CORRESPONDENCE_1982-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS May 5 , 1982 Page Twelve this letter is irrelevant, since this refers to the same shipment from Gimelli Bros. , which was never received. We dispute Mr. Konig' s contention that "there is reasonable doubt" as to the receipt of this waste. Mr. Dermody of your staff has investigated what was received, and his report of March 4, 1982 does not show this material as received on the site, thus corroborating Forward, Inc. ' s, statement. In addition, we point out that his letter no. 5 is extremely misleading, as follows : That waste, even if it had been received, would have had fluoride in the form of CaF2 - which is an insoluble precipitate of fluoride 3) , and is not poisonous in the sense that fluoride or fluorine themselves are poisonous. Letter No. 5 carefully avoids mentioning this. All of the above is very strong - perhaps even harsh - and we apologize for that tone. However, the continuing attack, on a lawful business, legally and properly conducted, under permits constituting vested rights, is unwarranted. This is particularly true because of the manner of the attack. Forward, Inc. does have a vested right to operate its business, free from unwarranted interference. Investigations and reports by proper governmental agencies are necessary, and proper - indeed, they are welcome, since they dispel concerns. It must be pointed out, however, that Forward, Inc. does have an economic interest of some magnitude in that site. In- deed, we are specifically required, by SB95 (Health and Safety Code §25245) to maintain financial assurances sufficient under the regulations to guard against liabilities, and to close and maintain the site for 30 years subsequent to closure. To repeat what was said earlier in this letter, Forward, Inc. does understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the Farm Bureau. We believe that the concerns are met by the proper operation of the site - nevertheless, it is also our feeling that the Farm Bureau will not accept that resolution and that it will continue to request that the site be closed. As stated strongly above, there are no valid grounds for such a request, and it is not proper to place on Forward, Inc. the economic loss which would occur from a closing. Nor do we see how we could meet the requirements of SB95 if a closing were made.