public and private environmental.groups, civic associations, generators of hazardous
sector participation exists at the county level for establishing new,or wastes, and the hazardous waste management industry.
expanding existing, solid waste facilities, but an equivalent process (d) It is further the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this
has not been established at the local level to plan for the articc�le, to define the respective responsibilities of state and local
management of hazardous wastes. governments in hazardous waste management planning;to establish
(2) Counties are presently required to prepare solid waste a comprehensive planning process in which state and local
management plans for all waste disposal within each county and for government, the public, and industry jointly develop safe and
all waste originating in each county. While the department has effective solutions for the management and disposal of hazardous
requested that counties Include in their solid waste management waste*;to ensure that local governments are assisted adecluately by
plans a hazardous waste management element,there is not presently the state In carrying out their responsibilities;and to provide funding
a clear mandate that they do so. for local-level planning.
(3) Hazardous waste management planning at the local level has 43135.1. (a) For purposes of this article,and unless the context
been hampered because the department has not provided the indicates otherwise, "county" means a county that notifies the
counties with adequate and comprehensive planning guidelines, department that it will prepare a county hazardous waste
there is a lack of accurate data on hazardous waste generation, management plan In accordance with this article and receives a
handling, and disposal practices, adequate fundingg has not been grant pursuant to Section 25135.8.-County"also means any city,or
available, and local expertise in hazardous waste planning has not two or more cities within a county acting jointly,which notifies the
been developed department that it will prepare a county hazardous waste
(4) The failure to plan for the safe and effective mar.::gement of management plan in accordance with subdivision (c).
i hazardous wastes has contributed to the public's ggeneral uncertainty (b) A county may. at its discretion,and after notification to the
r in viewing proposals to site hazardous waste facilities at various department, prepare a county hazardous waste management plan
locations throughout the state. Because advance plannin4 has not for the management of all hazardous waste produced in the county.
t1ken place,local governments are not prepared to consider siting A county bzardous waste management plan prepared pt�u9nr'to
proposals and the public has not received adequate answers to this article shall serve in lieu of the hazardous waste portion of the
questions concerning the need for proposed facilities. county solid waste plan provided for in Article 2 (commencing with
(5) Safe and responsible management of hazardous wastes is one Section 66780)of Chapter 2 of Title 73 of the Government Code.The
of the most important environmental problems facing the state at the county hazardous waste management plan shall be prepared in
present time. It Is critical to the protection of the public health and cooperation with the affected cities in the county and the advisory
the environment, and to the economic growth of the state. If committee appointed pursuant to Section 23135.2, in accordance
environmentally sound hazardous waste facilities are not available to with the guidelines adopted by the department pursuant to Section
effectively manage the hazardous wastes produced by the many 25135.5, and in accordance with the schedule specified in Section
industries of the state,economic activity will be hampered and the 25135.6.
economy cannot prosper. (c) On or before March 31, 1987. every county shall notify the
(b) The Legislature, therefore, declares that it is in the public department and the cities within the county whether the county has
interest to establish an effective process for hazardous waste elected to prepare a county hazardous waste management plan
mansgement planning at the local level.This process is consistent pursuant to this article. A city,or two or more cities acting jointly.
with the responsibility of local governments to assure that adequate located within a county which elects not to prepare a county
treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the hazardous hazardous waste management plan or which fails to make an
wastes generated within their jurisdictions. election,on or before March 31,1987,to prepare a plan,may.at the
(c) It Is the Intent of the Legislature that the hazardous waste city's or cities'discretion.elect to undertake the preparation of the
management plans prepared pursuant to this article serve as the plan.The city or cities shall be deemed to be acting in place of the
primary planning document for hazardous waste management at the county for purposes of this article and may apply for funding to pay
local level; that the plans be integrated with other local land use the cost of preparing the plan pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section,
planning activities to ensure that suitable locations are available for 25135.8.However,the city or cities may not receive funding pursuant
needed hazardous waste facilities;that land uses adjacent to.or near. to subdivision (c) of Section 25133.8,unless the proposal to prepare
94 210 94 W
OL 1504. Ch. lum 10—
a county hazardous waste management plan by the city or cities is for the proper management of hazardous wastes produced in the
approved by a majority of the cities within the county which contain county.These programs may include,but are not limited to,public
a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the county education, enforcement. surveillance. transportation. and
and the proposal is received by the department on or before June 30, administration.
1987• (f) The inclusion of an element in a county hazardous waste
(d) The county hazardous waste management plan authorised by management plan pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e) does not
subdivision (b) or (c) shall serve as the primary pluming document authorize the county to adopt a program which the county Is not
for hazardous waste management in the county and shall be otherwise authorised to adopt under any other provision of law.
prepared as a useful informational source for local government and 251352 (a) Each county shall establish an advisory committee of
the public. The plan shall include, but is not limited to; all of the at least seven members to assist the county in the preparation and
following elements. administration of the county hazardous waste management plan.
(1) An analysis of the hazardous waste stream generated in the The board of supervisors of the county shall appoint the members
county,including an accounting of the volumes of hazardous wastes who are not city representatives to the advisory committee,
produced in the county. by type of waste, and estimates of the including at least one representative of industry,one representative
expected ratei of hazardous waste production until 1994.by type of of an environmental organization. and one representative of the
ate. public. The advisory committee shall also consist of at least three
(2) A description of the a jesting hazardous waste facilities which members to represent cities appointed by the city selection
treat,handle.recycle.and dispose of the hazardous wastes produced committee specified to Article 11 (commencing with Section 50270)
in the county,including a determination of the existing capacity of of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government
each qty. Code.The board of supervisors shall,to the extent possible.appoint
(3) An analysis of the potential in the county For recycling other members that have expertise concernin aspects of hazardous
hazardous waste and for reducing the volume and hazard of waste management planning. including, �ut not limited to.
hazardous waste at the source of enamdon. engineering, geology, and water quality.
i (4) A consideration of the need to manage the small volumes of (b) The advisory committee shall do all of the following:
hazardous waste produced by businesses and households (1) Advise the county staff,the board of supervisors of the county,
(5) A determination of the need for additional hazardous waste and the staff,mayors,and council members of the cities within the
facilities to properly manage the volumes of hazardous wastes count'. on issues related to the development, approval, and
currently produced or that are expected to be produced during the administration of the county hazardous waste management plan.
planning period, (2) Hold informal public meetings and workshops to provide the
(6) An identification of those hazardous waste facilities that can public with information, and to receive comments, during the
be expanded to accommodate projected needs and an identification preparation of the county hazardous waste management plan.
of general areas or specific sites for new hazardous waste facilities (c) If a city or group of cities are preparing the county hazardous
determined to be needed. In lieu of this facility and site waste management plan_ pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
identification. the plan may instead include siting criteria to be 25135.1.the city or cities shall establish the advisory committee,using
utilized in selecting sites for new hazardous waste facilities.If siting the qualifications and representation specified in subdivision (a).
criteria are included in the county hazardous waste management 25135.3. The Association of Bay Area Governments,the Southern
plan, the plan shall also designate general areas where the criteria California Aisociatt-ori of Goverhments, the Sacramento Area
might be applicable. Council-of Governments,and the Association of Monterey Bay Area
(7) A statement of goals, objectives,and policies for the siting of Governments may at the discretion of the& governing boards,
hazardous waste facilities and the general management of hazardous prepare-a regional hazardous waste management plan to serve as a
wastes through the year.2000. resource document and to identify hazardous waste management
(8) A schedule which describes county and city actions necessary issues, needs, and solutions at the regional level. A council of
to implement the hazardous waste management plan through the governments specified in this subdivision shall include in the
year 2000, including the assigning of dates for carrying out the regional plan additional counties affected by the regional plan,at the
actions. request of the councils of governments for those counties.A council
(e) In addition to the elements of the plan required by subdivision of governments shall prepare the regional plan pursuant to the
(d), a county may include a description of any additional local following procedure:
programs which the county determines to be necessary to provide (a) A council of governments specified in this subdivision may
!eo 94 290
T 11— Qt Y6D1 Ch. 1504 612— .
apply to.the deputmen0 fgx.(uodba&PursuarA to peragxWb.(3}of regional bazardous waste management plen pursuant to this section,
subdividoq (b) of.Section ;.5135$�:, i :. r• transfer the. responsibility for preparin the regional hazardous
:- Jb) On ar*before,December.Al:4987.apoum it of:governments waste mangement plan and•all fuel received pursuant tq
which receives fumding from the department shall prepare a draft subdivision (b) of Section 231353 to the authority.If the governing
regional hazardous waste management plan and submit the draft board of the authority requests.-the transfer by the adoption of a
plan.to the deparbuent.The council of governments shall involve resolution.U the transfer takes place,the authority shall comply with
the public with the preparation of the draft plan;to the f guest extent this section in the same manner as this section applies to the
possible, by public hearings. Informational meetings, and other association.If the transfer of responsibility and funds authorized by
appropriate forums that offer the public the opportunity to respond this subdivision takes place and the authority is dissolved at any time
to clearly defined alternative'objectives.,policies,and actions. before the regional hazardous waste management plan is approved
•(c) Flom January 1, 19M to March Al. 1988, the council of by the department, the association shall prepare the regional
governments shall conduct hearings on the draft reqional hazardous hazardous waste mans ement plan and any remaining funds
waste management plan,in the number determined appropriate by received pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 25135.8 shall be
the- council of governments. The council'of governments shall transferred back to the association.
provide affected local jurisdictions, the•public, 7. business 25135.4. (a) No person shall establish or expand as offsite facility.
organ±z=_t+ons and the hazardous waste manageme ind�Y with unless the legislative body of the city or county in which the new
a full opportunity to comment orally and In writing on the draft plan. offate facility, or the expansion of an existing offsite facility, Is
•(d) On or before March 31,1988,the department shall review the proposed makes a determination that the facility or expansion Is
draft plan,and provide the council of'governments with comments consistent with the county hazardous waste management plan.
.on the draft plan. •(b) This section applies only to proposed new offsite facilities,or
(e) After conducting the review and comment period required by expansions of existing offsite facilities,if an approval action pursuant
subdivision (c). the council of governments shall revise, as to Tide 7 (commenting with Section 65000) of the Government
appropriate, the draft regional hazardous waste management plan. Code Is necessary.
(f) On or before September 30,194 the council of governments -(c) This section does not apply to cities or counties which do not
shall complete and adopt the plan have an approved county hazardous waste management plan.
i (g) On or before October 1,1986.the council of governments shall 25135.5.. (a) The department shall, pursuant to this section,
submit the final regional hazardous waste management plan adopted provide direction and technical data to.counties and regional
by its governing board to the department for review and approval councils of governments to assist them in preparing P
The department shall approve the regional plan if the department documents for the management of hazardous wastes p
determines that all of the following requirements are met: within their jurisdictions.
(1) The regional plan Is consistent with the guidelines for the (b) The department shall do all of the following: •
preparation of regional hazardous waste management plans adopted (1) On or before June 90,1987,after conducting a workshop with
by the department. county and city government officials and industry and
• (2) The regional plan applies the. methods,*.techniques. 'and environmental representatives, prepare and transmit to counties
policies established by the department to analyze the waste stream and regional councils of governments guidelines for the preparation
and to determine whether there Is a need for additional or expanded and adoption of county and regional hazardous waste management
hazardous waste facilities to safely 16& a e and properly dispose of plans. Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of
the.hazardous waste produced within the region. ' Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the
(h) Throughout the process of.preparing a regional hazardous preparation and transmittal of these guidelines.The guidelines shall
waste management plan, a.council of governments shall cooperate include,but are not limited to.all of the following:
and consult with representatives and staff of affected counties and (A) A listing of types or categories of hazardous wastes that can
cities. be used in characterizing the hazardous waste steam in each county
(i) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (b), inclusive. of this or region.'
section,if.pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6300) (B) Methods for determining the capacity of the hazardous waste
of Division 7 of Title.l of the Government Code. a joint powers facilities that currently managge the hazardous wastes in the county
agreement provides for the creation of the Southern, California or region and for assessing the capacity of these hazardous waste
Hazardous Waste Management Authority, the Southern California facilities to manage these hazardous wastes in the future.
Association of Governments shall, if It has elected to prepare a (C) Methods for assessing the need to establish new, or expand
94 310 94 30
-13— Ch. 1504 Ch. 1504 —14—
existing.capacity for the management of hazardous wastes produced shall conduct bearings on the draft county hazardous waste
in each cotmty or region. • . management plan, in the number determined appropriate by the
-(D) Methods for estimating the amounts of hazardous warts county. The county shall provide affected local jurisdictions, the
produced by small t-usinesses and households public, industry, business or�aniza�ions, and the hazardous waste
(2) On or before June 30, 1987, provide to each county and management industry with the full opportunity to comment orally
regional council of government%, all of the following information: and in writing on the draft county hazardous waste management
(A) Available data on the types and quantities of hazardous wastes plan.
produced in the county or region.The department shall inform the (d) On or before March 31,1988.the department shall review the
counties and regional councils of governments of the streniths and draft plan,and provide each county with comments which speeify
limitations of the data. the changes or additions which are required to be made to the draft
(H) A listing of the hazardous waste facilities that have ieceived plan to result in a' final plan which an be approved by the
hazardous waste facilities permits or grants of interim status in each department pursuant to Section 45135.7.
county or region.The listin shall specify whether the facilities are (e) After conducting the review and comment period required by
orwte or offsite facilities anI whether the facilities are used for the subdivision (c), each county shall revise, as appropriate, the draft
storage, treatment, transfer, recycling, or disposal of hazardous county hazardous waste management plan.
waste. (f) The revised county zardous waste
(C) A listing f h' management plan shall
g producer- of hazardous wastes known to the be approved by a majority of the cities within.the.county which
department in the county or region. contain a majority'of the population of the incorporated area of the
(D) An assessment of overall needed capacities for treating and county.On or before September 30.19K the county shall adopt the
disposing of hazardous wastes at the state and regional levels through revised county hazardous waste management plan as the final county
the year 1994. hazardous waste management plan..
(E) A description of state policies and programs-concerning the 45135.7. (a) A county shall submit the final county hazardous
management of hazardous waste,including,but not limited to, the waste management QLn adopted by the county to the department
policies and programs for iecychng various types of hazardous for review sad approval on or before October 1, 1988. If a county
wastes, requiring the treatment of particular types of hazardous shows the department that the county has made substantial progress
wastes, restricting the disposal to land of particular types or towards completing the county hazardous waste management plan
categories of hazardous wastes, encouraging the reduction of the and needs more time to complete the plan, the department may
amounts of hazardous waste produced at the source of production, extend this date to February 1. 1989. The department shall; on or
and any other policies and programs that affect' the need for before December 31. 1968, or on or before April 30. 1989. if the
additional management capacity.in various types of hazardous waste county is given a time extension, review and either approve or
'facilities. disapprove the county hazardous waste management plan. The
(F) An assessment of the potential for recycling,or reducing the 'department shall approve the county hazardous waste management
volume of. various types of hazardous wastes in various classes of plan if the department makes all of the following determinations:
industry. (1) The plan substantially complies with the guidelines for the
45135.6. '(a) A county shall prepare, review. and adopt the preparation of hazardous waste management plans adopted by the
county hazardous waste management plan pursuant to the schedule department.
specified in this section. (2) The plan applies the methods, techniques, and policies.
(b) On or before December 31, 1987, each county, with the established by the department to analyze the waste stream and to
cooperation of affected local jurisdictions and the advisory determine whether there Is a need for additional or expanded
committee established pursuant to Section 431352, shall prepare a hazardous waste facilities to safely manage and properly dispose of
draft county hazardous waste management plan and submit the draft the hazardous waste generated within the county.
plan to the department•The county shall involve the public with the (3) If the plan contains a determination pursuant to h (5)
preparation of the draft county hazardous waste management plan, of a dAivision (c)of Section 25135.1 that there is a need paragraph
to the fullest extent passible, by public hearings, informational or expanded hazardous waste facilities, the plan proposes general
meetings, and other appropriate forums that offer the public the areas,or,as determined appropriate by the county,proposes specific
°�°rtunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, sites which may be suitable locations for a facility. However,if the
PTd�es,and actions. plan instead contains siting criteria for selecting sites for new
(e) From January 1.19M to March 31,1988,inclusive,the county hazardous waste facilities,the plan shall propose genera)areas where
94 aao 94 M0
15— Ch. 1504 : CL 1504
the criteria might be applicable. hazardous waste.
(4) if the county preparing the plan has entered into a formal (D) Forty-five thousand.dollars ($45,000) to each county which
agreement with other counties to manage hazardous waste. the �anera�tes 30M or more tons,but less than 100,000 tons,per year of
agreement 6 documented hazardous waste.
(b) Within 90 days after the department approves a• county (E) Seventy-five thousand dollars (1'75.000) to each county which
hazardous waste. management plan. the county shah either generates 100.000 or mere tons,but Im than 150.000 tons.per year
incorporate the plan.by reference,into the county's general plan or ' of hazardous waste.
enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning. (F) Ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) to each county which
subdivision, conditional use permit, and variance decisions are generates 150.000 or more tons.but less than 330,000 tons,per year
consistent with the county hazardous waste management plan. of hazardous waste.
(c) Any amendment to an adopted county hazardous waste (G) One hundred twenty thousand dollars'-($1120,000) to each
management plan 'requires the approval of the department. the county which generates 350,000 or more tons,but less thaw 500,000
county,and a mjority of the cities within the county which contain tom,per year of hazardous waste.
a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the county. (H) One hundred fifty thousand dollars (1150,000) to each county
• 43135A (a) There is hereby'establlshed,within the Hazardous wrhich enerates.500,000 or snore tons per year of hazardous waste.
Waste Control Account. the -Hazardous Waste Management (2) One hundred seventy-five thousand dollars (1175,000)•may be
Planning Subaccoumt. Money deposited in the subaccount shall be reserved by the department rrom the disbursemeub made on July
used to compensate the department, and to provide grants to 1, 1987, and on or before July 1. 1988. to pay for its costs in
councils of governments and counties. for their costs in adrministering this article add to make additional allocations to
administering this article. counties that demonstrate the need for additional finding to
(b) The moneys in the Hazardous Waste Management Planning c��lete county hazardous waste management plans in•ezcess of the
Subaccount may be ryryeeaadded by the department, upon funding provided by paragraphs (1) and (3). ..
.appropriation by the Teo— acre. to administer this article and to (3) The amount remaining,after the allocation under g h
ar
provide grants to councils of governmenb and to counties for (1) has been made and the amount required by p �phh (2) has
expenses incurred in preparing regional and county hazardous waste been reserved.shall be distributed to the counties and to the councils
management plans. On July 1. 1987, the department:ball disburse of governments whose governing boards have decided to prepare a
four million dollars (14,000,000). upon appropriation by the regional hazardous waste management plan puEfowit:nmg;subdivision
lure, from the subaccount to counties and councils of b) of Section 251353 and have notified the ent of that
governments, and-on or before January 1. 1988, and July 1. 1988, decidon Ile department ahall do both of the
respectively, the department shall disburse three million dollar (A) Distribute funds to the counties on a prorated basis based on
(13.000.000). upon appropriation by the Legislature, from the the amount of hazardous waste produced in each county in
subaccount to counties and councils of governments. proportion to the amount of hazardous waste produced in the state.
The disbursement on or before each of these dates shall be in as assessed by the department pursuant to paragraph (1).
accordance with the following formula: (B) Distribute to each council of governments one-half.of the
(1) Each county&hall receive an allocation based on the amount NW-amount allocated to the county which is located in the region
of hazardous waste produced in the county. For purposes of rgprewmted by-the council of governments and which received the
determining the amount of the allocations, the department shall largest allocation pursuant to ph.(1) and subparagraph (A)
prepare an updated assessment of hazardous waste generation in of paragraph.as compared to the other counties located in that
each county which does not Include hazardous waste resulting from region. '
site cleanup activities.Based on this assessment,the department shall (c) A city or two or more cities within a county which are eligible
allocate as follows: to receive finding pursuant to subdivision(c)of Section 25133.1 shall
(A) Six thousand dollars ($8,000) to each county which generates be allocated from the subaccount the amount specified in paragraph
1es& than 100 tom per year of hazardous waste. (1) of subdivision (a) that would be allocated to the county in which
(B).Nine thousand dollars (19,000) to each county which the city or cities are located if the county had elected to prepare the
�generates 100 or more tons, but less than 10,000 tons, per year of :
dous waste.• mod) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1. 1989,
(C) Thirty thousand dollar ($30,000) to each county which and as of that date is repealed.-ml ess a later enacted statute,which
generates 10,000 or more tons,but less than 30,000 tons.per year of L enacted before January 1. 1989,deletes or extends that date.
w 410 94 40
-17— Ch. 1001 Ch. 1304 —
SEC.7. Section 551733 Is added to the Health and Safety Code, of hazardous waste facilities.
•m mod; . . _ (c) It is the Intent of the Legislature, in enacting this article, to
•53173.3. (a) Except as provided in subdivision(b},the k pistive establish the means to expedite the approval.of needed hazardous
body of a city or county may impose and enforce a tax,for general waste facilities;to ensure that new hazardous waste facilities are not
purposes,or may impose a user fee oa the operation of an olfsite, sited unless the facility operator provides financial assurance-that the
multiuser hazardous waste facility located within the jurisdiction of operator can respond adequately to damage claims arising out of the
the city or county.The tax or the user fee imposed shall not exceed operation of the facility; to ensure that the facilities comply with
10 percent of the facility's annual gross receipts for the treatment. appplicable laws and regulations; to clarify the procedures to be
storage,or disposal of hazardous waste at the facility. followed in approving a facility; to establish specific means to give
(b) A city or county shall not impose a tax or a user fee adopted the concerned public a voice in decisions relating to the siting and
pursuant to subdivision (a) upon any of the following. issuance of permits for hazardous waste facilities; and to establish a
(1) An existing hazardous waste facillty for which a in is process for appealing local decisions on applications for land use
authorized pursuant to Section 25149.3. approval for hazardous waste facilities.
(5) An offsite. multh, hazardous waste facility that began 55199.1. Unles; the context otherwise requires, the following
operations before January 1.1987.and was Issued a hazardous waste definitions govern the construction of this article:
facilities permit pursuant to Section 25200. or was granted interim (a) "Appeal board"means an appeal board established pursuant
Stags pursuant to Section 25MO_5,before January L I.M. to Section 23199.10.
(3) That portion of the gross receipts of the-hazardous waste (b) "Hazardous waste facility project" means a project
facility that derives from the recycling of hazardous wastes. ' undertaken for the purpose of siting and constructing a new
SEC.B. Article 8.7 (commencing with Section 25199) Is added to hazardous waste facility or for the purpose of significantly expanding
Chaptei B.0 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read: or modifying an existing hazardous waste facility that is being used
• or operated under a permit issued pursuant to Section 25200 or-a
Article B.T. Pn"dires for the Approval of New Facilities grant of interim status pursuant to Section 23200.3.Unless expressly
provided otherwise, "hazardous waste facy'lity project" Includes a
55199. (a) 'Tile Legislature fords and declares as follows: specified hazardous waste facility project.
(1) Existing laws require numerous permits before a.hazardous (c) "Interested person"means a person who participated in one
waste facility an be constructed and operated. The permits are or more public meetings or bearinip held to consider an application
issued by governmental agencies at both the state and local levels for a land use decision for a specified hazardous waste facility project.
under Iand use planning.zoning,hazardous waste,air quality.water "Participation"includes„ but is not limited to.the giving of oral or
quality.and solid waste management laws. written testimony at a meeting or hearing,submission of questions
(5) The approval of hazardous waste facilities Is not currently a at a meeting or hearing, or attendance at the meeting or hearing.
coordinated process. The failure to coordinate the issuance of (d) "Land disposal facility"' means a hazardous waste'facillty
multiple permits, licenses, land use approvals, and other types of where hazardous waste is disposed in,on,under,or to the land.
authorizations causes lengthy and costly delays.The end result of the (e) "Land use decision means a discretionary-decision of a local
process cannot be predicted.with any degree of certainty.by either agency concerning a hazardous waste facility project.including the
the en
propont of a project to site and construct a facility or by the Issuance of a land use permit or a conditional use permit the
concerned public. _ granting of a variance, the subdivision of property, and the
(3) Present procedures for approving hazardous waste facilltles modification of existing property lines pursuant to Title T
do not provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement and (commencing with Section 63000) of the Government Code.
are not suitably structured to allow the public to make its concerns (f) "Lead agency"means the public agency that has the principal
.known and to cause these concerns to be taken into consideration. responsibility for approving a hazardous waste facility project
(4) A formal administrative process for reviewing local (g) "Local agency"means any public agency,other than a state
discretionary land use decisions on applications to site and construct agency
a hazardous waste facility has not been established and made (h) "Permit"means a permit,license,certificate,requirement,or
available to interested persons who wish to appeal these decisions. other entitlement for use required to site or construct a hazardous
(b) The Legislature, therefore, declares that there is.a critical waste facility. "Permit" includes, but is not limited to, all of the
need to clarify the requirements that must be met, and the basic following:
procedures that must be followed,in connection with the approval (1) A hazardous waste facility permit issued by the department
94 400 94 400
-19 Ch. 1504 Ch. 1504 —OD—.
pursuant to this chapter. _ the appropriate public agencies simultaneously. Unless a state
(2) Waste dtschar a requimaenti Issued by a California regional •agency is prohibited by statute from approving•a permit before the
wates quafity control board pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with granting of a local land use decision,the state agency shall not refuse
Section 13260).of Chapter 4 of Division 7 of the WaterT-ode. to issue a permit for a hazardous waste farWty project on the.groumds
(3) An authority to construct permit issued by an air pollution that the applicant has not been granted a land use permit, except
control district or air quail management district pursuant to that the state agency may provide that the permit shall not become
Division.26 (commencing with Section 39000). effective until the applicant is granted a local land use permit.
(4) A,solid waste ties permit issued by the enforcement (b) Any public agency may request another public agency to
agency pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 66796.30) of oindy review applications for•a permit or land use decision For a
Chapter 3 of Title 7.3 of the Government Code. hazardous waste facility project. A public agency may consolidate,
(t) "Proponent"means any person applying to a public agency for with other public agencies,public meetings and hearings permitted
a permit or a land use decision concerning a specified hazardous or required by law or regulation for the issuance of a permit or the
waste facility project. snaking of a land use decision for a hazardous waste facility project..
1J) "Public agency"means.any state agency or any local agency. (c) The department " coordinate the.technical review of
(k) "Responsible agency" means any public agency, other than applications for permits For hazardous waste facility projects.that are
the lead agency,which has the authority to bus a permit or make received by state-agencles.
a land use decision. (d) Upon the request of a local agency,the department,'and any
(1) "Significantly expand at modify"means to expand or modify other state agency that is authorized to issue a permit for a hazardous
an existing hazardous waste facility.including a specified hazardous waste facility project, shall provide technical assistance to a local
waste facility, In'a manner so that a land use decision and an agency that is reviewing an application for a land use decision for the
environmental impact report are required. project.
i (m) "Specified hazardous waste facility"means an offsite facility 25199.4. The Office of Permit Assistance in the Office of Planning
which serves more than one producer of hazardous waste. . and Research shall,for any proposed hazardous waste facility project.
(n) "Specified hazardous waste facility project"means a project do all of the Eollo
undertaken for the purpose of siting and constructing a new (a) Assist In IdeayinQ state and local permits required for the
specified hazardous waste facility or for the purpose significantly proposed hazardous waste facility project.
expanding or modifying an existing specified hazard us waste facility (b) Convene meetings or conferences.as necessary,prior to the
that is being used or operated under a permit issued pursuant to submittal of applications for permits to state and l agencies.for
Section 25200 or a grant of interim states pursuant to Section 25200.5. the purpose of determining the scope of the hazardous waste facility
(o) "State agency" means any agency. board, cc commission of project.identifying the questions that state and local agencies will
At,overnment. "State agency" also Includes an air pollution have concerning the project, and determining decisionmaldng
can I district and an air quality management district. . schedules.
(p) 'Technical review"means the review of an lication for a (e) Assist state and local agencies In consolidating public meetings
hazardous waste facility project by a state agency to determine if the and hearings permitted or required by law or regulation for approval
facility meets the applicable statutes and regulation& of the pe rmits for the project.
251992 Except as otherwise provided in this article,Chapter 4.5 (d) Encourage the joint review and processing of applications for
(commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the permits-
Government Code applies to all public agencies which make a land (e) Work with the applicant and public agencies to ensure that
use decision or issue a permit for a hazardous waste facility project, del sionmald g deadlines are met.
as specified in Section 63963.1 of the Government Code.The public (f) Call meetings or conferences to resolve questions or mediate
agency shall perform the duties and carry out the actions required disputes arising hom applications for a permit for a hazardous waste
by Chapter 4.5 (commencin with Section 65920) of Division 1 of facility project. '
Tick 7 of the Government Me in connection with applications 25199.5. (a) At the request of an applicant, the legislative body
submitted to the public agency for a hazardous waste facility project. of a local agency shall,within 60 calendar days afer the local agency
unless otherwise specified in this article. has determined that an application for a land use decision for a
25199.3. , (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an hazardous waste facility project is complete,issue an initial written
applicant for a hazardous waste facility project may submit determination on whether the hazardous waste facility project b
applications for a land use decision and for one or more permits to consistent with both of the following.
94 !2o 94 so
— — _ t Ch 1501 �,l� law —22—
(1).11w applicable local general plan and zoning ordinances in for a specified hazardous waste facility Project with a.local agency
effect at the time the application was received. unless the proponent has first complied with subdivision (a).;4,_
(2) Mw county-hazardous waste manages i t pplan'suthadzed by (c) Within 90 days'after a notice of intent Is Wed w4 the Office
Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 25135),if the plan is in effect of Permit Assistance-pursuant to subdivision (a), the office shill
-at the time of the application. convene a public meeting in the affected city or.county to inform the
(b) The local agency shall send a copy of the written 'ubllc on the nature,functlon,.and scope of the r specified
determination made pursuant to subdivision (a) to the appplicant. ous waste facility project and the procedures thata a required
(c) The determination required by subdivision (a) does not for approving applications for the project.
prohibit a local agency from maldng a different determination when . (d) Within 90 days after receiving a notice of the Ming of a notice
the final land use decision is made,if the final determination Is based of intent, the legislative =bodr� �of the affected local agency shall
on information which was not considered at the time the initial appoint a seven member local assessment committee.
determination was made. . (1) Ile membership of the committee shall be broadly
25199.6. ' (a) Notw�it.hstanding Section 65952 of the Government "constituted to reflect e•makeup of the community, and shall
Code,a responsible a ency for a hazardous waste facility project that include three representatives of the community at large, two
is a land disposal facill shaD approve or disapprove all permits for representatives of environmental or public interest groups,and two
the project within one of the following periods of time,whichever representatives of affected businesses and indusMa. Members of
is bager. - local a:sesmoent committees selected pursuant to this subdivision
(1) Within one year from the date on which the lead agency .shall have no direct financial interest,as defined in Section 87103 of
approved or disapproved the permit for the project the Government Code, in the proposed specified hazardous waste
(2) Within one year from the date on which completed 6dhty project.
applications for permits for the project were received,and accepted (2)� The local assessment commi shall do all of the following- '
r, as complete,by the responsible agency. (A) Ncc�gotiate with the proponent ed for the
of. hazardous
F, • (b) Subdivision (b) of'Section 65966 of the Government Code waste facility project on the_ detail provisions of,'and
does not apply to the failure of a lead agency or responsible agency conditions for. project approval which would protect the public
to apps or disapprove a permit for a hazardous waste facility Health,safety,and welfare,and the environment of the city or coup
project within the time limits established by Sections 65950 and 65962 and would promote the fiscal welfare of the city er<county through
of the Government Code and subdivision (a) of this section.If a lead special benefib and eompcnsatioq.
agency or a responsible agency falls to act within those time limits, (B) Represent . generally, in negotiation with the project
the applicant may filean action pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code proponent,the interegb of the reddenb of tbq city or county and the
of Civil Procedure to compel the agency to approve or disapprove interest of adjacent.communities.
the permit for the project within a reasonable time,v the court may (C) Receive and expend the technical assistance grants made
determine_* available per cant to subdivision (g).
25198.7. (a) At kart 90 days before filing as application for )and (D) Adopt rules and procedures which arm necessary to perform
use decision for a specified hazardous waste facility project with a its duties..
local agency,the proponent shall file a notice of intent to make the (E) Advise the legislative body of the city or county of the terms,
lication with the Office of Permit Assistance.is the Office of provis ions, and condidons for project approval which have been
nnin and Research and with the applicable city or county.The �ree� upon by the committee and the proponent, and of any
notice 3 intent shall contain a complete description of the nature, additional information which the committee deems approprate.
.fimncdon,and scope of the project.The Office of Permit Assistance The legislative body of the city or county may use this advice for ib
shall immediately notify affected state agencies of the.notice of independent consideration of the project .�
intent. The local agency shall publish a notice In a newspaper of (3) 72e legislative body of the affected jurisdiction shall de
general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project,shall staff reaaurcea to assist the local assessment committee in performing
post notices in the location where the proposed project is located, its duties.
and sball notify, by a direct mailing, the owners of contiguous (4) A local assessment committee established pursuant to this
property,as shown in the latest equalized assessment role.The local subdivision shall cease to exist after final administrative action by-
.agency shal
-23— PL 1t34 tin. IM4 =-24 _
within 10 days after an apppp"tion for a land use decision for a 25199.6 shall apply. :
specified ban ous waste City project Is accepted as complete by (b) apt as,p�hied.in subdivision (d).'If any action oi
the local agency and;within 60 days after receiving this notice,the proceeding is commenced to review the aria or decisions of a lead
OiHce of Permit Assistance shall convene a meeting of the lead and at responsible agency for a specified hazardous waste facility project.
tesponsible agencies for the .project, the proponent. the local the proponent may petition the* court to stay the action or
assessment committee,and the interested public.for the purpose of p meding• The court, to Its discretion, may stay the action or
determining the issues which concern the agencies that are required proceeding until all public agencies for the project have completed
to approve the project and the issues which concern the public.The reviewin and approving or 'disapproving the applications for
meeting shall=place in the jurisdiction where the application has permits L the project. The proponent may, at any time prior to
been B" completion of these actions by the lead or responsible agencies,file
(f) Follawing the meeting required by subdivision (e), the a petition with the court requesting that the action or proceeding be
proponent and the local assessment committee appointed pursuant permitted to proceed and.upon receiving such a petition.the court
to subdivision (d) shall meet and confer on the specified hazardous shall discontinue the stay. -
waste facility project proposal for the purpose of establishing the (e) Notwithstanding subdivision (b).a court may aWoin a lead or
Germs and conditions under which the protect will be acceptable to le a�enry from approving a permit or license if the court
the community. _ $n that the approval would result in an imminent or sumbstantial
( ) A proponent for a tpe Wed hazardous waste f Ldbty project sadangermaent of the public health or the environment or if there
{ — pay a lee,established yb the Office of Permit Assistance,equal are other compelling reasons that the action or proceeding should
to true cost of hiring independent eonsultanb to review the project. not be stayed.
The Office of Permit Assistance shall deposit these fees in the Local (d� Subdivision (b) does not apply to an action or proceeding
Agency Techni cal.Assistance Account, which account is hereby �vhicb alleges that a lead or responsible agency has not complied with
created within the General Fund.The moneys in that account may Division 13 f coma ndng with Section 41000) of the Public
be expended by the O®ce of Permit Assistance,upon appropriation 8eaouures Code
' by the Legislature, to make technical assistance grants to the local 151999. (a) A pmpaneat may 8lb as peal of a land rase
i assessment committee to enable the committee to hire an decision made by a local agency for a a hazardous waste
Independent consultant to assist the committee in reviewing the 6dlity project with -the Governor or the Governor's designee
p ect and negotiating terms and conditions with the proponent. pursuant to subdlvision (b). (c).or (d) and any interested person
( )
If the local assessment committee and the proponent cannot may file an appeal of a land use decision made by a local for
resolve any differences throe the meetings,the Office of Permit a speafled hazardous waste fidlity project pursuant to subdivision
Assistance may recommend the use of a mediator.The proponent (e). The proponent or an fnterested person_shaD Sle the appal
shall one-half of the cosh of this mediation and the remaining within 30 calendar days after the date the local agency takes final
costs shill be paid,upon appropriation by the Legislature,from the action on the land use decisiom if the ed project would accept
General Fund. ow manage both hazardous waste and aalld waste, the appeal shall
(I) This section applies only to a specified hazardous watts fadhty relate only to the local land use decision concerning the hazardous
waste portion of the proposed qty. Any decisions of as appeal
25199.& q(a) If an action or proceeding has been commenced in board involving the proposed 6acility shall affect only the ha Z ors
any court.to attack. review. set aside, void, or annul the acts or waste mrtion of the local land use decision.
decisions of a lead agency for a specified hazardous waste facility (b) If an application for a land use decision for a specified
project on the grounds of noncompliance with Division 13 hazardous waste facility project is disapproved by a local agency.the
(commencing with Section 21000)of the Public Resources Code,the proponent for the specified hazardous waste facility project may file
proponent may,notwithstanding the action or proceeding,request an appeal of the disapproval with the Governor or the Governors
the responsible agencies for the specified hazardous waste facility designee,Time Governor or the Governor's designee may authorize
project to continue to process applications for ap a
of permlb for an-appeal of a disapproval 04m nt.to this-subdivision only if the
the project received and accepted as complete each responsible proponent has applied for,and obtained,all permits for-the specified'
agency. if a responsible agency receives such a request, the time hazardous waste facility project which can be obtained before
limits specified in Section 65952 of the Government Code shall apply, construction l5rom those responsiblo agendp which are state
except that, to the Case of an application for a permit for a land agencies
dispowl facility.the time limits specified in subdivision (a)of Section (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b).if an application for a land
94 eao 94 ago
—n— Ch. 11f04 Ch. 1504 —25- -
use decision For.a spedfied'hazardous waste liscillty project Is permits for the specified hazardous wane facility project which can
disapproved by a loaf agency before an environmental.impact be obtained prior to its construction from those responsible agencies
report for the project b prepared and certified. as specified in which are state agencies.
Section 41151 of the.Public Resources Code, or before a negative (e) 1f an application for a ]and pre decision for a specified
declaration for the project is adopted pursuant to subdivision (c) of hazardous waste facility pproject is approved by a local agency,any,
Section 11080 of the Public Resources Code,the proponent may file interested person may file an appeal of the approval with the
an appeal of the disapproval with the Governor or the Governor's• Governor or the Governors designee. An appeal ma be filed
designee. ' pursuant to this subdivision only if the appeal is based solely on the
Within 30 days after an appeal L filed pursuant to this subdivision, gso�nds that the conditions imposed on the project b the land use
the Cavcioor of the Governor's designee may convene an appeal decision do not adequately protect the public heath, safety, or
board, pursuant to Section 53199.10. The appeal board shall welfare. The Governor or the Governors designee shall not
thereafter be the lead rgeacy for the specified hazardous waste authorize an appeal pursuant to this subdivision before the
bscility project and shall per the duties specified In.and carry proponent for the specified hazardous waste facility project has
art the actions required by.Division 13 (commencing with Section N011ed for,and obtained,all permits for the project which can be
11000) of the Public Resources Code.The preponaat may apply for NO prior to its construction from those responsible agencies
thaw permits for the specified hazardous waste facility project which which are state agencies An Interested person filing an appeal
can be obtained before constrrsction born those responsible agenda pursuant to this subdivision shall state In the appeal why the
which are state agencies& at any time before or after the•appeal conditions imposed by the land use decision do not adequately
board's compliance with actions required by Division 13 protect the public health, safety, or welfare and &hall specify the
(commencing with Section 41000)of the Public Resources Code.The additional condition or conditions which are necessary.to provide
time llmib specified in Section CA52 of the Government Code and that protection.
subdivision(a)of Section 43199A apply to these responsible agencies 43189.10. (A) Van appeal is filed pursuant to subdivision(b).(e).
emcept that,for the of these time limits,the date when the (d), or (e) of Section 451999. the Governor or the.Governor's
appeal board has eomwith all actions required by Division 13 designee shall determine whether or not the appeal is authorized
(commencing with Section 2 1000)of the Public Resources Code shall within five working days after the proponent demonstrates that the
be
deemed equivalent to the date when a lead agency decides to p�ry° nent has obtained ale permits for the specified hazardous waste
approve or disapprove a project Alter the proponent has applied for Casty project which can be obtained before construction from those
and obtained•these permits. the proponent far the specified. responsible agencies which are state agencies If. because the
hazardous wane amity prcjea may request the Governor or the application for the appeal is incomplete, the Governor or the
Governor's designee to authorize the appeal.The Governor or the Governors designee is unable to determine, within five working
Governor's designee may authorize an appeal of a.disapproval 'days, whether or not the appeal should be authorized pursuant to
pursuant to this subdivision only if the has applied Kxr,and Section 25149.9, the Governor or the Governor's designee may
obtained. all permits for the hazardous waste facility' return the application for appeal to the proponent or interested
project which an be obtained before construction ftom those party who filed the appeal.The proponent or interested party shall
responsible agenda whicli are state agencies - resubmit the completed application for an appeal within 40 calendar
(d) If an application for a land use decision for a specified days after receiving the returned appeal and if the proponent or
hazardous waste fACJ h' project Is approved by a local agency,the interested party fails to do so, the Governor or the Governors
proponen specified hazardous waste facility project may file designee shall not reconsider authorizing the appeaL
an appeal of one or more conditions imposed by the land use decision (b) If the Governor or the Governor's designee determines that
with the Governor or the Governor's desi�en.An appeal filed under the appeal Is authorized, the Governor or the Governor's designee
this subdivision shall specify the particular condition or conditions shall convene an appeal board within 30 days after the Governor or
imposed by the land use decision tfiat are appealed and shall be based the Governors designee determines that the filing of an appeal is
solely on the grounds that the condition or conditions imposed on the authorized, by requesting the l'Ampe of California Cities and the
operation of the facility by the land use decision are so onerous and County Supervisors Association of California to each nominate
restrictive, that their imposition is the same as a disapproval of the persons for appointment to an appeal board, as specified in
application for a land use decision However. the Governor or the paragraphs.(4) and ('17 of subdivision (e).
Governors designee shall not authorize an appeal pursuant to this (c) An appeal board shall consist of seven members,five of whom
subdivision unless the proponent has applied for, and obtained, all shall be the members lined in paragraphs (1) to (5),inclusive,and
94 6M 94 goo
Ch• 1$04 Ch. 1304 -- —
•. o of whom shall appointed for separately app for "ch'pwticulsr to serve the appeal board.
tw •
appeal.as provided in paragraphs (6) arid-(7).An appeal board shalt 43199.11. (a) An appeal board established.to bear'an appeal
consist*of the following members:• authorized by the Governor or the Governors designee pursuant to
(1) The State DirectoE of Health Services. ' subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 451999 spill follow the procedures
(S) The Chairperson of the State Air Resources Board. ° and requirements specified in this section.
(3) The Chairperson of the State Water Resources Control Board. (b) Within 30 days after the Governor or the GoveI designee
(4) .A member of a county board of supervisors appointed by the determines.that the filing of an appeal is authorized pursuant to
Senate Committee on Rules who shall be selected from the persons subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 451949, the appeal board shall be
nominated by the County.Supervisors Association of Cale mia.The convened and a public he@ g held in the city or county where the
appointment shall be for a period of four years,but shall terminate hazardous waste facility project is located.At the hearing,
earUer if the appointee does*not continue in office as a member of a proponent,and the local agency whose land use decision is being
a board of supervbom appealed,shall present arguments and evidence to the appeal board
(S) A member of a city council appointed by the•Speakes pf the conearning whether or not the appeal should be accepted. -
Assembly who shall be selected from the persons nominated by the (c) Within 15 days aft the date of the public hearing specified
League of California Cities.Mw appointment shall be for a period of In subdivision (b),the appeal board shill decide whether or not to
fora yeam but shall terminato earlier If the appointee does not accept the appeal The appeal board may accept an appeal only by
continue in office as a member of a city council.' • an affirmative vote of four members of the appeal board.The appeal
(6) A member of a county board of supervisors appointed by the board shall make its -decision based upon the arguments and
Speaker of the Issembly who shall be selecte4f from the persons evidence presented at the hearingg.The appeal board's decision shall
nominated by the County Supervisors Association of California.Tbe' be in writing,shall be signed by the members who voted in.favor.of
member shall be from the county in which the specified hazardous the decision,and shall state the reasons for accepting or rejecting the
waste facility project which is the subject of the appeal Is located appeal.The appeal board may accept the appeal if the arguments
However. if the member appotnteal to paragraph (4) is . and.evidence presented at the hearing tend to show that,when the
H from the cam in which' the hazardous waste bdlity local agency's reasons for disapproving the application for a land use
I project is locate the member appointed pursuant to this paragraph decision are weighed Against statewide, regional, or' county
shall not be from that same county. hazardous waste management policies, gals,and objectives, there
(7).A member of a' city council appointed by the Senate are compelling reasons to review"disapproval of the application.
Committee an Rules who shall be selected from the person (d) If the appeal board is the appeal.within 30 days after
aominated by the League of California Cities.The member shall be Ness acceptance, the appeal shah conduct an hmformal
from the city is which the specified hazardous wasta facility project workshop on the"Ject of the appeal in the city or county where
which L the subject of the apI is located,or from the city which the specified hazardous waste facility project is proposed to be
The Governor or the Governors designee determines to be the most located Within 45 days following acceptance of the appeal. the
d1recdy affected by the project if the project Is not located in a city. appeal board shall also hold a public bearing in the community to
However.if the member a under paragraph (S) Is fsnsa a bear the arguments and evidence for the purpose of malting a
city In the county In which the specified hazardous waste facility tentative decision on the appeal In lssufag a decision pumumt to the
protect b located,the member appointed under this paragraph shall hearing,the appeal board shall adapt a
at presumption that
be from a city in•a different county. the land use decision of the local agency disapproving the application
(d) The appeal board shall issue the final dedsivn upon an appeal h supported by substantial reasons and that,when these reasons are
in writing•and the members of the appeal board shall sign the weighed against statawide, regional, or county hazardous waste
decision, management policies,goals,and objectives,the reasons for reversing
(e) The State Director of Health Services,the Chairperson of the the local a ency'a action are not compelling.In all matters related to
State Air Resources Board.and the C hairpersgn of the State Water the appea� including, but not limited to, mutters related.to the
Resources Control Board may desigaato an alternate to attend any flndtaga required by subdivision (f). the burden of proof shall be
meetings or hearings of an appeal board in that persons place, with the proponent to rebut this presumption and to establi-h that
except that the alternate► any not vote on a final decision on an . there are compelling reasons to reverse the local agency s.land use
appeal or sign the written decision in place of the person for whom de�cidon
the person saves as alternate. - (e) Within 45 days after the public hearing.the appeal board shag
(f) T'he Governor or the Governors designee shall designate staff by an affirmative vote of at least four members, issue a written
94 7M M 710
• -�!9— + CXI 1604 Ch. 1504 —30—
decision an the appeal If the.appeal board agrees with-the lapd use facility project,as Identified in the environmental impact report for
'decision of the local agency,the appeal board shall state W reasons the project and in the county hazardous waste management plan,if
for.this position. If the appeal board agrees with the proponent's one has been approved by the department, have been adequately
appeal,the appeal board shall lase a tentative decision stating that considered by the appeal board in determining the appropriateness
the local agency's land use decision should be reversed of the location chosen for the project.
(f) The appeal board shall not reverse the local a enrys re
land use (5) That ve rsinn the 'local agency's hard use decision is
decision unless the appeal board makes all of the fO.Howing findings: consistent with statewide, regional, and county hazardous waste_
(1) That the sfcant environmental impacts of the specified management policies, goals,and objectives. In making this finding..
hazardous waste ty project will be adequately mitigated the appeal board shall consider all of the following factors:
(2) That the specified hazardous waste. facility project was (A) Whether or not a need for the specified dous waste
consistent with the applicable city or county general plan when the facility project has been demonstrated
local agency accepted,u complete,the proponent's application for (B) Whether or not the specified hazardous waste facility project
a land use decision. For the purpose of this finding. a project Is is of a type,and in a location.that conforms to statewide.regional,
consistent with. the applicable ci or county general plan'If the or locil hazardous waste management policies.
appeal board makes one of the fo�pvving determinations; (G) Whether or not the specified hazardous waste facility will be
(A) The appeal board may determine that a hazardous operated using the best feasible hazardous.waste management
waste facility project that is not a land facility project is technologies. -
consistent with the general plan if the makes all of the (g) The local agency whoee•land use decision Is being appealed
following finding may reconsider the action and approve the application for the land
(1) The project is proposed to be located in.an area zoned and use decision,consistent with the appeal board's tentative decision,
designated In the applicable general plan for Industrial use and within 60 days after the appeal board issues its tentative decision.If
sAwtantiall* developed with other industrial facilities which the local agency does not approve the application for the land use
produce, treak or dispose of hazardous waste-onsite and which are decision consistent with the tentative decision within 60 days after
served by the same transportation routes as the proposed facility.In the decision Is isrued,the appeal board shall,by an affirmative vote
I addition,the land uses authorized in the applicable general pIan and of at least four members,issue a final decision. IE the fine) decision
i zoning ordinances In the vicinity of the project V compatible.with reverses the local agency's land use decision,the appeal board shall
the Prof then require the local agency to approve the application for the land
(ii) There is no clear and express provision in the general plan use decision and if the local agency does not approve the application
which states that such a specified hazardous waste facility project is . .for the land use derision,the Attorney General shall bring an action
inconsistent with the eneral or,if there is such a provision.the to require the local agency to approve the application for the land
provision wasdop:s after wary I. 1983. use decision for the specified hazardous waste facility project
(W) The specified hazardous waste project is -consistent, as 25199.13. (a An appeal board established to hear an appeal
determined by the appeal board,with the general plan• authorized by the Governor or the Governors designee pursuant to
(B) The appealboard may determine that a specified hazardous subdivision (d)yr (e) of Section 251999 shall follow the procedures
waste facility project is consistent with the applicable city or county and requirements specified In this section.
Sea"plan if the project Is a land disposal facility Project.acid if all (b) Within 30 days after the Governor or the Governors designee
of the following apply determines that the filing of an appeal is authorized by subdivision
(I) There is no clear and express provision in the general plan that (d) or (e) of Section 25199.9,an appeal board shall be convened and
states that such a specified hazardous waste facility project is a public hearing held in the city or county where the specified
inconsistent with the eneral plan,or.if there is such a provision,the hazardous waste facility project is located At the hearing, the
provision was adopt e� after J 1, 1983. proponent or the interested party and the local agency whose land
(ii) The protect is consistent,as determined by the appeal board, use decision is being appealed shall present arguments and evidence
with the general Plam -to the appeal board concerning whether or not the appeal should be
(3) That the specified hazardous waste facility is consistent with accepted
the county hazardous waste managament plan, if a" a plan has The arguments and evidence presented to the appeal board for an
been adopted by the county, and approved by the department, appeal authorized pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 251999,
Pu==t to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 25133). shall only concern whether or not a condition or conditions imposed
(4) That alternative locations for the specified hazardous waste on the operation of the facility by the land use decision are so onerous
94 TM 94 800
-31— Ch. 1504 .Ch. 1304 —32—
and restrictive that their Imposition it the same as a disc roval of decision, as the appeal board deem necessary. If the local agency
the application for a land use d he decision.T arguments and evidence does not modLf
y the terms of the local land use decision,as required
presented to the appeal board for an appeal authorised pursuant to by the appeald. the Attorney General shall bring an action to
subdivision (e) of Section 251999,shall only concern whether or not require the local agency to modify the local land use decision in
a condition or conditions imposed on the project by the land use accordance with the determination of the appeal board.
decision do not adequately protect the public health. safety, and (g) if the appeal is authorized by the Governor or the Governor's
welfare. designee pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 231999, the appeal
(c) Within 15 days after the date of the public hearing,the appeal board shall not issue a decision approving the appeal of the interested
board shall decide whether or not to accept the appeal The appeal person unless the appeal board finds that there b clear and
board may accept an appeal only by an affirmative vote of five convincing evidence that the land use decision approved by the local
members of the appeal board The a peal board shall make its agency failed to impose one or more conditions necessary to protect
decision based upon the arguments and evidence presented at the the public health.safety,or welfare.If the appeal board approves the
h The appeal boards decision shall be in writing. shall be appeal of the interested person concerning these conditions. the•
signed by the members who voted in favor of the decis ion,and shall appeal board shall require the local agency to modify the land use
state the reasons for accepting or rejecting the appeal.The appeal decision in accordance with the appeal board's decision.If the local
board may not accept the appeal unless It finds that the proponent ag does not modify the Ouse decision as required by the
at interested party has derrongtrated a substantial likelihood of );U board..the Attorney G-.neral shall bring an action to require
prevailing on the merits if the appeal is accepted for hearing. the local agency to modify the land use decision in accordance with
(d) If the appeal board accepts the appeal within 30 days after —the determination of the appeal board
this decision.the appeal board hold a public hearing in the city 25199.14. The final decision of the appeal board concerning an
or county where the specified hazardous waste facility project is appeal authorized pursuant to Section 251999 shall be deemed to be
located to hear the arguments and evidence it requires to make a the final administrative action of the appeal board
decision an the appeal The appeal board shaII Testrict the scope of SEC.9. Section 25200.1 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
the hearing to those matters which the ap ed board determines are to read:
directly related to the subject matter of the appeaL In making a 25200.1. Notwithstanding Section 25200,the department shall not
'decision pursuant to the hearing. the appeal board shall adopt a issue a hazardous waste facility permit to a facility which commences
sebuttable presumption that the local agency's land use decision is operation on or after January 1. 1987. unless the department
supported by substantial reasons and that there are no compelling determines that the facill operator b in compliance with
seasons to modify it.In all matters related to the appeal,the burden regulations adopted by the ty artinent pursuant to this chapter
of proof shall be with the proponent or the interested party to rebut requiring that the operator provide financial assurance that the
this presumption and to establish,by clear and convincing evidence. operator can respond adequately to damage claims arising out of the
that there are compelling reasons to modify the local agency's land operation of the facility. :
use decision. SEC 10. Section 252003 b added to the Health and Safety Code,
(e) Within 30 days after the public hearing.the appeal board shall, to read: '
by an affirmative vote of at least five members.=a decision on 252003. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 25200 and 252005, the
the appeal. The decision shall be written, shall be signed by the department shall not Issue a hazardous waste facilities perant or
members in favor of the decision,and shall include the reasons for grant interim status to any person to use and operate a facility which
the decision. is a hazardous wage land disposal facility unless the facility is a
(f) If the appeal is authorized by the Governor or the Governor's treatment facility or a facility used exclusively for the disposal of
designee pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 251999, the appeal treated hazardous wastes or special wastes.This subdivision applies
board shall not issue a decision modifying the local agency land use only to hazardous waste land disposal facilities that commence
decision. unless the appeal board finds that there is clear and operation an or after January 1. M.
convincing evidence that one or more conditions imposed on the (b) The disposal of liquid wastes, liquid hazardous wastes, or
facility by the land use decision are so onerous and restrictive that hazardous wastes containing free liquids in hazardous waste landfills
their imposition is the same as a disapproval of the appi"flon for a b prohibited.For purposes of this subdivision."free liquids"means
land use decision. If the appeal board agrees with the proponent liquids that readily.separata from the solid portion of a hazardous
concerning these conditions.the appeal board shall require the local waste under ambient temperature and pressure.
agency to modify the condition or conditionna imposed by the land use (c) Beginning on January"1,1990. the department shall prohibit
94 00 94 am
-33— Ch. 1801 Ch 1501 —34—
the disposal of hazardous wastes that are not treated hazardous Title 2 of the Government Code and, if the statewide cost of the
wastes into hazardous waste landfills unless the hazardous waste is claim for reimbursement does not exceed five hundred thousand
solid hazardous wane and is produced as a result of removal or dollars ($500000). shall be made from the State Mandates C-i-
remedial action at a hazardous waste site or unity the hazardous Fund,accept that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant
waste is a special waste. to Section 6 of Article XID B of the California Constitution for those
(d) For purposes of this section.the following definitions apply: cosh which may be incurred
(1) "Hazardous waste landfill"menu a disposal facility,or a part Y by's local.agency or school district
of a facill ty.where hazardous waste b placed in or on land and which because this act crates a new crime or infraction, changes the
b not a land treatment facility. a surface impoundment, or an motion of a crime or infraction,changes the penalty for a crime
ilgjection well or infraction,or eliminates a crime or infraction.
(2) "Special wane"means a waste which meets the criteria and
requirements established in Section 66742 of Title 22 of the California
Administrative Code and has been classified as a special waste
pursuant to Section 66744 of Title 22 of the California Administrative
Code.
(3) "Treated hazardous waste"means the solid residual portion of
a hazardous waste which is produced when the hazardous waste is
treated by a method, technique,or process.including incineration,
that changes the physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of the waste and which is in compliance with at least one
of the following: ,
i (A) It meets the criteria and requirements for, and may be
managed as,a special waste.
(B) It does not contain any p1 11teat or bioaccumulative toxic
substance in excess of the soluble threshold limit concentration for
the substance as established in regulations adopted by the
department.
(C) It meets treatment standards established by the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to subsection (m) of
Section 201 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments of
1964 (42 U.S.C.Sec.6924(m)) or,if the department has established
equivalent or more'stringent treatment standards pursuant to this
chapter.�
Lmeets the treatment standards established by the
SEC IL Section 25201 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.
SEC. IL The sum of ten million dollars ($10.000,o0o)
appropriated by Section 21 of Chapter 1440 of the Statutes of 1965 is
hereby transferred to the Hazardous Waste Management Planning
Subaccount in the Hazardous Waste Control Account for purposes of
funding the hazardous waste management planning activities
required by Article 3.5 (commencin$with Section 25135) of Chapter
U of Division 20 of the Health sad Safety Code.
SEC. 13. Section 10 of this act,which adds Section 25200.2 to the
Health and Safety Code, shall not become operative if Senate Bill
1800 is enacted and becomes operative.
SEC.14. Beimbursement to local agencies and school districts for
costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act shall be made
pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17300) of Division 4 of
94 800 94 sec
. 7
i Alameda Count.
APPENDIX D Guano he: of Hazardous Waste Shipped Oil-Site in 196f by Generators liable A-21
-
TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL TABLES (Ions per year)
total Quantity Generalized !reatmenl Additional
Ouanlilzes of Hazardous Waste Shipped Otisite in 1986 by Generators (fable A-II of Method treatment
lions per year) 1 S06 waste Methodist
Waste Group
Waste Group total Quantity of Generalized Additional
Manifested Wastes treatment irealment Waste Oil 22,515 Oil Recovery Incineration, Stabilization
Shipped Oftsite Method Methodist
Halmnaled Solvents ' 770 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization
Waste Oil 16.535 Oil Recovery Incineration, Stabilization Non-Halogenated Solvents 770 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization
Halooenated 6olvents 1,013 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization 1 Organic Liquids 1,614 Incineration Aqueous treatment-Oro_anic
Isee notes)
Non-Halooenated Solvents 6,671 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization Pesticides 160 Incineration Other Recycline
Isee notes)
Organic liquids 1,733 Incineration PEGS I Dioxins 41 -------Out-Ol-Slate Incineration-------
Pesticides 6 Incineration i Oily Sludges - Oil Recovery Incineration, Stabilization
?CBS I Dioxins 5,975 -------but-Of-Slate Incineration------------ Halogenated Organic 13 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization
Sludges I Solids
Oily Sludges 3,222 Oil Recovery Incineration, Stabilization
Non-Halogenated Organic 233 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization
Halogenated Organic 34 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization ) Sludges 1 Solids
Sludges 6 Solids
Dye 6 Paint Sludoes 308 Incineration Stabilization
Mon-lalocienated Organic 2,479 Solvent Recovery Incineration, Stabilization 1 I Resins
Sludges I Solids
Metal-Containing Liquids 151 Neutralization/Precip Stabilization
Dye 1 Paint Sludges 1,757 Incineration Stabilization )
I Resins Cyanide and Metal 59 Neutralization/Precip Stabilization
liquids (see notes)
Metal-Containing Liquids 6,927 Neutralization/Precip Stabilization
Non-Metallic Inorganic 1,479 Neutralization/Precip
Cyanide and Metal 37 Neutralization/Precip Stabilization Liquids
Liquids 1
Metal-Containing Sludges 193 Stabilization
Non-Metallic Inorganic 2,905 Neutralization/Precip
Liquids ) Non-Metallic Inorganic 0 Stabilization
Sludges
Metal-Containing Sludges 1,530 Stabilization
Contaminated Soil NIA Incineration Stabilization
Non-Metallic Inorganic 661 Stabilization
Sludoes Miscellaneous Wastes 3,744 Various
Conlamcnaled Soil 4,292 Incineration Slacilization Notes:
-Household wastes not included above.
Miscellaneous Wastes 9,320 Various -NrA - not available.
_ -Some pesticides wastes can be treated by carbon adsorption
Notes: followed by incineration and stabilization.
-All quantities rounded to nearest ton in all tables. J -Cyanide waste treatment also includes an oxidation step.
-506s and household waste not included above. -9e3 tons of organic liquids are ignitable waste which arf usually shown as miscellaneous wastes.
-Some Pesticide wastes car, be treated by carbon aoserntror, followed
by incineratior and stabilization.
-tyantde waste treatment also includes an oxidation step.
-Snore soils cat not require incineration.
-Includes asbestos and contaminated soil.
_p_I.
Alameda County
Commercial Rasardoue Waste Treatment/Disposal Facilities and
their Capaclties and Quantities of Waste Treated or
1 Disposed of in 1986 (table C)
Current Alameda County Needs Assessment for Commercial
Hazardous Waste Treatment/Disposal Capacity (Table B) Facility Warne: Rvergreen Oil
(tons per year)
(loos per year)
Generalized Treatment Required Treatment
Method Capacity Generalised Capacity Quantity of i of
Treatment Waste Treated Capacity
Manifested Waste SQG Waste Rethod or Disposed Used
Aqueous Treatment-
Aqueous- Treatment- 1248 1099 Organic
Organic
t Aqueous Treatmemt-
Aqueous Treatment 9869 1689 Retale/Reetral list ion
Metals/Neutralization
Incineration
Incineration 10487 6948 Solvent Recovery
Solvent Recovery 10197 1786 )
Oil Recovery 50100 29400 58.11
Oil Recovery 19757 22545 Other Recycling
Other Recycling _ Stabilisation
Stabilization 8699 2080 Residuals Disposal
NOTES
-Incineration does not include out-of-state PCB incineration
requirements. >
-Contaminated soils not included in above incinerator capacity
since this waste stream is very unpredictable. The 1986 waste
quantity was from a one-time site remediation and some soils
may not require incineration.
C�
J
-U-:S-
1
Alameda County Alameda County
Commercial Basardous Waste Treatment/Disposal Facilities and Commercial Basardous Waste lreatmeot/Disposal facilities and
their Capacities and Quantities of Waste Treated or their Capacities mad Quantities of Waste treated or
Disposed of is 1986 (Table C) 1 Disposed of is 1986 (Table C)
facility Name: Baron Blakeslee facility game: Pfiser
3
(tons per year) (tons per year)
Generalised Capacity Quantity of I of Generalised Capacity Quantity of 1 of
Treatment Waste Treated Capacity treatment Waste Treated Capacity
Netbod or Disposed Used Netbod or Disposed Used
Igneous Treatment- Aqueous treatment-
Organic Organic
Aqueous Treatment- ► Aqueous Treatmest-
Netals/Bectralisatioa Metals/Restraliaation 36500 1275 11.71
IacineratioD ► laciaeratioa
Solvent Recovery 501 311 61.51 Solvent Recovery
7
Oil Recovery Oil Recovery
Other Recycling ) Other Recycling
Stabiliaatioa Stabilisation
Residuals Disposal Residuals Disposal
l
' j
Alameda County 1
Commercial Baaardous Raste Treatment/Disposal facilities and Correct Alameda County Reeds Assessment for Commercial
their Capacities and Quantities of Neste Treated or Baaardoue Waste treatment/Disposal Capacity (Table D)
Disposed of in 1986 (Table C) 1 (tons per year)
Facility Rau: California Oil lecyclers
Generalized Required [zisting Capacity
(tons per year) Treatment treatment Treatment Raceme (t) or
Rethod Capacity (tone/yr) Capacity Deficiency (-)
Generalized Capacity Quantity of 1 of
Treatment Waste Treated Capacity Aqueous Treatment- 2341 0 -2341
letbod or Disposed Deed 1 Organic
Aqueous Treatment- 11558 36500 +24942
Aqueous Treatment- letals/Restralizatiom
Organic
Incineration 17435 0 -11135
Aqueous Treatment-
letals/Restralization Solvent Recovery 11983 $04 -11119
Incineration ) Oil Recovery 12302 15600 433298
Solvent Recovery Other lecyclimg - - -
Oil Recovery 25200 24612 98.51 Stabilisation 10118 0 -10719
Other Recycling ) Residuals Disposal 28154 1 -28154
Stabilization
Residuals Disposal , Rote: Required treatment capacity includes SQG6.
'j
—1)-7— —D4;—
Alameda Counsty
Quantities of Baxardous Wastes Imported into Quantities of Baxardous Waste Wxported from the County in 1986
Alameda County in 1986 (Table 11 (Table P)
(tons per year)
1 (Ions per year) -- _--- -- --
Waste Group County Quantity
Waste Group County of Quantity of Waste of Received
Generation Received from Receipt (tons)
County
Waste Oil Various 10912
Waste Oil Various 4007
Balogenated Solvents Various 916
Balogenated Solvents Various 24
Won-Balogenated Solvents Various 5461
1 Aw Halogenated Solvents Various 4
Organic Liquids various 1115
Organic Liquids various 0
j Pesticides various 6
Pesticides various 0
PC96 A Dioxins Various 5983
j PCBs 8 Dioxins various 2
Oily Sludges Various 3134
Oily Sludges Various <1
0 Balogenated Organic various 17
Ralogeoated Organic Various 18 Sludges A Solids
Sludges A Solids
1 0 Roo-Balogenated Organic various 2487
Roo-Balogenated Organic Various 21 Sludges A Solids
Sludges A Solids
0 Dye 6 Paint Sludges Various 2755
Dye A Paint Sludges Various (I A Resins
6 lasing
i Betal-Containing Liquids various 6885
8eta1-Containing Liquids Various 68
Cyanide and Betal Various 37
Cyanide and Betal Various 3 ® Liquids
Liquids
Boo-8etallic Inorganic Various 2953
j Ron-Wetallic Inorganic various 1354 S Liquids
Liquids
Betal-Containing Sludges Various 1537
Wetal-Containing Sludges Various 1
Boo-8etallic Inorganic Various 661
Woe-8etallic Inorganic Various 0 Sludges
Sludges
Contaminated Soil Various 4364
Contaminated Soil Various 0
Wiscellaneocs Wastes Various 8560
8iscellaneous Wastes Various 117
0
Notes:
-Counties of origin cannot be segregated by vaste categories.
I ) —D-1 0-
-D-9—
/ J
1 �
1 Alameda County Alameda County
Commercial Hazardous Waste Storage Capacity and Activity in 1986 (Table EI Commercial Hazardous Waste Storage Capacity and Activity in 1986 (lahle 6)
1 Facility Name: Evergreen Gil 1 Facility Name: Baron Blakeslee
(tons per yearl (tons per year)
1
--------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Average Monthly Storage 2 of Storage Average Monthly Storage t of
Method Quantity of Wastes Capacity Storage 3 Method Quantity of Wastes Capacity Storage
in Storage for Capacity in Storage for Capacity
Over 90 Days Used l Over 90 Days Used
1
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOI Container 501 Container
S02 lank Unknown 10500 S02 lank BI Unknown
I 503 Waste Pile S03 Waste Pile
SO4 Surface 504 Surface
I Impoundment 1 Impoundment
S05 Other 505 Other
I �
I )
1
1 )
1 1
1 �
1 �
—U-11— —D-12—
� l
Alameda County , Alameda County
Commercial Hazardous Waste Storage Capacity and Activity in 1986 (fable 61 Commercial Hazardous Waste Storage Caoacity and Activity in 1906 (Table 6)
Facility Name: Pfizer Facility Name: California 011 Recyclers
1 �
Icons per year) (tons per year)
1 )
Storage Average Monthly Storage F of Storage Average Monthly Storage 1 of
Method Quantity of Wastes Capacity Storage Method Quantity of Wastes Capacity Storage
1 in Storage for Capacity 1 in Storage for Capacity
Over 90 Days Used Over 90 Days Used
501 Container SOI Container
S02 Tani 10 238 1.21 ) 502 Tank 1008 12810 1.91
503 Waste Pile 503 Waste Pile
501 Surface 501 Surface
Impoundment Impoundment
SOS Other S05 Other
J
.J
J
—D-13—
j —D-14—
Rlateds County
Multi-Year Planning Estimate of Quantities of Hazardous Waste
Alameda County
Shipped Off site by Generators liable 11 Major Industry Groups of Waste 6eneraled and Shipped Off-site
(tons per year) in 1986, Including Small Quantity Generators (fable J-11
----------------------------------- (tons per year)
izsie Group ill Quantity Waste Wastes Ccicmn 1 Variencedi castes from To`ai I
of Manifested from from Minos Eteapted Small
Waste Produced per Standard Industrial Classification
Waste from Site transfer Columns Wastes Quantity Waste 6rou SIC 7-0 SIC 7-6 SIC 15-17 SIC 15-17 SIC 20-39 SIC 20-39 SIC 40-49 SIC 40-49
County Clean-ups Stations 2 and 3 Generators P On-Site Off-Site On-Site Off-Site On-Site Off-Site On-Site Off-Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Oil 16535 U 11300 4235 ( 22545 26780 Waste Oil 1 1 639 839 20,595 20,595 4,411 4,427
Halogenated Solvents 1014 0 73 941 0 770 1711 Halogenated Solvents 0 0 111 111 249 249 424 424
Non-Halogenated Solvents 6671 0 2225 4446 0 770 5216 Non-Halogenated Solvents 1 1 109 109 3,520 3,520 193 193
Organic Liquids 1734 0 0 1711 0 1614 3318 Organic Liquids 0 0 316 316 1,308 1,308 102 102
Pesticides 7 0 0 7 0 160 167 Pesticides 92 92 0 0 6 6 0 0
FC5s I Dioxins 5975 0 0 5975 0 41 6016 PCBs I Dioxins 0 0 0 0 382 382 3,065 3,065
Oily Sludges 3222 0 5 3217 Q U 3217 Oily Sludges 0 0 30 30 2,261 2,261 471 471
Halogenate: Organic 34 0 0 34 0 13 47 Halogenated Organic 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0
Sludges I Solids
Sludges 6 Solids
Non-Halogenated Organic 2479 0 0 2479 0 233 2712 Non-Halogenated Organic 1 1 4I 42 1,853 1,653 329 329
Sludges L Solids Sludges I Solids
bye I Faint Sludges 2757 0 U 2757 U 300 3065 Bye I Paint Sludges 0 0 63 63 2,403 2,403 41 41
I Resins
L Oesins
Metal-Containing Liquids 6928 0 0 6928 0 151 7079 Metal-Containing Liquids 0 0 0 0 5,626 5,626 72 72
Cyanide and Metal 37 0 0 37 U 59 96 Cyanide and Metal 0 0 0 0 51 57 29 29
Liquids
Liquids
Non Metallic Inorganic 2905 0 0 2905 0 1179 4384
Non-Metallic Inorganic 0 0 15 15 3,476 3,476 370 370
Liquids
Liquids
Iletal-Containing Sludges 1530 0 0 1530 0 193 1723 Metal-Containing Sludges 0 0 3 3 1,182 1,102 16 16
Ncn Metallic Inormaaic 661 0 U 661 D 0 661 Non-Metallic Inorganic 0 0 0 0 181 184 0 0
Sludges
Sludges
Contaminated Soil - U 0 900 0 0 900 Contaminated Soil - - - - - - - -
Miscellaneous Wastes 9320 0 0 9320 0 3741 130N
Miscellaneous Wastes 58 58 300 300 4,641 4,641 1,012 1,012
--------------------------------------—------—------—----------------------------------- Notes:
A es:
-Emcludes asbestos, and contaminated soil wastes
Contaminated soils are shown in site cleanups not in manifested
that were manifested in 1986.
wastes. Thee wastes will Come mostly from fuel tank cleanaps. -Includes estimated contaminated soil waste from fuel tank remediation.
-Specific household waste-group data is not available.
-D-15- -D-16-
1
1 Alameda County
E,ia• lneestrl 670ups e! 4sle (•eneratee and Shipped Off-site
It 146i, inc!udine Small Duantity Generators liable Fit
1 flan per year)
na.rd.[wnn
-- -------- ------•--•-------- ----
neutl, 6,w t el watlr timer.led and Shipped -_--_-
r r area-21 Waste Produced pre Standard Industrial Classification
I916, Inc lee,ng Sull 0.an1t11 6rner aloes Ite11r 7J1 '
-----------•------------------
ems Rr/earl --------------- --------- --------- ----- --- ----- --- -----
Vista Group SIC 1"8 S!C 7-P SIC-15-17 SIC 15-11 SIC-20-34-SiC-20-39-SIC-4o-49 SI( It-19
Waste►rudwel or,Stenh,d I.dunul tlnsiliulim on-Site o!i-Site On-Site Off-Site on-Site ofi-Site Dc-Site O!!-Stle
--------------------------•---------------
astr rwp SIC 10-51 Sit SOdI Sit 52-0/Sit S7-51 SIC 69-N SIC{I-tit s¢11.11 SIC 11-•1 SIC 91-ti$1[11-11 g.,l pal Waste oil 1 1 1,459 1,450 29,457 29,457 5,99. 5,99(•
on-Site ol[-sin O.-Site /n-Site O.-Site oaf-Site a.-Site /n-Tile O.-Sit, Off-Sit, (fil-Site on-Site
----------°------ 553--------------------------------------------------------- Halogrnttrd Solvents 0 0 IB/ IBI 34? 31.*. 553
»I,oil 711 2N S,It) 1,71) 71 71 1,141 6,011 651 611 101 101
.lolenrtre
Sol...Is 145 145 113 111 1 • $41 $41 71 it M lu Mon-HaloOrnated Solvents 1 - 1 193 193 5,113 5,113 266 266
1
wit-e.1.1...led seln.ls INS 105 141 141 1 • 1,177 3,121 le{ iN 131 u1 Oreanie Liquids 0 0 524 524 1,788 1,786 131 131
trge.it lip Ns 17 I7 )1 N 37 17 411 111 111 111 / 4 7 Pes t i I des 15 75
0 0 9 9 0 0
'rstitihs 1 1 IS IS • 1 M A 1 • 1 1
PCPs 1 Dioxins 0 0 0 0 526 526 3,996 3.996
-El,{lip ins 1,161 1,151 1 1 47 U 7N 761 711 771 ]] 21
Oily Sludaes 0 0 52 52 3,230 3,?30 637 637
lily sludgrt t 1 It It I 1 ❑S 125 711 711 N N
nalNmated Mgrnic 1 7 1 1 • 1 I I 1 1 I I Halogenated Organic 0 0 0 0 66 66 G 0
$ludln 6 solids Sludges I Solids
mow-n.lelmdN Or ge.it 7 7 35 31 1 S l31 111 SO A 57 S7 ) Non-Halooenated Organic 1 I 71 71 2,620 2,
Sl.grs 6 Solids Sludges 1 Solids E20 134 139
If,a hint sledges 1 1 33 13 4 0 IU 113 211 717 let let
{Ie+ins Dye I Paint Sludges 0 0 103 103 3,343 3,343 54 54
1 Resins
nrtal-ceolat.in liquids IN If I I 1 • [,101 1,101 177 127 177 177
coral"ant note) 1 1 / • 1 ► Metal-Conlainial Liquids 0 0 0 0 8,012 0,012 91 97
S 7 • 1 S S
ltptdt
Cyamide and Metal 0 0 9 0 90 80 3E SG
Wen-netallic htwgenic 11 11 32 $2 11 17 Ile 111 215 NS 51 11 ) Liquids
Lipids
Non-Metallic Inorganic 0 0 27 77 6,248 6,249 637 637
nrlal-cwlainiq Sludges I 1 71 73 0 0 111 491 1 1 1 • ti-411i its
0w 11arnllit Imerlwl, IS IS 3 1 1 1 0 1 ISI 111 1 1
S1.69rs Mrli]-Containing Sludoes 0 0 4 4 1,517 1,517 15 IS
Cmlasi.atN$.it - - too "a - - _ _ - ) Mon-Melillic Inorganic 0 0 0 0 251 257 0 0
Sluices
nisteltanrws Wastes 16 It 1,511 1,111 / 1 2,315 7,345 N1 N1 1,111 1,111
Contaminated Soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0
rs:
that." asbestos and.1916.nated toil Nqn J M;scellaneous Nastes 41 41 487 487 5,226 5,226 1,A 1,365
Ina)wear unilntN i.11.6.
-I.tledrs rsli.slN,wluuatN soil uslr few owl lane rtwhdiw.
Nolen.
-Eecimdes asbestos and contaminated soil wastes
that were manifested is 1986.
-P-17-
-in;ledes estimated contamualed soil waste from fuel lank remrdiation.
-D-18-
At..eit.Cc,nly
'•olr.lrf Ou.lflfes k Clear-up Yasta% I101e It
1 It"s Per year)
..........................................._......_....................................
Alawda County 1 list@ 6reu0 O.dergra.d O:: eiesel Other told
Raw I .W)6ro.Ps al lade S'watel ant Ship.$011-cite 18.11 l:lxfal I.w Clee.-o0
it 1986, iaaatf nq S..11 Owtily Generators [table 1-21 See Pitt O.fln
Ile.)0a Jeri
____________________________________--_-___-_--_-___------_--_-__----_----____---_____._.__.-•__.--___.____--______-_.._.___-__-------_.
Visit Pro1.c14►e SN.larl INnlrl.l Clueilicatie. Oasts Oil Vista 6rnp Si[%-SI SIC A-51 SI[57-39 SIC 57-51 SI[N-6/Si[11.69 fit 11•f►SI[11.18 SIf 91-17 SI[91-/l Y.d 0.c1 Nal".4te1 S.I.Mts
O.-Silt 011-1111 0.-Sltt NI-Silt to-file Off-Site a-Site 011-Site b-Sile /If-Site O.-file W-Site
------------------------------ _
- -) Non-11el"e.81N S.1visits
11.11e Oil 171 471 1,111 0,111 39 n 17,113 12,113 751 in 113 Ili
aga.lt Uq.idt
N.10een0e3 Sol.enls 119 711 154 154 0 0 I,OM I,m 29 21 116 104 ,
Peditilds
11o.-11deeenated Sel.t.h IN 119 213 203 1 1 6,112 6,492 In M 157 157
1 ►Cd{Ile.l.s
Orgmc Lima, 11 1) 11 11 18 11 is? /n 711 211 1 1
1:11 slad9%
hdiciles ) 7 20 70 1 0 100 100 0 0 e 0 )
1141"..014 oga.lc
PCI1 1 Oionm 2,961 1,918 0 If 6I N 523 523 318 3" It It 11.4911 Solids
Dill Sl.does 11 I/ 21 73 I I TSS 733 715 715 113 111 Om-141"adN Mga.lc
/I14gds 1 Solid
110.9r.alet Orpnic 11 13 0 4 1 1 } 0 9 1 I
$1.19"1 Solid, lye If?flat$1.01"
11on-Nat oormted 0,94ffic 1 1 19 11 1 1 171 6)1 18 18 5. A )
sl.Ige,6 Solid Nrld-[anl.ini"lipid
1,.1 Paint S1a19" II 11 15 45 0 0 311 121 711 711 170 170
1 C1••1Ir u1 MUI
1 Krum
li►.ids
11rlal-Conlon.1 ligil. 25 n 1 1 0 0 2,76) 2,167 111 111 111 111 ) 11n-Ml.1lit lsg.dt
tio.ifs
eyl.t/t..d Metal 1 '6 1 0 0 0 to 11 0 0 ! 1
littud ) I4t.1-Cm18i.i.1 SINS.
Ib.-Mlallft I.erlam 36 34 12 97 17 72 393 713 716 291 I3 I) 11o.-Ortdllt 1-9.0t
liq.U1 Ji SAIges
Nrlal-Contam.q Sledge 7 7 75 25 1 1 906 1016 1 1 O 1 Cml.emlel Soil 100 O 0 1 900
11o.-11rladlft Ino Imo 17 27 4 1 0 0 0 0 513 515 It It a Nitt'll.nm..lisle%
S114ues
--8888..--..._.._----------_-----------._------_---_..-------_----------------------
J 11.1 es:
C.n1.af.0r1 Soil 1 0 0 0 If 0 0 0 0 0 qOe ►O0 •Ise rota—sttl soil estimate it ter feel 1..1 rnrfdie.Il'o.0 wear 20".
-Ihr•e ne mar nnlly.e.la.lo.14 files pis...i ter•earlidim by
Natal Is—.Pastes 751 7n 7,757 2,757 4 1 1,20 1,763 137 137 ?,ml 7.091 1 F.a AYOCI,n Al..rd[ou0y.
Yntr1:
1u0.0m meti.. m1 tonluferi14 toil..fin
th.t.ere.,.,I"IN f.1906.
11.11u01 Wnde!ronl.nnalre 1mI ..str fro.furl 1..%r d,.tl.a.
-b-20-
-p-19-
1 l
1 Alameda County
iota! Prcjected Duantities of Hazardous Waste Generation (Table N)
Alameda County (tons per year)
1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prejected Duantities of New Hazardous Waste Streams (Table MI
Waste Group Projected Projected Frojected Projected Total
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Industrial Clean-up Wew Household
Waste Group Additional Other Waste Waste Waste Waste
Pretreatment New (Table y.)
SludgesWastes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste O- - - - ------ ------ ---- - ------ - ---------------------------- .�
Waste Oil 59213 --(see ngtei--
) Waste Oil �
Halogenated Solvents 2757 2757
Halogenated Solvents
Non-Halogenated Solvents 12719 127!9
Non-Halogenated Solvents
Organic Liquids 4552 4552
1 Organic Liquids )
Pesticides 211 211
Pesticides
FC6s I Dioxins 8368 8368
FCOs I Dioxins
Oily Sludges 4571 4511
.Oily Sludges )
Notes: Halogenated Organic 82 gp
Halogenated Organic -Included in Tables 1-1 mail K-1. Sludges I Solids
Sludges I Solids -No data available on new waste generatinc
facilities in the County. Non-Halogenated Organic 3996 39%
Non-Halogenated Organic Sludges I Solids
Sludges I Solids )
Dye i Paint Sludges 4278 4278
Dye l Paint Sludges I Resins
I Resins )
Metal-Containing Liquids 10698 10698
Metal-Containinc Liquids
Cyanide and Metal 135 135
Cyanide and Metal Liquids
Liquids
Non-Metallic Inorganic 7834 1834
Non-Metallic Inorganic Liquids
Liquids
Meta!-Containing Sludges 2470 2176
Metal-Containing Sludges
WOn-Metdllk lnoroanic 808 608
Non-Metallic Inorganic ill Sludges
Sludges
Contaminated Soil - 900 9DO
Contaminated Soil
I:isrcllaneous Wastes 13049 1097 1594E
Miscellaneous Wastes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not e:
-Tre:e are no projected cleanup or new-waste data.
—D-21—
—D-2-2—
Projected Commercial Hazardous Haste Treatment/Disposal
Capacity in Alameda County liable 01
Icons per year) A)aeeda County
i P.aiected County Reeds Assessment for Commercial
Hazardous Haste Treatment Facilities liable P)
Icons per year)
Generalized Capacity from Capacity from Loss of Total -------—---------------------------------------
treatment Method Existing Proposed Capacity from Projected
Facilities Facilities Closing County Capacity Generalized Projected Projected Projected
facilities l Treatment Method County County Capacity
Capacity Capacity Evicessl+l or
Requirement Deficiency 1-)
Aqueous Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------
Organic 0 (see note) 0 0
Aqueoas Treatment- 1,300 (see note)
Aqueous Treatment- j Organic
Metals/Neutralization 36500 0 36500
Aqueous Treatment-
Incineration 0 0 0 Metals/Neatralization 13,000
Solvent Recovery 501 0 501 Incineration 21,600
Oil Recovery 76500 0 76500 ' Solvent Recovery 7,700
Other Recycling 0 0 0 Oil Recovery 11,100
Stabilization 0 0 0 Other Recycling -
Residuals Disposal 0 0 0 Stabilization I8,B00
Note:
-It is currently.not known where and what type of commercial Note:
treatment facilities will be sited in the County. -It is currently not known where and what type of commercial
treatment facilities will be sited in the County.
-Although there are no known facility closures at this lime,
it is difficult to predict when and if this will occur. ;
-D-23- -D-24-
)
,
APPENDIX E
STATUS OF CLEANUP AT AIAMEDA COUNTY
CONTAMINATION SITES Oaklard Rubbish
Bank
WPM CAIIIILlL SIB" Mowry Road (Newark)
Rank Rank 10
Borden deal Oakland Street Department
Pleasanton Garbage Service West Winton
Pacific States Steel
Rank 3 Bank ll
All Cities
Tlalrrk rk Island Landfill d Landfill Emeryville D np (65th/Bay)
Eastern Alame-bi Landfill
Rank 12
Rank 3 Hayward
Southern Pacific Railroad - W. Oakland site
Rank5
RThe Calderon rankings are in order of the Importance of the site for
Berkeley Landfill review for impact on water quality. No inference of contamination or need
7nerm-Inec of CA for cleanup is intended.
Fiberboard - Emeryville
West Beach Sanitary Landfill (U.S. Navy)
Rank 6
Albany Landfill
FMC Neward
San Leandro Landfill
Itans America Pelaval
Davis Street Landfill
San Leandro Marina/Tony Lama
lhoro Systems Products
Rank?
City of Alameda Landfill
Diamond Tank Line
Rank 8
Alameda Naval Air Station
Newark Dmp
Emeryville Ashby
-E-2
-E-1-
RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAH
State of California
Health and Welfare Agency
SEVENTH STREET PROPERTIES - WAREfIAM PROPERTIES
I. Site Information
A. Location and Type of Site
2900 Fifth Street and
700 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
Alameda County
This site was formerly owned by Durkee Famous Foods and then by Agricom
International and Agricom Oilseeds, Inc. It was used for the production of
vegetable oils and foods. The site is currently owned by Wareham
EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR THE Development.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CLEANUP BOND ACT
OF 1984 B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
Revised January, 1987
(Originally Published January 1985) This site contains numerous drums of acids, very strong bases, and a
Revision No. 2 variety of other chemicals. Unknown oily liquid has been found in tanks on
the property, some of which has spilled on the ground.
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
The site is easily accessible to the general public and the hazardous
materials are poorly contained or not contained at all. Joggers often pass
through the site on their way to or from an adjacent park and wildlife
refuge.
II. Site Status
A. Status of Site Activity
Department of Health Services
On July 23, 1985, a Department of Health Services (DHS) inspection revealed
many violations or conditions requiring correction.
Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H.
By January 20, 1986, considerable site characterization had been performed.
Director
B. Projected Revenue Sources
Alex R. Cunningham
Chief Deputy Director The current owner, Wareham Development, has paid for work performed to
date. Agricom has filed bankruptcy.
C. David Willis
Deputy Director
Toxic Substances Control Program
-E-4-
-E-3-
The responsible parties (RPs) have entered into an enforceable agreement
with DHS for oversight/monitoring of their cleanup efforts. DHS has
budgeted 50,000 for related costs to the project. The RPa will pay all RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WJRKPLAN
costs associated with site cleanup.
AY.CHEM PRODUCTS
III. Project Completion Estimates
I. Site Information
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup phases based
upon current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and completed
actions. A. Location and Type of Site
37899 Niles Boulevard
Estimated Fremont, CA 94536
Task Group Alameda County
Completion Dates
1. Site Characterization Amchem has been operating at the site since 1952. The company manufactures
acid and alkali-based cleaning compounds, and until July 1980, blended
a) Preliminary Assessment bases to form herbicide formulations such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
b) Remedial Investigation b) Au�g.l 198 (2,4-D), 2,4,5-trichlorophenozyacetic.acid (2,4,5-T), and Siivex.
c) Feasibility Study c) Dec. 1986 9 B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
2. Remedial Action Plan March 1987 Extensive hydrocarbon contamination of the soil and floating hydrocarbon on
the ground water has been discovered. Significant 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T soil
3. Remedial Action contamination to a depth of 15 feet was discovered during an underground
a) Design tank removal. 2,4-D and 2,A,5-T are both experimental teratogens and
a) May 1987 suspected carcinogens.
b) Implementation
b) July 1987
c) Certification
c) Sept. 1987 C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance The site is located in a major ground water recharge area. Herbicide
contaminated surface soils could also be dispersed by winds onto an
a) Cost Recovery a) Se t. 1988 adjacent residential area.
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N A
.II. Site Status
A. Status of Site Activity
Numerous investigations have been conducted since February 1976 when a 2,4-
D spill from a railroad tank car occurred. Current remedial invct;tigatton
activities are being conducted pursuant to a directive issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control 3oard with assistance by DHS.
-E-5-
-E-6-
B. Projected Revenue Sources . RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP NORKPLAN
The responsible party, Amchem Products, Inc., Is funding all remedial
Investigative activities. The DIIS will be issuing a remedial action order BERKELEY AUTO REPAIR
or entering into an enforceable agreement with the responsible parties.
The Department has budgeted $50,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup
efforts. The Department will recover 100% of direct costs plus staff coats I. Site Information
and overhead related to the project. The RP will pay all costs associated
with cleanup.
A. Location and Type of Site
III. Project Completion Estimates
2378/2366 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94702
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup phases based Alameda County
on current Information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and completed
actions. This site Includes an auto repair shop and a restaurant. The auto repair
shop is a small building at the back of a narrow, fenced, asphalt-paved
yard, and the restaurant In located to the north. There have been auto
Estimated repair shops on the site for the last 8 - 9 years. Prior to that, it was
Task Croup Completion Dates an auto wrecking yard.
1. Site Characterization B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed High concentrations of methylene chloride and lead are present in the
b) Remedial Investigation b) April 1987 soil. The proprietor of the auto shop asserts that oil continually wells
c) Feasibility Study c) Feb. 1988 up through the asphalt.
2. Remedial Action Plan May 1988 C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
3. Remedial Action
Soil is contaminated with methylene chloride, lead, and waste oils. The
a) Design a) Aug. 1988 ground water table may be contaminated. The proprietor of the auto shop
b) dug a trench in the parking lot to prevent the runoff of oil to the
b) Implementation Feb. 1989
c) Certification c) Nov. 1989 residences behind the site.
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
II. Site Statue
a) Cost Recovery a) Nov. 1990
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 years
A. Status of Site Activity
12/27/85: A citizen complaint was received alleging the disposal of waste
oil to the ground and runoff of the oil to an adjacent piece of
property.
01/10/86: The first inspection in response to citizen's complaint was
performed and samples were taken.
01/15/86: The second inspection in response to citizen's complaint was
performed.
02/07/86: Laboratory results of the samples taken 1/10/86 were received and
Indicated that elevated levels of methylene chloride and lead
existed in the soil on-eite.
-E-7- -E-8-
07/02/86: A follow-up Inspection was performed. RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
B. Projected Revenue Sources
THE CLOROX COMPANY
The DHS will be Issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DHS has budgeted
$50,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 100% I. Site Information
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project as
allowed by state law. The responsible parties will pay all costs
associated with remedial investigations and cleanup activities. A. Location and Type of Site
850 42nd Avenue
III. Project Completion-Estimates Oakland, CA 94608
Alameda County
The estimates shown below reflect completion of mayor site cleanup phases and Ground water sampling has Identified a significant concentration of
are based on current Information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and mercury.
completed actions.
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
Estimated Mercury is present at a concentration of 9,600 parts per billion (ppb).
Task Group Completion Dates Mercury attacks the gastrointestinal, respiratory and central nervous
systems.
1. Site Characterization
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Sept. 1989
b) Remedial Investigation b) June 1990 Contaminated ground water eventually discharges to the Alameda Estuary
c) Feasibility Study c) Jan. 1991 which leads to the San Francisco Bay.
2. Remedial Action Plan April 1991
II. Site Statue
3. Remedial Action
a) Design a) July 1991 A. Status of Site Activity
b) Implementation b) Jan. 1992
c) Certification c) March 1993 11/03/81: Woodward-Clyde Consultants completed an Initial Assessment Study
for the Clorox site.
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
07/23/82: Woodward-Clyde Consultants initiated Phase II Investigation.
e) Cost Recovery a) March 1093
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N A 12/12/82: The site was ranked on the State Priority Ranking List (SPRL).
04/25/84: The Clorox Company submitted draft deed restrictions to the DHS
for review.
07/19/84: The DHS determined that the filing of deed restrictions at this
time was inappropriate.
06/01/85: Woodward-Clyde Consultants completed a Remedial Action
Assessment for the Clorox site.
03107186: Woodward-Clyde Consultants submitted a draft Remedial Action
Plan to the DHS.
03/19/86: The DHS and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
-E-9- Board held a ,joint public hearing concerning the Clorox site.
E-10-
B. Projected Revenue Sources RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP 14ORKPLAN
The DHS will be issuing a remedial action plan or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. The Department has EKOTEK LUKE
budgeted $50,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. NS will
recover 100% of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the
project. The responsible parties will pay all costa associated with I. Site Information
remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
A. Location and Type of Site
III. Project Completion Estimates
4200 Alameda Avenue
Oakland, CA 94605
The estimates shown below reflect completion of mayor site cleanup phases based Alameda County
upon current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plena and completed
actions. Waste oil, contaminated with benzene, toluene, phenol, and lead, had been
stored in tanks and had been spilled onto the soil.
Estimated B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
Task Croup Completion Dates
Benzene is suspected carcinogen and is moderately toxic by ingestion,
1. Site Characterization inhalation, and akin absorption. Metallic lead is toxic by ingestion and
inhalation of dust or fumes. Tetraethyl lead (gasoline additive) affects
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed the central nervous system via inhalation or via absorption through the
b) Remedial Investigation b) Completed skin. Phenol has a markedly corrosive effect on tissue; however, the main
c) Feasibility Study c) Completed effect is upon the central nervous system. Toluene depresses the central
nervous system.
2. Remedial Action Plan Completed
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
3. Remedial Action
Over 100,000 people live within a 2 mile radius of the site. A coastal
a) Design a) Oct.. !S,36 wetland is located 4000 feet away. Arrowhead marsh is 1.4 miles away. The
b) Implementation b) April 1987 depth to ground water is from 5 to 28 feet. Approximately 18 irrigation
c) Certification c) June 1987 and industrial wells are within 3 miles.
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
II. Site Statue
a) Cost Recovery a) June 1988
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 years
A. Statue of Site Activity
07/23/84: United States Coast Guard (USCG) conducted a preliminary
Investigation of Ekotek Lube.
08/03/U: USCG referred the case to the Department of Health Services.
08/03/84: The Department referred the case to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
-E-12-
-E-11-
B. Projected Revenue Sources
RESPONSIBLE PARTT-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORRPLAN
The current owner of the site is Intercoastal 011. DHS has budgeted
$50,000 for related direct costs. DHS will recover 1004 of direct costs
plus staff costs and overhead related to the project. The responsible ELECIRO COATINGS
parties will pay all costs associated with remedial investigations and
cleanup activities.
I. Site Information
III. Project Completion Estimates
Location and Type of Site
The estimates shown below reflect completion of mayor site cleanup phases based Emeryville, CA 94617
on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and completed Alameda County
actions.
This site Is a plating facility which disposed of chromium waste to an on-
site disposal pit.
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates Description of Hazardous Wastes
1. Site Characterization Chromium lies been detected in the soil and the ground water.
a) Preliminary Assessment a) July 1987 Threat to Public Health and Environment
b) Remedial Investigation b) Nov. 1987
c) Feasibility Study c) March 1988 The primary route of exposure is through the migration of chromium to the
ground water and San Francisco Bay by surface run-off.
2. Remedial Action Plan June 1988
3. Remedial Action II. Site Status
a) Design a) Aug. 1988 Status of Activity
b) Implementation b) Oct. 1988
c) Certification c) Dec. 1988
A cleanup plan was submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Poard
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance (RWQCB). Soil and ground water sampling has been completed.
a) Cost Recovery a) Dec. 1989 The proposed cleanup plan has not been approved.
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N A
Project Revenue Sources
Electro Coatings is the responsible party (RP) and is an active business.
The DHS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DHS has budgeted
$30,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DRS will recover 1004
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project as
allowed by state law. The responsible parties will pay all costs
associated with remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
-E-13- -E-14-
III. Project Completion Estimates RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup phases base( FMC CORPORATION, NEWARK
on current Information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and complete(
actions.
I. Site Information
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates. A. Location and Type of Site
1. Site Characteriation 7887 Enterprise Drive
Newark, CA 94560
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed Alameda County
b) Remedial Investigation b) June 1987
c) Feasibility Study c) Oct. 1987 FMC Corporation formerly manufactured ethylene dibromide (ED B) at this
facility. During its operation, substantial spillage occurred
2. Remedial Action Plan Jan. 1988 contaminating the soil and the ground water.
3. Remedial Action B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
e) Design a) Feb. 1988 Ethylene dibromide, 1,2-dichloroethane, bromoform, chloroform, methylene
b) Implementation b) March 1988 bromide, benzene, dibromochloromethane and 1-chloro-2-bromoethane all have
c) Certification c) June 1988 been detected in the soil and groundwater.
4. Cost Recovery end/or Operation and Maintenance C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
a) Cost Recovery a) June 1989 Surface water collects in a nearby drainage which discharges to the San
b) Operation and Maintenance b) ---m A Francisco Bay and Wildlife Refuge. Due to the operation of a ground water
salinity extraction well/barrier project, contaminated ground water may be
discharged to the San Francisco Bay if not contained and controlled.
II. Site Status
A. Status of Site Activity
During 1980-1985 FMC Installed many soil borings and monitoring wells.
In April, 19850 FMC submitted an evaluation and recommendation of remedial
action alternatives. A risk assessment report was also submitted.
In October, 1985, FMC began construction of remedial action alternatives.
In November of 1965, FMC completed construction of an asphalt cap and
drainage system to prevent ground water infiltration and surface runoff.
In March of 1986, FMC began operation of the ground water extraction system
in the Newark Aquifer (60' - 70'). Operation of this system will contain
and remove the plume of contaminants within the Newark Aquifer.
-E-16-
-E-15-
III. Project Completion Estimates
RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP NORHPLAN
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major'site cleanup phases based
upon current information regarding this site and RP cleanup schedules. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC/EMERYVILLE
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates I. Site Information
1. Site Characterization
A. Location and Type of Site
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed
b) Remedial Investigation b) Completed 4525 Hollis Street
c) Feasibility Study c) Sept. 1937 Emeryville, CA 94608
Alameda County
2. Remedial Action Plan Dec. 1987
This site, which has been in operation since the early 19201x, is Pacific
3. Remedial Action Gas and Electric's (PG&E) Materials Distribution Center. The site has
served as a warehouse, repair shop, and storage yard for transformers,
a) Design a) March 1988 capacitors, and other electrical supplies. A tank farm for the storage of
b) Implementation b) Sept. 1988 fuel and transformer oil is also present on the site. The faculty covers
c) Certification c) Nov. 1988 approximately two city blocks of an area which is generally
and/or 0 industrialized. A residential area is located approximately one-quarter
4. Cost Recovery / Operation and Maintenance mile from the site.
a) Cost Recovery a) Nov. 1989 B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N A
The soil is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyle (PCBs) and heavy
metals, especially lead which Is present at very high concentrations at
localized areas. The ground water may also be contaminated by heavy metals
originating at the site.
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
Direct contact with soil may present a threat to public health as a result
of exposure to PCBs and heavy metals. Two ground water wells present on
the site have been abandoned. There is no known use of the ground water
for drinking water supply or for industrial uses. The site is completely
fenced.
II. Site Statue
A. Status of Site Activity
The Department began investigation of this site in 1983, following a spill
from a caustic tank. In October, 1983, EPA fined PG&E $11,000 for PCB
storage violations. In July, 1984, PG&E filed a report of site
Investigation. Additional investigation reports were submitted in 1985•
The Department is awaiting additional site characterization data.
-E-19-
-E-20-
B. Projected Revenue Sources RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
The DHS will be issing a remedial action order or entering into an enforce-
able agreement with the responsible perties. DHS has budgeted $100,000for LESLIE SALT
oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 1001% of direct
costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project. The
responsible parties will pay all costs associated with remedial I. Site Information
Investigations and cleanup activities.
A. Location and Type of Site
III. Project Completion Estimates
Newark, CA 94560
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup phases based Alameda Ccounty
on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and completed A waste salt bittern and magnesia caustic piles are located on-site.
action.
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
Estimated Large piles of caustic magnesium salts with some heavy metals have been
Task Group Completion Dates identified.
1. Site Characterization C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed The primary route of exposure is through direct contact to humans, and
b) Remedial Investigation b) Oct. 1985 surface run-off to the Bay.
c) Feasibility Study c) Jan. 1987
2. Remedial Action Plan April 1987 II. Site Status
3. Remedial Action
a) Design a) Feb. 1988 A. Status of Site Activity
b) Implementation b) May 1990 A screening program will be implemented to confirm that foreign materials
c) Certification c) July 1990 arenot buried in piles. The magnesium, gypsum, and dolomite will be
recycled. A removal schedule is pending.
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
B. Projected Revenue Sources
a) Coat Recovery a) July 1991
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 20+ years Leslie Salt 1s the responsible party and an active business.
The DHS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties (RPs). DHS has budgeted
$50,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 100
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project. The
RPs will pay all costs associated with remedial investigations and cleanup
activities.
-E-18-
-E-17-
B. Projected Revenue Sources
RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
The DHS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DIIS has budgeted
$30,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 100% PACIFIC STATES STEEL
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project as
allowed by state law. The responsible parties will pay all costs I. Site Information
associated with remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
III. Project Completion Estimates A. Location and Type of Site
35124 Alvarado-Niles Road
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup Union City, CA 94587
mP j p phases and
are based on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plane and Alameda County
completed actions.
This site was a steel manufacturing facility from 1935 until 1978. Slag
piles and evaporation ponds are on-site.
Estimated
Task Croup Completion Dates B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
1. Site Characterization Heavy metals (cadmium (Cd); chromium (Cr); copper (Cu); nickel (Ni); lead
(Pb); zinc (Zn)) have been detected in slag piles and soils.. Phenols and
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed cyanides may also be present. Concentrations and/or quantities of wastes
b) Remedial Investigation b Completed are not known.
c) Feasibility Study c) Completed
C. Threw to Public Health and Environment
2. Remedial Action Plan Completed
The primary threat to the public health and environment is surface water
3. Remedial Action runoff from the site. This runoff could impact San Francisco Bay.
a) Design a) July 1988
b) Implementation b) Sept. 1988 II. Site Statue
c) Certification c) Nov. 1988
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance A. Status of Site Activity
a) Cost Recovery a) Nov. 1989 A site sampling plan was submitted to the Regional Hater Quality Control
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 years Board (RWQCB) and DHS. Limited soil sampling is completed. Site
characterization needs to be completed.
B. Projected Revenue Sources
The DHS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DIIS has budgeted
$100,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover
100% of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project.
The responsible parties will pay all costs associated with remedial
investigations and cleanup activities.
-E-21- -E-22-
III. Project Completion Estimates RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup phases PORT OF OAKLAND, EMBARCADERO COVE
based on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and
completed actions.
I. Site Information
Estimated
Task Croup Completion Dates A. Location and Type of Site
Dennison and Embarcadero Streets
1. Site Characterization Oakland, CA 94606
Alameda County
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed
b) Remedial Investigation b) Completed The site is located on Embarcadero Street at the foot of Dennison Street in
c) Feasibility Study c) Dec. 1987 Oakland. For the past 60 to 70 years, the 1 .3-acre site was leased to
Industrial tenants, including oil companies and formulators of pesticides
2. Remedial Action Plan Mar. 1988 and wood preservatives. It is now being developed into a commercial
complex. A public walkway has already been constructed through the site.
3. Remedial Action
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
a) Design a) June 1988
b) Implementation b) Dec. 1988 Pentachlorophenot (PCP), organochlorine pesticides, solvents and Santophen,
c) Certification c) Feb. 1989 another wood preservative have been discovered at this site.
dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans are associated with PCP. About 8000 cubic
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance yards of soil is contaminated, while an unknown amount of ground water is
�. contaminated. PCP and trace dioxin was found in a shallow well.
a) Cost Recovery a) Feb. 1990 Organochlorine compounds interfere with the function of regulator proteins,
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 years such as hormones and enzymes. This results in interference with the
nervous system and reproductive activity. The possibility of the presence
of dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans as an impurity of PCP was
Investigated. Dioxins and furans were detected in all soil samp:a9
tested. Off-site ground water analysis for dioxins and furans is presently
under way.
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
Residential, Industrial, commercial, recreational, and military areas are
located immediately adjacent to the site. The population within a 3 mile
radius is estimated at 215,331 persons. PCP was not detected in shoreline
sediment samples, or at the box culvert outlet in the Bay at Dennison
Street. The closest domestic well is about 3/4 mile away.
TI. Site Status
A. Status of Site Activity
8/17/81: A site investigation by Brown and Caldwell confirmed soil
contamination.
-E-23-
-E-24-
4/04/83: Contaminants were Identified during the ground water
Investigation, but the extent of the plume is unknown. 4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
3/01/85: The Port Authority fenced and posted the site in compliance a) Cost Recovery a) Dec. 1998
with DHS order. b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 yeers
5/01/85: Additional monitoring wells were Installed by ERM-West.
9/01/85: Additional monitoring wells were installed by ERM-West.
8/02/85: Additional ground water investigations were conducted.
12/06/85: The Port Authority submitted soil sampling results which
Identified dioxin.
B. Projected Revenue Sources
The Port of Oakland (Port) owns the site and haq paid for the studies. The
feasibility study is presently being prepared, and will be submitted to DHS
by December 1, 1986.
The DHS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DHS has budgeted
$50,000 for direct costs related to oversight of this agreement. DHS will
recover 100% of direct costa plus staff costs and overhead related to the
project. The responsible parties will pay all costs associated with
remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
III. Project Completion Estimates
The estimates shown below are to reflect completion of major site cleanup
phases based upon current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans
and completed actions.
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates
1. Site Characterization
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed
b) Remedial Investigation b) Can leted
c) Feasibility Study c) Dec. 198
2. Remedial Action Plan Jan. 1987
3. Remedial Action
a) Design a) April 1987
b) Implementation b) Oct. 1987
c) Certification c) Dec. 1997
-E-25- -E-26-
In August, 1986, SP submitted a closure plan for the oil/water separator
RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN surface impoundment to the RWQCB. In response to a request by the
RWQCB, SP has commenced site investigation, evaluation of remedial action
options, and development of a hydrogeologic assessment report required
SOUTHERN PACIFIC, OAKLAND under the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act for this surface impoundment.
B. Projected Revenue Sources
I. Site Information
The DIIS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DIIS has budgeted
A. Location and Type of Site $70,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DUS will recover 1004
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project as
1707 Wood Street allowed by state law. The responsible parties will pay all costs
Oakland, CA 94607 associated with remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
Alameda County
Southern Pacific, Oakland is a large call yard, switching and maintenance III. Project Completion Estimates
facility located between the Outer Harbor and Inner Harbor of San Francisco
Bay. The site includes two surface impoundments which are separated by
approximately one-half mile distance: an oil/water separator system for The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup phases and
wastewaters from the cleaning of rail cars; and an inactive waste pond for are based on current Information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and
washwaters from the interiors of tank cars (referred to as polychlorinated completed actions.
biphenyl (PCB) sludge pond). There is soil and ground water contamination
at each of the surface impoundment areas.
Estimated
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes Task Group Completion Dates
This site has been contaminated by toxic chemicals including PCEe, 1. Site Characterization
polynuclear aromatics (PNAs), benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, waste
oils; solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and dichloroethylene (DCE); a) Preliminary Assessment e) Completed
heavy metals such as lead and arsenic. Shallow ground water is b) Remedial Investigation b) Dec'
contaminated by solvents and flooding free product is present. c) Feasibility Study c) March 1992
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment 2. Remedial Action Plan Sept. 1992
This site is located within 1 mile of the San Francisco Bay and possesses a 3. Remedial Action
drainage ditch under the site. Damage to aquatic ecosystems is a potential
threat. Solvents are known to have migrated off-site (at least 200 feet a) Design a) March 1993
from the site at 3 feet depth) and to shallow ground water. Potential b) Implementation b) Dec. 1994
beneficial use of the deeper aquifers is under investigation. c) Certification c) Feb. 1995
The waste impoundment area is fenced; however, direct contact would present ; 4• Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
a potential health threat.
a) Coat Recovery a) Feb. 1996
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 20+ years
II. Site Status
A. Status of Site Activity
In February, 1985, Southern Pacific (SP) submitted a site investigation
report on the abandoned surface impoundment (PCB sludge pond) to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). SP has started additional
site characterization, including ground water monitoring for the PCB s?udge
pond, and will submit a feasibility study of various remedial action
options later this year.
-E-27-
-E-28-
III. Project Completion Estimates
RESPONSIBLE PARTY-LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
The estimates shown below reflect completion of major site cleanup phases based
TROJAN POWDER WORKS COMPANY on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and completed
actions.
I. Site Information
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates
A. Location and Type of Site
1 . Site Characteriation
Intersection of Lewelling and Wicks Blvd.
Son Leandro, CA 94579 a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed
Alameda County b) Remedial Investigation b) Completed
c) Feasibility Study c) Completed
From about the early 1900's to the early 1960'x, some of this 200-a 2. Remedial Action Plan Dec. 1986_
site was used by Trojan Powder to manufacture black powder explosives
safety fuses. Potassium or sodium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur were a j, Remedial Action
of the materials used In the manufacturing at the properties; Citat
Homes has proposed a housing development at the site.
a) Design e) March 1487
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes b) Implementation b) Oct. 1987
c) Certification c) Dec. 1987
The site is contaminated with a tarry material containing polynuclea
aromatic hydrocarbons. 4• Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment a) Cost Recovery a) Dec. 1988
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N/A
The site Is readily accessible to the public and is about a half mile f:
the San Francisco Bay.
II. Site Status
A. Status of Activity
The current site has an identified owner; financial site assessmr
activities and removal of contaminated soil and debris has been affected.
B. Project Revenue Sources
The designated responsible party (RP) is herewith provided:
Citation Builders
2777 Alrmado Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
The Df1S will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DHS has budget
$50,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 10
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project
allowed by state law. The responsible parties will pay all cos
associated with remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
-E-30-
-E-29-
RESPONSIBLE PARTY - LEAD SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
03/12/84: The U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company sent DHS a sample of baghouse
dust that represented the percentage of the metals found in the
U.S. PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY waste.
06/24/85: Chief Perry, Union City Fire Department, requested a DIIS
I. Site Information investigation of the site following a fire.
07/16/65: Chemical analysis of baghouse dust received by DHS from U.S.
A. Location and Type of Site Pipe and Foundry showed elevated levels of cadmium and lead.
Road 07/31/85: A meeting with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWOCB), DNS,
1295 Whipple
Union CSty, CA d587 and U.S. Pipe and Foundry was convened to discuss the current
situation and future actions. The conclusions reached were:
Alameda County newly generated baghouse dust is to be properly disposed of at an
U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company Is an active iron smelting facility which has approved landfill; duet control measures will be implemented at
the landfill site immediately; the site will be properly posted
operated on the site since 1951. Slag, baghouse dust, and oil/paint waste as a hazardous waste site; the California Assessment Manual
have been deposited in waste piles and landfills on-site. Rusted drums and Waste Extraction Test(WET) and EP Toxicity tests will be,
other solid debris have also been deposited in these waste piles. conducted on the baghouse waste; the firm will develop
treatment methods for its beghouse dust and will apply for a
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes permit/variance from permit requirements.
The landfill accepted the following hazardous or potentially hazardous 01/27/86: Analyses received from U.S. Pipe and Foundry on baghouse dust,
wastes: 1) slag, 2) oil and paint waste, and 3) sand and baghouse waste. indicating that the TTLC limits were exceeded for cadmium, lead
Oil and paint waste reportedly constituted lees then 5% of the total waste and zinc and the STLC limit was exceeded for zinc.
volume.
A sample of baghouse duet taken in 1985 revealed Total Threshold Limit 09/04/86: RWQCB requested U.S. Pipe and Foundry to submit a Report of Waste
Discharge for the landfill and the surface impoundment.
Concentration.(TTLC) levels were exceeded for cadmium, lead, and zinc. The
Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) level was exceeded for zinc. Projected Revenue Sources
Baghouse dust production was estimated at 7 cubic yards/day or 2 tons/day
since 1961. The DHS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. ' DHS has budgeted
E50,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 100%
of direct costa plus staff costs and overhead related to the project as
There is suspected soil contamination beneath the landfills and allowed by state law. The responsible parties will pay all costs
wastepiles. The site is fenced, preventing public access. However, up to associated with remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
200 employees work at this location.
H. Site Statue III. Project Completion Estimates
A. Status of Site Activity a estimates shown below reflect completion of mayor site cleanup phases and
e based on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and
12/04/80: Analyses of samples of core send, cupola slag, and carbide slag mpleted actions.
from the slag heap, collected 8/21/80, showed that the waste
generated was not hazardous. Baghouse dust characterization was Estimated
to be conducted by U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company. Task Group Completion Dates
03/84: The abandoned site assessment program prepared a preliminary Site Characterization
assessment.
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed
b) Remedial Investigation b) March 1990
c) Feasibility Study c) Nov. 1990
-E-31-
-E-32-
2. Remedial Action Plan Feb. 1991
3: Remedial Action
a) Design RESPONSIELE PARTT-LEAD SITE CLEANUP NORRPLAN
b) Implementation a) May 1991
c) Certification b) 'Nov. 1991 *
WESTERN FORCE AND FLANGE
C) Jan. 1492
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
I. Site Information
a) Cost Recovery a) Jan. 199;
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N A
A. Location and Type of Site
536 Cleveland Avenue
Albany, CA 94710
Alameda County
This site is a metal foundary which has heavy metal contaminstation of
on-site soils.
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
Approximately 450 cubic yards of soil are present which are contaminated
with heavy metals and oil.
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
The primary threat to the public health and environment ls.exposure through
surface runoff and direct contact.
D:. Site Status
A. Status of Activity
Active enforcement of site mitigative requirements has been implemented.
B. Project Revenue Sources
Western Forge and Flange is considered to be the responsible party (RP).
The DNS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DHS has budgeted
$30,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 100%
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project as
allowed by state law. The responsible parties will pay all costs
associated with remedial investigations and cleanup activities.
*The Western Forge and Flange site was mitigated in June of 1987.
-E-33- -E-34-
RESPONSIBLE LEAD-SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
III. Project Completion Estimates '
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COl4 ANY, EMERIYILLE
The estimates shown below reflect completion of mayor site cleanup phases based
on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans and completed I. Site Information
actions.
A. Location and Type of Site
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates 5899 Peladeau Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
1. Site Characteriation Alameda County
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed This facility includes the building that occupies virtually all of the land
b) Remedial Investigation b) Sept. 1987 north of Powell Street between Peladeau and Landregan Streets, except for a
c) Feasibility Study c) Jan. 1988 1/2 acre parking area north of the building. This facility also includes
contiguous 2-acre undeveloped and vacant area lying directly west of the
2. Remedial Action Plan April 1988 building. It Is this 2-acre site which was addressed in site mitigation
and is hereinafter referred to as the "Site".
3. Remedial Action
Operations at this facility included (apparently sometime prior to 1976)
a) Design a) June 1988 maintenance and repair of electrical apparatus including transformers
b) Implementation b) Aug. 1988 containing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) fluids. In the course of
c) Certification c) Oct. 1988 maintenance, some of thee liquids leaked on, or were discharged to the
site. An initial oily surface soil sampling in early 1981 showed a ?CB
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance concentration of 130,000 parts per million (ppm), calculated as Arochlor
1260. More extensive surface soil samplings showed PCB concentrations
a) Cost Recovery a) Oct. 1989 ranging from 560 to 44,000 ppo. Site characterization showed subsur`ace
b) Operation and Maintenance b) NTA_ PCB contamination, a sample was taken at 27 to 27.5 feet having 170 Dpm
PCBs. Ground water, found at about 19 feet, showed significant
concentrations of PCBs in a few of the wells that were installed for
monitoring.
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
The principle contaminant on the site is PCB, along with tri- and te.ra-
chlorinated benzenes which are commonly used as dilutent for PCB fluids in
transformers. PCBs have low acute toxicity, but are of public hea'.th
concern because of their persistence In the environment, their
bioaccumulatlon in animal tissues, and their potential for chronic
toxicity. The clorinated benzenes are not known to be bioaccumulative, but
they have significant acute oral toxicity.
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
The concerns for human health are primarily those of occupational exposure
to PCBs, but there is the potential for harm through ingestion of ?CB
contaminated foods, especially sea foods, which might be contaminated with
PCBs through bioaccumulation.
The Westinghouse site is in an industrial area and subsequent to -he
findings of PCB contamination, was fenced to preclude casual human
trespass. A mainline fneced railroad right-of-way also secures the site
from trespassing. Migration from the site would be possible through
-E-35-
-E-36-
DETAILED SITE EXPENDITURE PLAN
surface water runoff or via the shallow ground water leading to the nearby
San Francisco Bay, however, this potential is considered to be very low. FACTOR AVENUE PLUME (#1465). SAN LEANDRO
II. Site Status I. Site Information
A. Status of Site Activity A. Location and Type of Site
The EPA assumed the lead responsibility in April 1981 for the 1465 Factor Avenue
characterization of the site and the development and implementation of a San Leandro, CA 94577
remedial action for the site with advisory roles by the Department of Heath Alameda County
Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The latter agency
Issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order, No. 95-006, dated Jan. 21, 1985, Four wells were installed for baseline water quality sampling ty the new
pertaining to the prevention of soil movement from the site by surface owners of the property. Significant concentrations of industrial solvents
water runoff control. and chemicals were identified In the ground water under the site. No
contaminants were found in soil borings at the four well sites. The source
B. Projected Revenue Source appears likely to be off-site and has not yet been identified.
The DHS will be issuing a remedial action order or entering into an B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
enforceable agreement with the responsible parties. DHS has budgeted
$50,000 for oversight/monitoring of cleanup efforts. DHS will recover 100% Groundwater: trichloroethylene (TCE) up to 2215 parts per billion (ppb);
of direct costs plus staff costs and overhead related to the project. The trichloroethene (TCA) up to 321 ppb; perchloroethylene (PCE) up to 263 ppb;
responsible parties will pay all costs associated with remedial 1 ,1-dichloroethane (DCA) up to 524. ppb; trans-1,2-dichloroethylene up to
Investigations and cleanup activities. 2.110 ppb; benzene up to 71.9 ppb; arsenic 0.082 milligrams per liter
(mg/L); chromium 0.52 mg/L; lead 0.064 mg/L; cyanide 0.12 mg/L.
III. Project Completion Estimates C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
Numerous .private wells are within a 3-mile radius and may become
The estimates shown below reflect*completion of major site cleanup phases based contaminated.
on current information regarding this site and RP cleanup plans.
II. Site Status
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates
A. Status of Site Activity
1. Site Characterization
Nov. 13, 1985: Safety specialists notified Regional Water Quality Control
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed Board (RWQCB) of chemical contamination of the ground water
b) Remedial Investigation b) Completed they had sampled from wells at the site for Lincoln
c) Feasibility Study c)'Completed Property Company.
2. Remedial Action Plan Dec. 1986 Oct. 9, 1985: DHS notified Lincoln Property Company that Factor Avenue
was being evaluated for inclusion on the State Priority
3. Remedial Action Ranking List.
a) Design a) March 1987 Nov. 29, 1985: Beta associates informed DHS that they had been retained by
b) Implementation b) Oct. 1987 Lincoln Property Company to continue to investigate the
c) Certification c) Dec. 1987 groundwater contamination at the site.
4• Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance Mar. 17, 1986: Beta Associates presented the results from resampling the
four wells at the site: contamination had increased.
a) Cost Recovery a) Dec. 1988
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 years
-E-37-
-E-38-
DETAILED SITE EXPENDITURE PLAN
Mar. 21 , 1966: DHS Informed Lincoln Property Company that, until further
notice, they had no further obligation to continue the
groundwater investigation at the site. ONE HUNDRED THIRTY NINTH STREET (#750), SAN LEANDRO
B. Projected Revenue Sources
I. Site Information
No responsible party (RP) has been identified. Lincoln Property- Company
owns the site. Potential RP's off-site are Simmons Mattress Company and
PacTel Information Systems. A. Location and Type of Site
9th Street
III. Project Budget and Cash Flow Estimates Son L e
San Leandro, CA 94578
Alameda County
The cost estimates shown below reflect only the state costs of site cleanup. Five monitoring wells were installed at' the site and significant
All activities will be funded from bond sale proceeds (to the extent that concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
federal Superfund or repponsible party funding is not available) except for the have been identified.
preparation of remedial action plane.
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
t
i
ed
Pro ect Estimated Trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified at a maximum of 54.2 parts per
Task Croup State Costs Completion Dates billion (ppb) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) at a maximum of 934 ppb. Both
are suspected human carcinogens.
1. Site Characterization $ 715,000
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Dec. 1986 C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
b) Remedial Investigation b) Nov. 1987 The contaminants are in a shallow aquifer at a depth of approximately 20
c) Feasibility Study c) Aug. 1988 feet. Wells may become contaminated. There are no surface water bodies in
the vicinity. The entire area is covered with buildings and pavement. A
2. Remedial Action Plan $ 60,000 Nov. 1988 railroad spur, adjacent to the site, provides access for surface runoff to
3. Remedial Action $ 2,860,000 the shallow aquifer.
a) Design a) April 1989 II. Site Statue
b) Implementation b) April 1990
c) Certification c) June 1990
A. Status of Site Activity
4. Cost.Recovery and/or
Operation and Maintenance 04/10/65: Beta Associates completed soil/ground water investigation for
a) Cost Recovery a) June 1991 the prospective buyer of 750 - 139th Street property.
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 years 05/03/85: The site owners notified San Francisco Bay Regional Water
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 3.635,000 Quality Control Board (RWQCB) of contaminants found in the
ground water at the 750 - 139th Street site.
08/07/85: The RWQCB referred the 139th Street case to the Department of
Health Services (DHS).
10/28/85: Lincoln Property Company purchased the 139th Street site.
12/18/85 The 139th Street Ranking Package is completed.
-E-39- -E-40-
02/13/86: Beta Associates completed ground water sampling of off-site DETAILED SITE EXPENDITURE PLAN
monitoring wells. TCE was detected at 8.8 ppb and PCE was
detected at 78.4 ppb.
AERO QUALITY PLATING
DHS is now drafting a Task Order for a Preliminary Site Assessment.
B. Projected Revenue Sources I. Site Information
No responsible party has been Identified yet.
A. Location and Type of Site
It will be necessary to utilize bond funds to remedlate this site. The
Department will undertake appropriate coat recovery actions. 710 73rd Avenue
Oakland, CA 94621
This site has not been identified as a National Priorities List (NPL) site, Alameda County
nor does It appear to be a likely NPL candidate in the future.
Consequently, federal funds appear as an unlikely source of re'iGnue for The shop did electroplating in bathe using copper. chromium, lea[, nickel,
this site. and zinc salts.
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
III. Project Budget and Cash Flow Estimates
Wastes generated include heavy metals and cyanide. Drums stored on-site
were open, leaking, and corroded. Cyanide solutions are stored on-site in
The coat estimates shown below reflect only the state costa of site cleanup.
All activities will be funded from bond sale proceeds (to the extent that open tanks. Sumps are full of toxic sludge. There !e a lot of spillage
federal Superfund or responsible party funding is not available). !n the shop.
C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
Projected Estimated There In suspected soil contamination and possible ground water contamina-
Task Group State Costs Completion Dates tion. There is a potential for migration of contamination via surface
water runoff to adjacent businesses. A nearby sanitary sewer showed
1. Site Characterization I 560.000 contamination until the water service was disconnected.
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Sept. 1986
b) Remedial Investigation b) Aug. 1987 II. Site Status
b) Feasibility Study c) June 1988
2. Remedial Action Plan $ 60,000 Sept. 1988 A. Status of Site Activity
3. Remedial Action $ 1,660;000 Operations at the site were discontinued in December, 1985.
a) Design a) Feb. 1989 B. Projected Revenue Sources
b) Implementation b) Feb. 1990
c) Certification c) April 1990 It appears, at this time, that bond funds will have to be expendcd for the
remedlatlon of this site. If bond funds are expended, appropriate cost
4. Cast Recovery and/or recovery actions will be taken. Potential responsible parties have been
Oceration end Maintenance notified about State requirements for site cleanup, however, they have not
committed to any cleanup.
a) Cost Recovery e) aril 1991 '
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 10-15 years This site has not been Identified as a National Priorities List (HPL) site,
nor does it appear to be a likely MPL candidate in the future. Therefore,
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS f 2,280,000 It appears unlikely that federal funds are a viable source of revenue for
this site.
-E-41- -E-42-
DETAILED SITE EXPENDITURE PLAN
III. Project Budget and Cash Flow Estimates LdM PLATING
i
The coat estimates shown below reflect only the state costs of site cleanup. I. Site Information
All activities will be funded from- bond sale proceeds to the extent that
federal Superfund or responsible party funding Is not available.
A. Location and Type of Site
Projected Estimated 920 54th Avenue
Task Group State Costs Completion Dates Oakland, CA 94609
Alameda County
1. Site Characterization $ 80,000
L&M plated metals with zinc, chrome, and nickel finish from 1977 until
a) Preliminary Assessment a) July 1987 1983, when an extensive fire occurred. Currently, hazardous substances are
b) Remedial Investigation b) Jan. 1988 stored on-site in open drums and plating baths. Soil in the yard of a
c) Feasibility Study c) June 1988 residence at 930 54th Avenue is contaminated with cyanide and heavy
metals.
2. Remedial Action Plan f 30,000 Sept. 1988
B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
3. Remedial Action $ 240,000
Elevated levels of cyanide, zinc, chromium, cadmium, nickel, lead, and
e) Design a) Nov. 1988 antimony have been detected on ground surfaces and in the soil. Field tests
b) Implementation b) Feb. 1989 indicate a EH range of 0-12 in open drums and tanks stored on-site. Some
c) Certification c) April 1989 of these containers are suspected of holding extremely high levels of
cyanide and metals.
4. Cost Recovery and/or
Operation and Maintenance C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
a) Cost Recovery e) A ril 1990 '' The site is not completely fenced and there are residents on-site, as well
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N A as numerous residents nearby. There is a possibility of direct contact
with containers of waste and with contaminated ground surfaces and soil.
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 350,000 There may be surface runoff of contaminants, as well as airborne migration
of contaminated soil and dust.
II. Site Status
A. Status of Site Activity
09/02/83: Department complaint Inspection was conducted.
01/04/94: Alameda County District Attorney hearing with Robert McSkimming
for non-compliance with a Notice of Violation issued after the
September inspection.
04/26/85: Department compliance and sampling inspection occurred.
04/29/95: Department compliance and sampling inspection occurred.
03/20/86: Department sampling inspections were conducted.
04/08/96: Department sampling inspections were conducted.
03/29/86: The Department issued a Fence and Post Order.
-E-43- -E-44-
08/22/86: The'Alameds County District Attorney filed a civil complaint for
violations of the Hazardous Waste Control Act.
A Remedial Action Order was issued to the responsible parties (RPs). The
RPs failed to comply with the Order; therefore, bond funds are currently FEDERAL FACILITY SITE CLEANUP WORRPLAN
being utilized by the Department to initiate removal and remedial
Investigation work. The Oakland Housing Conservation Division has issued
eviction notices to residents of 920 and 930 - 54th Avenue. ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION
B. Projected Revenue Sources
I. Site Information
Identified RPs include: The former LbM Plating owner and operator and
owner of 930 54th Avenue; and the current owner of 920 34th Avenue.
A. Location and Type of Site
Failure by the RPs to respond in a timely manner to the Departmer:'s order
has necessitatea expenditure of bond funds. The Department will take Alameda, CA 94501
appropriate coat recovery actions. Alameda County
Two industrial hazardous waste disposal sites were utilized from 1943 thru
III. Project Budget and Cash Flow Estimates the late 1970'x. The disposal sites were located in baylands adjacent to
San Francisco Bay and were approximately 110 acres each in size. The site
received waste oil, solvents, paints, scrap metal, garbage, radiological
The cost estimates shown below reflect the state coats of site cleanup. All material, aircraft engines, and possibly explosives.
activities will be funded from bond sale proceeds to the extent that federal
Superfund or RPs funding is not available. In addition, aviation fuel tanks have been identified. It Is estimated
that 365,000 gallons of fuel has leaked from these tanks.
Projected Estimated Numerous plating and
Task Croup State Coats Completion Dates possible contamination painting 1s spillage are being Investigated pract to determine
Po p ge and other disposal practices.
1. Site Characterization f 150,000 B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Sept. 1986 As identified above, hazardous waste suspected to be found include waste
b) Remedial Investigation b) June 1987
oil, solvents, heavy metals, explosives, and radiological material.
c) Feasibility Study c) Nov. 1987 Initial investlgtlons have found only low levels of contaminants in soil
2. Remedial Action Plan E 30,000 Feb. 1988 and ground water.
3. Remedial Action $ 445,000 C. Threat to Public Health and Environment
The primary concern- is San Francisco Bay which 1e directly adjacent to the
a) Design a) May 1988 formal hazardous waste disposal landfill.
b) Implementation b) Aug, -r08
c) Certification c) Oct. 1988
4. Cost Recovery and/or II. Site Status
Operation and Maintenance
a) Cost Recovery a) Oct. 1989 A. Statue of Site Activity
b) Operation and Maintenance b) N/A 1983: The engineering consultant completed an historical
literature review to identify possible sources of
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 625,000 contamination.
May 1984: The initial soil and ground water investigation completed.
April 1985: A subsequent Investigation workplan was submitted to DRS and
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
-E-45-
-E-46-
FEDERAL FACILITY SITE CLEANUP WORKPLAN
B. Projected Revenue Sources
This site is owned and operated by the U.S. Government. The Department LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
will seek funding from EPA for staff costs associated with DHS oversight
activities.
I. Site Infor®Lion
III. Project Completion Estimates
A. Location -end Type of Site
The Department has budgeted $100,000 from the Hazardous Substance Account to Lawrence National Laboratory
provide for private consultant assistance to D11S oversight staff. DRS will University Livermore ve California
seek cost-recovery from the U.S. Government. Livermore, CA 94550
Alameda County
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates B. Description of Hazardous Wastes
Several problems on the 1 square mile (m12) site include: a ground water
1. Site Characterization plume extending west offsite includes the chemical trichloroethylene (TCE);
e Completed dichloroethylene (DCE); and perchloroe they lene (PCE); a gasoline spill in
a) Remedial In Assessment ) the southest corner extends offsite slightly to the southeast;
b) Remedial Investigation b) Oct. 1988 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) transformers were found in an old landfill;
c) Feasibility Study c) Jan. 1990 TCE was found In soil borings in the southeast section.
2. Remedial Action Plan (ROD) July 1990
C. Threat to Public, Health and Environment
3. Remedial Action Private wells were found to be contaminated by the west-trending plume;
a
Design a) Jan, 1991 families were subsequently supplied with municipal water. Ground water
b) Implementation b) July 1992
lsthreatened by gasoline plume, and soils are contaminated.
c) Certification c) Sept. 1992
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance II. Site Status
a) Cost Recovery a) Sept. 1993
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 20+ years A. Statue of Site Activity
September 11, 1984: An Order of Compliance was issued by the Department,
directing Lawrence Livermore to provide water to
residents with contaminated wells, and requiring
Investigations in specific areas.
November 1985: Waste discharge requirements were Issued to Lawrence
Livermore by the Oakland Water Quality Control Board.
January 1986: Decontamination and waste treatment facility
exploratory trenches were approved for lack of
evidence of Holocene Faulting.
January 31, 1986: A final report was submitted regarding cleanup of East
Traffic Circl? landfill (PCB transformers).
-E-48-
-E-47-
B. Projected Revenue Sources
The Responsible Party is Lawrence Livermore and the U.S. Department of
Energy. Cleanup costs will be borne by Lawrence Livermore. Accordingly,
no bond funds are anticipated to be spent on this site. The Department
will seek funding from EPA for staff costa associated with DHS oversight
activities.
III. Project Completion Estimates
The Department has budgeted $100,000 from the Hazardous Substance Account to
provide the private consultant assistance to DHS oversight staff. DHS will
seek cost-recovery from the U.S. Government.
Estimated
Task Group Completion Dates
1. Site Characterization
a) Preliminary Assessment a) Completed
b) Remedial Investigation b) July 1988
c) Feasibility Study c) Oct. 1989
2. Remedial Action Plan April 1990
3. Remedial Action
a) Design a) Oct. 1990
b) Implementation b) April 1992
c) Certification c) June 1992
4. Cost Recovery and/or Operation and Maintenance
a) Cost Recovery a) June 1993
b) Operation and Maintenance b) 20+ years
-E-49-
APPENDIX F DRUM STORAGE/TRANSFER
BASIC HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES Drum storage and transfer facilities are usually combined. These facilities
offer storage services to generators of hazardous wastes and contract with
This appendix provides basic information on the typical characteristics and haulers to periodically take the wastes to treatment, recycling, or disposal
sizes of hazardous waste management technologies or facilities. This facilities. Usually, transfer stations serve as a central location for the
Information will assist in understanding the environmental implications of collection of small quantities of wastes, combining like wastes when the
each type of facility, helping to identify general areas appropriate for quantities become large enough to be economically shipped to another waste
locating those facilities (based on draft siting criteria) found to be needed management facility.
In Alameda County.
Typical drum storage and transfer facilities have a truck loading and
For each of the six technology groups, the information provided in this unloading area and a series of concrete pads on which 55-gallon drums are
section includes: stored. Transfer facilities may also have tank storage. The pads and the
areas around the tanks contain concrete berms to prevent wastes from migrating
• The purpose of the technology (e.g., solvent recovery reclaims from the storage area. All incompatible wastes (e.g., wastes that can react
solvents from a liquid organic waste stream) with each other) are stored in separate areas. Facilities are typically
equipped with air monitoring and control systems to identify and limit any
• The types of wastes to which the technology applies volatile and particulate emissions.
• A listing of specific technologies which are considered part of the Facilities may be required by RCRA and the Regional Water Quality Control
category (if applicable) Board to have a groundwater monitoring system.
o How a typical facility would look to an observer A typical transfer station occupies from 1 to 10 acres and has between 2 and
10 employees. Waste flows to and from these facilities range from 10,000 to
• A typical facility's annual operating capacity (In tons of hazardous 40,000 tone annually. This could involve weekly Incoming traffic ranging from
waste per year), truckloads of waste per week, and number of 6 to 75 (or more) trucks.
employees (information is provided for large and small facilities)
• The controls that would be employed at a typical facility to prevent AQUEOUS TREATMENT PROCESSES
releases of hazardous substances to the environment.
Many treatment processes can be used for liquid hazardous wastes. These
In evaluating the Implications of siting these facilities, It is important to processes fall into three categories: physical, chemical, and biological
understand that these technology groups are often combined. For Instance, treatment.
tank and drum storage will almost always be combined with recycling,
treatment, or residual repository facilities. Residual repositories may have Physical treatment processes either separate the water from the waste stream
solidification capabilities. Recycling facilities typically have treatment or prepare it for further treatment. Processes for organic waste streams
units (e.g., incinerators, tank treatment) to manage those materials which (e.g., wastewater contaminated with solvents or other organic material)
cannot be recovered. The size of the facility (i.e., acres of land) may not Includes distillation, evaporation, steam stripping, gravity settling,
Increase proportionally as different types of waste management units are added flotation centrifugation, reverse osmosis, carbon/resin absorption, and
to it, because support services and loading and unloading facilities would solvent extraction. Physical processes for inorganic wastes (e.g., metals and
probably operate for the entire facility. Because the individual descriptions caustic wastes) include gravity settling, flotation and centrifugation,
of the technology groups cannot account for all the different ways to combine filtration, and flocculation.
facility types, each group is described separately.
Chemical treatment processes either destroy or reduce the concentration of the
Table F-1 presents data on typical sizes of onsite and offalte facilities of waste stream by separating out hazardous constituents. These processes are
various kinds. The ability of a non-subsidized entity to profitably operate a used to treat organic and inorganic wastes. They include chemical
commercial offalte facility at the small, medium, and large scales cited in dechlorination, wet air oxidation, chemical oxidation, precipitation, ion
Table F-1 will vary according to market conditions and regulatory exchange, reduction, and neutralization.
requirements. However, It presumably would not be economically feasible for a
non-subsidized entity to operate profitably a commercial offalte facility
smaller than the smallest units sited In Table F-1.
-F-1- -F-2-
TABLE F-1 TABLE F-1 - Page 2
TYPICAL TREATMENT FACILITY SIZESa TYPICAL TREATMENT FACILITY SIZES
b Conventional aqueous treatment sizing was based on:
Conventional Aqueous Treatmentb Size (Tons/Year) 50,000 gpd - small
125,000 gpd - medium
Small Treatment Facility 70,000
250,000 gpd - large
Medium Treatment Facility 175,000 and rounded up slightly
Large Treatment Facility 350,000
c Stabilization/Solidification sizing was based on:
Stabilization/Solidificationc
150 tpd - small
Small Treatment Facility 50,000 300 tpd - medium
Medium Treatment Facility 125,000 However,
Large Treatment Facility 250,000 these facilities can be tailored to almost any scale.
Incineration - Rotary Kilnd d Rotary kiln incineration sizing was based on the following additional
assumptions:
Small Treatment Facility 30,000
Medium Treatment Facility 60,000 SO million BTU/hr 1,000 gal/hr - 33,000 TPY - small
Large Treatment Facility 100,000 110 million BTU/hr 2,200 gal/hr - 720600 TPY - medium
250 million BTU/hr 5,000 gal/hr - 165,000 TPY - large
Incineration - Cement Kline e
Cement kiln incineration sizing was based on the following additional
Small Treatment Facility 15,000 assumptions:
Medium Treatment Facility 35,000
Large Treatment Facility 85,000 10,000 BTU/pound or 80,000 BTU/gallon
36 million BTU/hr 470 gal/hr - 15,000 TPY - small
Wet Air Oxidationf 85 million BTU/hr 1,100 gal/hr - 35,000 TPY - medium
206 million BTU/hr 2,700 gal/hr - 85,000 TPY - large
Small Treatment Facility 5,000
Medium Treatment Facility 15,000 Also note that for cement kilns, typically only forty percent of material
Large Treatment Facility 40,000 burned is hazardous waste liquid.
Residuals Repository g f Wet air oxidation facility sizing was based on:
Smal) Treatment Facility 75,000 3,600 gpd - small
Medium Treatment Facility 170,000 10,800 gpd - medium
Large Treatment Facility 360,000 28,800 gpd - large
g Residuals repository facility sizing was based on a previously published
document entitled, "Residuals Repository - Conceptual Design and
NOTES: Feasibility Study," by C.E. Schubert, Ph.D. (D'Appolonia Waste Management
Services) for Southern California Hazardous Waste Management. Project,
a All treatment facilities were sized using the following basic assumptions: February 1984.
• One gallon of waste weighs 8.34 pounds. Source:
• All facilities will operate 330 days per year. The Problems and Needs for the Mana emest of Hazardous Wastes in Southern
o All facilities will operate on a 24-hour/day basis. California, Prepared or t e Sout ern California Hazardous Waste
Management Project by Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., San Bernardino,
January 1985.
-F-3- -F-4-
Biological treatment processes increase degradation of the hazardous
constituent by mixing microbes with the liquid waste stream. These processes
are primarily used to treat organic wastes. Biological treatment processes
include activated sludge, trickling filter, aerated lagoons, waste
stabilization ponds, and anaerobic digestion. Processes with lagoons and
x
ponds will not be permitted to operate after 1992. w
3
w
Figures F-1 through F-3 illustrate the basic approach used in three kinds of o
aqueous treatment.
M
W
a
Precipitation: Treatment of Waste Metal Solutions 3
0
w
a
This common process is used in aqueous waste streams that contain heavy
metals. The acidity (pH) of the waste stream is adjusted, usually by the LL
addition of either an acid or caustic (alkalies). Oxidation or reduction of
the waste stream may be required before pH adjustment. This causes the metals v
to form insoluble salts (precipitates) which are subsequently removed from the
solution. The byproducts of precipitation are metallic oxide salts in the a W a
form of sludges. This process 1s easy to operate and relatively inexpensive. e
Precipitation can reduce wastes by 50 to 60 percent. See Figure F-1. o w N
J m W
Neutralization J
a
In this process, an aqueous stream (containing no metallic contaminants) with o ; 0
either a high or a low pH is neutralized by the addition of acid or caustic. • w LL
The potential byproduct of neutralization is an inert salt that usually can be 0
disposed of via Class III disposal. Neutralization can also be used to w Z
stabilize inorganic compounds and to reduce the reactivity or corrosivity of Ui -J
the waste. An 85 to 100 percent waste reduction can be achieved by w F
Q �
neutralization. See Figure P-2. W �
Carbon Adsorption: Treatment of Aqueous Organic Wastes
In this process an aqueous stream containing relatively low levels of organic
compounds, such as pesticides, are exposed to powdered, activated carbon. The
organics are attracted to and captured on the surface of the highly porous
carbon and thus removed from the waste stream. When the carbon reaches its
capacity to hold organics it can either be replaced or regenerated to Its p
original condition. (Carbon regeneration is costly and only feasible for very I_
D
large carbon adsorption systems.) The spent carbon can be either disposed in o
a Class I landfill or Incinerated. Carbon adsorption can achieve an 80 to 100
percent reduction of contaminants, depending on the type of organic a
contaminant. See Figure F-3. w
f
The annual operating capacity of typical aqueous treatment facilities range
from 70,000 to 350,000 tons. A small unit may typically cover between 5 to 7 ;
acres, and a larger facility may occupy between 10 and 30 acres. Such
facilities may employ between 15 and 40 employees. A facility with an annual
capacity of 70,000 tons would have approximately 84 truck (4,000 gallons each)
deliveries each week.
-F-5-
-F-6-
HIGH OR LOW
PH SOLUTIONS ACID OR CAUSTIC
1
'*1
V
TO SEWER
Figure F-2
TREATMENT OF WASTE HIGH OR LOW
pH SOLUTIONS
c 2a66v Au
AMIEMIS OIIGANIC WASTES
I
'*1
m I
I
POWDERED
CARBON SPENT CARBON TO INCINERATION
TO SEWER
Figure F-3
TREATMENT OF AQUEOUS
ORGANIC WASTES
F2n667 An
An aqueous treatment facility consists of holding tanks with containment byproduct known as still bottoms. Still bottoms consist of primarily organic
berms, pipelines, and several groups of other tanks in which the various degradation and waste byproducts, and Inorganic contaminants, etc. Large
treatment processes occur. Wastes received by the facility are analyzed and commercial processes are designed for high process rates, are very energy
placed in an appropriate tank. efficient, and are usually costly. Small solvent stills are relatively
inexpensive, simple to operate, and are not very efficient. Distillation
Treated wastewater effluent Is discharged either to a sanitary sever or to an processes usually can achieve, depending upon the waste material to be
evaporation pond. The sludges formed are sent to an Incinerator or to a recovered, a 70 to 80 percent recovery. See Figure F-4.
biological waste converter, or are stabilized for subsequent land disposal.
In most cases, tanks would have roofs to minimize air emissions. Furthermore, INCINERATORS
the tanks would be surrounded by berms and placed on concrete pads to prevent
surface and groundwater releases. Groundwater monitoring may be required. Incinerators burn organic liquid and solid hazardous wastes that cannot be
recovered. Incineration of the wastes produces ash that is placed in a
residual depository.
SOLVENT AND OIL RECYCLING
This technique can handle large volumes of liquid, gaseous, solid, or slurried
Several technologies are available for both solvent and oil recycling. These wastes. Several types of incinerators can be used for thermal destruction or
Include distillation, solvent extraction, carbon/resin absorption, hazardous wastes. A rotary kiln Incinerator to shown In Figure F-5 since it
ultrafiltratlon, filtration, and reverse osmosis. Each technology separates is the least waste specific and most flexible in terms of being able to handle
the solvent or oil from the aqueous solution so that the product can be a variety of waste types. Waste handling is a crucial design aspect in
recovered. incinerator process selection. Other types of incinerators include fixed
hearth Incineration, liquid Injection incineration, rotary and cement kilns,
From the surrounding area, a typical solvent or oil recovery facility looks and fluidized bed units. While a fixed-hearth Incinerator with liquid
like a small modern petroleum products refinery. The observer would see injection can be used for an aqueous stream, a rotary kiln unit can also burn
storage tanks, pipelines, distillation towers, a few industrial buildings, and solid hazardous wastes.
a warehouse-style building with trucks entering to load and unload materials.
Storage tanks are surrounded by berms to contain spills. In a rotary kiln incinerator, solid, gas, or liquid waste organics are
Injected into a rotating cylinder where thermal destruction occurs by radiant
Small facilities process between 10,000 to 15,000 tons of materials annually, heat transfer from the walls of the kiln to the waste material. The waste
and occupy from one to three acres of land. Larger facilities can process up byproduct from the incinerator Is ash and exhaust gases. Ash typically is
to 40,000 tons of hazardous wastes a year and require as much as 10 acres. A composed of silica salts and trace metals. Exhaust gases are typically
large facility may employ up to 60 people. scrubbed (treated) to remove gaseous contaminants. Rotary kiln
Incinerators can be used with any combustible waste, and have a high
Vapors from this process are destroyed by Incineration or collected on incineration efficiency. Thus for mixed hazardous wastes, it is often the
adsorbents. Occasional venting of steam from the distillation equipment may preferred treatment. However, Incineration entails substantial capital costs,
be observed. The residuals from this process are Incinerated, extracted from significant maintenance, and control of gaseous emissions.
metals, or stabilized prior to land disposal. Wastes remaining after recovery
Is completed are sent to an aqueous waste treatment facility for further Like many other means of treatment, destruction efficiencies for a rotary kiln
processing. However, not all oil recycling processes produce residual waste. combustor can be contaminant specific. The best data available show that
destruction of most hazardous organic wastes Is 99.98 to 99.999+ percent
Process equipment is fitted with seals to prevent emissions. Leaks would be complete. Federal regulations require incinerators to destroy at least 99.99%
contained by dikes, drains, and basins. Detectors, alarms, and process of the hazardous constituents being burned. The federal government requires
controls prevent and monitor air emissions and water effluents. Storage tanks that all PCB's and dioxins be destroyed to a level of 99.9999% DRE.
and transfer lines have vapor recovery systems. In addition, all such
facilities are required to have an emergency response plan and personnel to Looking at a typical incinerator facility, an observer may see a tall smoke
address accidents (e.g., fires, explosions, spills). stack, bermed storage tanks, a truck unloading area, and a few support
buildings.
In the distillation process, organic wastes such as oils or solvents are
heated in a sealed vessel which causes the material to vaporize. The vapors
are then condensed and the oil or solvent 1s recovered leaving a waste
-F-9- -F-10-
SOLVENT OR
OIL VAPORS
COOLING WATER
RECOVERY STILL VAPORS
RECOVERED SOLVENT
Ott OIL
I
r+
HEATING STEAM •— SPENT SOLVENTS
OR WASTE OIL
STILL BOTTOMS TO
INCINERATION
Figure F-4
RECOVERY OF SPENT SOLVENTS
AND WASTE OIL
F 74G69 AO
EXHAUST
SOLID On LIQUID
WASTE ORGANICS
FUEL i—Y STACK
FUEL SECONDARY
FURNACE
`.1
AIR \r
ROTARY
KILN
I
SCnunuEn
N
I
Alit ASH 6 SCnuuBER LIOUIU
TO STABILIZATION
ASH TO
STABILIZATION
Figure F-5
INCINERATION
F?�Gf.N AO
Small rotary kiln incinerators handle about 30,000 tons per year, whereas a
large facility could annually burn 100,000 tons of hazardous waste. A large
Incinerator may require 92 trucks per week. Eight to 12 acres would typically
be required for small and large incinerators, respectively. Federal
regulations require that the operator monitor waste feed streams, emissions
from the stack, and the ash residuals to ensure that operating specifications
are continually met. As with all hazardous waste management facilities,
containment systems must be adequate to prevent spills from migrating.
Incinerators must meet discharge requirements set forth in an air quality
permit. In many cases, incinerators are fitted with scrubbers or operate with F
additives to keep emissions to acceptable levels. Ash residuals exhibiting
very low concentration levels and sludge for the air pollution control levels z ;
are collected and periodically taken to a residuals repository. f W
N0
V -d
_J W
m R
SOLIDIFICATION AND STABILIZATION FACILITIES F
Q Q H
Solid and liquid hazardous wastes are solidified or stabilized before being ;
placed in a residuals repository. These wastes will typically be the bottoms
from recycling operations or the residues from treatment processes.
Contaminated soils may also be stabilized prior to land disposal. Wastes are
solidified by applying additives to the material to prevent leaching and
chemical reactions. Inorganic sludges can be fixed by adding lime and fly
ash. Other wastes can be bound in asphalt or plastic (polymer) coating. z
�
o, O
t
As opposed to the above processes, stabilization adds bulk to the waste ( w Q
stream; approximately 20 to 40 percent in weight and a commensurate increase
In volume. See Figure F-6.
bm m
Q
Solidification facilities appear to the observer as large industrial buildings a ai
with several tall eiloa attached for storage of dry additives. Solidification
facilities can be as small as 1 acre and as large as 10 acres, and employ 5 to
30 people. Stabilization units can be designed to handle a wide range of ti
treatment capacities. Typical offelte facilities might range from 50,000 to o
250,000 tons/year of capacity. Similar to other facilities, solidification Q
units have monitoring and containment systems to detect and control releases V6<
to the environment. a Z
r -
W V
f Z
MOBILE TREATMENT
Increasingly, generators are contracting with mobile (or transportable)
treatment firms to treat their hazardous wastes. Mobile treatment is now
cost-effective for smaller or periodic generators of hazardous wastes who
cannot afford permanent treatment units or offsite disposal/treatment.
Generators use mobile treatment units primarily to treat lower-risk aqueous
waste streams (e.g., non-metallic and inorganic metallic liquids). Physical
processes that separate water from hazardous constituents, such as filtration
and flocculation are the most widely-used techniques. Acid neutralization
0
a
-F-13-
-F-14-
unite are also being Increasingly used. In addition, mobile air stripping
units are employed to treat contaminated groundwater as it is drawn from
withdrawal wells. z
f o °
Mobile treatment units must meet applicable RCRA requirements. Although they ¢ W Z
may operate at many different alter, mobile treatment unite receive a single
permit. °u
Generators, however, are responsible for properly handling the effluent from a
these units (e.g., meeting sewer discharge requirements). c=iC
a
W
New modular incinerators are also becoming available. J
RESIDUALS REPOSITORY
A residuals repository 1s used to dispose the residues of treated wastes from
all these processes. Of the five treatment sequences, only neutralization of o
high or low pN solutions can yield no hazardous residual for a repository.
All other waste types and treatment techniques ultimately leave some amount of
untreatable hazardous waste.
A residuals repository looks like a modern landfill with several cells in
which wastes are placed. Operation of these facilities Is subject to several r
new limitations, however. First, such facilities could only receive solid a cr
wastes that have been sufficiently treated. (By 1990, all hazardous wastes J
In California must be treated to acceptable concentration levels before being 4 o
placed in a residuals repository facility.) Second, the treated wastes could U iii w w
not contain any free liquids. Third, hazardous organic wastes could not be LL- , n ¢
placed in these units without being solidified. ° 14
w H
Q
The Intent is also to keep the repository covered (with a plastic sheet or 3
cover) at all times to avoid any penetration of rainfall (and thus avoid any
buildup of leachate). The cover or moveable roof would be moved aside during
good weather to allow access to the landfill's cells; in inclement weather, i
only specially covered wet weather disposal cells would be used. See Figure
W
F-7. o j Z
uwu a
These facilities are required to meet all other federal and state residual
repository regulations, Including double liners, leachate control and f
monitoring systems, run-on and run-off controls, and groundwater monitoring. W o
Existing state regulations restrict the siting of residual repositories (e.g., a
they cannot be sited in an area with permeable soils). 3 I
° U
W
A small residuals repository accepts 75,000 tons per year and may occupy 100 N
acres. A large facility could receive as much as 360,000 tons per year and m
cover 250 acres. This size of facility could employ as many as 50 people.
0
a
-F-15-
-F-16-
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
INTRODUCTION
Process Description: The activated sludge process decomposes organic wastes
Biological waste treatment is a generic term applied to types of processes which in water by exposing the water to biological growth. Water is continuously
use living microorganisms to decompose organic wastes into either water, carbon recycled in the system to maintain high concentrations of microorganisms. The
dioxide, and simple inorganics, or into simpler organics such as aldehydes and process involves an aeration step to provide the oxygen in the waste streams
acids. Typically, microorganisms used in a biological process are already present necessary for biological decomposition, followed by a clarifier in which the
in the incoming waste. In some instances microorganisms which have been sludge is separated from the organic free water. A portion of the sludge from
developed to attack specific acids are injected into a waste stream. Biological the clarifier is recycled back into the aeration tank to maintain high
treatment systems must be closely monitored and controlled to ensure that the concentrations of microorganisms.
growth of microorganisms is enhanced. Biological treatment systems must also
provide a means for maintaining high concentrations of the microorganism in Applications: Activated sludge can be applied to a wide variety of organic
waste problems as long as the solids content of the waste stream is less than
contact with the wastes. 1% and the contaminants are primarily organic. The process is not considered
Because biological systems contain living organisms, they require sufficient acceptable for decomposing halogenated hydrocarbons and other organic chemicals
nutrients and water to support growth. The systems are affected by many which break down at extremely slow rates. The process can remove some metals
factors including temperature, light and movement, chemical factors, and biotic in low concentration from waste streams. However, these metals must be in
factors. The organisms tend to thrive in relatively steady state environment in a form and concentration which is non-toxic to the bacteria.
which organic wastes are slowly added to the system. Since biological systems
are 'very sensitive, they are most often used as final stages in a series of This process is considered to be a well-developed treatment technology. There
physical and chemical pretreatment processes. are at least ten reported uses of activated sludge in industrial waste treatment
systems. Activated sludge systems are considered to be environmentally sound
Biological treatment systems do not alter or destroy inorganics. In fact, high because no chemicals are used.
concentrations of inorganics can severely inhibit decomposition activity.
Chemical or physical treatment may be required to condition a waste stream TRICKLING FILTER
prior to biological treatment. Process Description: In the trickling filter process, wastes are allowed to trickle
The five principal types of conventional biological treatment are: through a bed of rock or synthetic media coated with a slime of microorganic
growth. Microorganisms decompose organic matter in the waste stream. Open
• Activated Sludge tanks or towers house the filter, upon which the microorganisms grow, and open
• Trickling Filter tanks clarify the filter effluent. The filter tank or tower uses a rotating spray
• Aerated Lagoons system for feeding the waste stream to the filter surface.
• Waste-Stabilization Pond
• Anaerobic Digestion Applications: Trickling filters are applicable to the same types of wastewaters
as other biological treatment systems (wastewater containing up to 1% organic
There are also several innovative treatment systems under development. These suspended matter). Trickling filters are reported to have successfully handled
systems are designed to enhance the contact between the biological organism the following waste constituents: acetaldehyde, acetic acid, acetone, acrolein,
and the organic wastes, alcohols, benzene, butadiene, chlorinated hydrocarbons, cyanides, ephicholoro-
hydrin, formaldehyde, formic acid, ketones, monoethanolamine, propylene
Environmental Concerns: Biological treatment processes are considered environ- dichloride, resins, and rocket fuels. The process can be used in sequence with
mentally beneficial and have few if any negative impacts. Aerobic systems other biological treatment, but it is not generally efficient enough for use as
produce no secondary components which are considered pollutants. All of the the sole method of biodegradation.
aerobic systems discussed produce a clarified liquid effluent and a sludge which
consists of dead and living organisms and non-biodegradable inorganics and AERATED LAGOONS
refractory organics. Usually, this sludge must be disposed of in a secure landfill.
The risks posed by the sludge depend upon the constituents of the incoming Process Description: Aerated lagoons are based upon the same biological
streams. The gas emissions from the biological systems are carbon dioxide and decomposition principle as activated sludge systems. They consist of a large
nitrogen and under anaerobic conditions, methane. earthen lagoon containing high concentrations of microorganisms. Waste is
agitated to increase oxygen content of the waste stream which encourages
decomposition. The lagoon step is followed by immersion in concrete tanks
where sludge settles out of the waste. The process differs from activated sludge
in that sludge is not recycled. Organic decomposition typically takes longer in
aerated lagoons.
F-17
F-18
Applieaticxts: Aerated lagoons can he used to treat it-,e samu ce types of aqueous Biological Seeding
wastewater as activated sludge units. The process has been scessfully operated
in petrochemical wastewaters, textile wastes, and refinery wastes. The process
is not considered appropriate for wastewater with highly variable organic and Biological seeding is sometimes economically feasible for continuous application
metal concentration, nor for wastewater with high concentration of solids. proven euseindustrial
whe waste tretment
alized wasteseare being tdegraded. Special trai also
strains of
WASTE-STABILIZATION PONDS naturally occuring bacteria which have the capability to decompose or digest
such materials as aromatic hydrocarbons, fats and greases, and ammonia have
process Description: Waste stabilization ponds are large shallow ponds in which been developed. These mutant bacteria can handle several thousand times more
trace levels of organics are decomposed over a long period of time. Aeration material than their precursors. In addition, bacterial cultures have been applied
is provided only by wind action. In deeper ponds anerobic digestion takes place to batch treatment processes where concentrated wastes have been isolated in
at deeper levels. Stabilization ponds have been widely used to provide a final spill ponds or equilization tanks. One manufacturer of a freeze-dried, biochemical
polishing of wastewater to insure that effluent standards can be met. They'are complex indicates that specialized mutant bacteria can be applied with various
applicable to wastewaters containing less than 1% concentration of solids and nutrients to wastes from pulp milis, chemical plants, refineries, petrochemical
are not suitable for decomposing.toxic effluents. The process can be employed complexes, and textile plants. A special culture has also been developed that
only where substantiated land acreage is available and where the climate is can remove cyanide toxins from coking and chemical plant wastewaters. These
suitable. Waste stabilization of industrial wastes is recommended only where bacteria are presently being marketed by several companies within the U.S.
the waste has received preliminary treatment to remove most of the organics Fluid;7cd-Bed Bioreacto.
and virtually all of the inorganics.
Fluidized-beg bioreactors provide solic; surfaces for microbial growth to develop.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION This featu,e enables L.,, sys ern to treat waste soiution in which the organics
are toe dilute to support biological growth. These inert materials within the
Process prescription: Anaerobic digestion is a process for decomposing organic reactor and which support n-:,crobiai growth, are not lost through discharge of
matter in closed vessels in the absence of air. This process has traditionally Spent iiGuors. This system is prese�ttly being tested at bench scale.
been a supporting process to produce energy for other, sludge producing, biological
processes. An anerobic digestive system uses two types of bacteria, acid forming pcep-Shaat Aeration
and methane forming. The methane forming bacteria depend upon the acid
forming bacteria for their substance. An end product from anaerobic digestion This process uses a U-tube aeration chamber below a standard aeration tank to
is methane, a combustable gas. increase ;;.e ae.aticn brie 'o: aerobic treatment. These systems use less lard
area than, conventional aeration tanks and are presently successfully treating
Applications: Anaerobic digestion is considered suitable for only simple organics textile, petrochemiiai, and pharmaceutical plant wastes. Using a 35-minute
now typically found in municipal wastewaters. Anaerobic digestion is an integral resistence tune this system is reported to reduce organic levels in incoming
part of waste treatment systems. The process typically treats sludges containing waste by a factor of 10.
5-7% solids content. This sludge is reduced in volume by 40-60%.
Because the methane forming bacteria are highly sensitive to environmental Pure Oxygen Systems
changes, anaerobic systems cannot tolerate acidic wastes. Anaerobic digestive
processes are inhibited by many hydrocarbons and are not very effective for The use of pure oxylven rat'ner than air as an ox,dizing medium can greatly
most chlorinated hydrocarbons. Consequently, anaerobic digestion is not generally enhance the biological reaction in an aeration system. Although the cost o:
considered as a realistic option for treating hazardous chemical wastes. energy for mechanical oxygen diffusion is greatly reduced compared to
conventionai air systems, some of these savings are negated by the energy
required to produce the pure oxygen supply. Nevertheless, withtr. a range of
INNOVATIVE APPROACHES process scales, savings will outweigh the additional cost of oxygen production
In addition to the conventional biological treatment systems discussed in the hardware and operation. This range of cost-effectiveness is further dictated by
previous section, there are several innovative approaches to biological treatment the quality and constituents of the waste stream. It is reported that pure
in various stages of development. (A compilation of these innovative approaches oxygen systems produce less sludge than do conventional systems and are much
is contained Ina 1979 EPA report entitled Selected Biode radation Techni ues more tolerant of shock loadings of toxins. (Ref. 4, 35, 40, 99, 131)
for Treatment and/or Ultimate Disposal of Organic Materials. These innovative
approaches might be categorized as relating to bioreactor design, improved
accessories, or operation methods. Among the more prominent innovations now
being explored or developed are:
F-19 F-20
Figure C-1
r\`rte"\]\ v c-� ,.' .. Jrt`.��,i..:•
Q yK 1 cr� � 41 n. �?Q 1.%'_
APPENDIX C 1,
...: k6F ' Jf _ �� i-'• C. ,?`��:
O
o pt;ir
KEY OPFSITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES m _� ;+ .11i ;: .- PANOCHE FACILITYCo Wastes from generators In Alameda County In 1986 went to four major facilities loutelde the county: ¢, _o IT'e Panoche facility (Solano County) °z 1
• IT's Vine Hill/Baker facility (Contra Costa County) -��' { _ �?` ;^-••; ^ �; -.'G If fir_ Iy
o Chemical Waste Management's Kettleman Hills facility (Kings County) �- � � = t w' _-:F ' _ e:= ✓. 'J (i c
o Casmalla Resources' landfill (Santa Barbara County) -_.,�-' ` _�. �•�� :• :_`,:�` 1 ;`>- � - �' � _ �-\c d.
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY'S PANOCHE (BENICIA) FACILITY
LAKE. D,-
Internetlonal Technology Corporation's (IT) Panoche facility to located In e > a - yl ` i:;fir(„
group of low hills approximately 2 miles northeast of the City of Benicia, fo ' m v/ E�:-F -.. - i - �l h __ ...tp+ / r•
Solano County. The facility is located on Lake Herman Road, west of w T -` J. Z ki — '\•- Li �`
Interstate 680 and Suisun Bay and northeast of the Carquinez Straits (see x'o� v � r _ ��` }}• Of
Figure 1). uQ
U -V' .-c=�- .T"`�••'',}. .r -APPROXIMATE��,.,,iy 1 �
This hazardous waste management facility covers 242 scree, of which 190 scree ?'�:- _ %••'art t -IT CORPORATION'i !
are permitted for disposal of hazardous wastes, within a 2350/acre parcel of �t3PROPERTY LIM,IT�S�,/
land owned by IT. The land surrounding the hazardous waste management
facility
Is utilized for grazing. The western border of the site 1s adjacent e ;: `-•; n
to a 550-acre parcel of undeveloped land which Is owned by the City of Benicia. i '< `.' �' - rte-
The site is drained by a series of intermittent streams. Water wells are ;�"j
T _ = / r
located within 1 mile of the facility and provide drinking water and water for ° •- a °L .!" ...'..••1 Q a 4 r'
livestock. Water within 1/2 mile of the facility may be a potential source of
' l
drinking water. Groundwater occurs 40 to 50 feet below the surface of the - ,..1 - .�-- ,�. � i 1•,: ��,
facility and to a depth of 600 feet beneath the site. Lake Herman, located In rE✓ ,.�" -. - �• ��.•,'
• t; '�.'•�I'' i
a different watershed, Is approximately one mile south and west of the site. +C►;
__ ,fir .:1�--�•s�_....�:_ �=,�- n J
Site History v 'f t e _ _•t�j. ' '.:. �`v J�
Operations at the IT Panoche facility predated IT ownership. In 1968, the y
facility was permitted by the State of California as a Class I hazardous waste �• v / '; /' -
disposal site and received Its first conditional land use permit from Solano
,
=�J
County. The site was operated by J 6 J Disposal Company until IT purchased
the disposal site In 1974. The facility was operated by IT's subsidiary, 'Y/ - ;••' • r
Pacific Reclamation and Disposal Service, until 1977. Since 1977, the
facility has been operated directly by IT. No other changes in ownership have
taken place, although the name of the facility was changed in 1986 from IT FIGURE I
Benicia to IT Panoche.
Since operations were initiated at the site In 1968, the facility has been SCALE SITE LOCATION MAP
used for the land disposal of liquid and solid hazardous wastes. waste
management practices have Included the use of landfarming/landepreading, G 05 ;MILE
surface Impoundments, landf1111ng, and trench burial. Historically, the PREPARED FOR
Panoche and nearby IT Vine Hill/Baker facilities operated as an integrated IT CORPORATION PANOCHE FACILITY
unit for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Sludges SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
gcrrRENC'-S
S MIN US:.S ;OPOGRAPFIX MAPS OF E'ENIC1-tDATED:1959,
-G - 1- P407OREV15=0 19BG1, AND VINENIL•. IG-;EO f959. PNG;G-
REVISE) I5S57.C:.UFORNI:. OU-DR ANGLES
S.-LE Creating x Safer Tomorrov-
-G - 2- —-
from surface impoundments at Vine Hill/Baker were regularly disposed at November 1985, only five surface impoundments continued to receive new wastes
Panoche. In some instances, liquids from the Panoche facility have been (0, P series, 8, 17, and 18).
disposed at the Vine Hill/Baker site. At the present time, most of the surface impoundments are either taken out of
A December 19, 1986 Department of Health Services (DRS) order halted service, capped, or in the process of stabilization and solidification. A
acceptance of all new waste receipts at the Panoche facility. This order Is final containment surface impoundment (Pond 28) Is used to store stormwater
still In effect, and the facility to not accepting any wastes at the present runoff, and to contain accidental spills and overflows from the other surface
time. Impoundments. Treated water from surface impoundment 2B is discharged to
nearby surface waters and to the marsh under an NPDES (National Pollutant
Transportation Access Discharge Elimination System) permit.
To access the facility, vehicles travel Interstate 680 to the Lake Herman Road Regulation of the Facility
exit and proceed approximately one mile to the private entrance road of the The Panoche facility operates under an Interim Statue Document (ISD) Issued by
facility. The facility cannot be accessed by rail. the Department of Health Services (DHS) on March 30, 1981. In addition, Waste
Types of Waste Received Discharge Requirements were Issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board on May 20, 1981 (Order No. 81/31), prescribing waste
The facility accepted both solid and liquid wastes considered to be discharge prohibitions, waste disposal specifications, and provisions designed
by-products of chemical and manufacturing processes associated with the to protect the waters of the state. The facility was Issued a revised NPDES
following industries: petroleum; aerospace; metal finishing; electronics and permit (No. CA 00028100, Order No. 87/11, effective February 1987) for a
electroplating operations. The facility also accepted wastes associated with stormwater collection surface impoundment (2B) which discharges treated
the cleanup of numerous hazardous waste sites. The specific types of rainwater to a tributary of Suisun Bay. The facility also received
hazardous waste handled by the facility included: acid and alkaline Conditional Use Permits R-418 and R-708 (land use) from Solano County; a
solutions; metal sludges; solvents; pesticide rinse water; low level PCB's; permit from the Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety and
organic liquids; paint sludge; laboratory wastes; heavy metal wastes; Dame (No. 449); and a grant of interim status from the Environmental
contaminated soils; asbestos; catalyst fines; and oils. Predispoeal Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, the facility has been issued permits to
analytical testing of wastes received Is performed by the Vine Hill/Baker operate by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which are
laboratory, followed by verification testing of the Incoming waste by the IT updated annually.
Panoche laboratory prior to disposal. A number of enforcement actions have been taken against the Panoche facility
From 1970 to 1985, the facility annually received between 80,000 and 220,000 in recent years. In June 1984, DIIS referred an enforcement action to the
tone of hazardous waste for disposal. Until 1981, a portion of the wastes Contra Costa County District Attorney's office Involving a number of IT sites
were received In drums, which were buried at the facility. Approximately throughout the state, including IT Panoche. In February 1985, the Contra
4,000 drums were buried at the site during the 1975 - 1981 period. Costa County District Attorney entered into a Consent Decree with IT
Identifying the following violations: failure to maintain containers In a
During 1985, more than 98% of all the hazardous wastes received at the safe and proper condition; handling incompatible wastes In such a way as to
facility were from outside Solano County. The total amount of wastes received cause fires; insufficient waste analysis; and an Incomplete closure plan. DIIS
by the IT Panoche facility in 1984 was approximately 216,000 tone; in 1985 It recommended a fine of >tl25,000. The case eventually settled for =30,000. In
decreased to 169,000 tone. In 1986, the Panoche facility accepted 67,867 tons September 1984, EPA Issued a civil complaint to IT for interim status
of waste for landfill disposal, and approximately 7 million gallons of liquid violations found during a March 1984 inspection of the facility. The
waste which were disposed In surface impoundments. violations included: lack of an adequate groundwater monitoring program;
failure to maintain adequate containment of surface impoundments; failure to
Waste Management Unite prevent wind dispersal of wastes; failure to manage waste In such a way as to
prevent fires; inadequate freeboard; and land application of inappropriate
The initial RCRA permit application for the IT Panoche facility was filed In wastes. In July 1986, EPA and IT signed a Consent Agreement to resolve the
August 1983. At that same time, the facility had 44 surface impoundments September 1984 complaint.
(some clay lined, none synthetically lined), a landfill, three waste pile The RWQCB Issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order in January 1985 (Order No.
areas, five Inactive drum burial areas, two landspraying areas, and an
inactive landfill. The site currently consists of three multiple lined 85-003), ordering IT to comply with the requirements of the Interim Status
surface Impoundments (0 and P series), an inactive landfill, and three waste Document. The RWQCB had previously (in November 1981) granted a waiver to IT
piles. Waste management units which are presently non-operational Include a for an ISD groundwater monitoring program, based on the determination that the
landfill, five drum burial areas, and several surface impoundments. As of monitoring program specified In the Waste Discharge Requirements was adequate
to determine if wastes were migrating offalte.
-G - 3- -G - 4-
In June 1985, DNS Issued an enforcement order mandating compliance with their landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and other land-based units. SB
regulations requiring that adequate liability coverage be maintained. The IT 1500 sets forth land disposal restrictions similar to those found In the RCRA
facility is now in compliance with those regulations and currently maintains amendments. Many wastes, such as organics, may require Incineration. (IT
over $73 million in total liability coverage. does not have plans for an Incinerator at Panoche.) Most wastes will require
some type of treatment prior to disposal. Because the EPA has yet to develop
In August 1986, DNS sent IT a Notice of Violation (NOV), which Identified 27 final treatment standards for many of the wastes, it is difficult to predict
events where the IT Panoche facility was observed to be in violation. Many the actual effect that these requirements might have on land disposal at
were repeated violations, such as wind dispersal of wastes, freeboard, waste Panoche.
analysis, inadequate closure plan, and groundwater monitoring. The NOV also
addressed violations at the IT Vine Hill facility In Contra Costa County. The Environmental Problems
NOV was referred to the State Attorney General's Office in November 1986 with
a request that the Attorney General seek civil penalties and injunctive Since 1984, several Instances of groundwater contamination have been
relief. On April 1, 1987, the DNS reached a t3.2 million settlement with IT. documented at the Panoche facility. The January 1985 RWQCB Cleanup and
Approximately 1/3 of the penalties were assessed against IT Panoche, and 2/3 Abatement Order addressed the concern that contaminants had migrated offsite,
against IT Vine Hill. IT was required to perform extensive corrective action contaminating adjacent property owned by the City of Benicia.
at the facility, purchase emergency response equipment, and pay civil
penalties relating to the Panoche facility totalling over $1,100,000. The May 1987 EPA National Groundwater Task Force report states that relative
to background levels, their data confirm the presence of increased chlorides,
The RWQCB Issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order to the IT Panoche facility in sulfates, total organic carbon (TOG), total organic halogens, and elevated
September 1986 (Order No. 86/013). The order requires IT to perform specific specific conductance in groundwater at the site. In addition, EPA data
hydrogeologlcal investigations and determine the status of the facility's indicated the presence of volatile organics (e.g., chloroform, TCE,
surface Impoundments. tetrachloroethene, 1,2/dlchloropropane) in a number of monitoring wells at the
facility.
In December 1986, DNS ordered all waste management operations at the Panoche
facility to cease until further actions were taken to characterize the Citizen Opposition
condition of the drums buried at the site and ensure the safety of workers at
the site. This order to still In effect. In recent years, the IT Panoche facility and state and local authorities
regulating the faculty have met with local opposition from the community of
A Cleanup and Abatement Order on the Panoche facility was Issued to IT by the Benicia, as well as opposition from environmental organizations In the Bay
RWQCB in June 1987 (Order No. 87/058). This order amended the previous Area. During the "501" hearings, the community civic leaders, physicians, and
cleanup and abatement order and required IT to address the recommendation from citizenry voiced their strong objections to having the facility in their
the EPA Groundwater Task Force Report issued for the Panoche facility in May community.
1987.
Operational Changes
The RWQCB issued a Cease and Desist Order, which unlike a CAD requires a
public hearing, to IT on July 15, 1987. This Order requires IT to deinventory IT has proposed to upgrade, expand, and modernize the Panoche facility. They
all of the hazardous waste surface Impoundments at the facility by June 30, have recently applied for operating permits, land use permits, and Waste
1986, under the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act. IT is presently contesting the Discharge Requirements, required by the regulatory agencies, for the
Board's finding that the Panoche facility to within one-half mile of a conversion of the facility from a liquid hazardous waste disposal facility to
potential source of drinking water. an expanded solid hazardous waste disposal site.
On June 26 and 27, 1986, DNS conducted a public hearing (SB 501 hearing) in The proposal included the phased land construction of a lined,
the community of Benicia, to determine whether the operation of the Panoche "state-of-the-art" landfill which will cover 53 acres of land and have a total
facility might pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the volume of 6.4 million cubic yards. (The 6.4 million cubic yards includes the
environment, pursuant to Section 25149 of the Health and Safety Code. On July 2.6 million cubic yards of waste and underlying contaminated material
31, 1987, DNS made the determination that operation of the IT Panoche facility currently onsite that will be disposed in the landfill.) The project includes
did not pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the a treatment/stabilization unit intended to pretreat wastes prior to
environment. landfilling. The unit would treat and stabilize solid and liquid wastes by
mixing them with neutralizing and stabilizing agents (e.g., lime, kiln dust,
The RCRA land disposal restrictions and the Hazardous Waste Management Act of and cement). In addition, IT proposes to retrofit six surface impoundments
1986 (SB 1500) may have a significant impact on Panoche's future waste for the storage, treatment, and management of stormwater runoff and liquids
activities, if the facility is permitted to re-open. The RCRA Amendments generated onaite, and to construct a series of treatment/storage tanks for the
require EPA to promulgate waste treatment standards for wastes placed in
-G - 5- -G - 6-
i f
Figure C-2
.o
wastewater generated on site prior to either offaite discharge under the NPDES
permit, or onatte evaporation. _
The facility has also proposed a 55-acre foot expansion of the "Area 5"
landfill. If the proposal is approved, the ultimate capacity of "Area 5" will
be 530-acre feet. The Department of Health Services ie preparing an
P P P B
Environmental Impact Report on the Area 5 expansion. •": __ ________- -_ __
Modernization of this facility is planned to occur in phases over a projected , - --
period of seven years. IT has estimated that once the project is In place, ..:^ - _- -?
hazardous waste receipts will total approximately 150,000 tons per year. 1: "'--_ --
Solano County recently hired a consultant to produce an Environmental Impact - ? .r. •• - _ ,IS1_
Report (EIR) for the entire modernization project, which will also discuss the = +:'•_ "_:- ~"
existing facility as a whole.
IPO
Many activities at the facility are contingent upon IT'e challenge to the _ / _ _. _4,.�
RWQCB'a finding that the facility Is within 1/2 mile of a potential source of = :, `� - „ t►
drinking water. The inability of the facility to use surface Impoundments for =- �;'�� •� L.
truck wash-outs, treatment, and rainwater collection could have a significant '., y _ - �:•.�O s:�
effect on the waste management operations at the facility. 5 ,' `i ` vL•sj I `:i'.w'�� : "?�;;��. Ij
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY'S VINE HILL/BAKER FACILITY: CURRENT CAPACITY !..tr=- wat•rblyd way �4 • -
The International Technology Corporation's Vine Hlll/Baker facility Is located = __ VINE HILL FACILIT
east of Martinez, In Contra Costa County, approximately 20 miles northeast of
San Francisco (see Figure 2). The facility is located near the confluence of :_� _ °`. _ ;•XS\J ��11r
Walnut and Pacheco Creeks, adjacent to tidal marshland of Suisun Bay. The 41 ti+► v o
acre Vine Hill site is bordered on the north and west by the Acme Landfill, on _ _ _ •�r!erw r z�, r' IT ;� '� t
the east by marshland, and on the south by the Martinez Gun Club. The 130 `. eae.r_ • OR R•�
acre Baker site is located 1/4 mile southeast of Vine Hill and is bordered by r•�� �. �:4- .`,. ` , l; - :: • '•.&A,
Walnut Creek to the east and Pacheco Creek to the west. The Baker site is •+-•_i;./ - :;�Q•� = F•ellleti LJ I- •
connected to the Vine Hill site by a pipeline over Pacheco Creek. :
t�_ -:�l. �:; '; �K' �� ( •" . ' .-•v
•_ I ••' moo: �� �� °`�
Groundwater is found a few feet below the surface of the facility. The i` QQ Tc u .; \ �< . o 40, \Z C.
quality of the water is brackish which suggests a direct connection to waters "' a'': '' ` vp�fl•
of Suisun Bay. The Regional Water Quality Control Board states there are no �� j.• =• \o� ?�_=- �� ,r" �� ,\• L•
known current uses for brackish water due to its naturally occurring salinity. `O�r ';''= M s \ •��
Residences and industrial facilities, including two major refineries and a t' •� • '' �• •'
sanitary landfill, are located within 1000 feet of the facility. trn.v i Vine tI.l4niu: `�� �,? _ �; ` \ �� , �••
IT
This facility voluntarily stopped accepting new hazardous waste receipts on
December 1, 1987. ' 'l' ;� �..�� •.� ~..h ;;..1.---►. :-w`oo's
�_.
Site History ) SCAIE 1. 000
2° - �r
:® a .oa rm tone .® m •® �nn // V
Operations at the IT Vine Hill/Baker facility predated IT's purchase of the + •
Vine Hill property. In 1958, IT obtained the first land use permit for CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
disposal activities at the Vine Hill facility. Prior to 1958, the area was N oolltoatt•t••tLtN'+too'co-Toys
used for disposal of municipal and industrial refuse. It Is not known If
hazardous wastes were disposed of at the Vine Hill site prior to IT'e
FIGURE ! 1T. VINE FULL FACILITY LOCATION
(revised from IT. Vine 11111 RCRA Part D permit application)
-G - 7-
-G - 8-
ownership, but this may be possible given general industrial practices at that cloning Its impoundments and upgrading Its treatment facility. When their new
time. Prior to 1948, the site was undeveloped. treatment facility Is on line, IT expects to receive a total of approximately
22 million gallons of hazardous wastes per year.
The handling of hazardous wastes at the IT Vine Hill site began with waste
oils. This activity evolved Into the IT 011 Reprocessing Facility now located Waste Management Unite
at the site. Actual treatment of chemical wastes In tanks and unlined surface
Impoundments began at the Vine Hill site in October 1967. Current waste treatment and disposal units include storage, treatment and/or
disposal in tanks, surface Impoundments, and the incinerator and the
IT purchased approximately 130 acres of nearby property to 1970. This became centrifuge.
the Baker site, which is comprised of a aeries of unlined surface
Impoundments. IT installed a liquid waste Injection incinerator in the early At the 41-acre Vine Hill site, 17 acres are unlined surface impoundments
1970's. A centrifuge operation for the dewatering of sludge was added in late (Impoundments 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106; and Acme impoundments 201, 202,
1984. In late 1985, Vine Hill acquired 19 acres from the Acme Fill 203, and 204). In 1987, only impoundments 103, 105, and 106 continued to
Corporation, which contains four hazardous waste surface impoundments receive new wastes. Primary hazardous waste treatment processes used at Vine
(201-204, all inactive). IT acquired the Acme property In order to provide Hill Include: cyanide, sulfide and organic material oxidation; heavy metals
sufficient space for the planned modernization of the Vine Hill Treatment precipitation; acid-base neutralization; solids/oil/water separation; chromium
Complex. reduction; odor reduction; air/nitrogen stripping; incineration; sludge
dewatering; and liquid waste reduction. The incinerator has a permitted
Transportation Access capacity of approximately 23 million BTU/hr. In addition, the existing oil
recovery facility to presently operational, and has a capacity in excess of 10
The IT Vine 11111/Baker facility is located at the Intersection of Water Bird million gallons/year.
Way and Arthur Road, approximately 1 1/2 miles east-southeast of the Marina
Vista exit from Interstate 680. Historically, trucks containing hazardous The 130-acre Baker site contains 78 acres of unlined surface Impoundments
wastes were routed through the neighborhood near the facility, but a special (Impoundments A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, B, C, Dl, D2, D3, and E) utilized for solar
road, Water Bird Way, was constructed in 1982 for the trucks and routing evaporation of hazardous waste effluent pumped via pipeline from the Vine Hill
through the neighborhood no longer occurs. Treatment site. The individual Baker surface impoundments range In size from
approximately two acres to greater than 21 acres.
A rail line adjacent to the site to not normally used for transport of wastes
because IT does not have a rail spur. Utilization of rail transport Is not The facility is equipped with an onaite analytical laboratory which performs
planned for the future. analyses on all incoming wastes and is used for treatment process monitoring,
waste compatibility determination, and predfspoeal analysis.
Types of Wastes Received
Regulation of the Facility
The facility accepts liquid wastes which are by-products of chemical and
manufacturing processes associated with the following Industries: petroleum; This facility's operations are regulated by several permits. The San
electronic equipment; resin and paints; pharmaceutical; food processing; and Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted Waste
metal finishing. These wastes consist primarily of acids, bases, cyanides, Discharge Requirements (Order No. 78-76) on September 19, 1978, for the IT
solvents, waste fuel oils, and heavy metals. Vine Hill/Baker facility. The Order prescribes provisions and specifications
to regulate methods of waste disposal, in order to protect waters of the
Incoming wastes are characterized and treated at the Vine Hill site by various State. The facility has a Conditional Use Permit (land use) from Contra Costa
procesnes, Including neutralization, followed by placement into unlined County. Both IT Vine Hill and IT Baker received interim status from the
Impoundments for settling. Subsequently, the liquids are pumped into a series Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Health Services
of unlined impoundments at the Baker site for solar evaporation. In some (DIIS) to 1981. On October 5, 1983, the DHS issued a •final Hazardous Waste
Instances. wastes have been disposed directly into the Baker surface Facility Permit for certain specific operations at the Vine Hill facility. In
Impoundments. addition, the facility has been Issued permits to operate by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which are updated annually.
During 1985-1986, more than 651 of the hazardous waste received at the
facility came from generators located outside Contra Costa County.
Numerous enforcement actions have been taken against the facility. In June
1984, DHS referred an enforcement action to the Contra Costa County District
The average annual waste receipts at the IT Vine Hill/Raker facility during Attorney's office involving a number of IT sites, Including IT Vine
1984 and 1985 was 43 million gallons. The total volume of waste received in Hill/Baker. The Vine "III/Baker violations addressed inappropriate waste
1986 was In excess of 26 million gallons. The facility is in the process of
-C - 9- -C - l0-
management practices at the facility. DUS recommended a fine of 5125,000, restrictions and the hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986 (SB 1500) may have
The case was eventually settled for 00,006. significant impact on IT Vine Hill/Baker's future waste activities. The RCRA
Amendments require EPA to promulgate waste treatment standards for wastes
On January 16, 1985, the RWQCB issued Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) No. placed In surface Impoundments and other land-based unite. SB 1500 sets forth
85-004 to the IT Vine hill/Baker facility, based on technical data submitted land disposal restrictions similar to those found in the RCRA Amendments.
to the RWQCB that suggested that hazardous waste constituents were migrating Many wastes, such as organic@, may require incineration. Because the EPA has
Into groundwater. IT was requested to assess the extent of contaminant yet to develop final treatment standards for many of the wastes, it is
migration and install a groundwater monitoring program which could detect difficult to predict the actual effect this may have on waste handling
leakage from the impoundments. practices at the facility. However, most wastes will require some type of
treatment prior to disposal.
EPA Inspections in 1984 at the IT Vine Hill and Baker sites (and at IT Environmental Problems
Panoche) revealed a number of violations, including Inadequate monitoring of
groundwater and inadequate analysis of incoming wastes. A settlement was According to a RWQCB memorandum dated April 3, 1987, there Is substantial
reached In June 1986 for :45,000 to cover the violations at the sites.
evidence indicating that the surface impoundments at both Baker and Vine !till
On September 30, 1986, the RWQCB issued another CAD for the IT Vine Hfll/Baker are leaking and/or that the existence of the facilities are threatening to
facility. This order required IT to perform a more comprehensive pollute State waters. The Vine Hill surface impoundments were constructed on
hydrogeological investigation and to assess the sources and extent of municipal fill. It is known that at least part of the fill beneath Vine Hill
contaminant migration. is heavily contaminated with hydrocarbons. In addition, two monitoring wells
at the Vine hill site have shown high concentrations of boron and phenolics.
On April 1, 1987, the DNS reached a =3.2 million settlement with IT regarding In a 1981 investigation conducted by DuPont Corporation, tetra-ethyl lead wag
violations based on findings of the EPA's National Enforcement Investigations found in one area of the Vine Hill site at depths of 90 feet below the
Center (NEIC) and Inspections made by DRS. Approximately 1/3 of the penalties surface. Information submitted by IT in late 1984 indicated that waste
IT Panoche facility, and 2/3 against IT Vine
were assessed against the Hill. constituents were migrating Into groundwater at the Baker site. Although data
Among the violations noted were inadequate waste analysis, transfer of wastes from various groundwater monitoring wells have been inconsistent, data from
1985 have indicated the presence (low ppb) of several organic chemicals
from Vine Hill to Baker without waste analysts, Inadequate closure plan, and a
Improper management of surface impoundments. (tetrehydrofuren, acetone, n-butenone, methylene chloride, to name a few).
According to a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) memorandum of
The RWQCB issued a Cease and Desist Order, which unlike a CAO requires a February 9, 1987; these chemicals correlate with those found in the
public hearing, to IT Vine Hill on April 15, 1987. This Order was based on impoundments and would not be expected in background water quality samples.
the RWQCB's finding that the surface impoundments at the facility were (Note: Tetrehydrofuran to found In PVC pipe and may be an artifact of well
threatening to pollute the waters of the State by adversely Impacting the construction.)
beneficial uses of Pacheco and Walnut Creeks and requests that all liquids be
removed from all surface impoundments by January 1, 1989. In addition, Several environmental factors et the Baker site contribute [o concerns
however, the RWQCB found that the surface impoundments were not within 1/2 regarding the probability of groundwater contamination both beneath and
mile of a potential source of drinking water. adjacent to the site. Among these concerns are: the facility's location
adjacent to tidal marshlands; its proximity to surface water; and the shallow
On May 1, 1987, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA, filed depth of groundwater beneath the site. Testing performed by IT at both
suit against If Corporation for violation of laws relating to storage of Pacheco and Walnut Creeks has indicated differences in metal concentrations
hazardous wastes in surface Impoundments at the Baker site. The outcome of between upstream (background) and downstream waters. In response to the
recent Cease and Desist Order Issued by RWQCB, IT is currently testing nearby
this suit to still pending.
waters to determine the extent of waste migration and to thoroughly
The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA) requires all unlined hazardous waste characterize the hydrogeology beneath the facility.
surface Impoundments to be either free of liquid hazardous wastes or be
retrofitted in a prescribed manner by January 1, 1989. Further, TPCA requires Citizen Opposition
that all surface Impoundments containing hazardous waste, located within 1/2
mile upgradlent of a potential source of drinking water, be free of liquids by Over the years, the IT Vine H111/Baker faculty has met with local opposition
July 1, 1988. In addition, Federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act from the nearby community, as well ee opposition from environmental
(RCRA) amendments require all active surface Impoundments to be retrofitted organizations elsewhere in the state. The Blum Road Alert, an organization of
with a double liner by November 8, 1988. Since the Vine Hill/Baker facility residents in the Martinez community, has raised a number of issues regarding
utilizes surface impoundments primarily, the TPCA and RCRA Amendments have a transportation routes to the facility and the facility's impact on air,
profound effect on the facility as a whole. The RCRA land disposal groundwater, and surface water. More recent, the community group has
participated in the Joint Contra Costa Task Force and Bay Area Air Quallty
-C - 12-
-C - I1-
I
Figure G-3
Management District Meetings on IT Corporation, which provides a forum for
public interaction with the regulatory agencies and input in the permitting LOCATION OF KETTLEPIAN HILLS 17ACILITY
process of the proposed modernization project. Other local opposition has
been raised by Contra Costans Against Toxic Pollution. In addition, the
proposed new incinerator at the facility has met with strong opposition from
Greenpeace.
Operational Changes
Although the IT Corporation has planned for the closure of the surface $ten Franusco
Impoundments for a number. of years, implementation of the Toxic Pits Cleanup M A D E R A J
Act (TPCA) has forced IT to expedite the phase out and planned closure of its
surface impoundments. As part of the ongoing closure process, IT has 99
decreased the amount of wastes accepted at the facility. Ultimately, closure
of the impoundments will result in a drastic change in the manner in which I FRESNO
wastes will be managed at this facility.
FRESNO _
Preliminary plans for changes at the facility called for a "state-of-the-art"
modernization of the treatment facility by upgrading the initial chemical SAN ql
treatment process and adding additional treatment steps (secondary and SAN JOAO UIN _
tertiary) to the wastewater effluent. Various methods of handling the L^
effluent have been proposed by IT, Including: "mechanical" evaporation \ B E NIT O
(tanks); discharge of treated effluent to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works I _
(POTW), or release directly to nearby surface waters under a NPDES permit. In
addition, a modernized incinerator has been proposed to replace the T U L A R E
Incinerator presently In operation at the facility. The oil recovery plant C OAIINGA
will also be upgraded. Surface Impoundments will not be part of these (/
treatment, storage, or disposal processes.
MONTEREY KET:TI
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT'S KETTLEMAN HILLS FACILITY: CURRENT CAPACITY K E T T LE N HI / CJ�
Chemical Waste Management (CWM) owns a 1,600-acre FACILIT Y /
8 , property !n an �
unincorporated area of Kings County about three miles west of Kettleman City. - - - — - — -
This site lies Just off Interstate 5, roughly equidistant between Loa Angeles
and the San Francisco Bay Area (see Figure 3). only 210 acres of this KERN 99
property are currently used for hazardous waste management. In 1986, CWM ql -
gained approval from Kings County to expand its waste management operations
onto approximately 288 acres of contiguous lands within this property. O
land surrounding the Kettleman Hills facility (KHF) 1s zoned for general BAKERSFIELD
agriculture, and is used for cattle MORRO
g . grazing and oil and gas production. There BAY
are no irrigation wells, or other public water systems within 1 mile of the SAN LUIS S A N LUIS _
site. The closest well, 1.8 miles west of the site, is used for Irrigation. OBISPO
Groundwater underlies this site at depths of about 291 to 435 feet. The O BIS P U -
groundwater is not currently used. Because preliminary information Indicates
that its yield may be relatively low, future beneficial uses may be limited.
The groundwater is generally stagnant with an apparent inclination toward the - ANTA
south. Differential geologic permeabilities combined with the generally
static condition of the groundwater indicates that there is a low
B potential for
groundwater migration from the site. Potable groundwater aquifers exist
several miles to the east and west of the Kettleman Hills facility and serve ni les
communities in those areas.
I I
-G - 13- o ,o as 30
-G - 14-
Site history being placed in the landfill. In addition, the concentration of organic
wastes in impoundments is limited to less than 1 percent.
Hazardous waste management activities began in the mid-1970's at the KHF, Semi-solid, and solid hazardous wastes and sludges are stabilized prior to
which was initially owned and operated by the McKay Trucking Company. McKay being placed in the .landfill. Liquid wastes containing less than TSCA
sold the facility in 1979 to CWM, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. At regulated levels of PCBs (i.e., less than 50 ppm) are stabilized, if
that time, the processes at the facility included container storage,. land necessary, and disposed of in double-lined RCRA landfills. Liquids with
spreading, several surface impoundments, and landfills. greater concentration of PCBs are sent to CEMM incinerators elsewhere in the
country. Only PCB solids (e.g., transformer carcasses) are deposited In the
During the last few years, CWM has made a number of major operational changes TSCA landfill. TSCA landfills are only required to have a single liner.
at the facility. In 1983, CWM stopped land spreading activities. In 1984,
the firm added a cyanide treatment unit to conform to California land disposal Approximately 314,000 tons of manifested wastes were received by the facility
ban requirements concerning several types of hazardous wastes, including In 1986. More than 99i of this waste was generated outside of Kings County,
cyanides. In the same year, CWM began retrofitting surface Impoundments with primarily in Southern California. Some out-of-state wastes were also
double (or triple) liners, and leachate collection and removal systems to meet received.
the minimum technological standards in the RCRA amendments. To date, the Waste Management Units
facility has Installed liners at each of Its five operating surface
Impoundments. Two of the surface Impoundments have double liners composed of Active waste management unit at the Kettleman Hills facility Include container
a composite synthetic and one foot clay liner, followed by a leachate storage, storage and/or treatment in tanks and surface impoundments, and
collection system and a two foot clay liner. Although not required to do so disposal in landfills. The major units are.,
by EPA regulations, CWM has agreed to retrofit these two unite to add an o Drum Storage Unit. This unit stores drums, most of which are 55
additional foot of clay to the bottom liner in conformance with new EPA liner gallons in volume, prior to treatment and/or disposal elsewhere at
specifications or to close the units by November 8, 1988, the facility. Approximately 70,000 gallons of waste (1280 drums)
can be stored at this unit.
In 1985, to meet the ban on the disposal of liquids in landfills imposed by o Cyanide Treatment Unit (CTU). The CTU 1s comprised of two 18,000
the 1984 RCRA amendments, CWM began operating a waste stabilization unit at gallon tanks with a design capacity of approximately 5,000
this facility. This unit removes free liquids and also stabilizes reactive gallons/day. The unit mixes a sulfurous reagent with the cyanide
wastes. The stabilized materials are then placed in a new double-lined RCRA wastes to form a leas reactive thiocyanate complex. Once the wastes
landfill. are treated, they are discharged Into a surface Impoundment or
During 1985 and 1986, CWM closed a number of surface impoundments and lined stabilized and placed into a landfill.
the landfills at the Kettleman Hills facility. The facility has proposed to o Stabilization Unit. This unit consists of six steel tanks. This
add several new lined Impoundments, landfills, and waste treatment units. process stabilizes reactive wastes and removes free liquids by
Many of these units are to be constructed In the 288 acre expansion area. mixing the wastes with stabilization materials (i.e., kiln dust or
other lime-based Ingredients).
Transportation Access o PCB Flushing/Storage Unit. This unit, which is regulated under
TSCA, removes PCBs from transformers or drums and stores the liquid
Hazardous wastes are trucked to this facility on Interstate 5 from Southern for stabilization and landfllling if PCB content Is less than 50 ppm
California and the Bay Area to Route 41 (near Kettleman City). From this or for shipment out of state for incineration If PCB content is
junction, wastes are transported a short distance on Route 41 to the KHF greater than 50 ppm.
access road. The access road is one mile long. The facility has no rail o Surface Impoundments. The facility has five active surface
access. impoundments, each with a double liner. Treated or untreated liquid
wastes are placed into these units for solar evaporation. Except
Types of Wastes Received for an acid neutralization surface impoundment from which CWM
removes and landfills residues every two or three years, CWM's
This facility receives virtually every type of category of RCRA hazardous practice has been to only remove residues from active impoundments
wastes, plus PCB wastes regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).' which are being retrofitted. Together, the design capacity of these
These waste groupings include cyanide, corrosive, ignitable, reactive, and Impoundments is approximately 16 million gallons.
organic liquid wastes which are received In containers or In bulk. The KHF o Landfills. Currently, Kettleman Hills contains two TSCA PCB
also receives some solid and semi-solid wastes and sludges. landfills and one operating RCRA landfill (8/19), which is being
constructed to three phases. Phase I, recently completed, provides
Wastes received by the facility are characterized and subsequently managed by approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of remaining capacity. This
different processes. Liquid wastes are reclaimed via decanting, treated in new unit has a RCRA-approved double liner and leachate collection
tanks, stabilized, and either landfilled or placed in lined surface and removal system.
Impoundments for solar evaporation. All liquid wastes are dewatered before
-G - 15- -G - 16-
Regulation of the Facility CWM has submitted information to the RWQCB on the quality and quantity of the
groundwater within 1/2 mile of its surface Impoundments. Within a few months,
This facility has obtained or 1s seeking several permits which regulate its the RWQCB to expected to make a determination on the application of TPCA'a
hazardous waste management activities. On the local level, CWM has a locational restrictions to the KHF.
conditional use permit (land use) from Kings County. Also, it has been
granted an air quality permit by the Kings County Air Pollution Control New federal and state land disposal restrictions will have the most profound
District (APCD). effect on the KHF'a future activities. The 1984 RCRA amendments require EPA
to promulgate treatment standards for all wastes placed in landfills, surface
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), located in impoundments, waste piles, and any other land-based units. No untreated
Fresno, has granted the Kettleman Hills facility a waste discharge permit. wastes can be disposed on the land without specific EPA findings of safety.
This permit regulates the facility's waste disposal practices in order to EPA has already restricted the disposal of liquids in landfills, solvents, and
protect ground and surface waters. wastes on the "California list," which include cyanide wastes, certain metals,
halogenated organic compounds, and low pH wastes. EPA and DHS are evaluating
On November 19, 1980, the facility received Interim status (i.e., a right to the KHF's waste analysis plan to determine if CWM is in compliance with these
operate pursuant to RCRA until receiving a formal permit) from the U.S. restrictions.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Health
Services (DNS). A joint draft RCRA permit on the entire Kettleman Hills EPA has developed a schedule of additional land disposal restriction
facility was issued by EPA and DHS on July 22 and July 24, 1987, determinations, with high volume/high toxicity wastes receiving early review.
respectively. EPA and DIIS are currently responding to public comments The RCRA amendments require EPA to finalize treatment standards for one-third
received on this draft permit. EPA expects to issue its formal permit for the of these wastes by August 8, 1988, another third by June 8, 1989, and the
KHF in the near future. final third by May 8, 1990. Unless EPA postpones these additional land
disposal restrictions (for no longer than two years, and there after,
In 1985, EPA brought an enforcement action against CWM which addressed several case-by-case extensions for up to one year, renewable once), treatment
alleged violations by this facility, including Insufficient groundwater standards for these wastes will become effective on the dates listed above.
monitoring and a failure to adequately document the stabilization of liquid EPA will likely require incineration for many organic wastes; others, such as
wastes or wastes containing liquids prior to disposal in a landfill. On metals, may stf.11 be permitted In landfills after being stabilized. however,
November 7, 1985, EPA and CWM settled the action. The terms of the until EPA develops final treatment standards, It will be difficult to predict
enforcement agreement Included: their precise effect on current land disposal at the KHF.
• A commitment by CWM to close unlined disposal units and to construct
new or retrofit old units with liners and leachate detection and The state Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986 (SB 1500 Roberti) sets forth
control systems (according to CWM, this commitment has been met); land disposal restrictions that are very similar to those in the RCRA
• Agreement by EPA and CWM on a satisfactory groundwater monitoring amendments. However, by May 8, 1990, SB 2500 requires treatment of all wastes
strategy (according to CWM, this agreement has also been prior to land disposal regardless of specific findings of safety. Extensions
Implemented); and are also available. It is probable that the state will follow EPA's lead on
• A one/time payment by CWM of 12,103,000 to EPA and annual-payments treatment standards.
of $100,000 to DHS for coats of oversight to monitor compliance with
applicable regulations implementing RCRA and/or hazardous waste CWM Is currently exploring several alternative technologies to meet treatment
enforcement and response training. demands, including freeze crystallization, mobile incineration technology,
recycling operations, solvent recovery, aqueous organic and Inorganic
A few key upcoming regulatory changes will affect the facility's activities. treatment systems and the like.
First, the 1984 federal RCRA amendments require all active surface
Impoundments to be retrofitted with a double liner by November 8, 1988. The Environmental Problems
State's Toxic Pita Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA) also requires retrofitting (by
January 1,1989). In addition, July 1, 1988, TPCA requires that all surface Groundwater contamination has been detected in two areas in the western
Impoundments that contain hazardous wastes be free of liquids if they are portion of the facility. Constituents with the highest concentrations are
located within 1/2 mile upgradfent of a potential source of drinking water. chloroform (.155 PPM) and 1-2 Dichloroethylene (DCE) (.08 PPM). These
According to TPCA, if a facility can meet the location restrictions and is concentrations exceed the RWQCB's no degradation standard. To date, no
granted all possible variances, it must stop accepting liquid hazardous wastes contaminants have been detected beyond the facility's property boundary. At
by January 1, 1991. The Kettleman Hills facility has already retrofitted three this time, EPA believes that there is no groundwater contamination beyond the
of its five operating surface impoundments to meet EPA's new liner property line at the Kettleman Hills facility. Current investigation of
specifications. CWM expects to retrofit a fourth unit by November 8, 1988. ooslte contamination is designed to characterize the hydrogeology and movement
The remaining impoundment will probably be converted into part of a new of the chemicals in the aquifer in order to determine the most appropriate
landfill. clean-up strategy.
-G - 17- -G - 18-
According to CWM, it has complied with all regulatory requirements for Expected Operational Changes
addressing the contaminant remnants of past legal disposal of solid and liquid
wastes in unl"lned units at the facility. 31 wells are regularly sampled to mM has extensive plane to expand and Improve the facility's hazardous waste
obtain water quality data. If contamination of groundwater Is suspected, CWM management capabilities. Every new unit will require a RCRA permit. A new
begins an assessment program to determine the nature and extent of the drum storage unit capable of holding up to 8,500 drums is scheduled for
possible problem more fully. If required, corrective actions are taken after construction. This unit will be on a bermed concrete pad in order to prevent
regulatory agency approval. As noted, to date the groundwater monitoring run-on and run-off from the drum storage area. Once constructed, this unit
program has confirmed contamination in two wells, and corrective actions are will help CWM address temporary treatment capacity shortages by providing
being undertaken, including groundwater extraction at well K-4. In both space to store wastes for extended periods of time.
cases, the contamination has been poked to the past use of unlined surface
Impoundments, a practice no longer followed at this facility. Groundwater A new stabilization ad with a capacity of 132,000 gallons of waste/day is to
st orage capacity then the existing stabilization facility.be constructed. In addition,tion, this unit will Include several times more liquid
monitoring results continue to show no new impacts to groundwater and the
constituents cyanide and 2,4,D remain at levels below the minimum detection storage
line. A neutralization/filtration unit (NFU) will replace acid waste treatment
According to EPA, there 1s extensive soil contamination at the Kettleman Hills operations '1n which bulk and containerized wastes are discharged directly to a
facility. However, this contamination is moving very slowly down through the surface Impoundment and are treated by the In-pond addition of a neutralizing
unsaturated zone and, therefore, may not present a serious threat to reagent slurry (e.g., sodium hydroxide). The NFU is designed for the
groundwater. treatment of inorganic and organic wastes, although CWH may make provisions In
the future also to treat caustic wastes. The treatment process will produce a
Although there have been several complaints by Kettleman City residents slurry which will be drawn through a filtration unit. The filtrate will be
concerning air and/or odor problems, during the last couple of years air discharged directly to a lined surface Impoundment for further treatment. The
contamination has not been a major issue. After the Kings County APCD and CWM filter cake will be collected and disposed in an onsite landfill. The
agreed to limit organic chemical concentrations to less than l percent a few capacity for the entire process will be approximately 69,000 gallons/day.
years ago, air problems have been minimal. A second PCB flushing/storage building is proposed. This unit will be similar
CWM has installed 3 permanent air monitoring stations at the facility, one to the existing operation.
station in the City of Avenal, and one station In Kettleman Cfty. The air
monitoring network continues to operate 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. To date, CWM has proposed nine new surface impoundments. Six units have a design
capacity of 4,700,000 gallons each; the other three have capacities of
average concentrations observed by CWM are at normal background levels.
4,500,000, 6,100,000, and 6,300,000 gallons. CWM expects to phase In two new
EPA recently completed a Draft RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) at the KHF to impoundments a year starting in 1988 and ending In 199.1. Each would meet EPA
Investigate contamination from old and Inactive units. This analysis is RCRA standards. The facility expects to add the ninth Impoundment In 1992.
required under the "corrective action" provisions of the 1984 RCRA
amendments. The results of this Investigation are not yet available. If CWM constructs these units, their impoundment design capacity will increase
280x. However, construction of new surface impoundments depends on
Although one potential alternative for corrective action could include the by over
excavation of contaminated soils necessitating redisposal of large volumes of market conditions and the impact of state and federal regulations. For
unearthed wastes in the facility's new landfills, CWM believes that the more instance, it is unlikely that CWM will construct all of these units if EPA
likely option is the Interception and removal of any contaminants If they are begins to require alternative treatment methods for many of the wastes that
discovered, followed by capping, stabilizing, and continued monitoring of the the facility currently places in impoundments. Also, as' previously discussed,
old units. According to CWM, the important considerations are that: (1) the one of the existing surface impoundments will probably become a new landfill
facility conforms to the new siting requirements; (2) the geology of the area area.
and the design of the older landfill units provide protection against wastes
reaching the groundwater (i.e., the wastes are not migrating); and (3) CWM The facility has proposed significant increases in landfill capacity. Phase
continues to monitor for migration from old landfills and has not yet detected II of the B-19 landfill expansion is under construction. After completion, it
any migration. will provide 2,600,000 cubic yards of disposal capacity. Phase III at B-19,
with an expected date of operation of January 1989, will increase capacity by
Citizen Opposition 900,000 yards. In addition, CWM has proposed to construct two very large new
landfills: B-17 would begin accepting wastes In June 1989, with a capacity of
There is little local opposition to the Kettleman Hills facility. However, 6,100,000 cubic yards; B-18, with an expected starting date of January 1992,
Greenpeace has strongly opposed initial proposals to construct an incinerator would have a capacity of 9,700,000 cubic yards. Similar to any expansion of
at this site (see discussion below). impoundments, CWM's decision to construct the landfills will be driven by
market calculations and regulatory conditions.
-G - 19- -G - 20-
Figure C-4
FACILITY LOCATION
Finally, although CWH has not yet submitted a formal application to EPA, the
firm has taken preliminary steps toward siting an Incinerator at the K11F.. An
Incinerator would be capable of treating the large quantity of organic wastes
that the KHF now accepts. Because the land disposal restrictions will
probably require Incineration for many of the organic wastes that the KHF
currently places In surface impoundments, an Incinerator would help the
facility meet the future needs of most of Its present generators.
CASKALIA RESOURCES' CASKALIA FACILITVt CURRENT CAPACITY
ewa•�wn
The Casmalla Resources facility is located In an unincorporated area In the BANTA MARIA
northwest portion of Santa Barbara County approximately ten miles southwest of
Santa Marla and 16 miles north-northwest of Lompoc (see Figure 4). The
facility occupies approximately 252 scree and to In the center of a 4,700-acre. 1
parcel of land owned by Casmalis Resources. The site to two miles north of —�
the small unincorporated community of Casmalla (population of 250) and abuts t�ra�aia
Vandenberg Air Force IMae to the west. The lend uses In the area of the
facility are predominantly cattle grazing, with limited dry farming. :
Caemalls Creek, which runs south along the site's western boundary joins
Shuman Creek about one mile from the eastern boundary of the site. These
creeks then drain west four miles to the Pacific Ocean. At higher elevations, v.se[sa[s•
In the •
northern area of the site, depth to groundwater is between 150' and 200 feet.
At lower elevations. in the southern area of the site, groundwater is 10 to
100 feet below the surface. The groundwater flows to the west. ( ` t [
•u
The site Is located between two large groundwater basins — the Santa Karla i
Valley basin to the north and the San Antonio Creek basin to the south. These r
groundwater basins, and the Seats Ynez Valley aquifer, are the maim source of
drinking water for the region. Studies Indicate that the groundwater beneath
the site to not connected to these groundwater systems. °art
lOYIOC
Site History
The Casmalla Resources facility has been owned and operated by the Caemalls suet
Resources partnership, for which Kenneth H. Water. Jr. Is the general [x..■[
partner, since waste management activities began to 1973. The facility has a,
historically operated s number of landfills, surface Impoundments, and
disposal trenches.
In 1976. the County of Santa Barbara approved a 70 acre expansion which
Casmalla used to construct new surface Impoundments and landfills. When these To [••*�
new unite became operational to 1978. a PCB landfill, regulated under the e•.[•a•
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was given approval to operate at a •..r•
capacity of 14.800 cubic yards by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). In 1980, this landfill was permitted to expand capacity to 180,000
cubic yards. In 1980, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), located to San Luis Obispo, approved a 75 acre expansion adjacent to
the site's western boundary. This expansion was Initially used for four
Impoundments, and subsequently, a few additional Impoundments were Installed
In title area.
ISOUFce: Rc" Fail BI
-C - 21-
-C - 22-
In addition to the facility's land-based units, a Zimpro wet-air oxidation In 1986, the facility accepted approximately 136,000 tons of hazardous waste;
unit began operating in 1983. This unit is designed to treat liquid wastes, down from an estimate 282,000 tons In 1985. Over 96% of this waste was
such as cyanides, pesticides, and general organic waste waters. The liquid trucked In from outside the county. The counties that contribute the most to
effluent from this facility is discharged to surface impoundments. the total amount of waste received by Casmalla include Los Angeles (45X),
Orange (8x), San Diego (42), and Santa Clara (7X). Casmalla receives
By September 1985, Casmalla consisted of six landfills, 42 surface approximately 10% of Los Angeles County's waste, 16% of Orange County's, and
Impoundments, and the Zimpro treatment unit. In the 12 years between 1973, 5% of San Diego County's.
when operations began, and 1985, the annual amount of liquid waste received
Increased from approximately 13 million gallons to over 66 million gallons. Waste Management Units
In the same period of time, solid waste volume increased from 123 cubic yards Active hazardous waste management units at the facility include a number of
to an estimated 132 thousand cubic yards. surface impoundments, four RCRA landfills, and the acid neutralization unit.
Since late 1985, Casmalla has made significant operational changes to The number of Casmalla's active surface impoundments Is continuously changing
modernize its waste management capabilities and to comply with agreements made because the facility is systematically closing all of Its impoundments. All
with the State Department of Health Services (DIIS) and the County of Santa of its impoundments are unlined.
Barbara. Overall, these changes have resulted In a significant reduction In
Casmalia's waste management capacity. In August 1985, the facility stopped The four RCRA landfills each receive a different waste stream: solvent/
accepting wastes at most of its surface Impoundments. In December 1985,
Casmalla agreed to a request made by DHS to stop accepting bulk liquid wastes pesticide wastes; acid wastes; heavy metal/sludge wastes; and caustic/cyanide
until it acted on possible adverse health effects resulting from air emissions wastes. Much of these solid wastes are received in containers and inspected
from the site. The facility still does not accept bulk liquid wastes. for free liquids before being placed in the appropriate landfill. Each
landfill has a clay liner. The remaining capacity of the landfills is
In 1986, the PCB landfill was closed In settlement to a conflict between approximately 1,915,000 cubic yards.
Casmalla resources and the County of Santa Barbara over unpermitted land use As previously described, the acid neutralization unit consists of several
expansions by the facility. tanks and treats acid and alkaline wastes. The solid waste stream generated
In 1987, the facility began operating an acid neutralization unit. This unit from this process is solidified and placed In the heavy metal/sludge
consists of a aeries of tanks which blend liquid acid and alkaline wastes with landfill. The liquid effluent Is ponded. The annual capacity of this unit is
lime. This process generates two waste streams -- a solid waste stream approximately 36,000 tons.
containing metals, which is solidified and landfilled, and'a low acidity waste
stream, which contains low concentrations of metals. This liquid effluent Is Regulation of the Facility
discharged to a RCRA surface impoundment.
Casmalla Resources has been granted or is seeking several permits which
On April 28,' 1987, the County closed Casmalia's wet air oxidation unit for regulate Its hazardous waste management activities. On the local level, the
operating without a county air permit. Casmalla Resources has no immediate facility holds a conditional use permit (land use) from the County of Santa
plans to reactivate this unit. Barbara.
Transportation Access The RWQCB has granted Casmalla a waste discharge permit which regulates the
site's disposal operations In order to protect groundwater. The facility has
Trucks hauling wastes from both Southern and Northern California reach the not fully complied with groundwater monitoring requirements set forth In this
Casmalla area via Highway 101. From Highway 101, trucks can follow several permit.
different routes to the facility. All local roads are two lane. The main
line of the Southern Pacific Railroad runs two miles east of the facility, but The facility was granted RCRA interim status in 1980 by EPA and the State
It is not used to transport wastes to Casmalla. Department of Health Services (DNS). Casmalla has submitted a RCRA Part B
application to EPA and DNS and is still awaiting permitting.
Wastes Received
As previously discussed, in December 1985, Casmalla agreed to a request made
The Casmalla Resources site receives a wide spectrum of hazardous wastes. The by DNS to atop accepting liquid wastes until it acted on possible adverse
facility accepts containerized solid wastes including pesticides, alkalines, health effects resulting from air emissions from the site. Also, the facility
acids, cyanides, resins, phenols, laboratory wastes, and metal sludges. Much has been cited for a number of violations at the local, state, and federal
of the volume of solid waste the facility receives is from oil and gas levels. An administrative order, addressing many violations, Issued to
production activities (e.g., drilling muds, brines) and is classified as Caamalia by DIIS in September 1986, required the facility to conduct additional
non-hazardous.
-G - 23- -G - 24-
groundwater assessment, make operational changes, and further study the of these wastes by August 8, 1988, another third by June 8, 1989, and the
hydrogeology of the site in accordance with a Schedule of Compliance. final third by May 8, 1990. Unless EPA postpones these additional land
disposal restrictions because of treatment capacity shortages (for no longer
There are three key upcoming state and federal regulatory deadlines or than two years, and there after, case-by-case extensions for up to one year,
decisions that will have a dramatic effect on the facility's future waste renewable once), treatment standards for these wastes will become effective on
management capacity. First, Casmalfa's surface impoundments are subject to a the dates identified above. EPA will likely require incineration for many
series of regulatory deadlines. The RCRA Amendments of 1984 require all organic wastes; others such as metals, may still be permitted in landfills
active surface impoundments to be retrofitted with a double liner by November after being solidified. Because the EPA has yet to develop final treatment
8,m 1988. The California Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) also requires standards for most wastes, it Is difficult to predict the actual effect on
retrofitting by January 1, 1989. In addition, by July 1, 1988, TPCA requires current land disposal at Casmalla.
that all surface impoundments that contain hazardous wastes to be free of
liquids if they are located within 1/2 mile upgradlent of a potential source The state Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986 (SB 1500 Roberti) Bete forth
of drinking water. According to TPCA, even If a facility can meet the land disposal restrictions that are very similar to those in the RCRA
location restrictions and Is granted all possible variances, it must stop amendments. However, by May 8, 1990, SB 1500 prohibits all untreated wastes
accepting liquid hazardous wastes for placement in its surface impoundments by from being land disposed regardless of specific findings of safety. The state
January 1991. RWQCB staff have Indicated that Caamalla's surface impoundments Is likely to follow EPA's lead on wastes for which EPA requires treatment
are located within 1/2 mile upgradlent of a potential source of drinking prior to disposal.
water. The RWQCB Is expected to make a final determination on Casmalla's
surface impoundments on December 4, 1987. Casmalla has announced that it will Environmental Problems
closed down all of Its surface Impoundments to comply with these requirements
and does not plan to Install RCRA surface Impoundments in the future. Various state and federal agencies have Identified onsite groundwater
contamination at the facility. Starting In 1984, groundwater monl'toring data
The second regulatory decision, which may have a significant effect on gathered by the RWQCB at the facility indicated the presence of low levels of
Casmalia's future, is whether or not the RWQCB will Issue Casmalla a surface a number of different chemicals in onalte downgradient monitoring wells.
water discharge permit for the facility's contaminated run-off and effluent. Various organic chemicals were found, Including phenole, chloroform, methylene
On October 15, 1987, Casmalla Resources applied to the RWQCB for this permit. chlorides, and phthalate. Current evidence Indicates that groundwater beneath
Casmalla has proposed to discharge treated run-off and. waste waters from the the site moves at very low velocities and that even if offatte migration
facility Into Casmalla Creek. If Casmalla Is denied a permit, run-off from should occur, it would not pose a threat to groundwater In the Santa Maria
Its landfills and effluent from its acid neutralization unit would be Valley Basin. However, this evidence to based on only partial knowledge of
difficult to manage properly (assuming that the facility is not permitted to the site's hydrogeology. Casmalla has installed barrier dikes at the lower
use surface impoundments), and, therefore, operation of these unite may be ends of the site to intercept any contamination that might migrate from the
Impossible or severely limited. facility. The effectiveness of these barriers is indetermined.
The third group of key regulatory changes that will affect Casmalla is the Beginning in late summer and early fall of 1984, numerous odor complaints were
state and federal land disposal restrictions. These programs may received from the residents of Casmalla. Residents complained of a strong
significantly affect the types of wastes the facility will be allowed to chemical odor that reportedly caused headaches, nausea, and eye irritation.
landfill in the future. The RCRA amendments require EPA to promulgate THe odor problem caused the Casmalla Elementary School to close for two days
treatment standards for wastes placed In landfills, surface impoundments, in November 1984. Air samplings downwind from one of the surface Impoundments
waste piles, injection wells, and other land-based unite. No untreated wastes (impoundment 4) indicated levels of hydrogen sulfide exceeding its California
can be disposed of on land without specific EPA findings of safety. EPA has ambient air quality standard (i.e., 30 ppb per hour). However, since Casmalla
already restricted the disposal of liquids in landfills, and wastes on the stopped accepting bulk liquid wastes, airborne emissions and odor problems
"California list." The wastes on this list include cyanide wastes, certain from the site have been less significant. Emissions from the site are
metals, liquid and solid halogenated organic compounds, and low pH wastes. currently being studied by DHS in consultation with the County, other state
However, EPA has postponed placing a restriction on solid halogenated organic agencies and the EPA.
compounds until the summer of 1989. EPA has also delayed restricting the land
disposal of solvents until November 1988. According to a DHS staff person Citizen Opposition
Involved with the facility, Casmalla has complied with all of the EPA land
disposal restrictions which have taken effect so far. During the past few years, the Caemalia Resources facility has met with strong
local opposition from the nearby community and from citizens In Santa
EPA has developed a schedule of additional land disposal restriction Barbara. Hearings held by the County of Santa Barbara and DNS have been very
determfuattons, with high volume/high toxicity wastes receiving early review. well attended. In addition, several major environmental groups have raised
The RCRA amendments require EPA to finalize treatment standards for one-third concerns about the facility.
-G - 25- -G - 26-
Expected Operational Changes POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF EXISTING KEY FACILITIES
Casmalla has plans to make major operational changes at the facility. First,
as previously mentioned, the facility Is expected to close down all of its AB 2948 requires that each county's hazardous waste management plan Include an
RCRA surface impoundments by either June (TPCA deadline) or November 1968 (the analysis of the probable extent to which that county's future waste stream can
EPA retrofitting deadline). Also, Casmalla Resources plans to close Its be managed In existing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFB).
existing landfills, as they reach capacity, and construct five double-lined As documented in Chapter 3, four facilities received a large proportion of
RCRA replacement landfills in the area where the surface impoundments are now Alameda County's manifested wastes in 1986: Casmalla, Kettleman Hills,
located. These landfill units are expected to have 4,900,000 cubic yards of Panoche, and Vine 11111/Baker. This section describes alternatives for future
capacity. At this point, Casmalla's future waste management plans expansion at these facilities.
predominantly include landfilling, with sizable treatment capacity provided by
Its acid neutralization unit, which the facility plane to expand to a capacity
of 144,000 tons/year. The 2lmpro unit Is included in Casmalia's modernization CASHALIA: FUTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
plan. However, before operating this unit, the facility would seek new
permits from DHS and Santa Barbara County. Casmalia's future waste management capacity depends on, first the willingness
of Casmalla Resources to continue to operate the facility, and to change or
Improve capacity. This depends on the facility's profitability and on the
firm's ability to obtain financing for new activities.
Second Is the pressure on Casmalla Resources to close down the facility. Many
commercial hazardous waste management facilities have been forced to close due
to public outrage over environmental problems. Citizen opposition to Casmalla
In Santa Barbara is strong, and the site could be forced to close if
additional evidence of contamination gathered by regulatory agencies proves
that It presents a significant threat to human health or the environment.
Third is the impact of state and federal regulations on existing and future
waste management activities. For instance, if EPA requires further
pre-treatment for certain wastes which Casmalla currently only solidifies and
landfills, the facility may not be able to continue to place certain waste
streams in Its landfills.
Different outcomes based on these factors can be used to develop three
"reasonable" alternatives In terms of providing waste management capacity for
Alameda County's generators in the future. The alternatives range from least
to most waste management capacity. In developing alternatives, it is assumed
that the Casmalla faculty will remain profitable enough to continue operation.
Casmalia Resources has submitted plans to expand landfill capacity to 4.9
million cubic yards, and to Increase the acid neutralization unit's capacity
to 144,000 tons per year by the early 1990s. The facility also has plans to
reactivate the existing wet air oxidation unit. This unit was deactivated in
April 1987 for operating without an air permit. This wet air oxidation unit
Is designed to treat liquid pesticide and cyanide wastes and liquid
non-halogenated organic wastes. These plans are currently being reviewed by
DHS.
Alternative I: Closure
o Conclusive evidence Is found proving that the facility presents a
significant threat to human health or the environment.
The result of this alternative would probably be closure of the facility.
-G - 27- -G - 28-
Alternative II: Restricted Status Quo Third Is the impact of state and federal regulations on existing and future
waste management activities, for example, new waste treatment standards
• Casmalla is not allowed to replace landfills as existing landfills Imposed by the EPA.
reach capacity.
• EPA and the state require further treatment for wastes the facility Results based on these factors can be used to develop two operational
currently only landfills. alternatives providing waste management capacity at the KHF In the future.
• Casmalla Is not granted a surface water discharge permit. These alternatives range from least to moat waste management capacity. In
developing these alternatives, it is assumed that the Kettleman Hills facility
This alternative would permit Casmalla to operate its landfills with certain will remain profitable, and that the public and regulatory agencies will not
additional restrictions until they reach capacity (an estimated 10 years to cause the facility to close.
reach capacity based on an average of 200,000 tons of waste per year).
Casmalla would probably be permitted to collect and evaporate facility runoff CWM has submitted plans to make significant changes to the Kettleman Hills
and treated waste waters In lined RCRA surface Impoundments. It is unlikely facility. These Include: expanding drum storage capacity to 8,500 drums;
that the TPCA locational restrictions would apply to surface impoundments that expanding the stabilization unit to handle an annual throughput of 158,400
only accept treated waste water and runoff. As existing landfills reach tons per year; expanding surface impoundment capacity to 180,400 tons by 1992;
capacity, the facility's waste management capacity would diminish. Although adding 19.3 cubic yards of landfill capacity by 1992; and, finally, siting a
the facility would still be permitted to operate its acid neutralization unit, major incinerator at this location. All these expansion plans are currently
when its landfills reach capacity Casmalla may decide to cease all operations being reviewed by DHS and EPA.
because income from the neutralization unit may be Insufficient to cover the
facility's operating costs. Alternative I: Status Quo
Alternative III: Replacement Landfills Permitted o The facility is allowed to continue to operate its surface
Impoundments (until 1991), but it is not permitted to construct and
• The facility Is permitted to construct replacement landfills. operate a major incinerator.
• EPA and the state require further treatment for landfilled wastes. o The EPA (and D11S under SB 1500) requires Incineration for certain
high volume liquid organic wastes currently accepted by the facility
The effect of this alternative would be to permit Casmalla to maintain or and placed in impoundments.
expand the landfill capacity (the extent of capacity would depend on the size
of new landfills and wastes Casmalla receives). In the short-term, CWM may still be able to place liquid wastes which exhibit
low toxicity in lined surface impoundments. However, certain types of liquid
organic wastes would have to be disposed in other ways. Without an
KETTLEMAN HILLS: FUTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY incinerator at KHF, CWM would have a disruption in liquid treatment capacity.
The Kettleman Hills facility's future waste management capacity also depends Alternative II: Incinerator Approved
on many of these same factors. First is the willingness of Chemical Waste
Management to continue to operate the facility, and to change or improve its o The facility can continue to operate its surface impoundments (until
capacity. Decisions to continue or to expand/modify operations will be based 1991).
on the expected profitability of the Kettleman Hills facility, as well as on o EPA and DHS require Incineration for certain types of high volume
CWM's ability to obtain financing for new ventures. (CWM is a much larger liquid organic wastes.
company than Casmalla Resources). o CWM decides and is permitted to Install a major incinerator.
Second is possible pressures on CWM to close or restrict the facility's In the short-term, CWM would have substantial capacity to handle liquid and
activities. Such pressures may come from the public and regulatory agencies. solid hazardous wastes at the KHF. By 1991, CWM may be able to install
As noted above, many commercial hazardous waste management facilities have alternatives to its surface impoundments for handling liquid wastes which do
closed during the last few years because of public pressures to shut down not require incineration.
leaking sites. Some groundwater contamination has already been detected at
KHF. ' However, this contamination appears to be limited to two former wells
below former unlined surface Impoundment areas. Corrective action is now PANOCHE AND VINE HILL/BAKER: FUTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
underway at these two wells. At the present time, EPA does not believe that
the KHF presents an immediate threat to human health or the environment. Future waste management capacity at these two International Technology
Citizen interest in this facility is not particularly evident in Kings County facilities depends on several factors. First is the willingness of IT to
as of late 1987. restart operations, to change or Improve the capacity of the sites. This
-G - 29- -G - 30-
depends on the specific regulatory demands on the facility, and on IT's
ability to obtain permits from the regulatory agencies. Since IT announced in
March 1988 that it has been unable to find any suitable purchaser for its
facilities, and announced permanent facility closure, It Is assumed that they
will be closed to receipt of future hazardous wastes from Alameda County
generators.
ROMIG CHEMICAL CORPORATION
This facility is located In East Palo Alto, San Mateo County. The Romic
hazardous waste management facility consists of solvent and fuel recovery and
Incineration processes. Currently, the capacities for these units are:
20,000 tons per year for solvent recovery; 20,000 tons per year for fuel
recovery; and 8,000 tons per year for incineration.
Romic has plans to expand its solvent and fuel recovery capacities to 80,000
and 50,000 tons respectively. The company also plans to expand Its
Incinerator's annual throughput to 20,000 tons.
Romic has applied to the City of Newark to site a rail transfer facility
capable of handling 23,000 tons of waste annually. Plana are to transport
waste from the East Palo Alto facility to the Newark facility via the
Dumbarton Bridge. Waste would be loaded on outbound rail cars at the Newark
facility. The Newark facility would handle Alameda County and other counties'
wastes, thus serving as a regional facility.
OTHER FACILITIES
Other proposals for new commercial waste management units Include: Stauffer
Chemical Corporation's proposed Incinerator in Contra Costa County; the
proposed Incinerator in Vernon, California; the proposed waste injection well
In Kern County; and the cement kiln incinerator of General Portland Cement, in
Lebec, California. All of these proposals are currently being reviewed by
regulatory agencies.
-G - 31-
APPENDIX II
DOCUMENTATION OF CAPACITY OF NEW AND PROPOSED J
FACILITIES IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
Evergreen Oil Inc
1
May 2. 1988 m' ou 7. Evergreen uses state-of-the-art technology which
generates no hazardous.waste byproduct streams when
Ms. Betty Croly recycling the waste oil. Incineration is not necessary
Assistant Planning Director for process waste disposal.
Alameda County Planning Department ='m
399 Elmhurst Street 6. Evergreen has pollution legal liability insurance and
Hayward. CA 94544 environmental impairment coverage on its facility.
SUBJECT: Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 9. California Oil Recyclers, Inc. ICOR11, a wholly owned
Comments and Remarks subsidiary of Evergreen Oil, Inc. is the waste oil
collector which supplies the Newark facility with the
Dear Ms. Croly: majority of its feedstock. CORI is recognized as the
largest registered waste oil hauler in the State and
It was a pleasure to finally meet you last Thursday at the also as the most professional.
Public hearing. I welcomed the opportunity to describe the
Evergreen Oil waste oil recycling facility's operations and 10. Currently. Evergreen is not running at full capacity.
the fact that it is located in Alameda County fin Newark). It receives about 750,000 gallons of waste oil from
within Alameda County with the balance of the waste oil
Upon reviewing the Draft Plan prepared by Exceltech, Inc., coming from other counties. Evergreen is currently
Evergreen would like to make the following comments and receiving and processing approximately 6-7 million
remarks: gallons/year of waste oil.
1. Evergreen is a fully permitted. Part 8 hazardous waste 11. Education of generators and the enforcement of existing
recycling facility which uses state-of-the-art regulations are key to waste oil recycling programs.
technology to recycle waste oils into petroleum Encouragement and support of recyclers who are complying
Products. with the rules and regulations is also necessary in
order to promote an environmental acceptable alternative
2. The Draft Plan estimates a baseline waste oil generation for the -disposal of waste oil.
of 58.200 tons (16.6 million gallons) in the year 2000,
which is about 42% of all projected hazardous waste
streams. Evergreen has been in operation since the end of 1986 and
looks forward to serving the needs of the community and
3. With strict source reduction, the Draft Plan estimates protecting the environment for many years to come.
waste oil generation of 36.300 tons (10.4 million
gallons), which is about 42.7% of all project hazardous Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions
waste streams. about Evergreen's facility or its operations.
4. In the "Capacity Needs Summary" the Draft Plan calls for Best regards,
all expansion of waste oil recycling capacity. EVERGREEN OIL, INC.
recommending development of a 40,000 ton/annum (11.4 1___
million gallons/year) facility. —. . T_f
c� .l
5. The Draft Plan also shows a flow chart which assumes
that waste oil recycling will generate process wastes John P. Fok
which require incineration. Environmental Manager
6. Evergreen's Newark facility can process up to 10-12
million gallons of waste oil per year, which is enough cc: C.Morgan
capacity to handle all of Alameda County's projected P.Weiner
waste oil requirements with strict source reduction.
6600 SMITH AVENUE Ntw^AK CA 94560 14.51 795.100 16001 9l2 5?6. IA• 14.51]91 0126
ecology
end r
economy ROMIC If you would like any further information on our operations, .
through please do not hesitate to call. I will continue to keep you
reclamation CHEMICAL CORPORATION informed of our progress.
Reclamation of Solvents,Chemicals for All Industries
Sincerely,
2087 BAY ROAD • EAST PALO ALTO.CALIFORNIA 94303 • TELEPHONE 141 51 324-1638
October 24, 1988 Bra W Lamont
_ Oper ions Manager
ma=r N
�_► BWL:vr
z
a AI,
Liz McElligott =io
Hazardous Waste Planner
Alameda County Planning Department =z
399 Elmhurst Street ' �o
Hayward, California 94544
Dear Ms. McElligott:
The impression that I was left with after our recent telephone
conversation was that the County was busy preparing a new draft
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. To aid your efforts in this
task, I wanted to keep you up to day on our Newark site.
The transfer of ownership has recently been completed on the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit. Thus the Interim
Status Document for storage of 2200 gallons in containers is now
In the name of Romic Chemical Corporation East Bay Operation.
By November 8, 1988, Romic will have submitted to the California
Department of Health Services a Part B permit describing the
future development of this site. Our intentions remain to devel-
op a state of the art rail transfer facility capable of handling
23,000 tons annually. The expanded EPA hazardous waste codes
that we are and will be approved for are D001, D002, D004 -11,
F001-5, F024, K001, K009, and K019. These are organic and inor-
ganic waste stream exhibiting the characteristics of ignitabili-
ty, toxicity or corrosivity. These are common industrial sol-
vents and inorganic waste water streams.
Again, no processing of waste will occur at the Newark site. All
processing will continue at our East Palo Alto and Chandler,
Arizona facilities.
-2-
�y ,' We feel that this is significant information and that it needs to be
CITY OF H AY AX A 414 SPE M,NE PA R T M E N T reflected within the analysis of hazardous waste generated within Alameda
* County, as contained in the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management
I Plan.
ALANEDACo%I jr 3, 1988 Sincerely,
►LANNINC DEPARTMENT
NAYWA 00.CA'IFCiRNIA
Steve Fa H¢, Bettalio lef
Hazardous Materiels oordinator
Liz McElligott
Hazardous Waste Planner cc: M. Sweeney, Councilman, City of Hayward
Waste Management Authority Department of Health Services
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
RE: Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Dear Ms. McElligott:
Since the decisions that you are about to make in the area of hazardous
waste planning have significant implications to the cities In Alameda
County, it is crucial that you have correct data at your disposal.
Table 306, Largest Waste Generators in Alameda County, of the Alameda
County study on hazardous waste, shows that Davis Walker Corporation
generated 604 tons of oily sludges in 1986. This number should have been
listed as Metal-Containing Sludges.
In October, 1987, Davis Walker Corporation installed a dryer to process
this Metal-Containing Sludge. This has reduced the company's volume of
waste to less than one third of its 1986 volume and has reduced the weight
of the waste from 604 tons per year to approximately 135 tons per year.
This equates to a 760 reduction by weight.
In July of this year, Davis Volker Corporation installed an acid recovery
system which has completely eliminated the disposal of the 4,120 tons of
Metal-Containing Liquid shown in Table 306. This system enables them to
use 1000 of their acid and generate a new product, Ferrous Sulfate, which
Is sold for use in many different applications.
These changes reduce the total hazardous waste disposal of Davis Walker
Corporation from 4,724 tons per year to 135 tons per year. This is a
reduction of 970.
This total reduction of 4,589 tons by Davis Walker Corporation causes the
total waste generated in the City of Hayward, as show in Table 3.5, Waste
Stream by Geographic Location, to drop from 7,305 tons to 3,716 tons.
22300 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD.HAYWARD.CA 94541 •(415)581-2345
r
APPENDIX I
ORDINANCE ON STRICT SOURCE
REDUCTION AT NEW FACILITIES
1. _Facility Storage Mao.
EXCERPTS FROM SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Mi The'.Standard Form HMMP shall contain a Facility
PROVIDES FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTATION Storage Map at a legible scale for licensing and
OF MEASURES USED TO "ELIMINATE, MINIMIZE OR REDUCE THE HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. enforcement purposes. The information in this section is
provided for purposes of ensuring the suitable and secure
PART IV storage of hazardous materials and for the protection and
safety of emergency response personnel.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Ii) The facilities Storage Map shall indicate the
11.37.300 THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN. Each location of each hazardous materials storage facility,
applicant for a Permit pursuant to this Chapter shall file a including all interior, exterior and underground storage
written plan, for the Health Officer's approval, to be known as a facilities, and access to such storage facilities. In
Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), which shall addition, the map shall indicate the location of emergency
demonstrate the safe handling and control of hazardous materials. equipment related to each storage facility, and the
The Standard Form HMMP as set forth in Section 11.37.310 must be general purpose of the other areas within each facility.
filed unless the-user qualifies to file a Short Form HMMP pursuant
to Section 11.37.320. The HMMP may be amended at any time with (111) for each storage facility, the map shall contain
the consent of the Health Officer. Those hazardous materials information as prescribed below, except that where the
users that frequently initiate signficant changes, as defined in hazardous material being stored is a trade secret as
Section 11.37.050 and referred to in Section 11.37.400, in the defined in Section 11.37.130, it shall be identified in a
handling of one cc mote hazardous materials should indicate that coded manner (together with its key) and not in a manner
information in the plan, or file an amended plan in connection which would reveal trade secret information:
with each significant change. The HMMP shall be a public record,
except for items designated as trade secrets in accordance with Ill A floor plan to scale and the permit quantity
the provisions of Section 11.37.430 and except for information limit.
contained in tht General Facility Description and the Facility
Storage map or line drawing of the facility, as herein provided. (2) For each hazardous material the general chemical
name, common/trade name, major constituents for
11.37.310 STANDARD FORM HMMP. The Standard form HMMP shall mixtures, United Nations (UN) or North American (NA)
consist of the following: number, if available, and physical state.
(a) _facility Information: (3) for all hazardous matelals, including wastes,
stored in each storage facility, the hazard class or
1. General Information. The Standard form HMMP shall classes and the quantity for each such class.
contain the name and address of the facility and business
phone number of applicant, the name and titles and emergency (4) For tanks, the capacity limit of each tank, and
phone numbers of the primacy response person and two the hazardous material contained in each tank by
alternates, the number of employees, number of shifts, hours general chemical name, common/trade name, major
of operation, and principal business activity. constituents for mixtures, United Nations (Ulf) or North
American (HAI number, ff available, and physical state.
2. General facility Description.
The Facility Storage Map shall be updated annually or
(i) The Standard Form. HMMP shall contain a map drawn at a whenever an additional approval -is required for the
legible scale and in a format and detail determined by the facility.
Health officer. It shall show the location of all
buildings and structures, chemical loading areas, parking (b) Hazardous Materials Audit. Hazardous materials users steal:
lots, internal roads, storm and sewer drains and shall provide the Health Officer, and themselves, with a hazardous
specify the uses of adjacent properties. materials audit of each process using a hazardous materia. or
materials. The audit shall include:
(ii) The Health Officer may also require information as
to the location of wells, flood plains, earthquake faults,
surface water bodies, and/or general land uses (schools,
hospitals, institutions, residential areas) within one
mile of the facility boundaries.
-I-1-
-I-2-
1. A list of all hazardous materials that will be stored,
produced or used in production, assenbly and 5. upon a showing the environmental fate of the hazardous
processes la copy of the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Form material handled is such that it presents no harm or
as provided in Part Iv herein may satisfy the requirements of potential of harm to human health or to the environment, the
this subparagraph); HMMP need not indicate the measures employed to control
emissions, discharges, and releases of each hazardous
2. Estimates of the type and volume of hazardous materials material.
that will be incorporated into final products, discharged
into the sewer, released into the air, or transformed into (d) Monitorin Plan. For each hazardous material used, the
hazardous wastes; and user shall document the efforts to verify that the hazardous
materials will be controlled in accordance with all other
3. A description of the methods to be utilized to ensure elements of the HMMP:
separation and protection of stored hazardous materials from
factors which may cause a fire or explosion, or the 1. These efforts shall include, but are not limited to:
production of a flammable, toxic, of poisonous gas, or the
deterioration of the primary or secondary containment. (i) Sampling of emissions discharges and releases;
(c) Control of Emissions, Dischar es and Releases. The (11) Self-inspections of storage, manufacturing, and
Standard form HMHP Shall in the measures employed to transportation operations; and
control emissions, discharges and releases of each hazardous
material, by: (iii) Testing of- emergency procedures.
1. Showing that the user has a permit or license from the 2. These efforts shall take place in such a manner as to:
appropriate regulatory agency.
(i) Include sampling, self-inspections and monitoring at
2. Explaining how the user adheres to existing laws, those times during the production process when the highest
statutes, standards or regulations that do not require a volume discharges and the highest probable concentrations•
permit.or license, but do specifically cover the handling of of hazardous materials are likely to occur;
each hazardous material and specifically require its control.
(ii) Monitor, inspector sample all hazardous materials
3. Documenting measures that will be employed to control the used in the manufacturing process which have any potential
hazardous material in such a manner as to present the least for appearing in wastewater discharge= and,
acute or chronic hazard or risk to public health, and/or
least damage to the environment, including, but not limited (iii) Include periodic random samplings monitoring or
to: inspection.
(i) The best available control technologies, practicable, (e) Recordkee in Forms. The Standard Form HMHP shall contain
or an inspect on ctecr s eet or log designed to be used in
conjunction with routine inspections. The check sheet or log
(ii) changes in process and manufacturing strategies to shall provide for the recording of the date and time of
eliminate, minimize or reduce handling of the hazardous inspection and, for monitoring activity, the date and time of
material. any corrective action taken, the name of the inspector, and the
countersignature of the designated safety manager for the
1. Demonstrating the adequacy of: facility or the responsible official as designated in the HMMP.
(i) Contingency plans for spills and unauthorized 11.37.320 SHORT FORM HMMP.
emissions, discharges and releases of the hazardous
material; and, (a) Any user handling, at any one time, an aggregate amount of
less than 500 pounds of solids or 55 gallons of liquids or 200
(ii) Employee training and equipment for proper handling cubic feet of a gaseous material at standard temperature and
of hazardous materials, and in response to all emergencies pressure, of a product or formulation containing a hazardous
involving the hazardous material. material may opt to file the Short Form HMMP unless the Health
Officer has provided notice that he or she has lowered the
weight or volume limits for a specific hazardous material to
protect the public health.
-1-3-
1449- 5 -I-4-
APPENDIX J
UA, Page 1 of 3.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
INTERJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT
between
MEMBER COUNTIES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
This agreement is executed between each of the member counties of the Bay
Area Regional Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee.
Effective September 1991 the member counties are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma.
WHEREAS, the State of California authorized Counties to prepare Hazardous
Waste Management Plans (Plans); and
WHEREAS, the member counties accept responsibility for planning for the
proper management of hazardous waste generated within each of their jurisdictions
according to the Fair Share principle; and
. WHEREAS, the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties (member counties) have
executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to create a Regional Hazardous
Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee (Committee); and
WHEREAS, the Committee, it's Technical Advisory Sub-committee, and county
staff have worked for over one year on developing the recommendations contained
herein; and
WHEREAS, the Committee's highest priorities are pollution prevention and
hazardous waste minimization as evidenced by the pollution prevention programs and
activities of member local governments. The Committee endorses reduction of
hazardous waste at the source rather than managing it after its generation through
implementation of the following hazardous waste management hierarchy: 1) source
reduction; 2) recycling and 3) waste treatment; and
WHEREAS, the MOU gives the Committee the responsibility to negotiate
intercounty agreements with counties having excess hazardous waste management
capacity with member counties as well as with non-member counties; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has developed a method to implement the allocation
of responsibility for providing hazardous waste management capacity among the member
counties based upon the Fair Share principle as set forth in the Committee Report dated
August 28, 1991 (Report);
comres.iia. 10/01/91
50% Recycled Pape,
J-1
IJA, Page 2 of 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that each of the parties hereto agrees
to the following:
1. The member counties accept and approve the findings and
conclusions of the Report which establishes the fair share
method for allocation of responsibility to provide hazardous
waste management capacity within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the member counties.
2. Each member county agrees to provide siting opportunities,
consistent with their own County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan, for treatment or disposal capacity as set
forth in the Report.
J. Each member county agrees to the initial fair share
allocation of responsibility to provide siting opportunities as
described in the Report and summarized below as follows:
Santa Clara Residuals Repository Capacity
Contra Costa Incineration Capacity
Sonoma Stabilization Capacity
Solano Aqueous Metals Treatment Capacity
Alameda Other Recycling Capacity
Napa Other Recycling Capacity
Mar-in Other Recycling Capacity
San Mateo and San Francisco* No allocation
* San Mateo and San Francisco have met their fair share
responsibility pursuant to the criteria set forth in the Report.
4. Each member county agrees to revisions of the initial
allocation of responsibility as set forth in paragraph 3 hereof
pursuant to the methodology outlined in the Report (dated
August 28, 1991).
5. This agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts and each such counterpart shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original, and all such counterparts
shall together constitute one and the same agreement.
50% Recycled Paper
J-2
IJA, Page 3 of 3:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have authorized this
Interjurisdictional Agreement to be executed effective the date set forth above.
DATE: COUNTY OF
Chairperson
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
Approved as to legal form and content:
County Counsel
50% Recycled Pape
J-3
APPENDIX K
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Alameda County Waste Management Authority
Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
CH2M HILL
August 1991
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
ADDRESS/LOCATION: Alameda County
APPLICANT: Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority)
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Revised Hazardous Waste Management Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Plan). The
Plan was prepared in response to State Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner, 1986) which
established procedures for the preparation of the Plan. The planning process calls for
each county to take responsibility for the effective management of the hazardous wastes
produced by its industry, businesses and households. The Plan's goals are, first, to
protect the environment and public health, safety, and welfare by eliminating the land
disposal of untreated hazardous wastes, and second, to maintain economic vitality by
helping businesses and households reduce the production of hazardous wastes and
manage their remaining wastes effectively.
Alameda County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan originally dated March 1989
was developed by the County Waste Management Authority's Hazardous Waste
Committee and an Advisory Committee, with the assistance of a technical consultant,
county staff, and the cities. A separate programmatic Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on the plan was prepared to meet the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 1989 Plan was not approved by the
California Department of Health Services (DHS) for a variety of reasons. The DHS
also rejected the hazardous Waste Management Plans of 44 other California counties
for many of the same reasons. Alameda County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan
has been revised for resubmission to the DHS under the provisions of Assembly Bill
2595 (1990). The revised Plan was prepared by the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority's Hazardous Waste Committee, with the assistance of a
technical consultant, the Authority staff, and the cities. To meet the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, this Mitigated Negative; Declaration has
been prepared.
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-1
The five major components of the project are listed below and described in the
following sections:
1. Planning Process
2. Hierarchy of Waste Management Strategies
3. Guiding Goals and Policies
4. General Facility Siting Criteria
5. Implementation Strategy
The selection and siting of hazardous waste facilities are not part of this project.
However, the plan includes general siting criteria which serve to mitigate potential
impacts for future facilities.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Authority used a planning process to prepare the plan which is consistent with
Tanner Plan guidelines set forth by the Department of Health Services (DHS). The
planning process requires each county to assess its current hazardous wastestream, and
make projections to the year 2000. Existing waste management approaches and
facilities within and outside the County have been evaluated, and future needs have
been projected for expanded or new waste management capacity. Special attention has
been paid to the problems of small quantity waste generators, household hazardous
wastes and waste transportation issues. The County has developed siting criteria and
designated general areas within the county where the mappable criteria might be
applicable. (Site-specific criteria are not mappable.)
Tanner Legislation requires that the final Plan be approved by the State Department of
Health Services and also be adopted by the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority (Authority), the County Board of Supervisors, and a majority of cities
containing a majority of the County's population living in incorporated areas. Once
approved, the County and all 14 cities are required to incorporate the Plan into their
general plans within 180 days.
HIERARCHY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The Plan includes a hierarchy of hazardous waste management strategies encouraged
by the Tanner planning process. These strategies are shown on Figure 1. The process
is based on the belief that the best strategy to pursue, in order to meet state and
federal land disposal bans, is to:
• Avoid generating wastes in the first place
• Reduce and reuse what must be produced
• Treat the remaining waste
• Dispose of the treated residuals in a safe repository
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-2
1
1
f >C
\ a \ -- ------- I
t �
------------------------ ----------
` � INllu i
•� Lsstn Isllei i
•�� to Imm � � !1111 i!' i�
z
I
I
�)• � INU Ctt I .
Y \
FIGURE 1
ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROJECT AREA
SF031609.AA
aftMHI11
r
GOALS AND POLICIES
The following goals and policies set the framework for hazardous waste management
decisions in the County as described in the Plan.
Goals
The primary goal of the Plan is to protect the public health, welfare,and safety as well
as the environment and to preserve and enhance the economic vitality of the County by
providing an overall framework for responsible management of hazardous wastes over
the next decade or longer. A second goal is to assist industry and government in
meeting state and federal requirements to eliminate land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes by 1990 with a minimum of economic disruption or improper (or
illegal) waste storage, management or disposal. All areas of California are to share
responsibility for meeting these goals on an equitable basis.
In accordance with the provisions of AB 2948, new hazardous waste management
.facilities and significant expansions of existing facilities must all be consistent with the
goals, objectives and policies, and siting criteria contained in each Plan, and must meet
the demonstrated hazardous waste management needs of each county.
Policies
The following policies are included in the Plan to effectively manage Alameda County's
hazardous wastes. In the discussion, "Alameda County" refers to the County, together
with its cities, the Waste Management Authority, and the special districts.
Policy 1: Land Disposal
Alameda County will promote the responsible management of hazardous materials and
wastes by providing a sound basis for source reduction, and for planning and siting
those new facilities which offer alternatives to continued reliance on disposal of
hazardous wastes in the air, water or land.
Alameda County will continue to assist local, regional, and state authorities in
establishing, maintaining, and monitoring standards necessary to protect public health,
safety, and welfare, and the environment in the management of hazardous materials
and wastes. It is essential that government at all levels ensure that all activities
involving hazardous materials and wastes comply with appropriate regulatory standards.
Policy 2: Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy
In its Plan Alameda County requires all hazardous waste generators to adopt and
implement the hierarchy of hazardous waste management strategies to the maximum
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-4
extent feasible. Whenever possible, hazardous waste management decisions should give
preference to those practices that are higher on the following hierarchy:
• Source Reduction and Toxic Use Reduction
• Reuse and Recycling Onsite
• Reuse and Recycling Offsite
• Treatment Onsite
• Treatment Offsite
• Secure Disposal of Residuals from Recycling, Treatment, and Incineration
This hierarchy emphasizes the importance of preventing (rather than managing or
controlling) pollution, whether of land, air or water, by giving highest priority to
reducing hazardous waste generation at the source. Alameda County will promote and,
if necessary, require through regulation that firms adopt and follow this hazardous
waste management hierarchy to the maximum extent.feasible.
- Alameda County will continue to encourage economic development in the County,
including the arrival or expansion of those industries that use hazardous materials and
generate hazardous wastes. However, under this Plan, the County will insist on the
responsible management of hazardous wastes and the cooperation and compliance of
all firms, existing and new, with all the provisions-of the Plan and with state and federal
regulations to restrict land disposal of hazardous wastes.
Policies 3 and 4: Hazardous Materials Use/Source
Reduction and Waste Minimization Reduction
Waste reduction is the Plan's top priority. The County will promote an aggressive
waste reduction effort for all existing industry, according to the hazardous waste
management hierarchy. Special new efforts will be devised and implemented to ensure
maximum pursuit of source reduction and waste minimization, especially through the
removal of barriers to wider source reduction and recycling.
Firms desiring to enter Alameda County (or to significantly expand existing facilities)
will be required to demonstrate their commitment to the policy of waste reduction
specifically, and the hazardous waste management hierarchy generally, as a condition of
receiving land use approvals and necessary business permits.
Implementing an aggressive waste reduction program will require local governments to
work closely and cooperatively with industry and draw upon its expertise. This
y collaborative effort is believed to be the best method to achieve waste reduction and to
implement the hazardous waste management hierarchy.
Policy 5: On-site Treatment
Because the hazardous waste management hierarchy gives preference to onsite
management, firms should be encouraged, whenever practical, to employ onsite
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-5
management in preference to offsite management of their hazardous wastes. This
would reduce transportation risks to the community. Special attention should be given
to the needs of SQGs for whom some types of hazardous waste management may not
be practical on site.
Policy 6: Centralized Versus Dispersed Facilities
Hazardous waste management facilities should be.located as close as is practical to the
sources of waste generation. These practical limits include economies of scale, market
service areas, and environmental suitability consistent with the siting criteria contained
in this Plan as well as the local permitting process and the outcome of
interjurisdictional agreements with neighboring counties. This is consistent with the
implementation of the hazardous waste management hierarchy and with the County's
intention to distribute facility siting decisions fairly among the County's jurisdictions
according to the basic needs of local hazardous waste generators.
Policy 7: Transfer Stations
Transfer stations play an important role for Alameda County's small business/small
quantity generators. Easily-accessible transfer facilities will be encouraged as a key to
the County's ability to address the needs of its smaller generators.
Policy 8: Small Generators
The highest priority for immediate attention in this Plan is to meet the needs of larger
industrial firms that generate the greatest volumes of waste. However, small quantity
generators (SQGs) of hazardous wastes are a particular concern in Alameda County's
hazardous waste management planning. Small firms and SQGs have special needs and
pose enormous potential cumulative risks from possible illegal disposal of these wastes.
Thus, it is essential to address' the special hazardous waste management problems of
small business/SQGs by identifying and reducing barriers to improved practices,
especially waste reduction.
Programs to assist small business hazardous waste generators in Alameda County
should be designed to be self-sustaining by providing their own revenue source(s).
However, such a funding basis should be designed so as not to impose such a burden
on the program's target groups in that it would discourage their participation in
responsible hazardous waste management.
Policy 9: Household Hazardous Wastes
A household hazardous waste program should be developed by the County as a
valuable adjunct to the County's hazardous waste planning effort. The program should
include an educational program, and an effective household hazardous wastes collection
system. Provisions should be made to eventually treat household hazardous wastes
SFO31609\AA\020.51 K-6
I
once they are collected rather than simply disposing of them in hazardous waste
landfills.
Policy 10: Public Participation
Active public involvement in the development and implementation of the Plan is
essential. It forms the basis for a responsible program to protect public health, safety
and welfare and the environment in order to move away from the reliance on land
disposal, and to maintain the economic vitality of the County.
Policy 11: Public Education
Public education is the first step in successfully managing hazardous wastes and moving
away from continuing reliance on land disposal. Therefore, Alameda County will
promote widespread ongoing education of citizens on hazardous materials and waste
management issues. Local agencies will also make special efforts to include industry--
especially smaller businesses--as a target of educational and outreach efforts.
Policy 12: Regional and Statewide Responsibilities
Alameda County will pursue source reduction and on-site treatment to the maximum
extent practical in order to reduce the probable need for new off-site hazardous waste
management facilities in the County or the use of hazardous waste management
facilities outside the County. However, Alameda County will likely remain a large and
continuing source of hazardous waste generation for the foreseeable future. Therefore,
the County should recognize its responsibility to assist other governments in the region
and the state in planning for the effective management of hazardous wastes generated
in the region and the state in accordance with the hazardous waste management
hierarchy set forth earlier. The Plan encourages multi-county and regional efforts to
plan and implement alternatives to the land disposal of hazardous wastes and to limit
the risks posed by large-scale transportation of hazardous wastes within the state.
Alameda County encourages the development of new hazardous waste management
facilities adequate by type and capacity to meet all of the expected or potential needs
of hazardous waste generators located within the County. Sufficient redundancy should
be included in order to ensure flexibility in responding to unanticipated future events.
Alameda County agrees to participate in the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) region capacity allocation process to plan for an environmentally appropriate,
economically viable hazardous waste management facility (or facilities) within its own
borders and designed to serve the needs of hazardous waste generators in other
counties as well as generators within Alameda County. Facilities that are built in
accord with intercounty agreements will receive local land use approval in accord with
existing legislation.
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-7
Local jurisdictions will assure that private firms located in Alameda County and using
out-of-county hazardous waste management facilities follow all appropriate federal and
state procedures; that they pursue aggressively source reduction; that such facilities
receive all necessary mitigation measures to protect the environment and public health
in their vicinity; and that host counties are adequately compensated as provided under
state law. Alameda County and the Waste Management Authority similarly seek
reciprocal agreements with other counties to provide mitigation and compensation for
hosting a facility intended to serve generators from outside Alameda County.
Alameda County will consider the feasibility and desirability of developing innovative
new fee and rebate mechanisms designed to provide specific fiscal incentives for local
hazardous waste generators to follow the hazardous waste management hierarchy and
to make maximum use of those hazardous waste management facilities located within
Alameda County (or to use those out-of-county facilities covered in a formal
intercounty agreement).
Policy 13: Public Ownership of Facilities
Public agencies in Alameda County will explore the possibility of developing facilities
needed to serve generators in the county that may not otherwise be developed by
private developers. The first priority would be to develop a residuals repository if
needed, to provide a positive economic inducement to private development of new
treatment facilities. Joint public-private combinations might also be considered.
Policy 14: Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Siting Principle
The County will act to provide for the safe, effective management of hazardous waste
generated within the County. New offsite hazardous waste management facilities shall
be primarily limited to a scale necessary to meet the hazardous waste management
needs of this County: larger facilities may be permitted in accordance with agreements
reached between this county and other jurisdictions or upon determination of the local
governing body that the project meets local planning criteria and serves public needs.
The "fair share principle," as defined below, will guide the County's efforts to provide
for the management of hazardous wastes generated within the county.
The County and its cities recognizes their collective responsibility to cooperate with
other governments in the region and the state in planning for the effective management
of hazardous wastes generated in the region and the state in accordance with the
hazardous waste management hierarchy. Sound hazardous waste management
planning, waste reduction efforts, and appropriate facility siting are the mutual
responsibility of all governments. To this end, the County and its cities encourage
multicounty and regional efforts to plan and implement alternatives to land disposal of v
untreated wastes and to limit the risks posed by transportation of hazardous wastes
around the state. Agreements for new facilities to provide the offsite capacity needed
for hazardous waste treatment and residuals disposal should be reached among
jurisdictions according to their fair share of the hazardous waste stream, each
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-8
jurisdiction's environmental suitability for different types of facilities, their economic
_ interests, and economic viability of different types and sizes of facilities. Any privately
owned facility located in this County shall be available to serve generators from inside
and outside the County.
"Fair share" denotes that each county is responsible for the disposition of its own waste;
that is, responsible for its share of waste management. A county cannot be required to
accept a facility with a capacity that significantly exceeds the county's own needs, except
as provided by an interjurisdictional agreement. It is recognized that the waste streams
in each county will probably not support an economically efficient hazardous waste
facility of each type needed to handle a county's waste. Therefore, counties are
encouraged to enter into interjurisdictional agreements to balance economic efficiency
in the size of facilities and to responsibly handle their fair share of the wastes
generated. If the county has approved the siting of a facility or facilities that have a
capacity equal to or in excess of the county's total hazardous waste management needs,
the county will have achieved its fair share of hazardous waste management facilities
siting and cannot be forced to accept the siting of additional facilities except as
provided by interjurisdictional agreement.
The Fair Share language does not become operative until interjurisdictional agreements
are in place.
GENERAL FACILITY SITING CRITERIA
Health and Safety Code Section 25135.1(d)(6) states that instead of identifying specific
facilities and sites the Plan may include siting criteria to be used in selecting sites for
new hazardous waste management facilities. In that case the Plan must also "designate
general areas where the criteria might be applicable." The Alameda Plan includes
general siting criteria which were developed to identify potentially environmentally
appropriate locations for hazardous waste management facilities. The Plan has
designated, on maps, the general areas where the criteria might be applicable.
The siting criteria are intended to apply to siting decisions in unincorporated areas-of
the county as well as in incorporated cities. They are to be used whenever a land use
decision is required to site and construct a new offsite multi-user hazardous waste
management facility, significantly expand or modify an existing hazardous waste
management facility, or expand or modify an existing onsite hazardous waste
' management facility to become an offsite facility for other generators. The purpose of
the criteria is to help facility developers conduct a preliminary screening of sites and
understand the major issues of concern to the community. The criteria developed for
Alameda County include major requirements of federal and state laws and regulations
and of local planning documents. This should assist developers in finding locations that
are consistent with current legal and policy requirements.
The facility siting process established under AB2948 provides procedures to speed and
coordinate the permitting process at state and local levels. Proposed off-site
sF031609\nn\020.5 l K-9
hazardous waste management facilities within Alameda County must be consistent with
the Plan's stated goals, policies, and siting criteria. Proposed facilities must also comply
with permitting requirements of the host local jurisdiction which may include siting
criteria which are more stringent than those included in the Plan.
The Plan contains the following two categories of siting criteria:
1. Conditional: Designated facilities may be located in areas that meet these
criteria, if an engineered solution can be found to mitigate potential incompatibilities
between the facility and the surrounding land uses and/or potential impacts of the
facility on its environment. Other conditions could include funding an investigation,
designing special mitigation features, conducting a risk assessment to identify
appropriate buffer zones, etc.
2. Exclusionary: Designated facilities cannot be located in areas described in these
criteria due to incompatibility between the facility and the surrounding land area, based
on environmental, public service/health or land use constraints.
The criteria have been defined for three categories of facilities which have a potential
to be sited in Alameda County. The three types of facilities are as follows:
1. Small-scale transfer and storage facilities: Facilities with wastestreams small
enough to be exempt from manifest requirement as described in California Health and
Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 6. Wastes from any given generator
must not exceed a total volume of five gallons or a total weight of 50 pounds.
Household hazardous waste collection facilities may be considered small scale at the
option of each individual jurisdiction.
2. Industrial transfer/storage/treatment facilities: These facilities are defined as
any hazardous waste management facility which is not a small-scale transfer and storage
facility or a residuals repository. This facility category includes but is not limited to:
a. Manifested waste transfer station
b. Recycling facility
C. Aqueous treatment facility
d. Stabilization and solidification facility
3. Residuals Repositories: A hazardous waste disposal facility collection of residual
wastes, defined as the residues from hazardous waste treatment facilities after
treatment, and other irreducible stabilized or detoxified hazardous wastes.
Although many of the siting criteria reflect existing requirements of state and federal
laws, the criteria are not intended to substitute for statutory requirements. In general,
all facilities must conform to applicable state and federal standards as a condition of
receiving necessary permits. These standards include these requirements of the State
and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the State Air Resources Control Board,
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-10
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the State Department of Health
Services, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These state and federal
requirements represent minimum standards. The Plan siting criteria are additional
siting requirements, and local jurisdictions may impose further requirements.
Table 1 shows the general siting criteria included in the Plan for each of the three
categories of facilities described above.
Local government land use decisions on a facility proposal may be appealed to a new
seven-member State Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board finds that the proposed
facility would be consistent with the reasonable restrictions contained within the
approved Plan, the local decision may be overridden and the facility granted the
necessary land use permit. In the absence of an approved Plan, the statute calls for the
Appeal Board to consider siting in any appropriate industrially-zoned location.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The Plan contains a comprehensive implementation strategy to carry out the goals and
policies and represents the County's effort to take a coordinated approach to
responsible hazardous waste management. The strategy identifies institutional
responsibilities and funding mechanisms. Key program areas emphasize regulatory
compliance and coordination for over 60 existing local government programs; source
reduction; meeting the needs of small generators; land use and facility siting, including
intercounty cooperation and planning; and public and industry involvement in Plan
implementation and revision. Specific measures are designed to ensure the adequacy
of emergency response; minimize transportation upsets; cleanup of contaminated sites
and prevent new contamination; systematize ongoing data collection and analysis; and
provide education, technical assistance, information dissemination and outreach.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The initial Study Environmental Checklist Form (Attachment l--Section II) identifies
and discusses potential impacts to environmental factors that may be affected by the
proposed project. Mitigation measures that reduce the potentially significant
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance are identified in the plan. All of the
mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist are
incorporated into the project.
The actual selection, siting, and development of hazardous waste facilities is not part of
the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan because the size, location,
and particular characteristics of any of these facilities are simply not known at this time.
However, the Plan includes general siting criteria and other measures which serve to
mitigate the potential impacts of future facilities in the generic nonlocational sense they
SF031609\AA\020.51 K-11
are considered in the Alameda County Plan. These potential impacts and mitigation
measures are discussed in the initial study. Specific facility proposals in Alameda
County will be required to comply with CEQA. In this regard, the impacts of such
facilities when proposed can be considered in detail when their size, location, and
characteristics are known. Further, specific facility proposals will be evaluated for
consistency with this Plan and subject to all applicable requirements of federal, state,
regional, and local jurisdictions.
The actual selection and siting of hazardous waste facilities is not part of this project.
However, the plan includes general siting criteria which serve to mitigate potential
impacts for future facilities. These potential impacts and mitigation measures are
discussed generally in the Initial Study. Specific facility proposals in Alameda County
will be: evaluated for consistency with this Plan required to comply with CEQA and
subject to all applicable requirements of federal, state, regional, and local jurisdictions.
MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENT
Under the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, mitigation monitoring
plans will be required for environmental review of any specific facility. All applicants
that apply for a land-use permit in a local jurisdiction within Alameda County must
submit to the permitting authority a detailed statement that affirmatively demonstrates
compliance with the mitigation measures (e.g., siting criteria) set forth in the Alameda
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as well as any more stringent locally
adopted criteria, and in addition, must submit a copy of this statement to the Alameda
County Waste Management Authority for review.
ATTACHMENTS
The Initial Study of Environmental Impact was prepared as part of this Negative
Declaration. This document is hereby incorporated by reference as Attachment 1 and
is composed of the following sections:
Attachment ]--Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Section I--Environmental Setting
Section II--Environmental Checklist Form
Section III--Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
Section IV--Environmental Determination
sF031609\AA\020.5 1 K-12
Table l
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page l of 5
DIIS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial'Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility Residuals Repositories
A. Seismic Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
No facilities shall he placed within 200 feet of an active or recently active fault. CCR Title 22.Section 66391(x)(fl l)A(1)and(2).
B. Floodplains Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
100-yr.floodplains and areas subject to flooding by dam or Mav he built in areas subject to 100-year flooding if protected by engineered solutions Mav not be located in areas subject to
levee failure and tsunamis,seiches,and coastal flooding designed to preclude failure.such as berms, raising above flood levels,etc. 100-year flooding even with protection
CFR Title 40.Section 264.18(b); and
CCR 22,Section 66391(a)(I1)(b)).
C. Wetlands Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
Saltwater.freshwater.and brackish marshes.swamps and No facilities shall be located in wetlands.
bogs inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency
to support,a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life which
requires saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction,as defined in adopted regional or state policies.
D. habitat of Endangered Species Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
Plant and animal rare,endangered,and critical habitat areas. No facilities shall be located within critical habitats of endangered species,defined as areas known to be inhabited permanently or
seasonally or known to he critical at any stage in the life cycle of any species of wildlife or vegetation identified or being considered
ca for identification as"endangered"or"threatened"by the U.S. Department of the Interior or the State of California.
F Instable Solis Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Steep slopes and areas subject to liquefaction and subsidence Facilities located in these areas should have engineered design features(i.e.,containment May not he located in areas with
due to natural causes. structures)to assure structural stability. 25 percent slope or greater or'in
areas subject to liquefaction or
subsidence.
F. Major Aquifer Recharge Areas Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Eo' nown or suspecte d to be supplying principal recharge If located in these areas, facilities should provide properly designed.constructed,and Should be prohibited in major aquifer
ional aquifer.as defined in adopted general.regional. maintained engineering spill containment features, inspection,and monitoring measures and recharge areas.
plans. other environmental protection controls to prevent runoff from the facility.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality
Act;any applicable requirements of federal.state. regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609\AA\019.51
Table I.
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 2 of 5
UHS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Sloragefrreatment Facility Residuals Repositories
G. Distances From Residences* Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Residences Proximity to residential areas is desirable 'Treatment,storage,or transfer facilities No residuals repository shall be
to encourage facility use. handling ignitable,explosive,reactive,or located such that the active portion of
acutely hazardous wastes must provide a the facility is within 2.000 feet of a
minimum buffer zone of at least 2.000 feet permanent residence(including
between the nearest residence and the facility, residences located in industrial zones
unless the developer can demonstrate by risk or areas designated industrial in the
assessment and as part of the local permitting applicable general plan and legal
process that a smaller buffer zone provides live/work uses)or any area designated
adequate protection for the public in the event for use in the applicable general plan,
of an accident. For other facilities,including (unless developer can demonstrate by
recycling. transfer,or storage of other types of risk assessment and as part of the
hazardous wastes,a buffer zone of at least 500 local permitting process that a smaller
feet is required between the operational area buffer zone provides adequate protec-
within the facility and the nearest residence tion for the public in the event of an
(again, unless the developer can demonstrate accident).
by risk assessment and as part of the local
rpermitting process that a smaller buffer zone
P_ provides adequate protection for the public in
the event of an accident).
H. Distance From Immobile Populations* Conditional Conditional Conditional
Schools,hospitals,convalescent homes. prisons.facilities for Proximity to residential areas is desirable Larger buffer zones are required between a Larger buffer zones are required
the mentally ill.day care centers, homeless shelters,etc. to encourage facility use. transfer station.storage.or treatment facility, between a residuals repository and
and any immobile populations where any immobile populations because
evacuation in the event of an accident at the evacuation in the event of an accident
facility is likelv to be difficult or inadvisable. at the facility is likely to he difficult
This is especially true for facilities handling or inadvisable. This is especially true.
ignitable,explosive,or reactive wastes. A for repository facilities handling
minimum buffer zone of 5.000 feet between a ignitable,explosive,reactive.or
facility and any immobile population is acutely toxic wastes. A minimum
therefore required,unless the developer can buffer zone of 5.000 feet between a
demonstrate by risk assessment and as part of facility and any immobile population
the local permitting process that a smaller is therefore required unless the
buffer zone provides adequate protection for developer can demonstrate by risk
the immobile population. assessment and as part of the local
permitting process that a smaller
buffer zone provides adequate
protection to the immobile
population.
=�Me ose of these criteria is to de signate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
cable requirements of federal,state.regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
are not mappable due to lack of information and the scale of maps to be appropriate produced for the Plan.
SFO31609WA\019.51
Table 1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 3 of 5
DHS Derinition. Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Slorage/Trealment Facility Residuals Repositories
1. Proximity to Major Transportation Routes Conditional Conditional Conditional
Should he located so as to minimize distances to major transportation routes which are Should have good access to major
designed to accommodate heavy vehicles. transportation routes,but may have to
be more distant from waste
generation sites than other types
because of their need for larger land
areas.
All Facilities: Road networks leading to major transportation routes should not pass through residential neighborhoods,should
minimize residential frontages in other areas.and should be demonstrated to be safe with regard to road design and construction,
accident rates,excessive traffic etc.
J. Permeable Strata and Soils Conditional Conditional Conditional
Permeability requirements are defined in CCR Tille 23. Facilities should avoid locating on highly permeable soils or sediment. Facilities located in Facilities must conform to
Chapter 15. areas where surficial soils are principally permeable materials such as sand and gravel should requirements of SWRCB.
provide for spill containment and monitoring measures.
K. Nonaltainment Air Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Areas not in compliance with national air quality standards All facilities must comply with requirements of the Bav Area Air Quality Management District.
In for one or more measured air pollutants.
L. PSI)Air Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Prevention of sign:.`,7ant deterioration areas are those in All facilities must comply with permitting requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
compliance with national air quality standards.
M. Prime Agricultural Lands Conditional Conditional Conditional
Areas designated as prime agricultural lands in the applicable Prime agricultural lands under California law may not be used for urban purposes unless an overriding public need is demonstrated
general,regional.or state plan. by the applicant.
When siting hazardous waste management facilities in these areas,overriding public service needs must be demonstrated by the
applicant.
�. Depth to Groundwater Conditional Conditional Conditional
Facilities may he located in high groundwater areas if the engineered design of the Facilities must conform to
containment structure is capable of withstanding failure because of geologic or soil failures requirements of SWRCB.
which may arise.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies: and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609\AA\019.51
Table 1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 4 of 5
DIIS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Induslrial Transfer/Storagelrreatmenl Facility Residuals Repositories
O. Proximity to Public Services Conditional Conditional Conditional
Public utilities(sewer,water etc.).and emergency services. For transfer or storage facilities.self-sufficient services may be appropriate,where these For residuals repositories,self-
including fire,police, medical.and hazardous materials facilities are necessary to serve remote rural areas. In urban areas, public services should be sufficient services may be necessary
response personnel/facilities/equipment. Other public available. For other facilities, public water and sewer services and emergency services should (i.e..emergency fire,wastewater
facilities such as corporation yards,roads, large open spaces he readily available. facilities.etc.).
on mililarv_ reservations,and state school lands in remote
areas.
Potential adverse impacts which could occur because of proximity to public facilities shall be determined as a part of the risk
assessment conducted in the permitting process. This should consider the physical and chemical characteristics of the wastes that will
be handled and the design features of the facility. Proximity to other public facilities such as corporation yards, utilities,roads,large
open spaces on military reservation,and state school lands in remote areas may be acceptable.
P. Proximity to Waste Generation Stream Conditional Conditional Conditional
Transportation of hazardous waste should he minimized to Collection centers should be close to TSDFs should be located close to waste Repositories may he located more
decrease risk of accidental spills. residential zoned and small quantity generation sources to minimize the risks of distant from waste generation sources
generator areas to encourage their use. transportation. than other facilities because of the
need for large land areas.
Q. Appropriate "Zoning Conditional Conditional Conditional
Specified by the appropriate jurisdiction. All jurisdictions Commercial and industrial zones near TSDFs are basically industrial facilities. Because repositories usually require
should have some type of zoning which will allow siting of residential areas are appropriate. I lowever,the siting of hazardous waste large land areas, it may not be
different types of hazardous waste management facilities. management facilities is not required to be practical or economical to site them
limited to these zones if special zones are in developed commercial or industrial
created. areas. Specially zoned areas or
rezoning of other areas may he
appropriate. The intent is to locate
Residuals Repositories in more
remote open areas.
R. Recreational,Cultural or Aesthetic Areas Conditional Exclusionary Exclusionary
Historic preservation, Indian reservations,and other cultural Low-volume transfer and storage facilities Other facilities should not be allowed in these areas.
and scenic areas,as defined in locally adopted general plans. may be allowed in these areas if necessary
to handle hazardous wastes generated by
visitors,workers,or residents in these
areas. Other recreational,cultural.and
aesthetic areas, including all local City
parks and recreation areas,are located
throughout the County at specific sites too
small to map.
Continued
SFO31609\AA\019.51
Table l
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 5 of 5
DHS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility Residuals Repositories
S. Mineral Resources Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Defined as Sand and Gravel in Alameda County General No facilities should be sited so as to preclude extraction of minerals necessary to sustain the economy of the State.
Plan.
T. Military Lands Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
It is the policy of the Department of Defense(DOD)that military land shall not be considered for siting of public hazardous waste
management facilities. This policy is considered nonnegotiable by DOD.
U. Other Stale,Federal and Indian Lands Conditional Conditional Conditional
The criteria listed above are suitable for use in determining the suitability of lands within these areas for siting of hazardous waste
management facilities.
ADDITIONAL ALAMEDA COUNTY.CRITERIA
Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility Residuals Repositories
Airport zones Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
No facility may be located within an FAA approach zone,air installation compatible use zone,or safety zone as described in the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan,generally defined as the area immediately surrounding a public or military airport,
including the immediate approach and take-off paths.
v
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal.state, regional and local agencies:and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SF031609\AA\019.51
INITIAL STUDY
Alameda County Waste Management Authority
Hazardous Waste Management Plan
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Attachment 1
CH2M HILL
August 1991
Section I
EXISTING CONDITION
Because the Alameda County Waste Management Plan (Plan) is not a site-specific
project, the environmental setting for the Plan consists of a description of current waste
generation and disposal practices and existing source reduction programs.
Waste Generation and Disposal
Alameda County businesses and residents generate over 100,000 tons of hazardous
waste annually, according to the Plan. Half of the wastestream is produced by large
and small generators and shipped for offsite treatment or disposal; an estimated
32 percent is generated by small firms whose management practices are not accounted
for, but probably consist of, sewer or garbage disposal, or direct discharge to the land.
A relatively small amount is generated by households and cleanup action at
contaminated sites. Much of this data is "estimated" because verifiable quantitative
data only account for that portion which is shipped accompanied by a state and
federally required Manifest document (manifested wastes), approximately 66,000 tons in
Alameda. It should be noted that even manifest data are questionable, since the DHS
maintains a "suspense file" of nearly half of the incoming manifests due to problems in
completion of the form, etc. Uncertainty regarding the actual volumes of hazardous
waste generated by small businesses and residents, and their waste management
practices, is typical of every county and poses a significant environmental and public
health concern.
An estimated 7,000 businesses in Alameda County generate hazardous wastes, yet only
700 currently manifest shipments of waste for offsite treatment/disposal. Most of the
manifested waste stream is being sent to the two remaining licensed hazardous waste
landfills in the State, or to out-of-state facilities including deep injection wells operated
in Texas and Louisiana, incinerators in Texas, Illinois, and Arkansas, and a landfill in
Utah. Approximately 31 percent of the manifested wastes, particularly waste oil and
solvents, are recycled, mostly by recyclers located in Alameda County or San Mateo
County. Smaller volumes are treated at other offsite facilities. .
While many larger firms dispose of hazardous wastes by appropriate waste
management procedures, much of the County's wastestream is generated by small
quantity generators (SQG's) whose actual waste generation and management practices
are not known.
Businesses in Alameda County are predominantly small, and the wastes generated by
small firms tend to be relatively small and diverse. Small quantity generators, who
typically have inadequate financial resources, technical expertise and lack an
understanding of legal requirements have difficulty complying with hazardous waste
management regulations.
sF031609\AA\021.51 I-l
SQGs are the primary source of waste oil, which makes up 36 percent of the County's
total wastestream. As stated in the Plan, surveys of waste oil recyclers indicate that up
to 45 percent of the County's waste oil is being picked up by recyclers. While there are
five recyclers in the County, some firms may utilize the services of recyclers based out
of the county. Information on the number of firms which utilize the services of out-of-
county recyclers or waste oil being recycled from other counties is not available through
the DHS manifest system, therefore it is not possible to state with certainty the amount
of waste oil legally managed in this way. The fate of the estimated 55 percent
remaining is unknown, though it is assumed that illegal and unsafe storage and disposal
occurs for a large portion.
Existing Source Reduction
Under its Memorandum of Understanding with the State Department of Health
Services Toxic Substance Control Division, the County Department of Environmental
Health has begun implementing a three phase hazardous waste minimization project as
part of their countywide Hazardous Waste Management Program. The first phase is
the education and inspection of generators to effect compliance and promote their
interest and define their responsibilities to manage and reduce their hazardous wastes.
The second phase is the establishment of a hazardous waste data base. The third
phase will address the targeting of specific industries to develop and promote new and
existing technologies for source reduction, recycling, and treatment of hazardous waste
generated and will be accompanied by an educational program identifying the
responsibility of the generator as well as explaining the technologies available to the
producers of hazardous waste.
SFO31609\AA\021.51 I-2
Section II
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Alameda County Waste Management Authority
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1933 Davis St. Suite 308
San Leandro, California 94577
(510) 639-2481
3. Date Checklist Submitted: August 26, 1991
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Alameda County Waste Management Authority
5. Name of Proposal: Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers are provided in Section III
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes x
in geologic substructures? _
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, x
or overcovering of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface x
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering, or
modification or any unique geologic x
or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion x
of soils, either on or off the site?
sr031609\A awzz.s 1
Yes Maybe No
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean x
or any bay, inlet, or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground x
failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or x
deterioration of ambient air quality?
x
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperature, or any change in x
climate, either locally or regionally? _
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements, in x
either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of x
surface runoff?
C. Alterations to the course or flow of x
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface x
water in any water body?
sr-03 I h09\AA\022.5 1 11-2
Yes Maybe No
C. Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen, x
or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate x
of flow of groundwaters? _
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or x
excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for x
public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to
water-related hazards such as x
flooding or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, x
crops, and aquatic plants)? _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, x
rare, or endangered species of plants? _
C. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing x
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any x
agricultural crop? _
sFO31609\AA\o22.5 t 11-3
Yes Maybe No
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic x
organisms or insects)? _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, x
rare, or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result .in
a barrier to the migration or. x
movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or x
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
x
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise x
levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal x
produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or x
planned land use of the area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in an increase in the rate of x
use of any natural resources
SF031e09\AA\022.5 1 II-4
Yes Maybe No
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation) in the event x
of an accident or upset conditions? _
b. Possible interference with an emer-
gency response plan or an emergency x
evacuation plan? _
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth x
of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. .Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional x
housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional x
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities x
or demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact upon existing x
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people x
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail, x
or air traffic?
sF031609M\022.51 11-5
Yes Maybe No
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists, or x
pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
x
a. Fire protection?
x
b. Police protection?
x
C. Schools?
x
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, x
including roads?
x
f. Other governmental services? _
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel x
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new x
sources of energy?
I
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial x
alterations to utilities?
sF031609\AA\022.51 I1-6
Yes Maybe No
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding x
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential x
health hazards`'
Yes Maybe No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically x
offensive site open to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity of x
existing recreational opportunities''
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic x
archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, x
structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which would x
affect unique ethnic cultural values? _
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the x
potential impact area?
sF031609\AA\022.5 l 11-7
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant-
or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of x
California history or prehistory? _
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period
of time, while long-term impacts will x
endure well into the future.)
C. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is x
significant? _
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, x
either directly or indirectly?
SFO31609\AA\022.51 11-8
Section III
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND
MITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The following analysis explains the responses to the questions listed in the
Environmental Checklist Form in Section I1. The environmental checklist was used to
identify environmental factors that may be affected by implementation of the Plan.
The impacts identified for each checked factor are discussed below. Mitigation
measures that would reduce significant or potentially significant effects to a less than
significant level are also described.
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in changes in earth or geologic conditions, soils
erosion, or exposure to other geologic hazards?
MAYBE--The only aspect of the Plan that would have potentially significant impacts
on soils erosion, geological features, topography, geologic hazards; etc. involve the
construction of hazardous waste facilities which have not been specifically proposed in
the Plan. Hazardous waste management facilities constructed within Alameda County
could be subject to a variety of geologic hazards, including slope instability, differential
settlement, expansive soils, erosion, landsliding,and liquefaction. In addition, a number
of earthquake faults traverse the County, posing a seismic hazard to all facilities.
To mitigate these potential hazards to a level of insignificance, several siting criteria
have been developed. Siting Criteria A states that no facilities would be constructed
within 200 feet of any known earthquake fault; Criteria E allows transfer and storage
facilities in areas with unstable soils only with engineered design features to assure
structural stability and disallows residuals repositories in areas with 25 percent slopes or
greater.
When a specific facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will be
required to determine the significance of any earth-related impacts.
2. AIR. Will the proposal result in increased air emissions, odors or change in
climate?
MAYBE--Approval and implementation of the Plan would reduce the overall amount of
hazardous waste released into the air as the management of these substances is
improved. As land disposal, both legal and illegal, is eliminated, the amount of toxics
released to the atmosphere would be reduced. Reduced truck traffic could be expected
due to the reduction in hazardous waste generation and would lower the amount of
vehicular exhaust released to the atmosphere. In addition, Criteria P states that
transfer, storage and treatment facilities should be located close to waste generation
sF031 6o9Anw23.51 III-]
sources to decrease the risk of accidental spills and also reduces total vehicle miles
travelled.
Various treatment facilities and residual repositories do have the potential for releasing
toxic air emissions. As mitigation, several criteria have been developed in the Plan.
Criteria K and L require that all facilities comply with requirements of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District which require that no net adverse impacts result from
any facilities, and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be installed where
any discharges to the atmosphere could occur. In addition, Criterions G and H require
significant buffer zones between facilities and residences or health risk assessments to
demonstrate that a smaller buffer zone provides adequate protection for the public in
the event of an accident.
Potential air impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the plan, its
policies and siting criteria. When specific sites and facilities are proposed, further
environmental review and in-depth analysis (in most cases, risk assessments) will be
required to develop site-specific mitigation measures.
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in significant impacts to water resources?
MAYBE--Implementation of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
would likely lower the total amount of hazardous wastes released to the groundwaters
and surface waters of the County. This would be due to improved management
practices such as the reduction of illegal and unsafe disposal, and to the reduction in
the amount of hazardous wastes being transported (and potentially spilled) within the
County.
New facilities which are not specifically proposed by the Plan, could be subject to
inundation by flood waters, or could increase the risk of flooding to other areas. As
mitigation, the Plan includes Criteria B which requires that transfer, storage, and
treatment facilities located in 100-year floodplains and/or areas subject to flooding by
dam or levee failure be designed with engineered solutions to preclude failure (i.e.
berms, raising of facility above predicted flood levels, etc). The same criteria excludes
residuals repositories from floodplains and areas subject to flooding by dam or levee
failure.
Criteria F requires transfer, storage and treatment facilities located in major aquifer
recharge areas to provide properly designed, constructed, and maintained engineering
spill containment features, inspection and monitoring. measures, and other
environmental protection controls to prevent runoff from the facility. The same criteria
prevents the siting of residuals repositories in major aquifer recharge areas.
As additional mitigation a groundwater monitoring system should also be required. All
facilities would comply with all pertinent regulations as issued by federal, state, or local
government agencies. Underground storage tanks would be properly designed and
sF031 h09M\oz3.s i I11-2
constructed so as to avoid any groundwater contamination. Facilities shall be designed
so as not to increase the risk of flooding to any offsite areas.
Potential water-quality impacts would be less than significant with implementation of
the Plan, its policies and siting criteria. When a specific facility and site is proposed,
further environmental review will be required during the local permitting process to
develop site-specific mitigations measures.
4 and 5. Plant and Animal Life. Will the proposal result in changes or reductions of
plant or animal species, or introduction of new species of plants or animals?
MAYBE--A number of sensitive habitats exist within Alameda County that could be
affected by the construction of hazardous waste management facilities which are not
specifically proposed in this plan. However, Criteria D mitigates this potential impact
to a level of insignificance by excluding the siting of all hazardous waste facilities from
critical habitats of endangered species, defined as areas known to be inhabited
permanently or seasonally or known to be critical at any stage in the life cycle of any
species of wildlife or vegetation identified or being considered for identification as
"endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Department of Interior or the State of
California. Criteria C prevents the siting of all hazardous waste facilities in wetlands.
Sensitive habitats are unlikely to be found in areas near generators of hazardous
wastes, which is where management facilities would most likely be located.
When a specific facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will be
required during the local permitting process to prescribe and site specific mitigation
measures.
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in increased noise levels or exposure of people to
severe noise levels?
MAYBE--Approval of the Plan would probably result in a decrease in the total amount
of noise generated within Alameda County. This would be because of the decrease in
the total amount of truck traffic (because of facility siting near generators and
reduction in hazardous waste), although there could be some additional noise generated
in the vicinity of operating facilities.
To mitigate any noise impacts to a less-than-significant level, facilities would be
required to comply with the Alameda County noise element or the noise restrictions of
the local jurisdiction, whichever is more stringent.
When a specific facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will be
required during the local permitting process to develop site-specific mitigation
measures.
SF031609\AA\023.51 III-3
7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?
MAYBE--The only portions of the Plan that would produce new sources of light or
glare involve construction and operation of hazardous waste facilities which are not
specifically proposed as part of the plan. Use of reflective materials or outdoor
lighting might make such facilities visible from surrounding areas at night or create a
potential source of glare.
To mitigate any light or glare impacts to a less-than-significant level, facilities would be
required to comply with the Alameda County noise element or the noise restrictions of
the local jurisdictions, whichever is more stringent.
When a specific facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will be
required during the local permitting process to develop site-specific mitigation
measures.
8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
MAYBE--The potential land use impacts associated with the implementation of the
Alameda County Plan consist of possible incompatibility between a proposed site and
the surrounding property land uses, and possible inconsistency with existing county and
city land use policies. Under the Plan as proposed, these potential impacts would be
reduced to levels of insignificance because of two factors: 1) the Plan's general siting
criteria and 2) the measures required by state law to ensure consistency between the
County Plan and other County and City General Plan documents.
The Plan presents siting criteria for both offsite hazardous waste transfer, treatment
and incineration facilities and residuals repositories. Criteria Q states that each local
jurisdiction should have some type of zoning which will allow siting of different types of
hazardous waste management facilities in compatible areas. Small scale transfer and
storage facilities should be located in commercial and/or industrial zones; industrial
transfer/storage and treatment facilities should be located in industrial zones or other
special zones, if created. Because repositories usually require large land areas, Criteria
Q states that it may not be practical or economical to site them in developed
commercial or industrial areas. Specially zoned areas or rezoning of other areas may
be more appropriate. Additional criteria prevent industrial hazardous waste
management facilities and residuals repositories from being sited within any
recreational, cultural or aesthetic areas. Criteria S precludes the siting of facilities that
would preclude the extraction of Mineral Resources necessary to sustain the economy
of the state ad Criteria M prevents the use of prime agricultural lands for facilities
unless an overriding public need can be demonstrated.
The potential for inconsistency between the Alameda County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan and County and city General Plan documents is mitigated in two
ways. First, during preparation of the Plan, County and city planning documents were
sF031 b09M\oz3.S 1 111-4
reviewed to assess the consistency of the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Plan
with these plans, most existing county and city planning documents do not refer
specifically to goals or policies relating to hazardous wastes, but several of the existing
plan policies provide important starting points for the comprehensive approaches set
forth within the County Plan. Second, new legislation passed in 1987 (SB 477) requires
counties and cities to amend General Plans within 180 days of the approval of the
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to bring local planning documents into
consistency with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. This action would
remove any inconsistencies between County Hazardous Waste Management Plans and
local planning documents.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of
natural resources?
NO--Approval of the CHWMP and implementation of the hazardous waste
management.hierarchy would not result in an increase in the use of natural resources.
On the contrary, waste minimization and source reduction practices are likely to
conserve natural resources.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances or interference with an emergency or evacuation response plan?
MAYBE--The risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an
accident or upset condition would be reduced by the implementation of source
reduction and waste minimization programs at existing facilities.
Criteria G and H require substantial buffer zones for new hazardous waste facilities to
protect residences and immobile populations in case of an accident. Buffer zones
cannot be decreased unless the developer can demonstrate by risk assessment that a
smaller buffer zone provides adequate protection for the public in the event of an
accident or upset. _.
Potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the plan, its
policies and siting criteria.
When a specific facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will be
required during the local permitting process to develop site-specific mitigation measures
to prevent significant impacts due to explosions or release of hazardous substances.
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
NO--Approval of the Plan would not alter the location, distribution, density or growth
rate of the human population in Alameda County because the programs included in the
Plan would not directly or indirectly affect or induce local population growth.
SF031609M\023.51 III-5
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing?
NO--Approval of the Plan would not effect existing housing, nor would it create
demand for additional housing, because the programs in the Plan would not induce
physical change or alteration to the existing housing market in Alameda County.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in additional traffic, demand
for new parking, alterations to existing systems, or increased hazards?
MAYBE--Because the major portion of manifested hazardous wastes generated within
Alameda County originate along the I-880 corridor, this route would most likely
become the primary transportation route for both treated and untreated hazardous
wastes. The total amount of truck traffic would be expected to decrease because
facilities would be sited in proximity to generators, thus minimizing the transportation
of toxic substances. No additional demand for parking is expected and no alterations
to existing transportation systems is anticipated. Although the risk of spills is expected
to decrease proportionately with the rate of source reduction and waste minimization,
substantial disruption of traffic could result.
Criteria 1 requires that all hazardous waste management facilities be located so that
good highway access is available to mitigate the risk of spills and protect residential
neighborhoods. Further mitigation could be provided by restricting the transport of
hazardous wastes during peak hours, routing the transport through less populated areas
and avoiding schools and hospitals, and creating a county wide spill response agency.
Potential traffic impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance with approval
and implementation of the Plan, its policies and siting criteria.
When a specific facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will be
required during the local permitting process to develop site-specific mitigation measures
to prevent significant traffic impacts.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new
or altered governmental services for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or
recreational facilities, maintenance of public facilities and roads, or other
governmental services?
MAYBE--Approval and implementation of the Plan will not affect the need for public
utilities and services. It's possible that the need for fire and police protection services
could be reduced depending on the success of source reduction and waste minimization
programs. Additional administration programs are planned to implement source
reduction and waste minimization plans.
Criteria O requires that the impact of a facility on local emergency response services
and sewage systems be evaluated and upgraded, if necessary, by the facility developer.
SF031609\AA\023.51 111-6
Potential impacts to public services are mitigated to a level of insignificance with
approval and implementation of the Plan, its policies and siting criteria. When a
specific facility is proposed, further environmental review will be required and. site-
specific mitigation measures developed to prevent significant impacts.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in use of substantial amounts of fuel or increase
in demand upon existing sources of energy?
NO--Approval of the Plan will not result in use of substantial amounts of fuel or
increase in demand upon existing sources of energy. With the implementation of
source reduction and waste minimization, less energy will be required to transport
hazardous waste to treatment facilities. In addition, Criteria P states that facilities
should be located near generators which would also decrease the vehicle miles travelled
transporting hazardous waste thus decreasing the use of energy.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to existing utilities?
MAYBE--Approval of the Plan and implementation of source reduction and waste
minimization programs would not result in need for new utilities or alterations to
existing utilities.
Hazardous waste facilities which are not specifically proposed in the plan could require
new or altered utility systems. However, Criteria O requires developers to provide
required utilities if they are not readily available thereby mitigating this impact to a
level of insignificance.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or
exposure of people to potential health hazards?
MAYBE--Implementation of the Plain would have an overall beneficial effect on public
health and safety, both by minimizing existing hazards and by providing for thorough
analysis of public health impacts. Design standards intended to minimize impacts
would have been included throughout the general siting criteria and will be further
established by local jurisdictions prior to permitting waste management facilities. The
programs recommended by the Plan would reduce the volume of hazardous wastes
generated, and existing illegal, unsafe storage and disposal practices (such as municipal
refuse disposal, sewer discharge and direct discharge to land and surface waters) would
be curtailed. Additionally, the Plan would serve to coordinate existing hazardous
materials/wastes regulatory programs.
Siting of individual facilities could create localized impacts on public health and safety
through sudden accidental releases of hazardous substances to the air, land and
groundwater and surface water resources. Failure to comply with the facility's permit
conditions could also result in long-term health impacts. The level of risk is dependent
sF031609\AA\0'3.51 111-7
on the type of facility, and the corresponding potential for environmental release of
hazardous substances.
In order to minimize health and safety impacts of proposed facilities, the Plan
establishes siting criteria that ensure hazardous waste management facilities are located
only in environmentally appropriate areas, near generators and far from residential
areas and immobile populations. Health Risk Assessments would be conducted as
necessary to identify potentially significant impacts and necessary mitigation measures.
All hazardous waste management facilities would be required to install Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) to prevent releases of hazardous substances.
Potential impacts to human health would be mitigated to less than significant with
implementation of the Plan, its policies and siting criteria.
Human health impacts associated with specific hazardous waste facilities will be fully
evaluated during the local permitting process which will include further environmental
review as required by CEQA and most likely a health risk assessment to develop
appropriate site-specific mitigation measures.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
MAYBE--Approval of the Plan and implementation of source reduction and waste
minimization programs would not affect aesthetics in Alameda County. There is a
potential for the siting of facilities to obstruct scenic views.
Criteria R precludes the siting of industrial transfer, storage and treatment facilities and
residuals repositories in scenic areas within the county.
Therefore, potential impacts to aesthetics would he mitigated to less than significant
with implementation of the Plan, its policies and siting criteria.
When a specific facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will be
required during the local permitting process to prescribe appropriate mitigation
measures and prevent significant aesthetic-related impacts.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreation opportunities?
MAYBE--Approval of the Plan and implementation of the source reduction and waste
minimization programs would have not impact on recreation opportunities in the
county.
Criteria R prohibits the siting of industrial transfer, storage and treatment facilities and
residuals repositories in recreational areas. Low-volume transfer and storage facilities
sF03109\AA\023.5 1 III-8
are allowed in recreational areas if necessary to provide for wastes generated by visitors
and employees.
Potential impacts to recreation would be mitigated to less than significant with
implementation of the Plan, its policies and siting criteria.
If a specific small scale facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will
be required during the local permitting process to determine the significance of any
impacts and to prescribe appropriate mitigation measures.
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration or destruction of
historic, religious, or sacred sites?
NO--Approval of the Plan and implementation of the source reduction and waste
minimization programs would not have an impact on cultural resources in the County.
To mitigate any potential impacts to a level of insignificance Criteria R prohibits the
siting of industrial transfer, storage and treatment facilities and residuals repositories in
cultural resource areas. Low-volume transfer and storage facilities are allowed in
cultural resource areas if necessary to provide for wastes generated by visitors and
employees.
If a specific small scale facility and site is proposed, further environmental review will
be required during the local permitting process to prescribe appropriate site-specific
mitigation measures.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat-of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce, the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Section 15125 (f) of the CEQA guidelines requires the inclusion of a
discussion of the effects of a program or project that would be
considered significant and unavoidable. CEQA guidelines state that "A
significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which
exist in the area affected by the proposed project including land, air,
water, minerals, flora and fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance."
SF031609\AA\023.51 III-9
In the case of the Alameda County Plan, the proper source reduction,
management and disposal of hazardous wastes, as envisioned in the Plan,
would have a significant beneficial impact to the environment as a result
of the implementation of the programs and policies included within the
Alameda County Plan. Stated another way, a significant adverse impact
to the environment could occur if the Plan were not to be adopted and
implemented.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
Section 15126 (e) of the CEQA guidelines requires a discussion of the
relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The Alameda
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan would, by instituting its
programs and policies, substantially enhance the long-term productivity of
the environment by promoting the proper management and disposal of
hazardous wastes. The Plan would substantially reduce the long-term
risks to public health and safety as well. The Plan should be
implemented as soon as possible so as to begin to reduce the existing
threat to public health and safety, and to the environment. The existing
hazardous waste disposal practices pose a threat to the long-term
productivity of the environment; therefore, by not adopting the Plan, the
long-term productivity of the environment and public health and safety
would he adversely affected.
Overall, implementation of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan is expected to have a beneficial effect on public health
and safety and the environment within the County. This would be due to
the improved management practices resulting from adoption of the Plan.
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
The Plan would, by instituting its programs and policies, not have impacts
which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. On the
contrary, the Plan would have overall beneficial impacts by reducing
wastes and enhancing the management of wastes in the County.
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proper source reduction, management and disposal of hazardous
wastes, as envisioned in the Plan, would have a significant beneficial
impact to the environment and human health as a result of the
implementation of the programs and policies included within the
sF0316MAX023.51 111-10
Alameda County Plan. In fact, significant adverse impacts to human
beings, possibly directly and indirectly could occur if the Plan were not to
be adopted and implemented.
sF031609\nn\o.3.5 1 III-l l
Section IV
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMIINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared [ ]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required. [ ]
Date Signature
Executive Director
For: Alameda County Waste
Management Authority
SF031609�A\024.51
Table 9-1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 1 or 5
DIiS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facflltyl Industrial Transfer/S torage/Treatmenl Facility Residuals Repositories
A. Seismic Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
No facilities shall be placed within 200 feet of an active or recently active fault. CCR Title 22,Section 66391(a) (1711)A(1)and (2).
B. Floodplains Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
100-yr.[loodplains and areas subject to flooding by dam or May be built in areas subject to 100-year flooding if protected by engineered solutions May not be located in areas subject to
levee failure and tsunamis,seiches,and coastal flooding designed to preclude failure,such as berms,raising above flood levels,etc. 100-year flooding even with protection
CFR Title 40,Section 264.18(b)• -nd
CCR 22,Section 66391(a)(11)
C. Wetlands Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
Saltwater,freshwater,and brackish marshes,swamps and No facilities shall be located in wetlands.
bogs inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency
to support,a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life which
requires saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction,as defined in adopted regional or state policies.
D. Habitat or Endangered Species Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
W Plant and animal rare,endangered,and critical habitat areas. No facilities shall be located within critical habitats of endangered species,defined as areas known to be inhabited permanently or
seasonally or known to be critical at any stage in the life cycle of any species of wildlife or vegetation identified or being considered
for identification as"endangered"or"threatened"by the U.S. Department of the Interior or the State of California.
E. Unstable Solis Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Steep slopes and areas subject to liquefaction and subsidence Facilities located in these areas should have engineered design features(i.e.,containment May not be located in areas with
due to natural causes. structures) to assure structural stability. 25 percent slope or greater or in
areas subject to liquefaction or
subsidence.
F. Mf�Jor Aquifer Recharge Areas Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Areas known or suspected to be supplying principal recharge if located in these areas,.facilities should provide properly designed,constructed,and Should be prohibited in major r
to a regional aquifer,as defined in adopted general,regional, maintained engineering spill containment features,inspection,and monitoring measures and recharge areas.
or state plans. other environmental protection controls to prevent runoff from the facility.
Not The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality
Act;any applicable requirements of federal,state, regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
�7
b!V
SFO31609\AA\002.51
Table 9-I
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 2 of 5
DIiS Definitlon Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storngeffreatmenl Facility Residuals Repositories
G. Distances From Residences* Conditional Conditional Exclusionary
Residences Proximity to residential areas is desirable Treatment,storage,or transfer facilities No residuals repository shall be
to encourage facility use. handling ignitable,explosive, reactive,or located such that the active portion of
acutely hazardous wastes must provide a the facility is within 2,000 feet of a
minimum buffer zone of at least 2,000 feet permanent residence(including
between the nearest residence and the facility, residences located in industrial zones
unless the developer can demonstrate by risk or areas designated industrial in the
assessment and as part of the local permitting applicable general plan and leg,
process that a smaller buffer zone provides IiveAvork uses)or any area des
adequate protection for the public in the event for use in the applicable general
of an accident. For other facilities, including (unless developer can demonstrate by
recycling, transfer,or storage of other types of risk assessment and as part of the
hazardous wastes,a buffer zone of at least 500 local permitting process that a smaller
feet is required between the operational area buffer zone provides adequate protec-
within the facility and the nearest residence tion for the public in the event of an
(again,unless the developer can demonstrate accident).
by risk assessment and as part of the local
permitting process that a smaller buffer zone
provides adequate protection for the public in
the event of an accident).
11. Distance From Immobile Populations* Conditional Conditional Conditional
Schools,hospitals,convalescent homes, prisons, facilities for Proximity to residential areas is desirable Larger buffer zones are required between a Larger buffer zones are required
the mentally ill,day care centers,homeless shelters,etc. to encourage facility use. transfer station,storage,or treatment facility, between a residuals repository and
and any immobile populations where any immobile populations because
evacuation in the event of an accident at the evacuation in the event of an accident
facility is likely to be difficult or inadvisable. at the facility is likely to be difficult
This is especially true for facilities handling or inadvisable. This is especiall•
ignitable,explosive,or reactive wastes. A for repository facilities handlin,
minimum buffer zone of 5,000 feet between a ignitable,explosive,reactive,or
facility and any immobile population is acutely toxic wastes. A minimum
therefore required, unless the developer can buffer zone of 5,000 feet between a
demonstrate by risk assessment and as part of facility and any immobile population
the local permitting process that a smaller is therefore required unless the
buffer zone provides adequate protection for developer can demonstrate by risk
the immobile population. assessment and as part of the local
permitting process that a smaller
buffer zone provides adequate
protection to the immobile
population.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
*These criteria are not mappable due to lack of information and the scale of maps to be appropriate produced for the Plan.
SFO31609\AA\002.51
t 4 _ i i
Table 9-t
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 3 of 5
DIIS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility Residuals Repositories
1. Proximity to Major Transporlallon Routes Conditional Conditional Conditional
Should be located so as to minimize distances to major transportation routes which are Should have good access to major
designed to accommodate heavy vehicles. transportation routes,but may have to
be more distant from waste.
generation sites than other types
because of their need for larger land
areas.
All Facilities: Road networks leading to major transportation routes should not pass through residential neighborhoods,shou
minimize residential frontages in other areas,and should be demonstrated to be safe with regard to road design and constructs,
accident rates,excessive traffic etc.
J. Permeable Strata and Soils Conditional Conditional Conditional
Permeability requirements are defined in CCR Title 23, Facilities should avoid locating on highly permeable soils or sediment. Facilities located in Facilities must conform to
Chapter 15. areas where surficial soils are principally permeable materials such as sand and gravel should requirements of SWRCB.
provide for spill containment and monitoring measures.
IC. Nonattainment Air Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Areas not in compliance with national air quality standards All facilities must comply with requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
`Q for one or more measured air pollutants.
llhh 1. PSD Air Areas Conditional Conditional Conditional
Prevention of significant deterioration areas are those in All facilities must comply with permitting requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
compliance with national air quality standards.
M. Prime Agricultural Lands Conditional , Conditional Conditional
Areas designated as prime agricultural lands in the applicable Prime agricultural lands under California law may not be used for urban purposes unless an overriding public need is demonstrated
general,regional,or state plan, by the applicant.
When'siting hazardous waste management facilities in these areas,overriding public service needs must be demonstrated by tt
applicant.
N. Depth to Groundwater Conditional Conditional Conditional
Facilities may be located in high groundwater areas if the engineered design of the Facilities must conform to
containment structure is capable of withstanding failure because of geologic or soil failures requirements of SWRCB.
which may arise.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state,regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609\AA\002.51
Table 9-1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 4 of 5
MIS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Slorage/frealmenl Facility Residuals Repositories
O. Proximity to Public Services Conditional Conditional Conditional
Public utilities(sewer,water etc.),and emergency services, For transfer or storage facilities,self-sufficient services may be appropriate,where these For residuals repositories,self-
including fire,police,medical,and hazardous materials facilities are necessary to serve remote rural areas. In urban areas,public services should be sufficient services may be necessary
response personnel/facilities/equipment. Other public available. For other facilities, public water and sewer services and emergency services should (i.e.,emergency fire,wastewater
facilities such as corporation yards,roads,large open spaces be readily available. facilities,etc.).
on military reservations,and state school lands in remote
areas.
Potential adverse impacts which could occur because of proximity to public facilities shall be determined as a part of the risk
assessment conducted in the permitting process. This should consider the physical and chemical characteristics of the wastes that will
be handled and the design features of the facility. Proximity to other public facilities such as corporation yards,utilities,roads,large
open spaces on military reservation,and state school lands in remote areas may be acceptable.
P. Proximity to Waste Generation Stream Conditional Conditional Conditional
Transportation of hazardous waste should be minimized to Collection centers should be close to TSDFs should be located close to waste Repositories may be located more
decrease risk of accidental spills. residential zoned and small quantity generation sources to minimize the risks of distant from waste generation sources
generator areas to encourage their use. transportation. than other facilities because of the
need for large land areas.
Q. Appropriate Zoning Conditional Conditional Conditional
Specified by the appropriate jurisdiction. All jurisdictions Commercial and industrial zones near TSDFs are basically industrial facilities. Because repositories usually require
should have some type of zoning which will allow siting of residential areas are appropriate. However,the siting of hazardous waste large land areas,it may not be practi-
different types of hazardous waste management facilities. management facilities is not required to be cal or economical to site them in
limited to these zones if special zones are developed commercial or industrial
created. areas. Specially zoned areas or rezon-
ing of other areas may be appropriate.
-I'he intent is to locate Residuals Re-
posilories in more remote open 's.
R. Recreational,Cultural or Aesthetic Areas Conditional lixcluslonary Exclusionary
Historic preservation, Indian reservations,and other cultural Low-volume transfer and storage facilities Other facilities should not be allowed in these areas.
and scenic areas,as defined in locally adopted general plans. may be allowed in these areas if necessary
to handle hazardous wastes generated by
visitors,workers,or residents in these
areas. Other recreational,cultural,aesthet-
ic areas,including all local City parks and
recreation areas,are located throughout
the County at specific sites too small to
map.
Note: The purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
any applicable requirements of federal,state, regional and local agencies;and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SF031609\AA\002.51
Table 9-1
Alameda County General Siting Criteria Page 5 or 5
DIIS Definition Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Storagefrreatment Facllily Residuals Repositories
S. Mineral Resources Arens Conditional Conditional Conditional
Defined as Sand and Gravel in Alameda County General No facilities should be sited so as to preclude extraction of minerals necessary to sustain the economy of the State.
Plan.
T. Military Lands Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
It is the policy of the Department of Defense(DOD)that military land shall not be considered for siting of public hazardous waste
management facilities.. 'this policy is considered nonnegotiable by DOI).
U. Other Stale, Federal and Indian Lands Conditional Conditional Conditional
The criteria listed above are suitable for use in determining the suitability of lands within these areas for siting of hazardous w.
management facilities.
ADDITIONAL ALAMEDA COUNTY CRITERIA
Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facility Industrial Transfer/Slornge/frealment Facillly Residuals Repositories
Airport zones Exclusionary Exclusionary Exclusionary
No facility may be located within an FAA approach zone,air installation compatible use zone,or safety zone as described in the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan,generally defined as the area immediately surrounding a public or military airport,
v including the immediate approach and take-off paths.
Note: The.purpose of these criteria is to designate general areas only. Any proposed facility meeting these general criteria will be required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act:
any applicable requirements of federal,state, regional and local agencies: and the permitting processes and policies of the local jurisdiction.
SFO31609\AA\002.51
SECTION IV
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Chapter 10
HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explains the need for the implementation plan and details the short and
_ long range plan, which are based on the policies in Chapter 2. The waste minimization
program will be the top priority of the implementation plan. (See Policy 4) The plan
calls for the cooperation of all segments of government, private industry and business,
and the public. One of the key elements is education programs directed to all these
groups.
TANNER LEGISLATION
Tanner legislation Article 3.5, Section 25135 (8) calls for "a schedule which describes
_. county and city actions necessary to implement the hazardous waste management plan
through the year 2000, including the assigning of dates for carrying out the action:"
The implementation plan is based on this section of the legislation. In addition to the
legislative requirement, it is-incumbent-upon local agencies, industry and the public to
prepare and implement implementation plans--as'-a means of protecting the public
health and safety, protecting the environment and resources:
DHS GUIDELINES
Section 3.6 of the Guidelines calls for a description of the steps that will be taken to
implement the goals and findings of the plan to include:
1. Schedules for specific actions and milestones, such as zoning changes, public
hearings, actions needed by cities, etc.
2. The allocation of resources necessary to achieve the goals of the plan.
3. Plan updating and revision processes.
4. Identification of specific departments responsible for specific programs.
5. Other significant milestones identified in the plan.
sF031609\."„012.51 10.1 EXHIBIT 3
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
After adoption of the final plan by the Authority, County, Cities and State, the imple-
mentation process will include:
• 1. Amendment of City and County General Plan.
2. Amendment of City and County zoning ordinances where necessary.
3. Continuance of Hazardous Waste Committee.
4. Establishment of Technical Committee.
PLAN POLICIES
Implementation policies in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Chapter 2) call for
responsible management of hazardous wastes through the hierarchy (Policy 2).
1. Source reduction including toxics use reduction.
2. Reuse and recycling onsite.
3. Reuse and recycling offsite.
4. Treatment onsite.
5. Treatment offsite.
6. Incineration
7. Secure disposal of residuals from recycling treatment and incineration.
The basis for the hierarchy is prevention of pollution to the air, water and land through _-
reduction of waste generation at the source. This is the major policy in regard to-im-
plementation of the plan--to reduce the waste as the means to reduce the need for
facilities. -
Plan Policy 3 calls for promotion; through education;-assistance, and possible regulation
of adoption and implementation of the hierarchy by firms in the county. -
Firms wishing to locate in Alameda County or those wishing to extensively expand their
facilities must demonstrate their commitment to hazardous materials use reduction as a -
condition for receiving land use approvals and business permits.
Plan Policy 4 states that source reduction and waste minimization are a top priority of
the plan. Governmental agencies should encourage innovative private sector waste
related activities and should act to remove barriers to reduction and recycling. New
firms must demonstrate commitment to waste reduction as a condition for receiving
land use and business permit approval. Local agencies and industry must work closely
and cooperate in pursuing waste reduction and implementation of the hazardous waste
management hierarchy.
Plan Policy 5 calls for onsite treatment in preference to offsite treatment as a means of
reducing transportation of hazardous waste.
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-2
The Implementation Plan is based upon the above policies which should be reviewed in
their entire context in Chapter 2.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION PLANNING REQUIREMENT
The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 or
Senate Bill 14 (HWSRMRA) requires businesses which routinely generate more than
26,640 pounds of hazardous waste per year or 26.4 pounds of extremely hazardous
- waste to plan for and implement source reduction measures or, where source reduction
is not feasible or practicable, to encourage recycling. Businesses that are covered by
this requirement must, by September 1, 1991, conduct a source reduction evaluation
and review, and prepare a source reduction plan for each facility that generates
hazardous waste. Each generator covered by the law must also prepare plan and
report summaries to be submitted to the California EPA Department of Toxic
Substances Control upon request.
The HWSRMRA however, does not address the need to encourage hazardous waste
minimization planning by those businesses which routinely produce less than 26,640
pounds of hazardous waste. This latter category of firms is not only the most prevalent
in Alameda County (estimate of 3,200 businesses) but in most cases, also the least well
equipped with the information, expertise and resources which will enable them to
implement a waste minimization program.
Therefore, it is proposed that local jurisdictions be required to apply the provisions of
HWSRMRA-to all generators of hazardous waste within Alameda County that are not
currently subject to these requirements (e.g., those which generate less than 26,640
pounds of hazardous waste or 26.4 pounds of extremely hazardous waste).
Under this Alameda County planning -requirement; all -.businesses that generate
hazardous waste and are not covered by the requirements of the HWSRMRA will be
phased-in to a requirement to submit source reduction evaluations and plans as part of
an existing permit or inspection process or procedure. Firms will be required to
comply with this requirement as they receive initial technical assistance.
Meeting the New Requirements--Role of Local Jurisdictions
Each local jurisdiction will be required to ensure that, for generators within their
borders, extended HWSRMRA requirements are implemented as part of an existing
permit process, licensing procedure, inspection process or other procedure as listed
below. If needed, a uniform local ordinance will be developed to carry out this
requirement.
1
1.
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-3
This requirement may be met by requiring the submittal and/or review of such plans
through one or more of the following processes:
a. As part of the local hazardous waste generator permit and waste
• minimization technical assistance process which is being conducted by the
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health or through an
MOU between County Health and a.specific jurisdiction
b. As part of the industrial wastewater or waste discharge permit process
which is conducted by Industrial Pretreatment Programs
C. As part of the AB3777 risk management and prevention program which
is conducted by local fire departments
d. As part of the hazardous materials user permitting process (HMSO)
which is conducted by local fire departments
e. As part of the business license or certificate of occupancy process which
is conducted by both local planning and fire departments
Review of both the source reduction evaluations and plans should be performed by
trained personnel who are competent to recommend waste minimization practices
applicable to specific industries. The review of such plans may also be conducted by
trained staff available through a cooperative agreement between jurisdictions or with
the Waste Management Authority to share staff resources, or by 'a- qualified outside
firm.
Local jurisdictions that wish to pursue options b, c, d, or e should do so through
ordinance and in coordination with-the County-Department.of Environmental Health,
as this agency is responsible for administering State Hazardous Waste Control Law in
Alameda County.
Formation of Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee
It is recommended that pursuant to the adoption of the Alameda County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, that the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(ACWMA) develop and convene a countywide multimedia (agencies concerned with
air, water, and land issues) waste minimization committee or an existing group be
utilized to ensure that the overall waste minimization planning and implementation
process in Alameda County is moving forward; and to develop mechanisms for the
transfer of technologies and processes which result in economically feasible waste
minimization. The Committee will be advisory to the ACWMA.
SF031609\AA\012.51 30-4
The responsibilities of the Committee will include:
• Examination and recommendation of funding options sufficient to
implement the waste minimization planning requirement
• Preparation of a schedule of specific implementation procedures and
actions
• Consideration of the need for additional staffing
• Development of specific requirements for documents and submittal dates
that will be required of generators to fulfill the waste minimization
planning requirement
• Assistance to County and Cities in waste minimization education
• Preparation of information and recommendations for local jurisdictions
on adopting the waste minimization planning requirement and drafting a
model ordinance as required
• Consideration of the issuance of annual or biennial reports on waste
minimization progress in Alameda County by jurisdiction
Composition of Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee
Members of the Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee will be appointed by the
ACWMA Authority Board and shall include the following:
• Four local elected officials representing member agencies
• One representative from large industry
• One representative from small business
• One representative from an environmental organization
• One representative from County Department of Environmental Health
Services
• One representative from the Hazardous Materials Subcommittee of the
Alameda County Fire Chiefs Association
• One representative from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• One representative from a local Industrial Pretreatment program
ti .
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-5
f
• One representative from the local academic community
Funding
Initial funding to convene the Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee will be
provided by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. A report on startup
and ongoing .program funding options is being prepared by Authority staff and will be
presented to the Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee for consideration at their
first meeting. It should also be noted that funding for the receipt and/or review of
waste minimization planning documents may be provided by imposing a fee for plan
review as part of the existing permitting or licensing process which is selected by the
local jurisdiction.
Below is a listing of funding options that will be examined by the Hazardous Waste
Minimization Committee.
A. Fees, e.g., regulatory and plan/permit review fees
B. Fees on local offsite waste management facilities
C. State and federal grants, e.g., AB685 waste reduction demonstration grant
program
D. Local User Fee on hazardous products
E. Violation penalties
F. Local agency grants
G. Private industry
H. Local foundations
I. Member agency contributions/assessments
J. Benefit assessment district
SF031609\AA\012.51 10-6
ADOPTION OF THE BAY AREA CAPACITY ALLOCATION FORMULA
The ACWMA hereby submits, for approval by your City Council,
the Bay Area Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation
Formula. The attached resolution was drafted by the Bay
Area (ABAG) Capacity Allocation Committee and is being
distributed by the Authority to gain support from all
Alameda County jurisdictions.
BACKGROUND
The Bay Area Capacity Allocation Committee was created and
authorized by the Bay Area member counties to develop a
regional approach for providing hazardous waste management
facility capacity in the Bay Area. As part of that effort,
the Committee has developed a Capacity Allocation Plan
(please see information attached) for providing the
hazardous waste management capacity necessary to manage
hazardous waste which is generated in the region. A Fair
Share method for providing this capacity allocates '
responsibility within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
member counties based on the relationship between the amount
of hazardous waste being generated within a county and the
amount of permitted management capacity within the same
county.
The Capacity Allocation Plan distributes the responsibility
for filling the regional capacity deficit gap among the
participating counties based upon their contribution to the
deficit. On this basis, Alameda County has been allocated
responsibility to plan for the specific management method
"Other Recycling Capacity" (pl ease see attached' summary memo
from ABAG for further information) .
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS
The Bay Area Capacity Allocation Committee is seeking
unanimous support for the enclosed resolution by all
Jurisdictions within each Bay Area county. ABAG has
requested that each jurisdiction adopt the attached
resolution as soon as possible so that the Committee's
planning efforts may continue. The Authority suggests that
this item be considered simultaneously with the Alameda
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan which is also
included in this mailing.
Upon approval by the Cities, the Sanitary Districts, and the
Alameda County Board of Supervisors, the Authority will
submit the signed resolutions to the Bay Area Capacity
Allocation Committee.
Since the 90-day review period for the Hazardous Waste
Management Plan will end on April 10, 1992, we ask that this
item be placed on your Council's agenda for consideration as
soon as possible.
Please contact Rory Kessler-Bakke, ACWMA Senior Planner, if
you have any questions or comments. ACWMA staff and
consultants are available to appear before your City Council
on this matter. Please advise us as soon as possible if you
would like ACWMA staff to attend a hearing in your
jurisdiction.
HIM q
e
SUMMARY
The Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee was created to
develop a regional approach for providing hazardous waste management facility capacity
in the Bay Area. As part of that effort, the committee has developed a Capacity
Allocation Plan for providing the capacity necessary to manage hazardous waste in the
region. A fair share method for providing this capacity allocates responsibility within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the member counties. In order to implement this Capacity
Allocation Plan, the Committee has collected the latest available data on generation of
off-site managed hazardous wastes and hazardous waste management capacity within the
nine-county Bay Area region. The Report presents the data, and explains the capacity
allocation plan using the new data.
Since a major objective of this planning effort is to estimate the need for future off-site
hazardous waste management facilities, a summary outcome of this needs determination
is illustrated in Figure I-1 by county and Figure I-2 by treatment method. The region's
off-site hazardous waste management capacity is expected to total just over 300,000 tons
annually by the year 2000 based on existing facilities only. The region's projected
capacity requirement is about 495,000 tons per year in 2000. As a region it is estimated
that the nine counties will have an overall capacity deficit of about 190,000 tons in 2000
if existing capacity remains operable and no new capacity is added. Figure I-1 and I-2
display both existing and proposed capacity.
The.Capacity Allocation Plan distributes'the responsibility for filling the regional
capacity deficit gap among the participating counties based upon their contribution to the
deficit. Those counties contributing to the capacity deficit are assigned responsibility for
specific treatment method groupings. Each member county is being requested to provide
siting opportunities, consistent with their own County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan, for treatment or disposal capacity as set forth in the Report. The outcome of this
process allocates responsibility in the following manner:
Santa Clara County Residuals Repository Capacity
Contra Costa County Incineration Capacity
Sonoma County Stabilization Capacity
Solano County Aqueous Metals Treatment Capacity
Alameda County Other Recycling Capacity
Napa County Other Recycling Capacity
Marin County Other Recycling Capacity
San Mateo and San Francisco Counties* No allocation
*San Mateo and San Francisco have met their fair share responsibility pursuant to the
criteria set forth in the Report.
The Report explains the methodology used by the Committee to reach their
recommendation.
50% Recycled Paper
Figure 1-1
Required vs. Existing & Proposed Capacity
For The Year 2000
,7s000
By County (25% Reduction)
1 50000
,25000
100000
U) '
c
o '
75000
CL '
ca
U
50000
,
25000
Alameda Marin San Francisco Santa Clara Sonoma
Contra Costa Napa San Mateo Solano
Required Capacity L7 Existing Capacity E1 Proposed Capacity
Report, 3/28/91, Page 30
t
Figure 1-2
Required vs. Existing & Proposed Capacity
For The Year 2000
250000 By Treatment Method (25% Reduction
225000
200000
175000
150000
In
O
>, 125000
•U
ca
C.
ca
. .
U 100000
75000
„
50000
25000
0
Aqueous Organic Incineration Oil Recovery Stabilization
Aqueous Metals Solvent Recovery Other Recycling Residuals
IN Required Capacity EJ Existing Capacity D Proposed Capacity
Report, 8/28/91, Page 31
UA, Page 1 of 3.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING CT
INTERJURISDIIONAL AGREEMENT
between
MEMBER COUNTIES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
This agreement is executed between each of the member counties of the Bay
Area Regional Hazardous Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee.
Effective September 1991 the member counties are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma.
WHEREAS, the State of California authorized Counties to prepare Hazardous
Waste Management Plans (Plans); and
WHEREAS, the member counties accept responsibility for planning for the
proper management of hazardous waste generated within each of their jurisdictions
according to the Fair Share principle; and
WHEREAS, the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties (member counties).have_..
executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to create a Regional Hazardous
Waste Management Capacity Allocation Committee (Committee); and
WHEREAS, the Committee, it's Technical Advisory Sub-committee, and county
staff have worked for over one year on developing the recommendations contained
herein; and
WHEREAS, the Committee's highest priorities are pollution prevention and
hazardous waste minimization as evidenced by the pollution prevention programs and
activities of member local governments. The Committee endorses reduction of
hazardous waste at the source rather than managing it after its generation through
implementation of the following hazardous waste management hierarchy: 1) source
reduction; 2) recycling and 3) waste treatment; and
WHEREAS, the MOU gives the Committee the responsibility to negotiate
intercounty agreements with counties having excess hazardous waste management
capacity with member counties as well as with non-member counties; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has developed a method to implement the allocation
of responsibility for providing hazardous waste management capacity among the member
counties based upon the Fair Share principle as set forth in the Cbrn nittee Report dated
August 28, 1991 (Report);
Comrrmija, 10/01/91
507 Recycled Pape,
i
IJA, Page 2 of 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that each of the parties hereto agrees
to the following:
1. The member counties accept and approve the findings and
conclusions of the Report which establishes the fair share
method for allocation of responsibility to provide hazardous
waste management capacity within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the member counties.
2. Each member county 'agrees to provide siting opportunities,
consistent with their own County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan, for treatment or disposal capacity as set
forth in the Report.
3. Each member county agrees to the initial fair share
allocation of responsibility to provide siting opportunities as
described in the Report' and summarized below as follows:
Santa Clara Residuals Repository Capacity
Contra Costa Incineration Capacity
Sonoma Stabilization Capacity
Solano Aqueous Metals Treatment Capacity
Alameda Other Recycling Capacity
Napa Other Recycling Capacity
Marin Other Recycling Capacity
San Mateo and San Francisco* No allocation
* San Mateo and San Francisco have met their fair share
responsibility pursuant to the criteria set forth in the Report.
4. Each member county agrees to revisions of the initial
allocation of responsibility as set forth in paragraph 3 hereof
pursuant to the methodology outlined in the Report (dated
August 28, 1991).
5. This agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts and each such counterpart shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original, and all such counterparts
shall together constitute one and the same agreement.
50% Recycled Paper
IJA, Page 3 of 3.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have authorized this
Interjuris diction al Agreement to be executed effective the date set forth above.
DATE: COUNTY OF
Chairperson
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
Approved as to legal form and content:
County Counsel
507o Recycled Pape►
RESOLUTION NO - 92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
DATED DECEMBER 1991
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority) is
responsible for preparation, adoption, amendment, administration, planning
and enforcement of the Alameda County Waste Management Plan (Plan) ; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has conducted four public hearings prior to the
adoption of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has taken the necessary steps in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Authority approved the Final Plan on December 18, 1991
and it was distributed for City review on January 14, 1992; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 25135 . 6(8) of the California
Health and Safety Code, the Plan must be reviewed and acted upon by each
city in the County within 90 days; and
WHEREAS, if the City fails to act upon the plan within 90 days of
receiving the Plan, the City is deemed to have approved the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California-- Health and Safety Code. Section 25135 . ('f)
requires the Plan to be approved by a majority of the cities representing a
majority of the population of the incorporated area of the County; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with a request from the Authority, the Dublin
City Council considered the Hazardous Waste Plan at its meeting on March
23, 1992 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin does hereby approve the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management
Final Plan, dated December 1991 .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of March, 1992
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
a:ResoHHW.doc.agenda#9
DO