Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAQ_F_1700016_20211019_PP_PH-Rpt Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations Carolina Sunrock, LLC — Burlington North Digital Public Hearing via Webex September 20, 2021 Public Comment Period: August 9, 2021 through September 22, 2021 Pertaining to Permit Application No. 1700016.21 A and Draft Air Quality Permit No. 10693R00 for: Carolina Sunrock LLC 12971 S NC Highway 62 Burlington, NC, Caswell County Facility ID No. 1700016 Fee Class: Synthetic Minor Hearing Officer Brendan G. Davey, P.E. Regional Supervisor, Asheville Regional Office Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 2 of 31 Hearing Officer's Report Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Table of Contents I. Backlzround...............................................................................................3 II. Air Quality Permit Application and Permit Review..............................................3 III. Notice of Public Heariniz...............................................................................4 IV. Overview of Public Comments Received...........................................................5 V. Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................29 VI. Supportinlz Documentation..........................................................................31 Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 3 of 31 I. Backl4round On September 17, 2019, the NC Division of Air Quality (DAQ) Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO) received an application package from Carolina Sunrock LLC, requesting an Air Permit for a new asphalt plant and concrete batch plant located at 12971 S NC Highway 62, Burlington, NC. After reviewing the applications and public comments submitted to date, DAQ conducted ambient air quality modeling of criteria pollutant emissions from each facility to assess compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). DAQ found that the facility, operated as described in the permit application, and under modeled conditions, would cause violations of the nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide NAAQS beyond the property boundary. The letter denying the air quality permit application was issued August 24, 2020. On April 22, 2021, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Air Quality-WSRO, received a new air quality permit application (App. No. 1700016.21 A) from Carolina Sunrock LLC to construct and operate a new truck mix concrete plant and asphalt plant at 12971 S NC Highway 62 in Burlington, Caswell County,NC. This new application addressed the permitting concerns in the mentioned August 24, 2020 denial letter. Pending issuance of the air quality permit, Carolina Sunrock LLC plans to construct and operate: • a drum-mix asphalt plant with a production capacity of 250 tons of asphalt per hour • a truck mix concrete batch plant (120 cubic yards per hour maximum capacity) The proposed asphalt plant will be will be subject to several North Carolina Air Quality Regulations emission standards as well as the federal New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) Subpart I emission standards. II. Air Quality Permit Application and Review DAQ's mission is to work with the state's citizens to protect and improve outdoor, or ambient, air quality in North Carolina for the health, benefit and economic well-being of all. To accomplish this mission, DAQ requires industrial facilities to apply for and receive air quality permits prior to construction and operation of the air pollution sources and air pollution control equipment to ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations. As a new facility, Carolina Sunrock LLC is required to apply for and receive an air quality permit prior to installing a new asphalt and concrete batch plant at 12971 S NC Highway 62 in Burlington,NC, Caswell County. Additionally, as a new facility, the proposed facility is required to demonstrate compliance with state laws governing the release of toxic air pollutants. On April 22, 2021, Carolina Sunrock LLC submitted an application to the DAQ-WSRO requesting an air permit for the 12971 S NC Highway 62 site. It is noted that this proposed site is located in an area without zoning; therefore, the applicant is required to publish a legal notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2Q .0113. The application also contained a letter that stated that a public notice was published on April 7, 2021 in The Caswell Messenger and a sign was posted on April 1, 2021. A notarized Affidavit of Publication was also included with a scanned copy of the newspaper clipping. Date-stamped photographs provided indicate that the sign was posted as required on April 1, 2021. A Zoning Consistency Determination, signed by Bryan S. Miller, County Manager, Caswell County Local Government, dated March 30, 2021, attesting that"the "proposed operation is consistent with applicable zoning and subdivision ordinances," was received with the permit application. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 4 of 31 Leo Governale, permit engineer in the DAQ WSRO, reviewed the application submitted by Carolina Sunrock LLC and determined that the facility could comply with all applicable federal and state air quality requirements provided that the specific conditions included in the draft air quality permit are met. Matthew Porter and Nancy Jones, meteorologists in DAQ Raleigh Central Office (RCO), provided technical support in the application review process by conducting a site-wide dispersion modeling analysis to evaluate the combined toxic and criteria air pollutant ambient impacts from all affected operations located at the site. The site-wide total emissions of arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, mercury, and nickel were estimated to exceed the modeling thresholds, also known as the toxic air pollutant (TAP) emission rates (TPERs) outlined in 15A NCAC 02Q .0711. Site-wide criteria pollutants including particulate matter (PM2.5 and PMIo), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (S02) were modeled for comparison with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). PM concentrations were modeled for comparison with the State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS). Ultimately, the site-wide dispersion modeling analysis of TAPs and criteria air pollutant emissions demonstrated compliance with the Acceptable Ambient Levels (AALs) outlined in 15A NCAC 02D.1104 and the NAAQS/SAAQS. Unless the public comments received during the public hearing reveal that DAQ was in error or incomplete in its evaluation of the proposed asphalt and concrete batch plants from an air quality standpoint, and if the applicant will meet all federal and state laws and rules for the protection of air quality, DAQ is obligated to issue an air permit to Carolina Sunrock LLC. The below hearing officer responses to written and oral public comments will address issues raised in light of these requirements (Section IV). III. Notice of Public HearinjZ The Division of Air Quality regulations do not require a hearing or comment period for the issuance of this permit. At the discretion of the Director of the DAQ, a notice of the opening of a public comment period and a notice of public hearing on the draft air quality permit for Carolina Sunrock LLC was posted on the DAQ website and a press release was issued on August 9, 2021. The notice of public hearing on the draft air quality permit for Carolina Sunrock LLC was published in the Burlington-Times News on August 9, 2021 and The Caswell Messenger on August 11, 2021, and on the Division of Air Quality's website on August 9, 2021. Copies of the air quality permit application, draft permit application review, draft air permit, and dispersion modeling review memorandum were also posted on the DAQ website for public review. Copies of the air quality permit application and related documents were available for public review in DAQ's Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO) and Raleigh Central Office (RCO) throughout the public comment period. On September 20, 2021, the public hearing was conducted virtually via Webex to allow for public participation while protecting public health under current guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The DAQ accepted comments via mail, voicemail, and electronic mail in addition to the virtual public hearing. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 5 of 31 IV. Public Comments Received and Hearing Officer Responses From the comments received during the public comment period, it is apparent that many residents and business owners around the proposed Carolina Sunrock facility are very concerned about potential impacts on their health, the environment, and their local economy. At the WebEx public hearing on September 20, 2021, approximately 37 people were registered in attendance. Thirteen attendees spoke (two of which were unregistered)predominantly in opposition to the proposed Carolina Sunrock LLC facility (twelve of the thirteen). The Reverend Bryon Shoffner presented orally for 27 additional attendees via recordings or orally by himself. During the public hearing it was agreed Reverend Shoffner's associates would submit written comments in lieu of him continuing to present orally in their stead. Additionally, 139 written e-mail comments (some with attachments) were received during the public comment period, of which one was in support of the proposed asphalt plant. Numerous email comments were submitted by the Reverend Shoffner on behalf of other citizens. Two voicemail comments were received. All comments were given equal consideration, whether they were electronic mail, written, voicemail, or made orally at the virtual public hearing. The comments received, both written and oral, addressed many of the same issues. In order to make this report concise, address all issues and minimize redundancy, I have grouped the comments by topic similarity and summarized and addressed the issues of concern below. Comments in italics are direct quotes from submitted written comments, whereas non-italics are paraphrased from verbal or written comments. Hearing Officer's comments are designated by "HOC:"below. Unless otherwise specified in the Hearing Officer's comments, the Hearing Officer recommendation is that no changes to the draft permit are deemed necessary to address the specific comment. Any recommended changes are also summarized in Section V. Comment Category #1: General Concerns about Air Pollution A. Numerous commenters expressed general concerns regarding the expected air pollutants and the possible health effects; B. Several commenters presented pollutant specific information and health studies (from a variety of sources/institutions/countries) regarding pollutants such as S02, metals, formaldehyde; as well as anecdotal evidence; C. One commenter requested a rigorous on-site ambient monitoring program in light of personal air sensor data for the neighborhood. (This data was not provided.) HOC: The Division of Air Quality works to protect and improve outdoor, or ambient, air quality in North Carolina for the health, benefit and economic well-being of all. In doing this work, the Division implements a stationary source permitting program as well as enforces numerous Federal and State regulations designed to protect the ambient air quality. The Division acknowledges and understands the air pollutant and community health concerns presented above. Health concerns are considered in great detail for all air pollutants during the regulatory standard development process. For each regulated air pollutant, there is a defined process to develop the appropriate standard(s) that serve to protect the ambient air and the public health. Compromised and sensitive populations, such as the young, elderly, asthmatics, and health compromised are considered in State and Federal standard Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 6 of 31 development. In addition, margins of safety, at times factors of 10 to 400, are imbedded in these developed standards. More information on NC Air Toxics standard development(such as benzene or formaldehyde) can be found here: https:Hfiles.nc.gzov/ncdeq/Air%20Qualily/toxics/risk/sab/aaldisc.pdf The NC acceptable ambient air levels (AALs) are set at a conservative value following recommendations provided by an independent scientific advisory board to protect the public health with a protective margin. Current AALs are periodically reviewed to determine if new and relevant information has been published in peer-reviewed journals which may influence the AAL determination. Several commenters implied the necessity of more stringent toxic air pollutant limitations than currently required by NC Air Toxics Regulations. Changes to the AALs can be formally requested to the Division Director or the Scientific Advisory Board Liaison, but cannot be done through this permitting action. More information on Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) development (including Science and Risk Assessment) can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality- standards. Commenters implied the necessity of more stringent criteria pollutant limitations. Changes to the NAAQS standards would be made through the above process outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency, but cannot be done through this permitting action. In regard to the air dispersion modeling results discussed in Section II, the results predict "worst case impacts"based on worst case air emissions, worst case meteorological conditions, and worst case-receptor location. The typical hourly or daily impact from the proposed facility will be significantly less than this worst case analysis. As an example to illustrate this point,the following NO2 impact histogram from the approved modeling shows (at the worst case receptor)the impact to be well less than 30%of the NAAQS approximately 99% of the time. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20,2021 Page 7 of 31 Distribution of Modeled 1-hour NO2 Impacts at Worst-Case Receptor I 0 rn I I I � I CD I I C) � 1 I co y I o p I Ln 1 I E ' O d O I N Z O N C V O cv Z I U I � � I O O I O O N Z I 1 Q CD I I I 0 50 100 150 200 Modeled 1-hour NO2 Concentrations(µgim3) As indicated, one commenter requested a rigorous on-site ambient monitoring program in light of personal air sensor data for the neighborhood. More information on air sensors can be found at: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-quality-monitoring/air-sensors-faq Additionally, a good resource and summary of air quality concerns from asphalt plants in North Carolina can be found at https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-quality- permits/asphalt-plants Comment Category#2: Permit Application Concerns A. Changes, correspondence, and attachments to the air permit applications and DAQ review were not made available to the public before the hearing or comment period. Action Requested: Post the information to the DAQ website, reschedule the hearing, and extend the comment periods to allow the public sufficient time to review and comment. HOC: All permit application materials were available for public review in their entirety at the DAQ/Winston-Salem Regional Office and the DAQ/Raleigh Central Office. Substantive application materials, draft permit review(including emission summaries and regulatory review summaries), draft permit, modeling summaries, an informational flyer, and the Draft Environmental Justice Report were available electronically. The draft permit review summarized any additional information received and the application chronology, as well as the final facility-wide potential emissions. Any application or permit review information was also available upon request. B. The applicant claims the only difference between the 2019 and 2021 air permit applications is the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 8 of 31 Action Requested: Explain why particulate matter (PM)pollution estimates have increased between the two applications. Was this the result of using ULSD? Action Requested.- Explain why cadmium was calculated to be emitted higher than TPER limit in the 2019 application estimates but not in the 2021 estimates. What caused the decrease of cadmium between the two applications? HOC: The potential facility-wide cadmium emissions in the 2019 submittal were based on a total asphalt production of 1,488,581 tons/yr(8,760 hr/yr operation) and were calculated to be 0.675 lb/yr, which exceeded the TPER limit of 0.37 lb/yr. The potential facility-wide cadmium emissions in the 2021 submittal were based on the operating restriction of 500,000 tons/yr of asphalt production and calculated to be 0.27 lb/yr, below the TPER limit. For the PM increase, the company added in previously unquantified fugitive emissions. C. The air permit application requires revision and resubmittal due to substantial changes to the original application. E-mails,phone conversations, and memos since the submittal on 412212021 have affected the core basis for review and approval. When projected emissions change substantially during the course of DAQ review, as in this case, the application must be revised and resubmitted. As an example, the particulate matter projected emissions jumped from 28.88 tons per year in the application to 38.05 tons per year by the time the DAQ review was concluded. Action Requested: Require applicant to revise, update, and resubmit the air permit application. Post the information to the DAQ website, reschedule the hearing, and extend the comment periods to allow the public sufficient time to review and comment. HOC: Additional information received is considered part of the permit application and was referenced and incorporated in the air permit review. It is acceptable and not uncommon for a permit application to be amended after the initial submittal typically as a result of questions and clarification requests by DAQ staff upon their engineering review. The format of these amendments is not restricted to the application forms. They can be in a supplemental form, but must satisfy the minimum data needs of the review engineer. All permit application materials were available for public review in their entirety at the DAQ/Winston-Salem Regional Office and the DAQ/Raleigh Central Office. The draft permit review summarized any additional information received and the application chronology, as well as the final facility-wide potential emissions. D. The materials presented in their current form are haphazard and, intentionally or unintentionally prevent a non-technical person from following and comprehending the materials. They are a barrier to citizens who want to understand the impacts to their community, the environment, and their health. They discriminate against those without an advanced technical degree. When providing for public comment and review, the materials need to be organized, clearly written, errors corrected, and revisions incorporated so an average person can read and understand the content. Action Requested: Require applicant to correct, revise, update, and resubmit the air permit application. Post the information to the DAQ website, reschedule the hearing, and extend the comment periods to allow the public sufficient time to review and comment. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 9 of 31 HOC: The Division strives to balance the very technical nature of air permit applications and air quality control with the need for the layperson to understand our permitting actions. There are certain engineering and technical items required in the permit application forms that cannot be simplified further. The Division's air permit review, modeling memos, and information on the DAQ website are opportunities for the Division to summarize the air emissions, regulatory review, and the permitting activity. However, the very technical nature of the work at times does not allow the information to be distilled any further without losing important content. E. The materials for public review do not adequately describe the facility. Forms have missing information and pollution control methods and systems are not fully identified. The type and configuration of all the equipment is not known. Action Requested: Require applicant to provide all information on the systems and fill out all the forms completely. HOC: Sufficient and substantial information was submitted for the Division to identify the proposed equipment, conduct a comprehensive regulatory permit application/engineering review, and prepare a draft permit properly identifying the permitted equipment and regulatory requirements. Any additional information required by the air permit engineer to conduct these activities was requested and received from the company. F. Asphalt and concrete plant have been operating for years across the country with little change to the various technologies and methods used. Some technology being used is known to be better than others (counterflow vs batch). Enclosures, wet suppression, odor control, counterflow double drum, blue smoke control, are some that should be required and incorporated. Action Requested: Evaluate the facility configuration and equipment and require the best technology and methods that would benefit the environment and public health. HOC: The Division cannot require controls more stringent than regulatory requirements. G. The facility has the capability to store and use No. 2 juel oil. No. 2 recycled, No. 4, and No. 4 recycled fuel oils pollute more than No. 2 fuel oil. Action Requested: Do not allow more polluting fuel oils (No. 2 recycled, No. 4, and No. 4 recycled fuel oils) to be used. HOC: DAQ has no legal basis to deny the use of fuels that comply with air quality regulations. H. In the DAQ review, DAQ assumes No. 4 Fuel Oil has the same emission factor as Recycled No. 4 Fuel Oil and that emissions factors for Propane are similar to those of Natural Gas. Action Requested: Confirm these assumptions and cite the appropriate sources. If not true and they are different, then re-evaluate the S02 emission rate for the drum dryer/mixer. HOC: For the purpose of reviewing compliance with 15A NCAC 02D .0516, propane and natural gas are both known to have very little sulfur content effecting a large margin Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 10 of 31 of compliance for the 02D .0516 regulation. This regulation is of greater importance for fuels that have known higher sulfur contents such as coal and heavier oils. For the recycled No. 4 oil, the Permittee will be required to demonstrate through sampling and analysis (typically supplier certifications)that the recycled oil is equivalent to virgin oil per established protocols (per draft permit Condition A.19.) The sulfur content, as well as metals and several other parameters are included in this sampling and analysis to ensure this fuel is equivalent. More information on the DEQ Recycled Oil Management Program can be found at https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-quality- compliance/recycled-oil-mana eg_ment-proms. I. [Fugitive Emissions] Except in the case of crushers, haul roads, and front-end loader work area, DAQ states that fugitive dust and process generated emissions shall be controlled but do not require how or by what means. DAQ leaves it up to the applicant to _ determine how the emissions will be controlled and then, after construction, confirms it against an opacity standard. Action Requested: Require the applicant to identify the systems,processes, and procedures to specifically control emissions in the application. Review them for adequacy. Require emission controls be put in place that have been proven effective in the industry such as enclosures and wet suppression systems. DAQ was not provided information on how the applicant will control fugitive dust. Action Requested: Require the facility to develop, implement, and comply with a fugitive dust control plan. Review and approve the plan before the air permit is approved. The plan should include controlling fugitive dust emissions at unloading and loading areas, process area stockpiles, stockpile working areas,plant parking lots,plant roads (access and haul roads), conveyors, screens, transfer points, crushers, silos, truck loadout points, aggregate weigh hatcher, etc. HOC: As the first commenter mentions, emissions control techniques are specified in the permit for fugitive emissions from the crushers, haul roads, and front-end loader work area. The air permit requires a water truck on site at all times and that"The roads and front-end loader work area shall be adequately maintained by wet suppression to minimize fugitive emissions." Further,the fugitive emissions from the concrete plant truck loadout are required to be controlled by an enclosure and bagfilter. In addition, the bagfilter installed on the drum dryer is the primary particulate control device on site and has required stack testing, particulate emissions standards, stack opacity limitations, and maintenance requirements. If these enclosures and bagfilters are not properly operated or maintained,the Division has enforcement authority under permit condition 13.6. to ensure the equipment is properly operated. Opacity (visible emissions) determinations are an excellent tool to determining if the filtration devices are operating properly. The Reclaimed/Recycled Asphalt Pavement(RAP) system components have stringent opacity requirements as well. During compliance inspections, DAQ inspectors evaluate all sources on site for proper operation, and for compliance with all permit requirements including the visible emissions standards. Fugitive dust concerns, if substantiated, can be addressed by DAQ compliance staff through 15A NCAC 02D .0540 "Particulates from Fugitive Dust Emission Sources." This regulation has a clear mechanism for requiring a fugitive dust plan if deemed necessary. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 11 of 31 J. Covering equipment and sources reduces fugitive emissions. Action Requested.- Require components of the HMA and concrete plants be covered or enclosed to limit fugitive emissions. This includes conveyors, tops of silos, loading stations, and gobb hopper. HOC: The Division cannot require controls more stringent than regulatory requirements. Fugitive dust concerns, if substantiated, can be addressed by DAQ compliance staff through 15A NCAC 02D .0540 "Particulates from Fugitive Dust Emission Sources." The concrete plant truck loadout will be enclosed and vented to the bagfilter. K. Recycled/reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) composition may be unknown. The addition of unknown composition RAP into the HMA drum is a concern as all RAP is not the same and that subsequent loads and batches may have different composition. Some batches may contain chemicals, waste materials, heavy metals, oils,paints, adhesives, solvents, etc. that have been applied or accumulated prior to being removed from pavements and roofs. When added to the HMA drum, they may emit odors and pollutants at different levels and include pollutants not in the review and analysis. Action Requested: Have strict requirements and record keeping regarding the composition of RAP to ensure the composition is consistent and the emissions are known. Include the emissions caused by adding RAP to the HMA drum into the facility emissions calculations. Require the facility to use only RAP meeting an industry standard and not contain any materials or compounds (such as rubber or plastics) that would cause additional pollution or odors when added to the HMA drum. Require applicant to maintain records from the suppliers certifying each batch or load of RAP. If the RAP is found to be contaminated, not clean, or substandard, then require the permit for the use of RAP to be withdrawn and the stockpiles and RAP equipment removed from the property. HOC: RAP addition is commonly used by most asphalt plants as a way of recycling road material and reducing needed liquid asphalt cement. The emission factor determinations in EPA Document AP-42 Chapter 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants used stack testing from numerous plants when running RAP. Therefore, drum dryer emissions from processing RAP are already included in the emissions estimates. In addition, page 11.1-3 of the AP- 42 document indicates "A counterflow drum mix plant can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with little or no observed effect upon emissions." L. Diesel trucks are expected to line up and idle awaiting loadout throughout the day. Loaders are expected to operate continuously. The emissions from all the vehicles will add to the emissions of the facility and should be considered. After all, these vehicles are concentrated at this site because of the facility. Action Requested: Evaluate and include emission from vehicles—dump trucks, delivery vehicles, loaders, and worker vehicles—into the facility wide estimates. HOC: Modeling was performed on the stationary source equipment. Other air quality rules and emission standards apply to mobile source (vehicle) emissions. M. Form DI is not correct and has not been updated. Form DI is the key/primary form in the entire application that summarizes the facility wide pollutants. The form lists 28.88 Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 12 of 31 tons of particulate matter (PM)per year and the DAQ review lists 38.05 tons of PM. The quantity in the form and in the review should match. Action Requested: Require the applicant to revise Form DI with the correct information. Explain why the applicant wasn't required to correct or update key forms in the application. HOC: Additional information received is considered part of the permit application and was referenced and incorporated in the air permit review. It is acceptable and not uncommon for a permit application to be amended after the initial submittal typically as a result of questions and clarification requests by DAQ staff upon their engineering review. The format of these amendments is not restricted to the application forms, can be in a supplemental form, but must satisfy the minimum data needs of the review engineer. In this case an Excel spreadsheet was submitted and accepted by the review engineer as fulfilling the D 1 form equivalency. N. There is no mention of power generators in the application. The application states there is no changes from the previous air permit submitted last year other than the use of ultra- low sulfur fuel, however the previous application had multiple generators listed. My first question is why were the generators not listed this time? HOC: There were no generators identified in the previous or current application. Comment Category 43: Dispersion Modeling Concerns A. NC DAQ needs to explain why the Burlington Airport dataset was used. If this is because of proximity to the proposed facility, then that should be stated. HOC: Yes, this was the closest and most representative data set. B. NC DAQ needs to explain why the ADJ U*option was used in the current air modeling when it was not used in the previous air modeling. HOC: The NC DAQ modeling was an initial conservative, screening level assessment. As such, the meteorological data did not include the adjust u* option (ADJ_U*). The modeling submitted using the ADJ_U* option was a refinement of the earlier screening level modeling. ADJ_U* is appropriately used in this application. C. NC DAQ needs to explain why a permit was denied based of NO2 Tier I modeling in 2020, but NO2 Tier 2 modeling was used in the current modeling. HOC: The NC DAQ modeling was an initial conservative, screening level assessment. As such, the simpler NO2 Tier 1 option was used. The modeling submitted using the Tier 2 option was a refinement of the earlier screening level modeling. Tier 2 is less conservative than Tier 1, but has been shown to be more accurate based on EPA AERMOD model performance evaluations. D. We also point out that NC DAQ used 2017-2019 data for the NAAQS background concentrations for S02 and PM but did not for NO2. In addition, the monitors located nearest to the proposed Burlington North facility were used for S02 and PM, but not for Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 13 of 31 NO2. NC DAQ cannot just randomly decide to use whichever monitor has the lowest concentration. NC DAQ needs to provide an explanation for this change in background concentration ... NC DAQ needs to show rationale and use the proper background concentration of 67.68 ug/m3 for NO2. The agency cannot go all willy-nilly when making these important modeling decisions. HOC: In accordance with Section 8.3.b of Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51, a"regional site"may be selected and used to determine background concentrations where quality assured data collected at a monitoring site located nearest to the project is unavailable or unrepresentative of local conditions. As such, regional sites with available quality assured NO2 data were reviewed based on distance and representativeness of non- modeled source inventories. The Blackburn Site (Lee County) was selected as the most representative "regional site"based on its rural setting and exposure to area sources such as lower-volume road traffic and other non-point biogenic and anthropogenic regional scale NOx emissions inventories. Measurement data collected 2015-2017 at the Blackburn Site was considered sufficiently contemporaneous and representative of rural NO2 concentrations expected at the Carolina Sunrock project location. The alternative "regional site" reviewed by NC DAQ (Hattie Avenue Site) is located one mile northeast of downtown Winston-Salem and was determined to be unrepresentative of the Carolina Sunrock project location due to its exposure to nearby high-volume road traffic and mobile source NOx emissions as well as the urban non-point source NOx emission inventories reflected in the NO2 hourly monitoring data. While the NO2 data collected at the Hattie Avenue Site was determined as unrepresentative for the Carolina Sunrock project locations, the S02 and PM10/2.5 data collected 2017-2019 there was determined to be sufficiently conservative to demonstrate that the modeled impacts added to the Hattie Avenue background concentrations would not cause or contribute to a violation of the S 02 and PM 10/2.5 NAAQ S. E. Using the proper NO2 background concentration will increase the total impact concentration to 197.41 ug/m3 which is above the NO2 1-Hour NAAQS of 188 ug/m3. HOC: See response to previous comment on selection of the Blackburn Site NO2 monitoring data. F. Carolina Sunrock in its resubmitted application indicated that no changes were made since the original submittal "other than the acceptance of utilizing ultra-low sulfur diesel... ". In that resubmitted application the previous air modeling for TAPs was resubmitted without remodeling. However, there were stack height changes which impacts the modeling. The Hot Mix Asphalt stack height (emissions source CD_1) has been increased from 9.20 m to 14.02 m in the new application. This is an increase of 15.81 feet. In the new application the concrete plant stack height (emissions source CD_2) has been increased 5 feet from 10.668 in to 12.19 m. The stack height changes the air modeling for both the AERMOD and the BPIPPRM building parameters files. This affects the modeled concentration results. HOC: The air toxics modeling was updated and re-submitted by Carolina Sunrock July 1, 2021, and subsequently reviewed by AQAB July 27, 2021. The updated air toxics modeling is consistent with the NAAQS modeling and shows stack heights modeled for Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 14 of 31 the Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Baghouse stack (14.02 m) and the Concrete Plant Baghouse stack(12.19 m). G. We do point out a discrepancy with the BPIPPRM building parameter files. There is a change in these files in the Carolina Sunrock air modeling compared to the NC DAQ air modeling. It appears that NC DAQ has not changed its BPIPPRMfile to indicate the changes in the current application. We have included the building parameters for the Hot Mix Asphalt Plant CD_I/CDI as an example of this discrepancy[See Attachment 3]. NC DAQ needs to double-check the building parameters for all emission sources, make the necessary changes, then re-run the air modeling. HOC: There was a change in the building parameters in the modeling because the original DAQ modeling was a screening level assessment using information available at the time. The updated modeling provided for the TAPS assessment includes more refined information about actual planned locations of buildings. H. DAQ denied the 2019 air permit application because NO2 exceeded NAAQS limits. Action Requested: Explain why the same level of nitrogen oxide (NOx)pollution is now acceptable when it wasn't previously. HOC: The initial permit denial was based on simplified and conservative screening type dispersion modeling. The current modeling was based on more extensive and refined modeling using acceptable guidance for background monitors and Tier I/II concerns. I. Commenters indicated air dispersion modeling does not take into account setbacks that would be required by the Caswell County High Impact Ordinance. HOC: Carolina Sunrock is required to comply with the submitted and approved air dispersion modeling. This includes constructing and locating the air emission sources as submitted in the modeling analysis. If the sources are not located as per the modeling (as a result of any local ordinance requirements or for any other reason), Carolina Sunrock would be in violation of the air quality permit and subject to enforcement action. Comment Catel4ory 94: Air Permit Concerns A. (Sunrock) - The second paragraph of this condition contains the following- "Placement of the emission sources, configuration of the emission points, and operation of the sources shall be in accordance with the submitted sitewide NAAQS dispersion modeling analysis and should reflect any changes From the original analysis submittal as outlined in the AQAB review memo."Carolina Sunrock requests that the phrase "and should reflect any changes to the SUNROCKWAROLINA SUNROCK LLC original analysis submittal as outlined in the AQAB review memo. "be removed from the permit, as the revisions themselves rather than DAQ's comments on the revisions should be used. Accordingly, the condition should be revised to: "Placement of the emission sources, configuration of the emission points, and operation of the sources shall be in accordance with the submitted sitewide NAAQS dispersion modeling analysis, including Permittee's revisions to the original analysis submittal. " Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 15 of 31 HOC: The primary concern for this permit condition is that the facility will be constructed and operated as modeled (source location, stack height, etc.). I understand the commenter's concern and the permit condition will be revised to keep the intent and improve clarity as follows: Placement of the emission sources, configuration of the emission points, and operation of the sources shall be in accordance with the submitted sitewide NAAQS dispersion modeling analysis and should reflect the modeling analysis that was reviewed and approved by the DAQ Air Quality Analysis Branch (AQAB) on March 23, 2021. B. Carolina Sunrock requests that the words 'filterable"and "(Method 5)"be added to Permit Condition No. A.11.b.i. as follows: "contain filterable particulate matter (Method 5) in excess of 90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf); or". 40 CFR 60, Subpart I only regulates filterable particulate matter. HOC: The Division agrees 40 CFR 60, Subpart I only regulates filterable particulate matter as stack tested by EPA Reference Method 5. We have implemented this regulation in this manner consistently for all affected asphalt plants in North Carolina. However, the permit condition directly reflects the wording of the Federal rule which also simply indicates "particulate matter." The permit will not be changed at this time. C. Carolina Sunrock does not have any "wet material processing operations"as defined within 40 CFR 60, Subpart 000. As such and to simplify issues and to remove confusing permit language, we suggest that all references to "wet material processing operations" be removed from the permit. HOC: The Division acknowledges the suggestion, but will leave the standard format "boiler-plate" condition in the air permit. D. The table in this permit condition implies that testing for NSPS(Subpart I) must include Test Methods 5 and 202. As stated in Comment No. 2 above, Subpart I only has emission limits for filterable particulate matter which is only Method 5. We request that DAQ modify the table to correct this implied error. HOC: The testing condition also refers to total particulate matter limits of 15A NCAC 02D .0506 which does require the inclusion of condensable particulate matter. The Division agrees that only the filterable portion of the total PM test will be compared to the NSPS Subpart I limitation. Method 202 will still be required as part of the 02D .0506 compliance determination. No changes will be made to this permit condition. E. Condition No. 14.d. requires a 30 day written notice of the test date as required by NSPS, Subpart A. The NC DAQ Rule 15A NCAC 02D.2602 requires a 15 day notice. As the NSPS has been accepted into the NC SIP and regulations, we request that DAQ amend this requirement to 15 days to be consistent with the DAQ testing rules. We see no need for a 30 day written notice where, in all other testing situations, DAQ allows a 15 day notice. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 16 of 31 HOC: The Division cannot waive the federal NSPS requirement. The 30-day notification will remain in the air permit. F. Carolina Sunrock requests that the arsenic limits for the Truck Mix Concrete Batch Plant Bagfilter (RMC-CD2) be corrected to lb/yr instead of lb/hr. HOC: This error will be corrected. G. Carolina Sunrock requests that this permit condition be removed from the permit. The requirements in 15A NCAC 2Q.0304, including those related to zoning, merely specify the material to be included in the permit application and have already been satisfied by Carolina Sunrock. There is no basis to include an application condition that has already been met as an ongoing condition of the permit. Further, this condition is atypical for synthetic minor asphalt plants such as Sunrock, as is evident by reference to the following permits issued within the past three months for similar facilities, none of which include an equivalent provision: (i) Permit No. 05428R16 issued September 3, 2021 to Maymead Materials; (ii) Permit No. 02676R21 issued August 19, 2021 to Barnhill contracting Company; (iii) Permit No. 01406R15 issued August 27, 2021 to APAC- Atlantic. The inclusion of this provision in the final permit would both exceed the agency's authority and be arbitrary and capricious. HOC: As discussed in the zoning comments 9.A-C below, I recommend this permit condition be removed. H. Condition A.17.c. requires quarterly reporting. Carolina Sunrock requests that this be changed to semiannual reporting. As currently written, this permit requires more stringent reporting than a Title V permit. DAQ has deemed semiannual reporting appropriate for major facilities, and there is no legitimate reason to impose a more stringent reporting standard against Carolina Sunrock as a synthetic minor facility. HOC: This condition requires annual reporting in the current draft permit. I. Carolina Sunrock requests that permit condition numbering be corrected from Page 12 through Page 15 since the condition numbers are duplicated and mis-numbered. HOC: These errors will be corrected. J. The toxic air pollutant TPER table under this condition is missing ammonia. HOC: This error will be corrected. K Carolina Sunrock would like to utilize recycled asphalt shingles at Burlington North and therefore requests that the same permit condition be added to Burlington North as appears in the draft permit for the Prospect Hill Quarry and Distribution Center (Draft Permit No. 10694R00, Condition 25). Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 17 of 31 HOC: Carolina Sunrock did not request this flexibility in the submitted air permit application. It would be inappropriate to make this change at this time post public notice and public hearing. Carolina Sunrock can submit a permit application at a later date for this air permit modification. L. In Section A —Specific Conditions and Limitations, Item no. 3 Compliance with Emission Control Standards, under a. Production Limitations, there is a reference to Condition A.20 (Section A, Item 20). There is no A.20 listed in the draft permit. There appears to be some misnumbering of Section A. Item numbers 15, 16 and 19 are repeated(15. Fabric Filter Requirements...(Page 11), 15. Control and Prohibition of Odorous Emissions (Page 12); 16. Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions...(Page 11), 16. Zoning Specific Condition (Page 12); 19. Vendor Supplied Recycled...(Page 14), 19. Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions...(Page 15)). Therefore, we are not sure which condition the A.3.a reference applies to. This duplication of numbers has made the draft permit impossible to understand. Clarification is needed. Condition A.IOB.i and ii (page 5) limitations are unclear with regards to the referenced statute 15A NCAC 2D.0524140 CFR Part 60. Clarification is needed as to how the specific limits were derived from statutes. Unsure why Condition A.11.b.i is listed in the permit when this affected facility will have commenced after April 22, 2008. Including A.11.b.i. limit only serves to add confusion in the permit for the applicable limits. Only A.11.b.ii should be included in the permit. Per Draft Permit condition A.16 (the second A.16 listed on pages 12-13), the applicant cannot begin construction or operation until all local permissions have been granted. There are several local permits that are in question. Several residents appealed the Caswell County Watershed Review Board's decisions in January to approve the Watershed Protection and Special Non-residential Intensity Allocation (SNIA)permits. However, the county has not set a hearing date on these appeals. In addition, the applicant has sued these residents in Superior Court. There is no court date set for that hearing. In addition, there may be future zoning requirements which may affect this facility. NC DAQ must stay informed on these issues and not allow the applicant to violate this condition of the permit. The applicant cannot begin construction or operation until these hearings have been held. The upcoming decisions from those hearings significantly affect this facility. HOC: The typographical errors mentioned will be corrected. Condition A.1 O.B.i and ii limitations are taken directly from federal regulation 40 CFR 60.92 (40 CFR Part 60 / NSPS Subpart 1) which is incorporated by reference by state regulation 15A NCAC 02D 0524. Condition A.I I.b.i is part of a standard format"boiler-plate"permit condition and will remain in the air permit. See the discussion in 9.A-C. below for a discussion of the zoning permit condition and zoning concerns. M. Fabric filters in baghouses are the primary pollution control devices. DAQ is requiring an annual internal inspection, but a monthly visual inspection is required to ensure the filters are attached, intact, and in good condition. With only an annual inspection, the facility could pollute above permitted thresholds for months before a problem is discovered. Action Requested: Require monthly visual inspections of the baghouse and fabric filters. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 18 of 31 HOC: NCDAQ will retain the standard permit condition requirement of annual inspections. This is standard and applicable to all permitted asphalt and concrete batch plants in North Carolina. DAQ inspectors will conduct routine compliance inspections to verify proper operation and maintenance. In addition, the company must follow manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures. N. In the draft permit for NSPS monitoring requirements, DAQ is requiring the permittee to perform monthly periodic inspections to check that water is flowing to discharge spray nozzles in wet suppression systems. Monthly is too long a period between inspections. Faulty nozzles could allow emissions for weeks without being detected. Action Requested:At a minimum, require weekly inspections. HOC: The permit condition directly reflects the federal requirements of NSPS Subpart 000. The Division does not see a need to require monitoring more stringent this federal requirement. 0. Limit the amount of asphalt produced to a daily amount based on the 500,000 tons per consecutive 12-month period, the expected operating schedule of 6 day/wk, and SO wk/yr, and the percentage annual throughput. Production should not exceed 1,667 tons per day at any time during the year. Action Requested: Require a daily maximum to ensure the facility did not exceed the 12-month asphalt production limit and therefore not exceed S02 and CO emission limits. Require the permittee to record daily as well as monthly and total annual amount[tons] of asphalt produced. HOC: It would be inappropriate to designate a daily limit for an annual requirement in this case. The regulatory basis for the identified limitation is an annual (12-month rolling) basis and it is not necessary or appropriate in this case to limit daily production. P. Employ audit methods to confirm asphalt and concrete production and emissions other than just reviewing permittee's logs. Action Requested:Audit sales receipts, contracts, invoices, and fuel and cement purchases to confirm asphalt and concrete production and emissions. HOC: The permittee's logs are verified by the DAQ inspector during compliance inspections. It is up to the discretion of DAQ to consider further validation of the logs through auditing receipts, etc. Q. For the fabric falter requirements in the draft air permit, the permittee shall perform periodic inspections and maintenance as recommended by the equipment manufacturer. No manufacturer's recommendations were provided in the materials for public review. The baghouses are extremely important because they are the primary falter for particulate matter. Action Requested: Obtain, review, and mandate manufacturer inspections and maintenance recommendations. Add additional requirements if the manufacturer recommendations are inadequate. HOC: The bagfilter inspection and maintenance, as well as adherence to the manufacturer's recommendations, will be verified by the DAQ compliance inspector. DAQ will retain this standard permit condition requirement. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 19 of 31 R. The draft permit states if the facility does not use wet suppression to control emissions, the Permittee shall repeat the NSPS performance tests within five (5)years of the previous test. If the facility uses an upstream wet suppression to control fugitive emissions, then the facility is exempt from the 5-year repeat testing requirement. The applicant doesn't state the facility will use wet suppression or use upstream wet suppression, so it is unclear whether the performance tests will be required to be repeated every 5 years. Action Requested: Require the applicant to identify the systems, equipment,processes, and procedures to control emissions and then determine whether subsequent performance tests will be required. HOC: These requirements are reviewed for compliance by DAQ inspectors during routine compliance inspections. S. DAQ intends to permit Carolina Sunrock LLC to produce 5 toxic air pollutants (TAPs) - formaldehyde, mercury, nickel, arsenic, and benzene - at rates significantly higher than their permitting emission rates (TPERs) by scaling up TAPs to their acceptable ambient levels (AALs). As an example, Carolina Sunrock estimated they will pollute a total of 198 pounds per year of benzene from the entire facility, however, DAQ is drafting a permit to allow them to pollute 854 pounds per year from just the asphalt drum. Allowing the facility to pollute over four times more than they estimated does not improve the outdoor air quality of North Carolina or protect its citizens. DAQ should not permit toxic chemicals at these high rates and should restrict them as much as possible to protect the environment and our citizens. Workers, visitors, inspectors, animals, and the environment inside the property boundary will be exposed to high levels of these 5 TAPs above what is known to be healthy especially during climatic conditions such as inversions. Action Requested: Only allovv emission rates of TAPs, HAPs, and PM to what was calculated and not scaled up. T. DAQ intends to permit Carolina Sunrock LLC to produce benzene at a rate significantly higher than its permitted emission rate (TPER) by scaling up the emission to its acceptable ambient level (AAL). That basically means that the level of benzene will be greater than what has been determined healthy within the property boundary. The modeling of benzene dispersion does not consider all benzene emitting sources at the facility such as from dump trucks, delivery vehicles, loaders, and worker vehicles. Diesel trucks are expected to line up and idle awaiting loadout throughout the day. Loaders are expected to operate continuously. The emissions from all the vehicles will add to the emissions of the facility and may cause the AAL of benzene to be exceeded at the property boundary. Action Requested: Evaluate all emitting sources of benzene and include in modeling to determine if the level is truly acceptable. Action Requested: Deny the air permit because the facility will be releasing benzene at higher concentrations than are considered healthy. Action Requested: Deny the air permit because the facility will be releasing arsenic at higher concentrations than are considered healthy. Action Requested: Deny the air permit because the facility will be releasing formaldehyde at higher concentrations than are considered healthy. Action Requested: Deny the air permit because the facility will be releasing mercury at higher concentrations than are considered healthy. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20,2021 Page 20 of 31 Action Requested: Deny the air permit because the facility will be releasing nickel at higher concentrations than are considered healthy. HOC: Carolina Sunrock requested scaled-up benzene and other air emissions in the air permit application and adequately demonstrated compliance through a dispersion modeling analysis. Scaling up is an option conducted by some permitted facilities to provide a compliance margin. This analysis was reviewed and approved by DAQ engineers and meteorologists. DAQ has no legal basis to deny these requested emission limitations that comply with the applicable air quality regulations. In addition, the NC Toxics Air Pollutant Regulations do not apply to the identified mobile sources. More information on acceptable ambient levels and mobile sources can be found here: https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeg/Air%20Qualily/toxics/risk/sab/aaldisc.pdf Comment Category#5: Community Pre-Existing Health Concerns A. Citizen diagnosis of MGUS ... A rare blood disease that predispositions me to a rare form of cancer known as Multiple Myeloma ... I am requesting that NCDAQ re-calculate the human risk of toxic chemicals of Burlington North; in light of the scientific evidence from studies linking human health risk from these chemicals to my illness. B. General Community-Wide Health Concerns C. UNC Chapel Hill School of Global Public Health ... RESIDENTS REPORT HIGHER THAN A VERA GE RATES OF MULTIPLE CHRONIC ILLNESSES D. A health assessment conducted by UNC and the NCIPHfound that over 75%of residents report having at least one diagnosed chronic illness. E. Caswell County residents have higher rates of asthma compared to state averages,per CDC data. F. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health health survey/Report on Anderson Community Environmental Quality and Health. Higher rates of death due to heart disease, cancer, and diabetes G. Covid-19 co-effects. HOC: The Division acknowledges and understands the community health concerns highlighted above. Many of these same health concerns can be found in varying degrees in communities throughout North Carolina. However, health concerns are considered in great detail during the regulatory standard development process. Compromised and sensitive populations, such as the young, elderly, asthmatics, and health compromised are considered in State and Federal standard development. In addition, margins of safety, at times factors of 10 to 400, are imbedded in these developed standards. More information on NC Toxics standard development can be found here: https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Air%20Qualiiy/toxics/risk/sab/aaldisc.pdf These NC acceptable ambient air levels are set at a conservative value following recommendations provided by an independent scientific advisory board to protect the public health with a protective margin. More information on Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard development(including Science and Risk Assessment) can be found here: https://www.epa.Gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality- standards Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 21 of 31 Comment Category #6: Title VI & Environmental Justice Concerns A. General Environmental Justice Concerns DEQ Response: DEQ prepared an Environmental Justice (EJ) Report for the proposed Sunrock LLC facility that analyzed sociodemographic data(race, ethnicity, and poverty, county health data, and state designated Tribal statistical areas) in conjunction with the draft air quality permit. The data from this EJ Report does indicate slightly higher percentages for some non-white populations as well as elevated poverty levels overall, which is consistent with the points made by multiple commenters. The EJ Report states that no other permitted industrial sources of pollution or incident reports were identified within a one mile radius of the facility. Given the data assessed in the EJ Report, DEQ conducted additional outreach and public engagement in the area surrounding the proposed facility. Many commenters expressed concerns over individual health issues. While the Division of Air Quality lacks authority to base permitting decisions on individual health concerns, the Division has ensured that the permit contain conditions necessary to demonstrate compliance with air quality standards designed to protect human health and the environment. B. NC DEQ must ensure compliance with Title VI DEQ Response: DEQ is committed to maintaining compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has made significant strides in support of this commitment over the past several years. The Division of Air Quality has no jurisdiction or say in where an applicant selects to locate operations. Additionally, DEQ adheres to federal guidance set out in E.O. 12898—an executive order addressing activities that have disproportionate adverse environmental and human health impacts on non-white and Hispanic or Latino populations and/or low-income populations—by preparing (EJ) Reports, providing communities access to public information, offering opportunity for meaningful public participation, and ensuring that all comments are carefully considered during the permitting process. More information on DEQ's Title VI compliance can be found here: https://deq.nc.gov/permits-regulations/title-vi-compliance. In this case, DAQ conducted significant outreach in to ensure that local communities could meaningfully participate in the permitting process. See Responses to Comment Category#10. Further, DAQ carefully considered all comments submitted during the permitting process and imposed permit conditions to ensure that the facility will operate in compliance with regulatory requirements designed to protect public health. C. Report on Anderson Community Environmental Quality and Health From Report: At minimum, the NC Department of Environmental Quality must ensure that it is upholding its own rules, including Subchapter 01 c of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act and ensure compliance with federal non-discriminatory laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Finally, NC DEQ should consider establishing a permanent role for their Equity and EJ Board in environmental decision making and permitting and establishing a process for by which input from the impacted community plays an integral role in in permitting. Similar efforts to center impacted communities in Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 22 of 31 local city council and planning board decisions will also move our most marginalized NC communities towards more protective and more just outcomes. DEQ Response: The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act is discussed in Comment Category#7 below. As set out in the Charter, the purpose of the Secretary's Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Board is to: Assist the Department in achieving the fair and equal treatment and meaningful involvement of North Carolinians regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Advise the Department on the interests of Native American Indian Tribes as well as vulnerable, at-risk North Carolinians who face language barriers and disabilities. Advise the Secretary on the consistent implementation of fair treatment and meaningful involvement of North Carolina citizens across the Department regarding new and ongoing complex permits, ongoing and proposed innovation, ongoing and future mitigation of contaminant exposures to human health and the environment, and other items deemed important by the Department. Advise the Secretary on the integration of environmental justice and equity considerations into Departmental programs, policies and activities to mitigate the environmental or public health impacts in communities disproportionately burdened by environmental harms. The request to modify the role of the Environmental Justice and Equity Board is beyond the scope of DAQ's permitting action. For information on the role and internal operating procedure of the EJE Board visit: https://deq.ne.gov/outreach-education/environmental- justice/secretarys-environmental justice-and-equity-board. D. I am requesting that North Carolina Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality, Elizabeth S. Biser;postpone the NCDAQ Public Hearing for Air Permit No. 10693R00. I am deeply concerned that possible misconduct may have occurred by state agency's involving possible Title 6 violations in the process of the initial NCDAQ draft permit 10628ROO-Burlington North in 2020; I have deeply concerned of possible gas lighting of a marginalized community by the very agency's that were meant to protect them. Such as (but not limited to)NCDAQ's possible negligence of calculating EJ communities in the permit process,possible misconduct by NCDEQ for the amount of pressure, risks and stress placed on this EJ community during a COVID-19 worldwide epidemic (forcing citizens to obtain "life threatening"door-to-door surveys to prove they were indeed a EJ community) and NCDAQ's unwillingness to postpone Public Hearings and Public Comments during Covid-19 worldwide epidemic multiples times until the very last minute. And again,forcing the citizens of this disadvantaged, low income EJ community to risk their lives collecting another door-to-door Health Survey's to enter into public comments in the NCDAQ Public Hearing; due to NCDAQ refused to cancel Public Hearing due to Covid-19 until the very last minute. All this took place before NCDAQ implemented ANY of the EJ guidelines for a EJ community, to educate the citizens to prepare for NCDEQ permit processes. The citizens of Anderson Community Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 23 of 31 was forced to contact the EPA in Washington, DC; to help NCDAQ enforce NCDAQ Title 6 rights. My concerns is, if the facts are substantiated; these acts may have resulted in "the wearing down"and possibly unfair practices of Title 6 laws and regulations to an EJ community. Which resulted in this overburdened "at risk"EJ community to give up, due to what they felt as possible unfair practices and injustice. I am requesting an investigation of these possible concerns. I am requesting a full investigation, including an in depth FOIA requests of all state and federal agencies (persons) involved in NCDAQ Permit 1063900 Burlington North in 2020. DEQ Response: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, DEQ has followed the state guidelines for reducing the spread of the virus. To protect public health,the Division of Air Quality conducted appropriate outreach that limited in-person interactions and maintained social distancing measures, such as emailing and calling citizens to keep them informed of the permitting process. The 2020 permitting process included significant outreach including onsite visits and virtual meetings with community members. In the current permitting process, that outreach continued. A flyer was distributed by mail to addresses near the site in both Burlington North and Prospect Hill communities with information describing changes made to the respective permits since 2020. On May 12, 2021, members of the Anderson Community also met with former Acting Secretary Dionne Delli-Gatti to voice their concerns and ask questions regarding the permitting process. DEQ is committed to maintaining compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More information on DEQ's Title VI compliance can be found here: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/permits-regulations/title-vi-compliance. E. Environmental Justice is well served when the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies cannot be usurped by an entity that has the financial means to do so by causing fear of reprisal and enormous financial hardships on an already impoverished community with the possible effect of rendering it mute. This can have profound effects well beyond the 1-mile radius and the Census Tracts upon which this Report centers. I ask you to consider these facts and deny the air permit application from Carolina Sunrock. DEQ Response: DAQ assesses air permit applications based on the federal and state statutes and regulations, and then determines if facilities meet those requirements before issuing or denying a permit. Comment Category 47: North Carolina Environmental Protection Act: Subchapter 01C A. I am requesting that the Burlington North Permit be denied due to conformity with Subchapter 01 C, NCEAP regulations in conformity with Cumulative Health Impacts risk. Anderson Community is an EJ community. B. For eighteen months Anderson Community has been asking NCDEQINCDENR if conformity with Subchapter 01 C-North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) applies to Anderson Community's documented "high risk"Cumulative Health Impact concerns? We believe NCEPA provides a regulation that NCDENR should enforce once they were notified that this pollutant permit "may result in a potential risk to human health?" Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 24 of 31 HOC: The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) and implementing regulations set forth at 1 NCAC Chapter 25 and 15A NCAC Subchapter 01 C do not apply to the issuance of this permit. NCEPA only applies where there has been (1) An expenditure of$10 million in funds provided by the state of North Carolina for a single project or action or related group of projects or action; or(2) land-disturbing activity of equal to or greater than 10 acres of public lands resulting in substantial, permanent changes in the natural cover or topography of those lands (or waters). NCGS § 113A-4; § 113A-9 (defining "public land" and "significant expenditure of public moneys"). DAQ's decision to issue an air quality permit for this facility does not meet these criteria. Comment Catemory#8: Odor Concerns A. I am worried that the asphalt plant will produce smelly and toxic hydrogen sulfides, which will impact our ability to enjoy the outdoors. B. A report by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League reported almost 30 years of complaints made by community members about the smells and noises produced by asphalt plants in NC. C. A UNC study showed that polluting asphalt plants produce hydrogen sulfides, which cause foul smells. D. The facility is required to utilize management practices or odor control equipment sufficient to prevent objectionable odorous emissions. Action Requested: Require the applicant to identify the equipment,processes, and practices to prevent odors. Determine if the equipment and practices significantly reduce or eliminate odors. E. Additives are a way to control odor emissions when using recycled/reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). Action Requested: Evaluate and require the applicant to use additives (if environmentally friendly) to control odors when using RAP. HOC: DAQ acknowledges that some amount of odors can be expected from the proposed facility as well as many other industries within the state. Odors from industrial processes are regulated under 15A NCAC 02D .1806 "Control and Prohibition of Odorous Emissions" (Specific Condition 14 of the proposed Draft Air Permit). 15A NCAC 02D .1806(f) requires an Odor Management Plan when a determination of Objectionable Odors is made by the Director based on a recommendation by staff at the local regional office according to the following: 15A NCAC 02D.1806(i): i. Determination of the existence of an objectionable odor. A source or facility is causing or contributing to an objectionable odor when: a. a member of the Division staff determines by field investigation that an objectionable odor is present by taking into account the nature, intensity,pervasiveness, duration, and source of the odor and other pertinent such as wind direction, meteorology, and operating parameters of the facility; b. the source or facility emits known odor-causing compounds such as ammonia, total volatile organics, hydrogen sulfide, or other sulfur compounds at levels that cause objectionable odors beyond the property line of that source or facility; or Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 25 of 31 C. the Division receives from the State Health Director epidemiological studies associating health problems with odors from the source or facility. These determinations are typically driven by citizen complaints but can also be made based solely on a DAQ inspector's observations. Odors are regulated consistently throughout NC by DAQ. In all cases, the same odor condition referencing 15A NCAC 02D .1806 is placed in applicable air permits and in all cases, the requirement for an Odor Management Plan is based on field observations by staff in accordance with the procedures above. Comment Category #9: Zoning/External Litigation (Zoning Permit Condition) A. Carolina Sunrock requests that this permit condition be removed from the permit. The requirements in 15A NCAC 2Q.0304, including those related to zoning, merely specify the material to be included in the permit application and have already been satisfied by Carolina Sunrock. There is no basis to include an application condition that has already been met as an ongoing condition of the permit. Further, this condition is atypical for synthetic minor asphalt plants such as Sunrock, as is evident by reference to the following permits issued within the past three months for similar facilities, none of which include an equivalent provision: (i) Permit No. 05428R16 issued September 3, 2021 to Maymead Materials; (ii) Permit No. 02676R21 issued August 19, 2021 to Barnhill contracting Company; (iii) Permit No. 01406R15 issued August 27, 2021 to APAC- Atlantic. The inclusion of this provision in the final permit would both exceed the agency's authority and be arbitrary and capricious. B. In the section of the permit review labeled: 2Q.0304—Zoning Specific Condition: It states that It is DAQ policy to include a permit condition in permits for facilities located in areas without zoning requiring compliance with all lawfully adopted local ordinances that apply to the facility at the time of construction or operation of the facility. Caswell County adopted a High Impact Ordinance last year which came out of the County wide Moratorium on polluting Industries. This Ordinance placed set backs on Rock Quarry, Asphalt and Cement Plants. Sunrock applied for this air permit after the High Impact Ordinance was adopted. This being said the submission of the application does not take the setbacks into consideration. All the data complied does not take the setbacks into consideration. The air modeling does not take this into consideration. The setbacks will change the location of the asphalt and cement plants. If it is DAQ policy to have the condition that lawfully adopted ordinances to the facility at the time of construction or operation then the setbacks in the High Impact Ordinance should be applied. C. Per Draft Permit condition A.16 (the second A.16 listed on pages 12-13), the applicant cannot begin construction or operation until all local permissions have been granted. There are several local permits that are in question. Several residents appealed the Caswell County Watershed Review Board's decisions in January to approve the Watershed Protection and Special Non-residential Intensity Allocation (SNIA)permits. However, the county has not set a hearing date on these appeals. In addition, the applicant has sued these residents in Superior Court. There is no court date set for that hearing. In addition, there may be future zoning requirements which may affect this facility. NC DAQ must stay informed on these issues and not allow the applicant to Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 26 of 31 violate this condition of the permit. The applicant cannot begin construction or operation until these hearings have been held. The upcoming decisions from those hearings significantly affect this facility. HOC: Carolina Sunrock requested the Zoning Permit Condition A.16. be removed from the air permit, while other parties requested the company be restricted from construction or operation until zoning and ordinance concerns are resolved in Caswell County. DAQ's authority regarding local zoning laws in the context of the air quality permitting process is described in G.S. 143-215.108(0: An applicant for a permit under this section for a new facility or for the expansion of a facility permitted under this section shall request each local government having jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the facility and its appurtenances are to be located to issue a determination as to whether the local government has in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance applicable to the facility and whether the proposed facility or expansion would be consistent with the ordinance ... The determination shall be verified or supported by affidavit signed by the official designated by the local government to make the determination and, if the local government states that the facility is inconsistent with a zoning or subdivision ordinance, shall include a copy of the ordinance and the specific reasons for the determination of inconsistency. A copy of any such determination shall be provided to the applicant when it is submitted to the Commission. The Commission shall not act upon an application for a permit under this section until it has received a determination from each local government requested to make a determination by the applicant. I a local government determines that the new facility or the expansion of an existing acility is inconsistent with a zoning or subdivision ordinance, and unless the local government makes a subsequent determination of consistency with all ordinances cited in the determination or the proposed facility is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be consistent with the cited ordinances, the Commission shall attach as a condition of the permit a requirement that the applicant, prior to construction or operation of the facility under the permit, comply with all lawfully adopted local ordinances, including those cited in the determination, that apply to the facility at the time of construction or operation of the facaitIL If a local government fails to submit a determination to the Commission as provided by this subsection within 15 days after receipt of the request, the Commission may proceed to consider the permit application without regard to local zoning and subdivision ordinances ... This statute authorizes DAQ to include a zoning permit condition only where the local government has made the determination that a facility is inconsistent with a zoning or subdivision ordinance. In this case, Caswell County through its County Manager issued a zoning consistency determination on March 31, 2021, attesting that"the proposed operation is consistent with applicable zoning and subdivision ordinances." In light of this consistency determination, the statute does not confer authority on DAQ to include permit condition A.16. This determination is consistent with DAQ's July 31, 2000 Zoning Consistency Determination Guidance Memorandum, which stated that DAQ's Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20,2021 Page 27 of 31 zoning consistency determination language would be included in permits as a specific condition"only if the local government states that the facility is inconsistent with a zoning or subdivision ordinance."1 Therefore, I recommend the zoning permit condition be removed from the draft air permit. (External litigation (include portions of comments A-C as well)) D. We want to make part of the public record the applicant's attempt to curtail public participation prior to the official public commenting period. Several subpoenas have been served to dozens of residents along with community groups. In addition, these citizens have had to answer intrusive legal interrogatories and some are having to deliver depositions. To date, neither BREDL nor our chapter Protect Caswell has appealed local Caswell County decisions through the local governmental process or court system. Yet, BREDL has been served with 3 separate subpoenas related to individuals'or other organizations'actions regarding the proposed Burlington North and Prospect Hill Quarry facilities. The applicant has sued at least 55 residents who chose to appeal a local watershed review board's decision on Watershed Protection and Special Non-residential Intensity Allocation (SNIA)permits. The resident's appeal was an administrative appeal within the county government. However, the applicant chose to take these community members to Superior Court instead of letting the local appeal process conclude. To date, Caswell County has not scheduled a date to hear these residents'appeals. E. The applicant is suing 55 neighbors when they exercised their right to object to a local permit that was issued by our county Planning Director. The lawsuit is seen as intimidation and has had a chilling effect on people wanting to come forward and speak out against the projects. Action Requested: Delay DAQ decision on the air permit until after a court ruling in the lawsuit. If the applicant loses, our county's High Impact Development Ordinance (HIDO) will apply and will affect the location and configuration of the projects. New air permit applications will be required if they can meet the HIDO requirements. F. No permit should be issued to Carolina Sunrock prior to the outcome of the lawsuit that Sunrock has initiated. HOC: Several comments addressed the impact of a lawsuit that was filed by Sunrock against Caswell County residents, which one commenter alleged constitutes intimidation and has had a chilling effect on public participation. DAQ believes that the public's meaningful participation in the permitting process is an essential component of DAQ's air quality program. DAQ's efforts to ensure that the public has had the opportunity to meaningfully engage in the permitting process are described in Comment Categories #6 and#10. With regard to the request that DAQ delay issuance of the permit in light of these concerns, DAQ's time for processing an air permit application is prescribed by statute and regulation and DAQ is without authority to delay finalization of its permitting action based on the lawsuit referenced by the comments. 1 Available at https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Air%20Quality/permits/memos/newzoning.pdf. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 28 of 31 Comment Category 410: Hearinjz/Public Notice Concerns A. Additionally, due to technical difficulties and the virtual nature of Monday's hearing, I think it is necessary to extend the comment period so that residents have adequate time and means to provide input. B. BREDL requests an extension of the Public Comment Period as stated in 15A NCAC 02Q .0307(d). Due to high interest in the Caswell County community for both Carolina Sunrock draft permits (Facility IDs: 1700016 and 1700017), there needs to be more time to allow impacted residents to review documents for both proposed sites. C. I had been told that we would have three minutes to speak, but the moderator changed that to two minutes at the beginning of the meeting. The meeting finished much earlier than 9:00 pm. Tonight, I am attending the virtual public comment meeting for Carolina Sunrock-Prospect Hill. Individuals are being allowed the full three minutes. This seems very unfair to those who participated in the the meeting for Carolina Sunrock-Burlington North. I question why this was done. D. The materials for public review do not adequately describe the facility. Information was received after the deadline making it very hard for me to review and understand the permit request. Additionally, there was only one notice in the newspapers, that is not enough. Given the amount of interest, It should have been in the newspaper calendar for the remaining time. This has kept many in the dark. No radio announcements. HOC: In general commenters indicate there was not enough public notice/outreach or time to comment. To start, there was a strong foundation of community awareness based on the initial (first) permit application in 2019-2020. Regarding this current (second) submittal, a public notice was published on April 7, 2021 in the Caswell Messenger by the applicant and a sign was posted at the property on April 1, 2021. The opening of a public comment period and a notice of public hearing on the draft air quality permit for Carolina Sunrock LLC was posted on the DAQ website and a press release was issued on August 9, 2021. The notice of public hearing on the draft air quality permit for Carolina Sunrock LLC was published in the Burlington-Times News on August 9, 2021 and The Caswell Messenger on August 11, 2021, and on the Division of Air Quality's website on August 9, 2021. Known community leaders were consulted, the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation was kept informed of the permitting process, and flyers and letters were mailed to a 1-mile radius around the proposed facility on August 16. The commenter is correct the comment period was changed to two minutes from three minutes for the Burlington North public hearing. This was a result of an unusually large amount registered speakers (121 people). The time was adjusted to give everybody registered a chance to be heard. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date— September 20, 2021 Page 29 of 31 Comment Category #11: Other Matters Not Related to Air Quality A. Groundwater, noise, unsightly,property values, light pollution, fire prevention B. In a recent health assessment conducted by UNC and the NCIPH, 49% of respondents reported fear of encounter with wildlife and excessive buzzards, rodents, or insects. C. The Caswell County Community Health Assessment reported in 2019 that 52% of water samples in Caswell County did not meet state guidelines for chemical contaminants. D. One study in Sweden found that 50% of households located near an oil furnace and two asphalt plants complained of noise, even as low as 55dB. E. Neighborhood Safety -I am worried that the truck traffic associated with the operating hours of the asphalt plant will put my children at risk as they walk to the bus stop on busy roads with no sidewalks. F. Site Safety: Mandate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and proper respiratory equipment to negate this exposure for use by anyone on the property. While most of the comments received were thoughtful and worth considering in the proper forum, some of the comments were not directly related to the proposed Carolina Sunrock air quality permit application or the air quality permitting process. As such, these comments fall outside the purview of this public hearing and are therefore not directly addressed in this report. V. Conclusions and Recommendations North Carolina General Statute 143.215.108(c)(5a)b requires that an applicant satisfies to the Department that it"has substantially complied with the air quality and emission control standards applicable to any activity in which the applicant has previously engaged, and has been in substantial compliance with federal and state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the environment." A review of the 5-year compliance history for all Carolina Sunrock facilities in North Carolina was conducted: Facility ID Facility Name Address City 9100102 Carolina Sunrock 214 Sunrock Road Kittrell 7300078 Carolina Sunrock-Woodsdale 5280 Woodsdale Road Roxboro 9200623 Carolina Sunrock Corporation ** INACTIVE ** 8620 Barefoot Industrial Road Raleigh 3900117 Carolina Sunrock LLC-Butner Asphalt 300 Sunrock Drive Butner 3900074 Carolina Sunrock LLC-Butner Quarry 100 Sunrock Drive Butner 9200779 Carolina Sunrock LLC-Eastern Wake Facility 1524 Old US Highway 264 Zebulon 3200270 Carolina Sunrock LLC-Muirhead Dist. Center 1503 Camden Avenue Durham 1700015 Carolina Sunrock LLC-Prospect Hill Facility 4266 Wrenn Road Prospect Hill 9200602 Carolina Sunrock Wake Forest Plant 5043 Unicon Drive Wake Forest 3900093 Carolina Sunrock,LLC-Butner Concrete 100 Sunrock Drive Butner 9200457 Carolina Sunrock,LLC-RDU Dist. Center 8620 Barefoot Industrial Rd Raleigh Only one compliance concern was noted for the above set of facilities for the past five years: a Notice of Violation was issued to the Butner Concrete facility in November 2018 for excessive visible emissions from a dust collector. Hearing Officer's Report—Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North Hearing Date—September 20, 2021 Page 30 of 31 After considering all the public comments addressing whether or not DAQ should issue an air quality permit for the proposed Carolina Sunrock LLC—Burlington North to allow the construction and operation of an asphalt plant and concrete batch plant at 12971 S NC Highway 62 in Burlington,NC, it is the recommendation of the hearing officer that the Director issue the Air Quality permit with the following changes: A. Correct typographical and minor errors as mentioned in Comment Category 4 items F, I,J, and L. B. Revise the dispersion modeling permit condition text as suggested in Category 4 item A. to ensure clarity of intent. The general requirement is not changing with this recommendation. C. Remove the zoning permit condition A.16. as discussed in Comment Category 9.A- C. Additionally, I recommend DAQ staff remain sensitive to the health of the nearby communities and to the concerns that will remain should the asphalt plant begin operation. This can be accomplished through thorough frequent inspections and prompt responses to the citizen's air quality concerns and complaints. I also recommend DAQ staff ensure through compliance inspections and document review that the facility is constructed and operated as provided in the dispersion modeling analysis. October 19, 2021 Brendan G. Davey, P.E., Hearing Officer Date Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations Carolina Sunrock LLC Digital Public Hearing via Webex September 20, 2021 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Permit Application Review Draft Permit Notice of Public Hearing Public Hearing Attendance List 2 transcribed voicemail comments 139 E-mailed Public Comments Audio of Public Hearing Comments EJ Report