ARCHIVED REPORTS_2005_3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• During the meeting they were to provide list of material they though should not count against their tonnages. The meeting ended with not much agreement. Michael Caprio stated they would revise their reporting format and start working on a RDSI amendment. On May 9, 2005, the EHD received a letter from Kevin Basso of Forward Inc. The letter states their position on the tonnages received at the facility(disposal tonnages and class II soil for Disposal). They are disputing the green waste definition as it applies to ADC (see exhibit nn). On May 20, 2005, the EHD received a letter from Kevin Basso of Forward Inc. The letter provided a proposed revised reporting format, the letter contested the definition of green waste as it applies to ADC (at length), and proposed to provide a RDSI amendment to clear up the issue of tonnages (see exhibit oo). On May 25, 2005,this LEA conducted routine inspection and noted the following violations: 1. PRC 44004—The tonnage of waste received at this facility was as high as 8,898.78 tons per day. 2. PRC 44014(b)—The daily tonnage of waste received at this facility was as high as 8,898.78 tons. 3. 27CCR 21600—RDSI has not been amended to include the ADC usage and waste to cover ratio. • 4. 27CCR 20919.5 —The concentration of methane gas in GP-9 was 51.7%. The inspection report listed 9 areas of concern for the month of May 2005 (see exhibit pp). On June 2, 2005 the EHD sent a letter to Forward Inc. regarding the Forward Inc. letter of May 13, 2005. The letter explains the EHD's position on the issues at the site (see exhibit qq)• On June 7, 2005 a meeting was held at the EHD. Mike Caprio, Kevin Basso, represented Forward Inc. Keith Kennedy Grealda Stryker and Jeff Watson of the CIWMB staff were taking part via confrence call. Laurie Cotulla, Robert McClellon, and Michael Kith were representing the EHD. During the meeting Forward Inc. argued that the definition of green waste for ADC was not the same as the definition for compost. Forward Inc. was proposing to conduct a demonstration project as described in Title 27 CCR for the food contaminated green waste. Robert McClellon stated that as the Local Enforcement Agency(LEA), the demonstration project would not be allowed. Robert McClellon stated that the way the regulation is written it is up to the discretion of the LEA to allow a demonstration project. At that point Forward Inc. almost agreed to take the green waste to another facility where it would be composted. Mike Caprio stated that they would weight their options and determine if they could do it. He stated that he would need time to fine a new facility to handle it. Robert McClellon explained that if Forward Inc. would make a commitment in writing that time frame could be worked out. Mike Caprio wanted to • know what needed to be done in order to resolve the tonnage issue. Robert McClellon explained that the permit does not allow it and that he would have to conduct the