Laserfiche WebLink
• -58- . <br />Turner: Which was what? I'll use the word violation. I'm talking about <br />operations that have been in violation for the past three years. <br />probably for a whole hos{ of reasons we don't need to get into. <br />Ward: May have been. <br />Turner: May have been. May have been in violation since '73. That <br />these be brought into compliance within 90 days and that this <br />be a condition of permit approval. <br />Noffsinger: We.haven't quite determined on all such cases .... that I am <br />aware of. <br />Turner: On all such cases. All other operations....I don't know how <br />to better word it, all of their operations be brought into com- <br />pliance. Better to leave it like that? Does the staff see any <br />problems with that? <br />Rindahl: Which may, which may have been a violation? Do you still have <br />that in there, Bob? Let's let Jan read what she thinks you said. <br />Turner: That we introduce the word "which may have been in violation." <br />Jan: Motion to amend: that all operations that may have been in <br />violation since the 1973 law, be brought into compliance within <br />90 days as a condition of this permit. <br />Turner: Okay, that's what.... <br />Rindahl: I'd like.to offer a comment there. That 90 days, if they find <br />