ARCHIVED REPORTS_2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

San Joaquin County PW—Solid Waste Responses to Comments FR'l FAX NO. Nov. 04 2006 05:41PM P3 checking,safe unloading or any activity that would require personnel on or around the working face.The DEIR did not analyze for the impacts associated with portable lighting and light sources. Explain why this was not done? 4. Hours of operations,if scaled back from 24-hour operations,would require lighting. Sunrise in the area is as late as T:21 am(January 1,2007),and sunset could come as early 3-4 as 4:46 pm(December 1,2006).glow do you plan to operate the site in the hours of darkness without the use of portable lighting? 5. The DEM on page 3.9-13,considers the impacts of noise. no document considers prohibiting the use of back alarms during the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am to reduce noise by using flaggors and non-audible devices.The use of flaggers without proper 3 5 lighting would create a very unsafe condition.Flow would anyone be able to see the flogger and be warned about the backing up piece of equipment? 6. The I)EIR on page 3.94 considers noise.There was some limited site monitoring for noise.The EIS has the following concerns with the noise monitoring: a. The noise monitoring was oondueted in the afternoon.Sound travels further when re the temperature is cooler.Was theany consideration for temperature and sound navel? b. The monitoring was done on a weekday in the afternoon when traffic would be light.Was there any consideration for peak traffic when the monitoring was conducted? 3.6 c. The monitoring points are all north of the facility.The working face activity would be shielded by the landfill.The entrance has a berm that shields noise from traffic entering the siva and would not be a location that would represent noise generated by the facility.Why was the monitoring limited to three points north of the Wlityi d, The monitoring points were located north of the facility.The prevailing wind is in a southeast direction.Was this considered when choosing the monitoring points? Given time deficiencies the EHD cannot consider this noise evaluation to be complete or thorough, 7. The DMR does not evaluate 4dual'noisc generated by the site.Instead it uses standards 3 7 for stationary sources,and is only con=ned if there are sensitive receptors in the area to be affected by the noise.Do stationary sources have backup alarms? Are there any considerations for the affect of noise on wildlife in the area?8. The DER on page 2-5 considers landfill cover.The DEM mentions the use of green-waste as Alternative Daily 3 8 Cover(ADC).If green waste is to be considered part of this analysis then the following Information needs to be provided. a. The amount of green waste anticipated to be used as cover,in tons or cubic yards. b. The ratio of cover to waste. r. A description of how the green waste be processed prior to use as ADC. if this information is not made part of the analysis then the proposal to use green waste in the future will require CEQA analysis prior to approval for use. 9. The DEIR on page 2-16 considers vector control for the site.The site needs to have a vector control program in place at all times.Does the site currently employ a vector ) 3-9 control? Page 2 of 3 Final Environmental Impact Report November 22 2006 NCRC&SL Permit Revision 2-16 J&S 06307.06