Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 of 4 <br /> frequency for exempt sites if such an action will not result in adverse impact on public health and safety <br /> and the environment. It was documented in 8/2004 that there was tomato pumice on site and that it <br /> was land applied. Since 2004, the facility has not received or land applied agricultural/cannery waste. <br /> There have been no violations noted by the LEA since activities began in 2004. <br /> So in 2004 there was documentation that pumice was applied? In an inspection report?it has not been <br /> used for 7 years? So why have it? What I'm looking for is something that indicates that the waste is <br /> received and tilled in within x hours or something that speaks to how impacts are avoided. What we are <br /> allowing is the removal of LEA oversight without anything in the record that says it's ok not to have the <br /> LEA check things. Why is it ok?Why don't we have to worry about this site being inspected. All we have <br /> is that it is not used. <br /> From:Taylor, Kevin <br /> Sent:Tuesday,April 05, 2011 11:29 AM <br /> To: De Bie, Mark <br /> Subject: FW: 39-AA-0048 Martin Dairy insp red staff report.docx <br /> I know this isn't a high priority, but let's just get it back to them...please. <br /> From:Taylor, Kevin <br /> Sent:Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:13 AM <br /> To: De Bie, Mark <br /> Subject: 39-AA-0048 Martin Dairy insp red staff report.docx <br /> Requested information added. I have the attachments. <br /> 4/12/2011 <br />