Laserfiche WebLink
John Funderburg <br /> April 6,2012 <br /> ' Page 3 <br /> The Project evaluated in the 2010 EIR proposed substantial modifications <br /> to the existing landfill's operations and procedures. These changes included <br /> solidification of non-hazardous higher liquid content wastes,an increase in the amount of <br /> beneficial reuse materials and a change in permitting terms regarding the same, an <br /> increase in the permitted number of daily vehicles,and lowering the base grade on the <br /> currently permitted landfill site. 2010 EIR at III-2. Although the NOP does not identify <br /> these Project operations and procedures as being included in the revised Project,it is <br /> unclear whether they are no longer being proposed or whether they were simply omitted <br /> from the NOP. The prior Project also included expansion of the existing landfill gas-to- <br /> energy plant (LFGTE) at the landfill site (Id. at III-34),yet the NOP does not explain <br /> whether the current Project also includes additional electricity generation with landfill <br /> gas. Inasmuch as the existing LFGTE plant is permitted to operate only until April 30, <br /> 2013,does the applicant intend to expand the plant? If not,would this plant be shut <br /> down? All of these Project details must be clearly identified and described. <br /> We understand the County prepared an initial study/negative declaration in <br /> August 2011 for a new LFGTE plant and that the County may have already approved this <br /> project. Inasmuch as Forward was contemplating increasing its LFGTE capacity as part <br /> of the prior Project,why did the County not wait to process the LFGTE facility in the <br /> context of the current Project? Clearly,as the 2010 EIR makes clear,the LFGTE and the <br /> landfill expansion Project are related actions and their environmental effects must be <br /> collectively evaluated. CEQA prohibits piecemealed review of these projects. <br /> In addition to the concerns identified above,it is apparent that the only way <br /> the public and agencies can understand the proposed Project is for the revised NOP and <br /> EIR to clearly identify and describe the landfill's existing operations. To this end,the <br /> County should provide information including but not limited to the following: <br /> • Description of the methodology, and the documentation,used to determine the <br /> assumption that under, average fill rates,the landfill would close in 2021. This <br /> documentation must distinguish between Class II and Class III disposal demand <br /> and in-county and out-of-county demand. This same information should be <br /> provided for the proposed Project's expected landfill closure date of 2039;1 <br /> 1 In order to avoid confusion,it will be important for the revised NOP and the draft EIR <br /> to consistently reference landfill waste and materials in either tons or cubic yards,or <br /> both. <br /> ' SHUTE, MIHALY <br /> �;\VEINBERGERLLP <br />