draperadenmemos

Information to share? Send your contribution:

Cumberland Landfill Information Web Site

Community Development through informed citizen involvement.

"...let Facts be submitted to a candid world." --The Declaration of Independence

April 14, 2006 Comments prepared by Draper Aden Associates for the County of Cumberland

DAA comments (discussion points) re DRAFT DES indicated in yellow and blue highlight

Identified Residences - Any occupied and or permitted residential dwelling located within one half mile of the permitted facility boundary Landfill's Disposal Boundary , to be identified by the VDEQ Part A Permit, in existence at the filing of such permit with the VDEQ.

In the event that a residential structure is constructed within one-half mile of the permitted facility boundary subsequent to the date on which the Part A permit application is submitted to VDEQ, then the County shall notify the builder and first occupants that the residence does not meet the criterion for recognition as an Identified Residence as it pertains to a response to apparent odors at that location.

Verified Complaint - A measurement of air quality, taken outdoors within 100 feet of an Identified Residence, in excess of 15 ppb,based on a twelve (12) hour average, hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The sampling will be conducted in accordance with reasonable industry standards.

[LNF comment: The above definition of a "verified complaint" has the advantage of being objective, but it assumes that the odorant will be hydrogen sulfide. As previously noted, whereas hydrogen sulfide may be a commonly encountered odorant at landfills and wastewater treatment plants, it is certainly not the ONLY odorant that might become a nuisance. The above definition is certainly objective, but it might be prudent to use a more subjective definition of "verifi ed complaint" that is not based upon hrdro gen sulfide. For example ...

Upon receipt of an odor complaint from an Identified Residence, a Company inspector shall visit the Identified Residence to verify the presence of an odor. The Company inspector shall endeavor to visit the Residence within four hours of receiving the complaint, except that verification inspections shall not be performed between the hours of 12 AM and 6 AM. In the event that a spokesperson for the Identified Residence and the Company inspector differ in their perception of odor, then a County inspector may visit the site to determine whether or not an odor is present. The decision of the County inspector shall be final. The County and the Company recognize that a given odor may dissipate between the time the odor complaint is received and the time that the Company inspector or County inspector arrive at the Identified Residence.

Sec. 21A Odor : The County and the Company shall recognize that hydrogen sulfide represents a relatively common cause of objectionable odors derived from landfills, but that odors derived from landfills may also be caused by a variety of other chemical compounds (including, but not necessarily limited to, various aldehydes, ketones, amines, aliphatic hydrocarbons, ammonia, organic acids, other reduced sulfur compounds [including mercaptans], and volatile organic compounds).

The Operational Plan shall include a LFG management plan with an odor control and corrective measures plan ("OCCMP") component. The OCCMP shall consist of the following elements: 1) Objective, 2) Source Identification, 3) Reporting and Monitoring, 4) Operational Controls, and 5) LFG System.

Should the Company have received three (3) Verified Complaints regarding odor from three (3) or more Identified Residences within any forty-eight (48) hour period, the Company shall initiate a Corrective Action Plan ("CAP"). In the event that the initial CAP does not remedy the cause of the odor within 30 days of receipt of Verified Compliant, a revised CAP with an objective remedial endpoint will be submitted to the Advisory Board for its reasonable approval.

In the event that the offending odorant is determined to be hydrogen sulfide, then either a cumulative reading of less than 15 ppb hydrogen sulfide (HzS) based on a twelve (12) hour average at the Identified Residences or a reading of less than 1 ppm hydrogen sulfide (HzS) based on a twelve hour average at the Landfill boundary closest to the Identified Residences shall be deemed to be a satisfactory remedial endpoint .

In the event that the offending odorant is determined to be a chemical compound (or compounds) other than hydrogen sulfide, then the Company shall develop a remedial endpoint (or endpoints) to be presented to the County for review and approval. Since odor thresholds may not be well defied for many odorants, the Company may consider subjective endpoints (based upon resi dential perception of odor) and or objective endpoints (based upon field or laboratory measurements of chemical constituents).

Remedial endpoints shall be waived and deemed met, if it is determined that the cause of the odor exceeding the satisfactory remedial endpoint is not materially attributable to the Landfill.

In the event the remedial endpoint is not obtained within the implementation schedule outlined in the revised CAP, the Company shall pay to Cumberland liquidated damages in accordance with the terms and conditions of Sec. 36 for each day that the remedial endpoint remains unattained after full implementation of the revised CAP, except that in this specific instance the penalty shall be $1,000 per day.

The Company shall give Cumberland advance written notice of any Landfill activities that may produce non-stand ard odors on a temporary basis, and take all reasonable measures to limit, contain and abate such odors so as not to disturb the activities of adjacent landowners. At the request of Cumberland, the Company shall investigate and consider implementing new or different standards and testing methodology provided they are not less stringent than the standards specified in this Section. The Company shall permit Cumberland to conduct its own odor tests on the Landfill property.

I am in receipt of the following document submitted to Draper Aden Associates on August 2, 2006 by Ms. Catherine W. Kahl, Planner and Zoning Administrator:

* Host Community Agreement between Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County, Virginia and Cumberland County Development Company, LLC (undated)

My understanding is that Cumberland County has requested that Draper Aden Associates review the document for conformance with the Host Community Agreement (Host Agreement) between the County and Cumberland County Development Company, LLC (CCDC) and for general conformance with the Virginia Solid Waste Regulations, 9 V AC 20-80 et seq.

The rezoning request addresses rezoning certain parcels of land from A-2, Agricultural to M-2 Industrial which will allow for construction and operation of a sanitary landfill. Sec. 74-583 of the Zoning Code states that a conditional use permit is required under the M-2 classification for "nonhazardous solid waste or debris waste landfills, permitted by the state department of waste management.." Section 74-583(3) outlines a series of documents which must be provided by the Owner/Operator for inclusion in the conditional use permit. The document forwarded above for our review is meant to satisfy the rezoning requirements and Section 74-583(3).

I focused my attention primarily on Section I-C-i-l and Section IT of the Conditional use Permit (CUP). I would note upfront that the figures provided were not readily scaled, and dimensions were not provided.

Based on my review, CCDC, LLC has generally provided the documents and guarantees itemized in Section 74-583(3). However, I would offer the following comments relative to their submittals:

1. The overview should identify the relationship of CCDC to Allied Waste as outlined in the Guarantees provided in the Host Agreement. While the County's direct relationship is with CCDC, Allied Waste also will play a role with this facility and the relationship and responsibilities should be clearly indicated in the conditional use permit.

* This section should provide information on the proposed acreage and height of the landfill, its conceptual volume, and anticipated life at some assumed daily tonnage.

* If refueling facilities are to be provided they should be indicated as an ancillary structure.

* Also the "liquids management area" should identify the method of handling leachate. Will this area be lagoons or will it be enclosed tanks? Will leachate be pumped into a public sewer system or hauled by truck to a treatment facility?

* No mention is made of needed borrow areas for liner and cap material, daily cover or intermediate cover. Where will these areas be located? The area being rezoned as identified in Figure 3 does not indicate the borrow areas so the assumption is that the soil resources will come from areas outside of that delineated on this figure. This should be addressed as the borrow areas could impact adjacent properties etc.

* Paragraph 1 - A preliminary study has apparently been completed which considers many of the siting issues that must be addressed in the DEQ state permitting. This report should be made available to the County and possibly considered as part of this submittal. The County should understand the relationship of this facility to public water supplies, private water supplies, public facilities, parks, wetlands etc. This information is apparently available in this report.

* Figure 3 depicts an "access" road within the landfill property. This section of road appears to be very short and does not appear to provide sufficient queuing space for the incoming trucks. No dimensions were provided on Figure 3 to verify its actual proposed length. Rough calculations indicate that at 2,500 tons per day, and at an assumed truck weight of 20 tons, 125 trucks per day will access the facility or 10 trucks per hour. Truck traffic will back up onto the industrial park access road which is planned for this facility.

* Private vehicles delivering trash will not be allowed to enter the landfill. However, there is no convenience center proposed for their usage. Is there a convenience center close to which the citizens can be redirected or is one needed here? The location of a convenience center within the boundary indicated on Figure 3 would not be possible. It would need to be located outside of this boundary.

* This section states the following: "The Facility will be designed to accommodate daily volumes of waste in amounts permitted under the Host Community Agreement between the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County, Virginia and Cumberland County Development Company, LLC as may be amended." This section, for the Planning Commission's information should include specific numbers for these volumes. The Host Agreement states that the County will allow the facility to accept 2,500 tons per day (quarterly average), with a maximum daily tonnage of 140% of this (3,500 tons per day). The Host Agreement also allows for a 5% annual increase in tonnage for the first 15 years. If the CCDC increases the tonnage by 5% annually for 15 years the final tonnage would be 5,200 tons per day.

1. Paragraph 1 - This paragraph states that the facility will provide $150 million in economic value during the "life" of the site. However, none of the documents reviewed identify a site life expectancy. If included in the CUP these numbers, they should be substantiated and the calculations provided. This should be relatively easy and would allow the reviewers to understand the economics of the facility.

2. Paragraph 3(a) and (b) discusses the use of landfill gas. It should be recognized that sufficient amounts of gas for recovery and beneficial use would not be anticipated for several years and the timing of its use will depend on the configuration of the site. Significant quantities of gas are anticipated given the average daily tonnage allowed under the Host Agreement. Gas control will be critical for the facility's operation.

3. Paragraph 3(c) states that profits will be shared from the sales of resources gained from mining the landfill. Although any mining activities would probably not happen for many years in the future, odor control and special storm water management are often needed during these operations.

4. Paragraph 3 (d) and (e) state that the CCDC will "work with" the County to develop the industrial park. None of the documents reviewed indicated what specific activities the CCDC would be obligated to do.

5. Property Value Protection Program: The program is only available to fee simple owners as of January 1, 2006, per Host Agreement. Should the terms be included in the CUP?

6. Free Waste Disposal- this program appears to be only for citizens and does not include the commercial sector within the County. The maximum tonnage allowed will be 16,000 tons for the first 5 years which will increase at 2% thereafter.

7. Annual County Clean Up Day - Per the Host Agreement, CCDC will only provide assistance up to $5,000. Should this be stated in the CUP?

8. Convenience Centers - Per the Host Agreement, CCDC will only provide assistance up to $110,000. Should this be stated in the CUP?

9. Annual County Inspector Expenses - Per the Host Agreement there is a cap on the amount to be spent here of $100,000. Should this be noted in the CUP?

10. Under the Host Agreement during Post Closure Care, CCDC has agreed to provide 25 acres for recreational facilities and $25,000. Does this need to be noted in the CUP?

1. Do the statements provided satisfy the "guarantees" required by the zoning ordinance? Is some other legal instrument required?

2. 3.e - Transport plan: It should be noted that the transport plan only addresses those trucks designated as "CCDC controlled waste stream providers." Under the Host Agreement, a "company controlled waste stream provider" is defined as "a waste stream provider in the employ of or under contractual control of the Company." Given the significant tonnage and the number of vehicles on the roads, eeDe should provide some indication of the % of the waste that it anticipates that it will control.

1. I had minimum comments on this section as the DEQ permitting requirements are stringent with regards to these activities. The requirements indicated are minimum and will probably be modified during the permitting process. Amendment 6 to the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations, which pertains to waste inspections and acceptance, is currently under review and modification. Some new requirements can be expected but not likely for another year at best.

2. One thing noted in the Host Agreement is that Municipal Sewer Sludge is an unaccepted waste. This is unusual as properly stabilized sewer sludge is an allowable waste under the regulations. Is there some reason why sewer sludge is banned from the landfill?

3. For the tonnage anticipated, this facility will not be able to operate with just one scale.

The traffic flow pattern indicated in Figure 3 will not be acceptable given the need for dual scales.

4. The number of random inspections indicated is below DEQ standards. DEQ requires that 1% of the incoming loads of waste be inspected. Thus,more inspections will be required than are indicated. A separate area for these inspections will need to be designated at the facility. Again, Amendment 6 may modify these requirements.

1. The following table summarizes the potential tonnage and trucks (assuming 20 tons per truck and a 12 hour working day) given the information included in the Host Agreement: .

AVERAGE DAILY TONNAGE	CONDITIONS	TRUCKS PER DAY (*)	TRUCKS PER HOUR
2,500	Quarterly average	125	10
3,500	140% x Average(Max. daily)	175	14
3,190	End of 5 years	160	13
4,100	End of 10 years	205	17
5,200	End of 15 years	260	22

The transport plan does not mention potential impacts from this level of traffic.

2. As mentioned previously, the Host Agreement and this Transport Plan indicates that CCDC is only responsible for the "CCDC controlled waste stream providers." CCDC provides various methods by which it will control traffic. However it only states that, "CCDC shall make affirmative efforts to educate the waste stream providers not under CCDC's control of these traffic restrictions." The County should be provided with some indication of how much of the tonnage/traffic will be controlled by CCDC and how much will be uncontrollable.

3. The DEQ permitting process will rely heavily on VDOT through the completion of a traffic impact study to determine the appropriateness of the existing road system. The plan states that, "In general, it is not anticipated that a signal will be required," referring to the intersection with Route 60. Given the potential number of vehicles for the landfill operations which could be increased if an industrial park is constructed, a light will most likely be required, as will turning lanes. VDOT may find other intersections in the system that will need improvement to handle the traffic. The CUP should clarify that payment for all improvements will be by CCDC.

4. The hours of truck traffic are 5:30AM - 5:30PM, Monday through Saturday. These hours may be extended to 4:00AM - 9:00PM. Are there any residential areas that would be impacted by these hours of truck traffic?

5. This section of the CUP should be expanded to provide more details on vehicle counts, types of delivery vehicles, and percentage of controlled vehicles.

1. The Buffer Zone Plan's stated purpose is to describe CCDC's plans for "shielding the Facility from adjoining property and public roads." The configuration of the landfill will dictate the necessary shielding. Not only will the horizontal extent of the landfill be a critical component of the shielding but so will the vertical height of the landfill. This section should address the anticipated vertical height of the landfill and its visual impact on adjoining properties as well as on public roads.

2. This section notes that the state regulations require a "landscaping" plan. The Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations do not require a specific landscaping plan. They require buffer zones, screening from roads, and stormwater management plans. Thus the County should not assume that DEQ will dictate final landscaping. It should be noted that the landscaping requirement included under Section 74-584 of the M-2 Zoning Code would not adequately address a landfill.

3. While the County will require a visual buffer, DEQ will require an operational buffer (a fire break) of at least 50'. This is not indicated on Figure 3.

1. The requirements for assistance with recycling are described in the Host Agreement and these are summarized under this plan. The Host Agreement should be clearly referenced in this section.

2. The following statement which was taken out of the Host Agreement states, "CCDC, utilizing CCDC employees without charge or expense to the County, agrees to assist theCounty to become a model rural recycling community and to continue exceeding the Virginia recycling goals." It is unclear what specific actions this will include.

1. This plan essentially states that all groundwater monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the regulations. What is missing from this section is a description of the anticipated direction of groundwater flow, the anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential impact to public or private water sources, etc. Under the Part A DEQ permitting CCDC will be required to provide this information and it may not exist at this time. However, some information should be provided relative to potential impacts to groundwater etc. by the facility.

2. DEQ only sets minimum standards for the number of monitoring wells. Will the County want additional wells? This cannot be determined until some information is provided relative to the direction and depth of groundwater flow.

3. Water will be needed to operate the facility. Will on-site water be provided by a well or is there public water in the area? If a well is to be used, how will employees be assured that it is potable?

1. I did not review this section closely as DEQ does not have many specific requirements relative to fire control, deferring instead to the local fire marshall.

2. What is absent in this section is discussion on cleanup from a major storm event like Hurricane Isobel. Will CCDC be required to set up temporary processing areas for storm debris? If not, what would the County do in such a situation? Will CCDC be required to prepare an emergency management plan in the event of severe storm events?

1. The cap described in this section does not meet DEQ requirements for sanitary landfills.

This description should be eliminated and the design of the final cap referenced to that approved by DEQ during the permitting process.

2. The Host Agreement requires the preparation of a Final Use Plan. Should that section be referenced here?

3. Should the donation of25 acres and $25,000 for parks and recreation be included here?

1. Noise - Section 74-588(a)(1) outlines stringent noise limitations. While these specific requirements may not relate to this facility, this section of the zoning ordinance should be referenced and discussed. Likewise, the DEQ regulations contain noise requirements which should be addressed under this section.

2. Odors - Section 21A of the Host Agreement contains very specific language relative to odor control. The Host Agreement is more stringent than the DEQ regulations and should be referenced here. The requirements contained in the Host Agreement should be discussed.

3. Lighting is not addressed in this section and probably should be although it is not a specific requirement of the plan. Because this landfill could begin operations as early as 4:00AM and continue operations until 9:00PM, significant operational lighting will be required. Section 74-588(a)(2) also addresses glare. This should be discussed in this plan also.

1. The equipment indicated is insufficient for operations of a 2,500 ton per day facility.

CCDC should provide additional information and should consult the DEQ guidelines relative to equipment requirements for landfill operation.

2. Note the hours of operation. Are there any issues with traffic, noise, or light?

1. Many of the materials listed for daily cover may not be suitable. This list should be deleted and the acceptable materials included in the facility's final permit referenced. DEQ may not allow compost, petroleum contaminated soils, clean construction debris, or some of the synthetics indicated. During the Part B process specific alternate daily cover materials will be permitted. Thus, this section could reference the required 6" of daily cover and "DEQ approved" alternate materials.

None of the information provided addresses the collection and handling of leachate for the site. Thousands of gallons. of leachate will be produced. CCDC should indicate at least conceptually what they plan to do with the waste water. Will it be held in a lagoon and then pump and hauled? Will it be collected in a covered tank then handled? What treatment facility will accept it? Do they plan to obtain a VPDES permit for the site for direct discharge? Handling the leachate is a critical component and this should not be left unaddressed during this process. It is presumed that sanitary waste produced on site will be discharged into a septic system although this is not indicated on Figure 3.

Water will be required on site. There is no mention on where it will come from or the anticipated quantity that will be needed. For dust control, the plan references use of water in the sediment basins, but during a drought this will not be available. If a well is to be constructed on site, how will CCDC assure that it is potable? More information should be provided relative to the source of water.

This section of the zoning ordinance requires additional buffers. This is not addressed in the CUP.

Figure 3 does not address parking or the holding areas for trucks that may arrive at the site prior to operations. It is not uncommon for the larger landfills to ask the haul truck operators to travel to the site by night to spread out the traffic on the road system. However, when this is done, the trucks frequently arrive early at the facility and must wait for the facility to open. Other localities have had problems with these trucks parking7 in shopping centers, a long road sides etc to wait. This situation can be alleviated by requiring the landfill owner to provide sufficient parking for these early arrivals. This should be addressed in the CUP.

The relationship between the Host Agreement and the CUP should be clarified. Should the Host Agreement be an attachment to the CUP? At the minimum specific sections should be referenced.

In summary, while a significant amount of information appears to be provided in the CUP, there are additional details that should be included relative to the design and operation of the facility in order for the County to assess the impact of the facility on the citizens of the County. Details on the following items should be provided:

* Relationship of the Host Agreement to the CUP. The Host Agreement is much more detailed in its discussion of key areas of the development. It is unclear how these two documents relate and which carries precedence over the other. This should be clarified………. OLD

* Relationship of CCDC to Allied Waste. While the County holds its contractual arrangements with CCDC under the Host Agreement, Allied Waste is in the background supporting the CCDC activities. This relationship should be disclosed in the CUP.

* Configuration of landfill. The only information provided relative to the configuration of the landfill is that noted in Figure 3. While this Figure is provided with a graphic scale, the actual dimensions of the landfill are difficult to determine. Information relative to the facility's acreage, height, anticipated volume and life expectancy should be provided.

* Traffic and its impact on the facility. Additional specific information should be provided as outlined above relative to the impact of the facility's traffic on the County.

* Borrow soils. A landfill of this magnitude will require significant quantities of borrow soil for construction and operation. Borrow areas are not noted on Figure 3 and should be discussed.

* Leachate management. No specific details relative to leachate management have been provided. An estimate of daily leachate volume can be made even at this conceptual phase and the method of handling outlined. Of interest to the County, will be the identification of the treatment facility.

* Water . Water will be needed for sanitary purposes and for landfill operations. The provision of potable water to the site is not addressed specifically in the CUP. Additional information should be provided.

* Emergency Response Plan. Hurricane Isobel was a wake up call to Virginia relative to the amount of storm debris that can be generated from a major storm event. In the event that such a storm should occur again, the CCDC should provide the County with a specific emergency response plan. This has not been addressed in the CUP.

* Lighting. Because the facility can potentially operate from 4:00AM to 9:00PM, the operating face of the landfill will need to be well lit for the equipment operators. Likewise the staging areas will require significant lighting. As the landfill rises above the tree line, lighting may be more invasive. Lighting has not been discussed in the CUP.

Fred - I have completed a very cursory review of the two additional conditional use permits and offer the following comments:

According to the staging area CUP a fourth entity could be involved as the fleet management company. find this unsettling to have so many companies involved in one project. This is not atypical but I believe that the relationships should be made very clear.

4. There will be a significant amount of clearing required. What will be done with the stumps, and other vegetative waste. Burning may be requested but could have a continuing impact on adjacent property owners. If a grinder is to be used, then how will the ground product be used? Large stockpiles of ground material can create a fire hazard.

7. Will soil from the borrow area be strictly used for the landfill or will the owner be selling it to outside parties? If they are planning to sell it, how will this traffic impact operations?

8. This CUP indicates that no portion of the project is within a 100 year flood plain. However the CUP for the staging area indicates that a portion of the 1 OO-year flood plain may, lie within the southern area of the property, along Maxey Mill Creek. The CUP for the borrow area also includes this creek. The flood plain should be verified.

How will fuel be dispensed? Will these facilities serve as a fueling center for the landfill equipment also? The Applicant should describe their proposed permitting activities for these tanks.

Draper Aden Associates 2206 S. Main Street Blacksburg VA 24060 540-552-0444 http://www.daa.com

* Ms. Klappich serves as a Project Manager on a variety of solid waste projects including solid waste plans, landfill gas monitoring, alternative analyses, engineering reports; landfill design and permitting; transfer station design and permitting; and development of closure and remediation plans. In addition she serves as the firm's Contracts Administrator.

* Ms. Klappich has also been involved in value engineering construction alternatives and in the preparation of grant and loan applications including work with the Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Resources Authority. To extend her knowledge of the ever-changing issues in solid waste management, she has attended courses and seminars on synthetic membrane liner design, clay liner design, closure capping design and recycling. This has allowed her to stay informed on the evolving design issues in the solid waste management field .

* Counties of Amherst, Brunswick, Bedford, Giles, Smyth, Floyd and Washington, V A

* Design and construction of landfills, transfer stations, bailing and recycling facilities

Comments prepared by Draper Aden Associates for the County of Cumberland April 5, 2006

In preparing the Air Monitoring Plan for the Caroline County landfill, we established two primary objectives:

* eliminate H2S odors at the property boundary and in the surrounding neighborhoods ( « 5 ppb, the assumed odor threshold)

With respect to the plan proposed by Allied, the proposed objective (less than 1 part per MILLION at the property boundary, 48-hour average) is not unreasonable, but would be higher then one of commonly accepted odor threshold concentrations (5 part per BILLION).

If the County seeks to virtually eliminate hydrogen sulfide odors at the property boundary, then the County might wish to establish an objective of 5 ppb (48-hour average seems acceptable). Using that goal, some people might "catch a whiff' of hydrogen sulfide within some portion of that 48-hour period, but not for long. Conversely, it could be technically difficult to completely eliminate the "occasional whiff."

Note: Hydrogen sulfide represents just one of a family of "reduced sulfur gases." When odors can be attributed to reduced sulfur gases, hydrogen sulfide is the considered the most likely culprit, but other such gases may also be present Whereas the Allied proposal mentions hydrogen sulfide specifically, the proposed language appears

Note: A few years ago, we did a lot of research on odor threshold values. We did not find universal agreement on odor threshold values in the literature. With regard to hydrogen sulfide, there appeared to be some consensus for an odor threshold of 5 ppb (probably because it has been studied

more than most other reduced-sulfur gases). That was not the case for many other gases in this chemical class. For that reason, it would be difficult to fairly establish objectives based on odor threshold concentrations for many of these gases. Furthermore, some odor thresholds seem to be so low that current technology does not allow cost-effective field measurements (not technically practicable).

Note: A standard of 5 ppb for hydrogen sulfide IS technically practicable. For example, the Jerome meter, which is a widely available field meter, is capable of measuring concentrations of hydrogen sulfide as low as around 1 ppb (significantly less than the presumed odor threshold of 5 ppb).

Comments prepared by Draper Aden Associates for the County of Cumberland April 14, 2006

An odor program based upon response to complaints may be more cost-effective than an odor program based upon regular compliance monitoring at the fenceline (even if based upon objective criteria).

If so, it may be preferable to prepare the Odor Control Plan before opening the facility rather than after receiving complaints:

* plan could be initiated quickly once complaints are received and odor events recognized (citizens see response)

* negotiation of content would precede need to implement the plan (fewer surprises regarding actions to be taken)

County to review and approved Plan while DEQ processes Part B permit application (do not submit plan to DEQ for inclusion in Permit)

* Five verified odor complaints from four or more households within a two month time period (addresses frequency, includes verification)

* Odor complaints from two or more discrete locations (households, businesses) within two 12-hour periods within 10 days (addresses duration and frequency, leads to verification)

* Complaints of "strong" and "offensive" odors from one or more discrete locations (households, businesses) within two 4-hour periods within 5 days (addresses duration, frequency, intensity, character; may or may not include verification of intensity and character.)