HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-04; City Council; 7985; North County Resource Recovery Facility5 -4 3 f
0
c -4
s
-3 00 I Tr I N rl
, @ --? CIT'TF CARLSBAD - AGENDI-JILL _,
~ ~~
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
NO mI0N is necessary at this tine.
position either for or against the project.
Council my wish to take an official
ITEM EXPLANATION
The City has received a Matice (attached) of a plblic hearing fran the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) for the issuance of a permit to construct a solid
waste refuse burner at the North Oounty Recycling and Energy Recovery Center proposed just off of Questhaven Road, approximately me half mile east of Rancho
Santa Fe Road (map attached) in San Marcos.
The project is a resource recovery center designed to reclaim energy ad
materials frm solid waste at wuld otherwise be awered in a landfill.
Unrecoverable acmbustible materials wuld be hrned on-site to create steam to
generate electricity.
of filters and scrubbers.
Air pollution mntrol wuld be acmnplished with the use
The final enviromental impact mport for the project found m significant
impacts *ch could mt be mitigated or vhich muld jeopardize the project.
Carlsbad Land Use Planning Office did acmnent (attadhed) on the draft
environmental impact report. The ccntnents did rrot address the merit of the
project. possible site in Carlsbad and addressed several facts regarding Carlsbad that were left-out by the oonsultant.
The
Coennents pertained to the alternative section *iCh identified a
The City Council of San Marcos will bld pblic hearings on the project in mid-
January.
being organized by the "Citizens for Healthful Air in San Marcos".
organization has the support of sane La Costa residents living within a few
miles of the proposed facility.
There is a petition drive &ich has been initiated to stop the project
This
~n environmental impact report was prepared for the project by the City of Sari
MarcO~
There Will be rn fiscal impact to the City of Carlsbad.
DWBITS
1. Notice of Public Hearing - EPA I with fact sheet
2. Location Map
3. Land Use Planning Office Comnents cn Draft EIR 83-04
..
105 W R!CHMAR AVENUE . SAN
619/744-4020
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: November 19, 1984 CASE NO: SMP 83-19/EIR 83-04
NOTICE OF PROPOSED:
Special Use Permit/Environmental Impact Report
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. A PUBLIC HEARING
WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS PLANNING COMMISSION,PURSUANT
TO THE APPLICATION OF: North County Resource Recovery Associates
(N.C.R.R.A.) to construct and operate a Waste-to-Energy and resource
recycling center, for the purpose of recycling materials and
generating energy. on 15 acres in the A-1 (Agricultural) zone and to
consider certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report based
upon mitigation of significant environmental impact. This matter
may be continued to additional dates as needed to complete the
hearing process for the proposed use permit and certifying the Final
EIR for the project
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
’. The westerly half of the San Marcos Sanitary landfill. more
particularly described as: A portion of the northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 12
South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian
Assessor’s Parcel: 223-080-37
PLACE OF HEARING: JOSLYN SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER
(adjacent to the City Hall complex)
111 West Richmar Avenue San Marcos. CA 92069
TIME OF HEARING: 7:30 P.M. Monday. December 3, 1984
Additional Information is available at City Hall, 744-1050 *“
CITY OF SAN MARCOS PLANNING COMMISSION
Cathy Kazebee, Secretary
ITY COUNCIL
Lionel G. Burton. Mayor Janies D. Simmons. Vice Mayor Lee B. Thibadeau Pia Harris F. H.Smith
00 *.
NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES
SMP 83-19
EIR 83-04
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
site
1 1
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
rw E'hW 0' TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
SUBJECT: Waste-to-Energy Public Hearing I .
Public agencies should notify this department if they intend to send a speaker to .-present their
agency's view or comments to the Planning Commission. The department would like to know who will be coming, how long their presentation is and whether or not they plan to provide the City with written comments.
Attached is an approved hearing format putting forth
the way in which the Planning Commission plans to conduct the hearing procedure. Please conform to
those requirements.
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: November 21, 1984
SAN MARCOS PLANNING COMMISSION
TRASH TO ENERGY HEARINGS
APPROVED HEARING FORMAT
Monday
1. Hearing called to order
2. Planning Department findings presented (20-30 minutes)
3. Topics
A. Project & Alternatives
1. Introduction
2. Description of project
3. Alternatives 4. Recycling d recovery 30
NCCC
30
B. Air Quality 30 30
C. Handling of hazardous 15 15
waste/ash
1 Hr/15 Min 1 hr/15 min
4.
5. All othe'r speakers on any issue (3-5 minutes)
Other public agency speakers on any of the above three topics (15-25 minutes)
6. Rebuttal by NCRRA & NCCC Day One = 10 minutes
Note: The Commission will pursue question/answers on each topic
and will attempt to resolve issues in each outlined area
before dealing wih a new issue.
c
Tuesday
1. Hearing called to order
2. Topics
3.
4.
5.
6.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Compatibility
1. Land Use
2. Visual
Traffic
Other issues
1. Socioeconomics
2. Safety
3. Biological
4. Etc.
Impacts 6 Mitigations
1. Adver s e
2. Mitigations
3. Beneficial
Concluding statements
NCRRA
30
15
15
NCCC
30
15
15
15 15
1 hr/15 min 1 hr/15 min
15 min 15 min.
Public Agency Speakers or Representatives (15-25 minutes)
All othe,r speakers on any issue (3-5 minutes)
Rebuttal NCRRA/NCCC Day Two - 10 minutes each.
Conclude hearings : a. Close of public hearing (testimony)
b. Commission discussion and decision
UNITED
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL BY
H EAR1 NG
PROTECTION AG
REGION 9 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105
November 8, 1984
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (EPA) will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the application of NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATES for a permit pursuant to the Federal Regulations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD).
NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATES has applied to EPA for approval of a PSD permit to construct a solid waste refuse burner with electric cogeneration on the San Marcos Sanitary Land- fill site owned by the County of San Diego.
The hearing will be held as follows:
DATE: Wednesday, December 12, 1984
TIME: 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: San Marcos Joslyn Senior Center
111 Richmar Street San Marcos, California
The name and address of the applicant are:
North County Resource Recovery Associates 1635 South Rancho Santa Fe Road San Marccs, California 92069
The address of the proposed facility is:
Questhaven Road, about one mile east
of Rancho Santa Fe Road, in the City of San Marcos, California
A previous notice of this application, to which r feren B is hereby made, was given by publication in the San Dieqo Union on
August 31, 1984. Objections to the permit were raised, and the Regional Administrator has determined that, in view of the signifi- cant public interest, a hearing will be held to receive comments.
be issued, and suitable terms for a permit if one is issued. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 124.10.
Comments will be received on whether or not a permit should
The administrative record required by 40 C.F.R. 5124.9, in- cluding the application, the draft permit, and comments received
-1- 5'
I
Qy,,EPA, together with data submitted by the applicant, is located
- at EhA: Region 9, and is available for public inspection.
Copies of the application, draft permit, and the EPA Air Quality Impact Report may also be inspected at:
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake, San Diego, California 92123,
Pat McIntyre [619] 565-5903; and
San Marcos City Hall, 105 Richmar, San Marcos,
Ca 1 if or n ia , [ 6 19 I 7 4 4-40 2 0.
All interested persons are invited to express their views at the public hearing. Persons wishing to make comments may submit them in writing or may appear at the hearing, or both.
Oral statements at the hearing will be received and considered, hut for accuracy of the record, all important testimony should be submitted in writing. Oral statements should summarize any extensive written materials so that there will be time for all interested persons to be heard. A record of the proceedings will be made for consideration by EPA before final action is taken. All substantive questions or comments will be responded to in the document accompany- ing the final permit decision. The hearing may be continued from time to time or to a different place, after its commencement, to accommodate the needs of witnesses or the EPA, by an announcement at the hearing by the Presiding Officer.
If written comments are not submitted at the public hearing, they should be mailed in time to be received at the following address before the close of business on December 26, 1984:
Regional Hearing Clerk (ORC) Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S124.13, all persons who wish to comment on the proposed permit must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments and factual statements, including supporting material (unless already a part of the administrative record) by the end of the comment period. Com- ments included in the administrative record will be considered in making a decision on the application. Ar?y issues not raised, or facts or arguments not included in the administrative record, may not be considered in the decision on the application and may not be considered in any administrative or judicial review of that decision.
For further information, please contact Bob Baker, Environmental Engineer, Air Management Division, EPA, Region 9, [4151 974-8923.
Please bring this notice to the attention of all persons who would be interested in this matter.
-2-
FACT SHEET
North County Resource Recovery Associates
Questhaven Resource Recovery Project
I. Project Description
The North County Resource Recovery Associates propose to construct and operate a 33-MW, 1000 ton per day resource recovery facility in San Marcos, California. The function of the Questhaven Recycling and Energy Recovery Center is to
receive raw, processible solid waste from waste collectors in the North County area and process the solid waste into a prepared fuel by various mechanized screening and size reduction processes which remove non-combustibles and recover ferrous metal scrap. The prepared fuel will be fired in a specially designed steam boiler. Electric power
will be generated by a steam turbine-generator, and the net production will be sold to San Diego Gas f Electric Company. Process residue, ash, and solid waste which cannot be pro- cessed, will be landfilled in the adjacent San Marcos Sanitary Landfill. Emissions from the project will be controlled through the use of combustion controls, a dry scrubber, and
a fabric filter baghouse. The facility will be able to process approximately 464,000 tons of solid waste per
year with a maximum capacity of about 67 tons per hour.
11. Emissions from the Project
The proposed Questhaven solid waste resource recovery facility will emit significant amounts of all criteria pollutants and some non-criteria pollutants. The estimated emissions from the proposed project were calculated from emission factors determined by the applicant from measured emissions from operating mass-fired and RDF-fired municipal solid waste
incinerators and from design goal emission limits developed by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The emissions are calculated on an hourly rate for pounds and extended to tons per year based on a facility operation of 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. from the project are summarized in Table 1 below.
Estimated emissions
6
2
Table 1
Estimated Emissions from the Project
Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions
Pollutant Lbs/Hour Tons/Year Lbs/Hour Tons/Year
Particulates 11872 52,000 11.8 52
so2 242 1,060 41.1* 180
NO, 197 860 197 860
co 240 1,048 240 1048
voc 24.0 105 24.0 105
Lead 4.5 20.0 0.45 2.0
Mercury 0.13 0.58 0.13 0.58
Fluorides 26 114 1.3 5.6
* Assumes 83% control of SO2 emissions. For modeling
purposes the applicant assumes a possible short-term
emission rate, during boiler excursions, of 95.9 lbs/hour
(60% control).
111. Air Quality Impacts
The effect of air pollutant emissions from the proposed . facility on local and regional air quality was determined through dispersion modeling by the applicant. Ambient
concentrations predicted for the subject pollutants were
added to background concentrations monitored in the project
vicinity. The resultant concentrations were compared with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and PSD
Class I1 increments and are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2
Modeled Air Quality Impacts on the PSD Increments (ug/m3)
PSD
Averaging Maximum Increments
Pollutant Time Concentrat ion Class I1
Annual 11.8
24-hour 77.8
3-hour 439.4
so2 20 91
512
L 1
IC-
3
Table 3
Modeled Air Quality Impa cts frcm the Proposed Facility on the National Arb ient Air Quality Standards (ug/mJ)
Maximm Maximlnn Averaging Background Predicted Iqact+
Pollutant Time Concentration Imps ct BaCkgr0 undE?!E
so2 Annual 16 11.8 27 .a 80 24-hour 84 77.8 161.8 36 5 3-hour 132* 439.4 571.4 1300
No;! Annual 38 s.2 94.2 100
Lead Quarterly 0 -79 0.27 1.06 1.5
Mercury 24-hour - 0 -22 0.22 -
HI? 24-ho~r - 2.39 2.39 -
Note: The above predicted abient air concentrations were calculated
assming the facility is operating at maximum capacity, 24-hours per day, 365 days per year, burning 67 tons of municipal solid waste per hour.
* No three hour average SO2 concentrations were reported.
of determining source impact on the SO2 NAAQS, the highest one
hour SQ concentration is being used.
For purposes
IV. Draft Permit Conditions
The purpose of the permit conditions is to insure the applicant's compliance with the provisions of the PSD
regulations [40 CFR 52.21(j) and (k)] requiring the
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
for each applicable pollutant and preventing violations of any NAAQS or any ambient air increment. The conditions
provide emissions limitations based on source type and size
and on the appropriate BACT. In order to insure source
compliance and emission limit enforceability, the permit conditions provide requirements for source performance testing and continuous in-stack monitoring. The draft permit conditions for North County Resource Recovery
Associates' proposed Questhaven resource recovery facility
are listed below:
.
4
Permit Conditions
I. Permit Expiration
This Approval to Construct/Modify shall become invalid
(1) if construction is not commenced (as defined in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(8)) within 18 months after the approval takes effect, (2) if construction is discontinued for a period of 18 months or more, or (3) if construction is not com- pleted within a reasonable time.
11. Notification of Commencement of Construction and Startu'p
The Regional Administrator shall be notified in writing of
the anticipated date of initial start-up (as defined in
40 CFR 60.2(0)) of each facility of the source not more than sixty (60) days nor less than thirty (30) days prior to such date and shall be notified in writing of the actual date of commencement of construction and start-up within fifteen (15) days after such date.
111. Facilities Operation
All equipment, facilities, and systems installed or used to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this Approval to Construct/Modify shall at all times be main- tained in good working order and be operated as efficiently as possible so as to minimize air pollutant emissions.
IV. Malfunction
The Regional Administrator shall be notified by telephone within 48 hours following any failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or of a process to operate in a normal manner which results in an increase in emissions above any allowable emissions limit stated in Section IX of these conditions. In addition, the Regional Administrator shall be notified in writing within fifteen (15) days of any such failure. This notification shall include a description of the malfunctioning equipment or abnormal operation, the date of the initial failure, the period of time over which emissions were increased due to the failure, the cause of the failure, the estimated resultant emissions in excess of those allowed under Section IX of these conditions, and the methods utilized
to restore normal operations. Compliance with this malfunc- tion notification provision shall not excuse or otherwise constitute a defense to any violations of this permit or of any law or regulations which such malfunction may cause.
5
V. Right to,Entry
The Regional Administrator, the head of the State Air Pollu- tion Control Agency, the head of the responsible local air pollution control agency, and/or their authorized represen- tatives, upon the presentation of credentials, shall be permitted:
A. to enter upon the premises where the source is located or in which any records are required to be kept under
the terms and conditions of this Approval to Construct/ Modify; and
B. at reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this Approval to Construct/Modify; and
C. to inspect any equipment, operation, or method required in this Approval to Construct/Modify; and
D. to sample emissions from the source.
VI. Transfer of Ownership
In the event of any changes in control or ownership of facilities to be constructed or modified, this Approval to Construct/Modify shall be binding on all subsequent owners and operators. The applicant shall notify the succeeding owner and operator of the existence of this Approval to Construct/Modify and its conditions by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional Administrator and the State and local Air Pollution Control Agency.
VII. Severability
The provisions of this Approval to Construct/Modify are severable, and, if any provision of this Approval to Construct/Modify is held invalid, the remainder of this Approval to Construct/Modify shall not be affected thereby.
VIII. Other Applicable Regulations
The owner and operator of the proposed project shall
construct and operate the proposed stationary source in compliance with all other applicable provisions of 40 CFR Parts 52, 60 and 61 and all other applicable Federal, State and local air quality regulations.
6
IX. Special Conditions
A. Certification
North County Resource Recovery Associates shall notify
the EPA in writing of compliance with Special Conditions IX. B. and IX. J. and shall make such notification
within fifteen (15) days of such compliance. This
letter must be signed by a responsible representative of North County Resource Recovery Associates,
B. Air Pollution Control Equipment
North County Resource Recovery Associates shall install, continuously operate, and maintain the following air pollution controls to minimize emissions. Controls listed shall be fully operational upon startup of the proposed equipment.
1. The boiler shall be equipped with a baghouse for the control of particulate emissions.
2. The boiler shall be equipped with a lime slurry dry scrubber for the control of SO2 emissions.
C. Performance Tests
1. Within 60 days of achieving the maximum production rate of the proposed equipment, but not later than
180 days after initial startup of the equipment as defined in 40 CFR 60.2(0), and at such other times
as specified by the EPA, North County Resource Recovery Associates shall conduct performance tests for S02, NO,, lead, mercury, and fluoride and furnish the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) and the EPA a written report of the results of such tests. The tests for S02, NO,, lead,
mercury, and fluoride shall be conducted on an annual basis and at the maximum operating capacity. of the facilities being tested. Upon written request (Attn: A-3) from North County Resource Recovery Associates, EPA may approve the conducting of perfor-
mance tests at a lower specified production rate. Also, after initial performance tests and upon written request from North County Resource Recovery Associates, EPA may approve the deletion of a speci- fied annual test for the resource recovery facility.
7
2. Performance tests for the emissions of S02, NO,, lead, mercury, and fluoride shall be conducted and
the results reported in accordance with the test methods set forth in 40 CFR 60, Part 60.8 and
Appendix A. The following test methods shall be used :
a. Performance tests for the emissions of SO2
shall be Conducted using EPA Methods 1-4 and 8.
b. Parformance tests for the emissions of NO,
shall be conducted using EPA Methods 1-’4 and 7.
c. ecrformance tests for emissions of lead shall be conducted using EPA Methods 1-4 and 12.
d. Performance tests for the emissions of mercury shall be conducted using EPA Method 101
(40 CFR Part 61, Appendix B).
e. Performance tests for the emissions of fluoride shall be conducted using EPA Methods 1-4 and 13A or 13B.
The EPA (Attn: A-3-3) shall be notified in writing
at least 30 days prior to such tests to allow time
for the development of an approvable performance
test plan and to arrange for an observer to be
present at the test. minimize the possibility of EPA rejection of test results for procedural deficiencies. the above mentioned test methods, equivalent
methods may be used with prior written approval from the EPA.
Such prior approval shall
In lieu of
3. “Optimization” testing shall be performed by
North County Resource Recovery Associates for
NOx concurrent with the performance tests required
above. The test series shall be designed by the
applicant to determine the optimal percentages of overfire and underfire air producing the least
amount of NO,. North County Resource Recovery
Associates shall furnish the SDAPCD and the EPA a written report of the results of these tests.
For performance test purposes, sampling ports, platforms, and access shall be provided by North County Resource Recovery Associates on the boiler
exhaust system in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(e).
4.
8
D. Fuel Usage and Sulfur Content
1. No. 2 fuel oil fired as an auxiliary fuel shall contain no more than 0.2% sulfur by weight.
2. Upon startup of the steam generator and thereafter, North County Resource Recovery Associates shall not burn more than 1.4 million gallons of auxiliary fuel per year at the Questhaven facility.
E. Emission Limits for SO2
On or after the date of startup, North County Resource Recovery Associates shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere SO2 in excess of the following limits:
1. The more stringent of 95.9 lbs/hr or 70 ppm, dry, corrected to 12% C02, averaged over a 2 hour period.
2. The more stringent of 41.1 lbs/hr or 30 ppm, dry,
EPA may set a new lower maximum allowable emission rate or a more appropriate averaging period for the above emission limits after reviewing the performance test results, the initial SO2 monitoring data required under Special Conditions C and J, or the final permit conditions set by the SDAPCD.
corrected to 12% C02, averaged over an 8 hour period.
If the SO2 emission limit is revised, the difference
between the SO2 emission limit set forth above and a
revised lower SO2 emission limit shall not be allowed as an emission offset for future construction or modifi- cation.
F. Emission Limits for NO,
On or after the date of startup, North County Resource Recovery Associates shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere NO, (as N02) in excess of the more stringent of 197 lbs/hr or 200 ppm at 12% C02 (2-hour average) from the stack venting from the boiler.
EPA may set a new lower maximum allowable emission rate for NO, after reviewing the performance test results and the initial NO, monitoring data required
under Special Conditions C and J, or the final permit
conditions set by the SDAPCD.
9
If the NOx emission limit is revised, the difference
between the NOx emission limit set forth above and a revised lower NO, emission limit shall not be allowed as an emission offset for future construction or modi-
fications.
G. Emission Limits for Lead
On or after the date of startup, North County Resource Recovery Associates shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere lead in excess of the more stringent of 0.45 lbs/hr or 0.0004 g/dscf at 12% C02 (2-hour average) from the boiler stack outlet.
H. Emission Limits for Mercury
On or after the date of startup, North County Resource
Recovery Associates shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere mercury in excess of 0.13 lbs/hr (2-hour average) from the boiler stack outlet.
I. Emission Limits for Fluorides
On or after the date of startup, North County Resource
Recovery Associates shall not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere fluoride (as AI?) in excess of 1.3 lbs/hr (2-hour average) from the boiler exhaust
stack outlet.
J. Continuous Emission Monitoring
1. Prior to the date of startup and thereafter, North County Resource Recovery Associates shall install,
maintain and operate the following continuous monitoring systems in the boiler exhaust stack:
a. Continuous monitoring systems to measure stack gas NO, and SO2 concentrations.
systems shall meet EPA monitoring performance specifications (40 CFR 60.13 and 40 CFR 60,
Appendix 8, Performance Specifications).
The
b. A continuous monitoring system to measure
stack gas volumetric flow rates.
shall meet EPA performance specifications
(40 CFR Part 52, Appendix E).
The system
10
2. North County Resource Recovery Associates shall maintain a file of all measurements, including continuous monitoring systems performance evaluations: all continuous monitoring system or monitoring device calibration checks: adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or devices; and all other information required by
40 CFR 60 recorded in a permanent form suitable
for inspection. The file shall be retained for at least two years following the date of such measurement, maintenance, reports and records.
3. North County Resource Recovery Associates shall submit a written report of all excess emissions
to EPA (Attn: A-3-3) for every calendar quarter. The report shall include the following:
a, The magnitude of excess emissions computed in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h), any conversion factors used, and the date and time of commence- ment and completion of each time period of excess emissions.
b. Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the furnace/ boiler system. The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known) and the corrective action taken or preventive measures adopted shall also be reported.
c. The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and span checks and the nature of the system repairs or adjust- ments,
d. When no excess emissions have occurred or the continuous monitoring system has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall be stated in the report.
e. Excess emissions shall be defined as any three-hour period during which the average emissions of NOx and/or SO2, as measured by the continuous monitoring system, exceeds the NOx and SO2 maximum emission limits set for each of the pollutants in Conditions IX, E. and F. above.
11
K. New Source Performance Standards
The proposed refuse fired boiler is subject to the federal regulations entitled Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (40 CFR 60). North County Resource Recovery Associates shall meet all applicable require- ments of Subparts A, Db, and E of this regulation.
V. Final Permit Decision
The Region 9 Office of the EPA Is publishing a public notice in several newspapers requesting public comment and announcing a public hearing on the draft permit for Worth Coast Resource Recovery Associates' proposed Questhaven resource recovery facility. The public comment period will start on November 8, 1984 and end on
December 26, 1984. The public hearing will be held at the San Marcos Joslyn Senior Center on December 12, 1984. All
interested persons are invited to express their views at this public hearing. Persons wishing to make comments may
submit them in writing or may appear at the hearing, or
both.
Oral statements at the hearing will be received and con- sidered, but for accuracy of the record, all important testimony should be submitted in writing. Oral statements should summarize any extensive written materials so that there will be time for all interested persons to be heard. A record of the proceedings will be made for consideration by EPA before final action is taken. The hearing may be continued from time to time or to a different place, after its commencement, to accommodate the needs of witnesses or the EPA, by an announcement at the hearing
by the Presiding Officer.
If written comments are not submitted at the public hearing they should be mailed in time to be received at the following address before the close of business on December 26, 1984.
Environmental Protection Agency Attention: Regional Hearing Clerk Region 9
215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105
A final decision to set the conditions of and issue a FINAL PERMIT, or to deny the APPLICATION for a permit, shall be made after all comments have been considered. Notice of the final
12
.-
decision shall be sent to each person who has submitted written comments or requested notice of the final permit decision. The decision will become effective 30 days from the
date of issuance unless:
1. a later effective date is specified in the decision; or
2. the decision is appealed to the Administrator of EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19 (any person who submits written comments on the DRAFT PERMIT or who participates in the
PUBLIC HEARING may petition the Administrator to review any part of the permit condition within 30 days after the decision has been issued. Any person who failed to file comments - and failed to participate in the public hearing on the DRAFT PERMIT may petition for review by the Adminis-
trator only those parts of the final permit decision which
are different than the DRAFT PERMIT); or
3. there are no comments requesting a change to the draft permit, in which case the final decision will become effective immediately upon issuance.
For any questions regarding this matter please contact Bob Baker of the New Source Section, Air Management Division, at (415) 974-8923.
1
f c Base map: USGS Topographic, Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series, 1983.
Figure S-3. Project site at the San Marcos Sanitary Landfill.
s-3
DEVELOPMENTAL
1 SERVICES
--
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 82008-1989
~ LAND USE PUNNING OFFICE
Mr . Jerry Backof f
San Marcos Planning Department City of San Marcos 105 W. Richmar Avenue
San Marcos, California 92069
(819) 438-5591
Subject: EIR 83-04; North County Recycling and Energy
Recovery Center
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-referenced
draft Environmental Impact Report. We offer the following
comments:
1) The study offers as an alternative to the proposed project,
the locating of a resource recovery plant on San Diego Gas b
Electric property, at the existing Encina Power Plant site.
This location is within the City of CarlSbad, between the
Coastal Beach and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The draft EIR brings
up several environmental issues with regard to such siting,
such as traffic, visual, compatibility with Carlsbad and
Local Coastal Plan coastal goals, and others. It should be
noted that, while the EIR does briefly discuss these issues,
the City of Carlsbad would require a separate, full EIR to
identify and analyze all environmental impacts associated
with such siting, prior to drawing any conclusions on these
alternatives. Initial review of the matter would seem to
indicate these impacts could be considerable.
Section 6.5, Traffic and Roadways, does not identify or
discuss an important roadway in Carlsbad's circulation plan.
The Melrose connection between Rancho Santa Fe (1/2 mile
south of Questhaven) and SA 680 (2 miles east of Olivenhain Road) is an important link as projections indicate that it
will ease future congestion at the Rancho Santa
Fe/Olivenhain Road/SA 680 intersection. It is our understanding that the County has not included this in their
circulation plan, but that development has not precluded its
construction at this time. The County may well include this connection in their plans in the near future.
I dn Marcos Planning Dept.
Page 2
3) Section 6.3, Land Use, identifies land uses in the south-east
section of Carlsbad, in the vicinity of the proposed recovery
plant. It indicates that the low density residential (RL)
land uses in this area would be restricted to 0.5 acre
minimum lot sizes. This is not totally accurate in that
through the Carlsbad planned development process, clustered
housing (no minimum lot size) is allowed in this area, not
to exceed a 1.5 dwelling unit per acre ratio based in gross
acreage.
July 19, 1984
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this project. If
you have any questions, please contact Paul Klukas at 438-5591.
Sincerely,
&Michael J. Holzmiller
Land Use Planning Manager
MJH:PJK:ad
t i 1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COdTA
wish to express our strong disapp.rova1 of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
n ADDRESS DATE
PLLA;;E RETUR~~ TO: Gusie ;lass 3340 5ajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
.. ‘I
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA -COSTA
Wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a t-rash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
ADDRESS DATE
PEASE RETURS TO: pusie Glass 3340 Bajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
_I_._._
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid foghaiddew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
DATE li ADDRESS
PEALE RETURN TO: ausie Glass 3340 Eajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
3 , "HE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS 0
our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels o
I
nd unnecessary hazard 'both to human health and to our environment, and that
v ,EASE RETUR iG TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, .lifornia.
WE,- THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF I
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an exp8Psive public nuisance for years to come.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
1. Krn y7P 12- I
PLEASdyRETURN TO: California. Nbhh County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos,
\
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burnlug
plant near our community.
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
poIlutaats emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid foghaiddew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
We are convinced that our lives, health and the
1.
2.
3.
4.
3.
6.
7.
8.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
L'
c/
I,
PEASE RETURN TO: 5usie Glass 3340 Bajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
r _I -
3, THL UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS 0
ish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
lant near our'community.
alue of our property wilx? be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
Dllutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
id increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
We are convinced that our lives, health and the
id unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment,, and that 1
t is certain to be an exwive public nuisance for years to come. ,
NAXE I ADDRESS DATE ,
J3ASE RETURN kb: Novth County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, .lifornia.
- - . . . . . - .. -. - . ._ . . . . . . . - -
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
/
;Ish to express our strong disapproval of the cdnstruction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
WE,- THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community.
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
v
We are convinced that our lives, health and the
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expmive public nuisance for years to come.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
I- __
PLEASE RETURN TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, California.
. 1.
. -..- .- ... .. . .. . .- . . . .- . - . . . . . . . . . - . - - - . . - . .. - . .
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid foghaiddew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PEASE RETURN TO: jusie Glass 3340 Bajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
-.-- ’-
. WE,- THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF 5 2 -..
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
It is certai,n to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PLEASE RETURN TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Yarcos, California.
L- . \
WE;- THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF /A c&
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expansive public nuisance for years to come.
17 NAME ADDRESS DATE
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
19.
20.
PLEASE RETURN TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, California.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
\
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an exptC4sive public nuisance for years to come.
NAYE ADDRESS DATE
6. I-' c
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. ,, r' ."
18.
19.
20.
PLEASE RETURN TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, California.
7:' -
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA CO;iTA
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
pIant near our community, le are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid foghaiddew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
-
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expenslve public nuisance for years to come.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PEA::E RETURP; TO: ausie Ulass 3340 Bajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
F 1
WE, THL UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community.
value of our. property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expCr\sive public nuisance for ye?ars to come.
We are convinced that our lives, health and the
DATE
dr CI ‘I
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PLEASE RETURN TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, California.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF /,A - [?B.w?Jg &/t 'c /A&&/ .
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community.
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an exmfisive public nuisance for years to come.
We are convinced that our lives, health and the
NAME ADDRESS DATE
PLEASE RET~~PN California. TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos,
1) 3
WE, THE UNISERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF &F /$~& &#// c=-i%;,,
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an exmsive public nuisance for years to come.
WE, THB UNIZRSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF bk cr 42 &~
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
J- plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, h,ealth and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an exmlbsive public nuisance for years to come.
NAYE ADDRESS DATE
k --
PLEASE RETU N TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, California.
WE, TH2 UN3ERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
dd
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an exmksive public nuisance for years to come.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
PLEASE RETURN TO: North Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcds, California.
_-
LA CO5TA c WE,J WE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
f
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
ADDRESS DATE
PEA~;E RET^^ TO: ausie ;lass 3340 Eajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 542-2806
t n.I WE, TIE UJ’IDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
wish to express our strong disapp.rova1 of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community.
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
We are convinced that our lives, health and the
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
NANE ADDRESS DATE
f
PLEALE; RET^^ TO: ausie ;lass 3340 6ajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
_-
6-; .. t . .r,
WE., TliE UXDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA CO5TA
wish to express our strong disapp.rova1 of the construction of a trash burning
’ plant near our commuhity. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
I value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an eqensive public nuisance for years to come.
ADDRESS
I
# W 13.
14.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20 *
WE,, VE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF Lri COSTA
wish to express our strong disapp.rova1 of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
I ' value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
1.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
19.
20.
(-7 -4. *.
WE, T3E TlNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
wish to express our strong disapp.rova1 of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for gears to come.
DATE
12.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
~ - ~.
20. ,
- -
.W3, $HE UNDERSIGAVED, RES ENTS OF LA eosTA
wish-io express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community.
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
We are convinced that our lives, health and the
-
1
ADDRESS DATE
1:
2.
4-8 3.
4.
* -I- *. -. -.L
._I :* 1 -_ % -, -- - ----+ -A=- > -"
.. -r -
-r .# -. -A',-,- 'L&&G- 2- , ' -A --e-. . -
7. I
8.
I
- /- 4 9. /
i'
10.
11 *
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17
18 *
19. -
PLEASE ETURK TO: ausie ;lass 3340 tajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806
'- t
WE; THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF /A G&
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certaifl to be an expehsive public nuisance for years to come.
/1 NAME ADDRESS DATE
14.
15.
16.
18.
20.
PLEASE RETURN TO: North County Concerned Citizens, P. 0. Box 2042, San Marcos, California.
WE, "fnE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA / wish to express our strong disapproval of the cobgtruction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
-
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
NANE ADDRESS DATE
u 5.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1s.
16.
17.
18.
19. J
20.
WE, "E UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, hedth and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid foghaiddew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
3 W 3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 m
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
19.
20.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. 'Re are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of I
. pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors, ',
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
2. - 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12 *
- 13.
14.
15.
/ 16.
17.
18.
19.
20. -
PEASE ~~rnfi TO: ausie Glass 3340 Bajo Ct.. &a Costa, 92008, 942-2806
wish to express our strong disapgwoval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property rill be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
polIutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/raln/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
ADDRBSS DATE
9.
10,
11
12
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18
19.
20.
.."
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA
vis; to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
blant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid fog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
DATE
t
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
18.
19.
- 20.
!
wish to express our strong disapproval of the construction of a trash burning
plant near our community. We are convinced that our lives, health and the
value of our property will be profoundly affected by the dangerous levels of
pollutants emitted by the plant, by the increased truck traffic, foul odors,
and increase in acid iog/rain/dew. We believe this plant to be an extreme
and unnecessary hazard both to human health and to our environment, and that
it is certain to be an expensive public nuisance for years to come.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
1.
2.
3.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
- -
14.
15.
le.
17.
18.
19.
20.
pm$sE RETURN TO: dusie dlass 3340 Eajo Ct., La Costa, 92008, 942-2806