HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-24 - Certifying EIR 490, Approving Hazardous Waste Management PlanRESOLUTION NO. 89-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE
AND ADEQUATE COUNTY OF ORANGE FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 490 FOR THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND APPROVING THE COUN'T'Y OF ORANGE HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, the County of Orange, in cooperation with the cities of Orange
County, prepared the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, pursuant
to State Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner 1986); and
WHEREAS, the County of Orange prepared Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) No. 490 (State Clearinghouse No. 88020321) to address the
environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives asso-
ciated with the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, EIR No. 490 was prepared by the County of Orange pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
State CEQA Guidelines, and the County's Environmental Procedures; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 89-114, the County of Orange Board of Super-
visors on January 25, 1989, certified EIR No. 490 as complete and adequate,
adopted findings along with statements of facts supporting each finding,
and adopted a Mitigation Measures Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 89-114, the County of Orange Board of Super-
visors on January 25, 1989, approved the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 89-114 of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment A)
is hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is a Responsible Agency in the consid-
eration of the Final EIR and Hazardous Waste Management Plan and is required
to either approve or deny the Plan by resolution within 90 days of receipt
of the Plan; no action constitutes approval of the Plan pursuant to Section
25135 of the Health and Safety Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa conducted a
public hearing on February 27, 1989, to review EIR No. 490 and the Orange
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and they recommended to the City
Council on a 4-0 vote:
(1) Certification of County of Orange EIR No. 490 as being complete
and adequate; and
(2) Approval of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the
environmental documentation prepared by the County of Orange, the Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, and the recommendations of the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council, act-
ing as a Responsible Agency, does hereby:
(1) Certify Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 490 as com-
plete and adequate in that it addresses all significant environ-
mental effects of the proposed Plan and fully complies with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and
State CEQA Guidelines; and
233
(2) Concur with the Orange County Board of Supervisors' Findings for
Final EIR No. 490 (Exhibit A to Resolution 89-114); and
(3) Concur with the Orange County Mitigation Measures Monitoring Pro-
gram for Final EIR No. 490 (Exhibit B to Resolution 89-114); and
(4) Approve the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan of
January, 1989.
All of the above information shall be on file in the Planning Depart-
ment,
epartment, City of Costa Mesa, City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California
92628-1200.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 1989.
ATTEST:
i (--,)) ,
---
City Clerk of the City of Costa sa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
Mayor of the Ci f Costa Mesa
I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and fore-
going Resolution No. 89-24 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of
March, 1989.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal
of the City of Costa Mesa this 7th day of March, 1989.
City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk the
City Council of the City of Cos Mesa
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 25, 1989 A=Q= A
1
On notion of Supervisor Riley , duly seconded and
2 carried, the following Resolution was adopted:
3 WHEREAS, the County of Orange, in cooperation with the cities of
4 Orange County, initiated development of the Orange County Hazardous Waste
5 Management Plan — January 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Plan), to
6 provide policy direction and action programs to address current and future
7 bazardous waste management issues having local responsibility and involvement
8 in Orange County; and
9 WHEREAS, preparation of the Plan was directed by the Orange county
10 Board of Supervisors in February 1987 pursuant to State Assembly Bill 2948
11 (Tanner 1986)= and
12 WHEREAS, the Plan was developed by Orange County staff in accordance
Afts 13 with the requirements and procedures of State Assembly Hill 2948 and the
14 California Department of Health Services *Guidelines for the Preparation of
15 Hazardous Waste Management Plans• (June 30, 1987)1 and
16 WHEREAS, the Plan was developed with the involvement and oversight
17 of the Orange County Tanner Advisory Committee and the participation of agency
1$ representatives from cities, County, State, and special districts; and
19 WHEREAS, an eztensive public participation program was conducted
20 throughout the Plan development process, which included public information
21 meetings, public hearings, workshops, presentations to public agencies and
22 private organizations, sailing list and media notification, open committee
23 meetings, and the receipt and response to hundreds of verbal and written
24 comments on the Pian from agencies and citizens; and
25 WHEREAS, the Tanner Advisory Committee approved the Plan and
26 recommended approval by the Board of Supervisors and city councils of Orange
27 county and;
Resolution No. 89-114
28 Public Hs9. County Hazardous waste
MAnagemeat Plan A Final Psvgrm
Drvisonviental Mq act Report No. 490 -1-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 1 of 30
I WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors held a public
2 bearing to receive public testimony on the Plan; and
3 WHEREAS, Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 490 was prepared
4 to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project
5 alternatives associated with the Orange County Bas'-lcus Waste !Management
6 Plant and
7 WHEREAS, SIR 490 was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
8 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CSQA Guidelines, and
9 the County's Environmental Procedures; and
10 WHEREAS, written and verbal comments on SIR 490 were received from
11 the public during and after a public review period; and
12 WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Commission conducted a public
13 bearing to receive public testimony with respect to SIR 490; and
14 WHEREAS, comments received on SIR 490 were responded to through a
15 Response to Comments document submitted to the Planning Commission and
16 received by this Board; and
17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all documentation
18 comprising SIR 490 and has found that the SIR 490 thoroughly analyzes and
19 documents environmental impacts of the Plan, and that it fully complies with
20 all requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to this Board that
22EIR 490 be certified as complete and adequate; and
23 WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15901 of the State CSQA
24 1
Guidelines require that the Board of Supervisors make one or more of the
25 following findings prior to approval of a Plan for which an EIR has been
' 26 completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the Plan, along with
2? statements of facts supporting each finding:
//
-2-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 2 of 30
4
y�Y
1 Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or
2 incorporated into, the Plan that mitigate or avoid the significant
3 environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR.
4 Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the
5 responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency
6 making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
7 can and should be adopted by such other agency.
8 Finding 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations
9 make infeasible the mitigation measures of the Plan alternatives identified in
10 the EIR; and
11 w=REAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requires the Board of
12 Supervisors to balance the benefits of a proposed Plan against its unavoidable
�? 13 environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and
14 11HEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires, where the decision of the Board
15 of Supervisors allows the occurrence of significant effects that are
16 identified in the EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the Agency
17 must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
18 or other information in the records and
NOW, TSEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The County of Orange Board of Supervisors has reviewed and has
21 considered EIR 490 and hereby certifies Final EIR 490 for the Orange County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan as complete and adequate, in that the EIR
23 addresses the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives of
24 the Plan, and complies with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA
25 Guidelines. Said Final EIR is composed of the following items:
VOT26
27
28
-3-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 3 of 30
�1
a. Draft EIR 490 for the orange County Hazardous Waste
1
2 Management Plan, including appendices.
b. Comments received on the DEIR and responses to these comments.
3
4 C. MA Report to the Planning Commission dated December 20, 1988.
5 1111 of the above information bas been and will be on file with the
6 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Environmental and So•oial
7 Projects Division, 12 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California.
S 2. This Board adopts findings with respect to significant
9 environmental effects, mitigation measures related thereto, and alternatives
10 to the Plan identified in EIR 490, as set forth in the document titled "Board
11 of Supervisors Findings for FEIR 4900, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made
12 a part thereof.
13 3. This Board adopts the list of mitigation measures, as set forth
14 the Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which mitigation measures are
15 incorporated into the Plan or shall be implemented concurrent with Plan
16 implementation.
17 4. This Board finds that, although EIR 490 identifies certain
18 significant environmental effects that may occur if the Plan is implemented,
19 all significant effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been
20 reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation measures.
21 S. This Board adopts the mitigation measures monitoring program
22 attached hereto as Exhibit B, and directs EMA in consultation with Fire
23 Services, to include the program as part of plan implementation.
24
25
26
27
. 28
-4-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 4 of 30
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 5 of 30
f]
1
6. The Orange County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the
2
Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, with implementation
3
contingent upon funding availability; and
4
7. Authorizes the Hazardous Materials Program Office/Fire
i
Services to distribute the Final Program Environmental Impact Report
6
490 and the approved County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to Orange
7
County's 28 cities for their action; and
8
S. Authorizes the Hazardous Materials Program Office/Fire
9
Services to transmit the Final Program Environmental Impact Report 490
10
and the approved County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to the State
11
Department of Health Services on or before February 1, 1989, with
12
accompanying expenditure report; and
13
9. Directs the Hazardous Materials Program Office/Fire Services
14
to identify Plan implementation costs, explore alternative sources of
J�
r.
0
13
revenue, and report back to the Board with a fiscal impact report
16
"-`W
within 180 days.
17
18
19
20
21
22
II /
23
24
c
25
:. 26
g
27
®
28
-5-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 5 of 30
f]
1
2
3
Chairman of the Board of Supefvisors
4
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
i OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
6
7
8LINDA YRUTH
lerk of the Boaf Supervisors
9 County of Orange, California
10 AYES: SUPERVISORS THOMAS F. RILEY, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, ROGER R.
STANTON, HARRIETT M. WIEDER, DON R. ROTH
ll
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
12
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
14 ) as.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
1?
I, LINDA D. RUTH, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange
16
County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Reso-
17
lution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular
is
meeting thereof held on the 25th day of January, 1989, and passed by a
19
unanimous vote of said Board.
20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
21
25th day of January, 1989.
22
23
&OLINDA D. RUMN
24 Itlerk of the Board 9f Supervisors
25 of Orange County, California
26
27
28
-6-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 6 of 30
I
Xf1 115 11 A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS FOR PEIR 490
1.0 ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS VASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 490 evaluates the potential impacts
on the environment of the proposed Orange County Hazardous vaste Management Plan.
The purpose of the Plan is tew►n ;. ide policy direction and count vide
address current and future hazardous waste management issues vhicb have city
County responsibility. A particular focus of the Plan is to reduce Orange County's
dependence on direct off-site disposal of hazardous vastes through technologies
Including source reduction, resource recovery, recycling, and treatment, and the
siting of off-site permanent hazardous vaste management (HWM) facilities.
The EIR evaluates the folloving components of the Plan:
o Proposed goals, objectives, policies, and programs to ensure the safe
management of hazardous wastes vithin Orange County.
o General types of hazardous vaste treatment facilities contemplated by the Plan
for location vithin Orange County.
o Facility siting criteria established in the Plan for use by cities and county
In considering future facility proposals for local permits.
These components of the Plan are summarized in a general listing belov.
1.1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
1.1.1 Goal Statement
Protect the health and velfare of the public and quality of the environment,
while preserving the economic vitality of Orange County through a comprehensive
countywide program to ensure the safe and efficient management of hazardous vaste
1.1.2 Objectives (Abridged)
Objective 1. waste Management Technologies: Eliminate dependence on land
disposal through safe technologies.
Objective Z. Waste Management Facilities: Provide for sufficient treatment
and transfer facilities to manage Orange County's hazardous vaste.
Objective 3. Small Quantity Generators/Households: Provide for safe and
efficient collection, treatment, and disposal of hazardous vaste.
Objective 4. Public Education: Provide for education of Orange County
Industry, business, government, and citizens regarding proper hazardous vaste
management.
Objective S. Hazardous Waste Inventory: Maintain information on type, volume
location, and management of hazardous vastes.
-I-
Exhibit
1-
Ethibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 7 of 30
r_11 11 �4w
Objective 6. Local Regulation: Ensure proper handling of hazardous vaste by
business.
Objective 7. Clean-up of Previous Disposal Sites: Assist agencies responsible
for site clean-ups.
OV.%tive S. Emergency Incident Response. Provide for safe emergency incident
response.
1.1.3 Policies (Abridged)
Policy 1. Legal Compliance/Agency Coordination: Ensure that hazardous waste
management activities occur in compliance with lava and regulations, and in
coordination vith agencies, industry, citizens.
Policy 2. Public Information/Participations Ensure adequate public
Information/participation in hazardous vaste decisions.
Policy 3. Regional Pair Shares Utilize the regional fair share needs
assessment and facility siting criteria.
Policy 4. Hazardous Waste Management Priorities: Encourage technologies that
will (a) Reduce, (b) Recover and recycle, and (c) Treat hazardous vastes.
1.1.4 Implementation Programs (Abridged)
Section As Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
Program A-1. Regional Hazardous Waste Management Planning: Continue
city/county participation in Southern California Hazardous Waste Management
Authority efforts to provide comprehensive hazardous vaste management on a regional
basis.
Program A-2. General Plan and Ordinance Provisions for Facility Siting and
Permitting: Development and adopt City and County general plan and/or ordinance
provisions vhich establish local land use policies, siting criteria, and permit
process for the siting of offsite hazardous waste management facilities.
Program A-3. Site Identification Program: Conduct a site screening and
selection process to identify areas and sites appropriate for hazardous vaste
management facilities vithin Orange County.
Section S. Special Hazardous Waste Issues
Program 5-1. Waste Reduction and Onsite Treatment: Continue to implement a
program to promote the reduction of hazardous vaste generation and provide onsite
alternatives to offsite treatment and disposal.
Program d-2. Small Quantity Generatorss Develop a program to address the
hazardous waste management needs of small quantity generators in the business
sector.
SAI
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 8 of 30
. r
Program B-3. Household Hazardous Vaste: Develop and implement an ongoing
program to assist the collection and disposal of household hazardous waste.
Program B -i. Information and Educations Establish and maintain an information
clearinghouse and education program to provide information on the chemical
properties, health effects, safe disposal methods and responsibilities, and
alternative managewe^t techniques of hazardous waste.
Program B-5. Review of Nev Land Uses for Hazardous Vaste Implications:
Incorporate review of hazardous issues into city and county planning, environmental
review, and land use permitting processes for new development, and business license
programa for new issues.
Program B-6. Transportation of Hazardous Vastes Continue to coordinate with
Federal and State regulation of hazardous waste transportation, and investigate
additional local activities to address transport safety.
Section C: Regulation and Enforcement
Program C-1. Continue implementation and enforcement of local hazardous
materials disclosure ordinances and AB 2185 to maintain up-to-date information about
the types, quantities, and locations of hazardous materials and wastes, and to plan
related emergency incident response activities. Establish ongoing program to share
and standardize hazardous waste data among agencies.
Program C-2. Regulation of Hazardous Vaste Management Practices: Continue to
Implement a county program of inspection, regulation, and enforcement of safe
management practices for hazardous materials and waste.
Program C-3. Underground Storage Tasks: Continue to administer and enforce
State regulations for hazardous substances stored in underground storage tanks.
Program C -b. Vastevater Disposal: Sanitation districts, water districts,
sanitary districts, and special districts will continue to administer and enforce
vast* discharge permit requirements.
Program C-5. Hazardous Materials Strike Force: Continue to provide a
coordinate effort by regulation and enforcement agencies to identify, investigate,
and prosecute hazardous waste violators.
Program C-6. Pest Managements The Agricultural Commissioner's department will
review all county agency/department Pest Management Plans for compliance with state
laws and regulations.
Section D: Remedial and Emergency Actions
Program D-1. Remediation of Contaminated Sites: Continue to assist state
efforts for clean-up of uncontrolled contaminated sites previously used for
hazardous waste disposal.
-3-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 9 of 30
Program D-2. Emergency Incident Responses Continue to coordinate and provide
emergency response for spills, illegal dumping, and other incidents involving
hazardous materials and waste.
Program D-3. Groundwater Protection: Implement a program to protect
groundwater supplies by providing for the timely removal of contaminated water from
the aquifer.
Program D-4. Proposition 65 Public Notice of Hazardous Discharges: Inform the
public of illegal and threatened illegal discharges of hazardous waste that are
likely to cause substantial injury to public health and safety.
1.1.5 Plan Monitoring and Update Process
An Annual Plan Monitoring Report will be prepared to summarize the status of
Plan implementation. A formal update of the Plan will occur every three years.
1.2 TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
The Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan identifies the following
general types of offsite hazardous waste collection, treatment, and disposal
facilities needed to handle the hazardous waste generated in Orange County between
now and the year 2000:
Aqueous Treatment - Metals/Neutralization
Incineration
Solvent Recovery
Oil Recovery
Stabilization
Residuals Repository
Transfer Station
1.3 FACILITY SITING (RTPBRIA
The Plan establishes twenty-one facility siting criteria as basic land use,
environmental, transportation, and socioeconomic conditions which must be met if an
offsite hazardous waste facility is to be permitted to locate at a specific site
within Orange County. The criteria are intended for use by facility developers in
locating appropriate sites for facilities, and by communities and city/County land
use authorities in evaluating facility proposals. The facility siting criteria
pertain to the following topic areas:
1. Health and Safety Assessment
2. Distance from Populations
3. Floodplains
4. Earthquakes
5. Unstable Soils
6. Containment and Groundwater Monitoring
7. Water Quality
S. Wastewater
9. Air Quality Nonattainment and PSD Areas
10. Wetlands
-4-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 10 of 30
�a4A
�{ 11. Animal and Plant Habitats
12. Prime Agricultural Lands
13. Recreational, Cultural, and Aesthetic Resources
14. Mineral Resource Areas
15. Military Lands
16. Proximity to vaste Generation Areas
17. Proximity to Access to Major Routes
IB. Consistency vith General Plan
19. Fiscal Impact
20. Socioeconomic Impacts
21. Consistency vith Hazardous Vesta Management Plan
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AMD MITIGATION MEASURES
Consistent vith the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CSQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, SIR 490 discusses environmental effects of the Plan
In proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. SIR 490 identifies
potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed Plan, and
identifies mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects.
The program SIR approach has been utilized for this document per CEQA because
Plan implementation represents a series of actions which can be collectively
evaluated in general as one project. As outlined above, these actions include
Implementing goals, objectives, policies, programs, and facility siting criteria,
and identification of needed facilities. It is noted that the plan does not propose
specific facilities or locations, therefore only a generic evaluation has been
provided for the potential impacts vhich could result from typical facilities of the
type and size identified. Subsequent plan implementation and facility siting
activities must be examined in light of the program SIR to determine vhether
additional environmental documentation must be prepared.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15092 of the State
CEQA.Guidelines require that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for vhich an SIR has been
completed that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the
project unless the public agency makes one or more vritten findings for each of
those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale
for each finding.
The folloving findings are made by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Orange in accordance with CEQA requirements. The findings address potential
Impacts that could result from implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. For a detailed description of the project, potential environmental
Impacts, and proposed mitigation measures, please see BIR 490 on file at the County
of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, Environmental and Special Projects
Division. A summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and findings is described
belovs
52
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 11 of 30
�45
( 2.1 GEOL "ISOILS
2.1.1 LVacts
Tvo types of geologic/soils impacts may result from construction of a hazardous
vast@ facility:
o Direct loss of geologic/soils resources due to construction of facility.
o Contamination of underlying soil resulting from failure of structures
containing hazardous materials due to geologic/soils hazard. -
The Plan criteria identified in the EIR vhich may have an impact on geology/
soils include: Flood Plains (No. 3), Earthquakes (No. 4), Unstable Soils (No. S),
and Mineral Resource Areas (No. 14). These criteria would minimize facility impacts
associated vith geology and soils.
The Plan policies and progress identified in the EIR vhich say have an impact
on geology/soils include: Policy 1, Program A-2, Program A-3, Program C -S, Program
D-19 and Program D-4. These programs and policies vere found to provide positive
Impacts vith respect to geology.
2.1.2 Mitigation Measures
The folloving mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen potential geologic effects of the Plan, to the extent
the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over future Plan
Implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities
and measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, state, and
federal agencies, these agencies should also adopt these measures.
o Conform vith all regulations of the California Administrative Code, Titles 22
and 23, regarding siting and construction of hazardous vaste facilities. Every
future hazardous vaste (BVM) facility shall qualify for the State Department of
Health Services permit that is required before constructing a hazardous vaste
facility. This permit process includes siting requirements as vell as design,
construction and operation requirements, which, if satisfied, mitigate most
geologic hazards.
o Conform with the local city or county land use permitting and environmental
reviev process, as modified through Plan implementation to incorporate the BVM
facility siting criteria. Conform to the Uniform Building Code and to the
Orange County (and comparable city) Grading and Excavation Code and follov the
guidelines in the Grading Manual. (These measures would mitigate most hazards
relating to unstable or harmful soils.)
o Design, construct and operate each BVM facility in such a manner that
containment of hazardous material vill not fail due to ground failure or ground
shaking in the maximum credible earthquake that might affect the site.
o At any future BVM facility, install monitoring systems capable of detecting
leakage of hazardous materials into underlying soil.
-6-
FKhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 12 of 30
r `sr
'C'46
2.1.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that if the above -listed mitigations are implemented
along vith the Plan criteria, policies and programs, in order to minimize risks and
Impacts to geology and soils associated vith the development of BVH facilities, the
potential impacts on geologic or soil resources from Plan implementation will not be
significant.
2.2 HYDROLOGY
2.2.1 Impacts
Two types of vater resources impacts may result from the construction of
hazardous waste facilities.
o Discharge of treated effluent to severs, and
o Contamination from leaks or spills
Plan criteria identified in the SIR which may have an impact on hydrology
Include: Flood Plains (No. 3), Containment and Groundvater Monitoring (No. 6), and
Vater Quality (No. 7). These criteria vould minimize impacts associated vith
hydrology.
Plan policies and programs identified in the SIR which may have impacts vhich
relate to hydrology include: Policy 1, Program A-3, Program C-3, Program C-5,
Program D-1, Program D-3, and Program D -b. These programs and policies ver* found
to provide positive impacts vith respect to hydrology.
2.2.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen potential hydrologic effects of the Plan, to the
extent the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan
Implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities
and measures are vithin the responsibility and jurisdictipn of city, state, and
federal agencies, these agencies should also adopt these mitigation measures.
All BVH facilities should conform vith CSQA requirements vhich may require the
preparation of project SIRS. CEQA documentation could examine specific siting,
design, and operation issues for the proposed facility, addressing potential
impacts to ground and surface eater.
o Nov off-site BVM facilities should conform vith city or County land use
permitting and environmental reviev procedures, including facility siting
criteria.
o Nov BVM facilities should conform vith all regulations of the California
Administrative Code, Titles 22 and 23, and vith the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act
(AB 3566) regarding the siting, operation, monitoring and closing of hazardous
vests facilities.
-7-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 13 of 30
-8-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 14 of 30
o Svery HVM facility must quality for the State DepRrtment of Neslth Services
permit that is required before construction of a hazardous waste facility.
o For aqueous treatment facilities, promote treatment technologies and programs
which result in effluent water of the highest feasible quality so as to permit
reuse of the effluent.
2.2.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that if the above -listed mitigations are implemented
and Plan criteria, policies and programs are adhered to, impacts to hydrologic
resources are not significant. Further, implementation of the Plan may result in
positive impacts in comparison to the "no project" alternative.
2.3 LAW USE
2.3.1 impacts
HWM facilities are considered to be compatible with light and heavy industrial
land uses, and possibly with a non -hazardous landfill, and undeveloped areas. The
facility siting criteria that impact land use are Numbers 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, and
18. Generally, the impacts of the siting criteria are positive in that the criteria
restrict where HWM facilities may locate, thus providing for land use compatibility.
Policies and programs that impact land use are A-1, A-2, A-3, B-5 and C-5. In
general, the impacts of the policies and programs are also positive because they
also promote land use compatibility.
2.3.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen land use impacts of HWM facilities, to the extent the
Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan implementation
activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities and measures are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, state and federal agencies,
these agencies should adopt these measures. No mitigation measures are required for
the siting criteria or the policies and programs.
o The Plan criteria, policies and programs serve to ensure land use compatibility
and the sensitive siting of HWM facilities.
o Appropriate buffering and visual screens to reduce the visual impact of the
hazardous facilities on adjacent land uses and increase land use compatibility
should be incorporated into facility projects, per the mitigation measures
outlined in Section 4.6 Visual Resources and 4.11 Human Health Risks of the
SIR.
o If not already provided for in the applicable general plan and zoning code,
developers may be required to process a general plan amendment and/or zone
change prior to the development of a hazardous waste facility.
-8-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 14 of 30
2.3.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that so long as the mitigation measures listed above
are implemented and siting criteria, policies, and programs are adhered to, impacts
to land use are not significant. Further, implementation of the Plan may result in
Positive impacts in comparison to the "no project" alternative.
2.4 AIR oUALm
2.4.1 Impacts
The folloving types of air quality impacts may result from construction and
operation of hazardous vaste facilities as described in the EIR:
o Aqueous treatment facility (fugitive volatile organic compounds (VOC)
emissions)
o Incinerator (nitrogen oxides, VOC and reactive organic gases (ROG), combustion
by-products, fugitive emissions from handling waste prior to incineration)
o Solvent and oil recycling facility (VOC, ROG, fugitive emissions)
o Residuals disposal facility (PMIO, VOC, ROG)
o Transfer station (VOC, ROG)
Plan criteria identified in the EIR vhich may have an impact on air quality
Include: Air quality non -attainment areas (No. 9), and Proximity to areas of vaste
generation (No. 16). These criteria vould minimize impacts associated vith air
quality.
Plan policies and programs identified in the EIR which may have an impact on
air quality include: Policy 1, Policy 4, Program 9-1, Program B-2, Program 9-3,
Program C-1, Program C-3, Program C-4, Program C -S, Program D-1, and Program D-2.
These programs and policies vere found to provide positive impacts vith respect to
air quality.
2.4.2 Mitigation Measures
The folloving mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen potential air quality effects of the Plan, to the
extent the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan
Implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities
and measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, state, and
federal agencies, these agencies Should also adopt these mitigation measures.
o The MM facilities identified in the Plan vill be the subject of
project -specific environmental impact reports or other CEPA documentation to be
prepared upon individual BVN facility proposals, and hazardous vast* facility
permitting, by the California Department of Health Services (DRS), and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and when applicable, the South
!" Coast Air duality Management District (SCAOND).
-9-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 15 of 30
t�
o Such environmental review and regulatory processes vill identify specific
facility mitigation measures and requirements to minimize air quality impacts.
[eovever, it is also possible that some facility types identified in the Plan
will not be approved by the SCAOMD. As a result of the failure of the South
Coast Air Basin to attain the primary ozone standards, U.S. BPA imposed a
construction ban effective September 1, 1988. The ban prohibits the
construction of nev major sources (i.e., sources permitted to emi; '3G tons per
year) of carbon monoxide or ROG (by telephone, Ron Ketcham, SQAQMD,
September 6, 1988).)
o Implementation of the Plan siting criteria, policies and programs vill serve to
help in protecting air quality.
2.6.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that if the above -listed mitigations are
Implemented, SCAOMD implements and enforces its currently proposed emissions
control strategies, and Plan criteria, policies and programs are adhered to,
Impacts to air quality are not expected to be significant.
2.5 NOISE
2.5.1 Impacts
' Noise impacts may result from the construction and operation of hazardous waste
facilities.
o Short-term construction noise
o Long-term operational noise
The Plan criterion identified in the BIR vhich may have an impact on noise is
Proximity to vaste generation areas (No. 16). This criterion vould minimize impacts
associated vith noise. The plan policies and programs identified in the BIR vhich
say have a impact on noise includes Policy 3 and Program B-1. This program vill
have positive impacts. Policy 3 could result in the creation of larger facilities,
thus noise impacts at such specific facilities could increase, hovever overall noise
Impacts vithin the County could be lessened.
.2.5.2 Nitigat ton Neasmres
The folloving mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen potential noise effects of the Plan, to the extent the
Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan implementation
activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities and measures are
vithin the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, state, and federal agencies,
such agencies should also adopt these measures.
o Limit construction activities to the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Mondays through
Fridays, and 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Saturdays.
1
t
-10-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 16 of 30
2a -
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for projects located close to noise
sensitive uses, require the applicant to submit a construction noise mitigation
plan for approval by the city or county. The plan shall depict construction
equipment, and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated during
construction of the project.
o A preliminary report addressing transportation and operation noise should be
developed during siting of the HVM facilities. The report should be prepared
by an expert in the field of acoustics.
o Concurrent with the submittal of an application for a conditional use permit,
or building permit, require the applicant to depict project -related noise
sources on project plans, and propose mitigation measures which ensure that
noise will not exceed the limits established by the County or City Noise
Ordinance. Such sources may include, but are not limited to the following:
a*Truck pick-up and loading areas
b. Mechanical and electrical equipment
c. Outdoor speaker boxes and public address systems
Incorporate the following noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, into the
design of new highways and streets to ensure that new roadways will not result
in future noise levels exceeding County standards for existing or planned uses.
a. Alignment alternatives
b. Barriers
c. Lateral separation
d. Vertical profile
2.5.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that if the above -listed mitigations are implemented
and Plan criteria, policies and programs are adhered to, noise impacts will not be
significant.
2.6 VISUAL RESOURCES
2.6.1 Impacts
.Three criteria (13, 2, 15) have been identified in the Plan as having a
potential effect on visual resources. Implementation of Criterion 13 (Recreational,
Cultural, and Aesthetic Resources) would protect these resources from negative
visual influences associated with HVM facilities. Criterion 2 (Distance from
Populations) provides an adequate margin of distance from nearby populations. An
Indirect benefit in providing this buffer is to minimize the negative visual effects
of SVM facilities.
Implementation of Program A-2 (General Plan and Ordinance Provisions for
Facility Siting and Permitting) will serve to minimize potential visual impacts
related to siting BVM facilities.
-i1-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 17 of 30
2.6.2 Mitigation Measures
The folloving mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen potential visual effects of the Plan, to the extent
the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan
Implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities
and measures are vithin the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, state, and
federal agencies, such agencies should also adopt these mitigation measures.
o Avoid placing hazardous waste facilities on locations vhich are easily vieved
from adjacent vantages. These include, but are not limited to,
hilltops/ridgelines, hillsides and other locations vith high exposure.
o Consider locating facilities in depressed areas or areas belov surrounding
grade in an effort to conceal the majority of the facilities.
o Construct berm features or vall screening or a combination of both to conceal
facility features. Use of this technique, in combination vith the placement of
facilities belov grade, provides added concealment.
o Utilize landscape screening along the perimeter edge to screen facility
features from surrounding vantages. Use of landscape mitigation should follov
one or more of the folloving techniques:
a. Use non -ornamental plant materials such that attention is not dravn to the
facilities.
b. Use plant materials of varying heights and at various distances from the
perimeter to de-emphasize the use of plant materials for screening
purposes.
c. Selection of plant materials should recognize the bulk and vertical scale
of the facilities in an effort to dominate the vievs vith landscaping
rather than with hazardous vast* facilities.
d. Consider the use of dense masses of eucalyptus trees, particularly vhere
tall and vertical scale screening is warranted, as well as extended
perimeter screening. Eucalyptus vindrovs are a familiar sight in orange
County, and therefore vould not appear as an unusual resource.
o 'Consider designing the site plans for hazardous vests facilities vhich
intersect roadvays or public hiking trails at an angle, thus avoiding prolonged
contract or visual exposure for an entire side of the facility.
o Removal of visually prominent vegetation may be required for site preparation,
and should be replaced on a one-to-one basis, either on-site or immediately
adjacent -to the site.
o Direct night lighting down and invard in order to minimize night glare.
-12-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 18 of 30
2.6.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that implementation of the above mitigation measures
and sensitive siting of HVM facilities as promoted by the Plan siting criteria and
policies and program will mitigate most of the negative visual affects from future
B'VM facilities.
A remaining probable signifir+m* visual impact which is likely to occur,
however, is associated most facilities which utilize tall stacks or incinerators.
This situation could be aggravated by possible visible air emissions such as steam
or smoke. Full mitigation of these negative visual effects is improbable, and the
degree of impact will depend on the location, setting, size, and type of HVM
facility. Specific visual impacts and mitigations would be further analyzed in
subsequent CEOA documentation for specific facilities.
2.7 ENERGY
2.7.1 Impacts
Energy impacts are expected to be minimal. Both Southern California Edison and
Southern California Gas (SCG) energy services will not be adversely impacted by the
Installation of the proposed facilities. No direct impacts were identified in the
EIA related to siting criteria or policies and programs.
2.7.2 Mitigation Measures
(( The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
lessen potential energy effects of the Plan, to the extent the Board of Supervisors
has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan implementation activities and
mitigation measures. To the extent such activities and measures are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of city, state, and federal agencies, these agencies
should also adopt these mitigation measures.
o Sufficiently determine quantitative energy requirements of new HVM facilities
and accessibility to adequate source of energy supply.
o Vhere cost effective, facilitate the participation of industries in
conservation programs such as cogeneration (process heat/steam/electricity),
and reclaiming waste products (biomass, solid waste, and wastewater), thereby
reducing overall energy usage in the County and requirements for development
and operation of the HVM facilities.
2.7.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that, with mitigation measures energy impacts
relating to the Plan are insignificant. Energy requirements are accessible to
adequate sources and costs.
-13-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 19 of 30
X51
2.8 BIOLOGICAL MESO1MCSS
2.8.1 Impacts
Impacts of the HVM facilities themselves depend upon the location of the
facilities and the type of facility to be sited. Facilities locating in developed
areas will have little or no impact on biological resources. Facilities locating in
undeveloped-areascontaining sensitive habitats or species may potentially have a
negative impact. Also, facilities requiring large amounts of space, such as a
residuals disposal facility, could potentially have a negative impact on biological
resources if sited in an area with sensitive biological resources. Siting criteria
Moa. 8, 10, and 11 have been identified as impacting biological resources. These
criteria have generally positive impacts on biological resources in that they
restrict where a HVM facility may locate and what a facility may discharge. The
following policies and programs have been identified as impacting biological
resources: Policy 1 and Programs A-2, A-3, C-4, and C-5. These policies and
programs are identified as having a generally positive impact on biological
resources.
2.8.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures pertaining to HVM facilities are incorporated
into the project to avoid or substantially lessen biological impacts of the Plan, to
the extent the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan
Implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities
and measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, State and
l federal agencies, these agencies should also adopt these mitigation measures.
o The Plan criteria, policies and programs serve to protect sensitive biological
resources in Orange County. These criteria, policies and programs will be
incorporated into the planning and permitting process for siting HVM facilities
in Orange County.
o All proposed HVM facilities must comply with all applicable federal, State, and
local level permitting procedures and regulations which serve to protect
biological resources.
o The potential for indirect biological impacts, such as from air or water
pollution, should be minimized by MVM facility designs. The numerous
regulations for hazardous waste facilities prohibit the emission of significant
quantities of air pollutants and the discharge of polluted water into any
surface waters. Adequate spill control designs and emergency response
procedures prevent or minimize the unplanned release of pollutants. These
regulations serve as mitigation to biological resources.
o For potential MVM facility sites in undeveloped areas, biological surveys shall
be conducted to assess the biological resources on the site and surrounding
area. These surveys should include an assessment of the location and condition.
of native plant communities, wildlife value of all habitats, and potential for
the occurrence of listed or candidate endangered or threatened species, or
species which are otherwise considered significant pursuant to CEOA Guidelines,
Section 15380.
-14-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 20 of 30
o All potential HVM facility sites shall be surveyed to determine vhether any
existing drainages, vater bodies or vetlands are potentially affected.
o During the preliminary design of the planned facility, a comprehensive
evaluation of the effect of the facility on biological resources shall be made.
Based on this evaluation, the facility design should be modified so that
significant biolvg:cal impacts ,are avoided or mitigated. Specific mitigation
measures shall be included in the environmental documentation for the facility.
Development of mitigation areas should include protection of these areas vith
appropriately designed buffers or other measures.
2.8.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that so long as the mitigation measures, site
selection criteria, policies and programs are adhered to, impacts to biological
resources are not significant.
2.9. CULTURAL RBSOURCBS
2.9.1. Impacts
Any archaeological or historical site located vithin a proposed facility
location vill potentially be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed land
disturbance. Direct impacts to cultural resources vould result from grading,
vegetation removal, road construction, and underground utility placement. Indirect
Impacts would occur as a result of erosion, soil compaction, and vandalism related
to increased public access to the proposed facility location.
For paleontological resources, several stratigraphic units of paleontological
sensitivity could be affected by HVM facility development especially if facilities
are located vithin the Santa Ana Hills or Santiago Hills. These areas have moderate
to high sensitivity for scientific resources, therefore, grading in these locations
could expose potentially significant fossil resources.
Criteria 13 (Recreational, Cultural and Aesthetic Resources) vill aid in
mitigating potential adverse impacts to cultural resources. Potential impacts vill
be mitigated by requiring the evaluation of cultural resources prior to the siting
of collection facilities in these areas.
Implementation of Policy 1 (Legal Compliance and Agency Coordination),
Program A-2 (General Plan and Ordinance Provisions for Facility Siting and
Permitting), and Program A-3 (Site Identification Program) generally vill have a
positive impact on cultural resources by protecting and screening potential HWM
sites for these resources.
2.9.2 Mitigation Measures
The folloving mitigation measures have been incorporated into -the project to avoid
or substantially lessen potential cultural resource effects of the Plan, to the
extent the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan
Implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities
-15-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 21 of 30
W
and measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, State and
federal agencies, these agencies should also adopt these mitigation measures.
o The Plan criterion, policies and programs outlined in this section serve to
protect sensitive cultural resources in Orange County. The criterion, policies
and programs should be implemented in the siting of BVM facilities in Orange
County.
o All proposed BVM facilities should be required to comply with all applicable
federal, State, and local level permitting procedures which serve to protect
cultural resources in Orange County.
o For potential HVM facility sites in undeveloped areas, cultural surveys should
be conducted to assess the cultural resources on the site and surrounding area.
These surveys should include an assessment of the potential location of
historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources.
o During the preliminary design of the planned facility, a comprehensive
evaluation of the effect of the facility on cultural resources should be made.
Eased on this evaluation, the facility design should be modified so that
significant cultural impacts are avoided or mitigated. Specific mitigation
measures should be included in the environmental documentation for the
facility.
o If appropriate, based on the above mitigations, cultural monitoring should take
place during construction and operation of the facility to ensure that there
are no significant impacts.
2.9.3 Pindings
The County of Orange finds that if the 8VM facility siting criteria, programs,
and policies of the Plan are adhered to, along with the recommended mitigations for
facility development, implementation of the Plan will not result in any significant
adverse impacts to cultural resources.
2.10 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES
2.10.1 Impacts
The impacts of MM facilities include a potential increase of approximately
8,000 annual trips; however, this impact is considered insignificant when combined
with the build -out of the general plans of the County. Another impact is that
travel routes for waste transportation could change as a result of waste being
treated In the County instead of outside the County. The following criteria have
been identified as having an impact on transportation resources: 16 and 17.
Generally, both criteria have a positive impact on transportation resources;
however, Criterion 17 could result in some generators being located at some distance
from NVM facilities if the generator is located at a distance from a major travel
corridor. The following programs and policies have been identified as impacting
transportation resources: Policies 1 and 4a and Programs A-2, E-1, E-3, and E-6.
Generally, these programs and policies will have a positive impact on transportation
resources; however, the policies addressing small -quantity generators and household
-16-
Echibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 22 of 30
'�SiyV F�.n
hazardous waste generator's may result in difficulties in locating sites near
Industrial centers without using minor routes.
2.10.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures pertaining to HVM facilities and siting
criteria have been incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially reduce
transportation impacts of the Plan, to the dxcent the Board of Supervisors bas
responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan implementation activities and mitigation
measures. To the extent such activities and measures are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of city, state and federal agencies, these agencies should also
adopt these mitigation measures. No mitigation measures are required for the
policies and programs.
o The actual sites for future hazardous waste management facilities are unknown
at this time. Criteria have been recommended in the Plan to help in selecting
these sites; however, specific sites have not been identified and, therefore,
issues such as individual facility trip generation, trip distribution, and
resulting circulation impacts have not been addressed in this analysis.
Implementation of the siting criteria is, however, recommended as a mitigation
measure.
o Prior to amendment of a city or County general plan land use element for a
hazardous waste facility, a traffic and circulation study shall be prepared for
the proposed facility to assess the potential specific circulation impacts of
( construction and operation. This study shall be reviewed by the appropriate
State, regional, and/or local agency, and only after mitigations are
recommended to ameliorate any identified impacts shall the development approval
process continue.
2.10.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that so long as the mitigation measures as well as
the siting criteria, policies and programs are implemented, no significant impacts
to transportation resources will result.
2.11 HUMAN HEALTH RISK
2.11.1 Impacts
The following human health risks may potentially result from the establishment
of hazardous waste facilities.
o Fugitive emissions
Accidental spills and incidents
Plan criteria identified in the EIE which may have an impact on human health
are Health and Safety (No. 1), Distance from Populations (No. 2), Vater Quality
(No. 7), and Wastewater (No. 8). These criteria would minimize impacts associated
with human health.
-17-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 23 of 30
25`7
Plan policies and programs identified in the EIR which may have an impact on
human health include: Policy 1, Policy 2, Program A-3, Program 3-1, Program B-2,
Program B-3, Program 3-4, Program B -S, Program C-1, Program C-3, Program C-4,
Program C-5, Program D-1, Program D-2, Program D-3, and Program D-4. These programs
and policies were found to provide positive impacts.
2.11.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation ueasures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen potential human health effects of the Plan, to the
extent the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over Plan
Implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such activities
and measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, state and
federal agencies, these agencies should also adopt these mitigation measures.
o Treating wastes to Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) standards as
established by U.S. EPA and State DBS will minimize potential health risks
associated with hazardous waste. All wastes must be treated to BDAT standards, -
prior to land disposal after May, 1990 under federal and State law.
o Each hazardous waste facility, whether it is a treatment facility, transfer
station, or storage repository should be subjected to separate review and
permitting prior to and during development. The types of BVH facilities
identified in the Plan will be subject to project -specific environmental impact
reports or other CEQA documentation and hazardous waste facility permitting by
the California Department of Health Services and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQHD), where applicable.
o HUM facilities should utilize best available technologies for hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and handling. In addition, impacts at BVH facilities can
be further minimized by employing proper personnel training in accordance with
Title 22 regulations.
2.11.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that implementation of the Plan along with the
Identified mitigation measures will minimize potential human health risks to a level
of insignificance. The Plan provides public. awareness that additionally minimizes
Impacts associated with human health beyond the "no project" alternative.
2.12 REMAMT PLANNING
2.12.1 Impacts
In order to adequately assess the impacts associated with Relevant Planning
Issues, actual MM facility sites must be determined. All siting criteria, policies
and programs identified in the Plan serve to ensure consistency with environmental
regulations and/or planning programs.
-is-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 24 of 30
2.12.2 Mitigation Neasures
Implementation of the Plan siting criteria and policies and programs serve as
the necessary relevant planning mitigation measures in and of themselves.
Therefore, no mitigation measures have been proposed.
2.12.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that Relevant Planning impacts have not been
Identified beyond those which are mitigated to a level of nonsignificance through
Implementation of the Plan.
2.13 SOCIOBCONOMICS
2.13.1 Upsets
Several potential effects on socioeconomics have been identified as a result of
BVM facilities. No significant impact to employment will occur as a result of
construction of BVM facilities because MM facilities do not require a large number
Of employees. The siting of BVN facilities near residential communities may have a
potentially negative impact on public attitudes and perceptions and hence property
values. Impacts to public revenues and expenditures may also occur as a result of
the BVM facilities. The following criteria have been identified as impacting
socioeconomics: 19 and 20. Generally, these criteria are considered to be
positive and merely require more specific detailing of socioeconomic impacts. The
( following policies and programs have been identified as impacting socioeconomics:
B-2, 5-4, C-2, C -S, 0-1, and D-4. Criteria 5-2, B-4, and D-1 are considered to have
a potentially significant impact in that they may require expenditure of public
funds. Criteria C-2, C-5, and D-4 are considered to have neither a positive or
negative impact in that the programs are ongoing and/or do not require the use of
public funds.
2.13.2 Mitigation Measures
No specific sites have been selected for BVN facilities and, therefore, no
mitigation measures are required for the facilities themselves. The following
mitigation measures reflect the siting criteria and the policies and programs.
These measures are incorporated into the project to lessen socioeconomic impacts of
the Plan, to the extend the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction
over Plan implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent these
activities and measures are within the responsibility of city, state, and federal
agencies, these agencies should also adopt these mitigation measures.
o Implementation of the siting criteria outlined in the Plan will serve to more
clearly define the potential impacts associated with siting and development of
NVM facilities. Once such impacts have been clearly defined, specific
mitigation measures should be developed at that time to minimize any
socioeconomic impacts which have been identified.
Implementation of Program 3-2 will result in the expenditures of public funds.
This impact may be minimized by requesting that those private industries
-19-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 25 of 30
f4.5V
interested in carrying out the program, fund and/or participate in the effort
t involved in researching and establishing the program.
Implementation of Program B-4 will result in the expenditure of public funds.
This impact may be minimized by encouraging private industry to establish and
carry out the program. The exchange of hazardous vaste related data is vieved
as economically valuable data to business operations and such businesses vould
likely be villing to pay a fee for this data which vould offset operation of
the informational system.
Implementation of Program D-2 way result in a substantial expenditure of
public funds. This expenditure may be offset by developing a program to
research the history of contaminated sites to more clearly define those parties
financially responsible for the contamination, thereby, utilizing private funds
to the maximum extent possible to clean up sites and reducing the amount of
State funds required to clean up contaminated sites.
2.13.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that vith implementation of the mitigation measures,
siting criteria, policies and programs, socioeconomic impacts will be mitigated to a
level of nonsignificance vith one exception. There is a potentially significant
Impact as a result of Program D-1 (Remediation of Contaminated Sites). Bovever, it
should be noted, per CEOA, Section 15131, a statement of overriding considerations
vould not be required should this potentially significant impact, in fact, become an
actual significant impact. This vould be further analyzed in subsequent EIR
documentation.
2.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICES
2.14.1 Impacts
The folloving types of utilities and service impacts may potentially result vith
establishment of hazardous vaste facilities.
o Nater Supply and Removal
o Nastevater Treatment
o Solid Waste Management (minimal)
o Policies and Sheriff's Department (minimal impacts)
o Fire Protection (minimal impacts)
o Schools (minimal impacts)
Plan criteria identified in the SIR vhich may have an impact on utilities and
services include: Discharge of Treated Effluent (No. 3), Health and Safety (No. 1),'
and Distance from Populations (No. 2). These criteria vould minimize impacts
associated vith utilities and services. The plan policies and programs identified in
I the SIR which may have an impact on utilities and services include: Program B-4,
-20-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 26 of 30
�- Program C-59 and Program D-2. The programs and policies were found to provide
positive impacts on utilities and services.
2.14.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
avoid or substantially lessen potential public service and facility effects of the
Plan, to the extent the Board of Supervisors has responsibility and jurisdiction over
�. Plan implementation activities and mitigation measures. To the extent such
activities and measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city,
state, and federal agencies, these agencies should also adopt these mitigation
measures.
o Sufficiently determine quantitative water requirements of each facility as a
part of the local permitting process.
o Design hazardous waste facilities such that these facilities can meet
potentially more stringent wastewater discharge requirements by the year 2000.
o HVM facility personnel should be sufficiently trained to handle hazardous
vaste/material response incidences and the facility located in an area to ensure
proper response/support by County MM teams to hazardous waste incidents.
o The facilities should be located in areas with adequate sever capacity to
accommodate the expected wastewater discharge.
2.14.3 Findings
The County of Orange finds that if the above -listed mitigation measures are
Implemented and Plan criteria, policies and programs are adhered to, impacts to
public utility resources will not be significant.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
The EIR analysis of the Plan used the assumption as the project alternative that
the Plan would be implemented through the siting of all identified HVM facilities as
separate facilities within Orange County. In addition, the EIR evaluated the
following three alternatives to the project, which are discussed below.
o No -Project Alternative
o Treatment Consolidation Alternative
o "Fair Share" Alternative
3.1 110 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Review of the Mo -Project Alternative evaluates the environmental consequences of
not implementing the Plan. Under this alternative, it is assumed that generators of
hazardous waste in Orange County would continue to be dependent on HVM facilities
outside Orange County for waste treatment and disposal. HVM facilities could
potentially be sited in Orange County on a case-by-case basis. Continuing hazardous
waste generation without sufficient MM facilities could lead to long-term storage of
waste without detoxification, and increased illegal disposal practices.
-21-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 27 of 30
I
(, Impacts of the No -Project Alternative compared vith the Project impacts are
summarized as follovs:
o Increased illegal disposal of vastes could further impact soil resources, water
resources, air quality, land use, biological resources, cultural resources,
human health risks,, and public utilities.
o If HVM facilities are built outside the county, impacts associated vith facility
development vould be moved to locations outside the county (land use, visual,
health risk, air quality, vater quality, geologic, noise, biological, cultural
resources).
o Increase in costs associated vith long-distance transportation, vaste treatment
and disposal, emergency response, and contamination clean-up could occur.
3.2 TREATMENT CONSOLIDATION ALTERNATIVE
An alternative to siting separate HVM facilities for each type of collection,
treatment, and disposal activity is the siting of fever, combined facilities vith the
capacity to conduct tvo or more types of treatment.
Impacts of the Treatment Consolidation Alternative could include the folloving:
o Savings in time and resources through the common use of services such as
administration, laboratory, and emergency response.
o The risk and pollution levels associated vith a larger, combined facility could
be greater than a smaller single -function facility, hovever overall countyvide
Impacts for all necessary facilities could be reduced due to fever sources of
risk and pollution. This could include lover overall impacts associated vith
geology, hydrology, land use, air quality, noise, visual, biological, cultural,
transportation, human health, planning, socioeconomics, and public utilities.
3.3 •FAIR SHARE• ALTERNATIVE
This alternative encompasses the concept of siting iegional-sized HVM facilities
and to achieve a fair share allocation of facilities between different counties in
southern California, based on the amount of hazardous vast* generated in each County.
Due to the siting of fever facilities compared vith the project alternative, the
Fair Share Alternative could result in reduced facility development impacts
associated vith geology, hydrology, land use, air quality, noise, visual resources,
biological resources, cultural resources, human health risks, planning,
socioeconomics, and public utilities. Transportation costs and risks could
potentially be greater than if all needed facilities vera sited vithin Orange County.
4.0 MONITORING OF MITIGATION KRASUM
As discussed in EIR 490, implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Vast*
Management Plan vill primarily be the responsibility of the tventy-*ight cities in
Orange County and the County of Orange, along vith special districts, the California
-22-
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 28 of 30
Department of Health Services, and the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management
Authority in certain instances. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in
EIR 490 is also variously the responsibility and jurisdiction of city, county,state
and federal agencies. Responsibility for monitoring of compliance with EIR 490
mitigation measures, as required by Assembly sill 3180, lies with city and County
agencies responsible for implementation.
DRS:rm/mhPE01-84/9020 -23-
9011719424245
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 29 of 30
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING PROGRAM
for
Final EIR 490 for the
Orange County Hazardous Vaste Management Plan
Z. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Mitigation Measures Monitoring Program for Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 490 is to ensure compliance vith
provisions of the State Public Resources Code. Code Section 21086.6
requires that public agencies approving a project vith an
environmental impact report (SIR) adopt a program to monitor and
report on the EIR mitigation measures during project implementation.
II. FEIR 490 MITIGATION mgASLw=
As part of certifyini FUR 490, the Orange County Board of Supervisors
adopted those mitigation measures for the Orange County Hazardous
Vaste Management Plan within County of Orange jurisdiction and
responsibility. These mitigation measures are identified in FEIR 490
and itemised in Exhibit A. Board of Supervisors Findings for FEIR 490.
These mitigation measures are intended to be implemented as part of
the Plan implementation process.
(
M. MOMITORDIG AND REPORTIJIG
' Implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Vaste Management Plan
vill primarily be the responsibility of the tventy-eight cities in
Orange County and the County of Orange, along vith special districts,
the California Department of Health Services, and the Southern
California Hazardous Vaste Management Authority in certain instances.
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Final EIR 490 is
also variously within the responsibility and jurisdiction of city,
County, State, and federal agencies as part of their Plan
Implementation and facility permit processing responsibilities, as
yell as future developers and operators of off-site hazardous vaste
facilities. Hovever, specific facility proposals will require
subsequent project -specific environmental documentation under the
California Environmental Quality Act, including the establishment of
subsequent project -specific mitigation monitoring programs.
City, County, State, and federal agencies vith responsibility and
Jurisdiction for Plan implementation, and environmental reviev and
permit processing for off-site hazardous vast* facilities, vill be
responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are implemented,
and will provide annual mitigation measures monitoring reports to
County Fire Services to be included as part of the Annual Plan
Monitoring Reports. The County Environmental Management Agency rill
be responsible for revieving the mitigation measures monitoring
reports and determining if the mitigation measures have been
adequately implemented.
3828m
9012012334528
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 89-24
Page 30 of 30
263