Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station Commercial Food Waste

Allied Food Waste Collection and Recovery IS Comments and Responses i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1-1 SECTION 2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES .......................................... 2-1 State Clearinghouse ............................................................................................. 2-2 Comment Letter 1: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery ............ 2-4 Public Hearing Transcript .................................................................................. 2-14 SECTION 3. IS/MND TEXT REVISIONS BASED ON COMMENTS ..................... 3-1 ATTACHMENT A: Follow-up LEA Memoranda

Allied Food Waste Collection and Recovery IS Comments and Responses 1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCTRS) Commercial Food Waste Collection and Recovery Program was published in December 2010. The IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by selected state agencies. The review period was from December 20, 2010, through January 24, 2011. A public hearing to receive comments on the IS/MND and the Project was held at the Mountain View Sanitary District offices on January 12, 2011. Prior to that date, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND was sent to the property owners contiguous to the CCTRS project site on December 14, 2010, and a Notice of Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 1,500 feet of the site on December 15, 2010. The Notice of Public Hearing was also placed in the Contra Costa Times (Central Edition) on December 19, 2010. The IS/MND was mailed directly to a prepared distribution list and was also posted on the Contra Costa Environmental Health web site.


SECTION 2

COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES

During the public and agency review period of the IS/MND, one comment letter was received from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) through the State Clearinghouse review process. A written transcript of the January 12, 2011, public hearing was prepared and is included herein. No other written public or agency review comments were received. For the comment letter and public hearing transcript, substantive comments are identified by letter. Responses to the comments follow the letter and transcript. If the responses indicate a change in the text of the IS/MND has been made, these are included in Section 3 by page number of the IS/MND.




Comment Letter 1



1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5


1-6

1-7

1-8

1-9

1-10

1-11

1-12



California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Diana Post, IWMS Permits and Certification Division January 20, 2011

1-1 The maximum daily tonnage of municipal solid waste, including the food waste and recyclables, will not exceed 1900 tons per day(TPD).

1-2 The minor construction activities resulting in new infrastructure are described on page 2-3 of the IS/MND. New infrastructure would be limited to modifications to the building's infrastructure and a new push wall.

1-3 The commenter is correct. The experience at Newby Island and food waste grinding demonstration that were conducted provided very valuable input to the IS/MND. Chapters 1 and 2 of the IS/MND clearly discuss the distinctions between the Newby Island project and indoor processing at the CCTRS.

1-4 The issue of minimizing potential impacts of food waste processing to station operations is addressed in several ways. Appendix B of the IS/MND contains detailed information about the measures and procedures that are designed to minimize impacts. Two separate operating conditions are established: periods when food waste processing will occur (Active Food Waste) and periods when no food waste processing will occur (Inactive Food Waste).

Several analyses were prepared at the request of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA):

Vehicular Access, Egress, and Circulation (Item 9, page B-11), and

Throughput (Item 11 page B-12), and analysis of food waste operations impact on design capacity, floor space, and vehicle parking and unloading.

Table B1 on page B-15 provides a comparative analysis of Existing Conditions, Existing plus Proposed Food Waste, and Inactive Food Waste. The conclusion of the analysis is reproduced below:

"As shown in Table B1, during Active Food Waste, 1,840 tons of MSW can easily be processed with only a minor modification in the width and length of the MSW pile dimensions. The typical pile dimension of 140 ft. wide x 220

LETTER

1 RESPONSE


ft. long would be narrowed by 20 ft. in width (to 120 ft.) and increased in length by 20 ft. (to 240 ft.). Calculated storage volume based on modified pile dimensions would be approximately 10,667 cubic yards, which 'holds' about 1,866 tons at a density of 350 lbs. (0.175 tons) per cubic yard. This volume is sufficient to accommodate more than 1,840 tons and can be achieved without any modification to stacking height."

Sufficient operational flexibility exists regarding processing procedures, MSW pile formation, pile dimensions and management, and staffing to ensure no adverse effects will occur to station operations during Active Food Waste processing. During Inactive Food Waste, the designated food waste area comprises the setback from the west wall, the width of the grinder, and a clear space between the grinder and active floor area for MSW transfer. This area would extend about 25 feet from the west wall. Under Existing Conditions, a 30-foot space is typical. Beyond establishing the necessary clear space, no other measures are proposed during Inactive Food Waste.

1-5 The proposed maximum of 60 tons per day is stated in the IS/MND on the following pages:

Page 2-2, paragraph 2


Page 2-7, paragraphs 2, 6










Appendix B – Operations

Page B-1, paragraph 1

Page B-2, paragraph 1, Assumptions Bullet 1


Page B-8, paragraph 1

Appendix E Supporting Data for Air Quality Analysis

Table 1, Column 3 under Proposed Project

The sentence in the partial paragraph at the top of page 2-8 and at the end of paragraph 1 on page B-8 has been revised to read: "Food waste handling, processing, and cleaning will occur during the period of 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., assuming a maximum tonnage of 60 TPD." See Section 3.

1-6 As noted on page 2-2, paragraph 1, bullet 4, no change is proposed to permitted hours of operation. The 6:00 a.m. time period is the time during which the first deliveries of food waste are expected. All deliveries will be via Allied Waste Services or other franchise collection vehicles. No public self-hauling of food waste is proposed, and none will be accepted. The stations hours of operation are specified in the Report of Station Information on page 18, Item C. Operations, Section 1. Hours of Operation, as follows:

"The CCTRS will be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. every day except New Year's Day, Easter Sunday, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. The CCTRS will be open continuously to franchised haulers. The wood chipping operation will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m."

1-7 Please see Response to Comment 1-5. As noted previously, it is expected that cleanup will be completed by 1:00 p.m. assuming no disruption or delays of inbound collection truck traffic due to external events beyond the Operator’s control; e.g., freeway or road closures.

1-8 Extension of the public unloading area into the proposed Active Food Waste processing area would require extending about 160 feet into the building. If this occurred, public unloading would disrupt routine unloading by franchise haulers and movement of municipal solid waste (MSW). The Public Unloading Area is located on the east wall. The Active Food Waste processing area is proposed to be located on the west wall.

The concern of whether dedication of an Active Food Waste processing area on the west wall could ultimately reduce effective width in the building in general is acknowledged by the Operator. During Inactive Food Waste this issue is not a concern. The comment suggests that during Active Food Waste processing the


ability to move MSW proximate to the east wall and including the Public Unloading Area could be compromised.

The potential for conflicts with unloading at the Public Unloading Area is addressed in detail in Appendix B of the IS/MND. It is identified in Figure B1 that waste extension into the transfer building varies from 20 feet to 50 feet at the Public Unloading Area. The management of waste at the Public Unloading Area deposited within the transfer building is a dynamic not a static operation. Station personnel will clear the deposited public self-haul waste that may intrude into the interior of the building or re-direct incoming traffic to minimize conflicts.

At the request of the LEA, analysis was prepared on page B-11, under Item 9. Vehicular Access, Egress, and Circulation. The analysis identified potential conflicts and proposes measures intended to minimize floor space conflicts and maximize efficient and safe flow of vehicles and MSW. The measures in Appendix B are reproduced below:

"To address this issue, the Operator proposes continued use of a traffic spotter as needed, and to modify entry and exit patterns. Of the two (2) doors on the south wall, the east door would be used for entry, and the west door would be used for exit.

New signage will be posted indicating these designations, and transfer station (staff) will direct traffic as needed

Public self haul of bulk waste would be relocated to occur exclusively at the designated Public Unloading Area, accessed from outside of the building on the east wall. This area will be monitored by station staff. If material accumulates such that potential obstructions to vehicle circulation could occur, the area will be cleared by equipment operators."

The primary area for Public Unloading is described in the RSI, Appendix B, Transportation and Circulation Plan, page 10 and Figure 3. The majority of public self-haulers are described as using the east Public Unloading Area. Self-haulers with trailers are allowed to use the south entrance. As noted in the IS/MND, self-haulers of bulk waste (trailers) will be relocated to use the east Public Unloading Area. Sufficient pad space exists to allow for safe and efficient back-in of trailers on the east side.

1-9 It is not clear where in the IS/MND it is stated that the CCTRS currently accepts food waste, without qualification. It is acknowledged that food waste currently received at the CCTRS is mixed with the MSW stream.

1-10 No noise impacts would occur to the public from food waste grinding. The grinder would be about 160 feet from the public unloading area (Figure 5 of the IS/MND). In


this 160-foot MSW operations area, the noise will continue to be dominated by packer trucks, front-end loaders, and compactors. As discussed on page 2-7 of the IS/MND, food waste grinding would be intermittent in the weekday mornings depending on receipt of the material. Any noise produced by the grinder along the west wall of the transfer building likely will not be discernable to the public along the east wall. In addition, unlike the workers, the public's exposure to CCTRS noise levels is quite limited, requiring only a brief time to off-load their waste materials.

The second paragraph on page 3-41 of the IS/MND indicates the Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder would generate an average noise level of 76 dBA Leq at a distance of 120 feet.

1-11 The CCTRS has prepared and implements an Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) as part of its existing residential greenwaste grinding operation. The Operator will work with the LEA to incorporate appropriate measures to minimize odors potentially resulting from food waste processing. The OIMP would be updated accordingly.

1-12 Allied Waste Services recognizes the requirement to comply with the State Minimum Standards. The existing Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) No. 07–AA–0027, Item 13C, LEA Findings, indicates the existing facility is in compliance with the State Minimum Standards and Item 17C, LEA Conditions, specifies the facility shall comply with all applicable State Minimum Standards. The Transfer Processing Report (TPR) also describes how the operator complies with the State Minimum Standards. It is anticipated the revised SWFP and amended TPR will have the same findings and conditions.


Public Hearing Transcript












T-1

T-2

T-3


T-4


T-5

T-6

T-7


T-8

T-9


T-9



T-10


T-11


T-12

T-13

T-14

T-15


T-16


T-17

T-18

T-19


T-20

T-21

T-22

T-23


T-24


T-25


T-26


T-27

T-28



T-29


T-30

T-31


T-32


T-33


T-34



T-35


T-36


T-37

T-38


T-38

T-39


T-40



T-41



T-42


T-43


T-44


T-45

T-46


T-47

T-48

T-49


T-50


T-51



T-52


T-53


T-54


T-55


T-56




T-57


T-58




T-59

T-60



T-61


T-61


T-62

T-63


T-64

T-64


T-65


T-66


T-67

T-68

T-69


T-70


T-71



T-72


T-73


T-74

T-75


T-76

T-77





T-78



T-79


T-80




T-81



T-82





T-83



T-84


T-84

T-85



T-86

T-87





Public Hearing Responses

T-1 The purpose of the Project is discussed in Chapter 1, page 1-3, of the IS/MND. The proposed Project has been in development since November 2008 when the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA), Allied Waste Services (Allied) and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) began a pilot program for food waste collection and recovery. In the pilot program, 10 to 12 tons per day (TPD) of source-separated food waste is transported to Allied's Newby Island Composting Facility in Milpitas where it is ground outdoors and then transported to EBMUD's Main Plant in Oakland where it is fed into the anaerobic digesters. The objectives of the pilot program include gaining operating experience for a full-scale program, assessing generator response, and effectiveness of contaminant control in the source-separated food waste.

The proposed Project is to implement the food waste recovery operation at the Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCTRS). Implementing the operation at Republic Services' Newby Island facility in Milpitas is not a proposed alternative. Successful operational experience from the pilot program has been incorporated into the proposed operation for the CCTRS. Allied does not consider a long-term operation of processing of locally-generated food waste at Newby Island to be financially feasible. Costs would be prohibitive with transportation of up to 60 TPD of food waste to Newby Island and, after processing, to the EBMUD Main Plant in Oakland. Finally, food waste recovery is consistent with local diversion goals, and with the Solid Waste Facility Permit and Land Use Permit for the CCTRS. The commenter is correct to note that under the proposed Project food waste will be brought to the CCTRS, processed, and hauled to the EBMUD Main Plant the same day.

T-2 Except for the food waste still being taken to the Newby Island pilot program, food waste is currently part of the municipal solid waste (MSW) which is brought to CCTRS and then transfer hauled to the Keller Canyon Landfill for disposal.

T-3 See Response to Comment T-2.

T-4 There are no known indoor food waste only grinding operations in Northern California, although it is known several material recovery facility/transfer stations (MRF/TS) are moving forward with similar projects. As indicated above, the Newby Island pilot program includes outdoor grinding of food waste. A number of facilities


elsewhere have outdoor grinding of food waste with co-mingled green waste for composting.



T-7 See Response to Comment T-4. Also, please note the food waste grinding demonstration at the Newby Island Landfill and discussed in Chapter 1 of the IS/MND provided valuable information for anticipated operations within CCTRS.

T-8 Yes, the grinding will occur inside.

T-9 Odor is thoroughly evaluated in Chapter 3 Section C of the IS/MND. The odor-producing potential of food waste mixed with MSW versus source separated waste is discussed on page 3-13 of Section C. Allied will continue to comply with all conditions of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Permit to Operate, Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) 07–AA–0027 as revised and Land Use Permit (LUP) 2122–86. As discussed on page 3-15 of the IS/MND, during the initial phase of the Project, incoming food waste will be less, which will enable operations to be adjusted as necessary to ensure minimization of impacts. Based on this, the CCTRS is downwind from residential areas the majority of the time, the lack of BAAQMD violation notices and substantial odor compliant history for the CCTRS, and the control measures that have been incorporated into the Project, potential odor impacts are less than significant.

T-10 The noticing was provided by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff and exceeded the minimum requirements of Section 15087 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and included the following:

A Notice of Public Hearing was sent to the property owners within 1500 feet of the Project site on December 15, 2010.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND was sent to the property owners and occupants contiguous to the Project on December 14, 2010.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND was posted on December 14, 2010, for a 30-day period.


The Notice of Public Hearing was placed in the Contra Costa Times (Central Edition) on December 19, 2010.

The commenter also indicates that local Vine Hill residents are not being informed about CCTRS operations. The CCTRS operator is committed to implementing all proposed control measures of the food waste recovery program and with complying with all permit conditions of approval for station operations. In acknowledgement of this and to maintain an open line of communication with the community, the station operator will coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health (LEA) and County DCD on the implementation of a community outreach program. The program could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

Contact Information - Provide contact information for agency and station operator staff that neighbors could call to log specific concerns or complaints.

Annual Community Meeting – Hold an informal community meeting on an annual basis or as needed, to exchange information about station operations. Staff from the transfer station and the County would be available to provide updates on station operations and answer questions.

Periodic Facility Tours – Schedule periodic tours of the transfer station to provide the community with first-hand information about the range of solid waste management, recycling, and waste recovery programs being implemented at the transfer station. The date or dates of such tours could be scheduled to coincide with notable environmental events such as Earth Day.

CCTRS Bi-Annual Newsletter – Distribute a bi-annual (twice a year) newsletter highlighting operations, people, and achievements at the CCTRS. The Newsletter would be targeted for Allied Waste Services customers in the Vine Hill neighborhood.

T-11 Comment noted. See Response to Comment T-10.

T-12 See Response to Comment T-9. The commenter is encouraged to contact the LEA or BAAQMD regarding future odor complaints.

T-13 Dust is discussed along with other priority pollutants in Chapter 3 Section C of the IS/MND. The Project will meet BAAQMD standards for particulates, the primary source of which is re-entrained road dust. Food waste is a very moist waste so its grinding and cleanup operations within the transfer building results in more issues with liquid management than dust generation.


T-14 Vectors, including vermin, are discussed on page 3-27 of the IS/MND. According to the LEA, vectors have not been a problem with CCTRS operations likely due at least in part because the MSW stream is moved rapidly through the CCTRS and the environment is hostile to vermin due to ongoing equipment and waste processing operations. Food waste will also be processed quickly so each day's receipts will be processed, the ground food waste transported to the EBMUD Main Plant, and the processing area cleaned. No food waste will be left at the facility at the end of this daily operation. No significant adverse impacts associated with vectors will occur.

T-15 Comment noted. Property values are not a required issue to be addressed in an IS/MND.

T-16 Comment noted. Relative to odor, see Response to Comment T-9 and for noise see Response to Comment T-17. The commenter should be aware that the potential health risks associated with the general area have markedly improved over the past 15 to 20 years. The Vine Hill hazardous waste treatment plant was decommissioned and the associated Vine Hill and Baker hazardous waste disposal site was closed pursuant to federal and state regulations. Also, the Acme Class II landfill was closed except for ongoing recycling activities. The CCTRS does not have the type of operation that would trigger concerns over health risk and none have been required by regulatory agencies. The proposed Project includes grinding of food waste with an electric grinder, a very minor addition of truck traffic, and the Project does not meet the BAAQMD screening criteria for a health risk assessment.

Food waste is already a component of the MSW stream at the CCTRS which is required by SWFP No. 07–AA–0027 to be removed within 24 hours, or 48 hours if the waste is received on Saturdays. With the Project, food waste will be processed and removed from the CCTRS the same day so very little additional decay will occur. No storage on weekends or holidays will be permitted.

T-17 Noise is discussed in Chapter 3 Section L of the IS/MND. Food waste will be ground within the transfer building for 2 to 2.5 hours per day when up to 60 TPD are transported in for processing. No food waste would be processed after 1:00 p.m. on weekdays and none would be processed on weekends or holidays. LUP 2122–86 established a 60 dBA daytime noise limit at the nearest Vine Hill residence to the CCTRS on the west side of the sound wall. On a worst-case day with typical CCTRS transfer station activities, wood waste grinding, and the operation of the food waste grinder within the transfer station building, the noise level in the rear yard of the closest residence would be 57 dBA Leq. Thus, the noise analysis concluded the existing CCTRS is in compliance with the 60 dBA limit and increased noise levels from Project operations would not be substantial, so the impact would be less than significant.


T-18 SWFP 07–AA–0027 limits incoming traffic volume to 1,130 vehicles per day. As discussion in Chapter 3 Section P of the IS/MND, 2009 daily incoming traffic averaged between 309 and 344, with a maximum of 454 vehicles, which is well under the permit limit. Table 1 on page 2-13 of the IS/MND indicates the Project will result in only a new increase of 8 to 11 one-way trips per day, which is within permit limits and a very minor addition and not significant. Also note that trucks will not access the CCTRS by driving through the residential neighborhood. The current access road to the facility will be utilized.

T-19 Backup alarms on equipment at the CCTRS are a safety requirement of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the protection of workers and the public who use the facility. They are high frequency and are designed to be heard. However, pursuant to requirements for noise analysis in IS/MNDs, being able to hear the backup alarms does not constitute a significant noise impact. The noise analysis in Chapter 3 Section L finds noise impacts to be less than significant. See Response to Comment T-17.





T-24 See Responses to Comments T-9 and T-16.





T-28 Comment noted.


T-30 Comment noted. See Mr. Doser's response in the transcript.

T-31 See Mr. Doser's response in the transcript.

T-32 Comment noted.

T-33 Financial issues are not required components in an IS/MND environmental assessment.

T-34 See Ms. Braunesreither's response in the transcript and see Response to Comment T-9.


T-36 See Mr. Morsen’s response in the transcript. The material will not be on site long enough to undergo gas producing decomposition.


T-38 Allied has proposed the Project at the existing permitted CCTRS. State regulations require the Project to be evaluated, including environmental review, and appropriate permits secured if the agencies are assured their requirements can be met. Also, see Mr. Sabenorio's responses in the transcript and Responses to Comments T-1, T-4, and T-9.




T-41 Comment noted. Also, see Response to Comment T-38.

T-42 Food waste will not be allowed to be kept overnight or over weekends.

T-43 See Mr. Sabenorio's response in the transcript.

T-44 See Mr. Sabenorio's response in the transcript.









T-52 The only new piece of equipment for the Project is an electric horizontal grinder. Also, see Response to Comment T-19.

T-53 The commenter should call the LEA and the BAAQMD to document the odor complaint so it can be investigated. Also, see Response to Comment T-10.

T-54 See Mr. Scheidegger's response in the transcript. Also, see Response to Comment T-10.

T-55 Comment noted.

T-56 See Responses to Comments T-10, T-53, and T-54 and Mr. Doser's response in the transcript.

T-57 The facility is open 24 hours per day. The food waste processing operational hours will be 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The public unloading hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commercial vehicles are allowed 24-hour access. The hours will be specified in the revised SWFP. Also, see Mr. Sabenorio's response in the transcript.








T-64 See Mr. Sabenorio's responses in the transcript and Responses to Comments T-9 and T-16.

T-65 See Mr. Sabenorio's responses in the transcript and Response to Comment T-10. Also, the LEA contacted the neighbors following the hearing. A copy of the LEA memorandum is included in Attachment A.

T-66 See Mr. Doser's response in the transcript and Response to Comment T-10.

T-67 See Mr. Doser's response in the transcript and Response to Comment T-10.

T-68 See Responses to Comments T-9, T-13, T-14 and T-16.


T-70 See Responses to Comments T-10, T-31, T-54, and Attachment A.

T-71 See Ms. Braunesreither's response in the transcript.

T-72 See Response to Comment T-13 and an LEA memorandum in Attachment A regarding the nearby concrete plants.




T-75 Comment noted.




T-79 Comment noted.


T-81 See Figures 5 and 6 in Chapter 2 of the IS/MND.

T-82 Odors are expected inside the transfer building when there are concentrated amounts of waste being dumped and processed. Also, see Response to Comment T-9.

T-83 The transcript will become part of the final document and public record.

T-84 See Ms. Braunesreither’s response in the transcript. This document is only evaluating the addition of source separated food waste grinding to the existing transfer statrion operations.

T-85 See Ms. Braunesreither’s response in the transcript. CCEH acknowledges the complaints regarding the current operation and took steps to directly contact the complainants and investigate. See Attachment A.



T-87 See Response to Comment T-10. Also, see the January 26 LEA memorandum regarding Project follow-up with the neighborhood in Attachment A.


SECTION 3

IS/MND TEXT REVISIONS BASED ON REVIEW COMMENTS

Text deletions are indicated in strikeout; text additions are identified in bold underlined text.

Chapter 2. Project Description

Page 2-8: Modify the last sentence in the partial paragraph at the top of the page as follows: "Food waste handling, processing, and cleaning would most likely will occur in during the period of 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., assuming a maximum tonnage of 60 TPD."

Chapter 3. Discussion of Environmental Checklist

Page 3-14: Modify the second sentence of the second paragraph as follows: " . . . then transferred hauled to the Jepson Prairie Organics Compost Facility adjacent to Recology's Hay Road Landfill . . . "

Page 3-14: Modify the last sentence of the second paragraph as follows: "No odor and vector problems with the food waste collection program or at the Transfer Station Organics Annex have been reported.27"

Page 3-14: Add the following paragraph after the second paragraph: "At the Jepson Prairie (JP) Organic Compost Facility, the incoming co-mingled food waste and green waste is stockpiled, must be processed (ground) and mixed with green waste within 24 hours, and incorporated into the aerated static pile composting process. The process, including the storage of leachate in open sedimentation ponds, has resulted in several odor complaints and an Independent Hearing Panel hearing was held in January 2011 to address this issue. Future remedial actions may include conducting grinding operations inside a building which would be under negative air pressure so that odors can be captured and treated.48 The JP Organic Compost Facility experience is not


directly applicable to the CCTRS because food waste grinding will occur within the CCTRS, the waste will leave the site within hours of receipt, a series of best management practices will be employed to address and control odor generation, the Project does not include composting, and leachate will be regularly managed on a daily basis within an enclosed containment system."

Chapter 4. Reference Sources

Page 4-3: Add the following reference: "48. Personal communication from Mr. Ricardo Serrano, Solano County Resource Management Agency, Environmental Health Division. March 14, 2011."

Appendix B. CCTRS Commercial Food Waste Recovery Program Operations

Page B-8: Modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as follows: "Food waste handling, processing, or and cleaning would most likely will occur in during the period of 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., assuming a maximum tonnage of 60 TPD."

ATTACHMENT A

Follow-up LEA Memoranda

MEMO RANDIUM

Date: January 26, 201 1

To: Joe Doser, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist

From: Eric Fung. Environmental Health Specialist II

Subject: CCTRS Food Project Follow Up With Neighborhood

As a follow up to the meeting held at the Mountain View Sanitary District onWednesday. January 12, 201 1, attendees who voiced concerns were contacted andinterviewed. They were also offered an opportunity to meet at their homes or in theneighborhood to point out and clarify issues that were brought to light during the meetingbut none of them desired to take advantage of that offer. The following people werecontacted on January 1 8, 2011:

Keith FrayKim BravosMeriloni WrightDan PeeblesKevin Skinner

Tara Benedict was called twice once (1/18/11) there was no answer and the second time(1/19/11) a message was left informing her that should she have any concerns she couldcontact Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH), No call was received.

The main points of complaint are:

• Odors not constant but comes and goes, one comment was it has gotten worsethrough the years since inception of the facility.

• Dust• Vermin in the area• Noise — in particular the hack up alarms from all the equipment and trucks.• How location was chosen — they i’eli that due to their social economic demographic

the decision was just made to impose this on them, ‘[‘hey expressed the concern thatthe decision has alread been made to put the program there before they were evermade aware of it.

One resident expressed that they had concerns going to the meeting but felt that theprogram seemed like it would he good for the environment. They felt that some of theother people might be complaining too much hut did acknowledge that there were odorsIrom time to time and that you could hear the back up alarms. [hey felt okay with theconditions overall.

On January 24, 2011 — survey of the Vine 1-lill Neighborhood, at time of visit the windwas from generally a North West direction and not coming from the direction of CCTRS.At the time there was no odor that was detected. The backup alarms were easily audibleup on Irene Drive and less so over on Valley Ave but they could still be distinguished.

Spoke to Pedro at 4111 Irene Drive, he said that odors were not always evident but fromtime to time they could be fairly strong. Odors seemed to be more evident during nightsand when the air was more still. He also indicated that the noise level at that time wasfairly indicative of the levels they experience.

On January 25, 2011 — Visit to Vine Hill Neighborhood due to the fact that woodgrinding was in progress at CCTRS. During grinding activity the sound of the grinder isevident as a constant noise with the sound elevating as material goes through the grinder.

In all instances when visiting the neighborhood the sound levels were below thresholdhowever as residents mention they are audible and the backup alarms from vehicles is asubstantial component of the noise.

Contra Costa County Environmental HealthMEMORANDUM

Date: January 14, 201 1To: Eric Fung, Senior Environmental Flealth Specialist

Joe Doser, Supervising Environmental Health SpecialistFrom: Lori Braunesreither, Senior Environmental Health Specialist

Subject: Regarding Noise and Dust Complaints from Public Hearing

On Friday, Januaiy 14, 2011, 1 visited the two concrete operations mentioned during the CEQAPublic hearing for CCTRS on Wednesday night to be causing dust and noise nuisances in theresidential neighborhood to the south.

1. Central Concrete Supply Co., Inc. (US Concrete is the parent company)893 Waterbird WayMartinez. CAPlant Manager: Paul CuetoPhone: (408) 404-1063

spoke with Paul and Brad at the facility and explained that I was there because of the complaintsvoiced at the Public hearing for the CCTRS food waste program. They explained that theircrushing operation is done with a vacuum system to collect the dust from the process, They havepermits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Air Board, and a Land Use Permit. I didnot see any evidence ofa dust issue from this operation.

2. Diablo Valley Rock925 Waterhird WayMartinez, CAOwner: Noriene ButterfieldPhone: (925) 602-8800

I spoke with Elaine at the facility and explained that I was there because of the complaints voicedat the Public Hearing fbr the CCTRS food waste program. She told me I would need to speak tothe owner Noriene I3utterfield. I did not see any evidence of a dust issue from this operation. Iobserved a water truck on site.

At 1:52 pm today. I spoke with Noriene. They have perm its from the Regional Water QualityControl Board, Air Board, and a Land Use Permit as well. ‘Fhey use sprinklers and the watertruck during crushing to control the dust. She said they only crush concrete a few days permonth. I informed her that I did not see a problem when I was at the site today

Documents

Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station Commercial Food Waste