Laserfiche WebLink
HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS <br /> May 5 , 1982 <br /> Page Six <br /> The statement from Mr. Baier is a typical example of <br /> the statements which have been made throughout this matter. <br /> Before responding specifically to it, we would like to set <br /> forth some principles which apply. <br /> First, the permits under which Forward, Inc. operates <br /> as a class II-1 site allow the disposal of three categories <br /> of waste: Pesticide container washwater; barium-strontium <br /> waste in powder or sludge form; and other material as <br /> approved from time to time by the State agencies in charge. <br /> Contrary to what is stated in the Farm Bureau letter of <br /> November 19, 1981, there is no "grandfathering of a specific <br /> limited use [into] unlimited disposal rights. " The permits <br /> have always permitted disposal as authorized by the state. <br /> (Note - pesticide container washwater has never been disposed <br /> of on the site. ) <br /> The classification of the site as II-1 has been in effect <br /> since the original use permit was issued by the County. The <br /> Farm Bureau letter of November 19, 1981, refers to a operations <br /> plan submitted to the State and implies that this is a major <br /> expansion of the operations, made secretly and "totally out- <br /> of-character" with the original permits. This is simply <br /> not true. That plan was requested by the State, and (as <br /> is set forth in your report of March 4, 1982) is simply for <br /> the purpose of eliminating the paperwork involved in the <br /> individual requests and individual authorizations. <br /> Second, one of the thrusts of the Farm Bureau' s communi- <br /> cations has been that there should be local control of materials <br /> disposed of at the site. There is local control, in the <br /> sense that the County issues the use permit; the County has <br /> issued the use permit, and it is a vested right in Forward, Inc. <br /> which cannot be taken from Forward, Inc. so long as Forward, <br /> Inc. is substantially in compliance with the permit conditions. <br /> As your report of March 4, 1982 shows, Forward, Inc. is in <br /> substantial compliance. Additionally,there is local control <br /> in the sense that the San Joaquin Local Health District is in- <br /> volved in overseeing the site' s operations under the permit. Be- <br /> yond that, as has been explained in your report of March 4, 1982 , <br /> the control of what materials are approved for disposal in <br /> I <br />