Laserfiche WebLink
Centralized versus dispersed facilities: locate needed <br /> facilities as close to generators as is economically <br /> practical and environmentally appropriate. Lowest <br /> priority should be given to large facilities located far <br /> from the sources of generation. Distribute facility <br /> siting decisions fairly among the county's jurisdictions <br /> according to their basic shares of local hazardous waste <br /> generation. <br /> <br /> Transfer stations: promote development of new transfer <br /> stations to address the needs of small generators and <br /> households. <br /> <br /> Small generators: primarily focus on the large <br /> generators of waste but identify small generators and <br /> develop programs to make legal and safe waste disposal <br /> more accessible and economically feasible for them. <br /> <br /> Household hazardous waste: promote education of <br /> consumers on the need for proper household toxics <br /> disposal. A collection program for households is <br /> proposed. <br /> <br /> Public participation and education: promote ongoing <br /> public education and participation regarding hazardous <br /> materials issues. <br /> <br /> Regional and Statewide responsibilities: recognize the <br /> County's responsibility to join with other governments <br /> in the region and state to plan for effective waste <br /> management. <br /> <br /> County as developer: if necessary , explore the <br /> possibility of developing facilities needed to serve <br /> generators in the county that may not otherwise be <br /> appropriately developed by private developers. <br /> <br />CHWMP Implementation Proqram - By carrying out policies <br />relating to coordination among the many existing hazardous <br />materials and waste programs, and compliance with those <br />programs, the draft plan sets forth a work program aimed at <br />centralizing existing regulatory controls under one <br />authority. This could lead, for instance, to loss of City <br />jurisdiction under its existing hazardous materials storage <br />ordinance. While the goal of coordination is laudatory, <br />staff does not believe centralization by necessity has to be <br />the solution. These issues are technically outside the scope <br />of the Tanner Bill, and staff recommends these proposed <br />programs be deleted. Methods to coordinate efforts should <br />continue to be explored, but they need not be done as part of <br />the plan. <br /> <br />SR:88:299 <br /> <br /> <br />