Additional Comments Summary Response to Additional Comments

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDER OF APPROVAL NO. 10052 Comment Period – September 13 – October 28, 2010 Commenter Comment Synopsis believe the permit conditions will be affective. Another summer of waiting is too long. Use sanctions to reduce production. Suggests production should be cut in 5-10% increments until the problem is fixed. Dick Beaudry (Written 10/20/2010) It was great meeting with you all on the 19 th . We would like to obtain a summary of all complaints and comments regarding the permitting proposals and citizen concerns regard health issues raised before and at the October 19 th meeting. These should be in hard-copy and electronic formats for easy downloading. I was (as I am sure you were) impressed at the turnout and comments at the latest meeting. The issues raised go beyond just the revised permitting to include property values, effects on real estate taxes, health, quality of life, etc. Any other documentation you feel might be in aid of our investigations will be gratefully received. Kurt – it was unfortunate that you were not at the October 19 th meeting. It was well attended by a large regional group who were unanimous for a shutdown of the composting operation. Only Dianne and I and Wayne Hill (who lives in Arrondale’s prior residence) were there that I could see. There was no real discussion with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, just recording of comments from many in the audience, which comments were uniformly negative regarding the stench and dangers feared as a result of pollution, etc. Of course it was pointed out that this hearing was about re-permitting or consolidating prior permits while the advertised sign for the meeting was “Tired of the smell “….etc. It was wonderful to see the activism of the various communities and the universal resolve of those attending to do whatever is necessary to get rid of the problem, shutting down the facility if necessary. The prior class action lawsuit was discussed and members of the class expressed great dissatisfaction with ongoing production of noxious odors despite legal action. Participants indicated that any fines imposed on CG were simply viewed as a “cost of doing business” with no real effect on the problem, nor remedial action or additional fines, which problem- all agreed - seems to be increasing, with negative effects on our quality of life and property values. I am going to check in with the people up north in Snohomish County to determine if they would like to cooperate with our group in forcing a shut-down of this noxious neighbor. It would be good if we could get information on the number, type and response and resolution of the ever-increasing complaints. One really got the impression that the
RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDER OF APPROVAL NO. 10052 Comment Period – September 13 – October 28, 2010 Commenter Comment Synopsis bureaucrats running the meeting were simply “going through the motions” and they gave no indication regarding what action alternatives would be proposed. We should gain access to all complaints, investigations, outcomes, if necessary through the Freedom of Information route. Many complained they had not been aware of the prior meeting and thus had no idea regarding what was the original draft Order of Approval for Notice of construction ….. was nor what the “revised draft” was. Legal gobbledygook (for instance, what are “Level 2 odors”, “third party biofilter evaluations”, etc.) from this lawyers’ perspective! One got the feeling that the PSCAA put this meeting in a remote location thinking very few (like last time, apparently) would attend, but they were wrong. There were certainly enough people (some with thirty years or so residency in the area) to get serious attention. KING 5 NEWS should have been alerted , or some other local station, to cover and perhaps to investigate the issues. Just trying to plow through the Draft Notice is worse than trying to read an insurance policy – no definitions of terms used, no footnotes regarding prior actions, permitting applications, etc. I think we should engage with the attorneys who are doing the Cedar Grove case up north, because the administrative BS is so deep it resembles CD Compost! I am going to contact the attorneys in Snoho to see if we could join forces! Bob Liebling, Architect (Written 10/20/2010) I am a resident of the 4-lakes community on Cedar Grove Rd., about a mile and a half from the Cedar Grove Composting (CGC) facility and wish to notify you of my comments concerning the permit you are considering for Cedar Grove Composting. I attended the public comments hearing held last night at Maple Hills Elementary and was quite dismayed at the testimony that I heard from the residents of at least 5 neighborhoods near Cedar Grove Compost, on the continual deteriorating quality of life we’re experiencing due to the odors emitted from CGC. In the last 3 years I have noticed an increase in the frequency of the odors. Prior to that period, it was only in the summer months that we experienced the odors and now it’s during the whole year. I think there is a direct correlation between the increased frequency of the odors and their processing of “wet garbage”, and you must address this problem in the new permit. At times, we can’t even go into our own yards, because
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDE
Page 11: RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDE
Page 43: RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDE

Additional Comments Summary Response to Additional Comments

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?