Laserfiche WebLink
Review of Anticipated Future Events <br />(1) Does the operator propose to make any changes in the facility design or operation during <br />the next five years which would be in conflict with any of the permit specifications, or <br />which have the potential to increase the likelihood or magnitude of potential <br />environmental impacts? <br />Proposed changes and associated environmental impacts and/or permit conflicts: <br />(a) Revised waste paper and plastics program - East Stockton will look to expand <br />markets within the waste paper and plastics recycling area (i.e. taking newspaper <br />and additional plastic types). No environmental impacts or permit conflicts are <br />anticipated as the revised program will work within the confines of the SV*TFP. <br />There will be no public buy back: of these materials. <br />(b) Development (i.e. paving) and use of the easternmost open area - NO <br />environmental impacts or permit conflicts are anticipated. This area is already <br />within the enclosed station boundary and is in the permitted processing area. <br />(c) Replacement of the Tub Grinder with the Jeffrey Hog unit - No permit conflicts <br />are anticipated. A new pen -nit from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution <br />Control District (APCD) may be required. No environmental impacts under the <br />LEA's jurisdiction are anticipated. <br />(d) Installation of a modified sorting conveyor - No permit conflicts or adverse <br />environmental impacts are anticipated. The facility RSI would have to be <br />modified as was done for the conveyor system installed at the Independent <br />Trucking transfer station in this jurisdiction. <br />(e) Moving the baling operation inside the shop building - No permit conflicts or <br />adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. This move would actually free <br />tip more space for processing/storage operations in the area east of the station <br />building. <br />(f) Placement of a portable scale (70 feet long) - No permit conflicts or adverse <br />environmental impacts are anticipated. <br />(g) Possible relocation of offices - No permit conflicts or adverse environmental <br />impacts are anticipated. Per Robert Ronyak, this relocation would actually be an <br />addition to the total office space for the facility by using an existing structure in <br />the non -permitted area. The existing station office would continue to be used <br />with no new construction planned. <br />(2) Facility closures within the next five years that would result in a change in the size of <br />