HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-080-09/02/2014-ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGARDING COMMENTS TO COLORADO DEPART RESOLUTION 2014-080
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
REGARDING COMMENTS TO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENT ON THE DRAFT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 13LR2446 FOR
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANT .
WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment— Air Pollution
Control Division (the "Division") recently issued a draft Construction Permit No. 13LR2446 on
August 4, 2014, for the Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., hot mix asphalt plant located at 1800
North Taft Hill Road (the "Plant Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Division has determined that this permitting action is subject to a 30-day
public comment period per Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part B, Section III.C., and the public
comment period concludes on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., is converting its existing air permit for a
portable hot mix asphalt plant to a stationary source to be located at the Plant Site for longer than
two years; and
WHEREAS, the Plant Site is located outside and adjacent to the City of Fort Collins city
limits and within the City's Growth Management Area; and
WHEREAS, local citizens have appeared before the Fort Collins City Council, Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of Education for the Poudre School
District to express public health concerns related to air emissions from the asphalt plant
operations; and
WHEREAS, the City's Air Quality Advisory Board (the "Board") has been actively
engaged in reviewing the draft air permit for the Martin Marietta Materials asphalt plant and
pursuant to City Code is tasked with advising the City Council regarding policies, plans, and
programs to improve and maintain the City's air quality; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on August 18, 2014, and subsequent special meeting
on August 25, 2014, the Board recommended comments to the City Council for transmission to
the Division on the draft Construction Permit No. 13LR2446 as set forth in "Exhibit A," attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the proposed comments recommended by the Board provide a public benefit
to the Fort Collins community by advocating for the protection of air quality; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the recommendations of the Board and
cause the transmission of its comments to the Division by September 3, 2014.
- 1 -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the City Council hereby adopts the comments of the Air Quality Advisory
Board as set forth in the attached Exhibit A and directs that this Resolution, including the
comments, be transmitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment — Air
Pollution Control Division on September 3, 2014.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
this 2nd day of September, A.D. 2014.
M yor
ATTEST: OF FORTCO
'sy
ALu,
Chief Deputy City Clerk
cOt O R A00
2
EXHIBIT A
Recommendation to the Fort Collins City Council
from the,City Air Quality Advisory Board
regarding Draft Construction Permit issued to Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
August 25, 2014
We are pleased to offer the following comments regarding Draft Construction Permit number
131,R2446 issued to Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MMM). We reviewed the technical report
analyzing the Draft Permit, prepared by Air Resource Specialists, Inc., for the City of Fort Collins
Environmental Services Department and the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment,
dated August 2014. We used the report to assist the Air Quality Advisory Board in preparing our
comments below.
Our interest lies in the fact that the plant, though not in our city, is immediately adjacent to our city
neighborhoods. Residents of these neighborhoods have well-stated concerns about the effect of
emissions from this facility on their health and safety. Many of these concerns can and should be
better addressed in the permit analyses and permit conditions. Due to the close proximity of many
homes and a school, special care needs to be exercised by the State in issuing permits to construct
equipment, operate the plant, and maintain emissions compliance at this facility. Consequently, we
are requesting that the State air permit(s) to MMM go the extra mile. Using the discretion allowed
within the State Air regulations, the APCD can ensure that the MMM facility is an extra-clean model
Asphalt Batch Plant.
With this in mind, we find the draft permit to be seriously deficient. After correcting these
deficiencies, we request that the State issue a second draft construction permit and restart the 30-day
comment period to allow review of the additional information. The deficient areas are:
• Xylene. hexane. and polvcvclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are hazardous air pollutants for
asphalt batch plants that are missing from the analyses. Toluene emissions are incorrectly
calculated. The emission factor (EF) listed in AP-42 for hexane is 0.00092 lb/ton, for PAH
0.00019 lb/ton, and for xylene 0.00020 lb/ton. For toluene emitted from the drum mix asphalt
source, it appears the draft permit used the AP-42 emission factor for 42 fuel oil rather than for
natural gas.
• The analysis fails to consider and the draft permit fails to include emissions from the aggregate
materials mining and processing operation immediately west of the asphalt plant. The Clean Air
Act defines a source as "Any building, structure,facility, equipment, or installation, or any
combination thereof belonging to the same industrial grouping that emit or may emit any air
pollutant subject to regulation under the Federal Act that is located on one or more contiguous
or adjacent properties and that is owned or operated by the same person or by persons under
common control. " Thus, all operations from mining through asphalt manufacturing should be
part of one consolidated permit. Though the materials mining and processing operations
1
primarily emit particulates,proper control of the emissions as a stipulation of the permit would
also necessarily help reduce fugitive HAPs that have adhered to the particulates. The net result
of such controls will be an overall cleaner facility.
We also find that the draft permit did not include several standard and routine permit conditions that if
implemented can make MMM a model facility. We strongly recommend that the permit explicitly
address each of these additional issues.
• Make enforceable all of the control equipment currently operating on the asphalt plant that
reduces ozone precursor emissions. MMM is within the Denver/Northern Front Range ozone
nonattainment area therefore Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) should be
required on volatile organic compound (VOC) sources. MMM has installed and is currently
successfully operating control equipment to reduce emissions of VOCs and associated hazardous
air pollutants including recycling exhaust air from the asphalt plant outlet conveyor back to the
asphalt plant burner along with installing condensers on the liquid asphalt storage tanks. The
APCD has determined that "no additional control" meets RACT. But MMM is already using
these technologies so they have to be considered reasonably available and therefore must clearly
constitute RACT. It makes sense then to add these control measures and devices as legally
enforceable conditions in the permit.
• Make the process for designing and approving the Operating & Maintenance (O&M) Plan open
and transparent by requiring notification by the State of the public, the City, and other
governmental entities when the plan is submitted to the APCD by MMM, allowing the public to
comment on the proposed details prior to APCD approval, and including the final O&M plan in
the permit. Key to protecting the community affected by this facility is ensuring that the facility
operates within the limits allowed in the permit. Sufficient compliance measures should be
employed to ensure that the control equipment is operating properly and that emission testing is
done as often as is necessary. This includes the ongoing monitoring and recordkeeping that
MMM plans to undertake to document compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.
Completeness is critical since all commitments for compliance monitoring and recordkeeping
made by MMM in the 0&M Plan will become enforceable requirements of the permit.
• Make odor detection, control and abatement measures enforceable. This plant has been and is
currently subject to odor complaints. The company has previously responded to these
complaints with specific measures. These measures should be included in the permit as legally
enforceable conditions.
• Include as permit conditions all Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) requirements for all sources (point, mobile,
and non-point) for all of the operations from mining through asphalt manufacturing, as part of
the consolidated permit and O&M Plan described above.
2
• APCD should find that CO emission factors listed in AP-42 for natural gas-fired drum mix hot
asphalt plants, like MMM, constitute RACT. If this were the case, the permitted CO emission
limit for MMM would be lower. MMM lies within a designated attainment-maintenance area
for carbon monoxide (CO), where new/modified CO emission sources are required under
Regulation #3, Part B, IILE to install reasonably available control technology (RACT). The
APCD has determined that for MMM, "no additional control" meets RACT. Yet AP-42 shows a
CO emission factor for a natural gas-fired facility of 0.13 lb/ton. This is less than half the 0.291
lb/ton emission factor established in the draft permit. Unless APCD can defend its decision, the
more stringent•emission factor and emission limit should be used.
• The permit should require that this specific source be tested to confirm the presence and
emission rate of hazardous air pollutants, especially those known to be carcinogenic. The key
concerns of residents in proximity to this facility are the HAPs. Though we recognize that the
State has limited authority over HAPs and their control, confirming the actual HAPs emissions
from the facility would substantially help inform everyone about the level of threat. HAPs
quantification is required in some other states. For example, in North Carolina, in 1999 the
Division of Air Quality issued an asphalt plant permitting policy, which requires new and
modified asphalt plant applications to quantify all 97 Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPS) emitted to
determine the need for air toxics permit limits using EPA AP-42 emissions. If the emissions of a
specific TAP are below their regulatory threshold in NC Regulation 15A NCAC 2Q.0711, an air
quality permit is not required. If the TAP emissions exceed its threshold, a dispersion modeling
demonstration must be performed. The results of this model must show that the emissions are
below the acceptable ambient level (AAL) listed in NC Regulation 15A NCAC 2D.1104, and air
quality permit emission limit, for the respective TAP not to exceed the AAL, is required. See
hth�://www.ncair.ore/toxics/asphalt/)
• Opacity testing should be conducted using both fuels (natural gas and LPG) approved in the
permit. ,
• Emissions tests should be completed on a regular cycle for the plant on both approved fuels.
natural gas and.LPG. For example, in some other states, annual testing of equipment is required.
For example, Arizona's General Permit for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants requires that, if any
equipment has emission limits specified for any criteria pollutants, the Permittee is required to
conduct performance tests once every year. (See: http://azcicg.gov/calendar/Svcugp hmap.pdi;
page 24.)
• The permit should specify whether or not the particulate testine is required to include
condensable particulate matter (CPM). The hot exhaust from the baghouse emissions stack
suggest that CPM emissions may be present, so the CPM fraction of the PM emissions needs to
be regulated even if not otherwise included in the proposed permit limits.
3