CORRESPONDENCE_1984-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 Mr. Alan Biedermann October 11 , 1988 Page 4 average of 700 cubic yeards of non-recyclable wastes per day. " It is true that Specification C. 1 states that there will be no significant change from the design or operation described in the Findings section. However, please note that the existing,, already-approved EIR which was done originally on thesite, evaluated the disposal rate at 500 tons per day, which is approximately 3 ,333 cubic yards per day. The only environmental effect noted was the amount of traffic generated, and the EIR concluded that there was no significant effect since the existing roads could handle that much (84 trips per day) . And, in fact, we are generat- ing less than 84 trips per average day. Thus, while we agree that the correct figure of cubic yards should be inserted in order to avoid future ques- tions, we contend that there is no need for an environmen- tal evaluation since (1) it is not a significant change, and (2) it has already been evaluated at that figure and found to be of no significant environmental effect. [Incidentally, we should note that figures as to cubic yards per day have already been reported to the State, via the issuance of the California Regional Water Quality Con- trol Board - Central Valley Region Waste Discharge Require- ments (Order No. 88-023) , and that Board specifically found no environmental review necessary, citing CAC, Title 14 , §15301 , which holds that it was exempt from CEQA since it was " . . . the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alter- ation of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing Second, CWMB indicated that: "2. Receipt of Hazardous and/or Designated Wastes. The proposed permit includes asbestos, approved incinerator ash, contaminated soil, and shredder waste as types of wastes that can be received at the site. The existing permit contained an nonspecific description of hazardous waste receipt. Again - all items received at this site has been ap- proved, and received under the existing permit. We agree that the items should be listed or spelled out even further to avoid future question, but there is not, by the mere listing, any change in the permit for which an environmen- tal review need be done. We are not asking for permission to take anything we are not already allowed to take under