HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 194A; Aquaculture Systems International; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (22)AUGUST 14,1990
TO: GARY WAYNE
FROM: ANNE HYSONG
SUBJECT SEAFARMS WEST
According to applicant, their flushing system reduces the level of pollutants present in
shellfish to acceptable levels so that additional mitigation of potential health hazards is not
an issue if their information is accurate. Apparently they have to have their product tested
by the Health Department?
For the purpose of conducting a cost benefit analysis, Engineering is asking for:
1. "an assessment of the health hazards of the product as used by the purchaser;
2. any mitigation measure that may need to be taken as a result of the water quality
or health characteristics of the culture medium;
3. a financial statement of the operation; and
4. an analysis of financial impacts of mitigation measures taken."
The cost benefit analysis will presumably allow a comparison of the costs to Seafarms to
decontaminate the shellfish to acceptable levels with the cost of proposed studies and
potential mitigation measures.
Explanation of Engineering's position:
1. Carlsbad's responsibility for proposed coliform studies seems to be the result of
Seafarms' contaminated products. tf Seafarms is removed from the site,
Carlsbad's responsibility to ID the non point source of pollution would revert to
State Agencies.
2. Cost benefit analysis is being required to evaluate the cost to public of proposed
studies vs. the cost to Seafarms to decontaminate the shellfish.
AH:lh
seafarms.mem