IT?Corp.?v.?Solano?County?Bd.?of?Supervisors?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?81?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?513;?820?P.2d?1023
[No.?S017701.?Dec?23,?1991.]IT?CORPORATION,?Plaintiff?and?Appellant,?v.?SOLANO?COUNTY?BOARD?OF?SUPERVISORS?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Appellants.
(Superior?Court?of?Solano?County,?No.?100993,?Jay?A.?Pfotenhauer,?Judge.?fn.?*?)
(Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Gordon,?Defraga,?Watrous?&?Pezzaglia,?Titchell,?Maltzman,?Mark,?Bass,?Ohleyer?&?Mishel,?Bruen?&?Gordon?and?Scott?W.?Gordon?for?Plaintiff?and?Appellant.
Ronald?A.?Zumbrun,?Robin?L.?Rivett?and?Charles?A.?Klinge?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Appellant.
Charles?O.?Lamoree?and?Thomas?H.?Gordinier,?County?Counsel,?Vicki?Sieber-?Benson,?Assistant?County?Counsel,?and?Daniel?P.?Selmi?for?Defendants?and?Appellants.
Ira?Reiner,?District?Attorney?(Los?Angeles),?Harry?B.?Sondheim?and?Brent?Riggs,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?David?Nawi,?County?Counsel?(Santa?Barbara),?Stephen?Shane?Stark?and?Timothy?McNulty,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Shute,?Mihaly?&?Weinberger,?Fran?M.?Layton,?Wendy?S.?Strimling?and?Christy?H.?Taylor?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Appellants.
OPINION
BAXTER,?J.
We?granted?review?to?decide?whether?state?laws?governing?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities?preempt?the?efforts?of?Solano?County?(County)?to?force?removal?of?wastes?unlawfully?deposited?by?a?facility?operator?within?the?”buffer”?or?”setback”?zone?long?established?by?County?land?use?permits.?We?find?no?express?or?implied?state-law?restriction?on?the?traditional?rule?that?a?local?government?may?specifically?enforce?its?valid?land?use?regulations?by?demanding?the?elimination?of?offending?conditions.?Indeed,?the?County’s?order?defers?to?all?conceivable?state?regulatory?concerns.?The?operator’s?attack?upon?the?order,?accepted?by?the?courts?below,?would?permit?the?company?to?reap?the?benefits?of?the?illegal?encroachments.?We?will?therefore?reverse?in?part?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
Facts
IT?Corporation?(IT)?operates?a?106-acre?”Class?I”?hazardous?waste?disposal?facility?(the?Panoche?facility)?in?the?rolling?hills?of?the?County.?The?City?of?Benicia?(City)?adjoins?the?Panoche?facility?downslope?to?the?southwest.?The?Panoche?facility?and?surrounding?land?are?zoned?for?agricultural?use.
In?1968,?the?County?issued?conditional?use?permit?R-418?allowing?the?parcel?then?owned?by?IT’s?predecessor,?Howard?Jenkins,?to?be?employed?for?[1?Cal.4th?86]?the?disposal?of?liquid?and?solid?hazardous?wastes.?Permit?R-418?included?a?condition?that?all?treatment?and?storage?of?hazardous?waste?must?be?set?back?at?least?200?feet?of?the?outer?perimeter?of?the?permitted?property.
Jenkins?created?a?number?of?surface?impoundments-ponds?containing?liquid?waste-on?the?property.?By?1972,?several?of?these?impoundments?(ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17,?and?18),?as?well?as?surface?solid?wastepile?17P,?had?encroached?within?200?feet?of?Jenkins’s?property?line.?Pond?17?came?to?the?attention?of?the?County’s?planning?commission?(Commission)?as?early?as?1971?because?the?pond?had?intruded?beyond?Jenkins’s?property?onto?neighbors’?land.?Apparently?Jenkins?was?allowed?to?cure?the?pond?17?violation?by?purchasing?additional?land?to?bring?this?impoundment?within?a?reconfigured?200-foot?setback.
In?1973,?the?County?issued?a?new?permit?for?the?site,?No.?R-708.?Permit?R-708?related?to?a?specific?site?map?provided?by?Jenkins?and?included?a?200-?foot?setback?condition?(Condition?3.F.)?that?was?substantially?identical?to?the?1968?restriction.?fn.?1
IT?acquired?the?Panoche?facility?in?1975?and?continued?to?deposit?wastes?in?ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17,?and?18,?and?in?surface?wastepile?17P.?IT?also?inherited?two?landfills?which?encroached?beyond?the?setback?line?referred?to?in?permit?R-708.?IT?added?hazardous?waste?to?these?landfills?as?well.?IT?itself?established?the?so-called?north?drum?burial?site,?which?intruded?into?the?setback?zone.
Since?1975,?IT?has?purchased?additional?contiguous?land?west,?north,?and?east?of?the?facility.?The?effect?of?these?acquisitions?is?that?only?pond?13A,?the?encroaching?unit?nearest?the?City,?remains?less?than?200?feet?from?the?outer?boundary?of?property?now?owned?by?IT.
In?1981,?the?Department?of?Health?Services?(DHS),?acting?under?state?and?federal?laws,?issued?an?”Interim?Status?Document”?authorizing?operation?of?the?facility.?In?September?1985,?the?County’s?director?of?public?works?issued?a?stop?order?against?grading?work?at?the?site?on?grounds?that?a?grading?permit?was?required?and?had?not?been?obtained.?IT?appealed?the?stop?order?to?the?County’s?board?of?supervisors?(Board).?In?January?1986,?as?partial?settlement?of?the?grading?dispute,?IT?stipulated?to?formal?hearings?before?the?Commission?to?determine?IT’s?compliance?with?permit?R-708.
During?1986?and?1987,?the?Commission?held?numerous?hearings?and?took?voluminous?evidence.?As?IT?concedes,?evidence?of?noncompliance?with?[1?Cal.4th?87]?Condition?3.F.?was?”overwhelming.”?The?record?also?touched?upon?the?troubled?regulatory?history?of?the?facility,?which?included?citations?by?the?California?Regional?Water?Quality?Control?Board?(RWQCB)?and?the?United?States?Environmental?Protection?Agency?(EPA).?Testimony?and?documentary?evidence?catalogued?leakage?and?migration?of?hazardous?wastes?from?encroaching?storage?areas?into?surrounding?soil?of?the?setback?zone?and,?with?respect?to?pond?13A,?beyond?the?borders?of?IT’s?property.
On?June?25,?1987,?the?Commission?found?that?IT?was?out?of?compliance?with?several?conditions?of?the?permit.?Among?other?things,?the?Commission?determined?that?”IT?is?in?violation?of?Condition?3.F.?due?to?the?encroachment?of?portions?of?Ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17?and?18,?as?well?as?portions?of?waste?pile?17P,?the?old?landfill?and?the?north?drum?burial?area?on?the?200?foot?buffer.”
The?Commission?proposed?a?two-pronged?remedy?for?the?violation?of?Condition?3.F.?First,?IT?must?”immediately?cease?using?and?close”?all?encroachments.?Second,?IT?must?within?90?days?submit?to?pertinent?state?and?federal?regulators?its?”plans?for?clean?closure,?i.e.,?removal?of?all?wastes?[except?drum?burials]?and?contaminated?soils”?from?the?setback?zone;?must?modify?its?closure?plans?as?required?by?the?agencies;?and?must?begin?closure?immediately?upon?obtaining?necessary?regulatory?approvals.
IT?was?ordered?to?consult?further?with?the?agencies?on?the?safest?plan?for?closure?of?the?drum?burial?encroachment,?and?to?submit?a?closure?plan?on?that?basis.?If?”clean?closure”?approval?was?not?obtained?for?any?encroachment?subject?to?that?requirement,?the?Commission?promised?to?”reopen?the?hearings?to?review?appropriate?remedies?at?that?time.”?fn.?2
IT?appealed?the?”clean?closure”?order?to?the?Board.?The?company?urged,?inter?alia,?that?the?proposed?remedy?of?complete?restoration?was?preempted,?arbitrary,?unreasonable,?and?estopped?by?the?County’s?long?delay?in?enforcing?Condition?3.F.?IT?estimated?that?”clean?closure”?of?the?encroachments?entailed?removal?of?some?174,000?cubic?yards?of?hazardous?material?and?might?cost?as?much?as?$40.5?million.
The?Board?ordered?the?Commission?staff?to?study?alternate?remedies.?For?the?most?part,?these?included?variations?on?IT’s?proposal?that?the?company?[1?Cal.4th?88]?close?and?cleanse?only?the?encroachment?adjacent?to?City?(i.e.,?pond?13A)?and?simply?”dedicate”?a?new?200-foot?setback?conforming?to?the?current?boundaries?of?IT’s?property.
In?March?1988,?after?considering?the?staff?report?and?conducting?hearings?de?novo,?the?Board?adopted?the?Commission’s?remedial?order.?IT?sought?mandamus.
The?superior?court?granted?relief.?The?court?ruled?that?a?violation?of?Condition?3.F.?was?established?by?the?administrative?record.?Applying?the?”substantial?evidence”?test?of?review,?it?also?found?”unsupported?by?the?record”?IT’s?separate?defenses?of?laches,?estoppel,?and?the?statute?of?limitations.?fn.?3?However,?the?court?concluded?that?because?”state?law?has?pre-?empted?the?storage,?treatment,?and?disposal?of?[hazardous?waste,]?…?[t]he?Board?is?without?authority?to?dictate?the?remedy”-i.e.,?”clean?closure”-for?IT’s?permit?violation.?On?the?other?hand,?the?court?held,?the?Board?could?order?IT?to?submit?for?appropriate?state?regulatory?approval?”one?or?more?plans?by?which?[IT]?proposes?to?remedy?the?non-compliance.”?(Italics?added.)
Both?parties?appealed.?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed.
Addressing?IT’s?appeal,?the?court?reasoned?as?follows:?No?limitations?period?had?run,?because?IT’s?violations?were?”continuing.”?With?respect?to?IT’s?equitable?defenses,?the?trial?court?properly?reviewed?the?Board’s?findings?under?the?deferential?”substantial?evidence”?standard,?rather?than?the?more?stringent?”independent?judgment”?standard?urged?by?IT.?fn.?4?The?”ambiguous”?administrative?record?did?not?make?clear?when?the?County?actually?knew?or?should?have?known?of?the?bulk?of?the?encroachments.?Hence,?the?trial?court?correctly?declined?to?uphold?IT’s?claims?of?laches?and?estoppel.
Addressing?the?County’s?appeal,?the?court?reasoned?as?follows:?The?setback?condition?was?a?valid?local?land?use?regulation,?and?the?Board?was?entitled?to?enforce?it?by?ordering?IT?to?”cease?using”?and?”close”?the?encroachments.?However,?by?dictating?the?method?of?closure?of?a?hazardous?waste?disposal?site,?a?matter?of?statewide?concern,?the?Board?invaded?the?state’s?”comprehensive”?regulation?of?that?subject.?[1?Cal.4th?89]
The?County?alone?sought?review,?urging?that?the?courts?below?had?erroneously?resolved?the?issue?of?preemption.
Discussion
- Implied?preemption.
“A?county?may?make?and?enforce?within?its?limits?’all?local,?police,?sanitary,?and?other?ordinances?and?regulations?not?in?conflict?with?general?law.’?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?XI,???7.)?…”?(People?ex?rel.?Deukmejian?v.?County?of?Mendocino?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?476,?483-484?[204?Cal.Rptr.?897,?683?P.2d?1150]?(Mendocino).)?[2]?The?power?of?cities?and?counties?to?zone?land?use?in?accordance?with?local?conditions?is?well?entrenched.?(See,?e.g.,?3?Manaster?&?Selmi,?Cal.?Environmental?Law?and?Land?Use?Practice?(1991?rev.)????60.10,?60.11,?pp.?60-14,?60-15;?1?Longtin’s?Cal.?Land?Use?(2d?ed.?1987)???3.02,?pp.?234-235;?Cal.?Zoning?Practice?(Cont.Ed.Bar?1969)????1.3-1.6,?pp.?4-7.)?The?Legislature?has?specified?certain?minimum?standards?for?local?zoning?regulations?(Gov.?Code,???65850?et?seq.)?but?has?carefully?expressed?its?intent?to?retain?the?maximum?degree?of?local?control?(see,?e.g.,?id.,????65800,?65802).
A?zoning?ordinance?may?allow?conditional?uses,?pursuant?to?permit,?for?particular?parcels?within?a?zone.?The?reasonable?conditions?included?in?such?a?permit?become?part?of?the?zoning?regulation?applicable?to?the?affected?parcel.?(1?Longtin’s,?supra,???3.71[1],?at?pp.?360-?362;?3?Manaster?&?Selmi,?supra,???60.71[1],?at?pp.?60-97,?60-98;?see?Gov.?Code,????65901,?65909.)
When?use?of?a?parcel?violates?applicable?zoning?rules,?the?responsible?agency?may?obtain?abatement-i.e.,?removal?of?the?violation?and?restoration?of?legal?use-even?when?substantial?expense?is?involved.?(See,?e.g.,?County?of?San?Diego?v.?McClurken?(1951)?37?Cal.2d?683?[234?P.2d?972]?[remove?[1?Cal.4th?90]?fixed?48,000-?gallon?storage?tanks];?People?v.?Gates?(1974)?41?Cal.App.3d?590?[116?Cal.Rptr.?172]?[remove?auto?wrecking?business];?City?and?County?of?San?Francisco?v.?Padilla?(1972)?23?Cal.App.3d?388?[100?Cal.Rptr.?223]?[remove?2?dwelling?units];?People?v.?Watkins?(1959)?175?Cal.App.2d?182?[345?P.2d?960]?[remove?portion?of?structure?beyond?setback?line];?Donovan?v.?City?of?Santa?Monica?(1948)?88?Cal.App.2d?386?[199?P.2d?51]?[remove?20?dwelling?units;?reconvert?main?structure?to?single-family?residence].)?Abatement?does?not?depend?on?a?finding?that?the?zoning?violation?constitutes?a?”nuisance?per?se.”?(City?of?Santa?Clara?v.?Paris?(1977)?76?Cal.App.3d?338,?341-342?[142?Cal.Rptr.?818];?City?etc.?of?San?Francisco?v.?Burton?(1962)?201?Cal.App.2d?749,?756-757?[20?Cal.Rptr.?378].)
Permit?R-708?expressly?authorizes?the?Commission?to?hold?periodic?compliance?reviews?and?to?determine?”[a]ny?action?deemed?appropriate”?to?correct?noncompliance?therein?found?to?exist.?Indeed,?IT?stipulated?to?such?a?review?as?partial?settlement?of?its?grading-permit?dispute?with?the?County.?Thus,?it?is?clear?that?neither?the?setback?condition?in?IT’s?permit,?nor?the?Board’s?issuance?of?a?remedial?order?for?noncompliance,?exceeds?the?County’s?general?land?use?control?powers.
[1b]?IT?argues?instead?that?this?particular?order?is?invalid?because?it?invades?the?sensitive?field?of?hazardous?waste?management?in?ways?which?are?closely?and?exclusively?regulated?by?the?state.?In?particular,?IT?invokes?the?state’s?complex?scheme?for?overseeing?the?”closure”?of?hazardous?waste?disposal?sites-a?scheme?designed?to?minimize?health,?safety,?and?environmental?risks?when?use?of?a?site?is?discontinued.?This?scheme,?IT?argues,?places?all?”closure”?procedures?and?decisions?in?the?hands?of?an?expert?state?agency,?DHS,?and?thus?precludes?a?local?government?from?dictating?the?method?of?”closure.”The?trial?court?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?agreed?with?this?contention.?We?conclude?it?lacks?merit.?Nothing?in?state?hazardous?waste?disposal?law?implies?that?a?city?or?county?is?precluded?from?abating?a?clear?and?potentially?dangerous?violation?of?its?valid?land?use?regulations.
[3]?”Local?[regulation]?in?conflict?with?general?law?is?void.?Conflicts?exist?if?the?[regulation]?duplicates?[citations],?contradicts?[citation],?or?enters?an?area?fully?occupied?by?general?law?…?[citations]?….”?(Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?476,?484-485,?quoting?Lancaster?v.?Municipal?Court?(1972)?6?Cal.3d?805,?806-808?[100?Cal.Rptr.?609,?494?P.2d?681].)“…?In?determining?whether?the?Legislature?has?preempted?by?implication?to?the?exclusion?of?local?regulation?we?must?look?to?the?whole?purpose?[1?Cal.4th?91]?and?scope?of?the?legislative?scheme.?There?are?three?tests:?'(1)?the?subject?matter?has?been?so?fully?and?completely?covered?by?general?law?as?to?clearly?indicate?that?it?has?become?exclusively?a?matter?of?state?concern;?(2)?the?subject?matter?has?been?partially?covered?by?general?law?couched?in?such?terms?as?to?indicate?clearly?that?a?paramount?state?concern?will?not?tolerate?further?or?additional?local?action;?or?(3)?the?subject?matter?has?been?partially?covered?by?general?law,?and?the?subject?is?of?such?a?nature?that?the?adverse?effect?of?…?local?[regulation]?on?the?transient?citizens?of?the?state?outweighs?the?possible?benefit?to?the?[local?government].’?[Citations.]”?(Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?p.?485,?quoting?In?re?Hubbard?(1964)?62?Cal.2d?119,?128?[41?Cal.Rptr.?393,?396?P.2d?809];?accord:?Western?Oil?&?Gas?Assn.?v.?Monterey?Bay?Unified?Air?Pollution?Control?Dist.?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?408,?423?[261?Cal.Rptr.?384,?777?P.2d?157]?(WOGA).)
Here,?of?course,?there?is?no?issue?of?the?challenged?order’s?undue?effect?on?”transient?citizens.”?The?question?is?whether?state?law?has?so?occupied?the?subject?of?hazardous?waste?management?as?to?preclude?a?local?government?from?enforcing?its?long-standing?restrictions?on?the?locations?within?a?facility?at?which?hazardous?waste?may?be?treated?or?stored.
The?Hazardous?Waste?Control?Act?(HWCA),?adopted?in?1972?(Stats.?1972,?ch.?1236,???1,?p.?2388?et?seq.),?is?codified?as?chapter?6.5?of?the?Health?and?Safety?Code?(??25100?et?seq.).?The?HWCA?directs?DHS?to?adopt?standards?and?regulations?governing?the?”management?of?hazardous?wastes”?in?order?to?”protect?against?hazards?to?the?public?health,?to?domestic?livestock,?to?wildlife,?or?to?the?environment.”?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25150,?subd.?(a).)?Among?other?things,?DHS?must?issue?permits?authorizing?operation?of?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities?and?must?apply?applicable?regulations?and?standards?through?the?permit?system.?(Id.,????25150,?subd.?(b),?25200.)
DHS?may?grant?”interim?status”?operating?authority?to?a?pre-1980?facility?such?as?Panoche,?pending?final?determination?of?the?operator’s?permit?application.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25200.5,?subd.?(a).)?For?HWCA?purposes,?the?Panoche?facility?apparently?has?always?operated?under?”interim?status”?authority.
The?HWCA?further?requires?DHS?to?adopt?”closure”?regulations?and?standards?for?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities.?These?regulations?must?specify?financial?assurances?by?facility?operators?to?cover?postclosure?damage?claims,?as?well?as?the?cost?of?closure?and?postclosure?maintenance.?The?regulations?must?also?ensure?that?every?such?facility?”can?be?closed?and?maintained?[thereafter]?for?at?least?30?years”?without?health?or?environmental?damage,?and?that?the?escape?of?contamination?from?a?closed?site?into?the?soil,?[1?Cal.4th?92]?water,?and?atmosphere?will?be?”[minimized]?or?[eliminated].”?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25245,?subd.?(a).)
The?HWCA?provides?that?when?they?apply?for?permits,?”or?when?otherwise?requested?by?[DHS],”?facility?operators?must?submit?”closure?and?postclosure?plans”?for?approval?by?DHS?and?RWQCB.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25246,?subds.?(a),?(b).)?DHS?must?approve?a?plan?that?complies?with?all?pertinent?regulations.?(Id.,???25247,?subds.?(a),?(b).)
DHS?has?implemented?the?required?permit?system?and?has?developed?extensive?regulations?governing?the?design,?construction,?operation,?maintenance,?monitoring,?closure,?and?postclosure?maintenance?of?hazardous?waste?facilities.?(See?Cal.?Code?Regs.,?tit.?26?(hereafter?Regulations),????22-?66260.1?et?seq.,?22-66264.110?et?seq.;?former????22-66316?et?seq.,?22-?67102?et?seq.)?fn.?6?Among?these?are?detailed?standards?for?the?”closure”?or?”partial?closure”?of?hazardous?waste?disposal?sites,?and?for?the?contents?of?closure?plans?to?be?submitted?by?facility?operators.?(Regs.,????22-66260.10,?22-66264.110,?22-66264.111,?22-66264.112;?former????22-?66027,?22-66152,?22-67210?et?seq.)
[1c]?IT?contends?that?the?HWCA?places?the?initiative?for?closure?plan?design?on?the?facility?operator?alone,?subject?only?to?state?regulatory?standards?which?do?not?necessarily?require?complete?restoration?of?a?site?to?its?original?condition.?IT?asserts,?and?no?party?disputes,?that?IT?has?designed?and?submitted?for?DHS?approval?its?own?HWCA?plan?to?”close?in?place”?the?[1?Cal.4th?93]?entire?Panoche?facility,?including?the?encroaching?deposits.?fn.?7?Hence,?IT?contends,?the?Board’s?order?conflicts?with?the?HWCA?by?requiring?IT?to?submit?an?additional?plan?that?specifies?”clean”?closure?of?the?encroachments.We?cannot?accept?the?premise.?With?specific?exceptions?discussed?below,?nothing?in?the?HWCA?or?its?implementing?regulations?indicates?any?intent?or?need?to?immunize?a?state-authorized?facility?from?the?enforcement?of?applicable?local?land?use?regulations.?Indeed,?the?HWCA?expressly?suggests?otherwise.?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25105?provides?that?”[n]o?provision?of?this?chapter?[i.e.,?ch.?6.5,]?shall?limit?the?authority?of?any?state?or?local?agency?in?the?enforcement?or?administration?of?any?provision?of?law?which?it?is?specifically?permitted?or?required?to?enforce?and?administer.”?(Italics?added.)
As?we?noted?in?Mendocino,?use?of?the?word?”law”?is?significant?in?this?context,?for?”law”?includes?local?ordinances.?(See?Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?p.?489.)?Moreover,?the?legislative?decision?to?reserve?local?powers?despite?adoption?of?the?HWCA?was?conscious?and?specific.?The?words?”or?local”?were?added?to?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25105?(originally???25172)?during?the?Legislature’s?consideration?of?the?HWCA.?fn.?8?Given?the?historic?role?of?cities?and?counties?in?local?land?use?regulation,?we?must?assume?the?Legislature?meant?to?allow?the?”enforcement”?of?”local”?zoning?”law[s],”?as?applied?through?use?permit?conditions.?(See?Mendocino,?supra.)?fn.?9
Moreover,?the?HWCA?expressly?provides?for?joint?state?and?local?authority?over?the?siting?and?operation?of?hazardous?waste?facilities.?Among?other?[1?Cal.4th?94]?things,?the?HWCA?limits?local?power?to?reject?a?new?facility?in?derogation?of?statewide?interests?(see?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25199?et?seq.)?but?also?allows?delayed?effectiveness?of?a?new?state?permit?”until?the?applicant?is?granted?a?local?land?use?permit.”?(Id.,???25199.3,?subd.?(a).)
As?we?said?in?Mendocino,?”[p]reemption?by?implication?of?legislative?intent?may?not?be?found?when?the?Legislature?has?expressed?its?intent?to?permit?local?regulations.?Similarly,?it?should?not?be?found?when?the?statutory?scheme?recognizes?local?regulations.”?(Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?p.?485;?Casmalia?Resources,?Ltd.?v.?County?of?Santa?Barbara?(1987)?195?Cal.App.3d?827,?837?[240?Cal.Rptr.?903,?67?A.L.R.4th?809]?[finding?HWCA?did?not?impliedly?preempt?local?monitoring?regulations].)?fn.?10
The?Legislature?has?further?undermined?IT’s?claim?of?”implied”?preemption?by?making?clear?those?narrow?areas?in?which?it?considers?local?regulation?incompatible?with?the?state?scheme.?In?1981,?the?Legislature?became?concerned?that?hostile?local?restrictions?on?existing?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities?might?accelerate?a?developing?reduction?in?statewide?disposal?capacity.?By?adding?article?4.5?to?the?HWCA?(Stats.?1981,?ch.?244,???3,?p.?1295),?the?Legislature?expressly?barred?unilateral?efforts?by?local?governments?to?”prohibit?or?unreasonably?regulate”?the?treatment?or?disposal?of?hazardous?wastes?at?”existing”?”Class?I”?disposal?facilities?such?as?Panoche?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25149,?subd.?(a)).?fn.?11
However,?the?Legislature?has?specified?the?limited?nature?of?this?statutory?intrusion?on?local?land?use?regulation.?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25147?declares?that?”[e]xcept?as?expressly?provided?in?Section?25149,?it?is?not?the?intent?of?this?article?to?preempt?local?land?use?regulation?of?existing?hazardous?waste?facilities.”?[4]?(See?fn.?12.)?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149,?subdivision?(a),?itself?states?that?”nothing?in?this?section?authorizes?an?[1?Cal.4th?95]?operator?of?[an?’existing’]?facility?to?violate?any?term?or?condition?of?a?local?land?use?permit?or?any?other?provision?of?law?not?in?conflict?with?this?section.”?fn.?12
Another?example?of?the?Legislature’s?ability?to?distinguish?expressly?between?preempted?and?nonpreempted?regulation?occurs?in?article?6.5?of?the?HWCA,?adopted?in?1979.?(See?Stats.?1979,?ch.?1097,???3,?p.?3964.)?Article?6.5?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,????25167.1-25169.3)?sets?standards?and?establishes?state?registration?for?transporters?and?haulers?of?hazardous?waste.?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25167.3?declares?an?intent?that?article?6.5?preempt?”all?local?regulations?and?all?conflicting?state?regulations?concerning?the?transportation?of?hazardous?waste”?and?provides?that?no?local?agency,?including?a?charter?city?or?county,?”shall?adopt?or?enforce?any?ordinance?or?regulation?…?inconsistent?with?[state]?regulations.”
[1d]?The?Legislature?has?thus?demonstrated?its?readiness?to?preempt?local?regulation?unequivocally?when?persuaded?of?the?need?to?do?so.?Its?preemptive?action?in?specific?and?expressly?limited?areas?weighs?against?an?inference?that?preemption?by?implication?was?intended?elsewhere.Examination?of?”the?whole?purpose?and?scope?of?the?legislative?scheme”?(Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?p.?485)?leads?us?to?the?same?conclusion.?The?Legislature?has?declared?that?the?HWCA’s?purpose?is?to?ensure?safe?handling,?treatment,?recycling,?disposal,?and?destruction?of?hazardous?waste?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25101,?subd.?(a)),?and?to?develop?a?state?hazardous?waste?program?”in?lieu”?of?the?federal?RCRA?program.?(Id.,????25101,?subd.?(d),?25159;?see?fn.?6,?ante,?at?p.?92.)?[5]?Though?extensive?and?detailed,?the?HWCA?purports?only?to?be?a?”minimum?standards”?program?and?implies?no?general?purpose?to?strip?local?entities?of?their?traditional?power?to?impose?and?specifically?enforce?land?use?regulations.
IT?points?to?the?California?Attorney?General’s?1974?conclusion?that?in?view?of?the?need?for?”uniform”?statewide?standards,?the?HWCA?”[preempts]?the?field?of?regulating?the?handling,?processing,?and?disposal?of?hazardous?…?waste?materials.”?(57?Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.?159,?164.)?For?reasons?already?stated,?the?opinion?fails?to?persuade?us?that?the?HWCA?generally?precludes?enforcement?of?a?local?land?use?condition.
[1e]?In?particular,?the?Attorney?General’s?opinion?construes?too?narrowly?the?HWCA’s?express?disclaimer?of?intent?to?preempt?”enforcement?…?of?[1?Cal.4th?96]?any?provision?of?law”?by?responsible?”local?agenc[ies].”?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25105,?formerly?id.,???25172.)?Contrary?to?our?later?Mendocino?analysis,?the?opinion?assumes?that?the?statutory?reference?includes?only?state?laws?administered?by?local?officials.?(57?Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.?159,?supra,?at?p.?163.)?Moreover,?the?express?but?limited?preemption?clauses?later?adopted?by?the?Legislature?belie?the?opinion’s?assumption?of?broader?preemptive?intent.IT?next?suggests?that?the?Board’s?order?disrupts?the?state’s?regulatory?process?for?closure?of?hazardous?waste?facilities,?bypasses?the?expertise?of?state?agencies,?and?may?affect?statewide?policies?on?hazardous?waste?transportation?and?storage?capacity.?Again,?we?disagree.?As?the?County?has?emphasized,?the?order?does?not?demand?that?IT?remove?all?hazardous?waste?deposits?in?the?setback?zone?regardless?of?state?regulatory?and?programmatic?concerns.?Instead,?it?simply?requires?IT?to?submit?the?option?of?”clean”?closure-i.e.,?complete?removal?of?contaminants-for?approval?by?all?pertinent?regulatory?agencies,?including?DHS.
State?regulations?require?a?facility?operator?to?submit?a?”closure?plan”?which?includes,?if?applicable,?a?description?how?the?operator?would?perform?both?”final?closure”?of?a?facility?at?the?end?of?its?active?life?and?”partial?or?final?closure”?of?the?facility?during?its?active?life.?(Regs.,???22-66264.112,?subd.?(b);?former???22-67212,?subd.?(b)(1);?see?also?former???22-67212,?subd.?(a).)?Amendments?to?the?plan?must?be?made,?submitted,?and?approved?”whenever?changes?in?operating?plans?…?affect?the?closure?plan,?or?there?is?a?change?in?the?expected?year?of?closure.?…”?(Regs.,???22-66264.112,?subd.?(c)(2)(A),?(B);?former???22-67212,?subd.?(c).)?Current?regulations?require?a?facility?operator?to?seek?approval?of?an?amended?closure?plan?within?60?days?after?the?plan?has?been?affected?by?an?”unexpected?event.”?(Regs.,???22-66264.112,?subd.?(c)(3).)
The?Regulations?set?minimum?standards?for?closure?plan?methodology,?but?they?do?not?prohibit?the?operator?from?submitting?a?more?stringent?closure?plan.?Nor?do?they?exclude?local?regulation?as?the?cause?of?operational?changes?or?other?”unexpected?event[s]”?requiring?amendment?of?the?plan.?A?fortiori,?they?do?not?eliminate?the?possibility?that?enforcement?of?a?local?land?use?regulation?might?force?the?operator?to?submit,?for?state?regulatory?approval,?a?”partial?closure”?plan?which?exceeds?minimum?state?standards.?fn.?13
In?essence,?IT?contends?that?the?long-continuing?deposit?of?hazardous?wastes?in?and?upon?land?never?permitted?for?that?use?is?exempt?from?effective?[1?Cal.4th?97]?local?remedy?simply?because?a?state?scheme?exists?for?regulation?and?”closure”?of?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities.?However,?the?HWCA?suggests?no?such?wholesale?intent?to?intrude?upon?the?enforcement?of?local?zoning?and?land?use?regulations.?We?conclude?that?the?HWCA?does?not?impliedly?preempt?the?Board’s?cleanup?order.
- Express?preemption.
Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149,?subdivision?(a),?provides?in?pertinent?part?that?”[n]otwithstanding?any?other?provision?of?law,”?and?with?limited?exceptions?not?applicable?here,?”no?city?or?county?…?or?district?may?enact,?issue,?enforce,?suspend,?revoke,?or?modify?any?ordinance,?regulation,?law,?license,?or?permit?relating?to?an?existing?hazardous?waste?facility?so?as?to?prohibit?or?unreasonably?regulate?the?disposal,?treatment,?or?recovery?of?resources?from?hazardous?waste?…?at?that?facility.?…”?(Italics?added.)?fn.?14?There?is?no?dispute?that?the?Panoche?facility,?in?operation?since?the?late?1960’s,?is?an?”existing?hazardous?waste?facility”?as?described?in?the?statute.?(See?id.,???25148,?subd.?(a);?Regs.,???22-66260.10;?former???22-66056.)
IT?urges?that?the?Board’s?order?for?complete?cleanup?of?the?buffer?zone?thus?violates?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149?because?it?constitutes?”enforcement”?of?a?”permit”?so?as?to?”unreasonably?regulate”?hazardous?waste?disposal?at?the?Panoche?”facility.”?Pacific?goes?farther,?suggesting?that?by?banning?local?efforts?to?”prohibit”?disposal?at?an?existing?”facility,”?section?25149?prevents?any?and?all?attempts?by?the?County?to?limit?IT’s?disposal?of?hazardous?waste?within?the?buffer?zone.?Neither?position?has?merit.?[1?Cal.4th?98]
These?arguments?turn?on?the?meaning?of?the?statutory?phrase?”prohibit?or?unreasonably?regulate?…?disposal?…?at?[a]?facility.”?[7]?To?determine?legislative?intent,?we?first?consult?the?statutory?words?themselves,?applying?their?”usual,?ordinary?import”?in?harmony?with?the?overall?legislative?scheme.?(People?ex?rel.?Younger?v.?Superior?Court?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?30,?43?[127?Cal.Rptr.?122,?544?P.2d?1322];?see?Brown?v.?Kelly?Broadcasting?Co.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?711,?724?[257?Cal.Rptr.?708,?771?P.2d?406].)?If?the?statutory?language?is?ambiguous,?we?examine?the?legislative?history?and?other?extrinsic?indicia?of?the?Legislature’s?purpose.?(See?In?re?Marriage?of?Bouquet?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?583,?587-?588?[128?Cal.Rptr.?427,?546?P.2d?1371];?Moyer?v.?Workmen’s?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1973)?10?Cal.3d?222,?231-?232?[110?Cal.Rptr.?144,?514?P.2d?1224].)
[6b]?The?literal?words?of?Health?&?Safety?Code?section?25149?do?not?solve?the?precise?issue?before?us-i.e.,?whether?the?County?may?require?IT?to?restore?the?boundaries?within?which?hazardous?waste?disposal?is?a?permitted?use.?The?phrase?”prohibit?…?the?disposal?[of]?hazardous?waste?…?at?[a]?facility”?reasonably?suggests?more?than?one?meaning,?and?the?phrase?”unreasonably?regulate”?is?inherently?open?to?interpretation.?We?therefore?turn?to?a?broader?examination?of?legislative?intent.Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149?falls?within?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA.?The?purpose?of?article?4.5?is?apparent?from?its?legislative?findings?and?declarations.?The?Legislature?determined?that?statewide?disposal?capacity,?both?developed?and?potential,?was?decreasing?despite?increasing?demand?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,????25146,?25146.5,?subd.?(b)),?and?that?retention?of?”the?number?of?existing?hazardous?waste?facilities?…?to?the?extent?feasible”?was?thus?”a?matter?of?urgent?public?necessity?and?statewide?concern”?(id.,???25146.5,?subd.?(a)).?fn.?15
However,?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA?makes?clear?that?it?preempts?local?land?use?restrictions?on?existing?facilities?to?the?minimum?extent?consistent?with?these?concerns.?As?previously?noted,?the?article?specifies?that?it?does?not?preclude?”local?land?use?regulation”?of?existing?facilities?”[e]xcept?as?expressly?provided?in?Section?25149″?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25147)?and?does?not?authorize?violation?of?”any?term?or?condition?of?a?local?land?use?permit?…?not?in?conflict?with?[section?25149]”?(id.,???25149,?subd.?(a)).
The?express?reservations?of?local?authority?set?forth?in?Health?and?Safety?Code?sections?25147?and?25149?represent?a?reversal?of?the?original?intent?of?[1?Cal.4th?99]?the?bill.?As?first?proposed,?these?sections?would?have?preempted?”all”?local?regulation?of?the?operation?of?”existing?hazardous?waste?facilities”;?invested?state?agencies?”exclusively”?with?regulatory?authority?over?such?facilities;?and,?with?limited?exceptions,?prohibited?local?governments?from?imposing?or?enforcing?”any”?regulation?on?the?treatment,?storage,?or?disposal?of?hazardous?waste?therein.?(See?Sen.?Bill?No.?501?(1981-1982?Reg.?Sess.)?(hereafter?S.B.?501)???2.)?The?current?language?was?later?substituted?by?the?Senate.?(Sen.?Amend.?to?S.B.?501,?Apr.?30,?1981.)?The?obvious?purpose?of?this?successful?amendment?was?to?repudiate?the?notion?of?complete?preemption,?and?to?restrict?the?traditional?land?use?prerogatives?of?local?agencies?only?as?necessary?to?serve?specific?statewide?concerns.
Hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities?are?unpopular?neighbors,?and?the?Legislature?obviously?sought?to?prevent?local?political?pressure?from?crippling?the?functions?of?a?state-authorized?facility?already?operating?or?under?construction.?No?such?concerns?are?implicated?here.?Since?the?inception?of?the?Panoche?facility,?which?long?antedates?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA,?hazardous?waste?disposal?has?been?a?forbidden?use?of?the?200-foot?setback?zone.?That?zone?cannot?be?considered?part?of?the?state’s?”existing”?hazardous?waste?disposal?capacity?which?the?Legislature?sought?to?”retain”?by?enacting?article?4.5.?By?the?same?token,?the?Board’s?cleanup?order?has?no?effect?on?IT’s?authority?to?operate?within?the?traditional?geographical?boundaries?of?its?use?permit.?Nor?does?the?order?eliminate?the?Panoche?facility?from?the?”number?of?existing?hazardous?waste?…?facilities.”?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25146.5,?subd.?(a).)
Pacific?argues?that?the?statutory?ban?on?local?regulations?which?”prohibit?…?disposal”?at?an?existing?”facility”?protects?such?a?”facility”?from?both?complete?and?partial?local?”prohibit[ions].”?Thus,?Pacific?concludes,?to?the?extent?permit?R-708?bans?disposal?at?any?location?within?the?Panoche?facility,?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149?renders?such?condition?void?and?unenforceable.
However,?pertinent?statutory?and?regulatory?references?suggest?that?a?”facility”?is?an?entire?treatment?or?disposal?operation,?considered?as?a?whole.?(See,?e.g.,?Health?&?Saf.?Code,????25146,?25146.5,?25148;?see?also?Regs.,???22-66260.10;?former???22-66096?[“Hazardous?waste?facility”?means?”all”?contiguous?land?and?improvements?used?for?management?of?hazardous?waste;?”facility”?may?consist?of?”one?or?more?…?units?or?combinations?of?…?units”].)?Moreover,?the?declared?objectives?of?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA,?and?the?equally?explicit?limits?on?its?preemptive?intent,?undermine?Pacific’s?expansive?interpretation?of?the?statute.?[8]?We?agree?with?the?County?that?while?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149?may?forbid?a?local?government?[1?Cal.4th?100]?from?barring?an?”existing?…?facility’s”?acceptance?of?hazardous?waste?pursuant?to?its?HWCA?authority,?the?statute?does?not?prevent?the?enforcement?of?original?geographical?restrictions?on?placement?of?the?waste?received.
[6c]?IT?suggests?that?the?Board’s?order?is?not?”land?use?regulation,”?as?to?which?Health?and?Safety?Code?sections?25147?and?25149?state?an?expressly?limited?preemptive?intent.?Instead,?IT?claims,?the?order?is?”hazardous?waste?closure?regulation,”?a?field?occupied?exclusively?by?the?HWCA.?However,?by?providing?that?local?”land?use?regulation”?and?”land?use?permit?[conditions]”?are?preempted?only?as?expressly?provided?(see?Health?&?Saf.?Code,????25147,?25149,?subd.?(a)),?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA?assumes?that?hazardous?waste?operations?may?be?affected?by?local?land?use?permits?and?regulations.?Moreover,?as?we?have?already?concluded,?the?HWCA?”closure”?provisions?imply?no?preemption?of?the?order?at?issue?here.IT?offers?numerous?reasons?why?the?Board’s?order?is?”unreasonable”?regulation?expressly?preempted?by?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149.?Because?”clean?closure”?of?the?setback?encroachments?conflicts?with?IT’s?own?submitted?plan?for?”closure?in?place”?of?the?entire?Panoche?facility,?IT?suggests,?the?order?improperly?thwarts?paramount?state?regulatory?concerns?without?identifying?any?”articulated?standard”?or?”competent?evidence”?in?support?of?its?decision.?(Citing?Ogden?Environmental?Services?v.?City?of?San?Diego?(S.D.Cal.?1988)?687?F.Supp.?1436,?1447?(Ogden).)?IT?also?implies?the?Board?ignored?prohibitive?cost?estimates?for?complete?restoration?of?the?encroached?areas.?These?contentions?are?meritless.
IT?concedes?it?has?violated?the?explicit?setback?condition?of?its?land?use?permit?and?wisely?makes?no?claim?that?the?condition?itself?is?”unreasonable.”?fn.?16?Yet?IT?suggests?that?given?state?regulatory?interests?under?the?HWCA,?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149?requires?the?Board?to?justify?its?chosen?method?of?enforcement?as?against?less?complete?alternatives?advanced?by?IT?itself.?[1?Cal.4th?101]
The?notion?that?remedies?stricter?than?those?proposed?by?the?violator?are?presumptively?”unreasonable”?is?novel.?Such?a?rule?would?reward?the?violation?and?is?compelled?neither?by?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25149?nor?by?the?HWCA?in?general.?fn.?17
In?any?event,?the?basis?of?the?Board’s?decision?is?both?manifest?and?reasonable.?[9]?(See?fn.?18.),?[6d]?Unless?the?encroaching?deposits?are?removed,?IT’s?mere?violation?of?the?setback?condition?will?have?defeated?the?specific?and?legitimate?purpose?of?the?condition-maintenance?of?a?waste-free?”buffer”?around?the?original?permitted?disposal?site.?fn.?18
The?Board?considered?IT’s?proposed?alternatives,?which?involved?dedication?of?a?new?setback?line,?consistent?with?the?current?boundaries?of?IT’s?property,?so?as?to?enclose?all?but?one?of?the?current?encroachments.?But?these?proposals?really?constituted?no?enforcement?or?remedy?at?all.?Rather,?they?rewarded?and?ratified?IT’s?violations?by?simply?expanding?the?permit?boundaries?to?accommodate?them.?The?Board’s?insistence?upon?the?original?terms?of?the?permit?was?hardly?”unreasonable.”?fn.?19
IT?notes?that?the?staff?report?studied?by?the?Board?identified?considerable?technical?problems?and?environmental?risks?of?moving?and?redepositing?the?encroaching?wastes.?In?light?of?these?difficulties,?IT?suggests,?the?only?[1?Cal.4th?102]?”reasonable”?decision?was?to?leave?the?competing?interests?for?resolution?between?IT?and?DHS?under?the?”closure”?provisions?of?the?HWCA.
In?effect,?however,?this?is?what?the?Board?has?done.?Under?its?order,?pertinent?regulatory?agencies?are?free?to?conclude?that?the?risks?and?burdens?of?”clean?closure”?are?unacceptable.?fn.?20?IT’s?claim?that?paramount?state?law?leaves?IT?free?to?choose?its?preferred?remedy?has?already?been?rejected.
We?conclude?that?the?Board’s?order?does?not?constitute?”unreasonable”?or?”prohibitory”?regulation?of?an?”existing?hazardous?waste?facility.”?Hence,?the?order?is?not?expressly?preempted?by?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA.?fn.?21
Conclusion
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed?insofar?as?it?holds?that?the?Board’s?order?for?”clean?closure”?of?the?setback?encroachments?is?preempted?by?state?laws?governing?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities.?In?all?other?respects,?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?affirmed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?*.?Retired?judge?of?the?Solano?Superior?Court?sitting?under?assignment?by?the?Chairperson?of?the?Judicial?Council.
FN?1.?Condition?3.F.?provides:?”No?liquid,?semi-?liquid?or?solid?waste?will?be?placed?upon?or?in?the?ground,?or?otherwise?treated?or?disposed?at?any?place?on?the?site?within?200?feet?of?the?property?lines.”
FN?2.?The?”clean?closure”?portion?of?the?Commission’s?proposed?order?provided:?”IT?must?submit,?within?90?days,?plans?for?clean?closure,?i.e.?removal?of?all?wastes?and?contaminated?soils,?of?all?waste?disposal?areas?within?the?[200-foot]?buffer?[except?the?encroaching?drum?burial?site]?to?the?County,?EPA,?DHS,?RWQCB,?and?[the?Bay?Area?Air?Quality?Management?District]?as?applicable.?IT?shall?make?any?modifications?in?those?closure?plans?which?may?be?required?by?the?agencies?and?shall?begin?closure?immediately?upon?the?granting?of?all?necessary?approvals?by?the?agencies?and?the?County.”?The?Commission?further?declared?that?”[i]n?the?event?that?clean?closure?is?not?approved?for?one?or?more?of?the?waste?[disposal]?areas?within?the?200?foot?buffer,?the?Commission?will?reopen?the?hearings?to?review?appropriate?remedies?at?that?time.?…”
FN?3.?IT?argued?that?because?the?pond?17?encroachment?had?drawn?considerable?attention?in?1971,?and?because?County?inspectors?had?regularly?examined?the?site?thereafter,?the?County?was,?or?should?have?been,?aware?of?the?encroachments?long?before?it?commenced?enforcement?measures.
FN?4.?IT?argued,?in?essence,?that?”independent?judgment”?review?was?required?because?the?long?history?of?dumping?beyond?the?setback?line?had?given?the?company?a?”fundamental?vested?right”?which?was?substantially?affected?by?the?Board’s?decision.?(See?Strumsky?v.?San?Diego?County?Employees?Retirement?Assn.?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?28,?34-45?[112?Cal.Rptr.?805,?520?P.2d?29];?Bixby?v.?Pierno?(1971)?4?Cal.3d?130,?144-147?[93?Cal.Rptr.?234,?481?P.2d?242].)
FN?5.?Amicus?curiae?briefs?in?support?of?the?County?have?been?filed?by?the?City?of?Benicia?”and?Joining?California?Cities,”?by?the?District?Attorney?of?Los?Angeles?County,?and?jointly?by?the?Counties?of?Santa?Barbara,?Alameda,?Butte,?Contra?Costa,?Del?Norte,?Fresno,?Glenn,?Inyo,?Lassen,?Madera,?Mendocino,?Nevada,?Orange,?San?Bernardino,?Santa?Cruz,?Siskiyou,?and?Yuba.?An?amicus?curiae?brief?in?support?of?IT?has?been?filed?by?Pacific?Legal?Foundation?(Pacific).
FN?6.?In?its?original?form,?the?HWCA?preceded?adoption?of?the?federal?Resource?Conservation?and?Recovery?Act?of?1976?(RCRA)?(Pub.L.?No.?94-580,?90?Stat.?2795?(1976),?42?U.S.C.???6901?et?seq.),?which?covers?many?of?the?same?topics.?The?RCRA?defers?to?state?hazardous?waste?programs?approved?by?the?EPA?administrator?as?meeting?RCRA?standards,?and?similarly?allowed?”interim?authorization”?of?preexisting?state?programs?the?EPA?administrator?deemed?”substantially?equivalent”?to?the?RCRA?program.?(42?U.S.C.???6926(b),?(c).)?California’s?Legislature?has?authorized?and?instructed?the?director?of?DHS?to?take?all?steps?necessary?to?establish?an?approved?program?”in?lieu”?of?federal?RCRA?enforcement.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,????25101,?subd.?(d),?25159.)?However,?California’s?program?has?never?won?final?EPA?approval,?and?the?state’s?partial?”interim?authorization”?expired?in?1986,?causing?reversion?of?the?federal?program?to?federal?control.?Hence,?both?state?and?federal?regulations?currently?apply?in?this?state.?(3?Manaster?&?Selmi,?supra,???50.50[2],?at?pp.?50-41,?50-42.)?Under?a?1988?agreement,?EPA?has?delegated?the?bulk?of?federal?enforcement?to?DHS.
Effective?July?1,?1991,?DHS?repealed?its?previous?regulatory?scheme?and?substituted?a?new?scheme?designed?to?meet?RCRA?standards?for?EPA?approval?of?an?”in?lieu”?state?program.?Portions?of?the?prior?state?scheme?which?exceeded?RCRA?standards?were?retained?and?recodified.?(See?Regs.,???22-?66260.1?et?seq.;?Barclay’s?Cal.?Code?Regs.,?Digest?of?New?Regulations,?Register?91,?No.?22?(May?31,?1991).)?Text?citations?to?”former”?sections?of?the?Regulations?indicate?section?numbers?in?effect?before?July?1,?1991.
The?RCRA?expressly?disclaims?intent?”to?prohibit?any?State?or?political?subdivision?thereof?from?imposing?any?requirements?…?more?stringent?than?those?imposed?by?[RCRA]?regulations.”?(42?U.S.C.???6929,?italics?added.)?Neither?IT?nor?its?amicus?curiae?argues?in?this?court?that?the?Board’s?order?is?directly?preempted?by?the?RCRA.?(But?cf.?fn.?17,?post,?at?p.?101.)
FN?7.?Our?examination?of?the?record?on?appeal?discloses?no?reference?to?the?IT?closure?plan.?Apparently?the?plan?was?submitted?after?the?filing?of?the?Board’s?order?and?was?not?before?the?Board.?IT?has?not?supplied?a?copy?of?the?plan?on?this?appeal.
FN?8.?The?HWCA?was?enacted?by?approval?of?Assembly?Bill?No.?598,?1972?Regular?Session?(hereafter?A.B.?598).?As?added?to?A.B.?598?by?the?Assembly?on?June?8,?1972,?former?section?25172?of?the?Health?and?Safety?Code?would?have?provided?that?no?”state?agency”?was?precluded?by?the?HWCA?from?administering?or?enforcing?other?”law”?under?its?jurisdiction.?A?Senate?amendment?of?November?28,?1972,?added?the?words?”or?local”?between?”state”?and?”agency.”
FN?9.?In?Mendocino,?this?court?concluded?that?nothing?in?divisions?6?and?7?of?the?Food?and?Agricultural?Code,?which?regulate?and?license?the?use?of?”economic?poisons,”?impliedly?preempted?a?county?ordinance?prohibiting?the?aerial?application?of?phenoxy?herbicides.?Among?other?things,?we?observed?that?under?the?state?regulatory?scheme?(Food?&?Agr.?Code,???14007),?state-issued?agricultural?pesticide?permits?were?expressly?conditioned?upon?”compliance?with?the?law,”?which?”law”?must?be?construed?to?include?local?health?ordinances?adopted?under?the?police?power.?(Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?p.?486.)?The?Legislature?promptly?thereafter?added?section?11501.1?to?division?6?of?the?Food?and?Agricultural?Code?and?also?amended?Food?and?Agricultural?Code?section?14007.?The?new?section?provides?that?divisions?6?and?7?”are?of?statewide?concern?and?occupy?the?whole?field?of?regulation?regarding?…?economic?poisons?to?the?exclusion?of?all?local?regulation”;?accordingly,?”no?ordinance?or?regulation?of?local?government?…?may?prohibit?or?in?any?way?attempt?to?regulate?any?matter?relating?to?the?…?use?of?economic?poisons,?and?any?of?these?ordinances,?laws,?or?regulations?are?void?and?of?no?force?or?effect.”?(Italics?added.)?The?amendment?to?Food?and?Agricultural?Code?section?14007?removed?the?phrase?”compliance?with?the?law”?and?substituted?the?phrase?”compliance?with?this?code?[,?related]?regulations[,]?and?…?such?other?specified?conditions?as?may?be?required?to?accomplish?the?purposes?of?this?chapter.”?Though?the?Legislature?stated?an?intent?to?”overturn?the?holding”?of?Mendocino?and?to?”reassert”?the?exclusive?state?regulation?of?economic?poisons?(Stats.?1984,?ch.?1386,???3,?pp.?4879-4880),?nothing?in?its?declaration?of?express?preemption?undermines?our?conclusion?that?preemption?should?not?be?implied?when?state?regulation?acknowledges?local?”law.”
FN?10.?Pacific?suggests?that?Mendocino?announced?this?principle,?without?authority,?as?a?”trump?card”?over?the?more?general?tests?of?legislative?intent?and?occupation?of?the?field.?”In?sum,?amicus?[curiae]?submits?that?the?unique?language?in?Mendocino?should?be?explicitly?disapproved?or?just?forgotten.?…”?We?are?not?persuaded.?An?expressed?intent?to?allow?local?regulation,?or?an?express?recognition?of?local?regulation,?is?convincing?evidence?that?the?state?legislative?scheme?was?not?intended?to?occupy?the?field.
FN?11.?An?”existing?hazardous?waste?facility,”?for?purposes?of?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA,?is?defined?to?include?one?”operating?as?of?May?1,?1981,?pursuant?to?a?grant?of?interim?status?by?[DHS]?pursuant?to?Section?25200.5.”?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25148,?subd.?(a)(2).)
FN?12.?With?respect?to?facilities?not?yet?in?existence,?article?4.5?of?the?HWCA?prohibits?local?authorities,?once?having?issued?conditional?use?permits?for?particular?facilities,?from?amending?them?later?to?impose?”additional?restrictions”?on?the?types?of?hazardous?waste?the?facilities?may?accept.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25149.1,?subd.?(a).)?Article?4.5?thus?implicitly?acknowledges?the?general?right?of?local?authorities?to?impose?such?restrictions?in?local?use?permits.
FN?13.?Moreover,?the?Regulations?themselves?appear?to?embrace?”clean?closure”?as?the?preferred?methodology?for?surface?impoundments?(i.e.,?ponds?for?liquid?and?semiliquid?wastes)?and?surface?wastepiles,?such?as?those?primarily?at?issue?here.?Methods?short?of?”clean?closure”?are?acceptable?only?where?the?operator?shows?alternative?means?will?meet?applicable?health?and?environmental?standards?under?the?particular?circumstances,?or?that?”clean?closure”?is?impracticable.?(See?Regs.,????22-66264.228,?22-?66264.258;?former????22-67316,?22-67351.)
FN?14.?Under?section?25149,?subdivision?(a),?a?local?government?may?”prohibit?or?unreasonably?regulate”?hazardous?waste?disposal?at?an?”existing?…?facility”?only?if,?”after?public?notice?and?hearing,?the?director?[of?DHS]?determines?that?the?operation?of?the?facility?may?present?an?imminent?and?substantial?endangerment?to?health?and?the?environment.?…”?The?County?applied?for?such?a?finding?in?this?case,?but?one?had?not?been?made?at?the?time?of?trial.?Article?4.5?also?specifically?preserves?”the?right?of?any?person?to?maintain?a?civil?action?to?enjoin?or?abate?a?nuisance?….”?(See?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25149.7;?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???731.)?It?allows?general?law?cities?and?counties?to?impose,?for?revenue?purposes,?a?maximum?10?percent?gross?receipts?tax?on?existing?facilities.?(See?Health?&?Saf.?Code,????25149,?subd.?(a),?25149.5.)?Finally,?it?authorizes?a?city?or?district?attorney’s?office,?when?requested?by?DHS,?to?seek?injunctive?relief?against?threatened?violations?of?the?HWCA?within?that?office’s?territorial?jurisdiction.?(See?id.,????25149,?subd.?(a),?25181.)
FN?15.?Among?the?Legislature’s?detailed?findings?were?that?under?current?law?and?circumstances,?”imbalance?between?supply?and?demand?is?likely?to?further?increase?in?the?foreseeable?future”;?that?the?problem?is?common?to?urban,?suburban,?and?rural?areas?throughout?the?state;?and?that?decreases?in?capacity?increase?the?distance?hazardous?waste?must?be?transported?for?proper?disposal,?which?in?turn?encourages?illegal?disposal.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,????25146,?25146.5,?subds.?(c),?(d).)
FN?16.?Such?setbacks,?of?course,?are?designed?to?provide?a?barrier?against?the?migration?of?contaminants?to?adjacent?waters?and?lands?zoned?for?incompatible?uses.?Because?of?the?obvious?health,?safety,?and?environmental?dangers,?state?legislation?now?presumptively?requires?a?2,000-foot?buffer?zone?around?facilities?which?began?operation?after?August?6,?1980.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25202.5,?subds.?(c)-(e).)
FN?17.?Ogden,?supra,?687?F.Supp.?1436,?on?which?IT?heavily?relies,?is?inapposite.?There,?after?extensive?study,?state?and?federal?agencies?issued?permits?for?operation?of?an?experimental?treatment?facility?in?a?municipal?area?already?zoned?for?that?use.?The?city?responded?by?hastily?adopting?a?use?permit?ordinance,?then?delayed?and?ultimately?denied?a?permit?on?vague?grounds.?Ogden?concluded?that?such?local?obstructionism?was?preempted?as?”a?significant?obstacle?to?the?fulfillment?of?a?clear?congressional?objective”?set?forth?in?the?RCRA.?(Id.,?at?p.?1450;?see?Hines?v.?Davidowitz?(1941)?312?U.S.?52,?67?[85?L.Ed.?581,?586-587,?61?S.Ct.?399].)?The?court?suggested?that?the?RCRA’s?”savings?clause”?for?”more?stringent”?local?regulation?(42?U.S.C.???6929)?applies?only?when?the?local?government?proceeds?upon?”adequate?information?and?study”?and?by?”articulating?specific?health?or?safety?concerns?or?setting?forth?particular?environmental?requirements?which?the?facility?must?meet?….”?(Ogden,?supra,?687?F.Supp.?at?pp.?1448,?1450.)?Here,?however,?the?County’s?”clean?closure”?order?is?no?standardless?subversion?of?state?policy;?it?merely?remedies?the?violation?of?a?condition?under?which?IT?has?always?been?required?to?operate.
FN?18.?Thus?we?may?reject?IT’s?argument,?not?raised?in?the?trial?court,?that?the?Board’s?order?is?void?as?a?matter?of?administrative?law?because?it?lacks?”findings?to?bridge?the?analytic?gap?between?the?raw?evidence?and?[the]?ultimate?decision?….”?(Topanga?Assn.?for?a?Scenic?Community?v.?County?of?Los?Angeles?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?506,?515?[113?Cal.Rptr.?836,?522?P.2d?12].)?There?is?no?such?”analytic?gap.”?The?order?flows?implicitly?from?the?Board’s?undisputed?”finding,”?on?undisputed?”evidence,”?that?the?requirement?of?a?200-foot?waste-free?buffer?around?the?permitted?disposal?site?had?been?violated?in?specific?respects.
FN?19.?The?current?basic?zoning?of?the?area?is?for?agriculture,?a?use?incompatible?with?hazardous?waste?contamination.?Moreover,?the?Panoche?facility?abuts?the?City?of?Benicia,?and?logic?suggests?that?the?land?acquired?by?IT?since?issuance?of?the?permit?has?potential?for?residential?or?commercial?development.?The?Board?was?not?obliged?to?eliminate?or?restrict?these?possible?uses?simply?to?accommodate?IT’s?violation?of?its?permit.
FN?20.?IT?notes?that?closure?of?a?hazardous?waste?facility?is?a?”discretionary?project”?under?the?California?Environmental?Quality?Act?(Pub.?Resources?Code,???21000?et?seq.)?and?thus?requires?consideration?of?an?environmental?impact?report?(EIR)?before?final?closure?decisions?are?made.?Nothing?in?the?Board’s?order?precludes?DHS?from?including?evaluation?of?an?EIR?in?its?decision?whether?to?approve?”clean?closure”?of?the?setback?encroachments.
FN?21.?The?Regulations?effective?July?1,?1991?(see?fn.?6,?ante),?include?new?section?22-66260.4,?which?provides?that?”[n]o?local?agency?shall?enforce?any?requirement,?other?than?those?in?this?division,?which?would?impede?interstate?or?intrastate?transportation?or?disposal?of?hazardous?waste?or?which?would?impede?use?of?facilities?for?regional?multi-?county?management?of?hazardous?waste.”?The?meaning?of?the?phrase?”impede?…?disposal?of?hazardous?waste”?is?not?clear?on?its?face,?but?a?county’s?efforts?to?obtain?removal?of?stored?waste?from?land?where?such?storage?was?never?permitted?cannot?reasonably?be?deemed?an?”imped[iment]”?to?disposal?within?the?regulatory?meaning.?In?any?event,?section?22-66260.4?of?the?Regulations?does?not?derive?from?any?specific?provision?of?the?HWCA,?and?application?of?this?Regulation?against?the?County’s?enforcement?of?its?long-?standing?land?use?limitation?would?appear?to?contravene?Health?and?Safety?Code?sections?25105,?25147,?and?25149.