Laserfiche WebLink
condition. There should be no need to accept oil other than <br /> specification SB 86 waste oil. Other oil should not be unloaded <br /> at the site, but should returned to its source prior to being <br /> unloaded and mixed with other oil on site. The Committee should <br /> insist on this condition and insist on acceptance of this <br /> condition rather than the vague response provided. <br /> Condition 8 limits all vehicles involved in the waste oil <br /> process to daylight operations. The Draft Environmental Impact <br /> Report appears to agree with this condition. However, the <br /> Project Sponsors appear to reject this condition. The Committee <br /> should insist on a direct response from the Project Sponsors <br /> concerning their acceptance or rejection of this condition. If <br /> this condition is rejected, the Environmental Impact Report is <br /> based on a false premise. <br /> Condition No. 9 requires that the waste oil recovery area be <br /> designed to contain the total capacity of oil storage tanks with <br /> a bermed and permeable barrier. Falcon Energy' s response was <br /> vague and ambiguous . The Draft Environmental Impact Report <br /> contains different specifications for such barrier and capacity <br /> than do the regulations specified in the response. This <br /> inconsistency must be clarified. The Committee should consist on <br /> Condition No. 9 as stated which would require capacity beyond <br /> that required by federal, state and local regulations. <br /> Condition No. 11 would limit the applicant' s ability to <br /> apply for hazardous waste incinerator. The applicant provides an <br /> evasive response to this answer, responding only that they have <br /> applied for a Series A Permit for to process waste oils. They <br /> refuse to either specify whether they accept or reject the <br /> condition. Farm Bureau has taken the position that a hazardous <br /> waste incinerator must be considered by the Environmental Impact <br /> Report. As the Project Sponsors have already indicated that <br /> Phase 3 of the Project would be a hazardous �1-aste incinerator, it <br /> is Farm Bureau' s position that the hazardous waste incinerator <br /> must be considered as part of the present Draft Environmental <br /> Impact Report. It is therefore critical in light of that fact <br /> that the Committee insist on Condition No. 11. If the Committee <br /> does not insist on Condition No. 11, the Draft Environmental <br /> Impact Report will be inadequate because of its failure to <br /> consider a hazardous waste incinerator. <br /> Condition No. 13 would prevent the applicant from <br /> commingling hazardous waste shipments from transport trucks to <br /> on-site holding tanks until complete testing of manifested <br /> materials has been completed. The applicant responds to this <br /> condition in an evasive manner. It neither admits that it will <br /> comply or rejects the condition. The Committee should insist on <br /> either an acceptance or rejection of the condition. Federal, <br /> state and local regulations as interpreted by Falcon Energy may <br /> not prohibit the commingling. At a minimum, if commingling <br /> should occur, the Committee should insist on a condition that all <br /> waste oil which is commingled with non-spec waste oil be treated <br /> 4 <br />