COMPLIANCE INFO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C VA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 c 27 28 1 for several years. The defendant handles at least one hazardous material, in amounts which require business plans to be established, instituted and filed at three locations in San Joaquin County. 23 Over s 1,500 businesses in San Joaquin County file these plans yearly. With the single exception of this defendant, all businesses which handle carbon dioxide in amounts over two hundred (200) cubic feet comply with this statute. As this court is aware, from signing numerous stipulated judgments and entering defaults, every single business which has a known quantity of chemicals of reportable quantities must comply with chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code. The businesses must list the chemicals, not the government. The businesses must train their employees, not the government. This business has failed to comply with the law.4 Further, carbon dioxide is a listed substance pursuant to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, this would have been almost impossible for Mr. Schuckman not to have known when he filed these moving papers. THE LEMTED MEET AND CONFER This section of defendant's moving papers is difficult to respond to without the defendant having attached a declaration in support of their motion. The "facts" outlined in defendant's motion and the various attachments are not based on an attached declaration as required by CCP § 2015.5. The People request the court disregard those exhibits submitted without an appropriate declaration having been filed and we request that the court disregard those statements contained within the defendant's moving papers which failed to comply with CCP § 2015.5. However, in response to defendant's alleged attempts to meet and confer, the People respond as follows. First, the standard for determining whether or not a violation has occurred is not an inspection report taken out of context by the defense. The law is whether or not the defendant failed to comply with Chapter 6.95. We object to the defendant's request for the Court to take judicial Carbon dioxide, presumably used for soft drinks, was present at each of the three ocations in 1998, 1999 and this year. 3 We have alleged that defendant violated two statutory schemes regarding the handling )f hazardous materials. For the Court's convenience, the People have attached copies Health and >afety Code §§ 25500 through 25520. (See Attachment A) On page three of defendant's Points and authorities only a portion of the actual statute is included without properly notifying this court. ` See Health and Safety Code §§ 25501(d), (e), (m) and (o).