Additional Comments Summary Response to Additional Comments

RESPONSE SUMMARY
REVISED DRAFT ORDER OF APPROVAL NO. 10052
Comment Period – September 13 – October 28, 2010
Commenter
Comment Synopsis
value. Even if the frequency were reduced and manual sampling allowed,
however, there is no reason to believe the results would correlate to
biofilter performance. More importantly, PSCAA's inspectors have never
concluded that the biofilters are a significant source of off site odors, nor
has PSCAA ever indicated that they have reason to believe they are a
significant odor source. In fact, during recent inspections, PSCAA
personnel have focused on insignificant details such as whether a biofilter
is 127 feet instead of 130 feet long, rather than on whether the biofilter was
emitting odors. Frequency of Third Party Biofilter Evaluations. The
apparent purpose of the third-party evaluation of biofilters is to track
changes in their condition over time to assure that they continue to perform
within their design parameters, and that biofilter media is maintained and
replaced as its condition degrades. Semi-annual third-party inspections are
sufficient to satisfy this objective. As noted above, PSCAA has no reason
to believe the biofilters at Maple Valley are a significant source of
offsite odors. This proposed permit condition would increase operating
expenses while producing no meaningful change in the facility.
Proposed Odor Limit. PSCAA has proposed a facility-wide emission limit
that would prohibit occurrence of what the agency characterizes as a Level
2 odor beyond the property boundaries. There is no legal basis for this
proposed limit, and it should be removed from the Draft Order.
PSCAA's Regulation I, Section 9.11(a) prohibits emissions which
unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of life and property. Section 9.1 1
(b) specifies how PSCAA is to apply this standard to odors. It provides that
the control officer or a duly authorized representative must document three
criteria: (1) a Level 2 odor on the scale specified in 9.1 1 (b); (2) the source
of the odor; and (3) an affidavit from a person making a complaint that
"demonstrates that they have experienced air contaminant emissions in
sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration so as to
unreasonably interfere with their enjoyment of life and property."
PSCAA's proposed emission limit would remove a necessary component of
Section 9 .11 (b): the existence of a complainant who will provide an
affidavit demonstrating that they have experienced a nuisance odor from
that source. It also could obviate the need to determine the source of the
odors. As written it appears that a PSCAA inspector could claim a
violation of this condition had occurred without ever stepping on the Cedar
Grove site to confirm it is the source of an odor. Given the propensity of
PSCAA inspectors to attribute all odors in the Maple Valley/Maple Hills
area to Cedar Grove (including even "garbage" odors that could not be
from the Cedar Grove facility), this no doubt would occur if this provision
were retained in the Draft Order.
Conclusion
Cedar Grove continues to improve odor controls at its Maple Valley