COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ARGUMENT 2 I . The DISC, properly represented by the DA, on behalf of the People of the State of 3 California, resolved this case fully and finally over one year ago, and therefore the 4 Judgment is binding against the State 5 A. The Board' s attempt to invalidate the Judgment is an unlawful interference 6 with the authority statutorily vested in DTSC to enforce the Hazardous Waste 7 Control Law. 8 DTSC is responsible for the enforcement of the Hazardous 9 Waste Control Law (all of statutes contained in 1.0 Chapter 6 . 5 of Division 20 of the H&S Code) as well as enforcing 11 those laws through the adoption of regulations (H&S Code 12 § 25180 (a) ) , including making the following determinations : 13 (1) which material , if any, should be classified as hazardous 14 (see H&S Code §§ 25140 et sea. ) ; (2) whether to issue hazardous 15 waste facilities permits (H&S Code § 25200) ; (3) whether to grant 16 interim status to a facility (H&S Code § 25200 . 5) ; (4) whether to 17 issue a variance from the requirements of the Hazardous Waste 18 Control Law (H&S Code § 25143) ; and (5) whether to commence 19 prosecutions for violations of Chapter 6 . 5 (see H&S Code § 25181 , 20 et seer. ) . Most importantly, it is DTSC (not the Board) which is 21 vested with the authority to determine whether a substance is a 22 waste and whether it is hazardous or extremely hazardous . Rev. & 23 Tax. Code §§ 43301 , 43452 (d) . 3 24 25 3 Rev. & Tax. Code § 43301 provides : 26 No petition for redetermination of taxes determined under this part , shall be accepted 27 or considered by the board if the petition is founded upon the grounds that (DTSCJ has 28 improperly or erroneously determined that any substance is a hazardous or extremely hazardous waste . Any appeal of a FOOTNOTE 3 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 5