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 Evan Lurton (Written 10/26/2010) Samuel Taylor (Received US Post 10/26/2010) Comment Synopsis I have a strong feeling that the adage, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” also applies to the situation at the Cedar Grove Compost facility. In this instance, I strongly believe that where there is CGC odor, there are also inordinately large concentrations of mold and fungi allergens. These organisms, which thrive in decaying vegetation, can give people headaches, malaise, and flu-like symptoms. Of course, this process occurs naturally all around; however, CGC’s operation without doubt greatly concentrates the occurrence of these molds and fungi, and since the operation is mostly uncovered, probably sends large quantities aloft with the air currents. The odor, as bad as it can be sometimes, is likely the “red flag”, to those allergic to molds that they are in for another allergic reaction. It is no surprise to me that after a lifetime of being allergy-free, and having lived here 12 years prior to CGC’s arrival, I developed allergies to mold in the late 90’s. Coincidentally, right about when CGC’s operations (and odor) really started ramping up. My allergies have been particularly bad this year, and so has the odor. History has shown that a variety of seemingly innocuous substances have ultimately proven to be quite detrimental to public health (e.g. asbestos, lead). I think it would be very prudent for the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the King County Department of Health to consider the possibility that operations such as CGC’s may need to be scrutinized much more thoroughly to ensure public health. Potentially, much of their outdoor and exposed operation needs to be contained in negative pressure facilities. After the public meeting held last Thursday evening October 20th and looking at the information posted on your web site, I have the following comments about your order of approval for Cedar Grove Composting. Has there ever been an allowance in a previous order of approval by your agency that give Cedar Grove permission to process food waste in any of the primary compost pads? What reasoning is behind this changed language especially because of the increase in foul odor/stink to our neighborhoods from Cedar Grove Composting? How would a reportable deviation under this order result in a fine being issued by your agency? Where in the order, agency rule or state law does it say a reportable deviation will result in a fine? In number 8, will any biofiltration clause that is to be watched and recorded establish circumstances which can’t be violated? If so, what would be the fine be to Cedar Grove in the order? If no, why? In number 15, what would be fine to Cedar Grove in the order if they did not meet your agencies requirement to change an earlier OK'd test procedure? In the approval, Cedar Grove has test procedures which must be OK'd by your agency. Some test procedures give your agency
RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDER OF APPROVAL NO. 10052 Comment Period – September 13 – October 28, 2010 Commenter Susan, Brian, Connor, and Griffin Cherry (Written 10/26/2010) Comment Synopsis the right to make Cedar Grove change their test procedures after being OK'd by you, but others don’t. How come all approved test procedures OK'd by your agency don’t have a clause that makes Cedar Grove change a test process upon demand by your agency? Again, for test procedures that must have an OK from your Agency, what is the fine to Cedar Grove if they do not to change your agencies accepted test and monitoring procedures? I am emailing to voice my complaint about the odors from Cedar Grove Composting and request on behalf of my family that King County does not issue a permit to this company until they can run their compost operation odor free. We have lived in the Maple Hills neighborhood since 1995 and were part of the class-action lawsuit against Cedar Grove and the Cedar Hills Landfill. My understanding of the lawsuit was that the odors would stop and they have not. Since the settlement, the odors have persisted resulting in an impact on our daily lives. Examples of those impacts included, burning eyes, coughing, nausea, inability to use our backyard during peak odor times, and not being able to open our windows for fresh air because the air is so rank with odors. I also work at Maple Hills Elementary and the odors impact our students too. The smell gets into our ventilation system and it makes it very unpleasant to breathe and teach. I cannot take a full breath of air without coughing when the odors are present. The children get off of the buses in the morning holding their noses. It is particularly bad in the morning on clear days. I attended the public meeting at Maple Hills Elementary on October 19, 2010 and over and over again the same complaint persisted. I am concerned that fines from the county have done nothing to hold Cedar Grove Composting Inc accountable for polluting the air. I would also like to know how much revenue these fines have generated for King County or the State of Washington. We have watched our property values decline because of this business yet Cedar Grove Compost Inc seems to be thriving. I am also very concerned with the long-term impact these odors may have on our health and the health of the children in our neighborhood. It is not surprising that I have developed migraine headaches since 1995. I did not have these headaches prior to moving here and they have become worse over the years. I now average about 3-4 migraines per month. I believe that there could be an environmental cause to these headaches because of the odors.
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDE
Page 23: RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDE
Page 43: RESPONSE SUMMARY REVISED DRAFT ORDE

Additional Comments Summary Response to Additional Comments

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?