Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.06.2012
Board of County Commissioners - Public Hearing Exhibits Bedrock Resources LLC — Asphalt Batch Plant — Processing and Related Facilities Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit February 0, 2012 Continued to February 21, 2012 Deliberation Continued to February 27, 2012 (File MIPA-7030) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit Description A Proof of Publication B Return Receipts from Mailing Notice C Photo evidence of Public Notice Posting Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended D E Garfield County Comprehensive Pian of 2030 F Application G Staff Report H Staff Presentation Referral Comments County Vegetation Manager J Referral Comments from County Environmental Health Manager K Referral Comments from County Consulting Engineer L Referral Comments from County Road and Bridge Department M Referral Comments from Holy Cross Energy N Referral Comments from City of Rifle 0 Referral Comments from Rifle Fire Protection District P Referral Comments from Colorado Division of Water Resources 0 Supplemental Application Materials on Air Quality Permitting, Fire Protection, and Noise Study R Supplemental Application Materials — Revised CDPHE Permits S Supplemental Application Materials — FAA Letter on Height Reduction T ERO Resources Wetlands Analysis U City of Rifle Watershed Permit Application V Letter from Organic Growers W Letter from Eagle Springs Organic LLC X Water Quality Test Results on Monitoring Well Y Pump Test Results for the Monitoring Well Z Letter & Attachments from Brian Condi, Garfield County Airport Director AA FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation BB Supplemental Materials -- Revised Grading Plan & Base Elevation CC Applicant's Memo Addressing Conditions & Supplemental Submittals DD Supplemental Comments on Access from County Road and Bridge EE City of Rifle Watershed Permit Report and Permit FF Supplemental Fire Protection Information and Plan GG Supplemental Comments from County Vegetation Manager HH Updated Landscaping and Irrigation Plans II Corrected Road Cross Section JJ County Road and Bridge Access Permit KK Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Correspondence LL Colorado Discharge Permit System (Stormwater) Application MM Bedrock Resources Dust management Plan NN Division of Water Resources Correspondence and Application 00 West Divide Water Conservancy District Application and Contract PP Well Spacing and Well Construction Test Reports QQ H.P. Geotech Supplemental Report on Alluvial Fans RR Garfield County Sign Permit Applications SS Revised Site Plan, Road Details, Grading, and Landscaping Plans TT Noise Assessment, Engineering Dynamics Incorporated UU City of Rifle Watershed Protection Permit (issued) VV CDPHE Storm Water Permit (issued) WW Well Water Quality Test Results & Applicant Cover Letter on Treatment XX Division of Water Resources Letter (212112) on Well Permit YY Applicant's Power Point (Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association) ZZ Applicant's Handout — Emissions Comparison Report (dated 9/2001) AAA Comments from Marissa Gray (representing Eagle Springs Organics) BBB Organic Production Data (presented by Eagle Springs Organics) CCC Comments from Ken Sachs (Eagle Springs Organics) DDD Supplemental Staff Report EEE EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards FFF Frontier Paving Asphalt Plant Emissions Data GGG State Air Quality Regulations on Odor Emission HHH Excerpts from National Organic Program Regulations 111 Excerpts from Colorado Organic Certification Program Questionnaire JJJ EPA Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Emission Assessment Report KKK CDPHE Correspondence and Information on EPA Regulations LLL Army Corp of Engineers Correspondence and Permit MMM Supplemental Air Quality Analysis — Schmeuser, Gordon, Meyer NNN Correspondence and Attachements from Balcomb & Green (Scott Balcomb) on behalf of Eagle Springs Organics LLC 000 Affidavit from Dale Softly submitted by Balcomb & Green PPP - Email letter from Mary Russell QQQ Email letter from Hollis Kerler RRR Email letter from Laurel Catto SSS Email letter from Dylan Johns m Email letter from Tom Passevant uuu VVV Email letter from Jason White Email letter from Ilene Pevec vvVWni Email letter from David Stampff xxx YYY Email letter from Roxanne Bank Email letter from Kim Stacey 777 Email letter from Lisa Dancing — Light AAAA Email letter from Jim Hawkins BBBB Email letter from Diane Argenzio CCCC Email letter from Denise Rankin DDDD Email letter from Deborah Bradford EEEE Email letter from Barry Chapman FFFF GGGG HHHH 1111 Email letter from Avatar Perreault Email letter from Steve & Joanne Teeple Email letter from Joann Quade & Ralph Koehler Email letter from Noah Arneson JJJJ Email letter from Gwen Garcelon KKKK Email letter from Hilary Black LLLL Email letter from Kasey Nispel MMMM Email letter from Elaine Wissocq NNNN Email letter from Meredith Oakley 0000 Email letter from Michele Miller PPPP Email letter from Kalinda Reed QQQQ Email letter from Michael Thompson RRRR Email letter from Stephanie Syson SSSS Email letter from Mary Jursinovic TTTT Email letter from Felicia Trevor uuuu Email letter from Amy Hutton VVVV Email letter from Claudia Cunningham wuwuw Email lel" er from Jennifer Vanian XXXX Email fetter from Donald & Linda Whilldin YYYY Email letter from Fred Pulver 7777 Email letter from Caitlin Bourassa PAW Email letter from Sarah Rumery BBBBB CCCCC Email letter from Amelia Potvin Email letter from Lisa Elena (not received - missing) C: - `// DDDDD Email letter from Joanne Nelson (not received - missing) 0 it - EEEEE Email letter from Catherine Leonaitis FFFFF Email letter from Sean McWilliams GGGGG HHHHH Email letter from Jim Brett Email letter from Dawne Vrabel hill Email letter from Nancy Limbach JJJJJ Email letter from Jacob Richards KKKKK LLLLL Email letter from Mike Vanien (not received - missing) Email letter from Kurt Grimm 4 EXHIBIT COUNTY OF GAR;F'IiELD Z �a cG O y p' Q .'.:> .g. `� G' _0 is 8 ^ a _, _, � .= a = 3 w 3 o ",a,au ❑ 7'°` �•� �P t0 C :d �? y y ry 91 • '- ,C P. C a. F y} 1= 0 en C R ` ❑ r❑ U qY y a 7 r 0 hl .0 —. u7 Cl t v ¢t d- • R7 .g 0 = 0 0. v -In 4 0- M 9 , c to 3 C C -C gu vs .F ' a -c;en .2 U E C .. L' Ll U ❑ N n co u7 U ❑ L.: c7 0, 7 y„ co ❑` _ 0.a, d v 4' Q •❑ E *% u o ❑ t a z u Lc 2+ en - � u m r ,v ,U v o— to m C T >3 4i S7 E v m z w v+ ,� = m y LI p v 3 O CAL) iJY V y .ns a��_c 4 U C 4-. X !:7?"' C 'w ev L... L as �. c3 -0 '« C' > r W ❑ L.. C 4J m {� LiNp G g' • 8 ... v❑ m t, :n CI �. T7 75 �. rn Afl aF e... C w O _ y C CJ .SJ �.. V ¢.0 41 t. y -, =-Zn cE�. t° �s V5 .- DC7 c 2 °' E .'.c -c.' In witness whereof. I have here Subscribed and sworn to before nie. a notary public in and for the (:runt) of Garfield. r4 • L, 4 E J • Re,.ources 1 1.(' 5 3 1 3 U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL:.. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) or delivery information visit o Jr website at www.usps.cem:. L USE R85. Feetede ,-..1.artilind Fee Elee.rM Receipt Fee .F.;6orsernent Requited) Frantic:tee r/eivery Fee ,Enoweement Required) r.o.of Postage & Fees 40.44 $2.65 $2.30 .00 0591 01 PrrA9‘6681,6 Hare 01/03/2012 73.g.poiliseztA2 F°9 -Na Lq0J-LIZ 4,2.5 P For. 6 3600. ArtgLr.it ;len s - Sou Reverse thr U.S. Postal Service , CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information vi Sit our website et r,eww..0 spS. COM USE af:k Pveage LS $0.44 ;Ammo =e, 32.85 3 ,tetur Receipt "area 1 ,Eldereerroent Reeplred) 32.30 4.16iiote1 Delivery Fee Scdersament Ree4ired) $0.00 4 1-542] Postage & Fiffie 9 , I ecer .. ....... $5.59 0591 01 Postrnark Here 01/03/2012 7 3 Return Receipt Fee j ST,dcreement Reuird) 7 i-ie&leted- Delivery Fee F2ebreement &nuked) 3 • rczer Postage & FOGS Ift7.-zotb4 faAt-,5Aze5. Lod-. 7;- 3 al.WA2 4/q4a.r. 4,.)‘ :444 Form 3800. Awn usr 2006 08 Form 2800, Sc.!, Reverse for 116;3,,..tions. U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our mastie at www.0 sps. tom • .orn. 82t1 USE rdfied Fee $0444 0591 $2.85 01 $2.30 $0.00 $5.59 POSIreafk here 01/03/2012 eit) _A MP I Rt•vtr,...,? 10r IIISEILJC,00110 OHIO 8912 rR rR rR r- • os a ervice„ CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic mail Only: No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website 1 www.usps.comr, Kra .74 . u,-7 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt ree lir Required) nestrLle0 Delivery Fee (reemen: Required Total Postage &Foss A s 30.44 $2.85 $2.30 $0.00 $ $5.59 0591 01 Postmark Hera 01/03/2012 .tassav state,z, g • 1 f'S Fo!Frl 3008. August 2006 is Soe Reverse ar lnutructioo4 13- _13 N 11J rR co 1=1 rq rR r9 r - U.S. Postal Service - CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) OHO 8912 7687 Return Receipt Fee ndorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fee 30.44 32.85 32.30 30.00 $5.59 Postmark Rare 01/03/2012 PS. Form 3600. emousi 20126 See Revir.r,f, for In.:truck-cm.; U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) Lrl r -R 1=1 For delivery ntforMancin v tea our WebShie at WWW-06pSZOITI, Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement F.equired) Restricted Delivery Fee lEndareetned. Required) Total Postage & Fees 52.85 01 POsOrtenc Here 01/03/2012 EXHIBIT or M Dm No. CO, Slats, ZirP4,4 7 ------- a1 LLr. 1 PS ell 3860,. Aucio5.1.20011 Sot FIEnotINie tUl lilSCTIK.ti0115 U.S. Postai Service CERTIFIED MAIL-:.: RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery Information visit our website at _.5gsq ate 3Y 60 4,4 105_2_ See Reverse ror InslructioriS U.S. U.S. Postal Service, - CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) or delivery Information visit our website at www,usps.com::. 1'.+.__.__5... PS Form t800. hugasl 2005 arr Sen Revel;n for Instraclie U.S. Postal Servicelr. CERTIFIED MAIL:. RECEIPT (domestic Mali Only; No insuranceCoverage Provided) -n 'rl N ru Er 1150 0000 ra r -R fl N For delivery information visit our website ai www .usps.com; C+ . STfi i ' .,L. Uk P®S:3g0 Corti/ion Foo Realm Rea* Fee (Enoarenmerd Requited) Raeirlded Delivery : Fee (ERdoratarrard Required) lbtd Puetaga & FOos $0.44 0591 41 Pixtmarii Hers 01/03/2012 or PO Sax Nod gin; S 21144 FF Form 390a. August 2006 See Reverse lot tnsrrectlons U.S.. Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAIL— RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only: No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at .usps.com;, Vii' sF 11 C. Poona Cartktiod Fad Fist= Receipt Fee (Enderasmarr Requited) Raarrttad Delivery Fee (ErldoraamO tt Required) Litt 1 Postage & Fees $0.44 $2.®5 32.30 $0.00 $5.59 0591 01 01/03/2012 ...e1rc- orPOBrarNa. /,?/.:tie6$s slam P3 rrn .1HI4 .r 1 �rrye�•.1 20013 Sege R,vorrs for Itnst,00tIUrtS U.S. Postal Servicer,., CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at werw.uspe.com, avv $0.44 4ostaos Carets -I Fee Ream Receipt Fee ortromenz Reoutrod) i 'teried Dein/Cry Fee 'RequlrAril $2.85 $0.00 $0.00 Feo's 1 $3.29 1 01/03/2012 t,.)g ...... 1,e,?.9,,y. IR 4 crq4F girt, See R.everse Tor In=.tructi-on, U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Malt Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery infOrrnation visit °Ur website et www.usp.S.COM Postage Certified Few Rem) Recwipt Fee 7,resimenlAtiquired) - es-icreti Derivery Fen eer•lera Rewised, $0.44 0591 $245 01 Postmark $2.30 Hem Festage & Fees 6 $0.00 $5.59 01/03/2012 421f, ........... - ,6erz P5 F ',38410. Augus1 2555 JP-t,e) s'A .140fh, /42 Stt Reverse for MI, uel U.S. Postai Service,, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mali Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For deiivery information visit our web lte al www.usps.com:, .11t0 Foetaz;e Cer_tied Pee 3 Seip Receipt Fee s_roorsament Radited) 3 Pastralso Delivery Fee 3 '3 -4o -wren+ eoared) $0.00 -.74381 Postage &Fees $ $5.59 01/03/2012 .41°Vet, :14! 30( ASU 'kVA $0.44 0591 $2.05 01 Poesmat Here $2.30 rg-te E4ged- .. 'SFon SC2.APJ y uNt 217115 Se, Reve,se fc,r Instructions U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information eisit our we belie et vvwvo.usps.co ro_ 11ORRO C CAMP/6d Fee Return Receipt Fee tEnclersemerd Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Feee $0.44 $2.135 $2.30 $0.00 recjil iigrd 7011 1150 0000 8912 7779 m Er $5.59 Cii)s SWISA-S elui--1 PS Fon, 350) Auoum aoSS 01 01/03/2012 Sec 3500 00 for 11101)501, U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only, No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com% R P. Cartillad Foe ileum FleoeV. Fee (Sedorserneru Regulled) 19eetrl4ted Delivery Fee lEndorsernom Required) Tore Postage it Fees s $0.44 0591 $25 01 Power= $2.30 Hare $0.00 01/03/2012 sem I'D Teaceza.411c-- ya P° 42 2 5.5 &Alf .1110•2.4.a... CO: Stele, Norm See Reverse leF Ir.iilritPidSs U.S. Postai Service, CERTIFIED MAILT,, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery infOrrn alien visit our website at www.usps.r.om., nEttfoilft4CAL %u6t Postege Certified Fee Ream Receipt Fee (Endorsement FrequIred) Fiestivvicoeihiery Fee (Entiorsemars Required) Total FOViege 1 Fees $0.44 $2.85 $2.30 $0.00 0591 01 Postmark Here 5.59 01/03/2012 -Pdf-aso<k-) LOALAAdorih ,.z. e..4 g0 Q. • 3 55 Form 3551.1_ August 2055 See Reverse for InstiecUenr,,, 1150 J000 8912 rR U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL. �� RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) of no.4Q it-2/11Mat; 1 eft _ s PS form 3800. August 260 i7 5rr, Roversu or li1sIrurcllr741S EXHIBIT 1 G • NOTICE TIKE NOTICE That _BCd � �]� has G �i_»uvices LLL C64,154 Kum. Eiw�k #6.4jcy agpiitb ra Int Gwiioto Co unly ntnavlanl (0 11c t lts(iaA 4 t !� hen_r�TGc_ Qom_ _ nt .wc1'16It�rilt Cove _ --- 10 aliew .4,.49444 Lid (ja..._ _wiett- !1r yr 1'0%0. ites1sW_ ll '€*t Ed_sfi%■14�is. A fla i`-- Ngetas+n Awk. _T411,446__ C.C.c.iitetEr M_I_ -•lG j o. t(4% property A p bl1. —ki.C.1. _ an 1111% wlanllC I ,40,1,1' r h 1d1n t1,*•tcM. L lM1lJ_}.ikf� 9i y +S eettJ r kijfe. .Gatr.{ia1& CGelr+y tL1 i 6u1S iU 4 £l ^1}° G.nxa.W1 aprinpy, Colorado 5- 6.YV h r yf ':? UA L- " 1 {c?U p w► Oita HOW" Via Pas.4d. ! aj Eatayllr.M sy t_-2CLZ For edd111onal Informallpn, e©nl5G1 etre 0401 Cs*k 41..4! 0. 4.4./. d fimi.L' Deort.,iSt al TW)-144.?f.I L pry�..fi.�. � O.i . sas e1h sl bun* 'I D! __ _ , Glenwood yPnnpe, C0.1 yoi NOTIC TAKE NOTICE Jig4ordc ILtrawrccs I.tc ch.,4+ tUri 114.1 awned 14111. 11141004M itjj/Iii GarM1ald County puxnumt Ix, .I CiF.V€L� Nf _ 1�11J t,/� (f { I{'tsP1N 1�.4oy As &-J_.- — - — lo allpaxallow A 1.444 Vie C4ANALict_14- •6_141,45 (643 _40, xUTA •7(0.1 p_rirksA illl_awE la ralate rlf410 n t1112wirry A✓'!.M'j� a111n1a w.a 6e r. k n,M C�wr' G. rtr^1 a.a. c_V lit! l f f.{ttrR. G �1,3rn y+ ? ' _1f l Fit l GI n Q5! s felppa.. Colorado fP 14,12. T._ 0.w VRry _ .. So Glee eo3Cod by: C7,le,lii.._�'�f'Jl.a.p.lCh' // For 3ddltluflal Information. i)itelet ffta CAV€0,11T lr lMf �,. M — (fell N,r4 Gw Yftwt M ____•. _ IpC FIA Tull.. : . alaa.,aad SprS:ye CO M 15 EXHIBIT i G Board of County Commissioners February 6, 2012 MIPA-7030/GH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) PLANNER/CONSULTANT LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACRES ZONING Major Impact Review— Land Use Change Permit for an Asphalt Batch Plant and Related Accessory Uses Bedrock Resources LLC, Charles Ellsworth, Manager Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc (SGM), Jefferey Simonson The site is located off of County Road 315, approximately 1/3 of a mile south of the Interstate 70 Mamm Creek Interchange and 1/3 of a mile east of the Garfield County Airport. A tract of land being situated in Section 18, T6S, R92W and also known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2179-184-00-720. The site consists of 35.72 acres. Rural DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND BACKGOUND Project Description The Application requests Major Impact Review approval for an asphalt batch plant and related accessory uses including contractors yard, general service, processing, professional office, recycling processing facility, and storage of machinery, equipment or products. The site is approximately 35 acres in size and is located along the east side of County Road 315 (Mamm Creek Road). Access to the site exists today, however, the Applicant anticipates relocating and upgrading the access drive and intersection with the County Road. An office will be located on the lower portion of the site adjacent to the County Road and an access road built connecting the office to the industrial operations on the upper portion of the site. The Applicant intends to relocate to the site their existing batch plant which is currently located off of County Road 311 east of Silt. The machinery being installed on the site will include: mixing drum, lime and product silos, various bins, bag house (air filtration), fuel storage, burner element, and control house. An 8,000 sq.ft. covered storage building and a 5,000 sq.ft. shop building are also proposed. Several storage areas for raw materials and recycled material are also planned. Vicinity Map BEDROCK RES e * ' CES, LLC TO RIFLE 7141 Cni.n y Other components of the proposal are outlined below and shown on the overall site plan: • Fuel storage area and containment • Storm water drainage improvements including the construction of several detention ponds • Drilling of a new well for potable water use • Installation of a new septic system for waste water including sewer line connnections. • Hydrants and water line connections to the major pond for fire protection. • Best management practices for water quality protection during construction. • Access road with 28 ft, driving surface • Landscaping, plantings, reseeding, and slope stabilization • Weed removal and control (primarily Russian Knapweed) • Protection of wetlands areas and wetland mitigation areas • Parking areas for the office (7 spaces) and the shop/storage area (10 spaces) • Circulation and parking areas for transport trucks • Rock Crusher (used for recycling) 2 Proposed Site Plan : �* s iltry i .- m.01 A general photograph of the existing facilities (to be relocated) is shown below with additional photographs attached as an exhibit to the Staff Report. The tallest elements of the industrial operation are the lime silo (47') and the loading/product silo (41' 6"). Existing Facility 3 II. ADJACENT USES Adjacent properties and land uses are summarized below and reflect the character of the area including rural agricultural uses and oil and gas activities: North: Single family residential, agriculture, and open space East: Organic agriculture, solar power generating facility, and oil and gas pads West: Mamm Creek Road (County Road 315), open space, and further west Garfield County Airport, industrial, storage, and oil and gas production. South: Agriculture, residential, and oil and gas production. Zoning adjacent to the site: North: Rural (R) East: Rural (R) West: Airport PUD and industrial (I) South: Rural (R) III. AUTHORITY AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. The Land Use Tables contained in Section 3-501 of the ULUR, designate Processing including an Asphalt Batch Plant within the Rural Zone District as requiring a Major Impact Review. The list of additional activities proposed (i.e. office, contractor's yards, storage etc.) are typical and accessory to the proposed use. B. Section 4-106 of the ULUR outlines the Major Impact Review Procedures including public notice requirements. The process includes public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. C. Article 7 of the ULUR includes general standards for review in Divisions 1, 2, and 3. Article 7, Division 8 also includes standards for specific uses including Section 7-810, Industrial Uses. (see excerpts below). Section 7-704 and Section 3-405 contain standards for activities in the vicinity of airports including avigation easements, lighting, reflective materials, industrial emissions, height issues, and wetlands. SECTION 7-810 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO INDUSTRIAL USE. A. Enclosed Building. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. B. Loading and Unloading. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. 4 C. Outdoor Storage Facilities. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. 1. All outside storage abutting or facing a lot in a residential or commercial zone shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site-obscuringfence to obstruct the storage area from view. The fence shall be of material and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. D. Industrial Wastes. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements ofCDPHE. E. Sound. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. F. Ground Vibration. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property G. Interference, Nuisance or ,Hazard. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted. from this provision. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Site is designated by the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 as Residential Medium High (MH) with residential densities of 2 to c 6 acres/dwelling unit. Chapter 3, Section 4, Economy, Employment and Tourism includes a number of goals, policies, and strategies relevant to the current application. Several key elements are summarized below: Goal #1: Maintain a strong and diverse economic base (for both employment and income generation). Policy #5: The County will direct industrial development to the airport center and other appropriately designated areas. Strategy #4: Ensure that commercial/industrial development are compatible with adjacent land uses and preserve the visual quality of the county. 5 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Public and Referral Comments: Public notice for the Planning Commission hearing and the current hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is required in accordance with the ULUR code requirements. Proof of public notice is required to be presented prior to the public hearing. Public comments have been received from Eagle Springs Organics LLC and Organic Growers LLC, owners of property, an organic growing operation, and a solar power generating facility located adjacent to and east of the proposed site. Their letters are attached to the Staff Packet as Exhibits (°`V" & "W"). Referral packets were sent to the following agencies with comments summarized below and included as exhibits. The Applicant has provided responses to a number of the agencies/issues which are also included as exhibits. 1. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: requested specifics on a knapweed management strategy and quantifying area of disturbance to determine if re - vegetation security is required. 2. Garfield County Environmental Manager: identified a number of concerns including Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment permitting, fugitive dust control, water, sewer, noise, and storm water management permitting. 3. Garfield County Consulting Engineer: a technical review meeting was held with the Consulting Engineer and subsequently written comments submitted. Comments addressed the access, stormwater and drainage, wetlands, geotechnical and soils. 4. Garfield County Road and Bridge: noted issues with storm water impacts and the possible need for speed reduction and signage on the County Road. Supplemental comments have been provided updating their review and addressing separation requirements for driveways and the driveway access options. 5. Garfield County Airport: Comments from the Airport Director were submitted addressing FAA requirements and including a copy of the avigation easement. 6. Holy Cross Electric: requested a 30 ft. easement for the existing power line and noted that relocation of existing facilities and/or line extensions would require completion of additional contractual arrangements. 7. Town of Silt: no comments were received. 8. City of Rifle: has indicated that review of a watershed protection permit is ongoing. Additional information on the permit application and its status has been provided. 9. Rifle Fire Protection District: submitted comments on additional information needed to calculate fire protection water supply, hazardous materials, and access. 10. Colorado Division of Water Resources: commented on the proposed water source (well) and related use issues including the West Divide Water Conservancy Contract, existing water rights on the site, and the Applicant's current monitoring/test well activities. 11. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE): provided verbal comments identifying the need for additional/different permitting with the State. Copies of additional permit applications to the State have provided by the Applicant. 6 B. Site Suitability: The Applicant's Site Suitability analysis meets the ULUR requirements and addresses key issues for the site as follows: 1. Access is well documented with plans for upgrading identified in the submittals. 2. Access relocation plans shall require approval of a new access permit by the County Road and Bridge Department. 3. A copy of the easement document for the adjoining property needs to be provided and the status of easements for Holy Cross Electric clarified. New or modified easements for electric service may be required. 4. The topography of the site warrants careful review of detailed engineering and soils analyses that have been provided. 5. Natural features on the site are well documented in the submittals and make note of the topography and significant slopes on the site. 6. Drainage features include several swales/draws and small wetlands areas. Mitigation in the form of detention ponds are proposed along with obtaining permits from the Army Corp of Engineers that may be required. 7 Plans for potable water to serve the site are provided and a monitoring well has been drilled on the site in anticipation of providing well test results. No irrigation rights are associated with the property and the Applicant will need to address provision of water for landscaping and re-vegetation. $. No flood plains are mapped on the site. 9. A detailed soils and geotechnical analysis has been provided including recommendations on the site development. 10. No major geologic hazards were identified by the analysis, however, the presence of an alluvial fan in the vicinity of the proposed office and secondary detention pond will require additional engineering study and evaluation. 11. The Applicant's Wildlife Impact Study indicates that the natural vegetation on the site supports only low wildlife habitat value and "No threatened, endangered, or candidate species are known to occur within the area..." 12. The applicant's analysis of archaeological resources on the site did not identify any features that meet the criteria for protection or additional study. C. Impact Analysis: The Applicant's Impact Analysis addresses the requirements of the ULUR and identifies the following attributes in support of the application: 1. Adjacent properties and mineral rights owners have been identified per code. 2. Adjacent land uses have been noted and include a mix of agriculture, oil and gas production, vacant lands, and residential uses. Topographic and physical separation helps to mitigate impacts on adjoining agricultural uses. The property immediately adjacent and east of the site has been approved for development of a major solar power generating facility in conjunction with an organic growing and production operation. 3. The Application includes grading plans, road engineering and road profiles addressing slope issues associated with the topography of the site. 4. Soils information is detailed in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by H.P. Geotech. The report includes in the summary of findings the following 7 statement: "Geologic conditions that could present potential hazards or major constraints to the proposed new paving plant and associated facilities were not indicated by this study." 5. The H.P. Geotech report addresses potential hazards and recommends additional evaluation of "potential alluvial fan flooding and to develop site specific geotechnical engineering design information". 6. The Applicant's water supply plan proposes drilling a well on the site with water storage and hauling as a backup or supplemental option. The plan addresses the likelihood of developing a productive well on the site and a recent test well has been drilled. 7 The geotechnical evaluation and test pits did not encounter any ground water. Percolation test have been conducted and compliance with Garfield County regulations for Individual Septic System will be required. Irrigation of re -vegetation and landscape planting is anticipated but the Applicant needs to provide details. 8. No significant impacts on the environment were found in the ERO Resources Corporation study of the site. 9. The Applicant has provided a detailed Traffic Study prepared by SGM. The study addresses traffic generation from the proposed use, improvement warrants, and impacts on off-site intersections. 10. Noise and maximum sound levels are noted in ULUR with reference to the State noise limits. Noise issues were addressed by studies provided by the Applicant estimating noise impacts on the most closely adjacent residential use. Additional studies shall be required and have been undertaken by the Applicant to address compliance at all adjacent property lines in accordance with the State Standards. The additional analysis is anticipated to address noise estimates for operation prior to 7:00 a.m. Recommendations for fugitive dust control are included in referral comments from the Garfield County Environmental Health Manager. 11. The Applicant needs to quantify the area of disturbance and supply a reclamation bond or other acceptable security if determined to be required in accordance with the Garfield County Vegetation Manager's recommendations and County policies. D. General ULUR Standards 1. The proposal is in compliance with general zoning provisions including setbacks. The height of certain elements of the batch plant exceed the non-residential height limit for the Rural Zone District of 40 ft. but are typically exempted by Section 3-301 N. Reduction of the effective height of some elements has been identified by the FAA as a requirement. 2. The off-street parking areas meet the code requirement for the number of parking spaces for the office and shop areas. The site plan includes extensive areas for loading and circulation of trucks. 3. The Applicant shall be required to document the legal and adequate physical supply of water in accordance with Section 7-105. 4. Wetlands and/or marshy areas have been identified on the site and will be largely avoided by the development. Mitigation for minor encroachments will be accomplished by the detention ponds and storm water management improvements. 8 5. Water Quality protection is benefitted by the detention ponds, filtering of debris and settlement of sediment facilitated by the design. Provisions for ongoing maintenance should be required. 6. The landscaping plan is appropriate for the site and will provide some visual screening. 7. Lighting for the site should be the minimum amount necessary and should be directed downward and inward toward the interior of the site 8. Limitations on hours of operation should be set forth and are recommended for 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. based on compliance with the State limits on noise. Additional noise studies have been undertaken by the Applicant to further demonstrate compliance with State and County Standards and the potential for extended hours of operation in the morning for plant start-up activities. E. Specific Industrial Use Standards — Section 7-810 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as Amended 1. The site plan includes a 5,000 sq.ft. shop building allowing service and repair operations to be conducted in an enclosed building. Topography, slopes, additional site grading and newly proposed grading and berms (new site plan submittals) will also reduce visibility and impacts from the operation. 2. All operations including loading and unloading are accommodated on the site. 3. Much of the outdoor storage will have limited visibility due to the topography of the site. Visibility from properties to the east may be an issue that will be mitigated by the revised grading plan and proposed berms. 4. Proper disposal of industrial waste in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment shall be required. 5. The applicant's sound/noise analysis indicates that the asphalt batch plant operation will be in compliance with State daytime operation standards for the closest residential property. The Applicant has undertaken addition studies to address all property lines and early morning operations. 6. Impacts from ground vibration have not been identified in the Application submittals. 7 Nuisance impacts inconsistent with a typical industrial operation have not been noted. Discussion at the Planning Commission's hearing included information from the County Attorney's Office regarding enforcement of this provision including vapors or fumes. F. Airport Compatibility 1, The Applicant has provided copies of their "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" to the FAA in association with the avigation easement on the site. The Applicant has obtained a determination of "No Hazard to Air Navigation" from the FAA associated with Form 7460-1 and a copy of the determination is attached as Exhibit "AA". The Applicant has committed to a reduction in the overall height of the facility through a revised grading plan based on the FAA review and determination. 9 2. The Airport Director provided a letter addressing noise, the existing avigation easement, and FAA Determinations. The letter is included as Exhibit "Z" and further states that "With approval and compliance to any FAA requirements the Garfield County Regional Airport has no objections to this proposed project as presented". The letter included a copy of the avigation easement and confirmation that it has been properly recorded should be required. 3. Conditions of approval should require compliance with all applicable sections of the ULUR related to airport compatibility including Sections 3-405 and 7-704. Of note these sections prohibit industrial emissions that obscure visibility, guidelines for lighting, restrictions on reflective materials and electrical interference, height limitations, and wetlands restrictions to avoid conflicts with wildlife associated with bird movements. VI. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS AND ANALYSIS 1. The Applicant has provided a supplemental grading plan for the site (Exhibit "BB"). The revised plan reflects a lowering of the site for the tallest elements of the batch plant by 16 ft. This adjustment was made in response to FAA concerns and will also result in reduction in visibility, further mitigation of noise impacts, and creation of material for proposed berms. Revised Site Plan Proposed Berens MOW. . .820141141, 11 .sal 4 �Y r-- 1142 24 •r- iNIMf/fWS�'ff Separated Access =S:YLiP=-silk— m�1�w� f[w�r.�il ur�v Lowered Grade at the Plant Site n an 10 2. The recommended conditions of approval require compliance with supplemental standards for uses in the vicinity of airports and the airport overlay zone district. A summary of some the standards contained in those sections is provided below: • Recording of avigation easements • Prohibition on electrical interference • Shielding of lighting and probation on light that imitates airport lighting • Prohibition on glare producing materials • Limits on emissions that could obscure visibility within airport approaches • Height provisions • Wetland limitation to avoid wildlife impacts on airport operations • Noise provisions relating to airport impacts on proposed activities • Allowances for and limitations on certain uses • Construction noticing and FAA provisions 3. The Applicant has provided a summary memo and extensive supporting documentation addressing the draft conditions of approval. The memo is attached as Exhibit "CC" and supporting documents are also attached as Exhibits. The information provided is being reviewed by County Staff including the County Attorney's Office and will be referred to the County's consulting engineer, Resource Engineering for review as appropriate. The Applicant is still waiting on several items noted in the memo including the updated/expanded noise analysis. 4. The County Road and Bridge Department has submitted supplemental comments indicating approval for separate driveways to serve the proposed site and the adjoining property to the north, subject to certain conditions including a minimum separation between driveways of 180 ft. (Exhibit "DD"). Appropriate edits to the conditions of approval should be implemented consistent with the Road and Bridge Department recommendation. 5. The Applicant has provided a report from the City of Rifle on the Watershed Protection Permit, correspondence from the City indicating the permit has been issued and a copy of the permit (Exhibit "EE"). 6. The Applicant has provided additional technical information (hydrant details) to the Rifle Fire Protection District along with a Fire Mitigation Plan (Exhibit "FF"). 7 The County Vegetation Manager has further reviewed the weed control plan and has indicated that draft Condition #4 has been satisfied and is no longer recommended (Exhibit "GG"). The Applicant has also updated the landscaping plans to include tree and shrub protection and irrigation plans (Exhibit "HH"). The Applicant's Engineer has provided an estimate of the area of disturbance that will be re -vegetated (8 acres) for the purpose of calculating required security. 11 8. Additional documentation noted in the Applicant's memo and included as Exhibits are summarized as follows:: • Exhibit "II" - Corrected road cross-section to reflect 28 ft. of width • Exhibit "JJ" - County Road and Bridge Access Permit • Exhibit "KK" -Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Correspondence • Exhibit "LL"- Colorado Discharge Permit System (Stormwater) Application • Exhibit "MM" -Bedrock Resources Dust Management Plan • Exhibit "NN - Division of Water Resource Correspondence and Application • Exhibit "00" -West Divide Water Conservancy District Application and Contract • Exhibit "PP"—Well Spacing and Well Construction Test Reports • Exhibit "QQ"—H.P.Geotech Supplemental Report on Alluvial Fans • Exhibit "RR"—Garfield County Sign Permit Applications • Exhibit "SS" —Revised Site Plan, Road Details, Grading, and Landscaping Plans VII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Garfield County Planning Commission considered this Land Use Change Permit application at a public hearing on January 11, 2012. The Commission's consideration of the Application included extensive discussion of zoning provisions contained in Article 111, submittal requirements pursuant to Article IV and applicable standards contained in Article VII of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended. The Commission formalized a motion for approval of the Land Use Change Permit request for a Major Impact Review for Bedrock Resources LLC for an Asphalt Batch Plant — Processing, and related accessory uses subject to the conditions outlined below. The motion for approval was made by Commissioner Kuerston and seconded by Commissioner Fullerton and referenced Exhibits "A" — "BB" and the recommended findings and conditions #1 - #20 subject to certain modifications. The motion included minor typographical corrections (Condition #5), inclusion of additional referral comments (Condition #8), timing issues related to CDPHE permits (Condition #11), and hours of operation and noise studies/compliance (Condition #20). The Commission's additions are shown as underlined: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; 2. The operation of this facility and any future amendments shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility including but not limited to the FAA and Avigation Easement approvals and notifications. 12 3. The Applicant shall maintain compliance with the provisions of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 including but not limited to Section 7-810, Standards for Industrial Uses. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the County Vegetation Manager in regard to weed management including provision of a detailed weed management plan addressing the specifics of the tamarisk and Russian knapweed management strategy. 5. The Applicant shall supplement the revegetation and landscaping plans with details on irrigation and protection of trees and shrubs from wildlife damage. Revegetation of the site shall be completed in accordance with the Applicant's submitted plans and the Applicant shall quantify the area of disturbance to be revegetated and shall provide security for said revegetation if required in accordance with County Policies. Revegetation shall be completed during the next growing season after completion of construction. 6. The relocated access to the site shall be constructed in accordance with the Applicant's submitted plans subject to: (a) updating the road cross section on Sheet 7 of the engineering plans to reflect the current proposal for 28 ft.; (b) obtaining a new access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department; (c) compliance with any access permit conditions of approval and required improvements associated with said permit. Access permit conditions may include but are not limited to additional safety signage, additional speed limit signage to facilitate potential speed reductions, drainage improvements, and vegetation trimming to improve intersection visibility. 7. Access to the residential property to the north shall be maintained during construction of the new access road. At the discretion of the neighboring property owner they may continue to utilize the existing access alignment or the new joint access proposed by the Applicant. Should the adjacent property owner desire to use the new access: (a) additional evaluation of driveway grades shall be required; (b) the Applicant shall provide copies of the existing easement documents and appropriate revisions to implement the new joint access configuration; and (c) said documentation shall be submitted to the County for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 8. Prior to any construction or grading activity on the site the Applicant shall provide documentation of issuance by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) of all construction permits, fugitive dust, and storm water permits. Prior to operation of the facility the Applicant shall provide documentation of issuance by the CDPHE of all required permitting including but not limited to air quality - Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) permits and spill prevention permits/plans. Minor edits to labeling on the Erosion Control Plan shall also be completed by the Applicant and approved by the County's Consulting Engineer. 13 9. A dust management plan for construction and operations shall be provided and approved by the County Environmental Health Manager prior to any construction on site. 10. The Applicant shall update well permit applications and water contracts to reflect the proposed industrial and office uses. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide evidence that the Division of Water Resources has issued the industrial/commercial use well permit and that it has been tested for production and water quality and meets the appropriate standards in accordance with Article VII of the ULUR. If supplemental hauling of potable water is necessary, the Applicant shall use properly licensed and equipped contractors meeting CDPHE requirements. 11. The Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be required to meet Garfield County Permitting and design requirements and engineered systems may be required based on additional site specific soils evaluations. The Applicant shall properly abandon the existing septic system located on the site per Garfield County regulations. 12. The Applicant shall implement all storm water management improvements as represented in the Application, obtain State Storm Water Management Permits, and construct all required wetland mitigation. Written evidence of compliance including all Army Corp of Engineers wetland permitting shall be provided prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The Applicant shall provide ongoing maintenance of detention ponds and wetlands areas. 13. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide written confirmation from the Rifle Fire Protection District that the District has approved the fire protection and emergency vehicle access plans for the site. The Applicant shall also provide operational standards/policies to reduce the potential for wildfire (i.e. weed control, separation from native vegetation, heat and spark mitigation) 14. Engineered foundations, on-site observation of excavation, and compliance with the recommendations of the H.P. Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study shall be required for all new construction and grading activity on the site. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, additional studies shall be performed to evaluate the potential alluvial fan flooding and to develop facility specific geotechnical engineering designs for mitigation as appropriate. Said plans shall be provided to the County and subject to review and approval by the County's Consulting Engineer. 15. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide utility easements for Holy Cross Energy's existing electrical service and any relocation. The Applicant shall also document Holy Cross Energy's ability to serve the proposed use pursuant to their referral comments dated 12/8/11. 14 16. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the City of Rifle has issued a watershed protection permit for approval for the proposed use. 17. The Applicant shall obtain sign permits in accordance with the ULUR for all signs proposed for the use. 18. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide written confirmation of approval of all FAA requirements including but not limited to a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" and Avigation Easement Requirements for construction of the proposed facility in the vicinity of the Garfield County Airport. To further protect the safe aerial operations that occur at the Garfield County Regional Airport the owners and operators of this facility shall at all times fully comply with the FAA Aeronautical Studies associated with the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation and/or future FAA aeronautical studies including, but not limited to, approved conditions for construction, repair, maintenance and/or expansion of this facility. 19. The Applicant shall comply with standards contained in the ULUR for uses in the vicinity of Airports contained in Section 3-405 and Section 7-704 including but not limited to lighting, use of reflective materials, industrial emissions, electrical interference, wetlands, utilities, structure height, and avigation easements. In addition, lighting for the site should be the minimum amount necessary and should be directed downward and inward toward the interior of the site. 20. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. based on compliance with the State limits on noise. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide a complete noise analysis demonstrating compliance with all State and County noise standards. The Applicant may extend the hours of operation from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. upon demonstration of operating under the 50 db(A) noise level. VIII. STAFF NOTES ON ADDITIONAL EDITS Based on supplemental information provided by the Applicant and additional referral comments received subsequent to the Planning Commission's public hearing, the following modifications to the conditions of approval are suggested. Condition #4 has been satisfied and can be eliminated as reflected by the additional referral comments from the County Vegetation Manager (Exhibit "GG"). Conditions #6 and #7 regarding the driveway access should be edited to read as follows based on the supplemental Road and Bridge comments (Exhibit "DD"). New sections are noted as underlined, deleted sections are omitted. 15 6. The relocated access to the site shall be constructed in accordance with the Applicant's revised plans showing a separated driveway access,_subject to: (a) updating the road cross section on Sheet 7 of the engineering plans to reflect the current proposal for 28 ft.; (b) obtaining a new access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department; (c) compliance with any access permit conditions of approval and required improvements associated with said permit. Access permit conditions may include but are not limited to additional safety signage, additional speed limit signage to facilitate potential speed reductions, drainage improvements, vegetation trimming to improve intersection visibility, maintenance of drainage ditches/culverts and maintaining 180 ft. of separation from the existing driveway pursuant to the County Road and Bridge comments dated 1/24/12 from District 3 Foreman, Ray Sword. 7 Access to the residential property to the north shall be maintained during construction of the new access road. The separate access shall remain in place after construction serving the neighboring property and serving as a secondary emergency access for the proposed facility subject to the terms of the existing easement. At the discretion of the neighboring property owner they may request use of a joint access with the Applicant. The County would allow a joint alignment however it is not required as a condition of approval and provisions related to implementing a joint driveway shall be a private matter between property owners subject to any applicable review and permitting by the County Road and Bridge Department. 16 ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPOSED SITE Looking South - View of the Upper Portion of the Site View Looking South -East from. Mamm Creek Rd. to c JIj Lf) I a) ›.... (--.4+a .5 4— cu o C cc Co ;u Lo- co T ›. 'Q 0 L 121.. E -F._ S —C c"Q a) 0 LL a--) 2 4-,>.m03 co L) j=1 Ti) co ra ..c 0 0. uw) EXHIBIT Bedrock Resources LLC c 0_ 0 Adjacent Land Owners Information Table Propertylowner Address abel Parcel Number a U 174. 44 O @ ▪ O O CS 0 hCl) C h ▪ H d 4 0 d 0 L7 C7 c .4( t7 ▪ o 3 U 0 C U m c7 Mm N co S • cl U tp U C3 •- U U tizi3x33 Zi 4"r J u-} J J 4 E j O J q C J C cLcii catu¢r C y GI v 01 G1 U C o • v m O y 00= • ill J CO a s ctp� 3 w w F- ri C a 7 7 U . y pCa 4C Ri (ry i" r.. 'C 4h J Q] co u &) N° t X4a oQ 4 5 7.a, la G Q' z Lit'1 ' P D EL a; 2s 'IX -7uJ 0'W wulQJ 17-131-00-303 r r h O N rt'Y r •L d0 Cr, DL1 r ['7 4 CO iD N r O 6 6 d d G Q G G 6 G G. ce co C7 . e},' 't r r r r r r r P r {• � r r r NNNNN N N N NN 1 C C+t rot) d 6 6 eo CT z View to the no a) 4-0 0 z Q) 41 4-) co LU 17�1i .�i7T 0) 0) 0 4-00) 5 1 Fit. rig. j'% f r0 ` ./ '3, Si cv O Q 0 0 ro Asphalt Batch Plant and Related Facilities tO (o (p co .L 4 W (1) }% c ro 00 to 2 c co V! r./�] o WL. U v) a 4--r'v) CYC U 4--+ = Q cu ct Cly 2 — c c • co c+ 0cu 0 -o z ago 0 • no =1 4g h -t; > o _cV Lto 'L cu • - 4-47 (D C] w cr L m o cco o o 0 o o cu •X L 2 co 'o Do' uioC LL • . • • . • • • • New Access Location & 28 ft. wide Access Road Rock Crusher for Recycling Q.) 4J 0 0 To LI? 0 0 0 E (..f) E 0 4-0V Q..) 0 Ci Q Q) Co 0 0 Qu CU z c 0 eL CD L17 ro 1— w 4-0 0 L!7 CU a--+ ro •V CLS CU 4--0 Co c (0 cuE LI] 2 QJ Lli N J 4-0 C0 (0 Q.f AC c C0 ro • • • • • 120 -75 L) W E Ql CLS c E s'112 Q. 4--+ OA a) co -o .� -o c L Co 0 ro Q) V) V} ui (0 0 co E Co V CU CLS u7 c (0 tin0 a. Co J c 0 an -0 co co O —o cu cu N 0 .47) C3 4J Co 0 ro Q) • • • • a -0 C V) 4 -Li - I 0 C n3 til• UU 0 a! V -I-)au - C a 0 To 1 v) ▪ ▪ unL co C) D a +� 7 Q.} u [J') f[3 V7 (g CD> +-, >- CD N -0 0 = •0 a 1 • - 0 � cl 0 i_Z - ti3 c - CO 4_, Q C] c) n 0) U- C U s_ L c� c L •Q — f., a.. L ail 0 •5 •Lv) ci no L a %.7.-- to in v) u Z IL U 1 • • • • • • • • • 0 c CL 1) c a) 2 E 0 L) t7 §f K ai 0 fa -E / /ro o 2 > 0 -a =4-' m o = - 4-, / -a m ® E § § a� \\2c0 o R i S @tet\ cu >_0 0. 6/ ro u0 o e c cu %°2co k u 0us vs u 2 E E 0a E u s 0 a¢ z44 . _e›. > S / o % 5 _ -oa)&02& k h 22 k ƒ • � = e = C -C E .> o 3 =0.0 E�{ƒ�/� E % = / E a E ©a± d E3 a) 3 \ §1� CO o 6 > # C u . c 2 § 2 E 2/02u c E; #L) k 3 CD ro J / / 2"k cc C m o . -0 # Cl.) / t c \ ¢« \ 3 - 13 (71 CU / g 0_ Ct. Let .ITS — 1I v Comments W L."7/ 1 .--.. ,p 0 CU.7/17 _ toa v Q a +, U o a) 7 tO —II , — c 4-1E L +aC Lf) v V'} -0 0_ gi C .0 + 2 0 fo L'±' L- V) (1) +-+ -C D PID m e w} E T. -13 o c 2 - a) p = Q * LU i- � Q 'm 2a) _N > o Z3 C]� 0 a +O v C o +, as � as > LLJ u ? :;t7 c = a 2 LI) . 4- ct 0 4-0 -1-$ 4.-1 .14 CU .1-i • — �31C oai'C 0 ° -a E - -0 - -s o��E= vu�a) cu cu WI4-0ry CO L -v _ L=- >- >. 0 0 L •V) o_ w C9 0 0 (.7 I (D U U U Z 0 . . . . . . . . . • • 4) CO 0 0 cL ro 1, C13 �I ) CD CU ,I --r CD Co 4-1 a) a.)E 0_ () C E CL 0 4-0 (6 c _ C r3 C Q.▪ 1 0CO (g dA 0 5; (O (I a�-+ L w a) Q dco co u NJ 0) 0 a eL OJ 0 tic; 0_ _c a L �' L CO nrcs4 110 fU vao v IA th c Ci E `0 - 0 < 0 o � U CC U Additional Fire Protection Information and Plan 0 .I -J CO tiA .L �L C C co0 47,U 0 0 (o GD -o U c 0 ([3 E c C c0 Corrected Road Cross Sections s- 0.) Q) 40 (U aj -73 (▪ TS 4--0 L C CO Q.) 0- C Q 4,,,0 _C U }, C C 'CL) vs U vsCVla°IL) (p f6R3 C 'L C CO C d e Q OD v) C 0 ai -0 C C C4) .17.0([3 -0 C vs C W CO Q 73 [Js w) _0 CD 4-0 n L Q 0 'i O a CD CO O V) LLC 4-0C a,r +, c d "' a C Q CO Z • L .F C ° E w O a --r �'—' 0 .— a. CO U CO - = 4J u 1- 0_ O 0 tri CI)• C c C au rEl O u ti 0 ,in • C � 0 C 0 co . . . . . . . . . . . . C CO 'C 1-U C 0 C-, 0 cv C � -I NLfs (1)00 V] -C.0 o I— . `n c c L 0 0'7 %-o 0 c o Eu° ' L ocrocc o U . v •- j ., C X 0 4-# D t it is m U ,� U = 0 ( Q 0 C C (cs 14f) 0 COto CU 0 to C SS . Tij ��.. -r-; CN °- °-) -4-b 0 p . � E n300 wUcc CLi5cu roL0icQ�� 0 v� Q4-- I �:�='acn0+-+ C L._ T.3�,Z3 0 CI -Q 4- 0 U 4 -0c% -"U co '� ' • 4 _ c.2 i ro w CO _ cla t]i �3 '� 0 , C] cn rc- _ . IP 0 = N*''+' 0 iu)C3 — - .7a) .° EcE.c u •�EE -t=i-0 c)16w^DaEo c a) E V L) cc (7)0 Lai E 0 CD 4- a O Q v =_Cl 0 0 a a L 0 +J 3 rG sf].ro� a—O �n O = O c Q) V C C ate..' co CO -I-, 4-0-a3 .i'.' c�3 • C O cu to a Rn C a ® CU O 7 M a ice+ GaA co a -0 L Q a +n C ro +r^ C in a Q1 L _c C co O _0 a a V CD Ft 4= a O r� C3 `C E a..' v= -.ctc c = _caa a a cn .-, a O 4! 0) a +�ci, in c O a C = a2 a=u, > L C -aa s-. L rt/ 2 6_C rap ='O C a) `0 }" a1 ro cu = co bj _C -10 a ro N L.., i ©• +-, O Q.- =row ECa Q75 = = -O 0 p 0 .° al a rc ro < a 1-.- _ L .- �-Q caa E o rangy a ra u -c }' C CC C Ec ° +° E arc c a -O =O- raCD _ C�- cu = LN+�S°snv *.4-E(0U 4E' , c= - a C) .L01 O 16 © C c.cCI) +.. kr, Go Ls 40 O a -5C= C C t CO•,Eo il rO La EO L C •1 } W a C ��•U ro a aJ o-- CU 0 a _ O C a U _C O rV CU = _ C -0 V O >. Q)(0 11] lab C Q .L a ro a _ • L .0 C L rcs — ' O O� c O uu • ro as to Prcs x 'n C 0) C 10�ro c2cva 0a�GA C < -0 b.0 0) C' -0 a ro �-+ A • - > u^) L a a C " Q U EE a, a O trica ru —GbOQ) a Q3 E O co C = a on O4 = C — = tr} rii 0-°a c a O a) LI:, <cu CC a° V > .tj E D o cuc0_ roaaa� aIA= _ rao c a kr) e O4 - co 4 - (04 O UU O _c O v CO t = u v -0 .) a .°O=E 4 0 12 4— Q aaO(0 � - a E d 8 aJ H- ra 8 co" rl'3 t, L ▪ L E 92 co 0 cu �F? t N .0 �V) C ▪ .0 _0 d -1::„J C cl) = �, = ai 5,�•-1c c a",r0e] EQ ,f, V7 CO i _LA VS aJ ❑ ❑ (Li - c �, Q 47. Q� Z3 D 1.45); U OD >. Cr a.F +-. t_, C r6 C 17:::11 V7 C #, 22 -a❑ a L — 0 > aj c0 >- 0- , 0-'L C = 0_ arm +-i '7' i V) ❑ C- a1 z -0 — i VI C ufs a,1 < a} Q C U ▪ aj C `U L Q, ._ ra •— C 0 4_167 ❑ O roc q� +,DJ C . U 0 4-1 CO> C L E ❑ L >.QC C - o0+,4`},O QLaU2" .-V Q 13 r0 C C 4 N a) N - bA • +-+ i C 0 bud CU �` a) tW 4-' 0 U +n . C ▪ 0 73- - C C ro C a3 C s- •� ,E 0 0© Q)�> C C N �-�-' C tl1 U❑ T3 C r0 +, Cl C 7 © L ca iL au a) o ?y .E v, a) ❑ ry C- f1 tiro +� cOg (-) a) L Q3 Q +-, _c b0 cn Q C CD C V FT (0 VS C V'S ...� -0 L 0 +-+ •L as V) '0 C ami) V'S Co 0.< ro a) C © 0 +ii . a) •' r0 C Oo� • 0a L�a'TQ3 O ❑.=ay+�0> �s+,oad 3 as a) u E � •iii •3 C.'` C - LI Rs cu 7 1 C• Q t E tG - - 0 0> 0 0 �„ 0 N> 0 b .o ra c +� -w 0.] C L C 4- d V- I _ a _c: cin (0 aJ 4-1 4- >. - c a) Q a] >. cU N+'• C a) _c - =E-' i GA -' +�+ ra ,� a7 a 'C a) ro a3 = C +- , c L r0 0,ill N 0_ i Ll .,- ❑ C .— N QJ C u C 4"'' U Q _c V1 i VZ 4-' in R ra C0] r0 bQA N ti C'VI 0 C —' CU v ❑ c 0 C U Q U " 0 , ' .51'41 Q -t3 ra c © 0. (0 •a-=' '- N 70 L a) 'N 4., 4 -' 0 cn c- i < VS a) N *= a] L +- I -D L ❑ �+J a . a C L -c,- .11 at 4-, C ai r0 Vi .0 o • 0 1) _0 CUEOC CU - u7 4,-_- 7 +- ":),4 L .L-c1) a a) C L V1 ❑ aJ m V] ._ a1 .� a .Q C r0 Q3 a) E N V U .x © aa) 0-t sn F-- Q +s..+ d ._ _ Q r0 Ca 0_ L CO v1 .cn Recommended Conditions - Continued 5- rc v +' ya o� c - a) -15 cog+�a)a) 0't 'E8 -c, _4'.- C 4n C`0) 0 2 z3 4) C C E Q . a••o srr 7 C U • C O UQ -ro— c. -ID I '+- C . Q +2.-0*` E c o • _ '- rl) 4-, 0. rQ . C —u ccu i33+, -c 0, -C c -F.,+; 0. E0�ccu< 00Li s -_C L , -0 • 4-. 0. .5 r0 a) — 7•• L L yr Z3 c c 0 a) -0 ., {-' r0 0 L C4) E a)a+ai�°Ea 4-' _ c ' = a) a) 0c 3•ECz :9) •~' ci- a) a) W 76, Qt-� +' 0 i 4-' t0 M c ate •+ _a U VI GA 4) res a) +; C CE�u0r0 L E 2Z— V2�oZco to �, v} 0 L i L vi . •- QJ 00-04- `n 0 c c 0 C 0 t..) )y0 v-0�cE Lu c c 47 47EIv©c-+0w D O 0 R3 C vs to r. L- 0 -0 +-' �, 2 C ,-(1-1a.). _ oc.—Eoa)2 c} 0a- C C c 0 0 U 0 U y a) 'GA a +•' C -a4_, .- 4.-J OCD zE�roa)= 'L v} a1 L -0 0 eL .i!' 0. . r0 CJ 7-crG U en vi 4-' L C c3.0 - a) '� _cO CU 4-I 0 -n 5 ,ti, ' ‘;) -C3 CO 4) . C a) U — -0 r0 CI�10 Cmi � a) > v3 > C A. OA cn O O m�+� c_ C -0 d d as " �.•' a) L _— E CJ Ci V O L Q. E. COCU Ci - V -0 a) L.) r0L) CO1- ca) ro v CL °; c 7- 0 .� ''=4 (115u a) aQ—Lnlvi -mac -4 a) ' a) v a► U+' a) L 0 ro}, a).c co -0 c E v.N L M 0 L L -• L '5 a) C _= O U 0 0" a) 0 u� d] a) r ro c6 L1 E - cc c 40•r- a) w 0 a) ro C c0 cn A 0 U r0 a;. 4-1 E W 0 ) c_ L. 0 cn a) E 0- c o- - 0 13 ++ 7 0 N C C 13 0 r3� QJ ro t _0 w +, c '0 u --' = >. •- E = — ca o_ a) V) '~' c (0 X 0 r0 VI = O u-cn a) 02ts , ELn +-' 2 8 Ea)�,aac+ a)E c 0 o tILD a).� °� ,..-7-,a)v)-0 R3 0 r0 a) r0 0 a 0 a) 4 - C ar i cn - 0- L cr0 4-4'04- ,,,0 co r0 (° 0. cr Ll c 0- .�'�' mar a) a)•b o -1-d 4-I C 0>-0D E. GAC C CO — •C 4- 0 —I r0 r0 a) a) a) roa 0 D C1 -0 E = `r' vs 0 Laj � V7 to +rr3 +-• a1 v^, o a' C na VI +-0 C en._ M v 0 7 Z� L4_ u c coo •00— E = C1. v a) 'n 5 7` .? E � 'c> a.) -t3 7s a) , 0 CU 0— a) Qtu H so .0Q L. -. � H 0 U a) zsmL r0 CU 4-' a) 1 e1 Recommended Conditions - Continued ai ta0 z3 a) 0 s 00 a)D L5 if) 01 +3 > -0 Q C CO . C E 0 aJ as ro ei �r- a `Q CO �Z3_ C �J C.17 � -0CQ Gran —� 0-- C' co C v CU 4-' , CU 's-4--+ °- °0,a t oQC a)'- arvC C4,+' C a) cn 0•5 fa= t_ a a ;�v s>.a=rav a Z ©CD C •o +0-' C ra ro a] 4-1 V)—' a Q " cry Ci res C a a Q. •to Q U aA,_ a a)-0 OJ O C,� C .1,-,,, �' C C 7' '- va U .L 0 Q — a) W 7 0 _ c aJ a--' 0, - CO — E II) a au vi O .c a Q C] C' O I- CU co 0- +--a d--' 17)...0 - . — a.) E 2 oC3 C E L Q. v5"roL ra a To ° 0w 9� E co �v-o 4 ° (a a -v ra . r c - 4-,;A �,'C C0-sas C.�''n=tan C ,., res r<s �]. cn ra C a •vy Q +, ' ra . _C � a, 3 cu �` c 0.. • as v ccu�._ a)CU —ra 0_,c.'=' QQoCc rto a.- C Q U a > °J ›.-c3 ' L C C •- Q ra C °L a4— ra (7 +' O a.) 0 E o a a= O ..c ra U ©kio U v p= Q E �� 46 .c ra c•� to�U� 1._ a) 0 CE °s= its C C C �.., aj O .� •- Q co 0 77- c co p as ra +� a; C as -0 Ta u >, U 4� cv ,� 0_ ,47.: 0 Q_ N a, 0 }, • 4_via vs© � ba +'�.a °u° C Q N 0J rd a--• `; C� U z -u aJ U C (J C a c D Q — U C +-� aJ `0 ra cn Q -�-' — as CL) ., C J v -0 ay vi aJ (A 0- +.+ a] C 0 CU 0_ Q +- s C] 0> a U a., L/) c �' ,+ d as - +-+ 0 _ :C3... s,.: To • L 2 E Q aj N co rO vs N -0 UtN N C U ir- LE 'U ria ❑ 4 `0 a.0 C Q Q rens j O ,L ,© ( O N C co C 4 GA 0 `}s Q - L- W tn a � � Q as � �, as 7,5 zs — ± U ra. -0 4+� b.() co v ,,, ¢• toE.5 L -o -w C�ccQ CUa.+�v Q WZb t 0 ra �C HQEo_a a o0n> w �L)(D0U r.; n; Recommended Conditions - Continued 9- D L a } a a w' a D '-' `�- Q i IIIL +�J t a) D D = , = CO r8 _ s1 v O9 U pr+,4= D C C s_ C Z OJ sn 0 D C1 r�o ." to a sn C s1 aur, . VI -aaa�s� � aa)-cow©o+' 40 Q D W 4- ± 0 u a Q-' Q a Q— Q "D 4- 0_ a 4-, 5 D R3 -o C a 0• i co w 4-0 /n c .5 - —f CC Q Din aLE€+gyp O 3 ro a -'D To a) C CO 4-o a D _ [no LTi a1 -, tri a 0 a 4_,O S1 D C C • -FE a +J ro = N U C13 ci)_0 C Q - ra"CD-a-0 4D+cncro'.ha laQ a) C4a s ) C . a 41 ba.aDv Q•"Q s`f C 0 d s`aa 5D+J al C- Q ro 4 -o ° a) I- a QEvaD r,u v = Dcco a - 4- c - c c L {� a)L� Ea 0 ,ma),--��� C e s` CD ) Q a_0 co N C rs — 0 cu C _ a a V1 76 ate+ U ._ 0 bCA 0 taA r�~ CU C as+ -' CO a) C=ce -4--' Mrcas U] C•1 +J ate+ E i Vn3 — i.., d i a..r cri c C D a 0 0 s` (� • C {C�,} Q D - a a Q a a� C L fl co L .(T3- -0 _ 0751 ,n o_ „ia_JEQLc�aa CCS C OA C N a C D c Cu 4-11 7-Q co a -J4= >- -0.1.',Q L CU •u7 ED C in C w 2 2 C Q C C C C __I OD Q O v� +' CU C a (134' ;° D 0 .bAa)L0owoa te0 a Q ig 4-10)">. u4-raa-0 a -,•1=_Q D " rI 7 au_i C 13.) D -D c0 p Q c C = } � U Ln U 13,- �^ a . O in `'s D rrs C a-' .- C— D "a 027no .vs c racaroaJU+-��o .15 U c4 u 0 'C,} �}' C In 4-0cE 4.,.0 a,0. 0 ra ra •+�,--.D U E D a D QCa EaC•C a D D .- 1- 4- rC •teO r01 or- Zo o_ 0 1- = 0 raZ>a-+ Z L R 06 vl ctc D.`O0 ._ ▪ © E —rao O c IA n3 0L L . U '11N ' V7 VI i O C J rS3 OJ m +, a) a) E (/) ccu _cc it a•, poi �, +, O L) 0 a -0 c O n E c _c cu' O O cU ru .� U 3 ,L .1-, a) 4-'C4Oa)•a)#' C' _ C 4-+ E r l co o d O) sn C i-) - O v) n .0 cu'rLs 0 _ *--1--' LOU �N ▪ n 76 — +, D ry c c� n O +,+, c° � na uL3 oE aJ v'O ▪ raNn0 Ccfa4J }•`r)aao��oo 0cu rn a) .O 9 _c c CU Q (O -O c CGt ▪ +P 2 ca v1 r vi ©. n 4-, • v LJ] - C C c 1-00• o U— ._ of Q O_ % 0 CL CU vi 4'-' -,O C-1:3�7 f3 • VI 7 Lz'c•f° cu Oa.� - ry Q -' v) . a) I cfl H° - caz C Qs 0 10 ran Ja a.. CU 4•a a Z W a • CU EftZ fB O 0)(A 0) s �'n— A ra :.•. U LLI E 1,•-'D u co 0 Sro a Lu > cE riT� 'L U L -0I ar0 ca C .O tial C a Uj *a CC E _o ao -a ro v1 rp 7+ ra C t.D un it Le)aja Cu cCL•- 0a o�j r M a C C ! V 0 +-J Q a —I roc d + 2 aC (+, u 0E 6> 1`j r.00raa-v w OD -0 0 O •.0 E rc a cci a - - 0)V) -4- -ov,, C C a a rG r0 0 •," C CCv0•=Cc rr3 0 0) ]. a ro ro C13 C CO N < o 0 4J 0) C'') 0 0+'O ,rs= > O c Q a--+ i�-+ t3. U r0 L -0 •- LA -o .1 C CZ 0'c us U 0 CZCr a a +(0 0) .- a +-+ •y4 C t3 _a _a U E to U (a) ro 2 a� 0 CO 41 rill u q) E ? b.0 - ., C 5,-. _C a i C a C bA ti) 4J L o 4-' `� (0 V V1 i iL CO0 a 4.r L) 0 +- U a° m 4..•.J C N <= 0 C,U •1/1.2- L (0 0 U +�' a Q Q v1 4s�Ea-2o U .to 0. •- 0 L V) O n3 *'1119Qa .J4 Q.as ao0) 2 vyt,QE-0ccIA4- OH O a ro • O'g ©N U Q +j CU e.1•."_ -o Ems, .0 C i — un a .i-+` ' M i-+ CZ rV V1 L -C V - a-0 a f_ CO Eft1-.) U E Q) ro i--+ • • "0 a {4 j Lrt$ (0 C .E a-•+ 7) r6 .' 0_ 0.7b.!.rT3 CU U a) IA iv }�.r EA L a v, 4— w o -a a+ aD - ra E E "''1 -c O -- co a -v1 a 't3 E a) $2e0 47,1`8 E c E � ° rGa a raCp°O' a CU a� r r6 U [4 - o E = ©t] 0).-o4 a-0rBO(G ` > C c •— c — aOa�am •-ra0m c 73 -c-c0aE�.-o 1— v aU L=.-0- : v, 0) C v w(`x av +-, a c C os 47 -AU - (11 c C o - U 4-, c c a -o a c0 4-0C F--1 E W 00 a st _cr Eft -ru 0 O • C C a2'rG E a u] 0 u) 3 a••r U i C ra -0 -.. f. 12 O r a a _c--, v1 r4 a v1 +-+ �_C rl3'C c a-3'5. U) tj rc>~ en d va1� . • ■1 4- 0 C °;, C COC 0) 4-J 0 C o(1,a • u1 v- [C ro 4- Li) E •• • • •• L6 N • +C '-' > Eu - a -0 COO 4-+ CU c E.7 ro a 0 C " Ci la v, 0 L . a c C < ro 0 a E O a • rp 0 Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plant - Processing V) Cl.t D CI .N X t) r\I J J E L 0 0 ro a s_ v >- C _Q M .Q) C 0 LL O CC p 1 1 u U LD bA ro LI -E u C1 . 0 CU a O O - = m - —, pp CU. U . . co 4-1 2 • -o c c CL co u 0_ c CL.) +-, 4472. c 0 (1) ✓ � 42 X Supplementa ic Comment Letters U c ro ttoL 0 (1) 2 L taiJ 4— c {,f} . _ Z --71E 0_ > l] co L Ch CU i [L tip ' < 0 (t5 c >,CU L i 7 c c _i = C] bp �a � L +a L % �— Q (-9 v 10.) E.2U = u v au E ›.. -0.0 E = ro CU -c3 u L CL CO .1t cif) 4 • • • • 1 Li - CO 4J L) T1 E E 0- c c O Ec co 0L O 5 uJ C C CD ■ i CO Q) J L) nformation coy.,,,,� L+IR/ C +J 0 .17 0 4- 4- O C C T E ice... u co z+= Q (1)4 u c ro (13 L O to O 2 U cL • ti '03 3 Air ar —.gra 11•• •••• Anome,ii. no. EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM To: Glenn Hartmann From: Steve Anthony Re: Bedrock Resources Major Impact Review Date: December 19, 2011 Noxious weeds The applicant presented a noxious weed inventory on a map. Tamarisk and Russian knapweed are indicated on site. On the map the applicant indicated that the tamarisk "will be removed". Staff requests that the applicant provide a weed management plan that addresses the specifics of the tamarisk and Russian knapweed management strategy. Revegetation A seed mix and list of plant materials to be planted was provided. For the purposes of determining if a revegetation security is necessary, we request that the applicant quantify in terms of acres, the surface area to be disturbed that will be reseeded. Once we have that information a recommended security amount will be determined. Landscaping Are there plans to provide supplemental irrigation to the shrubs and trees listed in the planting schedule? Are there plans to provide some type of protection around the trees and shrubs from wildlife? Glenn Hartmann From: Jim Rada Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:11 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: MIPA-7030 Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plant Hi Glenn, I promised, I have reviewed the above referenced application and have a few comments. EXHIBIT f� 1. Although the information on the CDPHE Air Quality Permits may ultimately be similar to that of the current Frontier Paving location, in order to move a stationary facility like this, the applicant must undergo a complete CDPHE APCD permit application process including submittal of an APEN, obtaining a Construction permit and, once operational, obtaining an operating permit. The MIPA implies that the only thing changing is the location, therefore obtaining a new permit should be relatively simple. I have consulted with CDPHE about this MIPA and my understanding is that because the current facility is classified as a Synthetic Minor Source for purposes of their operating permit, the new location may require some level of cumulative impact modeling, particularly because of the relatively close proximity of the new site to a number of existing industrial sites that are permitted by CDPHE APCD. I strongly recommend that the operator be encouraged to initiate the Air Quality Permitting process soon and that they be required to obtain a Construction permit before the land use change is approved, or at least before any site construction can begin. The applicant can contact Marley Bain at CDPHE, 303-692-3253 with specific questions regarding this matter. 2. There is not much information about fugitive dust mitigation. If this is adequately covered in the CDPHE permit, that is good. But I recommend that the County also have a COA that give the BOCC strong authority to require stringent dust mitigation, especially in light of proximity to the airport, nearby residences and highly used heavy haul roads in the area. 3. The potable water system sizing is based on 12 on-site employees. There is no mention of transient users(i.e. truck drivers). i believe that CDPHE would include potential transient users in the determination of whether the water supply would be considered public or private. If there are 13 or more transient potential water users per day for at least 60 days per year than this water system may be considered a regulated public water supply. I strongly recommend that the applicant be required to research this matter with CDPHE and provide proof that they meet all regulatory requirements before approval of the land use permit. They can contact Erica Kanely, 303-692-3543 to gain clarity on this matter. 4. I am not sure if CDPHE allows hauled water for a permanent water supply, If this water system is ultimately determined to be a private water supply system and if water hauling is allowed by Garfield County, I recommend that the applicant be required to only utilize the services ofa water hauler that meets the CDPHE requirements for water haulers and that the applicant be required to follow similar requirements to those required under the Minor Temporary Housing Facilities in the Garfield. County land use regulations. 5. The iSDS design in the Land Suitability Analysis is also based on a flow generated by 12 employees. This number may need to be reevaluated should CDPHE (and Garfield County) consider the potential number of system users to be a number greater than 12. In addition, the ISDS design would also need to be altered appropriately if larger anticipated sewage flows are determined. 6. There is no documentation detailing how the "sound survey" was conducted. I believe that the hand written notes are inadequate and that a properly conducted noise study be required. 1 7. Page 3 of the Land Suitability Analysis indicates that there is an abandoned well near the second access road. Abandoned wells can create safety risks and potential water quality risks if they are not abandoned properly. I recommend that this well be researched to determine if it has been properly abandoned and documented. If it has not, the properly documented abandonment of the well with DWR should be a condition of approval. 8. As always for a project this size, an approved CDPHE stormwater discharge permit must be obtained before any land clearing or grading begins. Stormwater control 6MP's must be in place at the beginning of site development. The SPCC Plan will be part of the stormwater permitting requirements. All of these items should be conditions of approval. Please feel free to call me if you have questions. Thanks for the opportunity to review this application. Ji® Rada Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W.14th Street Rifle, CO 81654 Phone - 970-625-5200 x8113 Direct - 970-62h-6383 Fax - 976-G2S-8304 Cell - 970-319-1579 jradag Barfield-county.cam www.garfield-cnunty.cum 2 : __: ■I■RESOURCE ■■■ •■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 EXHIBIT 1.< December 29, 2011 RE: Bedrock Resources LLC — Major Impact Review File No. MIPA-7030 Dear Glenn: At the request of Garfield County (GARCO), Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the land use application submitted by Bedrock Resources, LLC. The proposed project is an asphalt batch plant including office, contractor yard, material storage, equipment and machinery. The submittal included a spiral bound document titled "Application for a Major Impact Review — Bedrock Resources" with the application dated October 10, 2011. RESOURCE's review includes applicable technical criteria and standards in Article 4-502 and Article 7 of the GARCO Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR). RESOURCE's comments are presented below. Sections 7-104 & 105 Potable Water Potable water for the project will come from a well drilled on the property. The data submitted regarding adequate water source does not meet the criteria in Section 7-104 for wells. The applicant needs to submit the results of the 24 hour pumping test and the water quality results. Verbal results indicate adequate water quantity and quality. The Applicant proposes to obtain a West Divide Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract to support a well permit application to the Division of Water Resources. The Applicant needs to obtain the WDWCD contract and a valid well permit prior to any final approval. Fire protection is provided by water in a pond on the upper bench of the property. The volume meets the applicable standards and confirmation should be obtained from the Rifle Fire Protection District that serves the project area. Section 7-106 Water Distribution & Wastewater The project will have 6 employees on site and there is a provision for an average of 6 transient employees per day. The potable water distribution system includes 1500 gallons of storage which is more than adequate for the demand. The proposed wastewater treatment is an on-site ISDS system. The proposed design appears adequate and will require a permit and approval from GARCO. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways The project is accessed from County Road 315 (Mamm Creek Road) via a new driveway. The existing driveway at the northwest corner of the property is not adequate to serve the property. The existing drive also serves an adjacent property and access to Consulting Engineer's and Hydrologists 009 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-B777 • Fax [970]545-1 137 Glenn Hartmann December 29, 2011 Page 2 the driveway is incorporated in the new location design. However, the existing driveway access may also need to remain in place if the adjacent property owner does not agree to the new access point for their use. All interior roads meet the GARCO road standards. The existing driveway along the northerly property line provides a secondary emergency ingress/egress for the upper bench facilities. The traffic study indicates that adequate site distance for turning, entering and stopping are provided with the proposed driveway location. The left turn. right turn, acceleration and deceleration lane criteria are not exceeded and no improvements to CR 315 are required based on the traffic study and analysis. Section 7-109 Natural Hazards The HP Geotech report and analysis indicates the project is not subject to risk from geologic natural hazards. The SGM reports indicate there are no flooding or high water table issues. Section 7-203 Wetlands The applicant has submitted for confirmation from the US Army Corps of Engineers that the project is authorized under Nationwide Perrnit No. 14. impacts are from a road crossing of the drainage and wetland enhancement is created by the upper pond. Section 7-204 Water Quality Protection The project will implement a State CDPHE approved stormwater management plan and a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCC) to protect water quality in Mamm Creek and the Colorado River. A Watershed District permit from the City of Rifle is required to address protection of the City's water supply. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation An appropriate and adequate erosion and sedimentation plan is included as part of the CDPHE stormwater permit. Section 7-206 Drainage An existing swale through the property is the primary drainage feature in the project. Drainage will be routed through the swale and detention storage is provided with two ponds that also function as water quality enhancement structures. The drainage plan is adequate and meets GARCO criteria. Section 7-207 Stormwater Runoff The Stormwater Management Plan is appropriate and adequate for the project. taw.....IRE8DURCE s ■ilii E N G I N E_ E R I N G 1 Glenn Hartmann December 29, 2011 Page 3 Section 7-210 Natural and Geologic Hazards There are no issues with natural and geologic hazards for the project site. Section 7-212 Reclamation All disturbed areas will be revegetated. Landscaping and revegetation has been designed by John Taufer & Associates. Section 7-301, 7-810 Noise The Compatible Design standards and industrial Use standards require noise levels to comply with State Standards. The Applicant and SGM conducted sound -:est measurements using the actual equipment to be installed on the proposed project. The sound tests were conducted at the Applicant's Frontier Paving site located southwest of Silt. The results indicate that unobstructed noise levels at the property line will meet State standards. The proposed site will have a storage shed and material stockpiles that will help reduce the noise at the property line and at an existing residence on adjacent property. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. e Michael J. Egon E. Water Resources Engineer MJEfmmm 885-79.0 .: RESOURCE E N G I N E E R I N G 1N7 Glenn Hartmann From: Betsy Suerth Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:39 PM To: Ray Sword; Glenn Hartmann Subject: RE: MIPA-703 / Bedrock Resources LLC - Asphalt Batch Plant EXHIBIT D . s 1 Thanks Ray for replying to Glenn. Adding to what Ray wrote, if we would like to consider a speed limit reduction, we must first work with the Sheriff to agree on a recommendation to the BOCC. As I understand it, we must have the BOCC adopt by resolution any new speed limit postings. Lou may correct me by use of the Model Traffic Code, so we would have to check with him first. Betsy Suerth Public Works Director Garfield County 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, Co 81650 Phone 970-625-5921 Fax 970-625-5939 Mobile 970-987-3178 From: Ray Sword Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:43 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Betsy Suerth Subject: MIPA-703 / Bedrock Resources LLC - Asphalt Batch Plant Mr. Hartmann - I would like to apologize for my late response to your request regarding this project. As I explained to you by phone last week, I have only been in this position since the 1$t of December. With setting up my office, dealing with crew issues, and all of the other "new to me" stuff, I've had little time to plant my feet firmly on the ground. I remember receiving this packet (I think on my second day as Foreman) as I was moving furniture in to my office. When I asked the person that handed it to me what it was, I was told it was some study that all the Foreman get, and dismissed it as not being urgent at the time. I'm not trying to make an excuse for not opening the packet, but at the time, I failed to notice the requested response date because of the CD covering the highlighted text. This will not happen again! That being said, I have now taken some time to review the drawings, as well as the included documents on CD. Since I have not had any interaction with you or your office in the past, I am unfamiliar with how I need to respond to your request. I hope email will suffice. The only issues I can think of that would affect R&B, are some potential drainage and traffic issues. In the past, the runoff from Eagle Springs has managed to erode and wash material out on to CR315 just south of the current access road. As a former grader operator, I have cleaned up this mess several times. This is an ongoing problem. Additionally, there are two culvert pipes that carry runoff to the west side of CR315 and on to private land. Both culverts are south of the current access road. The outlet of both pipes are just shy of the fence line, and have been eroding huge holes on private 1 property. We have had complaints regarding this issue in the past, and have used the material that comes out on the shoulder and CR315 to fill the holes. A few weeks ago, I was informed by Steve Anthony that the owner of the land had sent him an email (with pics) complaining of additional damage to his property. I have them if you're interested. I have not had a chance to address this issue with the landowner. I would suggest placing some rip rap or something of that nature at each outlet to prevent this from happening again in the future. As for the traffic issues, I would suggest regulatory signage that would reduce the speed limit in the area of the new access road to the plant, and maybe even a couple of signs that would alert drivers of heavy truck traffic in the area. Nothing else comes to mind at this time. Again, sorry for the delay! I hope this helps. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. Ray Garfield County Ray Sword District 3 Foreman Road & Bridge 0298 CR 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Mobile: 970-987-2702 Office: 970-625-8601 x4311 Fax: 970-625-8627 rsword@garfield-county.com 2 cuss 6 • r T i70 - 4f s s o'o December 8, 2011 Garfield County Planning Office c/o Mr. Glen Hartman 108 8`h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Rd: Bedrock Resources - MIPA - 7030 Dear Mr. Hartman: 1 EXHIBIT 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • PO. BOX 2150 WOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 *CEiVII) ,aAHFlELD COLA ;'t BUILDING & PLANNING; In response to the application submitted to your planning commission for the Bedrock Resources, Holy Cross Energy maintains that we have existing overhead power lines not shown on the plat. The approximate location of these lines is shown on the attached map as a red line. Holy Cross is requesting that a thirty (30) foot wide easement dedication for the existing overhead power lines be indicated with course and distance description on the final plat. Additional power line extensions, or relocation of existing facilities, if required, are subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations of Holy Cross Energy and are dependent upon the completion of contractual arrangements and easements. If you desire any further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERG Jeffrey A. Frke Utility Development Supervisor jfranke@holycross.tom (970) 947-5416 JAF:vw Enclosure W/O#10-45 Franke \Hartman A Touchstone Energy" Cooperative 74.: •4' • 5',`,.a j 0' :c0EINT)4RQ/034, — _ • : . . 4' ak *1' *•, • „-1 _ ;;;;',: T.'; •11. + p 1 . ' .., ... 1?. "'`., ; " ... '')..i'f' .-1 - ...•• A . .r„,--. 110! -.4`. ..,..., ,.., li.'4,.: . - • - : f;,-. e -414.41, Y 1" -:Tr7......... • Jr • Glenn Hartmann From: Glenn Hartmann Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 4:50 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Bedrock Referral Comments From: Rick Barth [mailto:rbarth@rifleco.orc] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 4:13 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: RE: Bedrock Referral Comments Good to hear from you tool For the record, we have received their watershed permit application and it is under review. Since Resource is our Watershed reviewer of record, and they also review this for the county, we trust our joint interests will be met. At this time we have had no objections and await Michael Erion's comments. Thanks, Rick B 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Kevin Whelan [kewhelan©riflefiredept.orgj Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 10:13 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Bedrock Resources -major impact review EXHIBIT 0 Glenn, 1 have reviewed the documents for the Bedrock Resources LLC- Asphalt Batch Plant Major Impact Review-MIPA-7030. The following are my comments: 1. Fire Protection Water Supply: a. Calculations need to verified i. Height of buildings b. Draft height c. Wet fire hydrant vs dry hydrant d. Is 100'x50' shop the most demanding building for fire protection water? e. Design should meet Rifle Fire's guidance documents which in some cases, give further details then NFPA 1142. 2. Fueling area and petroleum products for the plant and associated activities may drive submittal of a hazardous materials declaration to Rifle Fire. This depends on the quantities. 3. Roads: a. Grades of 10% are at the upper limits of policy requirements and should be avoided where at all possible. b. Proposed Access Road does not meet the minimum width for a fire access road. More information is needed on what this road serves or will serve. Due to the holidays, I was unable to contact Jeff Simonson of SGM but 1 will forwarded a copy of this e-mail and all appropriate review documents from Rifle Fire Protection District that are applicable. I would anticipate with more information from Jeff, that some of the above comments would then be satisfied. His vacation lasts into the first week of January. Kevin C. Whelan Division Chief/ Fire Marshal Rifle Fire Protection District 1850 Railroad Ave Rifle, CO 81650 kewhe la n@ riflefi rede pt.org Office- 970-625-1243 ext 12 Fax- 970-625-2963 CeII-970-618-7388 " The Mission of the Rifle Fire Protection District is to Enhance Health and Safety and to Protect the Life,Home and Property of the People We Serve." Glenn Hartmann From: Adams, Karlyn [Karlyn.Adams@state.cous] EXHIBIT P Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:22 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Rubin, Edward Subject: FW: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments Attachments: 287244.pdf Glenn, I would like to update you on the Bedrock Resources MIR. Since my original email they have submitted an application for a monitoring well on the property; the permit is attached. So long as this well is constructed in accordance with the Water Well Construction Rules for production wells, this well could be eligible to be converted to a production well in the future. The applicant will need to submit a full production well permit application, with all applicable documentation (as described in my original email), prior to any well production taking place. Note that a monitoring well permit does allow for limited pumping for the purposes of a well production test. Sincerely, Karlyn From: Whitehead, Dwight Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:36 PM To: Adams, Karlyn Cc: West, William Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments Karlyn, attached for your review is a copy of the permit file for Bedrock Resources LLC, Monitoring/Observation Well, permit no. 287244. Hope it helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards Dwight From: Adams, Karlyn Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:42 AM To: Whitehead, Dwight Subject: FW: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments From: Adams, Karlyn Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:18 AM To: 'ghartmann©garfield-county.com' Cc: Martellaro, Alan; Rubin, Edward Subject: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments Glen, We have reviewed the Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Pian Major Impact Review application. The applicant is proposing to construct a new facility that will include an asphalt batch plant, rock crusher, stock pile areas for aggregate, and office, parking areas for their asphalt transport vehicles and other equipment necessary for the operation. This office has no record of any previous well permit on this property. The applicant is proposing to drill a new well under a well permit that would be issued pursuant to a contract with West Divide Water Conservancy District (WDWCD) in "Area A". The proposed uses for the well are for an office and shop, fire suppression and dust suppression through the filling of a pond, and landscape irrigation. This office has no record of a new well permit application being submitted either in Section 18 of Twp 6 S, Rng 92 W or by Bedrock Resources. The applicant must submit this application, with a signed copy of their contract with WDWCD and a breakdown of the proposed uses, to this office before any permit evaluation can take place. The applicant proposes that, in the event the well does not produce an adequate amount of water for the proposed uses, a second option would be to haul in water from an outside source. if the applicant chooses to take this path, any water they haul in needs to be legally available for their proposed uses. The application is not clear regarding how much, if any, water will be needed to operate the plant. The submitted water supply plan and draft well permit application do not indicate an intent to use water from the well for these purposes, nor would water be legally available if a permit was issued as currently proposed. If the applicant requires water for these operations, they will either need to include these uses in their use breakdown sheet for their well permit application and have a contract with WDWCD for enough water to cover these additional uses, or haul water to the property from an outside source that is legally available for these uses. A cursory review indicates there may be one water right located on the property. The Adolfo Spring No. 2 was decreed as an absolute water right for domestic uses in 1979 at a rate of 0.033 cfs. Though the other water rights in this decree were decreed as conditional rights and were later abandoned, I did not locate any record that would indicate this water right has been abandoned. The land owner should be aware that if this water right is not used for its decreed beneficial use, it could be subject to abandonment in the future. So long as the applicant obtains a valid well permit for their proposed uses, or hauls water from offsite where water is legally available for their proposed uses, this office has no objection to this application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you, or the applicant, have any questions please contact me in this office. Sincerely, Karlyn Adams, E. I. T. Water Resource Engineer Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3581 office (303)866-3589 fax 2 ENGINEERS6 15 URVEYOIR 5 SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER December 29, 201' 1 Mr. Glenn Hartman, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 EXHIBIT RE: Submittal Clarifications Bedrock Resources, incorporated GLEN WOOD SPRINGS 118 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 160 1 970.945.1004 970.945.5948 Fax Dear Glenn, At your recommendation, we are providing this letter on the behalf of Bedrock Resources to provide clarifications and answers to two of the pieces of correspondence that you have received from your referral reviews of the Bedrock Resource application for a Major Impact Review. I have "cut and pasted" the two email correspondences that you received. Please note the emails and responses as follows: Jim Rada e-mail Hi Glenn, I promised, 1 have reviewed the above referenced application and have a few comments. 1. Although the information on the CDPHE Air Quality Permits may ultimately be similar to that of the current Frontier Paving location, in order to move a stationary facility like this, the applicant must undergo a complete CDPHE APCD permit application process including submittal of an APEN, obtaining a Construction permit and, once operational, obtaining an operating permit. The MIPA implies that the only thing changing is the location, therefore obtaining a new permit should be relatively simple. i have consulted with CDPHE about this MIPA and my understanding is that because the current facility is classified as a Synthetic Minor Source for purposes of their operating permit, the new location may require some level of cumulative impact modeling, particularly because of the relatively close proximity of the new site to a number of existing industrial sites that are permitted by CDPHE APCD. 1 strongly recommend that the operator be encouraged to initiate the Air Quality Permitting process soon and that they be required to obtain a Construction permit before the land use change is approved, or at least before any site construction can begin. The applicant can contact Marley Bain at CDPHE, 303-692-3253 with specific questions regarding this matter. ASREN GUNNiSON GRAND JUNCTION MEEKER 1 0 1 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE. 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE 320 THIRD STREET PO 80x 2155 SUITE A SUILPING 1, 5w -1'E 205 MEEKER, CO 81641 ASPEN. CO 8 1 61 1 GUNNISON, CO GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.878.5150 970.925.6727 970.841.5355 970.245,2571 970.878.4181 Fax 970.925.4157 FAX 970.641 .5358 Fax 970.245,2871 FAx 6 SCHMUESER GORDON 1 MEYER ENGINEERS ISURVEYORS After looking more closely into this matter, Bedrock Resources has determined that the existing permit is for a portable plant and is preparing the application for the permanent plant at the new location. As the plant is being moved from its current location to the new, the information necessary for the APEN is analogous to the information previously provided in the application. The application should be submitted to CDPHE by the end of this year. We will "cc" you a copy of the application when it is submitted. We would recommend that any motion to approve our application contain a condition stating that the asphalt plant cannot commence operation without providing the planning department a copy of the APEN for this site. 2. There is not much information about fugitive dust mitigation. If this is adequately covered in the CDPHE permit, that is good. But I recommend that the County also have a CUA that give the BOCCstrong authority to require stringent dust mitigation, especially in light of proximity to the airport, nearby residences and highly used heavy haul roads in the area. As part of the best management practices for this project and as part of the on- going operations for the project into the future, Bedrock Resources is committed to and will exercise mitigation techniques for fugitive dust. As with their current operations, Bedrock Resources has the equipment and personnel to employ proper fugitive dust mitigation during both construction and operations. 3. The potable water system sizing is based on 12 on-site employees. There is no mention of transient users(i.e truck drivers). i believe that CDPHE would include potential transient users in the determination of whether the water supply would be considered public or private. If there are 13 or more transient potential water users per day for at least 60 days per year than this water system may be considered a regulated public water supply. I strongly recommend that the applicant be required to research this matter with CDPHE and provide proof that they meet all regulatory requirements before approval of the land use permit. They can contact Erica Kanely, 303-692-3543 to gain clarity on this matter. The water system has been "oversized" based upon the current and proposed staffing of the facility. Currently, the operations for Frontier Paving include 4 persons in the office and 2 persons operating the asphalt plant and shop. Therefore the total daily person at the site would be 6. The six personnel are to be the primary users of the water and wastewater systems. The seasonal employees (of which truck drivers are included) for this business, being that of a paving company, report directly to the "job sites". Only periodically do they visit the office and plant to pick up or drop off equipment. Bottled water and water coolers such as "Deep Rock" are provided for these employees. Regardless, the additional 6 employee count considered in the design is to offset any additional transient use or guests that may visit this site. As a matter of drawing comparisons, the 6 additional full time office personnel that has been considered in the design of the septic system, as an example, would result in 90 gpd, on 6ENG#NEERS /SURVEYORS SCHMUESER 1 GORDON i MEYER average, or an additional 135 gallon daily design flow. With the 1 gallon flush toilets, the would essentially result in 135 additional "flushes" allowed in the design of the water and wastewater systems. 4. lam not sure if CDPHE allows hauled water for a permanent water supply. If this water system is ultimately determined to be a private water supply system and if water hauling is allowed by Garfield County, I recommend that the applicant be required to only utilize the services of a water hauler that meets the CDPi-IE requirements for water haulers and that the applicant be required to follow similar requirements to those required under the Minor Temporary Housing Facilities in the Gatfield County land use regulations. As you are aware, since submittal of the application, the applicant, Bedrock Resources has contracted with Shelton Drilling to drill a well on site. A monitoring well permit has been applied for and the well has been drilled. Recent verbal discussions with Mr. Shelton have indicated that the well has been flow tested to a production rate in the range of 3 gallons per minute. This is more than what is necessary for the water demands for this site (per our previous calculations submitted). As Mr. Shelton completes his well drillers report, the applicant will forward such to you for your records and review. Development of the well, as discussed in our water report, as a water supply in lieu of hauling will be the method of providing water to this site. 5. The ISM design in the Land Suitability Analysis is also based on a flow generated by 12 employees. This number may need to be reevaluated should CDPHE (and Garfield County) consider the potential number of system users to be a number greater than 12. in addition, the WS design would also need to be altered appropriately if larger anticipated sewage flows are determined. See our comments under item 3., above. 6. There is no documentation detailing how the "sound survey" was conducted. 1 believe that the hand written notes are inadequate and that a properly conducted noise study be required. As mentioned in our report of November 18, the sound survey was performed using a sound meter to evaluate the level of "line of site" noise generated from the very same equipment that will be used at this site. The purpose was to measure the threshold of sound that exists from the plant at distances equivalent to the adjacent residential properties. If it were determined that the various pieces of equipment were "too noisy" at the property line, then mitigation would be necessary. As a result of the sound measurements, it is noted that the noise levels are below regulatory limits. As this appears to have remained a concern of staff, more information was provided to you on December 22, which identified a cross section of the site from the asphalt plant to the adjacent property and the SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER ENGINEERS !SURVEYORS residence itself. By line of site alone, un -mitigated, the noise generated from the site is reduced to 42 dB from distance alone. The cross section further identified that between the plant and the residence will be the recycled base stockpiles and the equipment storage buildings, each of these would serve to further provide a sound barrier for noise from the plant to the adjacent. Given these efforts and determinations, we do not believe that further study is warranted. We do note that the residence is in the direct line of flight from the airport and the noise of the aircraft landing and taking off from the airport exceed the noise limits imposed by the state. We only mention this to question the "residential" standard by which to reduce noise to (which is met for the asphalt plant) as this standard has already been compromised. 7. Page 3 of the Land Suitability Analysis indicates that there is an abandoned well near the second access road. Abandoned wells can create safety risks and potential water quality risks if they are not abandoned properly. 1 recommend that this well be researched to determine if it has been properly abandoned and documented. If it has not, the properly documented abandonment of the well with DWR should be a condition of approval. Since the application has been submitted, and drilling the well has been performed, further research into what was thought to be an abandoned well actually turned out to be an old clean out from the past residential use. This cleanout was for the old septic system. The well was drilled well away from this site (meeting set back requirements for ISDS regulations). B. As always for a project this size, an approved CDPHE stormwater discharge permit must be obtained before any land clearing or grading begins. Stormwater control BMP's must be in place at the beginning of site development. The SPCC Plan will be part of the stormwater permitting requirements. All of these items should be conditions of approval. These are all proposed activities with this project and we concur with the recommended conditions of approval. Kevin Whalen's (Rifle Fire Protection District) e-mail: Glenn, 1 have reviewed the documents for the Bedrock Resources LLC- Asphalt Batch Plant Major Impact Review-MIPA-7030. The following are my comments: 1. Fire Protection Water Supply: a. Calculations need to verified i. Height of buildings - The maximum height of the buildings are noted on sheet 3 of the drawings for each building. 6 SCHMUESER GORDON' MEYER ENGINEERS 'SURVEYORS b. Draft height --- Per our discussions with Kevin, the draft height of the dry hydrant from the pond needs be 10' or less. The finish grades of the hydrant supply line and hydrant location will be identified to accommodated this. c. Wet fire hydrant vs dry hydrant — Both. A wet hydrant near the office and a dry hydrant near the shop. d. Is 100'x50' shop the most demanding building for fire protection water? Per our report, yes. e. Design should meet Rifle Fire's guidance documents which in some cases, give further details then NEPA 1142, -Noted 2. Fueling area and petroleum products for the plant and associated activities may drive submittal of a hazardous materials declaration to Rifle Fire. This depends on the quantities. — The applicant is filling out the form as required. 3. Roads: a. Grades of 10% are at the upper limits of policy requirements and should be avoided where at all possible. Noted and done. There are 10% grades, however, the intent was to locate these grades in straight sections of road and not in curves. b. Proposed Access Road does not meet the minimum width for a fire access road. More information is needed on what this road serves or will serve. After communicating with Kevin, he thought that the existing driveway was proposed for use with this project. It is not...and he is correct, it does not meet the width requirements (amongst other design parameters) for fire access. I hope this letter helps to address concerns and questions raised with these two referral comment e-mails. Upon your receipt and review, if you have questions, please don't hesitate to call. Respectfully. GORDON MEYER, INC. Jl;r" a S. i onson, PE, CFM Pani pal BEDROCK RESOURCES, INC NOISE SURVEY MEASUREMENTS, LINE OF SITE 50 92 MEASURED 75 88 MEASURED 100 87 MEASURED 125 85.0 150 83.0 175 81.0 200 79.0 225 77,0 250 75 MEASURED 275 74.0 300 73.1 325 72,1 350 71.2 375 70.2 400 69.3 425 68.3 450 67.3 475 66.4 500 65.4 525 64.5 550 63.5 575 62.5 600 61.6 625 60.6 650 59.7 675 58.7 700 57.8 725 56.8 750 55.8 775 54.9 800 53.9 825 53.0 850 52 MEASURED 875 51.0 900 50.1 925 49.1 950 48.2 975 47.2 1000 46.3 1025 45.3 1050 44.3 1075 43.4 1100 42.4 Line of Site Noise From Load Gates 0 0 0 0 sa{giaap 0 Cr) 0 N 0 00 z 0, CJS CJD 00 00 0, 00 s ©.9 0D 0 0 04> 00/ 0 Distance from Load Gates, Et. i ill 1� 1 —1 ■■i I- I 1 -I r- r 1 1 I r 1, 1 711 ; !. rfI�U77 1- i� •' � rI • I r 1�3 �- _-1• 1! II r 1 1 J 1 i' 1 1 I I— .. 1 t rj e . ; 1 I f ■ r■ L ! 3 1, r f 3 I. , i .. . 1 1 1 il , ;_-3 4_ I �.I 1= I ■■ I_j 1 f l y M ~'T r 1 .1 _ C - 1 1 '1- .. •1 vhf 1 .. f'i •1 ■� 1 �- f •� .� 'f jE �—s I �'- 1_i --C 1- JT _ ,11 �i�� S i �� 1 _ 1' f ri, , 2L4 1 f -1-7, r.II H ■E. 1 f -� 1-1 iL� JM }L`T —. y LE�1f f;1 ti ; {i' r I-1 1 1 1II— t F T � b • r } ■ �:■■[ :11 r -`• r■ 1 1 ■�■ i k. rt CC1 F11 ■■ I'•1 s• I , i 1. ■ I-- '-L ■ rt�� f ■ 1 ` 1. 1 1—.1_ --LJI 1 I } / i� .—I i 1 i --F ; ' { f I I , --1,---H-H- --i-i- r { r ■■ 1 j 1- C r �1 F' _ Iii i ' h .` -�� . H _, L 1 _ �T -I es.. - +- • f _}. 1 T ■o 1 1 ■ I 1 p 1 1 ■ j -.__L I! 1 J 1 1-r I i—ter ` , F - I 0 0 0 0 sa{giaap 0 Cr) 0 N 0 00 z 0, CJS CJD 00 00 0, 00 s ©.9 0D 0 0 04> 00/ 0 Distance from Load Gates, Et. 1 I , e 1014 Cty. Rd. 311 • New Castle, CO 81647 December 28, 2011 Marley Bain Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division — APCD — SS — B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 RE: Permit No: 070A0457 (970) 876-0916 • Fax: (970) 876-0918 EXHIBIT l Dear Marley, The request for a modification of our existing permit is because of a future plant relocation. We have purchased a parcel of property of approximately 35.72 acres located approximately 1/3 rnile south of the 1-70 interchange east and adjacent to County Road 315 (Mamrn Creek Road) and 1/3 mile due east of the Garfield County Airport in Eagle Springs Ranch in Section: 18 Township: 6 Range: 92. We are not changing the asphalt plant in any way. The relocation depends upon approval by Garfield County through a Major Impact Review. The timing of the relocation depends upon the date of approval and the site construction schedule. Upon approval of this APENS, please don't cancel our current permit until we are ready to relocate. We will forward the address of the new location as soon as we acquire it. 1 have enclosed a survey map and our overall proposed site plan. Sincerely, Charles El sworth President Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 1 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS - Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) — and — Application for Construction Permit Check all that apply: 0 New Facility 0 Transfer of Ownership 0 No Change, APEN Update Only ❑ Change in HMA Production 'k quest Modification to Existing Permit All sections of this APEN and application must be completed for both new and existing facilities. An application with missing information (with the exception of Section 6) will be determined incomplete and returned to the applicant and may result in longer engineer processing times. For transfer of ownership or company name change of a permit, you must also submit a Consu-action Permit Application form. For questions regarding this APEN, please consult the Division's APEN Guidance Document, Permit Number Company Name: Plant Location: Billing Address: Person to Contact: E-mail Address: 07GA Oi-) 5'] AIRS NumberO 9 5 / ©3 3 33/ o o 3 retan+f:Ja.c t c,,,i 7ru) IQJ'y COkn1- -1Rot3-d2 Irl A1ej Cris 1 -le Cr, /o t'r�r_Oc7 /o/ii Co,,, 4-1 lQo. c 311 JL Jo r ci OQ S/6•97 rj Alcixles @ Tfptu t,' re30.u.`a_,, ;AIX Co►r,_ Signature of Legally Authorized Person (not a vendor or consultant) (Ara..S 6)/Sr�-k Name (please print) SECTION 1: General Information Will this plant be used as a Stationary or Portable Source?:Stationary (A portable plant may only remain at a single location or less than 2 years.) Please provide initial or present location: if facility is portable, please provide home -base location: County: Zip Code: 81641' Phone Number: ' ` ,I 0 - g - 0 9 f. Fax Number: 9 `)D -`ti) 6 - d 9/ T. )2.-28-.2Ql, �j Date rl G¢ S :69 .0 r, Title ❑ Portable /C"i Co n1 R 311 AQ..,.) Caui 0 Col. , 87640 With this application, you must submit a site map, drawn to scale, which shows the oo-site haul roads, public roads, property boundary, fence boundary, aggregate storage bins, LMA processing equipment, and storage silos and tanks. Total Area of Site: 3 E ri Z Acres Shortest Distance from HMA plant to property boundary: 3 G e Feet Was this hot mix asphalt plant constructed, modified, or reconstructed after June 11, 1973? 1f facility is NOT yet constructed: What is the projected installation date? ,1'%� rrl� c2 t j 1 Z What is the projected start-up date? rnQ H .2012_ Normal Operation of this Source: % e.[ Hours per day 6 Days per week Seasonal Throughput (% of Annual): Dec - Feb = % Mar- May 12 % June - Aug 35 yr, Sept - Nov 51 fa / No Weeks per year Revised October 2005 http://wwwxdohe.state.co.us/apidownloadforms.hunl You can track the status of your application at: http:/1www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/sslsspcpt.HTML Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 2 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - HOT MIC ASPHALT PLANTS - SECTION 2: Equipment Information Plant Type: ❑ Drum Mix Parallel Flow Plant Design Rate (Maximum Capacity per Hour) ix Drum Mix Counter Flow 0 Batch Mix Plant 3 00 Tons per Hour (finished product) Maximum Burner Design Rate: 175.c Million BTU per Hour r� /casco /#1 a d spit) +\ – 3 517 Serial 317 5 3 J Drum Mixer: Make Model Burner: Make /4 cc u. c K Model L N 5.T- 36c Serial Pf N xr C p s((] 13 0 SECTION 3: Equipment & Product Information Aggregate mix is: 0 100% virgin asphalt or, c;,,,„.4)1 u s Oa afz, V :r-5 ; ti, tx3 g r a, a"4-e- ja Contains recycled asphalt Max percent of recycled asphalt product in the mix: pp, 0 Note: Percent recycled asphalt may become a permit limitation.. Production ofNot Mix Asphaltic Concrete: HMA Temperature Range: epSo F (i.e. 320 _ 340 ° F) Requested Annual Permit Limit: /20,600 Tons (This Wili Become A Permit Limitation) Requested Daily Permit Limit: Sts Tons (This May Become A Permit Limitation) Actual Level From Calendar Year: 5,2r 1) F 1.7 Tons/Year Year For Which The Actual Data Applies: o j 1 (i.e., 2001) Lime or Mineral Filler Storage Silos: Requested Annual Throughput: 5( Tons per Year What Type of Air Pollution Controls Are Used for Storage Silo(s)? Fuel Information For Heating The Asphalt Cement Storage Tanks: F f t r Type of Fuel Used: i'+ Diesel 0 Natural Gas 0 Other Capacity of tank: Design 1 -kat Input Rate: Plant Stack Emissions: Primary Control Type of Control Device: 30, ooa &2W. coo 6a 5 I, Manufacturer iq r L o r • [ im2 tv Secondary Control (if applicable) Type of Control Device; Pr a r ,3 Ca {Knockout Box Cyclone, etc.) Manufacturer S--1-ex. ,y 5 ;!'ran ] Model t'+� Q - / A - Serial —y Gallons BTU per Hour 54 Model Na of Tanks: (bag filter, bin vents, etc) (Baghouse, Scrubber, etc.) CE -15o sena' C _ 1 5 n x 2 HMA Silo Filling Capture and Control System: Type of Control Device: jsj ) &j Q Manufacturer Model SECTION 4: Stack Information Stack Height: 311. S8 (Mist Eliminator, Return Air, etc.) Serial Feet (Above Grade) Stack Diameter. LIO . R Feet t► t l 7ix2� o Feet (Above top of baghouse ) Stack Temperature: _1 9 0 ° F Stack Moisture Content: Stack Flow Rate: 4195 ACFM Stack Velocity: 4-1,2.9 .�# /, q Feet per minute -C ar~ 5 .mak re si 9 - )1 /q -ice a .07 Revised October 2005 http:liwww.cdphe.state,ca.us/aoidownloadforms,html You can track the status of your application at: http:Ilwsvw.cdphe.state.co.us/aplss/sspcpt.HTML Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 3 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - HoT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS - SECTION 5: Fuel Information Burner Fuel Type(s): Primary Fuel Type (check all fuels for which approval is requested) ❑ Diesel (No. 2 Fuel Oil) ❑ Propane Z,On-Specification Industrial Oil in compliance with 40 CFR Part 274 ❑ Natural Gas 0 Other: Backup or Alternative Fuel Type (if applicable, check all fuels for which approval Ls requested);, Diesel (No. 2 Fuel Oil) ❑ Propane 0 On -Specification Industrial Oil in compliance with 40 CFR Part 279 ❑ Natural Gas ❑ Other: SECTION 6: Air Pollution Emissions Information (optional) POLLUTION CONTROL. EQUIPMENT Year For Which The Actual Data Applies. O fl Actual Emissions from the data year ' Estimated Emissions Overall (tons/yr) at throughputs Collection requested above Pollutant Prim Secondary Efficient Cootmlled Uncontrolled Particulate PM -l0 Type of Control Equip. SOS NOx VOC CO 3.S 3,5 Estimation Method ,J .65 r• s1 33 .0 I.44f 0.817 11,1 \C er 3C Y 3 °' Please use APCD Non -Criteria Reportable Air Pollutant Emission Notice Addendum form to report emissions of pollutants not listed above, such as Hazardous Air Pollutants from fuel combustion. SECTION 7: Fugitive Dust Emission Sources What Type of Pollution Controls Are Used for Aggregate Storage Piles? WNCO f pr.n4..dcn4.. 62r (Emissions controls for storage piles may include, but are not limited to: Full or Partial Enclosures, Pre -Washed Aggregate, etc.) What Type of Pollution Controls Arc Uscd for Aggregate Storage Bins? fl7oNQ (Emissions controls for storage piles may include, but are not limited, to: Full or Partial Enclosures, Pre -Washed Aggregate. etc.) On-site moving of aggregate from storage piles to storage bins Loader 1 Loader 2 Loader 3 Haul Vehicle Capacity: Haul Vehicle Empty Weight: Max Number of Trips Per Day: Haul Road Length (avg. one way): Posted Speed Limit 0n Haul Road: 3S7 la List Air Pollution Controls Used for the On -Site Haul Roads: 0 Paved Surface Watering Graveled Surface 0 Systematic — Frequency: Times Per Day L. As Needed 2. Chemical Stabilizer — Type: «) Ch 1(a t•.4.)2 (e.g. mag chloride, resin, etc.) Amount applied per year: i t) (] n, 41 f n oS httn://www.cdplie. state. co.usiap/clownloadforms. htrn I m.p.h. Tons Tons Feet Revised October 2005 You can track the status of your application at: http:ffwww.cdphe.state,ca.us/apfss/ssncpt.HTML Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 4 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS - Transport of aggregate to the site from au off --site location (if the facility is Hot located at an aggregate mine). Amount of aggregate + RAP received: 5 ❑ Tons per day & /50, pop Tons per year. HaulVehicle 1 Haul Vehicle 2 Haul Vehicle 3 Haul Vehicle Capacity: 2 Tons Haul Vehicle Empty Weight: f 17 / 7 Tons Max Number of Trips Per Day: -1r 2 r Haul Road Length (avg. one way): 3.400 -C,C) Feet Posted Speed Limit On Haul Road: -3a m.p.h. List Air Pollution Controls Used for the On -Site Haul Roads: O Paved Surface Watering El Graveled Surface 0 Systematic- Frequency: Times Per Day ® As Needed tg Chemical Stabilizer - Type: JY] a L' i jar .0 (e.g. mag chloride, resin, etc.) Amount applied per year. (c, p 00 5 zJOa,0 Removal of hot aux asphalt from the site. Haul Vehicle Capacity: Haul Vehicle Empty Weight: Max Number of Trips Per Day; Haul Vehicle I 14 Or Haul Vehicle 2 l� �7 17S l41 Haul Road Length (avg. one way): ?ZOO 32 On Posted Speed Limit On Haul Road: 3 C m.p.h. List Air Pollution Controls Used for the On -Site Haul Roads: [] Paved Surface Watering fa Graveled Surface 0 Systematic — Frequency: E As Needed Chemical Stabilizer -- Type: ii 4.3 CA/pp, ce (e.g. mag chloride, resin, etc.) Amount applied per year: C 00 t3.a 1I Haul Vehicle 3 Tons Tons Times Per Day 0 Please check if you would like to review a draft of the permit prior to issuance (Checking may result in an increased fee and/or processing time) This notice is valid for five (5) years unless a significant change is made, such as an increased production, new equipment, change in fuel type, etc, A revised APEN shall be filed no less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of this APEN form. Send this form along with $152.90 to: Telephone: (303) 692-3150 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division - APCD-SS-B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 802464530 Revised October 2005 http://www.cdphe.state.co.usiao/downloadforrns.html You can track the status of your application at: http://www.cdvhe.state.co.us/apfssfsspcpt.HTML AfEW Package Express US Airbll/ rn.arrrti.i 8755 8238 5133E1n,raeu From Please pmt and press hard. Dare Ire-`j]C i f Account Number '. , rtiyep'+-jet Ett4 ti -1 L'A Sep dips f y Name l,&rle.s J �s[t rarePhhael '�70 'F.'%'ra-0 iC Company �QGfal_13FR P 16j, T r C INC Address i j 1 4 COUNTY ?=: AD 311 Car CAM -1.F stow ZIP to 1 A47_ q i 14- 2 Your Internal Billing Reference r: Nevautmrag t nen OA.. a Te Recipient's Name 4 Express Package Service •Tsang LLora PERES.raka oda Wu caw -9714,1.c •ccI tta !a'77 - "NexSHsine¢6a .: ❑FedEx First overnight Lew, lusren ti cif s`t�rrr. amS oC e11.41 m alm,xy wav SAIL -KW e.rnrPl, Fed 's Pricrrty Dhremight n&rtml n 'rbS`5ATl uim ddnvrnn ey.n h.ivcnd X. FedEx S7aadard overnight a.aa�,aeaAnna, snawon.mynmrnl.ua Packegrs up to ISE Ms, kip 1arramammsnew m. fags Egress a,.ykres can 9usiuess MEW Fed&2DayA.M. Pad& 7Aay r-1 s.xacoarwuwrm.•Tanaw LIMpolen t4 tedOwerf rAxiaee rdeis WAIN! sob:. ❑FadEY Express Saran n,tanawnan sa,ro.y 94r.r /111r e.x.w 5 Packaging aw.rta Ela rem Zia FedEx Envelope' ❑ FedEx Pak' FedEx BOY © FedEx rude Other 6 Special Handling and Delivery Signature Options Mom l F631 692-3253 ❑ SRDAY D9naery rtm.r.,..,.rrr.an s..., omnys r.+fs may un. vr.axea.o Saver comp., +- DP175 4 • . r t L r-Gh f4 j /we() `01+--I r„Nrn64a],�11.'r Required 9Ywry HOD Weekday ;oo cAerC Creek Or.'jR_Sw 4 Fath brelerocklmax Adress ❑. rcror.r, . . tY r two, a.Ywroe P.e. ban p:P.9. art caau onee muromr Rex granSaturicht ewrEcPivy maim Address vows der ro.m. IOW roe.m. rdarm oe m! aarwa.om or>sar rwa.n.ae� city ✓ fl.}L%. f'” Stam k, ZIPgO2Lc,- 04'1617B34 t5373 0436 Y %E934 The FedEx US Airbili has change . .;:r:_i ;;Ce Section» 4 Irk Direct Signawre Saretrognegiun •wy rryrb adwr. rs.Rga Dass Gus shiprlad contain danpmnus goods? Ike xx nal ae anercee. u ❑ Yannmena um Qd H EAcmae../.: rte wcew+q Lndiract SlI� nature MOM er.er.tl.ar n_pr aNrem weteaa�a 1. 1_1n. alawrssewY r<C b.WNeM1 k� .ae..aeia.wF,ar spy,. EIca 4sa.r! un n S r Ia ❑ Cargo Aircraft Only T Payment max Semler rearaw o.atavra 1 rma Faer,A Ma ee p.Sn4lyd tYa ea .r Recipient ❑ Third Party U L:redrtCard 0 Cash/Check ToaIPackeges TertafWeight Total Declared I Rsi m ta.wwadpamsmwaaa wwaaxa r.w.a. onwet*moo r;r eaaae.[AilN mimeom+r.�ai,c ra a r.. Mx era INa• Pare ei63:1a•mry9.-2010 hen •PURIM In a Sof 611, Fargp Bank. *I A.' 2R-7.1020 Oak Fra• 1.3Erver *Arm 12-2 -/1 PAY TO THE ORDER OF ME o en l- a Pte_.1.,Pc Hort/J-1. �P »�, f den a,. $ J 5 2 - Ore rcla 0aflcLrs DOLLARS /04 AUTHOR/ZED SIGMA LIRE a II'O 27 5 5411" ': ha 22E0007'61: 86 3 3 ??6 540e Bedrock Resources LLC. 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, Colorado 81647 December 30, 2011 Vee Stewart Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76137 RE: Aeronautical Study No. 2011-ANM-2945-Of Dear Vee; EXHIBIT 5 - After having received your letter dated 12/22/2011 and talking with you today, Bedrock Resources LLC. is proposing to reduce the height of the proposed structure by 4 feet and lower the existing ground elevation by at least 12 feet. This would in effect cause the Lime Silo to be at or below 5631 feet above mean sea level. Our Civil Engineer is working on the modified grading plan currently. Sincerely; Charles Ellsworth, Manager ERA ERO Resources Corp. GES c4R Denver 1842 Clarkson St. Denver, CO 80218 303.830.1188 Boise 3314 Grace St. Boise. ID 83703 208.373.7983 Durango 1065 Main Avenue Durango, CO 81301 970.422.2136 Western Slope P.O. Box 932 161 South 2^a St. Hotchkiss, CO 81419 970.872.3020 www.eroresources.com EXHIBIT November 7, 2011 Ms. Carrie Sheata U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Western Regulatory Office 400 Rood Avenue, Room 14 Grand Junction, CO 81502 RE: Frontier Paving Facility Road Construction PCN Dear Ms. Sheata: On behalf of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer (SGM), we request verification of the attached wetland delineation, as well as verification that the Frontier Paving Facility new road construction is authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 for linear transportation projects (72 Fed. Reg. 11182, March 12, 2007). The impacts will result from activities associated with new road construction in Garfield County, Colorado. The project is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the I-70 and County Road 315 (Mamm Creek Road) interchange in Garfield County, Colorado. The center of the project is Section 18, T6S, R92W, Sixth Principal Meridian, UTM Zone 13, 267720mN, 4378603mE, Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). Included are a wetland delineation report, pre -construction notification form, a site reap, aerial overview, wetland determination data forms, photo log, and preliminary jurisdictional determination form. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (970-872-3020). We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, opt_ Rotre Aleta S. Powers Principal, Natural Resource Specialist Enclosures CC Schmueser Gordon Meyer Consultants in Noturol Resources and the Environment FACT SIWET FRONTIER PAVING GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Nationwide Permit Verification Requested: • NWP 14 for linear transportation project. Location: The project is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the I-70 and County Road 315 (Mamm Creek Road) interchange in Garfield County, Colorado. The center of the project is Section 18, T6S, R92W, Sixth Principal Meridian, UTM Zone 13, 267720rnN, 4378603111E, Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). Project Description: Frontier Paving, Inc, owned by Charles Ellesworth and Family, is proposing moving their asphalt paving facility to a 3532 acre parcel in Eagle Springs Ranch. Operations would include an asphalt batch plant, rock crusher, stock pile areas, an office, and parking areas for the asphalt transport vehicles and equipment. Impacts to Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.: Five wetlands were mapped on the parcel (see attached Figure 2). Most wetlands were avoided during road and facility layout. About 0.007 acre of permanent impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, would result from the project. The attached PCN document and wetland delineation contain additional details, Authorization by NWP 14: The impacts from the new road construction can be authorized under NWP 14 for linear transportation project (72 Fed. Reg. 11182 Marchl2, 2007) for the following reasons: • Impacts to wetlands will be less that 1/2 acre. ESA Compliance: No habitat for any federally threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species occurs within the project area. Section 106 Compliance: A cultural resource file search and survey has been completed for the project. No eligible cultural resources would be impacted (see attached report). Contact: Aleta Powers, ERO Resources Corporation (970-872-3020) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division Nationwide Permit Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form This form integrates requirements of the Nationwide Permit Program within SPD, including General and Regional Conditions. Please consult instructions prior to completing this form. Box 1 Project Name Frontier Paving Facility Applicant Name Jeff Simonson (MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE TO OWNER) Applicant Title Applicant Company, Agency, etc. E-mail Address Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer Mailing Address Applicant's internal tracking number (if any) 118 West 6th Street, Ste 200 I hereby authorize the above named authorized agent to act in my behalf as my agent in the process ng of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. I understand that 1 am bound by the actions of my agent and I understand that if a federal or state perrn"rt is issued, I, or my agent, must sign the permit. Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Date (mfdlyyyy) Work Phone with area code Home Phone with area code Fax # E-mail Address 970-945-1004 _ 970-945-5948 JeffS@sgm-inc.com Relationship of applicant to property: (Owner Purchaser (Lessee aI Other: Application is hereby made for verification that subject regulated activities associated with subject project qualify for authorization under a Corps nationwide permit or permits as described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. I hereby grant to the agency to which this application is made, the right to enter the above-described location to inspect the proposed, in -progress or completed work. I agree to start work only after all necessary •ermits have been received. Signature of applicant Date (m/d/yyyy) Box 2 Authorized Agent/Operator Name and Signature (If an agent is acting for the app/,cant during the permit process) Agent/Operator Title Agent/Operator Company, Agency, etc. Mailing Address E-mail Address Work Phone with area code Home Phone with area code Fax # Cell Phone # I hereby authorize the above named authorized agent to act in my behalf as my agent in the process ng of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. I understand that 1 am bound by the actions of my agent and I understand that if a federal or state perrn"rt is issued, I, or my agent, must sign the permit. Signature of applicant Date (mfdlyyyy) Page 1 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. Include multiple copies of Box 5 for separate sites. Box 5 Site Number 1 of 1. Project location(s), including street address, city, county, state, zip code where proposed activity will occur: Waterbody (if known, otherwise enter "an unnamed tributary to"): An unnamed tributary to Mamm Creek Tributary to what known, downstream waterbody:Mamm Creek Latitude & longitude (DIM/s, DD, or urrm):39.5257, 107.7024 Zoning Designation (no codes or abbreviations): Assessors parcel number: Section, Township, Range: S18, TCS, R92W USGS Quad map name: Silt Watershed and other location descriptions, if known: Colorado headwaters -Plateau 14010005 Directions to the project location: The project area is located approximately 0.3 mile South of the 1-70/County Road 315 interchange off of County Road 315. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such information is true, complete, and accurate. Signature of authorized agent Date (mjd/y yyy) Box 3 Name of property owner(s), if other than applicant: CHARLES ELLESWORTH/FRONTIER PAYING Owner Title Owner Company, Agency, etc. Mailing Address Work Phone Home Phone Box 4 Name of contractor(s) (if known): Contractor Title Contractor Company, Agency, etc. Mailing Address Work Phone Home Phone Page 2 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006„ For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. Nature of' Activity (Description of project, include all features, see instruct* This PCN is for construction on a new road on private property. Project Purpose (Description the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions): New road construction for a new asphalt facility. Use Box 6 if dredged and/or fill material is to be discharged: Box 6 Reason(s) for Discharge into waters of the United States: Road Construction Type(s) of material being discharged and the amount of each type in cubic yards: Road base and clean fill dirt (11 cy) Total surface area in acres of wetlands or other waters of the U.S. filled (see instructions): 0.007 acres Indicate in ACRES and LINEAR FEET (where appropriate) the proposed impacts to waters of the United States, and identify the impact(s) as permanent and/or temporary for each water body type fisted below: Permanent Water Body Type A❑res Linear feet Acres Temp ❑ rary Linear feet Wetland Riparian streambed O.007 Unveg. stream❑ed Lake Ocean of ❑ er Total: O.007 Potential indirect and/or cumulative impacts of proposed discharge (if any): none Required drawings (see instructions): Vicinity map: Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) To -scale Plan view drawing(s): M1 Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) To -scale elevation and/or Cross Section drawing(s): IX Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) Page 3 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form. visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. Has a wetlands/waters of the U.S. delineation been completed? Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) [1 No If a delineation has been completed, has it been verified in writing by the Corps? Yes, Date of approved jurisdictional determination (mjd/yyyy): Corps Erle number: No Please attache one or more color photographs of the existing conditions (aerials if possible). eor mail copy separately if applying electronically Dredge Volume: Indicate in CUBIC YARDS the quantity of material to be dredged or used as fill: N/A Indicate type(s) of material proposed to be discharged in waters of the United States: Clean fill dirt For proposed discharges of dredged material into waters of the U.S. (including beach nourishment), please attach a proposed Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) prepared according to Inland Testing Manual (TTM) guidelines (including Tier I information, if available). 2or mail copy separately if applying electronically Is any portion of the work already complete? ❑ YES r NO If yes, describe the work: Box 7 Intended NWP permit number: 14 Intended NWP permit number (2nd): Intended NWP number (3): Enter the intended permit type(s). See NWP regulations for permit types and qualification information (htto://www.usace.army.milIinetlfunctionslcw/cecwo/rea/nat4nwide permits.htm). Box 8 Authority: Is Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act applicable?: ❑ YES +1 NO Is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act applicable?: 11 YES '❑ NO Box 9 Is the discharge of fill or dredged material for which Section 10/404 authorization is sought part of a Iarger_plan of development?: ❑ YES ►1 NO If discharge of fill or dredged material is part of development, name and proposed schedule for that larger development (start-up, duration, and completion dates): Location of larger development (If discharge of fill or dredged material is part of a plan of development, a map of suitable quality and detail of the entire project site should be included): Total area in acres of entire project area (including larger plan of development, where applicable): Page 4 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. Box 10 Threatened or Endangered Species - Please list any federally -listed (or proposed) threatened or endangered species or critical habitat within the project area (use scientific names (e.g., Genus species), if known): a. N/A b. c. d. e. f. Have surveys, using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/NOAA Fisheries protocols, been conducted? ❑ Yes, Report attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) 0 No If a federally -listed species would be impacted, please provide a description and a biological evaluation. III Yes, Report attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) ❑ Not attached Has the USFWS/NOAA Fisheries issued a Biological Opinion? ❑ Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) ❑ No If yes, list date Opinion was issued (m/d/yyyy): Has Section 7 consultation been initiated by another federal agency? Yes, Initiation leiter attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) I`l No Has Section 10 consultation been initiated for the proposed project? ❑ Yes, Initiation letter attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) ei1 No Box 11 Historic properties and cultural resources: Please list any historic properties listed (or eligible to be listed) on the National Register of Historic Places: a. N/A b. c. d. e. f. Are any cultural resources of any type known to exist on-site? Yes 1,:/ No Has an archaeological records search been conducted? El Yes, Report attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) u No Has a archaeological pedestrian survey been conducted for the site? Yes, Report attached liar mail copy separately if applying electronically) ❑ No Has a Section 106 MOA been signed by another federal agencyaand the SHPO? ❑ Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) INo If yes, list date MOA was signed (m/d/yyyy):. Has Section 106 consultation been initiated by another federal agency? ❑ Yes, Initiation letter attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) El No Page 5 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. Box 12 Measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States (if any): Best management practices will be utilized to minimize erosion and sedimentation and maintain normal flows; an elevation marker would be used in areas of temporary fill to mark preconstruction surface elevation. Include multiple copies of Box 13 for separate sites. Box 13 Proposed Compensatory Mitigation (site _ of _) related to fill/excavation and dredge activities. Indicate in ACRES and LINEAR FEET (where appropriate) the total quantity of waters of the United States proposed to be created, restored, enhanced and/or preserved for purposes of providing compensatory mitigation. Indicate water body type (wetland, riparian streambed, unvegetated streambed, lake, ocean, ' other) or non jurisdictional (uplands). Indicate mitigation type (on- or off-site by applicant, mitigation bank, in -lieu fee program): Water Body Type Created Restored Enhanced Preserved Mitigation type On-site by app Example: wetland 0.8 acre 0.2 acre - - Example: riparian stream - - 3.0 acres/1300 If - IL.FP Totals: 'For uplands, please indicate if designed as an upland buffer. If no mitigation is proposed, provide detailed explanation of why no mitigation would be necessary: Impacts are less that 0.10 acres, Has a draft/conceptual mitigation plan been prepared in accordance with the Army Engineers District guidelines? ® Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) Corps of lkil No Mitigation site latitude & longitude la/M/s, DD, or LITMj: USGS Quad map name: Assessors parcel number: Section, Township, Range, USGS Quadrangle Map, Latitude/Longitude: Other location descriptions, if known: Directions to the mitigation location: Page 6 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. Box 14 Water Quality Certification (see instructions): Applying for certification? ❑ Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) F No Certification issued? ❑ Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) 1 No Exempt? 0 Yes 0 No If exempt, state why: Agency concurrence? ❑ Yes, Attached n No Box 15 Coastal Zone Management Act (see instructions): Is the project located within the Coastal Zone? ❑ Yes ►/ No If yes, applying for a coastal commission -approved Coastal Development Permit? ❑ Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) ❑ No If no, applying for separate CZMA-consistency certification? ❑ Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) ❑ No Permit/Consistency issued? ❑ Yes, Attached (or mail copy separately if applying electronically) ❑ No Exempt? Yes No If exempt, state why: Box 16 List of other certifications or approvals/denials received from other federal, state, or local agencies for work described in this application: Agency Type Approval" Identification No. Date Applied Date Approved Date Denied 4 Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits. NWP General conditions (GC) checklist: 1. Navigation: Project would be in compliance with GC? A Yes ❑ No 2. Proper Maintenance: Project would be in compliance with GC? ® Yes '❑ No 3. Erosion and Siltation Controls: Project would be in compliance with GC? Yes ❑ No 4. Aquatic Life Movements: Project would be in compliance with GC? Yes ❑ No Page 7 of 22 Revised January 3. 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. 5. Equipment: Project would be in compliance with GC? 1/ Yes 6. Regional and Case -by -Case Conditions: Complete the Regional Conditions checklist below. Project would be in compliance with any Case-by-case conditions? 7. Wild and Scenic Rivers: Project would be in compliance with GC? Yes ❑ No 8. Tribal Rights: Project would be in compliance with GC? Yes ❑ No 9. Water Quality (401 Certification): see Box 14 above. 10. Coastal Zone Permit: see Box 15 above. 11. Endangered Species: see Box 11 above. 12. Historic Properties: see Box 12 above. 2 Yes ❑ No 13. Notification (chedr mark and provide those that apply) F NWP 7, 12, 14, 18, 21. 34, 38, 39.40.41.42, and 43: Delineation of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. ❑ NWP 7: Original Design Capacity & Configurations N NWP 14: Compensatory Mitigation Proposal & written statement describing how temporary losses will be minimized to the maximum extent possible NWP 21: Office of Surface Mining or State -approved mitigation Plan j NWP 27: Documentation of Prior Condition of Site NWP 29: Past use of NWP, statement of personal residence, parcel size description, land description NWP 31 (for repeat use): 5 year Maintenance Plan, baseline channel information, delineation, and disposal site information j NWP 33: Restoration Plan ❑ NWP 39. 43, and 44: Written Statement on Avoidance and Minimization Measures NWP 39 and 42: Compensatory Mitigation Plan/Justifications of no plan n NWP 40: Compensatory Mitigation Proposal Page 8 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. [1 NWP 43: Maintenance Plan (for new construction) and compensatory mitigation proposal n NWP 44: Description of affected waters, minimization measures and reclamation plan ▪ NWPs 12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44: FEMA map, FEMA construction requirements and demonstration of FEMA compliance 14. Compliance Certification: Applicant is aware of this post -construction requirement? El Yes 15. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits: Applicant is aware that if total proposed acreage of impact exceeds acreage limit of NWP with highest specified acreage, no NWP can be issued? Yes ❑ No 16. Water Supply Intakes: Project would be in compliance with GC? ll Yes ❑ No 17. Shellfish Beds: Shellfish beds present? ❑ Yes No Project would be in compliance with GC? ❑ Yes a No 18. Suitable Material: Project would be in compliance with GC? /1 Yes LJ No 19. Mitigation: Project would be in compliance with GC? El Yes ❑ No 20. Spawning Areas : Spawning areas present? ( J Yes IN No Project would be in compliance with GC? ❑ Yes ❑ No 21. Management of Water Flows: Project would be in compliance with GC? El Yes ❑ No Page 9 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. 22. Adverse Effects From Impoundments: Project would be in compliance with GC? Yes ❑ No 23. Waterfowl Breeding Areas: Waterfowl breeding areas present? ❑ Yes ►1 No Project would be in compliance with GC? ® Yes ❑ No 24. Removal of Temporary Fills: Project would be in compliance with GC? f ZI Yes ❑ No 25. Designated Critical Waters (he * those that apply) Includes: 1) ❑ NOAA designated marine sanctuaries, 2) ❑ National Wild and Scenic Rivers, 3) ❑ Critical habitat for Federally listed species, 4) n Coral reefs, 5) ❑ State natural heritage sites, 6) ❑ Officially designated waters Applicant is aware of the restrictions a) and b) below? a Yes ❑ No a) NWP 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 : No NWP can be issued (except in certain cases described in full text of GC#25). b) NWP 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38: Notification required. 26. Fills within 1,00 -Year Floodplains: Project would be within 100 -year floodplains? / Yes ❑ No If yes, project would be in compliance with restrictions a) and b) below? Z Yes ❑ No a) Discharges Below Headwaters (belowpotntof5cfs) resulting in permanent above - grade fills: NWP 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44: No NWP can be issued. NWP 12 and 14: Notification required. Page 10 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this farm, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. b) Discharges in Headwaters (above point of5os) resulting in permanent above -grade fills: Flood Fringe NWP 12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44: Notification required. Floodway NWP 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44: No NWP can be issued. NWP 12 and 14: Notification required. 27. Construction Period Applicant is aware of requirements under this GC? Yes ❑ No NWP-specific requirements checklist: 1. Nationwide 03 (case iii): Evidence of damage (due to storm, flood, etc.) such as recent topographic surveys or photographs attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Nationwide 07: NPDES permit or other proof of CWA Section 402 compliance attached? ❑ Yes d 1 No 3. Nationwides 13, 14, 18, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44: Activity/crossing must be part of a single and complete project. Project would be in compliance with this requirement? (y Yes ❑ No 4. Nationwide 31: As -built or approved engineering drawings for each structure attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5. Nationwide 40: Documentation of an NRCS exemption, a NRCS-certified wetland delineation, and a NRCS- approved compensatory mitigation plan attached? ❑ Yes a No NWP Regional Conditions (RC) checklist: I. Los Angeles District (SPL) in Arizona and California: 1. Is the project located within a coastal watershed from the southern reach of the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles County to the San Luis Obispo County/Monterey County boundary? ❑ Yes ❑ No Page l 1 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. If yes, then would the project meet the requirement that all road crossings must employ a bridge crossing design that ensures passage and/or spawning of steelhead is not hindered in any way (see full RC text)? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Is the project located within the State of Arizona or the Mojave and Sonoran (Colorado) desert regions of California in the Los Angeles District (generally north and east of the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa mountain ranges, and south of Little Lake, Inyo County)? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, no NWPs, except 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 20, 22, 27, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 38 (or other nationwide or regional general permits that specifically authorize maintenance of previously authorized structures or fill), can be used to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into a jurisdictional special aquatic site as defined by 40 CFR 230.40-45. If yes, is applicant aware of restriction above? • Yes ❑ No 3. Does NWP or Regional General Permit require prior notification (a PCN) be given to the District Engineer? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, are the required color photographs or color photocopies of the project area taken from representative points documented on a site map induded? ❑ Yes ❑ No 4. Is project located in a special aquatic site as defined by 40 CFR 230.40-45 or in a perennial watercourse or waterbody in the State of Arizona or in the Mojave or Sonoran (Colorado) desert regions of California? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. 5. Is project located in an areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. 6. Is project located within a watershed in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles and Ventura counties bounded by Calleguas Creek on the west, by Highway 101 on the north and east, and by Sunset Boulevard and Pacific Ocean on the south? ❑ Yes U N o If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. 7. Would project impact jurisdictional vernal pools? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then an individual permit is required. 8. Is project within the Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek watersheds in Riverside County and does it require new permanent fills in perennial and intermittent watercourses? ❑ Yes ❑ No Page 12 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website If yes, then projects which would otherwise be authorized under NWPs 39, 42, or 43, will require an individual permit. Is project located in an ephemeral watercourse and is the impact greater than 0.1 acre? ❑ Yes ❑ No if yes, then projects which would otherwise be authorized under NWPs 39, 42, or 43, will require an individual permit. 9. Is project in San Luis Obispo Creek or Santa Rosa Creek in San Luis Obispo County for bank stabilization projects; or and in Gaviota Creek, Mission Creek or Carpinteria Creek in Santa Barbara County for bank stabilization projects and grade control structures? ❑ Yes No If yes, then an individual permit is required. H. Sacramento District (SPK) in California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah: SPK Regional conditions to be applied across the entire Sacramento District inciudinu California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah: A. Is the project in a fen? ❑ Yes l:1 No Nationwide Permits 14, 29, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are withdrawn from use in histosols, including fens. For the use of all other nationwide permits in fens, project proponents are required to notify the Corps using the notification or PCN procedures of the nationwide permit program (General Condition 13). This will be a "Corps only" notification. B. Will mitigation be completed before or concurrent with construction of the project? ❑ Yes ❑ No For all activities using any existing and proposed nationwide permits, mitigation that is required by special condition must be completed before or concurrent with project construction. Where project mitigation involves the use of a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee, payment must be made to the bank or fee -in -lieu program before commencing construction of the permitted activity. C. Is a statement attached explaining how avoidance and minimization of impacts were achieved? a Yes ❑ No Page 13 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. For all nationwide permits requiring notification, except 27, the applicant must provide a written statement to the district engineer explaining how avoidance and minimization of loses of waters of the United States were achieved on the project site. D. Is the project in Lake Tahoe? n Yes i►1 No All existing and proposed nationwide permits are suspended in the Lake Tahoe Basin in favor of using Regional General Permit 16. SPK Regional conditions to be applied only in California: None SPK Regional conditions to be applied in Nevada: None SPK Regional conditions to be applied in Utah: A. For use of any nationwide permit with the following attributes, notification of the Corps of Engineers' Utah Regulatory Office, using the "Notification" procedures of the Nationwide Permit Program (General Condition 13), is required, except where certain nationwide permits are restricted and can not be used as indicated in each category. This will be a "Corps only" notification: 1. Does the activity affect waters of the U.S. below the elevation 4217 feet msl adjacent to the Great Salt Lake and below 4500 feet msl adjacent to Utah Lake? ❑Yes El No 2..Does the activity involve bank stabilization in a perennial stream? ❑ Yes ❑ No Bank stabilization activities that would affect more than 100 feet of stream length as measured from the upstream portion of the affected bank to the downstream section, narrow the cross-section of the stream, substantially reduce the riparian vegetation, or increase velocities. 3. Does the activity affect springs.? ❑Yes ❑ No A spring is an aquatic feature caused by ground water being discharged to the surface, creating wetland and/or stream characteristics. Nationwide Permits 14, 16, 18, 29, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 can not be used in spring areas. SPK Regional conditions to be applied only in Colorado: A. SPK Regional Conditions Applicable to Specific Nationwide Permits Within Colorado: 1. Does the action involve the use of Nationwide Permit No. 13 Bank Stabilization? ❑Yes 1/ No Page 14 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. In Colorado, bank stabilization activities necessary for erosion prevention in streams that average less than 20 feet in width (measured between the ordinary high water marks) are limited to the placement of no more than 1/4 cubic yard of material per running foot below the plane of the ordinary high water mark. Activities greater than 1/4 cubic yard,may be authorized if the permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition No, 13 (Notification) and the Corps determines the adverse environmental effects are minimal. 2. Does the activity involve the use of Nationwide Permit No. 27 Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities? ❑ Yes 14 No (1) For activities which include a fishery enhancement component, notification will include a letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife concurring that the project will benefit the fishery; and (2) for projects in streams classified as "Gold Metal Waters", Nationwide Permit No. 27 may not be used. For such projects, the applicant can apply for the existing Colorado Regional General Permit No. CO -00-16900 (Stream Habitat Improvement Structures) or a standard individual permit. B. SPK Regional Conditions Applicable to All Nationwide Permits Within Colorado. 1. Does the activity involve the use of temporary fills? Yes X1 No Removal of Temporary Fills. General Condition No. 24 (Removal of Temporary Fills) is amended by adding the following: When temporary fills are placed in wetlands in Colorado, a horizontal marker (Le. fabric, certifies weed -free straw, etc.) must be used to delineate the existing ground elevation of wetlands that will be temporarily filled during construction. 2. Does the activity involve fills in Important Spawning Areas? ❑ Yes a No Important Spawning Areas. General Condition No. 20 (Spawning Areas) is amended by adding the following: In Colorado, activities which; (1) would destroy important spawning areas; (2) would be conducted in these waters during spawning seasons for trout and Kokanee salmon (spawning season for rainbow and cutthroat trout is March 15 through July 15, and for brown and brook trout and Kokanee salmon is September 15 through March 15); or (3) would have greater than minimal release of sediments during these spawning seasons are not authorized by any nationwide permit. Elio -engineering techniques, such as native riparian shrub plantings are required for all bank protection activities that exceed 50 linear feet in important spawning areas. Important spawning areas are identified in the attached list (enclosure 1) of critical resource waters in Colorado. C. SPK Regional Conditions for Revocations Specific to Certain Geographic Areas within Colorado: 1. Does any activity occur in a fen? ❑ Yes ►i No Fens: In Colorado, nationwide permits No. 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13-19, 21-25, 28-31, 33-36, and 39-44 are revoked for activities in these regionally important aquatic resources. Fens are defined as wetlands which are characterized by water logged spongy ground and contain (in all or part) soils classified as histosols* or mineral soils with a histic epipedon*. To determine whether this provision applies, the entire wetland must be examined for the presence of histosols or histic epipedons. *Histosols have 40 centimeters (16 inches) or more of the upper 80 centimeters (32 inches) an organic soil material (or less over bedrock). Organic soil material has an organic carbon content (by weight) of 12 to 18 percent, or more, depending on the day content of the soil. Histic epipedons have a 20 to 60 centimeter -thick (8-24 inches) organic soil horizon that is at or near the surface of a mineral soil. Histosols and histic epipedons are widely recognized as organic soils formed by slow accumulation of plant debris in Page 15 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. waterlogged situations where it cannot decompose. (More information on histosols can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service publications on Keys to Soil Taxonomy and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. 2. Does any activity occur within 100 feet of a spring? ❑ Yes No Springs: Within the State of Colorado, all nationwide permits are revoked within 100 feet of the water source of natural springs. A spring source is defined as any location where ground water emanates from a point in the ground. For purposes of this regional condition, springs do not include seeps or other discharges that do not have a defined channel. D. Practices Applicable to All Nationwide Permits Within Colorado (SPK). The following provides additional information regarding minimization of impacts and compliance with existing general Conditions: 1. Permittees are reminded of the existing General Condition No. 18 which prohibits the use of unsuitable material. Organic debris, building waste, asphalt, car bodies, and junk materials are not suitable material. Also, General Condition No. 3 requires appropriate erosion and sediment controls (i.e. all fills must be properly stabilized to prevent erosion and siltation into waters and wetlands). Streambed material or other small aggregate material placed alone for bank stabilization will not meet General Condition No. 3. 2. Permittees are encouraged to mitigate project impacts prior to or concurrent with project construction. This issue continues to be a concern and the Corps prefers at this time to request that nationwide permit notification submittals explicitly address prior to or concurrent mitigation or the reasons why mitigation cannot occur prior to or concurrent with project construction. 3. Does any activity occur within a critical resource water of Colorado? ❑ Yes e, No In accordance with General Condition No. 25 (Designated Critical Resource Waters) waters within the State of Colorado listed in Enclosure 1 (Critical Resource Waters in Colorado) are designated as critical resource waters. Enclosure 1 CRITICAL RESOURCE WATERS IN COLORADO In accordance with General Condition No. 25 (Designated Critical Resource Waters) the following waters within the State of Colorado are designated as critical resource waters: a. Outstanding Natural Resource Waters: Cache la Poudre Basin: All tributaries to the cache La Poudre River system, including all lakes and reservoirs, which are within Rock Mountain National Park; Page 1 f of 22 Revised January 3. 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. Laramie River: All tributaries to the Laramie River system, including all lakes and reservoirs which are in the Rawah Wilderness Area; North Fork Gunnison River: All tributaries to North Fork Gunnison River system, including lakes, reservoirs and wetlands within the West Elk and Raggeds Wilderness Area; North Platte River: All tributaries to the North Platte River and Encampment Rivers, including all lakes and reservoirs, which are in the Mount Zirkle Wilderness Area; San Miguel River: All tributaries, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands within the boundaries of the Lizard Head and Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area; Roaring Fork River: All tributaries to the Roaring Fork River system, including lakes, reservoirs and wetlands within the Maroon BeIIs/Snowmass Wilderness Area; Umcompahgre River: Ali tributaries to the Uncompahgre River system, including lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands within the Mt. Sneffels and Big Blue Wilderness Areas; Upper Arkansas River Basin: All streams, wetlands, lakes, and reservoirs within the Mount Massive and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Areas; Upper Colorado River: Mainstem of the Colorado River system including tributaries, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands within Rocky Mountain National Park; Upper Gunnison River Basin: All tributaries, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands in the La Garita Wilderness Area. All tributaries to the Gunnison River system, including lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands within West Elk, Collegiate Peaks, Maroon Bells, Raggeds, Fossil Ridge, Oh -Be -Joyful and Big Blue Wilderness Areas; White River: Trapper's Lake and tributaries to Trapper's Lake; Yampa River: All tributaries to the Yampa River, including lakes, reservoirs and wetlands within Zirkle Wilderness Area. b. Important Spawning areas: In Colorado , important spawning areas are defined as "Gold Metal Waters' as identified by the State of Colorado. Gold Metal Waters are defined in the Colorado Fishing Season Information brochure, on the Colorado Division of Wildlife website www.dnr.state.co.us, or can be obtained at any Corps office in Colorado. III. Albuquerque District (SPA) in Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. SPA Regional conditions to be applied only in Colorado 1. Is the project for bank stabilization activities necessary for erosion prevention in streams that average less than 20 feet in width (measured between the ordinary high water Page 17 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form. visit your Corps. District's Regulator), website. marks) limited to the placement of no more than cubic yards of material per running foot below the plane of the ordinary high water mark? ❑Yes EiNo If yes, notification pursuant to general condition # 13 is required. 2. Is the project located in streams classified as "Gold Metal Waters"? ❑Yes No If yes, nationwide permit number 27 may not be used. Applicant must apply for a Standard Individual permit. 3. Is project for Stream and Wetland Restoration activities which include a fishery enhancement component ❑ Yes n No If yes, letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife concurring that the project will benefit the fishery. 4. Is the project using or removing temporary fills in wetlands? ❑Yes nN If yes, a horizontal marker (i.e., fabric, certifies weed -free straw, etc.) must be used to delineate the existing ground elevation of wetlands that will be temporarily used during construction. 5. Is project located in an Important Spawning Area and is the work being done during spawning season (March 15 — July 15; and September 15 — July 15)? Yes (J No If yes, not authorized by any nationwide permit. If no, bio -engineering techniques, such as native riparian shrub ,plantings are required for all bank protection activities that exceed 50 linear feet in important spawning areas. See Critical Resource Waters in Colorado. 6. Is project located in a wetland, and are fens present? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, Nationwide Permit Numbers 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13-19, 21-25, 28-31, 33-36, and 39-44 are revoked. 7. Is project located within 100 feet of the water source of a natural spring? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, all nationwide permits are revoked. 8. Does NWP or Regional General Permit require prior notification (a PCN) be given to the District Engineer? n Yes ❑ No Page 18 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this Form, visit your Corp District's Regulatory website. If yes, are the required color photographs or color photocopies of the project area taken from representative points documented on a site map included? ❑ Yes ❑ No 9. Is project located in a special aquatic site as defined by 40 CFR 230.40-45 or in a perennial watercourse or waterbody in the State of Colorado? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. 10. Is project located in a areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat? lIl Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required, SPA Regional conditions to be applied only in New Mexico 1. Is the project for utility line discharges crossing in waterways wider than 200 feet? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition # 13 is required. 2. Is the project for bank stabilization activities necessary for erosion prevention in streams that average Tess than 20 feet in width (measured between the ordinary high water marks) limited to the placement of no more than 1/4 cubic yards of material per running foot below the plane of the ordinary high water mark? ❑ Yes fl No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition # 13 is required. 3. Is the project for linear transportation crossings in perennial waterways? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, culverts shall be designed to provide for fish passage. Culverts shall be designed and installed so that waterliow shall be at least 0.8 feet deep, the maximum hydraulic drop in the culvert shall not exceed 0.8 ft, and the maximum velocity shall not exceed 4.0 fps for culverts less than 100 feet long, 3.0 fps for culverts 100-200 feet long, and 2.0 fps for culverts longer than 200 feet. 4. Is project for stream and wetland restoration or enhancement activities that incorporate the use of rip -rap, channelization, or levees? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. 5. Is the project for residential, commercial, and institutional development? Page 19 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this firm, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. El Yes No If yes, not authorized for channelization or relocation of any intermittent or perennial water course regardless of size or rate of flow. 6. Is project for mining activities? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, nationwide permit is revoked. 7. Is the project activity involve fills in perennial waters or wetlands larger than 1/2 acre? ❑ Yes LI No If yes, applicant must apply for a Standard Individual Permit. 8. Is project located within 100 feet of the water source of a natural spring? El Yes Li No If yes, all nationwide permits are revoked. 9. Does the project require temporary water diversion or totally dewatering more than 100 linear feet of stream channel? Yes ❑ No If yes, applicant must apply for a Standard Individual Permit. If no, notification pursuant to general condition # 13 is required. 10. Is the project located in a special aquatic site, including wetlands, whose principal activity is not water dependent? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required? 11. Is the project requiring external notification sent to the appropriate city, county, or tribal agencies for their comments? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, for activities authorized by NWP No. 4, 13, 27, and 30 the District Engineer (DE) will notify the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and other appropriate agencies. 12. Is project using any poured concrete, heavy equipment, fuel, or petrochemicals within 100 feet of any water of the U.S. including wetlands? Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. 13. Is project located in an important spawning area and is the work to be done during spawning season (March 15 — July 15; and September 15 — July 15)? �] Yes ❑ No Page 20 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. If yes, not authorized by any nationwide If no, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. 14. Will project result in changes to local stream gradient, streambed elevation, direction, velocity of streamflow, or cause significant changes in channel size, shape and streambank habitat (unless the project specifically designed to restore previously degraded and unstable streams)? ❑ Yes Q No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition # 13 is required, 15. Is project located in an area designated as a Critical Resource Water? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. SPA Regional conditions to be applied only in Texas 1. Is project located in an area designated as a Critical Resource Water? ri Yes ❑ No If yes, notification pursuant to general condition #13 is required. IV. San Francisco District (SPN): No SPN Regional Condition checklist is currently available. Please refer to original text of SPN regional conditions. End of form **************************************************************************** Instructions: 1) Box 5: a. Nature of Activity: Describe the overall activity or project. Give appropriate dimensions of structures such as wingwalls, dikes (identify the materials to be used in construction, as well as the methods by which the work is to be done), or excavations (length, width, and height). Indicate wether discharge of dredged or fill material is involved. Also, identify any structure to be constructed on a fill, piles, or float -supported platforms. The written descriptions and illustrations are an important part of the application. Please describe, in detail, what you wish to Page 21 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this firm, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website. do. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet marked "Box 5 Nature of Activity." b. Proposed Project Purpose: Describe the purpose and need for the proposed project. What will it be used for and why? Also include a brief description of any related activities to be developed as the result of the proposed project. 2) Box 6: a. Corps jurisdiction consists of waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. are defined under 33 CFR part 329 as "navigable waters of the United States" and/or under 33 CFR part 328.3(a) as "waters of the United States." Under Section 404 of the Crean water Act, either the ordinary high water mark (non -tidal) or the high tide line (tidal), as well as any adjacent wetlands, demarcate waters of the U.S. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, either the mean high water mark (tidal) or the ordinary high water mark (non -tidal), as well as any adjacent wetlands, demarcate waters of the U.S. Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (i.e., occurrence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology). The term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent. b. Required drawings: Submit one legible copy of all drawings (8 1/2 x 11 -inch or 11 x 17 -inch) with a 1 -inch margin around the entire sheet. The title box shall contain the title of proposed activity, name of water body, county, city, date, and sheet number. 1. Vicinity map: Cover an area Targe enough so the project can be easily located, include arrow marking the project area, Identifiable land marks, name or number of roads, north arrow, and scale. ii. Plan view: Include existing bank lines, ordinary high water mark line(s), average water depth around the activity, dimensions of the proposed project, dimensions of any structures immediately adjacent to the proposed activity, north arrow, scale. iii. Elevation and/or cross-section views: water elevation as shown on plan view drawing, dimensions of the proposed project, dimensions of any structures immediately adjacent to the proposed activity, scale 3) Box 14: You may need State water quality certification from the appropriate state or tribal agency (e.g., Regional Water Quality Control Board for non -tribal California lands). You need not have obtained water quality certification before applying for a Corps nationwide permit verification. 4) Box 15: You may need a federal coastal consistency certification under the Coastal Zone Management Act from the appropriate state agency (e.g., California Coastal Commission for California Coastal Commission). You need not have obtained federal coastal consistency certification before applying for a Corps nationwide permit verification. Page 22 of 22 Revised January 3, 2006. For the most recent version of this form, visit your Corps District's Regulatory website, Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment DENVER . 8015E . DUR.1NC0 . WESTERN SLOPE ERS ERO Resources Corp. P.O. Box 932 161 South 2nd Street Hotchkiss, CO 81419 (970) 872-3020 Fax: 970) 872-4572 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for Schmueser Gordon Meyer 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation PO Box 932 Hotchkiss, Colorado 81419 (970) 872-3020 November 2011 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Location The project is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the I-70 and County Road 315 (Man= Creek Road) interchange in. Garfield County, Colorado. The center of the project is Section 18, T6S, R92W, Sixth Principal Meridian, UTM Zone 13, 437851.6mN, . 2G7991 mE, Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). Project and Site Description Frontier Paving, Inc, owned by Charles Ellesworth and Family, is proposing moving their asphalt paving company to a 35.72 acre parcel in Eagle Springs Ranch. Operations would include an asphalt batch plant, rock crusher, stock pile areas for aggregate, an office, and parking areas for the asphalt transport vehicles and other equipment. The project area comprises a bluff/plateau area, two small unnamed drainage swales, and historically cultivated land on top of the bluff/plateau. The bluff base and slopes of the project area are vegetated with four -wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), crested/annual wheatgrass (Agropyron cristaturn), sagebrush (Seriphidium tridentatum), and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatum), while the historically cultivated portion has less shrubby vegetation and supports weedy species such as cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), kochia (Kochia scoparia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), pigweed (Amaranthus blitoides), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and Russian thistle (Salsola australis). A tailwater ditch/swale enters the property from an irrigated parcel to the east. The swale is more mesic but still supports dry upland species including intermediate wheatgrass, yellow sweet clover (Melilotus oicinalis), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Ilhotchkisstemp'shareddoes\5061 frontier paving -- sgm\pen\frontier paving wetland delineation report -pen text.doc PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), bindweed, and slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus). An unnamed drainage swale along the north edge of the property and just south of the existing road supports upland weedy species including cheatgrass, goosefoot (Chenopodium ssp.), pigweed, bindweed, and crested/annual wheatgrass, along with a large cottonwood tree (Populus deltoides). The upper portion of the swale supports only upland species. As the swale changes direction from flowing in a northerly direction to a westerly direction, more moist/mesic species occur. There are three small wetlands along the swale (Wetlands 3 through 5; see Figure 2 wetland map). Wetlands along the drainage are vegetated by three -square (Schoenoplectus pungens), water sedge (Carex aquatilis), bulrush (Scirpus pallidus), saltgrass (Distichlis stricta), muhly (Muhlenbergia asperifolia), reed canarygrass (Phalaroides arundinacea), and cattail (Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia). Upland species include intermediate wheatgrass, white sweet clover (Melilotus alba), and timothy (Phleum pratense). Another small unnamed drainage swale occurs about 700 feet south of the north property line/driveway, and supports a small wetland (Wetland 1) which appears to be supported by irrigation water return flow seeps. An additional small seep wetland occurs in the hillside south of Wetland 1 and is labeled as Wetland 2. le 1. Veuetation Observed During Site Visit. Common Narne Scientific Name Alfalfa Medicago sativa Bulrush Scirpus pallidus Cattail _ Typha angustifoliallatifolia Anisantha tectorum Cheatgrass Cottonwood Populus deltoides Crested/Annual wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Four -wing saltbush Atriplex canescens Goosefoot Chenopodium ssp. Greasewood Sarcobatus verrniculatum Intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyr-um interrnedium Kochia Kochia scoparia Muhly Muhlenbergia aspenfolia 3 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING Common Name Scientific Name Pigweed Amaranthus blitoides Pricldy lettuce Lactuca serriola Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus Reed canarygrass Phalaroides arundinacea Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Russian thistle Salsola australis Sagebrush Seriphidium tridentatum Saltgrass Distichlis stricta Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus Three square Schoenoplectus pungens Timothy Phleum pratense Water Sed_e Carex aquatilis White sweet clover Melilotus alba Yellow sweet clover Melilotus ofcinalis Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. On September 26, 2011, ERO reviewed the project area for waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The wetlands were delineated following the guidelines and criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Corps 1987) and the Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008). The vegetation was identified using the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Sabine 1994), and taxonomy uses Colorado Flora: Western Slope (Weber 2001). ERO delineated the wetlands using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with submeter accuracy and placed consecutively numbered pin flags per Corps requirements. Data were differentially correctedusing the closest available base station. All differential correction was completed using Trimble Pathfinder Office 3.10 software. Waters of the U.S. One unnamed drainage crosses the north edge of the project area and was reviewed for wetlands and evidence of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Very occasional erosional features were observed along the drainage, but features are not continuous. There are not evidences of bed/bank or OHWM except in the small area shown on the attached map (see Figure 2). The drainage becomes a wetland swale at 4 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING several locations as it flows down -gradient, and appears to be partially supported by ditch/irrigation return flows (see Figure 2). The drainage swale is shown on the U.S.G.S. topographic map as an intermittent drainage and also appears to be tributary to Mamm Creek; however, no evidence of OHWM or continuous wetland connection was observed in the field except what was marked in Figure 2. Wetlands Seven data points were collected to evaluate the presence of wetlands (see Figure 2). Soil pits were completed at each data point, except DP -6, At DP -6, a soil pit was not completed due to hydrophytic vegetation and surface evidence of hydrology. DP -3 and DP -4 are negative datapoints documenting absence of wetlands. Justification of the wetland edge is listed for each wetland, and generally there was a clear topographic/vegetative break. Wetland and upland vegetation communities were consistent across the project area, and information from the various soil pits was used to help define the wetland edge throughout the site. Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a small wetland along unnamed drainage swale about 700 feet south of the north property boundary (see Figure 2). A pair of soil pits were completed at this wetland (DP -1 and DP -2). Wetland vegetation consists primarily of alkali muhly, reed canarygrass and cattail. Hydric soils were indicated by sandy redox (55). Clay soils were predominant at a depth of 0 to 4 inches; below this depth, the soils were sandy. The surface clay loam soils had a Munsell color of 10YR4/3, with no redox features. The sandy clay loam soils occurring at depths of 4 to 16 inches had a Munsell color of 10YR412, with 5% redox concentrations in the matrix with a color of 10YR518. The texture was sand/sandy clay loam. The Primary wetland hydrology indicators observed were water -stained leaves (B9) and Oxidized rhizospheres along living roots (C3). Wetland 1 is approximately 0.060 acre. 5 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING The uplands adjacent to these wetlands are dominated by smooth brome and intermediate wheatgrass. Wetland boundaries were determined by observing topography breaks and changes in vegetation dominance; the wetland boundary is mostly clearly defined by topographic shifts and changes in vegetation. Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is a very small wetland along a seep in the bluff (see Figure 2). No soil pits were completed as the wetland and upland vegetation communities were similar to Wetland 1. Wetland vegetation consists primarily of reed canarygrass. Wetland 2 is approximately 0.001 acre. The uplands adjacent to these wetlands are dominated by sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and intermediate wheatgrass. Wetland boundaries were determined by observing changes in vegetation dominance. Wetland 3 Wetland 3 is a small wetland along the unnamed drainage swale near the north property boundary (see Figure 2). No soil pits were completed at this wetland due to the similarity in wetland vegetation to DP -1 and DP -2. Wetland vegetation consists primarily of alkali muhly, reed canarygrass, cattail, and three -square. Wetland 3 is approximately 0.067 acre. The uplands adjacent to these wetlands are dominated by smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, white sweetclover, and timothy. Wetland boundaries were determined by observing topography breaks and changes in vegetation dominance; the wetland boundary is clearly defined by topographic shifts and changes in vegetation. Wetland 4 Wetland 4 is a small sedge -bulrush wetland located on the west edge of the northern swale (see Figure 2). Vegetation consists primarily of water sedge and three square. Two datapoints were completed to define the wetland boundary (DP -5 and DP -6)_ 6 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING At DP -6, hydric soils were assumed due to dominance of obligate species, and presence of surface hydrology indicators (Surface Soil Cracks (B6)). DP -5 is an upland datapoint, lacking hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or evidence of wetland hydrology. Wetland 4 does not appear to have a down -gradient connection to either wetlands or waters of the U.S. Wetland 4 is approximately 0.008 acre. The uplands adjacent to this wetland are dominated by intermediate wheatgrass. Wetland boundaries were determined by the transition from wetland to upland vegetation, and an abrupt topographic change. Wetland 5 Wetland 5 is located east of Wetland 4 (see Figure 2). Wetland 5 is vegetated by muhly, saltgrass, reed canarygrass, curly dock (Rumex crispus), intermediate wheatgrass, and three square. One wetland soil pit was completed in Wetland 5 (DP -7). The wetland soils at 0 to 4 inches had a chroma matrix of 90 percent 7.5YR3/3 and 10 percent 7.5YR5/8 concentrated matrix. The texture was clay loam/organic at the surface, and clay -loam at a depth of greater than 4 inches. At a depth of 12 inches, large rocks/cobble were encountered which impeded additional soil pit depth. The clay loam soil at 4 to 12 inches had a chroma matrix of 90 percent 7.5YR3/2, 8 percent 7.5YR5/8 concentrated matrix, and 2 percent organic streaking. The hydric soil indicator used to determine the presence of hydric soil was a Redox Dark Surface (F6). One primary indicator, Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots was used to determine the presence of wetland hydrology. The uplands adjacent to Wetland 5 are dominated by intermediate wheatgrass and Canada thistle (Breea arvensis). Wetland boundaries were determined by the transition from wetland to upland vegetation, and topographic changes. Upland characteristics were very similar to those found at DP -5 and DP -1. 7 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING Activity to be Authorized Wetland impacts would result from construction of an access road to the proposed facility. Most wetlands were avoided during design, and about 0.006 acres of Wetland 1 and all of Wetland 2 (0.001 acres) are unavoidable. Verification of authorization under NWP No. 14 is requested. Mitigation Measures: To minimize impacts, best management practices will be implemented to limit sedimentation and erosion along the unnamed drainage to Mamm Creek. Temporary impacts will be avoided to the greatest extent practicable during construction. The areas will be revegetated with appropriate species. Noxious Weeds Four noxious weed species on the Colorado weed list were observed within the project area, Canada thistle, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, and Tamarisk. These species are on the Colorado "B" List (Colorado Department of Agriculture 2010) and on the Garfield County Noxious Weed List (Garfield County 2011). Weed species on the "B" List are species for which plans have been implemented to stop continued spread. Table 2. Noxious Weed Observed in the Proleet Area Common Name Scientific Name p Garfield County Noxious Weed List State of Colorado List Canada Thistle Breea arvensis Yes B Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Yes B Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Yes B Tamarisk Tamarisk ramosissima Yes ! B Source: Colorado Departrnent of Agriculture 2010 and Garfield County 2011. Threatened and Endangered Species There are no known listed or sensitive species in this area. 8 PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION FRONTIER PAVING Cultural Resources There are no eligible cultural resources in the project area. A file search and complete pedestrian survey was completed for the project area (see attached report). References Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2010. Noxious Weed List. Available at: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Agriculture-MainICDAG/1174084048733. Last accessed: August 25, 2011. Garfield County. 2011. Noxious weed list. Available: http://www.garfield- county.comivegetation-managementlnoxious-weed-list.aspx. Last accessed. September 30. Sabine, B. (editor). 1994. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands: Regions 4, 5, and 8. Resource Management Group, Inc. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Ed. J.S.Wakeley, R.W.Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDCIEL TR -08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Research and Development Center. Weber, W. A. and Wittman, R. C. 2001. Colorado Flora: Western Slope. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 9 Frontier Paving Photo Log Photo 1. Wetland 1 Photo 2. Overview of western portion of property Frontier Paving Photo Log Photo 3. Wetland 2 Photo 4. View east from plateau edge Frontier Paving Photo Log Photo 5. Upland tailwater swale at east edge of property Photo 6. Wetland 3 Frontier Paving Photo Log Photo 7. Wetland 4 Photo 8. Wetland 5 q1+a 1 ?9, � 4I� 12 (�j-, • 703 + 9.° WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region ` i �i.}-L City/County: f - .. �: Sampling Date - :: . { t Project/Site: 7 , ApplicantlOwner: v Slate. Sampling Point E %+ hwestigat©r(s): , "y!lee. .e/ `. Section, Township, Range: f it S i-2- L J Leedom (hillelope. terrace, etc.): Local relief (concaveconvex, Wane): Long: -) Dl-' u r ^, & F. 43vGI. NWI classification: - No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation --41 , Soil r-111. , or Hydrology ...'A Significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes J'+ No Are Vegetation -'et- . Soil lir i '''-h . cr Hydrology h .. naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Rernarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Subregion (LRR): Soli Map Unit Name: Lat: `i3(2-2- ‘.71-75- 1 .g`r5 1 /5 t `-,tit-?"1,'1 1�, .^,! -. , fd Are climatic 6 hydro€clic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Slope (%) : "- Datum: * ? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Yes No Yes No Y Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Piot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant Species 1. That Are GBL. FACW, or FAC: -r (A) 2- Total Number of Dominent 3. Species Across All Strata; ` - (S) 4• Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are ©BL, FACW, or FAC: (NB) ara[in+atShrub_Stratum (Pert size: 1. 2. 3. 4. } Herb Stratum (Piot size: f 1. '31{3 0'13!x'3 eiw1-,1 i k71 4 T'• (. e of r `' 2. 1 -. .. i5 .. •, G' ".f1 .k'f i., iA- 3. 4. 6. 7. a. Prevalence index worksheet: Tota) %Sever it f,' Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =- UPI UPL species x S = 11/ j r Column Totals: (A) (3) -� atki Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size; - ) 1. 2 :J=Total Cover Prevalence Index = BtA = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indieatars: _ Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology must he present, unless disturbed or problematic. Total Cover Hydrophytic r Vegetation Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Cinches) /0_ }yy i, i f / �/ 4/ /*�4.% >10 t � Matrix Calor rmoist) Redox Features Color (moist) % Types Lep" ti Texture Remarks 'T .e: G=Concentralion, ODe,.letin. RM -Reduced Matrix, CS=CoveredorCoated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Linin •, M�ilfatrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) Histic Cpipednn (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (Ata) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (M1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyod Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (Sfi) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F6) Vernal Pools (F9) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (Al d) (MR B) T Reduced Vertic (Fi ti) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrotvgy must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No HU •1 HYDROLOGY tland Hydrology indicators: Prima Indic-iors minimum of one re aired• check tl ata T Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Wafer Marks (61) (N.onriverine) Sediment Deposits (62) (Nonriverine) _ Drift DepoSitS (831 (Nonriverine) Surface Soit Cracks (€36) _ Inundation Visible vn Aerfal Imagery (87) Water -Stained Leaves 089) Salt Crust (611) Biotic Crust (812) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ihialer Marks (81) (Riverine) Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) Drift Deposits (03) (Riverine) Drainage Patterns (81 d) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Y. Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yea No yDepth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches). includes ca • ilia frin e) Describe Recorded Data (str Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No aria gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: LIS Army Corps of Engineers Avoid PIest — Version 2.0 Proect/Site: „ o9 j Lt7 ke5 nt„. ct:t5P ,rq • 51 2 2, 1,11L,A,°4:1g -o1. -P WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region City/Cuty:fk'f.''f:. S.1,1:ing.--1±--I-tb -,--% ) - 1 f C)9 ApplicantlOwner: State: r.-._ r.c.' Sampling Point n V A , . investigators): . _ . Section, Tcrwriship, Range: -yr„ c- lz-1" 7-- (-) SI 5 (Ar.Jc Landform (hillslope., terrace, etc.): 1.1A yur Local relief (concave, convex, none): il ,rat. -4-- Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Di Lac 5 N' 2g. vmo 3 Long: -fill ' 42 3 , 5 6 ti 2k, Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: il i ci ,,,f2t=„0-,0 CJF)./tr"."- NWI classification: r...-&4......-•- k., Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this trrne of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation T , Soil 7,' 1 or Hydrology1 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes --; No Are Vegetation -"v1 , Soil ' 'Yr; ,.., or Hydrology ."/"•: naturally problematic? (11 needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nif'- No Yes No Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes / No Remar$cs'. ocr;171/ i'Vt- /1(.4 C'C i 227-4-7, v" (Ail il'' ('/- '1 -r :-47 •::, 14.- .., . , . 1 d"--.1= "-L-C -e-- Cl -ire . 0" ft ) ,S . ---r r.: .- C • . •'--? i f:.! ;,,...el- arfamwa ,f_r_exf ,, 1,, zi ' , 1,:-4 ,etee 0 -4" - VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Soolinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stmt..= (Piot size: 14 CI- ) , 1, tiak14.4.4,r1-1!.% :2.41 ,L7 2. - hifatig.-1 httrY1 3. 4 4' i = Total Cover = Total Cover 1' -r (.1.-4.c_ -r 6. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. =Total Cover =Total Cover I j % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Coverof Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata - Percent of Dominant Species (A) 1•-•)- • That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: -- (NB) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: M OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 PAC si:iecles x 3 = PAOLI species x 4 = UPL species x 5 Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index = WA = (8) Hydrophylic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is -13.0' Morphological Adaptation& (Provide supporting data in Remarks or en a separate sheet) 15roblernatic Flydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Remarks! Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? V Yes in No U5 Army Coips of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 Yes C-. No SOIL Sampling Pot h Profrle Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator Or confirm the absence of indicators_) Depth Matrix Redox Features„ (inches) Color lmeis#_ _moo - Coto r (moil)] Tyyoe' Luc Texture Remarks e; C=Concentration, D=Dopletion,1 M=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soiis': Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratied Layers (AS) (LRR C) 1 an Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Sandy Gfeyed Matrix (54) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (56) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Venic (Ft s) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrephytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Remarks: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary. Indicators (minimum of one required; check allthat apply) Surface Water (A1) Y,_ Salt Crust (811) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Drift Deposits 033) (Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) XWater -Stained Leaves (89) Reid Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? includes ca •iIP fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos. previous inspections). If available; Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Decent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Yes No R Depth (inches): Yes No \( Depth (inches): Yes No Depth (inches): Secondary Indicators (2 or more requied)) Vlfater Marks (131) (Rivorine) Sediment Deposits (32) (Riverine) Drift Deposits (63) (Riverina) _ Drainage Patterns (610) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C$) Saturation Visible on Aerial tmagery (C9) ShallowAquitard (03) FAC -Neutral Test (05) Wetland Hydrology Present? Rema s: US Arany Corps of Engineers a Arid West... Version 2.0 Ptojedt ite: c; '17C1 W. Y WETLAND DETERMINATION IATA FORM — Arid West Region &t � Applicaet?Owner, - Investigator(s): r' . el rT ;� efeir C Landform (hi@slope, terrace, etc.): k}. ' Subregion (lRR): Soil Map Unit Name: City/County: 1*— 7 d State: r I Section, Township, Range; 5 1 i Le S . Sampling Date 1— r 3 rYti Sampling Point: ► �� Hyl 1 Local relief (Concave, convex, none): L'. tro, Long: I Datum: PVs 3 Slope (%): Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes < Are Vegetation a 3. , Sois ' or Hydrology Ysrtdnifieantry disturbed? Are Vegetation y.,_4 Soil or Hydrology "I naturally problematic? NWI classification: No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes til: No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important teatu , etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X Yes Yes No No No Is the Samptod Area within a Wetland? Remarks: Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Igee_Selaem (Piot size: 2. 3. _ 4. Sao1ineiShrub Stratum (Plot size: i, 2. - 3. 4. 5_ } Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status _ = Total Cover Herb 'Stratum (Plot Size - 1. 4-i L ,q .• 11 . 2. (IL .ikei rite— 7 Jr ff j� = Total Cover T ra MtIL. o fel.•`- Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: 1 .) = Total Cover = Total Cover %Cover of eiotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet_ Number of Dominant Species That Are O L, FAC W, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across Ali Strata: (Fe Percent of Dorninar:t Species IThat Are CO_ FACW, or FAC: f 7 _i (Ai8) Prevalence Index worksheet Total `yo Cover of: MuItiDIV bY: O'BL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPI- species x 5 Column Totals_ (A) Prevalence Index =A Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is e3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain,) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrolagy must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 1i Ne US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point 'iJt - Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redsx Features ----7— the aktsence of indicators.) Texture _ Remarks ,Color tmbis1tl % Color (moist) Tyner Lo ,(inches) 0 _,) (} 5.j' V'i 1 9 F t )Grte-i ! 0''f �" f - J•_.,f f .�- '. 1f ' `^ " � .'. s:. a' 'T •e_ C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RIt =Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Linin! , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable tea LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosoi (A1) Sandy Redox (S6) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (RIO) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vedic (F16) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (fF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redux Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral ($1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Greyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yen No Depth (inches): Remarks' • HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum el ane required - Surface Water (A1) - High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) (Nenrivpnne) Sediment Deposits (82) (Nonriverine) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Visible sible on Aerial Imagery (87) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? check all that apply) Salt Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic Irwertebrates (B't3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Ir jcators (2 or more requ red) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Drainage Patterns (810) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Shallow Aquitard (03) FAC -Neutral Test (05) Yes _ No Depth (inches): Yes No 4 Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No V Depth (inches): includes ca ilia fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, maanitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No - Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers And West – Varsion 2.0 IL - 72,(42 -1 JAi 01 —7" b WLTLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region PrOlectJSite: Y )-"d'_.t a.� . City/County._ . •-{ , ,i__L-tet. Sampling Date: 7-.;',3- ,' ,, Appliesnt1LOwner: i' 0 r1 State.` �i Sampling Point L 1; " 4 Investigator(s); p4l �s i --a" C Section, Township, Range; 5 [ Ln 49 i vo , Landform (hillslape. terrace. etc.): -,,,'.:10y',',;-( . /+ :.r +C. Local relief (tpncave, convex none) ; rY. Slope (%)_ ,^ Subregion (iRR): Tt� �. ( Lat .act°� 1, 31-1...7 ;' 5 Lang .) 0 r i .E.:AY po.. Datum: {7 Soil Map Unit Name: if i (A.,24,0--,-.9-0 : S it7...t,t- . Y.L ----- NWI ciassifiicabon: Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typicaF{ar this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks_) Ane Vegetation 1r , Sail ')( . or Hydrology i significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes A. No Are Vegetation -Y1. l , Soil , oT Hydrology R naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Rentarks,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. / Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydrin Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes K No Remarks: t -r':. U Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? f y.r 1 N.xj• VEGETATION - Use scientifiC names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 2. 3 4. Absolute Dominant Lod or % Cover Species? Status SaptineiShrub Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4, 5 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ,r� 1. 1, " f:-" i :°� • itAimiti. 3. 4, S. 6. 7. 8. } Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. } = Total Cover r_ C 0r'7 .a i` 11\w - = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet" Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are OHL, FACW. or PAC: y (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata '' - (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ./ _ (NB) Prevalence Index worksheet;; Total p1 Cover of: Multiply bV: CBL species l,7(2 x 1 = 7 FACVV species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: Y� ° (A) f 5? (B) Prevalence Index = f3JA= 4— Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 53.0` Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology J. -rust be present. unless disturbed or probfernatic. y, j Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum J �'4 Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No_ Remarks: .� j eZ et_ r US Archy Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document he indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks l}nth Color (mroist) % Color (moistt)/ % Type Lae � 1:) r-0?,: 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Ccivered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Unin , MAtatrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F1 t3) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ _ Other (Explain io Rerrlarks) 'Indicators of hydrophyticvegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs. unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox ($5) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S&),T Black Histic (A3) , Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRM C) — Depleted Matrix (F3) 1 cm Muds (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark, Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Vernal Pools (F9) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydrin Soil Present? Yes No • Depth (irlches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Sediment Deports (B2) (Narrrfverine) Oft Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Surface Soil Creeks (B6) Inundation Visible an Aerial imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (19y) Salt Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Hydrogen Sulfide ©dor (C1) . Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No - Depth (inches): includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Secondary Indicatgrs (2 orn3orc reguirod) Water Marks ply (Riverine) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverino) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Drainage Pattems (614) „r Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Crayfish Burrows (CB) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) . Shallow Aquitard (03) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes• \ No Remarks: U5 Army Corps Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator COyer. Species? Status 3. SaettgiShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. 3. 4. 5. ' Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1_ If)/ il0//_,K14 rY) iirkrqi 2, 146 = Total Cover = Total Cover ri9C Ir/ -W' - 3. 4- 5, 6. 7. 8. Woochr Vine Stratum (Piot size: 1. 2, % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = Total Cover = Total Cover % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet. Number of Dominant Species That Am OBL, FACW, or FAC; ___. (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: {B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: (PJB) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv: OBL species x 1 FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 FACU species x 4 UPL, species x5 = Column Totals- (A) Prevatenoe Index = BJA = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >60% Prevalence Index is s3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation ' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be prelent, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Na Y Remarks; • p, 1,49 - -- WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region ; • ProiectiSite: 41. city/county: cc' Applicant/Owner: Investigetor(s): e Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc); Subregion (LRR): Section, Township, Range: State: Sampling Date: 4 Sampling Point. _ .- Local relief (concave, convex, none): — Lat 7:6Y LI ?..."13iJi Slope (%): Long: ' I 0-F ' S LE71, Daturr: LI , Sol Map Unit Name: Svtt NNI classification: l - Are Clintatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical fef this time of year? Yes \' No (If no, explain in Remarks.) AM Vegetation `v, . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation' , Soil or Hydrology 11, naturally problematic? {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks Yes Yes Yes NQ NO )( Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No A VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. LIS Army Corps of Engineers Arid West —version 2.0 SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicate Depth Matrix Redox Feature$ (inches) Color (moist) °/, Color (moist) %Iypel Loc2 t �r L 2 : .�., g.:., rot - - Sampling Pointf ' or confirm the absence of "indicators_} 1-r e: C<Cvncenhation, D=Depletion, RM,Reduced Matrix, CSaCovered o Hydric Solt Indicators: (Applicable taall LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) - Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) - Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A1 1 ) Thick )Dark Surface (Al2) - Sandy Mucky Minerat (51) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Texdure Remarks {J r Coated Sand Grains_ 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix_ Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 Cott Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vedic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) ind(cators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric Soil Present? Yes F No ,\ HYDROLOGY VFlfetfand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) (Nanr verine) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nanriverine) Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (BT) Water -Stained Laves (89) Field Observations; Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? Salt Cnist (B11) Biotic Crust (812) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Redux#ion in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondarlr Indicators Z or mare re uirrsd Water marks (B1) (Riverine) _ Sediment Deposits (52) (Riverine) Draft Deposit$ (1133) (Riverine) Drainage Patterns (B10) DrySeason Water Tabte (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Vis -bre on Aerial Imagery (C9) Shallow Aquitard (03) FAG -Neutral Test (1]5) Yes No Depth (inches): Yes No Depth (inches): Yes No Depth (inches): includes ca • illary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). W available_ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers 1 Arid West — Version 2.0 _ . v , - WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region ; - Project!Site11 In • ApplicanflOwner I rivestigator(s) Sedion, TownShip, Range: rSk -ff,„ S City/County: 0441 rj Sampling Date: 0 State: Sampling Point pp - Lanclfarrn (hilislope, terrace. etc.): Local relief (concave. convex. none): - Srope (%): — Subregion (LRR): IDLat ?2? , ,„ .-,- .. • , 5I ' ..5' 3 7`..,' 4.- i -i Long: /o7''-• i - , ', ' Datum: !\ /A;C• 7 r, Soil Map Unit Marne: -4'‘-'-' NINI classification: ---- • t,' 1,.) Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical feil' this time of year? Yes No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetatiory\/ i Soil 1 , or I-EydrolOgy I i Significantly disturbed? Are "Nomnal Circumstances' present? Yes / NO Are Vegetation r-.1 , Soil I's/ , or Hydrology 7 --- VI- naturafly problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in RemarkS,) i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophybc Vegetation Present? Yes Y No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Remarks: , • : ).. - P ( , i .i. 0 i . : - V-•iiI.,. ."'1" I.' i,'.i A ril:, .. ',.' '.. :-5' .' +-k ....s.... `0-'1, : I .1' - • i • 4 . ' i .., . ,. ../, .._, . . 1 . • ,..i '‘ ' •=, 1 ' - . ; ' - 11 10 1-fil7'X'P • I J. . . , -,.,..,(, ,z.._ ...-: ...., Th.:Z.--4t, ..,7 i...!,... -...?...7"-. ,- , -, . ..,,,, , (...le,_' i :....- ..e c -,..1 --,,,,1" 1 • t..2. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. 7,NvAir-AcEg•(Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover 1 c'L? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species r) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A) - 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Straks:— --. 1 (8) 3. _ Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or IAC: . (NB) SaoltnoiShrub Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover 1. Prevalence Indexworksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. 3_ OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x2 5. FAC species x3= Heth Stratum (Plot size: ) = Total Cover FACLI species x 4 = '-- UPL species x 5 = 1, nIiii. r,.; --, --: V.4,1 Column Totals: (A) Oa) 1 5-7,1j ne...,--x ctifdethIS e . ,•.-1 d , , . ' . - " - - . — - Prevalence Index = B/A ..7. 3, 4.0 . J • 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is S3.13' Morphologic.al Adaptations' {Provide supporting data hi Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5. 6. 7 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Piot size: L-.) -7, Total Cover ) 1, 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = Total Cover HYdroPITiffic Vegetation Present? Yes ..?:,_ No % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Pant: rr Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 'T :: C=Concentration, Dr -Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Linin • M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable toot) LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C) — 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O] _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Alt) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Sandy Greyed Matrix (S4) ReStriCtive Layer (if present): Type: Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (56) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) Depth (inches): Remarks. 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (Fitt) Rett Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indictors of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ,xk. No HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of on reau red: check all {hal aoolvl Secondary Indicators ( pr more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine) . Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (69) Salt Crust (611) Biotic CtuSt (B12) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tiled Solis (C6) Thin Muds Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) - Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) - Drift Deposits (63) (Riverine) Drainage Patterns (610) - Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible an Aerial imagery (C9) _ Shallow Aquitard (I 3) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Held Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Yes No Depth (inches): Yes No .'r-- Depth (inches): Yes No )4'. Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes :4 No Reyna . Cr ? 0199-, US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 20 .411- I..., 4• • WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region ProjeCilSite:Y Applicant/Owner. ,^ •� � tnves'tigator(s): _ f . ,-- CityfCeunty; .,, ] � - ? �, -�`r arnpiin fate: f.i 43J"I � d State:t ,t; .0' Sampiing Point: 1 Section. Township. Range: St-- S + ' t Landform {hillslope, terrace, etc.): {. w Local relief (concave, convex, none): _ Slope (%): Subregion (CRR):4 ` 1J Lat: 't �,$,'S 4 514. Long: -1'01 P. 4i _;i 0 Datum: it i1 Soil Map Unit Name: 1 1 P 1i. D Loar"": NWi classification: Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typiai for this time of year? Yes . Are Vegetation 'I , SoilJ � r , or Hydrology + : significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation 0't Soil or Hydrology r \• naturally problematic? Ido (If no, explain in Remarks-) Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes _ (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks_) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Yesr No Yes No is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes r.. No Remark sr; r L._ VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Piot size: j 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator °%Cover Soeoes? SOPA 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. } 2. 3. 4• 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: - (, , ,� - ) 1. / I L ti I. . rM T l.fil 71 l'�--_ .. ki ', : k 2. .' °;+*::4- frt- 3. 4. 5. 'Mtn 0/207,3 r `7 I i, f til 8. = Total Cover oLd r r . s fti1 fJ ,[ii e Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1, 2 _ e. Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum -'' % Cover of Biotic Crust i?orninence Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strada: (A) �? (B) Percent of Dominant Species? That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: /60 (Ale) Prevalence Index worksheet: %Cover of Mulfiaty bv: OBL. species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 (.IPL species x 5 Column Totals:: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = ¢!A Hydrophytio Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is s3.Q' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers And West — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point; Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the 'indicator or confine the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches)._ Color (moist) `( 2)1,4- c7,1) Color fnty' % Tvoe' Loot Tex(pfe Remarks 7 I fJ if) If `-k.,t(' - T r• C=Concentration_ D=De.letian, RM=Reduced Matrix, C$ Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. 2Locatiorr PL=Pore Lining, Mallaatcx. tydlic Sod Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils=: _ Histosol(Al ) Histic Cpipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C) 1 cm Muds (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) i Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: — Depth (mches): Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (58) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F5) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cin Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vedic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Solt Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one ret ruired,�check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) _ Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Drift Deposit (B3) (Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Salt Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ▪ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Runt Iron Reduction in Tilled $oils (C6) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (Bi) (River -hie) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Drainage Patterns (B10) T Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Shallow Aquitard (133) FAC -Neutral Test (DS) Yes' No Depth ((nches): Yes No Depth (inches). Yes No Y Depth (in he5)r Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers 1 Arid West — Version 2.0 Frontier Paving Section 18, T6S, R92W; 6th PM UTM NAR 83. Zane 13N, 267991 mE, 4378516m'1 Latitude, Longitude: 39.524633N, 107.703116'W USGS Silt, CO Quadrangle Garfield County, Colorado 0 1,000 2.000 Feet Figure 1 Site Location Prepared for: 5GM File: 5061 Figure l.mxd IGSI liugust2011 ERQ OO Resp Corp, Porion a1 this denim enr indode ineelleenrol properly of ESRI and its licensors and ace used {nein unclip license. CopraO 2010 ES@ eed 1n licerre>.s. Al r191,1% recer.ed PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Frontier Paving Facility A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): October 2011 B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD: Aleta Powers, ERO Resources Corp., PO Box 932, Hotchkiss, CO 81419 C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: CO County/parish/borough: Garfield City: Silt Coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lar: 39.524633°N Long: 107.703116°W Universal Transverse Mercator: Zone 13N; 267991mE, 4378516mN Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed Drainage tributary to Mamm Creek Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area: Non -wetland waters: 150 linear feet; 2-3 width (ft) and/or about 0.01 acres. Cowardin Class: Riverine, ephemeral Stream Flow: not flowing at time of field review Wetlands: 0.247 acres (5 wetlands) Cowardin Class: Palustrine persistent emergent Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10 waters: None Tidal: Non -Tidal E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) ® Office (Desk) Determine. Date: ®Field Determination. Date(s): 9-26-11 F. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply) --checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below: ( Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: t]Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ❑ Office concurs with data sheet/delineation report. 0 Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. 0 Data sheets prepared by the Corps: O Corps navigable water' study: tJ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Atlas: 0 USGS NHD data ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. E] U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale and quad name: Silt (digital) ❑USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. National wetlands inventory maps(s). Cite name: • State/Local wetland inventory maps(s): D FEMA/FIRM maps: O 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ❑x Photographs: Aerial (Name and Date): USDA 2009 ❑x Other (Name and Date): ERO Resources, 9-26-11 O Previous determination(s): File no. and date of response letter: 0 Other information (please specify) IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations. Signature and date of Regulatory Project Manager (REQUIRED) gam S. fad`—'' 11/7/11 Signature and date of person requesting preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable) Site Number Latitude Longitude owardin C Class Estimated amount of aquatic resource in . review area Class of aquatic resource Unnamed Drainage 39.5254 -107.7043 Riverine, ephemeral 0.01 Stream Wetland 1 39.5246 -107.7038 Palustrine persistent emergent 0.060 Wetland Wetland 2 39.5241 -107.7037 Palustrine persistent emergent 0.001 Wetland Wetland 3 39.5261 -107.7042 Palustrine persistent emergent 0.067 Wetland Wetland 4 39.5261 -107.7055 Palustrine persistent emergent 0.008 Wetland Wetland 5 39.5263 -107.7054 Palustrine persistent emergent 0.121 Wetland City of Rifle Public Works Departmen EXHIBIT 202 Railroad Avenue, Rifle, CO 81650 • Phone: 7O-665-6555 • Fax: 970-625-6268 • www.rileco.or Watershed Permit Application Property information) Address: 0 (1c...1 -12c9... acaeok. - nh ;225 Sprrni5 ch USGS Quarter Section Location: A 17- q wc2st a fi -"- Access to Property: C of .5-C4,-1-4 of I' rniterdzt ai ,cic2t t . n7:le cL sYc7`) 6.<r6akeCo, ;,,t; ea la.n, ' r n.a 5e a s� c • 5 Brief Description of Application (Provide additional Sheets as necessary) TO d2 f )e,L!•c A CE, 5< 71-,2_ -Co r Coo igri,e, if .rca for. o 0-r Q'� u J, rrietY lfSr'��CSS:.v� ear (3^_�1 G .vara. Q., u: CP. staz.7l: sh fele ck, nc t. e s,oFv 1 C -71C-(, r u Instructions for Submittal • original completed applications must be provided along with two (2) Copies Incomplete applications will not be accepted and will delay processing. • Ali documents, plans, plats, etc. submitted shall be no larger than 8 112" x i4" in size or folded to that or a smaller size. • Attach check made out to City of Rifle in the amount of $250.00. STAFF USE ONLY Applicant: Phone # Fees: (date) Application Received (date) Permit Application Number: Watershed — Colorado/ Beaver (circle one) 1/2 (rev. 8-30) BEDROCK RESOURCES, LLC December 12, 2011 Mr. Rick Barth, F.E. City of Rifle Public Works Department 202 Railroad Avenue Rifle, Colorado 81 650 RE: Watershed Permit Application Dear Rick, Please allow this letter of transmittal to help in the application process. Division 2: (3) (4) (5) a. See Tab A - Major Impact Review (MIR) b. See Tab C - Sheet 1— Survey Map (MIR) c. There Are No Buildings Within 50 Feet d. See Tab C - Sheet 2 -- Existing Conditions Map (MIR) e. See Tab C - Sheet 3 thru 9 (MIR) f. See Tab C - Sheet 3 & Sheet 9 — Erosion Control g. All fill material is shown on plans. h. See Tab E - Sheets Ll thru L4 (MIR) Also See John Taufer Letters Dated September 26, 2011 in Tab G (MIR) i_ See Tab A - 1"=2000' Vicinity Map (MIR) j. See Attached Flood Plain Maps - None on Property See SGM Letter Dated 12/12/2011. a. See Tab C - Sheet 3 & Tab D — Drainage Report (MIR) b. See Tab E - Sheet Li thru. L4 and John Taufer Letters dated September 26, 2011 in Tab G c. See Tab F - HP Geotech - Geotechnical Engineering Study d. See Tab F - HP Geotech - Geotechnical Engineering Study e. See SGM. Letter Dated 12/12/2011 f. See SGM Letter Dated 12/12/2011 Charles Ellsworth 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, Colorado 81647 970-989-5394 SCHMUESER I GORDON f MEYER GLENWOOD SPRINGS ENG I NEER 5 1 SURVEYOR 5 December 12, 2011 Mr. Rick Barth, P.E. City of Rifle 202 Railroad Avenue Rifle, Colorado 81650 RE: Bedrock Resources, Inc. Watershed Permit for the City of Rifle Dear Rick, I 18 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2.00 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. Co e 1 6031 070.945.1004 970.945.5946 FAX The purpose of this letter is to respond to the submittal requirements listed in the City's Watershed Regulations, section 13-2-110 (4) and (5). Section 13-2-110 (4) requests the applicant to provide a document identifying any activity that may present or create a foreseeable risk of injury to the City's waterworks or pollution to the City's water supply, along with a specific description of the measures, including best management practices, that will be employed by the applicant to obviate such risks. Please note that the property, in its current condition, is that of an undeveloped parcel principally of agricultural use with the upper and lower portions of the site being non- irrigated pasture lands_ The site is separated between the upper and lower portions by an arid hillside with native grass and sage brush. The site is proposed to be changed into an industrial use consisting of an asphalt batch plant, materials storage, shop and office. As such, without implementing best management practices to retard developed runoff to historic rates and to treat drainage water for sediment and floatable pollutants there could be a foreseeable impact to the City's water supply, Likewise, proper management of dust and fuel storage related to the batch plant activities need to have the proper'BMP's implemented. In accordance with the watershed permit regulations, it is the intent of this letter to provide guidance to the reader in their review of the submittal documents for the proposed use in the Major Impact Review documents submitted to Garfield County. Relative to obviating the perceived risks to the City's waterworks please note the following: 1. Drainage. Control- Tab D of the MIR review documents contains the drainage report and calculations. The drainage report describes the proposed method of handling the "developed" drainage from the site. Prior to discharge from the site, all waters developed on the site will have passed through the final detention pond where the water will be treated for both floatable pollutants and sediment. Note that three ponds will be used in this project for the purpose of limiting runoff from the site to levels below the historic rate of runoff. In fact, the historic rate of runoff for the 25 year, 24 hour event is calculated at 5.16 cfs while the developed rate of runoff from the site, after having been throttled by the 3 ponds will be reduced to 3.82 cfs. Likewise, for the 100 year 24 hour event, the historic rate of flow is 11.53 cfs while the developed flow rate has been throttled down to 7.61 cfs. ASPEN GUNNIS©N GRAN❑ JUNCTION MEEKER 10 1 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 103 WEST TORICHI AVE. 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE 320 THIRD STRE£T PQ Sox 21S S SurrE A BUILDING I , SUITE 205 MEEKER, CO 51641 ASPEN, CO 8161 1 GUNNISON, CO GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.875.5150 970.025.6727 970.641.5355 970.245.2571 970.875.41131 FAX 970.925,4157 FAx 070.641 .5358 FAX 970.245.2871 Fax r £JD L 9S£9-149 (0t6) 00 'NOS1NNnO L9L9- 26 (0L61 o©NMo1oD `N3dS\' 91765-S1>6 (OL6) )C X00 1 -Sb6 f0L6) 10919 oavaolo0 's'NlaadR aoomN37D 002 341nS `.133t -1S t -u9 -M 9 1 1 'ON1 'U3)3N1 NOG6100 H3SMlwHZS. 51:14A3nUY15 1 Si133N19N3 H31.31,4 1 N©0E100 1 a3S3f1V11HDS ....•••••=014•11.81114 i o1-14� NV7d Yid cc Li_ � o(tra 6.1 h a f SEES -I f9 10L61 03 'NOSINNnD L2L9-9E6 (0L6) Dore10103 'N3dSV Qb65-51r'B (0Z6) Xd.J 17001-5176 (0L6) 10918 OQV 0lD3 'S0NIlidS OOPMN370 OO Z 3L"S ' J— J -S H.L9 .M 9 1 1 'ONI 1:13,431A1 NOCJa00 83S3f1WH05 SkI0A3hHf13 1 Sli33N19N3 H3)1314 d NO0809 183S3f7WHOS EXHIBIT V Organic Growers LLC 5454 County Rd 346 Silt, CO 81652 561-866-6822 January 8, 2012 Garfield County Commissioners Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Asphalt Plant MIPA-7030 Bedrock Resources LLC Dear Commissioners I am writing to you today in reference to the above application for a Land Use Change Permit. I am strongly against the approval of any Land Use Change for the following reasons. Approximately two years ago, I purchased the acreage which is adjacent to the subject property for use as a USDA certified organic farm. I have spent substantial amounts of money to build greenhouses so that we are a showcase for organic and sustainable farming. In fact Nathan Linguist, City Planner from Rifle, recently brought VIP guests to the property to show that Garfield County and Rifle supported sustainable farming. We also have brought employment to 40 plus people in the County. An organic farm and Asphalt plant do not belong anywhere near each other. There is no way avoid the smell and noxious fumes that emanate from an asphalt plant. Also the other requested accessory uses are not compatible with our organic farm. A storage facility, recycling facilities and Contractors yard are unsightly and can also pollute the air and water. Any land use other than agricultural must be prohibited. This location is agricultural and must remain agricultural. I ask that you deny any land use change on the subject property, Thank 1 ou in advance. Sheri Sack Organic Growers LLC January 8, 2012 1 EXHIBIT Eagle Springs Organic LLC 5454A County Rd 346 Silt, CO 81652 954-249-5674 Garfield County Commissioners Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Asphalt Plant MIPA-7030 Bedrock Resources LLC Dear Commissioners I am writing to you today in reference to the above application for a Land Use Change Permit. I am strongly against the approval of any Land Use Change for the following reasons. Approximately two years ago, 1 purchased 1,200 acres which are surrounding the subject property. My property was well suited for my intended use, which is a USDA certified organic farm. I have spent substantial amounts of money to build greenhouses and a solar project on my property so that we are a showcase for organic and sustainable farming. I also have built my personal residence on the property in order to continue growing the farm. Along with organic produce, we have cattle, goats, sheep and chickens, clean air and water is essential. An organic farm and Asphalt plant do not belong anywhere near each other for the following reasons: Toxicity • Asphalt plants emit fumes that are known to contain toxins. Various government agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has given statements about asphalt processing plants and other asphalt manufacturing facilities throwing out air pollutants like hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, formaldehyde and toluene. The exposure to these dangerous toxics can cause various central nervous system problems as well as liver damage, respiratory problems, cancer and severe skin irritation. Carcinogenic Effects • The trucks that carry the asphalts to and from the asphalt plants are exposed to chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well as others very fine condensed particulates. Tests conducted by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services have shown that the polycyclic hydrocarbons can be carcinogenic to humans. These trucks seem to be a source of the problem. They throw out large amounts of emissions that have been considered to be harmful to human health. Another study carried out by the New Jersey agency says that the fumes coming out of an asphalt plant "may cause wheezing, coughing, headaches, nausea and, in some cases, severe irritation of the skin." Real Estate and Health Issues • Research conducted by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League has revealed that the creation of asphalt processing plants near residential places has decreased the value of real estate by around 50 percent. This is because there has been a nearly 20 percent average increase in the health issues like high blood pressure, sinus problems, shortness of breath and severe headaches. The health issues surrounding asphalt plants have led to controversies, with different sides coming up with reasons for and against the production of asphalt plants in some areas. There are many other suitable locations in Garfield County for an asphalt plant, in fact 1 believe that there are other asphalt plants in the County. Any Contractors Yard, Recycling yard or Storage facility is unacceptable. This location is agricultural and must remain as such. I ask that you deny any land use change on the subject property, Thank you in advance. Kenneth Sack CEO Eagle Springs Organic LLC 64 MESA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Customer 1 and M Pump. Inc. 8611-117 Rd Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Sample Invoice # 4791-11 Mesa County Health Department Regional Laboratory 510 29.5 Rd, Grand Junction, CO 81504 US Mail: PO Box 20,000, Grand Junction, CO 61502-5033 (970) 248-6999 fax (970) 683-6608 http:/f health.mesaca u nty.usl lab .2 2 EXHIBIT Date Time Collected By Collected 12/27/2011 1:00 PM Rich System Ellsworth Received 12/28/2011 10:43 AM MAMM Corte Matrix Raw Water Silt CO 81652 Purpose Special Purpose Chlorine Location Well Comments Test Name Total coliforms PA Result ABSENT Coliform/ABSENT E. coli or less than one (d), indicates a microbiologically safe sample 12/29/2011 9:20:26 AM Client Name: Well Location: Well Depth: Pump Type: Pump Set Depth: / N 1 1AORiee.z5; 7/-, r8' Tele: am Depth to Water Pumping Date Time /pm Min Ft Inches Rate Notes 1-2/ z , 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 5 20 30 45 , O 60 90 /121 / 2, 120 150 :36 180 ("? ' 210 240 300 60 - :21( M:\CREdatafiles\worksheets\pumptestdatasheet2010.xls Client Name: Well Location: Well Depth: Pump Type: Pump Set Depth: /7n 127 . (rt-rk .soh• Tele: M :1C R Ed atafi les\worksheetslp u mptestdatas h eet2010. xl s am Deptfr to Water t5umping Date Time /pm Min Ft Inches Rate Notes I0 ,,eD f+ 0 727' 1 " 1,1/,?4//f1 1 727' 1 ' 2 ?2G ,, 3 5 4' ?2G' 7 2" 6 8.7 10 12 7?.%a' 2..5' .7,7'1' 112 " /'' 1'' 3 " 15 773 1' 20 7 N'' - 30 ,Z,2/ 1" Ergo 45 60 90 120 150 „91q .21c9 „.7/ .2, ,-2/ .Q I/ 11'' 4"' lL'" I ' 1 1.7.c U 1!PO 180 ,2 /4 Z "' 210 „2// Fr" _ N7: aV 240 300 7,% 7Di 0 ,' rye' 'GIO 360 7" 1./: pr? a 977' g" 7" ae). 1,9.'(Y, ' 2" _ -1711 ga, 137, 2 ,: err 1 PY.a. 1/' ,H-' 1) ' /1' '' 171 e.".', 3,g' 1 " M :1C R Ed atafi les\worksheetslp u mptestdatas h eet2010. xl s EXHIBIT 2 - January 11, 2012 Glenn Hartmann Building and Planning Garfield County, Co Dear Mr. Hartmann: I am responding to a request for information concerning the Bedrock Resources LLC application to, among other things, operate an asphalt batch plant in the vicinity of the Garfield County Regional Airport. The area of concern is Land Use Compatibility and Air Space Protection. According to the Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility study, AC 150/5020-1 manufacturing and production facilities are compatible in the vicinity of the Garfield County. Regional Airport provided that a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 7460-2 "Determination of no hoaard to air navigation" is obtained. Upon reviewing the Avigation Easement on parcel 217918400720 for air space protection, I require Bedrock Resources LLC to comply with the notice to and direction from the Federal Aviation Administration's 7460, Notice of Proposed Construction, requirements. With approval and compliance to any FAA requirements the Garfield County Regional Airport has no objections to this proposed project as presented. Any alterations, additions or change in location or height of structure/s, building's, tree/s, or any other object that extends into the airspace shall require new approval from the FAA and notice to the Garfield County Regional Airport. I hope you have found this information useful and I appreciate the continued support of the Building and Planning department in the protection of the Garfield County Regional Airport. Please let me know if I can assist any further. Sincerely, Brian Condie Brian Condie C.M Airport Director I'-\Jc,ce- '02108 ite. AVIGATION AND HAZARD EASEMENT WHEREAS, Specialty Taverns Inc. hereinafter called Grantor, is the owner in fee of that certain parcel of land known as Parcels 217917340723, 2179] 734Q719, 21791844D4County Regional Airport, and 217917400722 which rhereinafter called situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado in the vicinity of theGarfield "Grantor's Property," and, WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, Colorado, hereinafter called "Grantee," owns and operates the Garfield County Regional Airport, hereinafter called "the Airport," and is the sponsor of the Airport under terms of the federal Airport and Airway improvement Act, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Thirty two thousand two hundred sixty one and 13/100 Dollars ($32,261.13) and other good and valuable consideration, the erreci receipt rand ds uffic nc successors and of which rebigns, does acknowledged, the Grantor, for himself, his heirs, administrators, personal hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey tanto Grantee, its successors and assigns, for the use and benefit of the public, an easement and.. right-of-way appurtenant to the Airport, �ciudithereto `heau ' aft'rbei gmade de'futed for pure seby the Grantees or ss ssuccessors and assigns, for the unobstructed use an p sag af all types of aircraft ( of this instrument as any device now known or hereafter developed, invented, designed or used for navigation of or flight in air) by whomsoever owned or operated, in and through the navigable air space above the surface of Grantor's Property and to cause, in to an infinite height above said Grantor's Property, smoke and fumes; deposits of dust, fuelapartrclesl air �ce above the surface and other particulate Grantors' Property, such noise and vibrations, matter, and any and all other effects which may be incident to or caused by the normal operation of aircraft taking off, landing, or otherwise operating at or on the Airport, Grantor hereby waives, remises and releases any right or cause of action or claim for damages which he may now have or which he may have in the future against Grantee, its successors and assigns, due to any such noise, vibrations, and all smoke, fumes, deposits of particulate matter, lights and radio emissions from aircraft andloror operating alother at, effectsn or which may be caused or may have been caused by the operation of aircraft landing at, taking off from, Airport near the Airport at any time of day or night and on any day of the week. Nothing stated in the foregoing waiver, grant, and release shall divest the Grantor, his heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns from any right or cause of a tion over for damages to any person or property resulting from the unlawful or negligent operation of any aircraft at any and across Grantor's Property. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement and right of way, with all rights appertaining thereto, unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns until the Airport shall be abandoned and shall cease to be used for public airport purposes. FURTHER, Grantor recognizes and hereby agrees and covenants, for himself, his heirs, administrators, personal representatives, successors, and assigns, to comply with AviationtherlAdministration "A")regulatinPat 77 (Objects Affecting -Navigable Airspace) including the submittal A7ioProposedConstructionor to undertaking any construction on Grantor's Property. Alteration (available in the office of the Airport Director ), prior Notwithstanding this Easement, Grantor reserves the right the to onstruct., erect, airspace. If the alter or FAformw 7460-1 identon ifies an property any building, structure, tree or other object extending p obstruction that may adversely affect aviation safety, the Airport and or FAA may then negotiate andanoffer fst rju tatron may be compensation to the Grantor as needed for the preservation of unobstructed over flight activity. determined by mutual agreement, arbitration or though the judicial system. Further, nothing in this easement shall be construed as limiting or restricting Grantor (andlor its successors in interest) from building on, occupying or using Grantor's Property in any manner and for any type of land use. The aforesaid covenants and agreements shall run with the land and shall be forever binding upon the heirs, administrators, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the Grantor. Page 1 of 3 IN WETNESS WHEREOF ! the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and scat this ! I day of �.i Lir j , 2008. STATE OF Cf OA ) )ss. COUNTY OF , ) T M.3 1:$. TALL. icka E.,3 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this !I d ay of alM , by f ,u 3). e. Witness my hand and official seal_ My commission expires: 3 ` 02!_ 10 (.2)yrye,4, '74 Notary Public LYNETTE M. KELLUM Commission # 1653359 Notary Public - California Orange County My Comm. Expkes Mar 21. 201 A Page 2 of 3 SUBORDINATION In consideration of the premises and to assure Grantee of the continued benefits accorded it under this Avigation and Hazard Easement, , Mortgagee/Obligee/Lien Holder/Lender, and recorded at Book Page of the identified in the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, dated records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, and associated documents covering Grantor's Property, above- described, does hereby covenant and agree that said Mortgage/Deed of Trust shall be subject to and subordinate to this Avigation and Hazard Easement and the recording of this Avigation and Hazard Easement shall have preference and shall he superior to said Mortgage/Deed of Trust, irrespective of the date of making or recording of said security instrument(s)_ STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD by Mortgagee/Obligee/Lien Holder/Lender By its: (Title) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of (Name) , (Title) and an authorized representative of (entity name), a (state and form of business entity) on behalf of the (from of entity). Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 3 of 3 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76137 Issued Date: 01/10/2012 Charles Ellsworth Bedrock Resources, LLC. 101.4 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Aeronautical Study No. 2011-ANM-2945-OE EXHIBIT ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building Lime Silo Location: Rifle, CO Latitude: 39-31-25.87N NAD 83 Longitude: 107-42-07.54W Heights: 5588 feet site elevation (SE) 43 feet above ground level (AOL) 5631 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be completed and returned to this office any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X... Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part II) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. This determination expires on 07/10/2013 unless: (a) (b) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION Page 1 of 3 _ OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates , heights, frequency(ies) and power . Any changes in coordinates , heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration , including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (816) 329-2508. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2011-1-2945-0E. Signature Control No: 153296739-156996802 Vee Stewart Specialist Attachment(s) Map(s) Page 2 of 3 (DNE) TOPO Map for ASN 2011-AN11/1-2945-0E Page 3 of 3 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS6 SURVEYORS January 25, 2012 i EXHIBIT GG Mr. Glenn Hartman, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Bedrock Resources Major Impact Review Conditions of Approval from January 11, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,L WOOD 5PRI:.•. I i B WEST SIXTH STREET. SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8I 60I 970.945, 1004 970,945.5948 FAX Dear Glenn, The purpose of this letter is to provide you an update to the planning, design and permitting activities that have been performed in advance of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of February 6, 2012 for this project. As you are aware, the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the BOCC approve the Land Use Change Permit subject to a number of conditions. Please note these conditions and the status of the applicant and his design team's ability to address each accordingly as follows: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; This is a standard condition and is so noted. 2. The operation of this facility and any future amendments shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility including but not limited to the FAA and Avigation Easement approvals and notifications. This is a standard condition and is so noted. 3. The Applicant shall maintain compliance with the provisions ofthe Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 including but not limited to 7-810, Standards for Industrial Uses. This is a standard condition and is so noted. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the County Vegetation Manager in regard to weed management including provision of 101 FOUNDERS PLACE. UNIT IO2 PO Box 2155 ASPEN, CO 5161 I 970 925 6727 970.925,41 57 Fax 1 03 WEST TOMICHI AVE. SUITE A GUNNISON, CO 970.64 1 .5355 970.641 .5356 FAX 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE 320 THIRD STREET BUILDING 1 , SUITE 205 MEEKER. CO 81641 GRANO JUNCTION. CO 9 1 505 970.878.618a 970.245.2571 970.878.4181 FAx 970.245.2871 FAX SCHMUESERGORDON MEYER ENGINEERS 'SURVEYORS a detailed weed management plan addressing the specifics of the tamarisk and Russian knapweed management strategy. We had a phone conversation with Steve Anthony and noted the provision of the September 26, 2011 correspondence from John L. Taufer and Associates regarding theNoxious Weed Inventory and Weed Management Plan in the original application for the Major Impact Review. Mr. Anthony had missed the document in the file. Upon reviewing this correspondence, Mr. Anthony felt the Weed Management Plan as written by Mr. Taufer was sufficient. You should be receiving concurrent correspondence from Mr. Anthony in this regard. 5. The Applicant shall supplement the reclamation and landscaping plans with details an irrigation and protection of trees and shrubs from wildlife damage. Reclamation of the site shall be completed in accordance with the Applicant's submitted plans and the Applicant shall quantify the area of disturbance to be reclaimed and shall provide security for said reclamation if required in accordance with County Policies. Reclamation shall be completed during the next growing season after completion of construction. You will find attached the details on irrigation and protection of trees and shrubs from wildlife damage attached to this letter. The area that is to be disturbed and seeded is 8 acres. At $2,500 per acre, the security to be submitted to the County is therefore, $20,000 for the purpose of reclamation. Likewise, the applicant is committed to complete the reclamation during the next growing season after completion of construction. 6. The relocated access to the site shall be constructed in accordance with the Applicant's submitted plans subject to: (a) updating the road cross section on Sheet 7 of the engineering plans to reflect the current proposal for 28 ft.; (b) obtaining a new access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department; (c) compliance with any access permit conditions of approval and required improvements associated with said permit. Access permit conditions may include but are not limited to additional safety signage, additional speed limit signage to facilitate potential speed deductions, drainage improvements, and vegetation trimming to improve intersection visibility. You will find attached Sheet 7 revised to reflect the 28 foot wide roadway. Likewise, you will find attached the application for the new access permit to the County Road and Bridge Department and finally, you will find Sheet 3 attached reflecting improvements requested of the Road and Bridge Department. These improvements are based upon the email SCHMUESER I GORDON MEYER ENGNEEHS SURVEYORS correspondence summarizing discussions between the applicant, the Road and Bridge Director and the Public Works Director as attached. 7. Access to the residential property to the north shall be maintained during construction of the new access road. At the discretion of the neighboring property owner they may continue to utilize the existing access alignment or the new joint access proposed by the Applicant. Should the adjacent property owner desire to use the new access: (a) additional evaluation of driveway grades shall be required; (b) the Applicant shall provide copies of the existing easement documents and appropriate revisions to implement the new joint access configuration; and (c) said documentation shall be submitted to the County for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to issuance of the Land Use change Permit. This condition has been addressed by virtue of leaving the existing driveway in place. By doing such, the proposed "new" access does not need to be constructed nor does providing any additional easement need to be necessary. 8. Prior to any construction or grading activity on the site the Applicant shall provide documentation of issuance by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) all required permitting including but not limited to air quality Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN), construction permits, fugitive dust, storm water, and spill prevention permits/plans. Minor edits to labeling on the Erosion Control Plan shall also be completed by the Applicant and approved by the County's Consulting Engineer. This condition is being addressed as follows: a. You previously have received the APEN application submitted to CDPHE. b. We have been in contact with Mr. R.K. Hancock 111 of the CDPHE regarding the need to acquire an Air Quality permit for construction. As such, since the disturbed acreage for the project will be less than 25 contiguous acres (i.e, 20 acres in total) and the work will be completed within 6 months, acquisition of an additional permit is not necessary. Copies of the email correspondence with/from Mr. Hancock are attached. c. We have attached a copy of the application for the storm water permit for construction, d. We will be submitting a copy of the application for the SPCC plan for County review and approval prior to operation of the plant. e. Upon receipt of the SWMP permit, we will forward to the County for your records. We will not proceed to construction without it. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS 1 S U R V E Y Q R 5 9. A dust management plan for construction and operations shall be provided and approved by the County Environmental Health Manager prior to any construction on site. We have attached a copy of the Dust Management Plan for this site. This plan addresses both construction and operations. 10. The Applicant shall update well permit applications and water contracts to reflect the proposed industrial and office uses. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide evidence that the Division of Water Resources has issued the industrial/commercial use well permit and that it has been tested for production and water quality and meets the appropriate standards in accordance with Article Vil of the ULUR. If supplemental hauling of potable water is necessary, the Applicant shall use properly licensed and equipped contractors meeting CDPHE requirements. Please find attached the information secured to date for the well permitting. The applicant has secured a West Divide Contract for water, drilled a well and will be submitting water quality testing results when made available. 11. The Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be required to meet Garfield County Permitting and design requirements and engineered systems may be required based on additional site specific soils evaluations. The Individual Sewage Disposal System has been designed to meet the county permitting and design requirements. All on-site percolation tests have been performed as well as excavation of the profile hole. At the time of construction of the office building and shop, with the building permit application, the application for an ISDS will be made with the design of the system as currently designed being attached. 12. The Applicant shall implement all storm water management improvements as represented in the Application, obtain State Storm Water Management permits, and construct all required wetland mitigation. Written evidence of compliance including all Army Corp of Engineers wetland permitting shall be provided prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The Applicant shall provide ongoing maintenance of detention ponds and wetlands areas. As noted previously, the applicant has submitted for the required permits and is committed to compliance with any and all conditions imposed with the issuance of such permits. You previously have in your possession a copy of the application for the 404 permit. 13. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide written confirmation from the Rifle Fire Protection District that the District has approved the fire protection and emergency vehicle access plans for the site. The Applicant shall also provide operational standards/policies to reduce the SCHMUESER 1 GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS potential for wildfire (i.e. weed control, separation from native vegetation, heat and spark mitigation). You will find attached correspondence from Kevin Whelan indicating his concurrence with the fire protection and emergency vehicle access plans. Likewise, you find attached a copy of the fire mitigation plan prepared by the applicant for this project. 14. Engineered foundations, on-site observation of excavation, and compliance with the recommendations ofthe H. P. Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study shall be required for all new construction and grading activity on the site. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, additional studies shall be performed to evaluate the potential alluvial fan flooding and to develop facility specific geotechnical engineering designs for mitigation as appropriate. Said plans shall be provided to the County and subject to review and approval by the County's Consulting Engineer. You will find attached correspondence from the applicant's geotechnical engineer (HP Geotech) addressing this issue as related to their concerns which generated the condition. 15. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide utility easements for Holy Cross Energy's • existing electrical service and any relocation. The Applicant shall also document Holy Cross Energy's ability to serve the proposed use pursuant to their referral comments dated 12/8/11. You will find attached documentation and correspondence with Holy Cross Energy regarding their easement, service to the site and modifications to the current power lines. 16. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the City of Rifle has issued a watershed protection permit for approval for the proposed use. You will find attached a copy of the watershed protection permit from the City of Rifle. 17. The Applicant shall obtain sign permits in accordance with the ULUR for all signs proposed for the use. You will find attached a copy of the application for the sign permits for this project. 18. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide written confirmation of approval of all FAA requirements including but not limited to a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" and SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G I N E E R S S U R V E Y O R S Avigation Easement Requirements for construction of the proposed facility in the vicinity of the Garfield County Airport.. To further protect the safe aerial operations that occur at the Garfield County Regional Airport the owners and operators of this facility shall at all times fully comply with the FAA Aeronautical Studies associated with the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation and/or future FAA aeronautical studies including, but not limited to, approved conditions for construction, repair, maintenance and/or expansion of this facility. You will find attached a copy of the FAA approval for this project. 19. The Applicant shall comply with standards contained in the ULUR for uses in the vicinity of Airports contained in Section 30405 and Section 7-704 including but not limited to lighting, use of reflective materials, industrial emissions, electrical interference, wetlands, utilities, structure height, and avigation easements. In addition, lighting for the site should be the minimum amount necessary and should be directed downward and inward toward the interior of the site. This is a standard condition and is so noted. 20. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 am. to 7:00 p.m. based on compliance with the State limits on noise. Prior to full operation of the facility a supplemental noise study shall be provided to the County based on final grading, elevations, and structure heights confirming the preliminary findings of compliance or providing additional sound mitigation to achieve compliance. Please see the attached noise study prepared by Howard McGregor of Engineering Dynamics. I hope this letter and the attached information meets its intended purpose. 1 you have any questions or need additional information please don't hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, ESEDON MEYER, INC. Simon on, PE, CFM Cc: Charlie Ellsworth David Smith Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [JeffS@a sgm-inc.com] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:33 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Charles Ellsworth; Damian; dsmith@garfieldnecht.com Subject: Conditions #15, 16 and 20 Glenn, I am anticipating seeing letters on 15 and 16 yet today. On #20, Howard McGregor should have our noise mitigation this week. Thanks Jeff 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Ray Sword Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:11 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: damion@frontierpavinginc.com; Betsy Suerth Subject: Bedrock Resources LLC - Glenn — EXHIBIT ipp As per our conversation on 1/23/2012, regarding the combined driveway access for Bedrock Resources LLC, and my meeting with Charles and Damian Ellsworth. The Road & Bridge Department has agreed to allow the two driveways to remain separated. Conditionally, Bedrock Recourses has agreed to remove one tree on the County right of way north of the single family driveway to improve visibility, and to clean the bar ditch north and south of said driveway to allow for improved drainage. The single family driveway will serve as temporary access to the construction site until the new driveway/road is established. Any additional use of this driveway after construction, should be limited to light truck traffic, and emergency access only. Dust control will be required at all times on the temporary and newly constructed roads. The permit owner will also be responsible for any temporary signage, as well as keeping County Road 315 free of dirt, dust and debris during the construction period. Any loading/unloading of equipment on the County road or right of way, will require appropriate signage and flaggers. As a condition of the access/driveway permit, we have agreed to a 100'X20'X4" asphalt pad, with no less than 200' (300' preferred for visibility to the north) between the existing driveway to the north, and the new driveway. Additionally, the pad should have a V -pan design to promote drainage away from the County road, and in to the existing bar ditch. A culvert in the existing bar ditch under the new driveway will not be required due to the design of the new drainage plan. A stop sign at the entrance/exit of the driveway will be required. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns. Garfield County Ray Sword District 3 Foreman Road & Bridge 0298 CR 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Mobile: 970-987-2702 Office: 970-625-8601 x4311 Fax: 970-625-8627 rsword@garfield-county.com z Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Glenn — Ray Sword Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:45 PM Glenn Hartmann damian©frontierpavinginc.com Bedrock Resources LLC Regarding the 200' minimum between driveways. It doesn't look like they will be able to pull that off, because of the location of the well.l would be comfortable with the 180' that they will be able to provide. Please use the 180' dimension instead of the 200'. Thanks, Ray Garfield County Ray Sword District 3 Foreman Road & Bridge 0298 CR 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Mobile: 970-987-2702 Office: 970-625-8601 x4311 Fax: 970-625-8627 rsword@garfield-county.com 1 EXHIBIT Glenn Hartmann Et From: Jeff Simonson [JeffS@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:27 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Charles Ellsworth; Damian; dsmith@garfieldhecht.com Subject: FW: City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 (Bedrock Resources, LLC) Attachments: Permit 1 -12 -Exhibit A.pdf; Permit 1-12.pdf Glen and Charlie, Please find attached the Watershed Permit from the City of Rifle. Charlie, could you sign and get back to me or to Rick and Jim directly? Thanks! Jeff From: James S. Neu[mailto:jsn@mountainlawfirm.cam] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:18 PM To: Jeff Simonson; rbarth@rifleco.org Cc: merionCcresource-enq.com Subject: City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No, 1-12 (Bedrock Resources, LLC) Jeff, Attached is City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 issued to Bedrock Resources, LLC. This is a No Impact Permit and can be administratively issued. Please have your client sign the Permit and have it returned to Rick Barth with the City for the City's signature. We will forward a fully signed Permit to you. Rick, once fully signed, we need to put the Permit in the City Council's next packet as an fyi. Let me know if there are any questions. }irn Karp.Neu HaJnIon Lyon James 5. Neu, Esq. 201 14th Street, Suite 200, P.J. Drawer 2030, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 ph 970.945.2261 x103 /fx 970.945.7336 www.mountainlawfirm.com This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. 1 iliIRFSD.URCE El®®®®E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Rick Barth, P.E. City of Rifle PO Box 1908 Rifle CO 81650 p( IwT Lev January 25, 2012 Jinn Neu, Esq. Karp Neu Hanlon P.C. PO Box 2030 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: City of Rifle — Colorado River Watershed District Permit Application of Bedrock Resources, LLC for an Asphalt Paving Contractor Facility Dear Rick and Jim: At the request of the City of Rifle, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) reviewed the Watershed District Permit Application of Bedrock Resources, LLC. The application submittal includes a cover letter dated December 12, 2011 from Bedrock Resources, LLC and the application to Garfield County for land use review compiled by Schmueser Gordon Meyer submitted in October 2011. The proposed activity within the Colorado River Watershed District includes construction of an office, access roadways, stormwater ponds, material storage areas, and an asphalt batch plant. The facility would be located east of CR 315 (Mamm Creek Road) one-half mile southeast of the 1-70 interchange and approximately 3 miles southeast of the City's river intake. RESOURCE consulted with Rick Barth and Jim Neu on the application submittal, The permit was reviewed in accordance with Section 13-2-120 of the Rifle Municipal Code. RESOURCE's findings and recommendation are presented below. CLASSIFICATION Based on review of the application and consultation with City Staff, RESOURCE recommends classifying the application as No Impact. RECOMMENDATION In accordance with Section 13-2-120, RESOURCE recommends issuance of a Watershed District permit with the following conditions: 1. The permit approves the proposed activity described in the application as an asphalt paving contractor facility with an office, parking and internal roads, material storage areas, rock crusher, asphalt batch plant, ISDS wastewater system and two stormwater management/fire protection ponds. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Stormwater Management Plan, SPCC Plan, Revegetation and Landscape Plan, Emergency Response Plan, and engineering designs prepared for the project. Cansutting Engineers and Hydrologists 900 Colorado Avenue el Glenwood Springs, CO 01601 ® (970) 945-B777 ® Fax (970)945-1137 Rick Barth, P.E. Jim Neu, Esq. Page 2 January 25, 2012 3. All fluids stored on site including, but not limited to, lube oil, coolant, and used oil must be kept in facilities with secondary containment. The Applicant's fuel storage facility shall include a concrete containment basin as proposed by the Applicant in verbal and email correspondence. 4. The project shall be subject to an inspection, during construction andlor after completion of the facility, by the City and/or its consultants. Applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with such inspections. ANALYSIS The Bedrock Resources, LLC project involves construction of an asphalt paving contractor facility approximately 3 miles southeast of the City's Colorado River intake structure. The office will be located near CR 315 and the rest of the facilities will be located on the mesa to the east. This project is a relocation of an existing facility located adjacent to the Colorado River six miles upstream of the City's river intake. The new location will have significantly less potential impact to the Colorado River. The batch plant site will be bermed and any runoff from the site will be routed through two storm water management ponds and a wetland complex. The wetland complex and lower pond are designed for water quality enhancement. The fuel storage tank for the batch plant will have double wall containment plus a concrete containment basin. A drainage plan and Stormwater Management Plan have been developed for the facility. The submittal also includes an SPCC Plan, Revetetation and Landscaping Plan, and detailed engineering plans for site improvements. The proposed facility does not have a clear and foreseeable risk of significant injury to the City's water facilities and potable supply provided that the Applicant implements and follows the proposed permit conditions listed above. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC, Michael J. rior P. E. Water Resources Engineer MJE1mmm 341-10.31 INURESOL IRCE mSLIGI pg g[plp FISLIGIENGIN I N% 3 N G' BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR A WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT FOR AN ASPHALT PAVING CONTRACTOR FACILITY BY BEDROCK RESOURCES, LLC FINDINGS OF NO IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-12 I. BACKGROUND 1. In December 2011, Bedrock Resources, LLC (the "Applicant" or "Bedrock") applied to the City of Rifle (the "City") for a watershed district permit to construct and operate an asphalt paving contractor facility (the "Activity"), The "Application" was prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. and included a Stormwater Management Plan, SPCC Plan, Revegetation and Landscape Plan, Emergency Response Plan, and engineering designs prepared for site improvements. The Activity will be located south of the 1-70 Mamm Creek interchange along the side of County Road 3 ] 5 in Section 18, Township 6S, Range 92W of the b`" P.M. (the "Property"). The Property lies within five (5) miles of the City's Colorado River Intake and is within the City's watershed district jurisdiction. The Application was submitted pursuant to City of Rifle Ordinance No. 22. Series of 1994, codified in Article II of Chapter 13 of the Rifle Municipal Code. 2. After reviewing the Application, the City received a letter from Michael Erion, P.E. of Resource Engineering, Inc. dated January 25, 2012 (the "Erion Letter"). The Erion Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The Erion Letter concluded that the Activity proposed to be performed on the Property will not negatively impact the City's waterworks or water supply so long as Bedrock performs the Activity as set forth in the Application and complies with the conditions stated in the Erion Letter. II. FINDINGS OF FACT 3. The proposed activity is within the defined boundaries of the City's Watershed District as defined in RMC § 13-2-20, specifically within five (5) miles of the City's Colorado River municipal water diversion and intake structure. The proposed Activity includes constructing and operating an asphalt paving contractor facility including an office, parking and internal roads, material storage areas, rock crusher, asphalt batch plant, 1505 wastewater system. and two stormwater management/fire protection ponds. 4. The Application filed by Bedrock is complete. 5. The Applicant has paid the application fee required under RMC §13-2-110. 6. Based on the Erion Letter, the City finds that the proposed. Activity on the Property does not pose any risk to the City's waterworks or water supply if the Applicant performs the Activity as set forth in the Application and complies with the conditions set forth in the Erion Letter, and therefore makes a finding pursuant to Rifle Municipal Code 13-2-120(d) that the proposed City of Rifle, Colorado Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 Bedrock. Resources, LLC Activity will have No Impact on the City's waterworks with such conditions. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ISSUANCE OF PERMIT 7. The foregoing Findings of Facts are incorporated herein by reference. 8. The City has jurisdiction over the proposed activity pursuant to RMC §13-2-20 and City of Rifle Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994. 9. Based on the Erion Letter, the City hereby determines that this decision shall constitute a No Impact Watershed District Permit for the proposed Activity on the Property pursuant to Rifle Municipal Code §13-2-120(d); provided the Applicant performs the Activity as set forth in the Application and complies with the conditions set forth in the Erion Letter. 10. A copy of this Permit shall be sent by certi lied mail, return receipt requested, to the Applicant, unless such requirement is waived by Applicant. 11. Pursuant to Rifle Municipal Code §13-2-110(7), the Applicant shall reimburse the City for all outside professional services, including but not limited to engineering, legal, consulting, publication and copying fees associated with the review of the application prior to the issuance of this Permit. 12. Applicant, This Permit shall not be effective until approved by the City and agreed to and by the Dated this _ day of , 2012. By 2 CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO Rick Barth, P.E., City Engineer City of Rifle, Colorado Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 Bedrock Resources, LLC City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 accepted and agreed to this day of , 2012. BEDROCK RESOURCES, LLC By: Print name: Its: 3 Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson fJeffS©sgm-inc.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:07 PM To: Kevin Whelan Cc: Charles Ellsworth; Glenn Hartmann Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources -major impact review Attachments: Fhyd ModelL SUCTION.pdf; DRY HYDRANT.pdf; Bedrock Resources LLC fire mitigation plan.doc Kevin, Per our meeting last Friday, 1 am providing this email to follow up with the details that I promised that I would send on relative to the dry hydrant and water line installation for the fire suppression system that is being installed for the Bedrock Resources project. Per our meeting, both hydrants will be DRY hydrants and fitted with the appropriate adapters. You will find attached two PDF files that reflect the hydrant and the suction line installation. Also, you will find attached the fire mitigation plan that Charlie has prepared. I trust that with this information and with our ability to answer your questions by the submittal of our prior correspondence to Glenn, you can provide concurrence to the County by "reply all" to this email as I have also included Glenn Hartman on the Cc list. Thank you again for the time you gave us to meet last Friday and please call if you have any questions! Thanks Jeff Simonson 970-384-9005 or 970-379-4691 From: Kevin Whelan tmailto:kewhelan©riflefiredept.orq] Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 10:23 AM To: Jeff Simonson Subject: FW: Bedrock Resources -major impact review Jeff, i hope your time off was good over the recent holidays! I did call your office to talk with you prior to sending in my comments in the below e-mail to the county. When you get a chance, please give me a call and we can go over them in more detail. I also attached our requirements for developing a private water supply system and our haz mat declaration packet that I referenced in my review. I look forward to hearing from you and again hope you had a good time off! Kevin C. Whelan Division Chief/ Fire Marshal Rifle Fire Protection District 1850 Railroad Ave Rifle, CO 81650 kewhela n@riflefiredept.org Office- 970-625-1243 ext 12 Fax- 970-625-2963 Cell -970-618-7388 1 tri zzi cZi a e PRyyr pro 4.1 sZt 114 k ;1h 8 'q 6 3 i Bedrock Resources GLC. Fire MitigationPlan 0500 County Road 315 Silt Colorado 81652 The site is approximately 36 acres bordered by County Road 315 and by rural mesa type property with vegetation comprised mostly of Cheat grass and Russian Knapweed. The proposed development for the mesa portion of the subject property will be an asphalt plant with associated aggregate stockpiles for virgin aggregate as well as recycled asphalt material, a shop building and a three sided equipment storage building. The driving and parking surfaces will be graveled and treated with mag -chloride. The access road will be constructed up through the steep portion of the property and the office will be constructed on the lower flat area close to County Road 315. The areas disturbed from construction will be revegetated with natural dry land type grasses and a few shrubs and trees. The shrubs and trees will have an irrigation system. The lower flat area and the steep slope area of the property will be cleaned up of any dead vegetation and trash. Any noxious weeds will be sprayed and cut on a regular basis. The upper mesa area will be mostly gravel surfaces, the asphalt plant and the associated stockpiles. The upper mesa is also where the fire protection pond is located. The proposed buildings will be steel construction with steel siding and roofs. The berms that will be constructed for noise, visibility and dust abatement will be revegetated in the same fashion as the lower areas on the property. The noxious weeds will be sprayed and cut on a regular basis. In summary, we intend on clearing and disposing of any dead shrubs and trees from all areas that will not be disturbed in the construction process. The revegetation will consist of natural grasses and a small number of less flammable shrubs and trees. The focus will be on Defensible Space. Sincerely, Charles Ellsworth Glenn Hartmann From: Steve Anthony Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:26 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Jeff Simonson Subject: RE: EXHIBIT 1C7& Hi Glenn I concur with Jeff's comments below, I did miss the weed management plan in the packet originally, and had based my comments on the map that was provided. Condition 4 has been addressed by the applicant. Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0298 CR 333A Rifle CO 81650 Office: 970-625-8601 Fax: 970-625-8627 Email: santhonv c(7r.garfield-county.com From: Jeff Simonson [mailto:JeffS@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:06 AM To: Steve Anthony Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Charles Ellsworth; jltOsopris.net Subject: RE: Hi Steve, Attached is a PDF of the pertinent conditions to your email of 12/19/11 to Glenn. Per our discussion earlier today, after you had a chance to review John Taufer's letter on the weed management plan, the necessity of condition #4 no longer exists (ie., providing a detailed weed management plan). However, note that. John is in the process of providing us an irrigation plan for the drip irrigation system for the trees and shrubs. Likewise, he is getting us a detail on the means necessary to protect the trees and shrubs from wildlife. Finally, we are finalizing the acreage calculations for the areas that will be permanently seeded so as to provide proper security at $2,500 per acre. Once these pieces of information are put together, I will forward accordingly so as to be able to address Glenn's condition #5. As we discussed, to formally address condition #4, I would suspect that Glenn need's an email concurring with this email or a memo that identifies such. I put all necessary contacts on this email so as to help you reply accordingly. Thanks and call with questionsll Jeff From: Steve Anthony [mailto:santhony©garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:16 AM To: Jeff Simonson Subject: t W ce3 z J P4 LJ Z W L.0. W I OX Ll A W A re U W � fWA A z W d l7 ce x ULY U xz . in cu L 4 8' STUDDED STEEL T-POSTS ( 6' EXPOSED/ 2' BURY ) EXHIBIT u11■■■!■u 1■■•PE■i IEMONOMMI •l;iliEti iii PMEMEEMP IMEMMEUi OWEM d11 BEEMOOgil IENRFAIMggi =■■■■■■1 IMEEE••I Garfield County Road and Bridge Department 0298 CR 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phone -(970)625-8601 Fax- (970)625-8627 EXHIBIT J 4 2'463 Bill To: Invoice Driveway Permit Number GRB12-13-4 Invoice Date: 1/24/2012 Bedrock Resources LLC 1014 Citi 311 New Castle CO 81647 $75.00 per Driveway Permit. $75,00 Driveway Permit Fee: Total Due: Thank You! $75.00 (Pk-ea5P-- S\1\r-\ c-e?.k-orf\ Thc lou a1! Garfield County Application for Driveway Permit Person Obtaining Permit: Bedrock Resources LLC Application Date: 1/24/2012 County Road Number: 315 District' Silt Permit Number: GRB12-D-4 Termination Date: 2/24/2012 inspector: Ray Sword hereby requests permission and authority from the Board of County Commissioners to construct a driveway approach (es) on the right-of-way off of County Road, 315,1300' +1- South of CR 315 & CR 352, located on the East side of road for the purpose of obtaining access to property. Applicant submits herewith for the consideration and approval of the Board of County Commissioners, a sketch of the) proposed installation showing all the necessary specification detail including: 1 Frontage of lot along road, 2. Distance fi-om centerline of road to property line. 3. Number of driveways requested 4. Width of proposed driveways and angle of approach. 5. Distance from driveway to road intersection, if any. 6. Size and shape of area separating driveways if more than one approach. 7. Setback distance of building(s) and other structure improvements. g. No unloading of equipment on county road, any damage caused to county road will be repaired at subdivision expense. 9. Responsible for two years from the date of completion. General Provisions 1) The applicant represents all parties in interest, and affirms that the driveway approach (es) is to be constructed by him for the bona fide purpose of securing access to his property and not for the purpose of doing business or servicing vehicles on the road right away. 2) The applicant shall furnish all labor and materials, perform all work, and pay all Costs in connection with the construction of the driveway(s). All work shall be completed within thirty (30) days of the permit date. 3) The type of construction shall be as designated and/or approved by the Board of County Commissioners or their representative and all materials used shall be of satisfactory quality and subject to inspection and approval of the Board of County Commissioners or their representative. 4) The traveling public shall be protected during the installation with proper warning signs and signals and the Board of County Comtnissioners and their duly appointed agents and employee shall be held harmiess against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by any reason of the exercise of the Permit 5) The Applicant shall assume responsibility for the removal or clearance of snow, ice. or sleet upon any portion of the driveway approach (e.) even though deposited on the driveway(s) in the course of the County snow removal operations. 6) In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the entrance shall be surely braced before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence and all posts and wire removed shall be turned over to the District Road Supervisor of the Board of County Commissioners. 2.. L 7) No revisions or additions shall be made to the driveway(s) or its appurtenances on the right-of-way withoul written permission of the Board of County Commissioners. 8) Provisions and specifications outlined herein shall apply on all roads under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, and the Specifications, set forth on the attached hereof and incorporated herein as conditions hereof. 9) Final inspection of driveway will he required upon completion and roust be approved by person issuing permit or representative of person issuing permit. The inspection and sign off must be done prior to any CO from the Building and Planning Department being issued. Special Conditions: L Driveway Width- I00ft 2. Culvert required? False Size: N/A by N/A 3. Asphalt or concrete pad required? True Size of pad: IOOft wide x 20ft long x 4in thick 4, Gravel portion required? False Length: N/A 5, Trees, brush and/or fence need to be removed for visibility? True 6. Distance and D}irection:One tree north of existing driveway 7. Certified Traffic Control Required? False 8. Work zine signs required? True 9. Stop sign required at entranee to County Road. In signing this application and upon receiving authorization and permission to install the driveway approach (es) described herein the. Applicant signifies that he has read, understands and accepts the foregoing provisions and conditions and agrees to construct the driveway(s) in accordance with the accompanying specification plan reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Signed: Address: 4 /..I ra k ,c2[]cr&_3 N 1 s fI J C7 ru Telephone Number: % 9 U^ 2 9 6- Q 9/ t'errnit granted 1/24/2012, subject to the provisions, specifications and conditions stipulated herein. For Board of County Commissioners' of Garfield County, Colorado: lv` Representative of Garfield County Road and Bridge Signature Sp ecifications 1. A driveway approach is understood to be that portion of the county road right -of way between the pavement edge and the property line that is designed and used for the interchange of traffic between the roadway and abutting property. 2. At any intersection, a driveway shall be restricted for a sufficient distance from the intersection to preserve the normal and safe movement of traffic. (It is recommended for rural residence entrances that a minimum intersection clearance of 50 fee be provided and for rural commercial entrances a minimum of 100 feet be provided.) 3. All entrances and exits shall be so located and constructed that vehicles approaching or using them will be able to obtain adequate sight distance in both directions along the county road in order to maneuver safely and without interfering with county road traffic. 4. The Applicant shall not be permitted to erect any sign or display material, dither fixed or movable, an or extending over any portion of the county road right-of-way. 5. Generally, no more than one approach shall be allowed any parcel or property the frontage of which is less than one hundred (100) feet, Additional entrances or exits for parcels having a frontage in excess of one hundred 100) feet shall be permitted only after showing of actual convenience and necessity. 6. All driveways shall be so located that the flared portion adjacent to the traveled way will not encroach upon adjoining property. 7. No commercial driveway shall have a width grater than thirty (30) feet measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway except as increased by permissible radii. No noncommercial driveway shall have a width greater than twenty (20) feet measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway, except as increased by permissible radii. 8. The axis of an approach to the road may he at a right angle to the centerline of the county road and of any angle between ninety (90) degrees and sixty (60) degrees but shall not be less than sixty (60) degrees. Adjustment will be made according to the type of traffic to be served and other physical conditions. ). The construction of parking or servicing areas on the county road right-of-way is specifically prohibited. Commercial establishments for customer vehicles should provide off -the -road parking facilities. 10. The grade of entrance and exit shall slope downward and away from the road Surface at the same rate as the normal shoulder slope and for a distance equal to the width of the shoulder but in no case less than twenty (20) feet from the pavement edge. Approach grades are restricted to not more than ten percent (10%), 11. All driveways and approaches shall be so constructed that they shall not interfere with the drainage system of the street or county road. The Applicant will be required to provide, at his own expense, drainage structures at entrances and exits, which will become an integral part of the existing drainage system. The Board of County Commissioners or their representative, prior to installation, must approve the dimensions and types of all drainage structures. Note: This permit shall he made available at the site where and when work is being done. A work sketch or drawing of the proposed driveway(s) must accompany application. No permit will be Issued without drawing, blueprint, or sketch, nAad IAN 111.4 STATE OF COL EXHIBIT John W Hickentooper, Governor Christopher E. Urbino, MD, MPH t=xeceave Director and Chief Medical Officer Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment ol the people of Colorado .4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, Colorado 60246-1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 Localed in Glendale. Colorado hticd/www.odphe. s iate.Co. us January 20, 2012 Charles Ellsworth Frontier Paving Inc. 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Re. Permit #12GA1083 Dear Applicant: Laboratory Services Division 8100 Lowry Dtvd. Denver, Colorado 80230.6928 (303) 692-3090 Colorado Department of Public Health mid Environment The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division has received and logged in your construction permit application for a hot mix asphalt plant to be operated at a location approximately 1/3 of a mile east of the Garfield County Airport on County Road 315. This hot mix asphalt plant is currently permitted at a different location under permit number 0700457. The permit number assigned to this equipment at the new location is 12GA1083. Your application is now ready for initial review, If you should have any questions concerning the status of your permit application, please contact me at 303.692.2285. When ceiling, please reference the permit number listed above. You can also research the status of your application online at http:/fwww.cdphe,state.co.usfapisslsspcpt.htmt. The next step in processing your construction permit application is to determine if all of the information we need is contained within your application. If so, we will begin our preliminary engineering analysis. If any information is missing, however, we will contact you in the near future to obtain the needed material. State taw requires that the Division determine the completeness of an application within 60 days of receipt. If you do not hear from the Division by 02/27/2012, you can assume that your application is complete. Sincerely, Paul Rusher Construction Permit Unit Jeff Simonson From: Charles Ellsworth [Charles cr FrontierPavinglnc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:55 AM To: Jeff Simonson; Damian Ellsworth Subject: Fw: GP03 Original Message ---- From: Hancock, Chip To: Charles Ellsworth Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:55 AM Subject: RE: GP03 Charles, Per our discussion, if the land disturbance is 25 then a land development permit is needed (see http:llwww.cdphe.state.co.us(regulations/a rue R K "Chip" Hancock 111, P.E. Construction Permits Unit Supervisor Stationary Sources Program Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Envirc 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 802464530 303-692-31681 r.hancock@state.co.us Page 1 of 1 more mi., 4 k 51 From: Charles Ellsworth [mailto:Charles a@FrontierPavingInc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:39 AM To: Hancock, Chip Subject: RE: GP03 Chip, Do we need a permit for a land improvement project that would disturb 20 acres an a site of 36 acres besides the SWMP permit? Thanks, Charles Ellsworth 1/26/2012 _j_I P1111 AHO RETAIN THIS COPY BEFORE AFFIXING TO THE PACKAGE. NO POUCH NEEDED. f._1 EA 0 r_ ery Signature Options C1 JP, EXHIBIT ,! L. .•P a A A a 4,5 d Qfl 4 0 cs 3 r9 STATE OF COLORADO lack ated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people o•. Colorado 4300 Cherry Geek Dr. S. Denver. Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 602.2000 TDD Lane {300) 691.7700 Located in Glendale, Colorado hVo ; iwurn.cdphe.slate.co. us Color2do Department of PAL Health andEnvironment For Agency Use Only Permit Number Assigned COR03- Date Received ! r Month Day Year COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM {CAPS} STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES APPLICATION PHOTO COPIES, FAXED COPIES, PDP COPIES OR EMAILS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Please print or type. Original signatures are required. All items must be completed accurately and in their entirety for the application to be deemed complete. Incomplete applications will not be processed until ail information is received which will ultimately delay the issuance of a permit- if more space is required to answer any question, please attach additional sheets to the application form. Applications must be submitted by mail or hand delivered to: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South WQCD-P-B2 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Any additional information that you would like the Division to consider in developing the permit should be provided with the application. Examples include effluent data andior modeling and planned pollutant removal strategies. PERMIT INFORMATION Reason for Application: l q NEW CERT 0 RENEW CERT EXISTING CERT # Applicant is:r Property Owner 0 Contractor/Operator A. CONTACT INFORMATION - NOT ALL CONTACT TYPES MAY APPLY * indicates required *PERMITTEE (If more than one please add additional pages) *ORGANIZATION FORMAL NAME: j+QQrij E)c Or r(" ) J t• 1) *PERMITTEE the person authorized to sign and certify the permit application. This person receives all permit correspondences and is legally responsible for compliance with the permit. Responsible Position (Title): ibex J `c. ,u° 31,a Currently Held By (Person): C /\ri / :y Telephone No: g .) r:, • Q c J email address Char I C") -+;re p. Organization: /3C%, rack of c-Nk.r <-p 1-1-C Mailing Address: /Oid] ro.x.n'1- A' 3 1 City: State: CO kr a diD zip: Q /6+9 $) This form must be signed by the Permittee (listed in Item 1)to be considered complete. Per Regulation 61 in all cases, it shall be signed as follows: a) In the case of Corporations, by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, the responsible corporate officer is responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge described in the application originates. b) in the case of a partnership, by a general partner, c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor. d) In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official page 1 of 5 revised April 2011 2) DMR COGNIZANT OFFICIAL (Le. authorized agent) the person or position authorized to sign and certify reports required by the Division including Discharge Monitoring Reports `DMR's, Annual Reports, Compliance Schedule submittals, and other information requested by the Division. The Division will transmit pre-printed reports (ie. OMR`s) to this person. if more than one, please add additional pages. Same As 1) Permittee Q Responsible Position (Title): tot r ( t PIN? S :COh T Currently Held By (Person): b . ri 1 ; R ,ij , J j S ;o, r 4.-/N Telephone Na: 9 r) ' Cj fl •. [� �� email address (Ea,r� ; r n.° �.rT i"a) Organization: FC6 •sem 7 'P r ('k.. ,` V. I rt) Mailing Address: /0 lot CO 17 `P Cpac +� City: f Co State: 6/0 WO 0 Zip: g l C,2' j - ) Per Regulation 61 : All reports required by permits, and other information requested by the Division shall be signed by the permittee or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: (i) The authorization is made in writing by the permittee (ii) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position); and (iii) The written authorization is submitted to the Division 3) *SITE CONTACT local contact for questions relating to the facility & discharge authorized by this permit for the facility. x Same As 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): Currently Held By (Person): Telephone No: %L.0 , CC r7'' email address Organization: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: 4) * BILLING CONTACT if different than the permittee Responsible Position (Title); Currently Held By (Person): Telephone No: email address Organization: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Page 2 of 5 revised April 2011 5) OTHER CONTACT TYPES (check below) Add pages If necessary: ResponsiblePosition (Title)„ r Y . *JC. r` 0,4. Currently Heid By (Person): et 5,`rr { rJ 5 ro Q• 1 en Telephone No: f 7 ► • 31'," 1 •_ 9 040 email address .3@1 '" S r 59 nn - , r C.• CU tY\ Organization: iti/, ms tY) ev R Mailing Address: 11 g w 6'"h S+-rce,.4 , ;re 0 6) City: G / e 4'1," t.: r.Q lors5s . State: C0/0 1'4 isd o Zip: / 60 o Pretreatment Coordinator o Environmental Contact o Biosolids Responsible Party o Property Owner El Inspection Facility Contact C Consultant fi Compliance Contact Fl Stormwater MS4 Responsible Person (.1 Stormwater Authorized Representative 0 Other B. Permitted Project/Facility Information Project/Facility Name ed rt2rbc.K g-eS D & r`c . L. C, en m (rq K 5 Street Address or cross streets Ey5T 4Lo of -C,4451 150h Feet C it 3 5 :L (e.g., "S. of Park St. between 5th Ave. and 10`x' Ave.", or "W, side of C.R. 21, 3.25 miles N. of Hwy LO"; A street name without an address, intersection, mile marker, or other identifying information describing the location of the project Is not adequate. For linear projects, the route of the project should be described as best as possible with the location more accurately indicated by a map.) City, 1 t zip code S I, 52. County 6 c r clo vice Facility Latitude/Longltude— (approximate center of site to nearest 15 seconds using one of foliowing formats 001A Latitude 3f;31¢°'3.. Longitude (e.g., 39.703'. 164.933°1 degrees (to 3 decimal pieces) degrees (to 3 decimal places) or 001A Latitude ° " Longitude ° " (e.g., 39°4611"N, 104°53' 11'W) degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds For the approximate center point of the property, to the nearest 15 seconds. The latitude and longitude must be provided as either degrees, minutes, and seconds, or in decimal degrees with three decimal places. This information may be obtained from a variety of sources, including: a Surveyors or engineers for the project should have, or be able to calculate, this information. o EPA maintains a web -based siting tool as part of their Toxic Release Inventory program that uses interactive maps and aerial photography to help users get latitude and longitude. The siting tool cart be accessed at www.epa.gov/tri/report/siting_tool/indexx.htm o US. Geological survey topographical map(s), available at area map stores. o Using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit to obtain a direct reading. Note: the latitude/longitude required above is not the directional degrees, minutes, and seconds provided on a site legal description to dune property boundaries. C. MAP (Attachment) If no man is submitted, the permit will not be issued. Map: Attach a map that indicates the site location and that CLEARLY shows the boundaries of the area that will be disturbed. Maps must be no larger than 11x1.7 inches. D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal description: If subdivided, provide the legal description below, or indicate that it is not applicable (do not supply Township/Range/Section or metes and bounds description of site) Subdivision(s): Lot(s): Block(s): OR k Not applicable (site has not been subdivided) page 3 of 5 revised April 2011 E. AREA OF ONSTRUCTION SI E Total area of project site (acres): 3 5 7? Area of project site to undergo disturbance (acres): 4 Note: aside from clearing, grading and excavation activities, disturbed areas also include areas receiving overburden (e.g., stockpiles), demolition areas, and areas with heavy equipment/vehicle traffic and storage that disturb existing vegetative cover Total disturbed area of Larger Common Nan of Development or Sale, if applicable: %u% (i.e., total, including ail phases, filings, lots, and infrastructure not covered by this application) Provide both the total area of the construction site, and the area that will undergo disturbance, in acres. Note: aside from clearing, grading and excavation activities, disturbed areas also include areas receiving overburden (e.g., stockpiles), demolition areas, and areas with heavy equipment/vehicle traffic and storage that disturb existing vegetative cover (see construction activity description under the APPLICABILITY section on page 1). If the project is part of a larger common plan of development or sale (see the definition under the APPLICABILITY section an page 1), the disturbed area of the total plan must also be included. F. NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Check the appropriate box(s) or provide a brief description that indicates the general nature of the construction activities. (The full description of activities must be included in the Stormwater Management Plan.) Single Family Residential Development Multi -Family Residential Development Commercial Development Oil and Gas Production and/or Exploration (including pad sites and associated infrastructure) Highway/Road Development (not including roadways associated with commercial or residential development) Other -- Description: co k ;,0 r`r F S ` t 2 Cc S ► uc.�Q 4 . c4. fay //' :z.li P, *' c l fr _� Cv A. trcx 511,e G. ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction Start Date: f e r y C 20l Final Stabilisation Date: 1�e� • Construction Stort Date - This is the day you expect to begin ground disturbing activities, including grubbing, stockpiling, excavating, demolition, and grading activities, * Final Stabilization Date- in terms of permit coverage, this is when the site is finally stabilized. This means that all ground surface disturbing activities at the site have been completed, and all disturbed areas have been either built on, paved, or a uniform vegetative cover has been established with an individual plant density of at least 70 percent of pre -disturbance levels. Permit coverage must be maintained until the site is finally stabilized. Even if you are only doing one part of the project, the estimated final stabilization date must be for the overall project. If permit coverage is still required once your part is completed, the permit certification may be transferred or reassigned to a new responsible entity(s). H. RECEIVING WATERS (If discharge is to a ditch or storm sewer, include the name of the ultimate receiving waters) Immediate Receiving Water(s): 1111 4z rvi m C rreQ f( Ultimate Receiving Water(s): Cc/o : ra rOi t !C Identify the receiving water of the stormwater from your slte, Receiving waters are any waters of the State of Colorado. This includes all water courses, even if they are usually dry. If stormwater from the construction site enters a ditch or storm sewer system, identify that system and Indiicate the ultimate receiving water for the ditch or storm sewer. Note; a stormwater discharge permit does net allow a discharge into a ditch or storm sewer system without the approval of the owner/operator of that system_ page 4 of 5 revised April 2011. I. REQUIRED SIGNATURES (Both parts i. and li. must be signed) Signature of applicant: The applicant must be either the owner andloroperator of the construction site. Refer to Part B of the Instructions for additional information. The application must be signed by the applicant to be considered complete. in all case , it shall be signed as follows: (Regulation 62.4 (lei) a) In i he case of corporations, by the responsible corporate officer is responsible for the overall operation of the facility Fram which the discharge described In the form originates b) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner, c} in the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor. d) In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer, ranking elected official, (a principal executive officer has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates). STOP!: St. rmwater U ana t -;m 5+ it: - f+il.wiinc• Y'fir < 't i. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION "I certify under penalty of law that a complete Stormwater Management Plan, has been prepared for my activity. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the Stormwater Management Plan is, to the best cif my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for falsely certifying the completion of said SWMP, includi�oss� i. , bid Y of fine and men for icnawing violations." xx i.rL,, Signature of Legally Responsible Person or Authorized Agent (submission must include original signature) C A co- -1115 kit') r` fk 17) a_ A.:a• Ci r Title Name (printed} Dateigned ii. SIGNATURE OF PERMIT LEGAL CONTACT 'I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the passibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." "I understand that submittal of this application is for coverage under the State of Colorado General Perrnitfor Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity for the entirety of the construction site/project described and applied for, until such time as the application is amended or the certificati n i transferred, inactivated, or expired." xx_ ry2n ve.r /' oI.2_ Signature of Legally Responsible Person (submission must include original signature) Date Signed L o.t" , )/S tn%ni 011)a &let) Q I Name (printed Title DO NOT INCLUDE A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DO NOT INCLUDE PAYMENT AN INVOICE WILL BE SENT AFTER THE CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED. page 5 of 5 revised April 2011 a EXHIBIT M r' BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC. Construction and Operational Dust Management Plan 0496 County Road 315 Silt, Colorado 81652 January 23, 2012 The construction for this project is scheduled to start in early February and be completed by late April 2012. Frontier Paving Inc. will be performing all of the site improvement work. Frontier has arranged for construction water from the Last Chance Ditch Company. The site earthwork construction is primarily a cut to excess. There is a small amount of engineered fill where the shop and equipment storage budding is located. The excess excavation will primarily be used for berm construction to reduce noise and visibility for the adjacent property owners. Dust control for the site construction work will be done with a 4000 gallon water truck as needed. Because the site is a cut to excess site, the water truck will be used primarily for dust control. The topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled prior to any earthwork construction. Once the earthwork is completed, the topsoil will be placed and tracked in on all berms and disturbed areas that do not receive a gravel surface. The topsoil will be adequately wet prior to tracking to achieve a crust. We anticipate the revegetation to take place early spring 2012, if the completion of construction is too late for a spring planting, then it we be completed in the fall of 2012. The first 300 feet of the road coming in from County Road 315 will be paved. The remaining road up to and around the asphalt plant and the shop and parking areas will be graveled and mag chloride applied. We anticipate applying mag -chloride twice the first year and then as needed after that. The asphalt plant pad will be approximately 20 feet lower than existing ground level. The excess excavation from this and the other site earthwork will be used to build earth berms. There will be a berm constructed on the West side of the aggregate stockpiles. This berm will be approximately 5 feet taller than the proposed stockpiles. There will be another berm on the North and East side of the plant. This berm will be approximately 30 feet tall. The height and location of these berms will' help block the prevailing winds from the West and aid in dust control for the aggregate stockpiles and the plant site. We will water the roadways between the stockpiles as well as the stockpiles when needed. We believe that the design of the plant site and the stockpile area will help alleviate the ongoing problem with fugitive dust caused by the prevailing west to east winds. Sincerely, Charles Ellsworth Jeff Simonson From: Charles Ellsworth [Charles@FrontierPavinglnc.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:39 AM To: Jeff Simonson Subject: Fw: Bedrock Resources Well Attachments: 120126.NDG.Whitehead. Enclosed w_General Purpose Water Well Permit Application & Check for $100.PDF; 120127. Letter - J. Simonson to NDG re_ 600 -foot spacing.PDF; submitted Well Construction and Test Report - 287244, Drillers log.PDF Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT Iv 'v Original Message ----- From: Nicole D. Garrimone To: charies@frontierpavinginc.com ; Damian Cc: David D. Smith Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 207 PM Subject: Bedrock Resources Well Charlie and Darman, Attached is the well permit application we submitted to Dwight Whitehead with the Division of Water Resources (DOWR) yesterday. Also attached is a letter from Jeff Simonson regarding 600 - foot spacing that we submitted today to supplement the application. Finally, Wayne Shelton filed his Well Construction and Test Report with the DONVR, a copy of which is also attached. Dwight did a. preliminary review of the application yesterday, and he recommended that we increase the maximum proposed pumping rate (we requested only 5 g.p.m. based on Wayne's production estimate). That way, if you ever deepen or improve the well so that it is able to produce more water, the permitted pumping rate will allow for the increased productivity. We agreed and authorized Dwight to increase the pumping rate on the application to 15 g.p.m. 1 will let you know when the well permit is issued. Nicole Nicole D. Garrimone Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 8 1601 phone: (970) 947-1936 fax: (970)947-1937 toll free: (877) 947-1936 ngarrimonet i;garfieldhecht.com NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. if the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. if you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (970-947-1936) and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. Tax Advice Disclosure: Any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be use and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending any entity, investment plan or other transaction. 1130/2012 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Ccnter 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8 160 E Telephone (970) 947-1936 Facsimile (970) 947-1937 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 ww w. garfieldhec h t.cam Nicole 13. Garrimone. Esq. ngarrimone garfreldhech1.conn Hand Delivered January 26, 2012 Dwight Whitehead Colorado Division of Water Resources Water Division No. 5 202 Center Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Bedrock Resources, LLC -- Application for Water Well Permit Dear Dwight: Enclosed is a General Purpose Water Well Permit Application (Form GWS -45) for processing on behalf of Bedrock Resources, LLC. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $100 for the required application fee. The application is for an existing well, permitted as Well Permit No. 287244. Shelton Drilling Corp. drilled the well and should be faxing you a copy of the Well Construction and Test Report today. The well is augmented pursuant to West Divide Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract # 120119BR(a). A copy of the contract is enclosed for your reference. Please contact me if you need any additional information to process this request. Enclosures cc: Bedrock Resources, LLC 782405-1 Sincerely, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. , , e.06, L r, �f•C•t 1. - t. Nicole D. Garrimone Aspen • Avon • Basalt • Glenwood Springs • Rifle Printed on recycled paper COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST, RM 81B, DENVER, CO 80203 phone — info: (303) 866-3587 main: (303) 866-3581 fax: (303) 866-3589 htlp://www.water.state.co.us GENERAL PURPOSE Water Well Permit Application Review Instructions on reverse side prior to completing tomb. The toren must be completed in black or blue ink or typed. Office Use Only Form GWS -45 (0712009) 1. Applicant Information Name of applicanl Bedrock Resources, LLC Meiirhg address 1014 CR 311 City New Castle StateZip J��de 81647 Telephone (970)876-0916 6. Use Of Well (check applicable boxes) Attach a detailed description of uses applied for. Industrial ❑ Municipal ® Irrigation ® Commercial ❑ Dewatering System ❑ Geotherrnal (0 production or 0 reinjection) Other (describe): Fire Protection, Pond Filling E-mail (Opbonri ch a ries @f ro nt ie rpavi n g i nc. com 7. Well Data (proposed) 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) WWI MUM pumping rate Annual amount to be withdrawn 5 gpm 1.5 acre-feet ❑ Construct newwetl ID Replace existing well CC Use existing well ❑ Change or increase use El Change source (aquifer) ❑ Reapplication (expired permit) ❑ CoGCC well ❑ Other: Total depth Aqui 250 feet tributary 8. Land On Which Ground Water Will Be Used 3. Refer To (if applicable) Wali permit 0 287244 Water Cole case a n/a Designated Basin Determination a Wel name or 0 Bedrock Resources Well No 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! See Instructions) Legal Description {may be provided as an attachment) See Attachment A (tf used for crop irrigation, attach a scaled map that shows irrigated area. county Garfield Section Township Nor S 18 NW va of the SE 114 Range E or W 6 ❑® 92 El 21 Prinapal Mandan 6th P.M. A. *Acres B. Owner 35.72 acres Bedrock Resources, LLC Distance of wee from section hnea {section lines are typically not property lines) 2,325 Ft. from ❑ N 1.' S 1,890 FL trom MEOW For replacement wells orly — distance and direction hem old wel to new well feel direction C. List any other wails or water nghts used an this land n/a Wel location address (Include City, Stale, Zip) 0 Check if well address is sane as m horn 1. tbd County Road 315, Garfield County, CO Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must check GPS unit for required settings ss rotiows: 9. Proposed Well Driller License #(aptional): 10. Signature Of Applicant(s) Or Authorized Agent The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the Contents thereof and slate that they are � true to my knowledge. �l �Jf�py Signsignature) } �(& FJ,L.Cv Gi�i-tf/(.t, ///.. 1. ` Fom,al must ba UTM ❑ Zone 12 or 1:7 Zone 13 Units must be Meters Datum nest be NADU Unit must be sal to true forth Was GPS unit checked for above? 0 YES Eacting Northing Remember to set Datum to NAD83 nt narrie&tide Nicole O. Garrimone, attorney, Garfield & Hecht, P.C. Office Use Only USGS map dame DWR map ho.. Surlace elev 5. Parcel On Which Well Will Be Located (YOU MUST ATTACH A CURRENT DEED FOR THE SUBJECT PARCELL A. Legal Description Irner be provided as en attachment): See Attachment A — property deed with legal description B. ry of acres in parcel 35.72 acres C. Owner Bedrock Resources, LLC D. Wil tris be the orry well on Ns pared? Li YES ONO (if no — list other wets) E. Slats Parcel ID! (optional). AQUAMAP WE WR CWCe TOPO MYLAR 5B5 Receipt area only RNWD BA MD 111APIPZi 'fit'ri 11 V,Ifglfr<ir1011iw u141 Recap t i Dna . 6025e4 e5,15i2Cnl 02.19:12 :!m J.an ri ieee Lae r el 2 Rae o:ee-inn OD One re. :25.50 9KtrIELD COUNTY CO Recorded at o'clock Reception No. Recorder WARRANTY DEED IRIS DEED. made on May I I , 2011 Batmen Spec Laity Taverna, lot, a Nevada Corporation a e r ubon duly organirad mod twisting nodes and by rime of the taw's of the Stec of JJV of the Orsi pan. and ATTACHMENT A Bedrock Rooartes. LLC Mose kpl address is: 1014 County Road 311 . CO $1647 of the County of Garfield and Slate of CO of the second pan: WITNESSETH, Therto said party of the first part. for lad in con ration of the sum of $135,000.00 DOLLARS. no the said patsy of the fent pert in hand paid by the said parties of the second pert the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and adotvw edged, hes grassed bargained, sold and conveyed and by these presents does gran. barge a sell, convey and co^fma tato the said parties of the second part. its suce saves and assigns forever. all of the RA lowing described eat or parcel of bed, ,rmate, tying sod bring in the County of Garfield and Sale or Ceiceade. eo wit: Scx Attached Exhibit "A" TO(]E`ti'lER with ail and >arnaalr the besodiuoretns and appurtenznet5 thereto belonging, or in anywise apperuiainy, and the reversion and .i7 reversions, remainder and remninders, moss. intim and profess thereof, and all Ule [stale, right, title, interest, claim and demand v i rssoe er of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in std to rhe Mow bttrgained pmnlscs. Wills the lantditarnenO and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLE? the said premises above bargairvd and desexmbad, with the appunenmeca, unto the sand pasties of rhe secand part. as s xessars and assigns forever. AM the said Specialty Tavmu. Inc. a Nevada Corporation. party of the first pat for itswf. red as successors, doe, advertise, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the said parties of the second part. ik awwrs o55 and assigns, that s the lirnc of the easesling and delivery of these presents, it Is well seized of the premises above conveyed, as of good. size, perfect, gaol= and ind fessibk calm of inheriluxx in law, in Re simple, and has good nee, full pawn and lawful adbority to grant, bargainn, sell and convey the same in manner and farm _ as aforesaid, and that the acne are !Mt and Guar from di framer and other graora, bargains. Saks, hens. urn, wucam,ant5, wlnnmhrsnxn and rc wridit%fs of v uteva kid or none Meyer except wend tares and asseSSanaiIs for the year 2011 and subsequent years and all those specific rv.1 exceptions described by reftreue to recorded documents ea reflected in Cornonotraealth TIN{ Company's Cornus urv. No. 1105003 TRGC. and the abova-barpared rename in the grim, and peaceable possession of else said parties of !hc second bare. its sucees,ars and assign asst en and very parson w persons lawfully claiming. Ilea whale or any part llrseof, the sad party of the Grit part shall and will WARRANTY AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singular number shill include one pineal and the pbtal the si rgulet, and the use of any gender shall he afnpticeble to dl genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. The said party of the first pan hen cawed its °orpe ate r 01110 W be hereunto subscribed by its V is Prcsidont, and NS :Depurate seal to be hezermto slltlxed, the day and year Net above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE Ira The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on May 1__, 2011. by Dennis J. Stahl, Via Prcaiderec+t of Specialty Tavcros. Inc. a Nevada Corporation. My corroniWon exp er 3 -a s- I .14 Cwner..eatlh Fie tis.. 1la1 (1 TRf.0 Raw. . 1.Ont Ra..or, iii FISH eek aoa 311 NAM C CO. tiara WTINESS ma hand and orncis I seal j Notary public MIME M. KELLUM Gosdaataa f limo Mgdry 1rCMC • GtlldmLlt Coady Lam lzaial !Mir t, 2014 11161:1011414 IliIIMIO CVIr,llrIrfilitBP Receptinne: 882'564 051l3/201i 02:39-42 Pe Jean Alberto* 2 of 2 Rea Fee 316.00 Doc Pee:25 50 GARFIELO cDURrr Co Fife. No. 1105005 'TGC EXHIBIT "A" A tract of land being situated in Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said tract of land being described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the Southeast comer of said Section 18 bears 5.04°06'53"E. 1304.87 feet, said point being an aluminum cap, PLS No. 31944 found in place; thence 5.88°44'03"W. 1003.93 feet to a point on the Northeasterly Right of Way of Garfield County Road No. 315; thence along said Right of Way the following five courses: 1) thence 454.05 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right having a radius of 558.40 feet, a central angle of 46°35'18" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.40°56'34"W. 441.64 feet; 2) thence 271.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 919.50 feel, a central angle of 16°53'12" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.26°0531"W. 270.02 feet; 3) thence N.34°32'06"W. 151.77 feet; 4) thence 465.64 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 799.92 feet, a central angle of 33°21'08" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.51°12'40- W. 459.09 feet; 5) thence 59.71 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 783.33 feet, a central angle of 04°22'04" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.65°42'12'W. 59.70 feet; thence departing said Right of Way N.8I°24'12°E. 39.30 feet; thence N.75°59"58"E. 43.68 feet; thence N.54°42'50"E. 125.13 feet; thence N.41°58'31"E. 98.48 feet; thence N.46°15'00°E. 56.32 feet; thence N,58°03'49"E. 148.75 feet; thence N.72°51'07°E. 70.62 feet; thence N.89°30' 19'E, 79.15 feet; thence 5.68°53'03°E. 71.82 fent; thence 5.68°3829°E. 108.08 feet; thence S.80°55'21 "E. 78.00 feet; thence N.74°39'03"E. 73.66 feet; thence N.58°04'05"E. 135.69 feet; thence N.82°36'32'E. 46.72 feet; thence S.7V 57'56"E. 84.78 feet~ thence S.84°32'15"E. 133.17 feet; thence S.60°58'16'E. 75.18 feet; thence S.02°37'57"E. 120.69 feet; thence S.23°17'10"E. 12136 feet; thence 5.30°14'52"E. 141.32 feet; thence S.35°47'40'E. 151,00 feet; thence 5.30°56'09"E. 126.67 feet; thence S.42°08"11"E. 92.15 feet thence S.73°5126"E. 99.23 feet; thence N.64°09'45'E. 112.73 feet; thence N.55°12'50"E. 55.15 feet; thence S.00°43'33'E. 638.39 feet to the Point of Beginning. APPLICATION TO LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 818 Taughenbaugh Blvd. #101, P. O. Box 1478, Rifle, Colorado 81650 i. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Bedrock Resources. LLC Mailing address: 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 0647 Telephone: 197919885394 Email: fillallesaleonlionatricanc.eoril Authorized agent: Nicole Gault -none. Garfield & Hecit. t'C. 2. COURT CASE lits: Decree Case No. N/A Augmentation Plan Case No. N/A 3. USE OF WATER RESIDENTIAL Number of main residences: No. ADU's Subdivision: No. constructed units: No. vacant lots _ Home garden/lawn irrigation of total sq. ft. Method of irrigation: flood sprinkler other_ Non-commercial animal watering of animaIs Fire Protection Evaporation: Maximum water surface to be exposed: Description of any use, other than evaporation, and method of diversion, rate of diversion, and annual amount of diversion of any water withdrawn from the pond: Well Sharing Agreement for multiple owner welts must be submitted. If greater than two owners, application must be made under a homeowners association. COMMERCIAL Number of units: 2 Total sq. ft. of commercial units: 6,440 sf Description of use: Sanitary us .Jnside2 commercial buildInoe to serve a_ c. rrtbined tat 12 employ es art�i drip Irfgatlan to sate ish_bruah ono tree vegetation. INDUSTRIAL Description of use: Filling and refilling of fire protection pond and replacement of evaporation from the fire protection Pond. dust suooression. and fire orotectton uses. Evaporation: Maximum water surface to be exposed: 1.325 51 Description of any use, other than evaporation, and method of diversion, rate of diversion, and annual amount of diversion of any water withdrawn from the pond: y pumping from the wet or Pond Per amounts orLthe attache enoinetering chart DIRECT PUMPING Tributary: Location: 4. SOURCE OF WATER Structure: Well Structure Name: Bedrock Resources Well No. 1 Source: surface storage_ ground water x Current Permit # 287244 fmonitorinst welt} (attach copy) EXHIBIT I OO Contract #12O119BR(a) Map # 643 Date Approved: 1/19/12 5. LOCATION OF STRUCTURE Garfield County 18 Section NW114 Quarter/quaver 6 South Township Distance of well from section lines: 2.325 feet iron the South Section line 1.890 feet iretn_[he_EasLSection line 92 West Range SE114 Quarter 6th P. M. Elevation: 436 feet Weil !oration address: Jbd County Road 315. Darfiet4Cojnty (Attach additional pages for multiple structures) 6, LAND ON WHICH WATER WILL BE USED (Legal deseripuon may be provided as an attachment.) See attached Exhibit "A". Number of acres in tract: approx. 35.72; acres Inclusion into the District, at Applicant's expense, may be required. 7. TYPE OF SEWAGE SYSTEM Septic tank/absorption leach field X Central System Other District name: 8. VOLUME OF LEASED WATER NEEDED IN ACRE FEET: i.5 acre-feet (minimum of ] acre foot except augmentation from Alsbury Reservoir where a lesser amount is allowed) Provide engineering data to support volume of water requested. Commercial, municipal and industrial users must provide diversion and consumptive data an a monthly basis. A totalizing tow meler with remote readout is required to be installed and usage reported to West Divide. Applicant expressly acknowledges it has had the opportunity 10 review the District's form Water Allotment Contract and agrees this application is made pursuant and subject to the terms and conditions contained titercirr. ere— Applicant Sigr Applicant Signature Application Date: January 11.2012 ISSUED AS AREA B CONTRACT YES ,tNo Printed portions of this form, except differentiated additions or deletions, have been approved and adopted by the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Form : IWDWCD 2009 APPLICATION EXHIBIT "A" A tract of land being situated in Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said tract of land being described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the Southeast corner of said Section 18 bears 5.04°06'53"E. 1304.87 feet, said point being an aluminum cap, PLS No. 31944 found in place, thence 5.88°44'03'W. 1003.93 feet to a point on the Northeasterly Right of Way of Garfield County Road No. 315; thence along said Right of Way the Following five courses: 1) thence 454.05 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right having a radius of 558.40 feet, a central angle of 46°35'18" and sub -tending a chard which bears N.40°5634"W. 441.64 feet; 2) thence 271.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 419.50 feet, a central angle of 16°53'12" and sub -tending a chard which bears N.26°05'31 "W. 270.02 feet; 3) thence N.34°32'06"W. 151.77 feet; 4) thence 465.64 feet along the are of a curve to the left having a radius of 799.92 feet, a central angle of 33°21'08" and sub -tending a chard which bears N.51°1240"W. 459.09 feet; 5) thence 59.71 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 78333 feet, a central angle of 04°22'04" and sub -tending a chord which bean N.65°42'12"W. 59.70 feet; thence departing said Right of Way N.81°24'1 2"E. 39.30 feet; thence N.75°5958"E. 4168 feet; thence N.54'42`50"E. 125.13 feet; thence N.41°58'31'E. 98.48 feet; thence 14.4695'00"E. 56.32 feet; thence N.58°03'49"E. 148.75 feet; thence N.72°5107"13. 70.62 feet; thence N.89330'19"E. 79.15 feet; thence 8.68°53103"E. 71.82 feet; thence S.63°3329"E. 108.08 feet; thence 3.80°5521"E. 78.00 fent; thence N.74°39'03"E. 73.66 feet; thence N_58°04'05"E. 135.69 feet; thence N.82°36'32"E. 46.72 feet„ thence 5.73°57'56"E. 84.78 feet; thence 5.84°3215"E. 133.17 feet; thence 5.60358'16"E. 75.18 feet; thence 5.02°37'57"F.. 120.69 feet; thence 3.23°t 710"E. 121.36 feat; thence 5.30°14'52"E. 141.82 feet; thence 535"47'40"E. 151.00 feet thence S.30°56'09"E. 126.67 feet; thence S.42°08'11' "E. 92.I5 feet* thence S.73°51'26"E. 99.23 feet; thence N.64°09'45"E. 112.73 feet; thence N.55°12'50"E 55.15 feet; thence S.00043'33"E. 638.39 feet to the Paint of Beginning. Form No GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg , 1313 Sherman Si„ Deriver. Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC 1014 COUNTY ROAD 311 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647- r� 1095 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 287244 DIV. 5 WD45 DES, BASIN MD APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY 1/4 SE 1(4 Section 18 Township 6 S Range 92 W Sixth P.M DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES Ft. from Section Line Ft. from Section Line (970) 876-0916 UTM COORDINATES (1deters.Zone:13.4YADB3) PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL Easting: Northing ISSUANCE OF THS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPJ{OVAL 1) This weir shall be used in such s way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not ensure that no ut}ury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil Court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2. unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Wel Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(I) for uses as described in CRS 37-92.602(1)(f). Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels andfor water quality sampling. This well is knovm as Bedrock Resources Monitoring/Observation Well no. t. 4) This well must be equipped wnh a locking cap or seal to prevent well contamination or possible hazards es an open well. The well muss 1 e kept capped and locked at all limes except during sampling or measuring. 5) Records of water level measurements and weber quality analyses shall be maintained by the well owner and submitted to the Division of 1Naler Resources upon request. ) Upon concivaion of the monitoring progrem the well owner shall plug thio welt In accordance with Rule 16 of the Water Well Construction Rule9. A Wel Abandonment Report must be completed and submitted to the Division of Water Resources within 60 days of plugging. 71 The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with the well permit number and name of aquifer as appropriate, and shaii take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 8) This well must be constructed by or under the supervision of a lioenseed well driller or other authorized individual according to the Water Well Construction Rules. if non-standard construction is anticipated, a variance request must be submitted in accordance with Rule 18 and approved prior to well construction. 9) A Well Construction and Test Report (Form GWS -31), including lithologle log must be submitted by the irtdMdual authorized to construct the well. For non-standard construction, the report must include an as -built drawing showing detalla such as depth, casing, perforated zones. ano a description of the grouting type and interval. 10) Pursuant to Rule 6.2.3 of the (Nater Well construction Rules, the well construction contractor shall submit the es -built well location on work reports required by Rule 17.3 within 60 days of completion of the well. The measured location must be accurate to 200 teal of the actual location. The location information must include a GPS location (UTM coordinates) pursuant to the Division of Water Resources' guidelines. NOTE. Issuance of this permit does not guarantee that this well can be converted toe production well under a future permit Additionally, pursuant fo Rule 14.2 of the Water Well Construction Rules (2 CCR 402-2), monitoring holes constructed pursuant to a monitoring hole notice shall not be converted to a production wet. (Upon obtaining a permit from the State Engineer, a monitoring hole may be converted to a monitoring wen, recovery well for remediation or the aquifer, or a dewatering system tor dewatering the aquifer) NOTE. Section 18 Is an irregular "Narrow' section. NOTE Parcel identification Number (PIN): 23-2179-184-00-720 NOTE. Assessor Tax Schedule Number: R043559 (totaling 35.72 acres) /2712-5/,<A 19/f APPROVED DMW ,Receipt No. 9503513 Stale Engin DATE ISSUED 12-14-2011 By EXPIRATION DATE 12-14-2013 ., 71.1. ,!.'.r��•r Monthly Diversion Table 88888 888 8 A 8$ ` 88 0 6 . 0 8 E • a 1 88888 8• fis o 6 i 1 88888 8 g 2 ig 88.888 8 26 I S r E ri M .to 4 S gM§ 88888 8 ,,.;�$ • kk -vIr $8. p p pp M O 8 8 S 8 8. C C a " 0 m N W q O 1 i R N A O p p {�S 8 8 8 8 8 8 O l y^ p• r R p It 88885 0 gg E i §§ W 1. 8 a 11n fi 8$8 8 e tE - ; 1 2 1 H- : Z a.S 0 �! r o a exp 4; f, � g 8 8 d N • w p a b d o 88 8 x 8 mr o IV a a . r + E pC I E i § 5 ;Et 3 3i i k 2 a I 1451 s€ a 1 i 5; OltS v' tor� 2 3 206 �y Consumptive Use Table Pott 88888 8 n 88. 8 R $ 8g 8 1 FIE August September October 4 a" 88888 88888 M $ 0 88888 0§§ 88888 8 CON i IO 88888 8 88888 8 Wg§ q 8888 0 n::' 8 5 0 8 88 N O 8 0 0 8 8 v Dinned Water Liao Lit 5 ArnorMiir tat 5 5 s E 16 Contract #120119BR(a) Map # 643 Date Approved: 1/19/12 WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT Mame of Applicant: _ Bedrock Resources, LLC Quantity of Water in Acre Feet: 1.5 acre-feet Applicant, hereby applies to the West Divide Water Conservancy District, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, Section 3745-101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "District") for an allotment contract to beneficially and perpetually use water or water rights owned, leased, or hereafter acquired by the District. By execution afthis Contract and the attached Application, Applicant hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions: 1. Water Rights: Applicant shall own water rights at the point ofdiversion herein lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water, which will be supplemented and augmented by water leased herein. If Applicant intends to divert through a well, it must be understood by Applicant that no right to divert exists until a valid well permit is obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, 2. Quantity., Water applied for by the Applicant in the amount set forth above shall be diverted at Applicant's point of diversion from the District's direct flow water rights, and when water is unavailable for diversion pursuant to administration by the Colorado State Engineer during periods when said direct flow water right is not in priority, the District shall release for the use of Applicant up to said quantity in acre feet per year of storage water owl ed or controlled by the District. It is understood that any quantity allotted from direct flow, storage or otherwise, to the Applicant by the District will be Limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by the physical and legal availability of water from District's sources, Any quantity allotted will only be provided so long as water is available and the Applicant fully complies with all of the terms and conditions of this Contract. The District and the Applicant recognize that some of the District's decrees may be in the pante of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the abiiity of the District to pilot direct flow right to the Applicant may be dependent on the consent of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, If at any time the Applicant determines it requires less water than the amount herein provided, Applicant may so notify the 1pistrict in writing, and the amount of water allotted under this Contract shall be reduced permanently in accordance with such notice. Rates shall be adjusted accordingly in following water years only. 3. Beneficial Use and Locatiplt of Beneficial Use: Any and ail water allotted Applicant by the District shall be used for the following beneficial use or uses: industrial, municipal, domestic and related uses, or commercial (except for commercial use from Alsbury Reservoir and except to the extent that Ruedi Reservoir water may not be available for commercial as that tern is defined on Page 5 of Contract No. 2-07-70- W0547 between the United States and the West Divide Water Conservancy District). Applicant's beneficial use of any and all water allotted shall be within or through facilities or upon land owned, leased, operated, or under Applicant's control. 4. Decrees and Delivery: Exchange releases made by the District out of storage from Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir, Alsbury Reservoir, or other works or facilities of the District, or from other sources available to the District, shall be delivered to the Applicant at the outlet works of said storage facilities or at the decreed point of diversion for said other sources, and release or delivery of water at such outlet or points shall constitute performance of the District's total obligation. Delivery of water by the District from Ruedi Reservoir or Green Mountain Reservoir shall be subject to the District's lease contracts with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Releases from other facilities available to District shall be subject to the contracts, laws, rules, and regulations governing releases therefrom. Furthermore, the District hereby expressly reserves the right to store water and to make exchange releases from structures that may he built or controlled by the District in the future, so long as the water service to the Applicant pursuant to this agreement. is not impaired by said action. Any quantity of the Applicant's allocation not delivered to or used by Applicant by the end of each water year (October 1), shall revert to the water supplies of the District. Such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any refund of paytnent made for such water. Water service provided by the District shall be limited to the amount of water available in priority at the original point of diversion of the District's applicable water right, and neither the District, nor those entitled to utilize the District's decrees, may call on any greater amount at new or alternate points of diversion. The District shall request the Colorado Division of Water Resources to estimate any conveyance losses between the original point and any alternate point, and such estimate shall be deducted from this amount in each case. Water service provided by the District for properties heated within the Bluestone and Silt Water Conservancy Districts is provided pursuant to Agreements with said Districts. 'fhe Intergovernmental Agreement between the District and the Silt Water Conservancy District, dated January 25, 2001, is recorded as Reception. No. 575691, Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Intergovernmental '.Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the Bluestone Water Conservancy District, dated April 26, 2001, is recorded as Reception No. 584840, Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office, 5. Alternate Point of Diversion and Plan of Augmentation: Decrees for alternate points of diversion of the District's water rights or storage water may be required in order for Applicant to use the water service contemplated hereunder. Obtaining such decree is the exclusive responsibility of Applicant. The District reserves the right to review and approve any conditions which may be attached to judicial approval of said alternate point of diversion as contemplated or necessary to serve Applicant's facilities or lands. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be solely responsible for the procedures and legal engineering costs necessary for any changes in water rights contemplated herein, and further agrees to indemnify the District from any costs or losses related thereto. Applicant is solely responsible for providing works and facilities necessary to obtain/divert the waters at said alternate point of diversion and deliver them to Applicant's intended beneficial use. Irrespective of the amount of wafer actually transferred to the Applicant's point of diversion, the Applicant shall make annual payments to the District based upon the amount of water allotted under this Contract. In the event the Applicant intends to apply for an alternate point of diversion and to develop an augmentation plan and institute legal proceedings for the approval of such augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilize the water allotted to Applicant hereunder, the Applicant shall give the District written notice of such intent. In the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates its own augmentation plan to utilize the water allotted hereunder, Applicant shall not be obligated to pay any amount under Paragraph 19 below. In any event, the District shall have the right to approve or disapprove the Applicant's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the District copies of such plan and of all pleadings and other papers filed with the water court in the adjudication thereof 6. Contract Pavment: Non-refundable, one time administrative charge, in the amount determined by the Board of Directors of the District from time to time, shall be submitted with the application for consideration by the District. 2 Annual payment for the water service described herein shall be determined by the Board of Directors of the District, The initial annual payment shall be made in full, within thirty (30) days after the date of notice to the Applicant that the initial payment is due. Said notice will advise the Applicant, among other things, of the water delivery year to which the initial payment shall apply and the price which is applicable to that year. Annual payments for each year thereafter shall be due and payable by the Applicant on or before each January 1, If an annual payment is not made by the due date a flat $50 late fee will be assessed. Final written notice prior to cancellation will be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Applicant at such address as may be designated by the Applicant in writing or set forth in this Contract or Application. Water use for any part of a water year shall require payment for the entire water year. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent the District from adjusting the annual rate in its sole discretion for future years only. If payment is not made within fifteen (15) days after the date of said written notice, Applicant shall at District's sok option have no further right, title or interest under this Contract without further notice, and delivery may be immediately curtailed. The allotment of water, as herein made, may be transferred, leased, or otherwise disposed of at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the District. Upon cancellation of this water allotment Contract with the District, the District shall notify the Division of Water Resources offices in Denver and Glenwood Springs. The Division of Water Resources may then order cessation of all water use. 7. Additional Fees and Costs: Applicant agrees to defray any expenses incurred by the District in connection with the allotment of water rights hereunder, including, but not limited to, reimbursement of legal and engineering costs incurred in connection with any water rights and adjudication necearary to allow Applicant's use of such aliened water rights. a. Assignment: This Contract shall not inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors or assigns et Applicant, without the prior written consent of the District's Board of Directors. Any assignment of Applicant's rights under this Contract shall be subject to, and must comply with, such requirements as the District may hereafter adopt regarding assignment of Contract rights and the assumption of Contract obligations by assignees and successors. Nothing herein shall prevent successors to a portion of Applicant's property from applying to the District for individual and separate allotment Contracts. No assignment shall be recognized by the District except upon completion and filing ofproper forms for assignment and change of ownership. In the event the water allotted pursuant to this Contract is to be used for the benefit of land which is now or will subsequently be subdivided or held in separate ownership, the Applicant may only assign the Applicants rights hereunder to: 11 No more than three separate owners all of whom shall be party to a well sharing agreement satisfactory to the District or 2) A homeowners association, water district, water and sanitation district or other special district properly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, and then, only if such parties, association or special district establishes to the satisfaction of the District that it has the ability and authority to perform the Applicant's obligations under this Contract. In no event shall the owner of a portion, but less than all, of the Applicant's property to be served under this Contract have any rights hereunder, except as such rights may exist pursuant to a well sharing agreement or through a homeowners association or special district as provided above. Upon the sale of the real property to which this Contract pertains, Applicant shall make buyer aware of this Contract and proper forms for assignment and change of ownership must be completed. 9. Other Rules: Applicant shall be bound by the provisions of the Water Conservancy Act of Colorado; by the Hales and regulations of the Board of Directors of the District; and all amendments thereof and supplements thereto and by all other applicable law. O. Operation and Maintenane Agreement: Applicant shall enter into an "Operation and Maintenance Agreement" with the District under terms and conditions determined by the board of Directors of the District, if and when, the Board of said District determines nes in its sole discretion that such an agreement is required. Said agreement may contain, but shall not be limited to, provisions for additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District delivery services and for additional administration, operation, and maintenance costs; or for other casts to the District which may arise through services made available to the Applicant. IL Change of [.ige; The District reserves the exclusive right to review, re -approve or disapprove any proposed change in use of the water allotted hereunder. Any use other than that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allotted hereunder without the prior written approval of the District shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Contract. 12. j se and Place of [Ise: Applicant agrees to use the water in the manner and on the property described in the documents submitted to the District at the time this Contract is executed, or in any operation and maintenance agreement provided by Applicant. Any use other than as set forth thereon or any lease or sale of the water or water rights herein,, other than as permitted in paragraph 8 above, shall be deemed to be a material breach of this agreement. 13. Title: It is understood and agreed that nothing herein shall be interpreted to give the Applicant any equitable or legal fee title interest in or to any water or water rights referred to herein. 14. Conservation: Applicant shall use commonly accepted conservation practices with respect to the water and water rights herein, and hereby agrees to be bound by any conservation plan adopted hereafter by the District for use of District owned or controlled water or water rights. 15. Restriotioti,r Applicant shall restrict actual diversions to not exceed the contract amount for ordinary household purposes, the watering of domestic livestock, fire protection, and the irrigation of lawn and garden as specified in the Application. Applicant shall also comply with all restrictions and limitations set forth in the well permit obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Watering of livestock shall be restricted to Applicant's domestic animals not to be used for commercial purposes unless Applicant obtains approval from the Colorado Division of Water Resources for commercial use/livestock watering, provided that in no event shall actual diversions exceed the amount of water provided by this Contract. Violation of this paragraph 15 shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Contract. 16. Well; Permit: If Applicant intends to divert through a well, then Applicant must provide to District a copy of Applicant's valid well permit before District is obligated to deliver any water hereunder. 17. Measuring Device or Meter: Applicant agrees to provide, at its own expense, a measuring device deemed acceptable by the District's Engineer after consultation, or a totalizing flow meter with remote readout to continuously and accurately measure at all times all 4 water diverted pursuant to the terms cif Applicant's water right and the terms of this Contract. Applicant agrees to provide accurate readings from such device or meter to District upon Districts request. Applicant acknowledges that failure to comply with this paragraph could result in legal action to terminate Applicant's diversion of water by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources. By signing this Contract, Applicant hereby specifically allows District, through its authorized agent, to enter upon Applicant's property during ordinary business hours for the purposes of determining Applicants actual use of water. 18. Representations: By executing this Contract, Applicant agrees that it is not relying on any Iegal or engineering advice that Applicant may believe has been received from the District. Applicant further acknowledges that it has obtained all necessary legal and engineering advice from Applicants awn sources other than the District. Applicant further acknowledges that the District makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances whatsoever about the quantity or quality of water available pursuant to this Contract. Should the District be unable to provide the water contracted for herein, no damages may be assessed against the District, nor may Applicant obtain a refund from the District. 19. Costs of Water Court Filing and Augmentation Plan: Should the District, in its own discretion, choose to include Applicants Contract herein in a water court filing for alternate point of diversion or plan of augmentation, then Applicant hereby agrees to pay to the District, when assessed, an additional fee representing the District's actual and reasonable costs and fees for Applicant's share of the proceedings. Applicant shall be assessed a pro -rata share of the total cost incurred by the District in preparing, filing and pursuing to decree the water court case. The pro -rata share shall be calculated by dividing such total cost by the number of contractees included in the filing. To the extent that the District is caused additional costs because of objection filed specifically due to the inclusion of Applicant's Contract in the filing, such additional costs may be charged specifically to Applicant and not shared on a pro -rata basis by all contractees. 20. Binding Agreement; This agreement shall not be complete nor binding upon the District unless attached hereto is the form entitled "Application to Lease Water From West Divide Water Conservancy District" fully completed by Applicant and approved by the Districts engineer. Said attachments shall by this reference thereto be incorporated into the teens of this agreement. All correspondence lion the District to Applicant referring to or relating to this agreement is by this reference incorporated into this agreement as further terms and conditions of this agreement. 21. Warning: IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF TILE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A VALID WELL PERMIT OR OTHER WATER RIGHT IN ORDER 10 DIVERT WATER, INCLUDING THE WATERACQUIRED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. IT IS THE CONTINUING DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE WELL PERMIT OR WATER. RIGHT INCLUDING FILING FOR EXTENSIONS OF PERMITS, FILING WELL COMPLETION REPORTS, FILING STATEMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USE, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY APPLYING THE WATER TO BENEFICIAL USE ON A REGULAR BASIS WITHOUT WASTE. 22. AREA B. CONTRACTS: IF APPLICANTS WELL OR OTI-IER WATER RIGHT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS CONTRACT IS LOCATED OW S1DE "AREA A' AS DESIGNATED BY THE DISTRICT, THEN THIS PARAGRAPH APPLIES: THE AUGMENTATION WATER PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT UNDER THIS CONTRACT MAY ONLY PROTECT APPLICANT"S WATER RIGHT PROM A CALL ON THE COLORADO RIVER AND MAY NOT PROTECT APPLICANT FROM A CALL FROM ANY OTHER 5 SENIOR RIGHT. NO REPRESENTATION OTHERWISE IS MADE BY THE DISTRICT. IF THIS ISA CONCERN TO APPLICANT, THIS CONTRACT MAY BE RESCINDED UPON WRITTEN NOTICE DELIVERED TO THE DISTRICT BY THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE NEXT 3Q DAYS FOLLOWING THE AFFIXING OF SIGNATURES ON THIS CONTRACT IN WHICH EVENT ALL SUMS PAID BY APPLICANT FOR THIS CONTRACT SI -TALL BE IMMEDIATELY REFUNDED TO APPLICANT. Applicant S•I"ATE, OFC 61 r6Il d ) ss. COUNTY OF larEtiii. ) �rf� r f The roregoine in. runnem wizacknowledged betkyou l'Ptit�tore this 1,1� day Norq�,� • 7 = Notary Public )s. '%�E'Q• t P l fj''<<'- 'cot° ;,..P,� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged hetiirc the on [Itis day or _ Applicant STATE OF COUNTY OF 2012 -_. by expires 1114_/24N-5 20 , by . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public ORDER After a hearing by the Board of Directors of the West Divide Water Conservancy District on the Application, it is hereby ORDERED that said Application be granted and this Contract shall be and is accepted by the District. AT TES] WEST DIVIDE WATER3,.ii3NSERVA1y Y D BTUs' By President ( Date This Contract includes and is subject to the terms and conditions of the following documents which must accompany this Contract: I. Map showing location of point of diversion (use map provided) 2. Application and Data Form fully completed and signed tun printed portions of ibis form, except differentiated additions or deletions, have been approved and adopted by the West Divide Water Conservancy District. F'orrn: WDWCD 01-01-O8 CONTRACT. 6 03 5 c04 R LIJ 2 0§{ 2 2�g « 2§) o z bE W 2 kc n§ < Q. §� (O >G 0 0 0 0 a Lri u Lti 0 O 0 1 O -r m 0 0 O ? 6 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS ISURVETORS January 27, 2012 Ms. Nicole D. Garrimone Garfield and Hecht, P.C. 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Well Spacing Bedrock Resources Dear Nicole, _'='.WOOD SPRVNGS I 18 WEST SIXTH STREET. SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS„ CO 81601 970.945.1004 970.945.5948 FAX We have had an opportunity to review the well location for Bedrock Resources in relationship to all wells within the area. We have used information obtained from the Division of Water Resources web site to investigate such. Given our findings, no wells are within 600 feet of the Bedrock Resources well. Upon your receipt and review, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call Respectfully, ESE I► ' DON MEYER, INC. . Simons + , PE CFM �a l 1 01 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT IO2 PO Box 21 55 ASPEN. CO 81 61 970.925.6727 970.925.41 57 FAX. 102 WEST TOMICHI AVE. SUITE A GUNNISON. CO 970.64 1 .5355 970.641 .5358 FAX 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE BUILDING 1 , SUITE 205 GRANo JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAx 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 81 641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX Shelton Drilling Corp. (970) 927-3801 p.1 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER WELL PERMIT NUMBER 287244 Owner Name(s): Bedrock Resources LLC Mailing Address: 1014 County Road 311 City, State. Zip : New Castle, Co 81647 Phone 3. WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES ft. from Sec. line and SUBDIVISION: STREET ADDRESS AT LOCATION GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION ft. DRILLTNG METHOD Air Rotary FOR OFFICE LISE ONLY (h(EtVED JAN 26 '12 WATER "iESOUROES STATE ENQlINEEP.PPROVAi. # GW'S31.91-O3 OLEVINt)nrt N W 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec: 18 Twp: 6 S Range: 92 W blit PM ft. from Sec. line OR Lasting: 2 67 388 Northing: 43 78 610 LOT: BLOCK: FILING (UNIT): DATE COMPLETED: 12/21/2011 a GEOLOGIC LOG TOTAL DEPTH: 250 DEPTH COMPLETION: 250 Depth Type of Material (Size, Color, and Type 000-006 006-108 Cobbles, Dirt 6. ROLE DIAMETER (in) 9.0 FROM (ft) 0 TO (ft) 40 6.5 40 250 Dirt, Clays, Cobble 013-25 'Wasatch Formation 7. FLA IN CASING (.)l (in) Kind 7.0 Steel Wall Size From (I ) 0.240 -1 5.5 5.5 PVC ['VC p (ft) 40 250 1 30 0.250 4t) 80 200 5.5 PVC .250 775 250 PERF`. CASING: Screen Slot Size 5.5 PVC 0.250 5.5 pvC 0.250 80 200 140 225 Water Located: 75, 115, 210 Remarks 3. Filter Pack Material Size : Interval : 10. GROUTING RECORD 9. Packer Placement Type Depth : %tater:al Anio Density interval Placement Cemen 6 sks 6 gal/sk 10-40 p urcd 11. DISINFECTION : Tyre : I11.11 Amt. Wed : 8 oz. 12. WELL TEST DATA : () Check Box if Test Data Is Submitted On Supplemental TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor Static Level : 34 EL Pumping. Level : Total ft. Date/Time Measured [7121/2011 Test Remarks : Date/Time Measured 12121/2011 Production Rte 2 gpm Test Length : 2 hours 1 i i have read clic star -rcr is mads I rcia anal blow the co:renis tri mot', and thrst they are mi .eo nmy krwwiedgc. /Per want to Section 2A-4-11 4 (13 yrs) CRS, the tseskors, or raise alatentents constrauw ina)ua) us the seetti:d dclree and tis psonsh l lc as a class 1 ausd:nroonor.) Phone : (970) 427 1182 CONTRACTOR : Shelton Drilling Corp. t Lic. No. 1095 Mailing Address : , P.O. Box 1059 Baso C 21 Name / Title (Please Type or Print) Wayne Shelton / President Sienature. 1/ Dare 1/5:2012 Gtech HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL January 26, 2012 Frontier Paving Attn: Charlie Ellsworth 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, Colorado 81647 EXHIBIT C)Q Job No. 111 283A Subject: Geotechnical Review of Alluvial Fan Mitigation Designs, Proposed Bedrock Resources/Frontier Paving Development, County Road 315, Eagle Springs Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested, we are providing geotechnical review comments of the alluvial fan flooding mitigation designs by Schniueser Gordon Meyer for the proposed project at the subject site. We previously conducted a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed development at the site and presented our findings in a report dated September 26, 2011, Job No. 111 283A. We have been provided design drawings for the project by SGM dated October 14, 2011. Two natural drainages cross the project site that could be sources of flooding and potentially impact improvements made on the property. The mitigation designs are shown on Sheet 4 of the design drawings. The mitigation of the northern drainage consists of a small detention pond and grading of the office site to have the building pad elevation at Ieast one foot above surrounding grade. Flow out of the drainage would be intercepted by the uphill roadside ditch. The mitigation design for the southern drainage consists ofa culvert pipe below the proposed access road. We understand that the mitigation designs were sized for the 100 year clear water storm event. The alluvial fans formed below the two drainages were identified in our previous geotechnical study as possibly being impacted by debris flow caused by runoff from unusually intense thunderstorms. Studies to determine whether these fans are still active and impacted by debris flow have not been performed but based on their configuration, the fans should not be considered totally risk free. The southern drainage is crossed by the proposed access road and the potential damage from debris flow appears limited to the road and should not significantly increase the hazard risk to adjacent off-site properties. The proposed detention pond in the northern drainage will act as a sediment storage basin Frontier Paving January 26, 2012 Page 2 in the event of a debris flow. Potential overflow will be down to the road and potentially into the office area. We expect that potential flow in the office building area will have low sediment volume due to the flat grade but the site should not be considered totally risk free. We understand that this risk is acceptable to the owner and the need for possible cleanup. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GE : ' NICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P.E SLP/ljg cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer — Jeff Simonson, PE aeffs(Zr.),sgm-inc.com) Job Na. 111 283A Ge Gtech Permit Type: Sign Permit / Work Classification: Permanent 1 Receipt Garfield County 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 - Phone: (970)945-8212 Fax: (970)384-3470 EXHIBIT R r� Return to: Garfield County 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 - Owner's Information BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC 1014 CR 311 New Castle, CO 81647 - Invoice Number: SIGN -1-12-21642 Invoice Date: January 20, 2012 Permit Number: SIGN -1-12-2350 Bond Number: Date Fee Name Fee Type Fee Amoun 01120/2012 Sign Fee Calculated $57.00 Total Fees Due: $57.00 Payments Date Pay Type 01/20/2012 Check Check Number Amount Paid Change 27581 $57.00 $0.00 Total Paid: $57.00 Total Due: $0.001 Monday, January 23, 2012 Project Address Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 81h Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 - Phone: (970)945-8212 Fax: (970)384-3470 Permit NO. SIGN -1-12-2350 Permit Type: Sign Permit. Work Classification: Permanent Permit Status: Active Issue Date:/12312012 Expires: 01(23/2018 Parcel No. Subdivlslon Section Township Range 1412 CR 311 SILT, CO 81652- 217911400383 Owner Information Addres Phone Cell BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC 1014 CR 311 New Castle CO 81647- (970)876-0916 (970)989-5394 1014 CR 311 New Castle CO 81647- Contractor(s) Phone Primary Contractor Frontier Paving Inc {870)876.0916 Yes Proposed Construction/ Details Sign: Frontier Paving Inc. FPI Placement of Sign should not interfere with line of sight for vehicles entering and exiting property. Suggest 30 ft from ROW Ensure depth of post adequate to wlstand wind loads. FEES DUE Fee Amount Sign Fee $57.00 Total: $57.00 Valuation: Total Sq Feat: $ 32.00 32 FEES PAID Inv Total Paytype Amt Paid Amt Due Inv # SIGN -1-12-21642 $ 57.00 Check # 27581 $57.00 $ 0.00 Required Inspections: For Inspections cau : 1(888)868-5306 Inspection IVR Footers Foundation Walls Final 105 110 125 IMPORTANT: APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR A PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON THIS APPLICATION AND THE FOLLOWING: 1. Final inspection of the work authorized by this permit is required. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained prior to use and occupancy of new buildings, structures and remodeling work. Applicant Copy Thts permit/pi an review expires by time limitation and becomes null and void If the work authorized by the permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of perrnit issuance or if thn permit is not obtained within 180 days from the date of plan submittal. This permit expires and becomes null and void if any work authorized by this permit Is suspended or abandoned for 180 consecutive days or if no progressive work has been verified by passing a required County Inspection for a period of 180 consecutive days. Monday, January 23, 2012 1 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Garfield County Building & Planning Dept. 108 8th St, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 384-3470 Fax Date: Ta14, /9 , 4 -to a_ Perii?I°ia -,35cD Property Owners Name, Address, Phone: 90- V)if I3 4i- ocr te-v50icC, 1al y CJe, 311 ItJ.,i,(sPIA? ,(a/o. a1& O /6 Applicants Name, Address & Phone: q 90 06 Froovf erf civ;Atz r,uc . , !o /9 CR . Ca.s Colo .Q16 +' 09 IC, Sign Location: A .. ;14 3d Ate 54¢. 5,e A4.442.4 Parcel No:Qj -L2/- (212-7aa Zoning: Ruv- a i Contractor (Name, Address & Phone): 2476 Frorurt:@r l�r4J;..r3 �N�'. /OI9 (a,ntltcs.sd? 3)) New C4014 Colo. 8/640 1'914 Setbacks: 35' a of CR 315 Cemterl:wt height: i of Sign size (sq ft): 3,7 lltuminated: Yes yi No 0 Date Permit Will Begin: Fe4, ,/, mala. This application shall be accompanied by sign site plans, specifications, photo copy of proposed sign, and it may require engineered drawings. -a&19.42/4n. Owner's Signature (of property) Date (If the signature above is not that of the Owner, a separate Letter of authority, signed by the Owner, must be provided wtth this application). Fee (Minimum of 525.00 plus 51.00 per square foot of sign area -one side) 5`7. °_ Build &nning Dept. crif,7 L }I� ,1 (j . .e V A Vbf)' P { .,.[7 c 5 ,— y Rev seek 7/22710/0c MAJOR IMPACT REVIEW / I ') _meee2ee3 EXHIBIT Alin: CHARLES ELLSWORTH T PROJECT- ENGINEER JEFFEREY S. SIMONSON, P.E. 26152 VICINITY MAP err; __ l ►�'j ,` y j) „r a., flat Ikea yok tib► h N., :# s:z ✓r 1 1 N W 4,4 o� urori r RWf av roHc rrross • rorc r+toss rorc rf SOK rax rams rsnar ocsVi (rCr f rrtY f ➢rLr n dOeff nares f Otss n drs rass .rr ss ,exr rr frw el Y a xh, CC 40:3 W I Q 8 d [K � a i aan et ®b W N pH OKI �rr rr anrs IfiF w•.+ nr t a qt r,w r x r.ir r..r ..•••..,....r..i.n wl..evi.w..... tas matt..,. a AAAA 8zaaR 114 hat WV 3,477 F!„llgY w�� pC4T� ▪ otf 2r pct elpST [9.1044▪ oeff 14 se Yf AVtt 99999 • 001609 r 00600 0 602'0 11202 $ $ 8 Mesett dere 00 00 Cr Reef ( 1100 M 101690 216ST 9 101,9 bei 090049 660!0 11• -or on a a a I 1 I 11111 AqI1 li1li $_l1aIaid . , I I!! di i • 1 10,m of .26.4 prrkeiS Erocs { J c a V Coi 44 4 ciaW c A 44 4 a,e s7oxrx7 a 54-aarire43 69CS 99x eV 3A9-1,147-1901'‘ 999 99 O. - 13 Ord,. 403T7irec 5.07551 TT*, R 9.99 ▪ egLS 909999 LeCT ,75555 1 5 •14. 4955 .4999 555515 /969 II,51555 15555 . 9999 91•59 154555 rocs 55 4515' ▪ rfcc 415955 .115 tic 55515 4 , 1 1 t O ▪ rJ 111 5555 125415 8 •••• or 4••• ALM or ...A.P.P-1.-WOWNVIenne• 99 4.9.1.11111,... nifludr.1 r 1 IT 9 a 1 eane yr ...Fr rrese r.or sr re ere" Aerie -eeeeeeer erekr5e—es ses.ra OH ti 7 74 41 d � 01 sg Mq �2E 4 "$ NC Nc Ck 2'e 14.1 ERZ EINE EMI #AI## .1,I (Wald NE I1111111 k ■ engineering dynamics edit incorporated FOREWORD This noise assessment report was prepared for Bedrock "Resources Inc. under the direction of Charles Ellsworth of Frontier Paving. Specifically, this report addresses the noise emission from an asphalt batch plant and associated support equipment. The asphalt plant is to be located on the upper bench of the Bedrock Resources property. The mining plan including drawing and maps necessary for the preparation of this Noise Asse4ssment Report were provided to Engineering Dynamics Inc. by Schmueser, Gorden, Meyer Inc., 118 W 511' Street, Glenwood Springs, Co. Engineering Dynamics Inc. has prepared noise impact assessment analyses and reports for the surface and underground mining industry since 1972. All of the work report herein was performed by Mr. McGregor or under his direct supervision, Howard N. McGregor is a registered professional engineer licensed to practice engineering in the State of Colorado. Mr. McGregor holds Colorado License Number 3928, which was obtained by examination. Page 2 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S, Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 a fax: 303-761-4379 engineering edidynamicsc incorporated TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 II. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES A. Community Noise 5 B. State of Colorado Noise Law 5 C. Garfield County 5 D. Zoning of Adjacent Land 6 III. EQUIPMENT INVENTORY AND NOISE EMISSION LEVELS 7 IV. EQUIPMENT NOISE CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION AND ASPHALT PRODUCTION A. Stationary Equipment Sequence and Noise Emission 8 B. Site Map and Cross Section 8 C. Cross Section — Noise Analysis 8 D. Mobile Equipment 10 V_ NOISE MITIGATION PLAN 12 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 FIGURES Figure 1 - Cross Section Locations 14 Figure 2 — North Cross Section 15 Figure 9 — Northwest Cross Section 16 Figure 8 — West Cross Section 17 Figure 7 — Southwest Cross Section 18 Figure 6 — South Cross Section 19 Figure 5 — Southeast Cross Section 20 Figure 4 — East Cross Section 21 Figure 3 — Northeast Cross Section 22 Page 3 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 I. INTRODUCTION cliengineering nrarparofed The Applicant, Bedrock Resources, is planning to locate an asphalt plant on the upper bench of the Bedrock Resources property. Associated with the asphalt plant is on-site stationary and mobile equipment, and arriving and departing highway trucks; those of Bedrock Resources and others. The highway trucks will enter and exit the site via an on-site road going onto CR315 and north to 1-70, a few trucks may go south on CR315 but the majority will go to 1-70. Once the highway trucks are on CR315 or 1-70, they will be subjected to the noise limits detailed in CRS 25-12-106/107. When on the site, the highway trucks are considered a fixed noise source along with all of the other equipment on the site and are considered as a part of the overall noise emitting from the site in accordance with CRS 25-12-103. All of the properties abutting to the site are zoned rural/ agricultural/residential and the noise limit of 25 ft. beyond the property is 55 dB(A) during the daytime. Applicable noise laws or regulations will be discussed in Section 11 of this report which follows. Page 4 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 engineenn" g e d dynamics incorporated II. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES THEREOF A. Community Noise Community noise has been addressed by the Federal Government starting with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) "Noise Control Act of 1972". In concert with that act, state and local governments have enacted laws or ordinances regulating noise emission levels. Furthermore, these laws clearly define measurement methodology and decibel limits in scientific terms. Some laws do, however, include subjective assessments which are outside of rigorous scientific evaluation and for this reason can be highly variable. Subjective assessments or considerations will not be addressed in this report. B. State of Colorado Noise Law Section 25-12-103. Maximum Permission Noise Levels §(1) Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness. Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more therefrom in excess of the dB(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance: §(2) In the hours between 7:00am and the next 7:00pm, the noise levels permitted in subsection (1) of this section may be increased by ten dB(A) for a period of not -to -exceed fifteen minutes in any one-hour period. §(3) Periodic, impulsive, or shrill noises shall be considered a public nuisance when such noises are at a sound level of five dB(A) less than those listed in subsection (1) of this section. §(5) Construction projects shall be subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified for industrial zones for the period within which construction is to be completed pursuant to any applicable construction permit issued by proper authority or, if no time limitation is imposed, for a reasonable period of time for completion of project. Section 25-12-104 Action to Abate The entire section was amended in 2008 and effective August 5, 2008. The last sentence of this section reads: The court may stay the effect of any order issued under this section for such time as is reasonably necessary for the defendant to come into compliance with the provisions of this article. Note: If for some reason that is unknown at this time the noise emission from the plant exceeds 55 dB(A). The Applicant may request a reasonable amount of time for mitigation. C. Garfield County Garfield County has no ordinance or regulation addressing noise and relies upon the Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 25, Article 12, Noise Abatement for determination of compliance. Page 5 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St, Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels Zone 7am to next 7pm 7pm to next 7am Residential 55 dB A 50 dB A Commercial 60 dB(A) 80 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Industrial Light Industrial 70 dB(A) 65 do(A) §(2) In the hours between 7:00am and the next 7:00pm, the noise levels permitted in subsection (1) of this section may be increased by ten dB(A) for a period of not -to -exceed fifteen minutes in any one-hour period. §(3) Periodic, impulsive, or shrill noises shall be considered a public nuisance when such noises are at a sound level of five dB(A) less than those listed in subsection (1) of this section. §(5) Construction projects shall be subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified for industrial zones for the period within which construction is to be completed pursuant to any applicable construction permit issued by proper authority or, if no time limitation is imposed, for a reasonable period of time for completion of project. Section 25-12-104 Action to Abate The entire section was amended in 2008 and effective August 5, 2008. The last sentence of this section reads: The court may stay the effect of any order issued under this section for such time as is reasonably necessary for the defendant to come into compliance with the provisions of this article. Note: If for some reason that is unknown at this time the noise emission from the plant exceeds 55 dB(A). The Applicant may request a reasonable amount of time for mitigation. C. Garfield County Garfield County has no ordinance or regulation addressing noise and relies upon the Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 25, Article 12, Noise Abatement for determination of compliance. Page 5 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St, Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 engineering drmics rnrnrpoater! D. Zoning of Adjacent Land Distances used in this section of this report were taken from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Bedrock Resources, Overall Site Pian, Sheet 3 dated 10114111. The following distances are from the highway haul truck loading silo, which along with the asphalt plant, are the loudest noise sources that will be in almost continuous operations. Table 1 which follows presented the direction and distances to the property line as taken from the Overall Site Plan, Figure 1. Table 1 Distances from Centeral Processing Equipment to Bedrock Resources Property Line Direction Distance -ft. 874 Zoning R/A/R* North Northwest 1247 RIAIR* West 698 RIA/R' Southwest 563 RIAIR* South 386 RIAIR* Southeast 542 RIAIR" East 616 RIAIR* Northeast 420 RIAIR* * Rural/Agricultural/Residential Page 6 of 22 ED1 Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalarnath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 111. e■incorporated engineering dynamics EQUIPMENT INVENTORY AND NOISE EMISSION LEVELS Table 2 presents a listing of on-site equipment including description, manufacturer, function and noise emission level expressed in A-weighted decibels. Also, present are typical noise emission levels for highway haul trucks that will haul the asphalt product to market. Table 2 Equipment Inventory Description Mfg. I.D. Equipment Function dB(A) @ 100 ft. Wheel Loader Volvo L-120E Bin and Hopper Loading 74 Motor Grader Volvo G746B On-site Roadway 70 Dozer Deere 850J Stockpiling 74 Water Truck Dust Control 65 Asphalt Plant Burner Product Production 73 Loader Silo Dumping Hot Asphalt 73 Generator CAT 540 KW Power for Asphalt Plant 72 Crusher - Rock Sizing 73 Screens Sizing 73 Stacker Stock Piles 65 Conveyor Feeder to Plant/Stock Piles 61 Generator CAT 480 KW Power for Conveyor/Stackers 72 - Haul Truck Misc. Belly Dump 70 Haul Truck Misc. Tandem Dump 70 Backup Alarm _ BRS 107 White Noise Backup Alarm 68 The noise emission levels presented in Table 2, especially those for the mobile equipment such as the dozer and front end loader, are maximum noise levels coming from the noisiest end of the equipment. Also, these maximum levels are those occurring when the equipment is at maximum rpm and load. Haul truck levels are those occurring during drive-by on the highway at 35 mph. Truck noise decreases as speed is reduced. Table 3 Noise Reduction with Distance based upon 100 ft. Data Distance — Ft. Reduction — dB(A) 100 0 200 -6 400 -12 800 -18 1000 -20 1600 -24 The decibel levels occurring at 100 ft. as listed in Table 2 can be reduced in value for distances greater than 100 ft. using the values presented in Table 3. The reduction values listed in Table 2 do not include the effects of terrain, vegetation, vertical thermal gradients and wind which can reduce noise levels by as much as 5 to 10 dB(A) Table 3 above, may be used as a rule of thumb for rapidly estimating noise level changes as a function of distance. However, the exact calculation of the noise level at any distance, over any terrain, and the effect of noise barriers or walls requires detailed engineering calculations, Page 7 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 da engineering dynamics incorporated IV. EQUIPMENT NOISE CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION AND ASPHALT PRODUCTION A. Stationary Equipment Sequence and Noise Emission Raw rock, gravel and sand product will be taken from the crusher fines, natural fines and % rock storage areas. The products will then be taken by a loader and dumped into one or more of the storage bins. From the bins, the raw product will be transferred to an asphalt drum via a conveyor. The ground level of the bins is about 10 ft. higher than the ground level of the drum. This difference in elevation is because the drum, bag house and crusher are setting in an area that has been excavated to about 10 ft. below grade. This lower grade level provides a 10 ft. high noise barrier to the south and east of the equipment. Directly south of the processing area there are the generator fuel storage tanks which will also act as a noise barrier. To the east of the processing area, there are three product storage stockpiles. All three are 25 ft above grade and provide a noise barrier to the east. Stockpiles of products have been shown to reduce noise level by as much as 25 dB. B. Site Map and Cross Section Topographical cross sections have been prepared showing the elevations in eight directions; north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west and northwest. The distances to the property lines in each of these directions have been presented in Table 1 on page 6 of this report. A site plan view is presented in Figure 1 showing the location of the eight cross sections which all have an origin at the loading silo. The cross sections are presented in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8 and 9. The silo location has been used as the point of origin for all of the cross sections. It can be seen in Table 4 that the shortest direction is to the south where the distance is 386 ft. The decibel reduction to the 100 ft. decibel due to distance along is 12 dB(A). The greatest distance is 1247 ft and the decibel reduction is 22 dB(A). For convenience, Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have also be identified by their direction. An analysis of each of the eight cross sections follows. Table 4 Distances from Centeral Processing Equipment to Bedrock Resources Property Line Direction Distance ft. dB Reduction due to Distance 100' dB Values North 874 19 Northwest _ 1247 22 West 698 17 Southwest _ _ 563 15 South 386 12 Southeast 542 15 East 616_ 16 Northeast 420 12 C. Cross Sections — Noise Analysis All of the cross section analyses which follow will use a noise source decibel level of 78 dB(A) at 100 ft. This value is assuming that the following equipment is at its maximum noise emission level and located at or near to the loading silo which is the zero or starting point of all of the cross sections. • Loading Silo • Drum • Bag Houses • Generator • Loader Page 8 of 22 EDI Job No. 03918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 1. North Distance to property line Reduction due to distance Additional reductions a. Unprocessed asphalt b. Edge of berm Total dB(A) at Property Line 2. Northwest Distance to property tine Reduction due to distance Additional reductions a. Berm c. 874 19 10 3 32 46 1247 22 24 eI Total 45 dB(A) at Property Line 32 Note: 24 dB(A) reduction is calculated limit . Actual reduction value about 30 dB(A). 3. West Distance to property line Reduction due to distance Additional reductions a. Berm Cuts 698 17 24 c. — Total 41 dB(A) at Property Line 37 Note: 24 dB(A) reduction is calculated limit . Actual reduction value about 30 dB(A). 4. Southwest Distance to property line Reduction due to distance Additional reductions a. Berm and Cut Total dB(A) at Property Note: 24 dB(A) reduction 563 15 24 39 Line 39 is calculated limit . Actual reduction value about 30 dB(A). 5. South Distance to property line 386 Reduction due to distance 12 Additional reductions a. Berm 24 c. - — Total 36 dB(A) at Property Line 42 Note: 24 dB(A) reduction is calculated limit . Actual reduction value about 30 dB(A). r engineering dynamics incorporated Page 9 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 1 6. Southeast Distance to property line Reduction due to distance Additional reductions a Berm b. Total dB(A) at Property Note: 24 dB(A) reduction 7. East Distance to property line Reduction due to distance Additional reductions a. Stockpiles b. Road c. engineering eddynamics lincarporated 542 15 24 39 Line 39 is calculated limit , Actual reduction value about 30 dB(A). 616 16 6 3 Total 25 dB(A) at Property Line 53 Note: Minimum noise reduction value given to stockpiles. 8. Northeast Distance to property line 420 Reduction due to distance 12 Additional reductions a. Berm 24 b_ -_- Total 36 dB(A) at Property Line 42 Note: 24 dB(A) reduction is calculated limit . Actual reduction value about 30 dB(A). D. Mobile Equipment During construction of the Bedrock Resources' Asphalt Plant the noise limits are allowed to be those for an industrial zone of 80 de(A) daytime and 75 dB(A) nighttime during a reasonable period of time. The Applicant has estimated the construction of the plant, associated service buildings and roads will take about one month after which the noise limits go to those specified for residential zoning. During construction the mobile equipment will be in operation during the daylight hours; two additional mining hours, which were approved by Garfield County, making the time for construction and production from 5:00am to 7:00pm. There will be no construction during the nighttime hours. Construction equipment and noise emission levels at 100 ft. are presented in Table 5 along with the distance to the 80 dB(A) and 55 dB(A) noise levels. Table 5 Mobile Equipment Used during Construction Description Function dB(A) © 100 ft. Line -of -Sight 80 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Loader __ Plant Site Prep. 74 50 ft. 891 ft. Dozer Plant and Road Prep 74 50 ft. 891 ft. Motor -grader Road Grading 70 32 ft. 562 ft. Water Truck Dust Control 65 17 ft. 316 ft. The data presented in Table 5 above shows that during the construction phase of the asphalt plant, the construction equipment will not exceed the 80 dB(A) noise limit except close to the intersection of the on-site road, Frontier Lane, with CR315. At that location the noise level does extend beyond the Page 10 of 22 ED! Job No. C3918 3925 5. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 a engineering ecdynamics incorporated property line at the intersection. In fact, some of the access road construction equipment may be working beyond the property and on CR315. D. Crusher and Generator There will be a crusher and a diesel generator that will provide electric power to the crusher. The crusher will be used to work unprocessed asphalt and concrete. Both the crusher and generator will produce a noise level of 76 dB(A) at 100 ft. This operation will occur every two years for a period of two weeks. Once the material has been crushed, it will be transported by conveyor to the Processed Black Base stockpile. When not in use at Bedrock, both the crusher and generator may be in operation at other processing plant in the region dependent upon market requirements. Page 11 of 22 EDI Jab Na. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 engineering dynamics eclincorperrared V. NOISE MITIGATION PLAN Noise measurements will be taken at the existing Bedrock Resources Asphalt Plant to the extent possible before the plant is shut down and moved to the new location. The noise emission data for the mobile equipment such as loaders, dozers and grader is available from on-site measurements taken by Engineering Dynamics Inc. at other locations. On the other hand, noise emission data of stationary equipment can be incorrect because of modification and changes to stationary equipment that has been in use for many seasons and locations. For this reason, noise measurements will be taken of stationary equipment as soon as it can be turned on. If, for some reason, the noise emissions exceed those used in this analysis then that portion of the analysis will be repeated to determine if there is a significant change in the distance to the 55 dB(A) noise level. If there is, then methods of noise reduction will be started, Changes could range from increasing the height of stockpiles to replacing components on the stationary equipment. For example, Engineering Dynamics Inc. measured the noise emissions from an asphalt drum burner and found out that a significant noise reduction could be obtained by replacing the burner assembly with a newer model that was about 3 dB(A) quieter. A reduction as small as 3 dB(A) will pull in the 55 dB(A) distance by a factor of 0.7. Other areas were noise reduction can be readily achieved is putting high performance mufflers on the diesel/generator and silencers on the fans and blowers. Reduction as great as 10 dB(A) can b achieved with such devices. Page 12 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamalh St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 II engineering edldynaniks incorporated VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • The noise sources at the proposed Bedrock Resources site will consist of equipment and machinery associated with site development, asphalt production and haul truck product transportation. • Bedrock Resources will take the necessary steps to ensure that the equipment and machinery used at the Bedrock Site will be in compliance with applicable noise control requirements. • The State of Colorado Noise Law (CRS 25-12) is applicable to this project and requires that the noise level of adjacent zoned property not exceed 55 dB(A) during the daytime with a variance that daytime operations can start at 5:00am. • Customer vehicles which are observed to be excessively noisy may be subjected to drive-by noise tests. Customer truck drivers will receive training regarding safety, community relations and noise standards for Bedrock Resources' operation. They will be given notice that drivers failing to abide by these standards will be suspended from hauling material from the Bedrock Resources' facility. • The additional truck traffic associated with the Bedrock Resources project will not significantly increase the existing noise contours on 1-70. As traffic volume increases on 1-70 from other sources, the noise contours from that traffic will increase and the effect of haul truck noise from Bedrock Resources Asphalt Plant will become a smaller percentage of the total noise. • Sound barriers consisting of stockpiles or berms may be installed around or near noise sources such as crushers, screens, conveyors, transfer points and the asphalt plant. • Property line noise measurements will be taken when the plant is in operation and the results reported. Daytime noise emission, if any, in excess of 55 dB(A) at the measurements sites will be corrected in a timely manner. Equipment maintenance will be done outside the hours of operation and will always be less than 50 dB(A) at the property line. • Backup warning devices may be the new approved white noise generators. These devices produce a noise that is not as audible as the traditional backup beeper at distances greater than several hundred feet. • During construction of the asphalt plant and associated facilities, the 80 dB(A) noise limit at the property line is the applicable limit, CRS 25-12-105 (5). Construction is anticipated to take less than one month. Page 13 of 22 ED Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 edengineering dynamics ifincorporated = 6 •1 t 11.3114.,•7401,14P 40.LP "NAP., nr.""nilklt" Page 14 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 Aengineering egaincodrroraamtierS 111111 1 11111 111111 1111111 11111 11111111 11111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111 111111 111 1111 1111 1111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 1111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111 11111 11111 1111111 1 1111111111111111 11111111111111i1111 111111111111111111111 — g a 7 7.74 -v.19;. -Ate- 11g7;,,Le-4,e7F !',41.,-.-70.7.191.1r. '9 .,14'.11T, Page 15 0122 EDI Job No, C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 d e lincodiponarat engineering T2 22. - _iUI 11111 1111 II 111 11 ..im!'1111111111.11110 1111111111111 111111111111110..: 111011111101101 111111010111111111111 111111111111111011111. 11111111111111111111111111111111111 ' 1 ' 11111111111'11 1111 ,., 11 1 1 11101 10110 1000 I r,1111011101111111!4. all i ,1 .1 F LJ _ L,J !l.•t43...c.*A.uwi, Page 16 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 39255. Kalamath St, Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 I engineering dynamics ed incorporated t!Er!!,irttEEE, '2 2 2 2. 2, . I 1 I 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 IMP' p_noi„ 1 j I 11 ... 1 • I I ' 1 r 1 j '111111111111111111111111 i ! ,f,i4;t14 . 111 4iggsttfif°444° 44; FT q tir....111\110, Page 17 of 22 EDI Job No, C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4387 • fax: 303-761-4379 elncorporated 11111161111011 Dill 10 II :- 1 .P!..1,:i-6.6i 111i11111 011111 I 1{1111 1131111 II 111101111110111 1111101111111 11 11 11 1 11111 ill 1 110 10 11 111 1 11 1 11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111010111011010 11 11 1 0 11111111 111 1111111111111111 11111 101110 11 1111111111111111111111111111110111 111111 11 11111111N 1 111 111101 1 1101101 1 1 111111111 111101 111 ill 1111 11 111 11 Ill II 11 11110 1 11111111111 I 11 11 I 11101111 1111111 i I 1 11[1 1 1 III 111111011 III ilil 011 11111 11 I II Flip' 1111II 1111 I 11 11111 1 II1 01 01 111111 111111 11101 Oil 11 111 11 1 11 11 1 11111 1 11111 11 '1 101111101 I 1111 1 111111 10 III 11111 11 1111111 11 1111 III I 0 III 111111 111 11 11111111 wz:ttti tit t -ti *at tit witteitite edettrut t ti, tii 1 w !Lar§,c 711,11 Page 18 of 22 EDI Job No, C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 801 1 0 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 di engineering eacdynamics incorporated " l•cil 1111111111111 111111 111111111111 11111111110 111.1111I1I011111 11111111111111111111111111111 111 ! ' 1111111111111111111111 1111!11111111 1111.111111111111 11111111 II 11111111 1111 11 111111111111111111 111. d p a e rs a e w i .414 id 1 t RI..r'iwD. fr:. 1- 11 1 I . 11 a MI -11 p - it pi 1 Page 19 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalarnath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 engineering edi:• ncorprit: reg.&r ti 1111111 I 11111111 110111101 1111111 1 1111 1V11011 11111 11111 11 11111 1111 11 I 111111 Il 1111111101 111 110011 1 11111111111111 11 11 lIlIl 11111011 111101 11111111 1 1 111 1111 1 11111 1 11 111111 111111111111111111 11 111111111 11111 111 111111111111 1111111 I 111111111 111111111 W 8 8 V kl t r, LLI 1 6 e.1.3.r.16,1711r01...79AS t.14, 1,.,1111, ,11..111F Page 20 of22 EDI Job No, C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 d a engineering dynamics e !incorporated w*tbbilbbil II. LJ w LiJ Page 21 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 di, engineering dynamks e Incorporated 4 Iu r...'ilz-b•••••2•1••••••,••••F•Ep.••N•00q U..flt4I- Page 22 of 22 EDI Job No. C3918 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 BEFORE THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO EXHIBIT uL CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR A WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT FOR AN ASPHALT PAVING CONTRACTOR FACILITY BY BEDROCK RESOURCES, LLC FINDINGS OF NO IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-12 L BACKGROUND 1. In December 2011, Bedrock Resources, LLC (the "Applicant" or "Bedrock") applied to the City of Rifle (the "City") for a watershed district permit to construct and operate an asphalt paving contractor facility (the' `Activity"). The "Application" was prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. and included a StormwaterManagement Plan, SPCC Plan, Revegetation and Landscape Pian, Emergency Response Plan, and engineering designs prepared for site improvements. The Activity will be located south of the 1-70 Man -1m Creek interchange along the side of County Road 315 in Section 18, Township 6S, Range 92W of the 6'h P.M. (the "Property"), The Property lies within five (5) miles of the City's Colorado River Intake and is within the City's watershed district jurisdiction. The Application was submitted pursuant to City of Rifle Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994, codified in Article II of Chapter 13 of the Rifle Municipal Code. 2. After reviewing the Application, the City received a letter from Michael Erion, P.E. of Resource Engineering, Inc. dated January 25, 2012 (the Trion Letter"). The Orion Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The Erion Letter concluded that the Activity proposed to be performed on the Property will not negatively impact the City's waterworks or water supply so long as Bedrock performs the Activity as set forth in the Application and complies with the conditions stated in the Erion Letter. IL FINDINGS OF FACT 3. The proposed activity is within the defined boundaries of the City's Watershed District as defined m RMC §13-2-20, specifically within five (5) miles of the City's Colorado River municipal water diversion and intake structure. The proposed Activity includes constructing and operating an asphalt paving contractor facility including an office, parking and internal roads, material storage areas, rock crusher, asphalt batch plant, ISDS wastewater system, and two stormwater managementJfire protection ponds. 4. The Application filed by Bedrock is complete. 5. The Applicant has paid the application fee required under RMC §1.3-2-110. 6. Based on the Erion Letter, the City finds that the proposed Activity on the Property does not pose any risk to the City's waterworks or water supply if the Applicant performs the Activity as set forth in the Application and complies with the conditions set forth in the Erion Letter, and therefore makes a finding pursuant to Rifle Municipal Code 13-2-120(d) that the proposed City of Rifle, Colorado Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 Bedrock Resources, LLC Activity will have No Impact on the City's waterworks with such conditions. at CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ISSUANCE OF PERMIT 7. The foregoing Findings of Facts are incorporated herein by reference. 8. The City has jurisdiction over the proposed activity pursuant to RMC §13-2-20 and City of Rifle Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994. 9. Based on the Enon Letter, the City hereby determines that this decision shall constitute a No Impact Watershed District Permit for the proposed Activity on the Property pursuant to Rifle Municipal Code §13-2-120(d); provided the Applicant performs the Activity as set forth in the Application and complies with the conditions set forth in the Erion Letter. 10. A copy of this Permit shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Applicant, unless such requirement is waived by Applicant. 11 Pursuant to Rifle Municipal Code §13-2-110(7), the Applicant shall reimburse the City for all outside professional services, including, but not limited to engineering, legal, consulting, publication and copying fees associated with the review of the application prior to the issuance of this Permit. 12. This Permit shall not be effective until approved by the City and agreed to and by the Applicant. Dated this /day of f /?,/G.}' , 2012. CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO By Rik arth, PE., City Engineer City of Rifle, Colorado Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 Bedrock Resources, LLC r." City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-12 accepted and agreed to this 9) day of -Jo et) kr,r ,2012. BEDROCK RESOURCES, LLC By: 1_ A 42.t._ egz, Print name: e s EJI swarf& Its: Ill c,niu Irvr 3 STATE OF COL RAD John W_ Hickenlooper, Governor Christopher E. Drbina, MD, MPH Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. 8. Denver, Colorado 60246.1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 Located in Glendale, Colorado h ttp:/fwww.cdphe. state. co. us January 25, 2012 Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Bedrock Resources LLC 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Laboratory Services Division 8100 Lowry Blvd. Denver, Colorado 90230-6928 (303)692-3090 RE: Certification, Colorado Discharge Permit System Permit No., COR030000, Certification Number: COR031S95 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Dear Mr./Ms. Ellsworth; The Water Quality Control Division (the Division) has reviewed the application submitted for the Bedrock Resources LLC Mamm Creek Site facility and determined that it qualifies for coverage under the COPS General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (the permit). Enclosed please find a copy of the permit certification, which was issued under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. Facility: Bedrock Resources LLC Mamm Creek Site Garfield County Construction Activities: construction site and access roads for asphalt batch plant; facilities, contractors, yard, shop and office, Legal Contact (receives all legal documentation pertaining to the permit certification): Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Phone number: 970-876-0916 Bedrock Resources LLC 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Facility Contact (contacted for general inquiries regarding the facility): Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Billing Contact (receives the invoice pertaining to rhe permit certification): Charles Ellsworth, Mgr 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Any changes to the contacts listed above must be provided to the Division on a Change of Contact form. This form is available on the Division's website at colaradowaterpermits.com. Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com Phone number: 970-876-0916 Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com Phone number: 970-876-0916 Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com The Annual Fee for this certification is $245.00, and is invoiced every July. Do Not Pay This Now. The initial prorated invoice will be sent to the legal contact shortly. Please read the enclosed permit and certification. If you have any questions please contact Matt Czahor, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (303) 692-3575. Sincerely, Debbie Jessop, Program Assistant WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Enclosures: Certification page; General Permit; Highlight Sheet; Termination form xc: Regional Council of Government Garfield County, Local County Health Department D.E., Technical Services Unit, WQCD Permit File /dkj cert STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION TELEPHONE: (303) 692-3500 CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COR -0300000 STORMWATER ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Certification Number: COR031595 This Certification to Discharge specifically authorizes: Bedrock Resources LLC to discharge stormwater from the facility identified as Bedrock Resources LLC Mamm Creek Site to: Mamm Creek - Colorado River Construction Activities : construction site and access roads for asphalt batch plant; facilities, contractors, yard, shop and office, Facility Located at: CR 315 & CR 352, Silt, Garfield County, CO 81652 Latitude: 39/31/30, Longitude: -107/42/13 Certification is effective: 1/24/2012 Certification Expires: 6/30/2012 This certification under the permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. The certification holder is legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit. Signed, Nathan Moore Construction/M54/Pretreatment Unit Manager Water Quality Control Division Page 1 of 22 Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [JeffS[7a sgm-inc.com] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:44 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Damian; Charles Ellsworth; David D. Smith Subject: Water Quality Test Results and Treatment Requiredpdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional Attachments: Water Quality Test Results and Treatment Required Glenn, Please find attached the water quality test results for the well. We will be performing treatment (reverse osmosis) at point of use for this water. An undersink unit will be provided at all locations (shop and office lavatories) that will have direct point of use. Thankst Jeff 1 SCHMUESER 1 GORDON 1 MEYER E N G I M E E R S 1S U R V E Y O R S MEMORANDUM TO: JEFF SIMONSON, PE, PROJECT MANAGER (SGM, INC.) FROM: BRAD Z,ACHMAN, PE (SGM, INC.) DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 20 12 RE: BEDROCK WELL WATER DATA ANALYSIS PROJECT UNDERSTANDING SGM understands that a recently installed ground water well (Bedrock Well) is being considered for potable water service for a private development consisting of two buildings. The well will riot be part of a public water system and hence will not be subject to State or Federal regulation. SGM is tasked with evaluating the possible use of the Bedrock well for potable use and recommending treatment, if necessary. OBJECTIVES The specific objectives of the analysis summarized in this memo were to: 1. identify any health- or aesthetic -related concerns with the water samples 2. Provide recommendations for treatment options to address health or aesthetic concerns, if necessary. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION • The analytical data summarized in the analytical reports from Mountain States Accutest Laboratory were reviewed for health- and aesthetic -related issues (see attached). The water has generally poor quality and does not meet many of the primary (heath -related) and secondary (aesthetic) limits for the analytes tested (recall that there are no applicable regulatory requirements for this well because they will not be serving a public water system). Noteworthy data are summarized in Table 1 on the next page. 1 Comment Point -of -use Reverse osmosis (RO) will remove iron and manganese to acceptable levels RC treatment will remove reduce sulfate to acceptable levels Nitrate is well below primary MCL. No follow-up action is necessary for this parameter Sodium is on the EPA's CCL3 List. EPA's current Health - based Advisory Value is 20 mgIL for individuals on a 500 mg/day restricted sodium diet. RO treatment will reduce sodium levels to acceptable levels. RO treatment will remove reduce selenium to acceptable levels The water in both wells is classified as "HARD" according to USGS's classification. Water softening is recommended, USGS's hardness classification is as follows: Soft - 0 to 60 mg/L Moderately Hard - 61 to 120 mg/L Hard - 121 to 180 mg/L Very Hard - ? 181 mg/L TDS is well above EPA's secondary standard of 500 mg1L. RO will reduce TDS levels to acceptable levels. Langelier Index is a measure of the scalinglcorrosivity potential of the water. The Langelier index scale ranges from is -1 (highest corrosion potential) to +1 (highest scaling potential). The values observed in the well indicates a high scaling potential. RO could change the Langelier index value, as RO can make the water more corrosive. No follow-up action is necessary for this parameter 1 No follow-up action is necessary for this parameter Treatment Recommended? ƒ > > 0 z > $ f / 0 z 0 Z 0 z Standard Reference. EPA Secondary Std. EPA Secondary Std. EPA Secondary Std. EPA Primary MCL z EPA Primary MCL z EPA Secondary Std z EPA Primary MCL EPA Primary MCL § 2 > n a ® 6 6 o © ^ % Z S a Z o 2 Z <5% of samples test positive a) $ k \. �. c F. F 2 # o ® o CO / / w a ci Absent Absent Parameter 7 E 2 Manganese (mgIL) # 2 / Nitrate Sodium (mg/L) § k $ _ » $kTo ƒ# TDS (mgIL) Langelier Index Total Coliform E 3 j ± Comment pH is normal for a groundwater source. No follow-up action is necessary Uranium levels are at the EPA's Primary MCL. RO treatment will reduce uranium to an acceptable level Analytical results are still pending. RO is not listed as a best available technology (BAT) by EPA for asbestos removal, but should be effective, if treatment is needed. The EPA has established primary regulations for radionuclides in drinking water for: gross alpha reactivity, combined radium -226 and -228, beta particles and photon emitters, and uranium. RO treatment willl reduce all noted radionuclides to an acceptable level, if treatment is necessary. Treatment Recommended? k co 2 / / a) CC Results Pending Standard c f ) NA EPA Primary MCL EPA Primary MCL EPA Primary MCLs ; > NA 0.030 7 million fibres/liter (longer than 10 um) • Comb. Ra -226 and -228: 5 pCi/L • Gross Alpha: 15 pCi/L • Beta particle and photon radioactivity: 4 mrem/yr k \ � ' �o g Results Pending a 7 � \ 2E k CL 2E k 3 = Asbestos Radionuclides m RECOMMENDATIONS Treatment is recommended if this water is to be used for consumption. RO treatment is specifically recommended because it is the only single technology that will remove all contaminants of potential concern. One advantage of the RO technology is that treatment devices can be installed at the "point -of -use" (i,e., at the taps used for consumption). This approach can provide significant cost savings compared to centralized treatment which would treat all water pumped out of the well—not just the water used for consumption. However, if a point -of -use approach is utilized, it is important to recognize that untreated water will have poor water quality both with respect to health- and aesthetic -related parameters. 4 e -Hardcopy 2.0 4ulo►t:raied Report Mountain States' Technical Report for Schmueser Gordon Meyer Drinking Water Testing -Bedrock Well Accutest Job Number: D31303 Sampling Date: 01/24/12 Report to: Schmueser Gordon Meyer 118 West 6th Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 bradz@sgm-inc,conn ATTN: Brad Zachman Total number of pages in report: 13 Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference and/or stale specific certification programs as applicable. Client Service contact: Shea Greiner 303-425-6021 `Brad Madadian Laboratory Director Certifications: CO. ID, NE, NM, ND (R-027) (PW) UT (NELAP C000049) This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without she written approval of Accutest Laboratories. Test results relate only to samples analyzed. Mountain States • 4036 Youngfieid Si. Wheat Ridge. CO 80033.3562 • tel: 303-425-6021 • fax. 303-425-6854 • hup:Nwww.accutest.com 1 of 13 Accutest Laboratories is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications so this document. Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited. Accutest Laboratories Sample Summary Schmueser Gordon Meyer Drinking Water Testing -Bedrock Well Job No: 1J31303 Sample Collected Matrix Client Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample 1D D31303-1 01/24/12 11:00 BZ 01/25/12 DW Drinking Water BEDROCK WELL D31303 -1A 01/24/12 11:00 BZ 01/25/12 DW Drinking Water BEDROCK WELL 3 of 13 t♦ ACCLITE= Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page l of 1 Client Sample ID: BEDROCK WELL Lab Sample ID: D31303-1 Date Sampled: 01/24/12 Matrix: DW - Drinking Water Date Received: 01/25/12 Percent Solids: n/a Project: Drinking Water Testing -Bedrock Well Total Metals Analysis Analyte Result MCL RL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method Prep Method Aluminum <0.10 0.10 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Antimony < 0.00080 0.0060 0.110080 mg/1 2 01/20112 01/27/12 G3 EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Arsenic 0.0016 0.010 0.0016 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.81 EPA 200.8 3 Barium 0,025 2.0 0.0040 nigh 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Beryllium <0.00040 0.0040 0.00040 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/I2 GI EPA 200.81 EPA 200.8 3 Cadmium < 0.00020 0.0050 0.00020 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.81 EPA 200.8 3 Chromium < 0.0040 0.10 0.0040 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Iron 7.3 0.080 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GI EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Manganese 0.070 0.0020 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.81 EPA 200.8 3 Mercury <0.0010 0,0020 0.0010 mg/l 1 01/30/12 01/30/12 MC EPA 245.1 2 EPA 245.1 4 Nickel 0.011 0.0040 mg/I 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Selenium 0.078 0.050 0.00080 ing/I 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.83 Silver < 0.00020 0.10 0.00020 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Sodium 600 10 mg/l 20 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Thallium c 0.00040 0.0020 0.00040 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GI EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Uranium 0.030 0.00040:rig/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 Zinc < 0.020 5.0 0.020 mg/1 2 01/26/12 01/27/12 GJ EPA 200.8 1 EPA 200.8 3 (1) Instrument QC Balch: MA2144 (2) Instrument QC Batch: MA2148 (3) Prep QC Batch: MP6734 (4) Prep QC Batch: MP6744 RL = Reporting Limit MCL = Maximum Contamination Level (40 CFR 141) 111'1 5 of 13 ®.n1;cuYE -r; 031303 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 1of1 Client Sample ID: BEDROCK WELL Lab Sample ID: D31303 -1A Date Sampled: 01/24112 Matrix: DW Drinking Water Date Received: 01125112 Percent Solids: n/a Project: Drinking Water Testing -Bedrock Well Total Metals Analysis Analyte Result MCL RL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method Prep Method Calcium 52.3 0.40 ntgll I 01/30/12 02/01112 JB EPA 200.7 1 EPA 200.7 2 (1) Instrument QC Batch: MA2154 (2) Prep QC Batch: MP6749 RL = Reporting Limit MCL = Maximum Contamination Level (40 CFR 141) l• of 13 W .a.GCu-rt=ST Section 3 Misc. Forms Custody Documents and Other Forms Includes the following where applicable: • Chain of Custody 111 y 9of13 ACCUTEST r.nrrunn r o 11154 Accutest Laboratories Sample Receipt Summary Accutest Job Number: 031303 Client: SCNUESER GORDON/ MEGER Date /Time Received: 1/25/2012 8:45 CO AM No. Coolers: 1 Project: DRINKINIGWATERTESTING- BEDROCKW Airbill Cooler $encu rltlt 1. Custody Seals Present: 2. Custody Seals Intact: Cooler Tomeereture 1. Temp cntena achieved: 2. Cooler temp verincation: 3. Cooler media: Y or N © 0 3. COC Present: 2 El 4. Smpl Oatesfrima OK ©uality Control PreserYatioJ1 1. Trip Blank present r 000er. 2. Trip Blank listed on COC: 3. Samples preserved properly: 4. VOCs headspace tree. Y or N la 0 Infered gun Ice (Dag) Y or N Nle © ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 O ❑ Immediate Client Services Action Required: NO CPient Service Action Required at Login: No FedEx Y or N l Sample lnteorlty - Documentation 0 QJ 1 Sample labels present Oa' Uo Ices 2 Container labeling complete: 3 Sample conlainar label/ COC agree. aS13m.R1160.1:1t71YSc4IlSlitlonl 1 Sample recvd within HT: 2 Alf containers accounted tor. 3 Condition of sample: Somata Integrity • Instructions 1. Analysis requested is clear: 2. Bottles received for unspecified tests 3. Sufficient volume rec'd for analysis 4. Composlting instructions clear: S. Filtering instructions clear: Y or N O ❑ Y or N • 0 ® 0 Intact • Qr N NIA O 0 ❑ PI 7 0 ❑ ❑ 0 COMrn nls Aveerpu lsheraerins V1303144S.o2 4272 V444454I4 Street F (303) 425 5454 When.R dee, CO 4444w4e444441 euro D31303: Chain of Custody Page 2 of 4 O :a 11 of 13 q ,ascu-r-Es-r: 031303 ""°',^torr Attn: Rene,' Jackson D31393; Chain of Custody Page 4 of 4 1111A 13 of 13 U.gxc Du-rmem D31103 DEPARIN'lENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES February 2, 2012 Bedrock Resources, LLC C/O Garfield & Hecht PC Attn: Nicole Garrirnone 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Application Receipt no. 9503523 is being returned for additional information Dear Nicole: John W. 1 lickenlooper Governer Mike King Executive Director Dick W Ik, P.E. Director/State Enginoer Alan C. Ki riellaru. P.E. Division Engineer Enclosed is the original water well permit application, form no. GWS -45 (General Purpose Water Well Permit Application), application receipt no. 9503523, for Bedrock Resources, LLC. submitted. January 26, 2012. Per review of the application the following was determined: At this time a water well permit cannot be issued as currently submitted. The current contract with West Divide Water Conservancy District (WDWCD), contract no. 120119BR(a), does not have sufficient water to address the initial filling of the associated pond. WDWCD contract no. 120119BR(a) only accounts for evaporation of the pond and does not account for the initial tilling. 11 is encouraged to contract West Divide Water Conservancy District to address this issue_ Depending on the contracting process with the Conservancy District, a second contract, may be preferable for the initial tiling of the pond and/or any other subsequence fillings, if the pond is every drained and later refilled. Additionally, please verify the location of the existing well. The location identified on application receipt no. 9503523. is slightly different then the as -built location identified by the well driller. for the well constructed under permit no. 287244. "Please be advised that the aforementioned criteria muni be addressed and received by this office by April 2, 2012 to retain active status of the ground water well permit application. Information submitted after that date will require a new ground water well permit application and will be assessed the appropriate fee." Please call me at (970) 945-5665 ext 5011 if you have any questions regarding this matter and initial and date all changes in black ink. Sincerely, ,,rr Dwight:v1. Whitehead. Engineering Tech (Ground Water) Erick Cc Bedrock Resources, LLC DItm:\dwudiVaumcino gca'1le,Intck Resoutc S I.LC...Li 02 -0 ? -1:!. receipt no 9511735_'3-'_" \VL)\ (...) needed fe 1" 1111 c+ Void. Water Division 5 • Glenwood Springs 202 Center Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • Phone.: 970-945-5665 • Fax: 970-945-11741 1,0,ilinn 4rlrielcc• fu tl 14ro 'lQk C'lanr.innri 4nrinnc (Yl SI607 • hiir' kr l' r c I1I. rn tic o 4-1 dE reniw � a� spa at fp �a tl •• x +� g c 0 v v 4 Environmenta a3- kirr CO vs Clid „go CD O Eco to • EL 0 0 z STERLING. COLURADC U PREMIER PAVING Zt -0 M stIN, N° Y E r K O n din W Q rw� 441 V w V 4 z .7 God g ▪ 03 V Oa 0 E cn U C C7 CT n .- -o -o L r 1 f1 .i' i a in -0 (An L C 0 f0 u L Q (1.) -0 tj >U} o_ L = 4-) •..., 0 0 © -0 0130 c L �_ E E on < < 1 0 0- W •N r t Pavement ro 11-71 0_ iiiiww���� (13 CU V 0 u L) a) �--� 1- 0 w -0 rrrr� w 1_ uw wia V c L E fp" ti3 W W o .a s CL >0 ma 0 ow ■ ■ ■ 0 0 r� 4,4 "GI w >■ Production Ian R3 Q mom sha 0 1 Achievements Environmenta 7og4 44 ° v. � m=o � o � aEW ° � o ‘k 161 O• (Ai NS (i) 10 W E pit =0vl14) pd,tii Q° O � � M 03 lift In W 2 esi Tire (1)IN tt rt n3 2': ,G7 1) CA 44 I* ea 0 j L m - 3 � � 4 Environmental Achievements (73 =Q o"all n tht,C 4%11`111 Wo Lt) es ti '0 �� .?„! w viz p f0 9). rsNaoa tic mweil a 13 LIN a) 46. ft ip C ti� a .Lp E Q i1 O � W eft V) E LL 141 CL 4?; ro Environmental Achievements 0 0 O s t.943 7.• c= W vEr t 0 v ki� N � Q � 06' C ++ vl ItaA '1! 4oin\ 11011 1'3 pc• C W weft iftell • 'Q �0 r0 f0 0 2, (3, Rifti ic �ev tr, eq i� 0 W p I. Li W tfii it 4ra 134Q E ICC aj, INZ iCqL '2' 4142 U i E 0"'$ o tajj ,_ Achievement Award 2002 Recipient of the Colorado Environmenta Production w E w w s 1) To w E 0 Lu o� i au -0 vii = 4.1 � a� L � ifuE ca. gl E 0. x E a) OL a) Q in— 0- • T.1 0 • 2002 Recipient of the Colorado Environmental Achievement Award Production fa Ct. ta4 0 z Achievements Environmenta cu '24) tin , it; tt,,c) it 0 (71, r.i. z"" a c in 0 u left 44 0 1: VI it 4) 43 4.1 eisa a 4.41 ski tn E EE k Inaft a) ra ts "ft E wEwowc a ... frIN EEuE- 2 a2(7,L..1 0 .La z w t.) 0 c 4 ra Ill NI. IS: 01 w q) ool, =ac aUa(1) La, 344oM L C 0) E 0) 0) W3 4.1N CO E as c a 4.1 C iing 4m1 "MI a. Ca ua oc i r4a 00 NW >v• - W Hot Mix Asphalt Production Accountability Environmenta L .0 .. -6tii w C 4.1 vift W 2 C C L'Il U c =17)IP 4 ... CO Y c 0) I— c '6 a .., o 0 0 a.+ .(1) W Ci. i = C nz Chi -c E = o o = to c Qi cuo —6 u) hi ez 0- cri Im ili 0 0. 4.1 0 ria E c 0 1471 Eu .." fa & I 8 •:gie 14:5 NEx Egl :12. «IS' wuE ILI -43 waft weft 72 — s]. Ra ,„t lifti fa. c e 1- ui i = 0 73 CI I in (71) CD Cli) w ,L# -0 > U .72 11:X E mr. e9 tj 211 = tl a) =144 r km vir ._ 4i 4 t3 C '. ta. 4) C CD 4"j c Z ill" E 63 in E umm 2 661* 0 4,4 11. = E ,c w 0 = 0 .7) 0 c u L. L. (A 0 zWO42 s� 0) imil 4J Environmental Accountabi ILA INC 11 1ft a t4)) (7) Cl°0WANiralLIECE.441 ta) I 14t2 2 CD CI. "CI W 1 E 14.4 u gj LouftZ win 0 Li :Iva haft (41 (I) c 116 E Ns' 0 za fv) ism u etnuilidrikarsi :v) 0 u ftic u) 0 •rni mid rIZI rsi U 4wal kmo 'eft 0 s'Nft k w ft Imo W 0 NC Lam Lai tim .64 W 44N 03 0 E ka4:10 ° W ft iu c ft ft El Zi IE w". 1 6.4 t r Production Information Environmental E 0 Y vrato No toe fC c 0 >4 I�� u C 0 44� i0) L c o3 CNA ,L 0 w .i to CL W Y! r? 03 3 p w a) to R _ . x V n Pm' W 0 o Cain CIL 160 igt l of EXHIBIT 111- FINAL Emissions Comparison: Continuous Drum Asphalt Plant and Selected Source Categories September 2001 Report Prepared for: National Asphalt Pavement Association 5100 Forbes Boulevard Lanham, MD 20706-4413 Report Prepared by: /11 Clayton tad) GROUP SERVICES 1200 Trinity Road Raleigh, NC 27607 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 Background. 1 Executive Summary 2 2.0 EMISSION ESTIMATES 4 Residential Fireplaces and Woodstoves 5 Bakeries.. 5 Barbeque Grills 5 Lawn Mowers 6 Auto Refueling 6 Fast -Food Restaurants 6 3.0 COMPARISON OF AIR EMISSION ESTIMATES 7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 9 5.0 REFERENCES 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Emission Factor Table Table 2 Hot Mix Asphalt Emission Estimates Table 3 Residential Fireplace Emission Estimates Table 4 Residential Woodstove Emission Estimates Table 5 Bakery Emission Estimates Table 6 Barbeque Emission Estimates Table 7 Lawn Mower Emission Estimates Table 8 Auto Refueling Emission Estimates Table 9 Fast -Food Restaurant Emission Estimates Table 10 Annual Emissions (ton per year) Comparison Between Asphalt Plants and Selected Sources 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background At the request of the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), Clayton Group Services, Incorporated (Clayton) conducted a study to compare air emissions from a certain type of hot mix asphalt plant (continuous drum) against air emissions from other easily recognizable, consumer -oriented source categories. In December of 2000, Clayton summarized the results of a previous study for NAPA comparing emissions from a batch asphalt plant against these same source categories. The goal of this effort has been to assist member NAPA companies in understanding the magnitude of emissions from asphalt plants relative to atmospheric releases from sources commonly found within a given community. The NAPA leadership believes that such an understanding will be useful for members engaged in community discussions on local environmental issues. The benchmark for this evaluation was a typical continuous drum hot mix asphalt plant, which we defined as having an annual production rate of 200,000 tons. As with Clayton's previous study, six other categories of air pollution sources were examined: • Residential fireplaces, • Residential woodstoves, • Bakeries, • Gasoline filling stations, • Barbeque grills, and • Fast-food restaurants. Clayton selected these six categories because of their frequent occurrence in most communities and the reasonably good availability of emissions data with which to compare against emissions from asphalt plants. Clayton's methodology for the study involved several steps. First, we calculated emissions from our predetermined "typical" hot mix asphalt plant. We then selected candidate source categories and conducted literature searches to identify emission factors and activity data. Finally, we used the emission factors and activity data for each category to determine annual emissions that were comparable to emissions from a typical asphalt plant. In deriving annual emission estimates for each source category, we attempted to develop a number that was similar to the emission levels from our typical plant. That approach in essence shows the number of sources in each category that would have emissions comparable to emissions from an asphalt plant (for example: thirteen residential fireplaces, twelve gas filling stations, twenty-seven fast-food restaurants). To acquire data for the analysis, Clayton conducted information searches through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF) on the EPA Technology Transfer Network, EPA's home page information sources function, California South Coast Air Quality Management District home page information sources function, and the EPA Research Triangle Park library_ Where possible, we tried to use EPA references (such as AP -42 document sections, Locating & Estimating documents, and other laboratory research reports) to enhance the credibility of our results. These references tend to base emission estimates on a larger data set than would a journal article or a State-sponsored emissions study. Executive Summary The results of our study show that emissions from a continuous drum hot mix asphalt plant are generally within the range of a small number of emissions sources from several consumer -oriented source categories. The following scenarios represent emission Ievels that are comparable to annual releases from a typical hot mix asphalt plant: • VOC emissions from 13 residential fireplaces during the course of one year • VOC emissions from one bakery operating for about two weeks • TOC emissions from 12 gas filling stations during the course of one year 2 • TOC emissions from 27 fast-food restaurants during the course of one year • Total PAH emissions from 35 residential woodstoves • Benzene emissions from one gas filling station operating for seven months • Toluene'emissions from one gas filling station operating for five months • Xylene emissions from 1.5 gas filling stations operating during the course of one year 3 2.0 EMISSION ESTIMATES TES Clayton developed emission estimates for each source category by combining emission factors with reasonably available activity data (throughput, consumption, etc.). With one exception, emission factors for the various source categories were obtained from EPA publications and were based on multiple source measurements. The one exception was our selected emission factor for fast food restaurants, which came from a peer-reviewed journal and was based on data from one source test. Table 1 (located at the end of this report) presents the emission factors by pollutant for each source category Clayton evaluated in this study. The full citations for each report and journal article used by Clayton are listed in Section 5.0 of this report. A general description of the reference for each category is listed below. • Hot Mix Asphalt Plants — EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP -42 Document ' • Residential Fireplaces — EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP -42 Document 2 • Residential Woodstoves EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP - 42 Document 3 • Bakeries — EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards AP -42 Document 4 • Barbecue Grills — EPA Air & Energy Engineering Research Laboratory Reports • Lawn Mowers — EPA Office of Mobile Sources Engine and Vehicle Emissions Study Report 6 • Gasoline Filling Stations --- EPA Locating & Estimating (L&E) Documents for Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (3 reports) 7'8,4 • Fast Food Restaurants — Environmental Science & Technology Journal Article I° In general, the activity information for each source category was derived using a combination of data and engineering estimates, The one exception was our gasoline - refueling category. For this category, the activity data (i.e., throughput amount) was 4 based solely on the average amount of gasoline calculated from EPA studies, as reported in the EPA's L&E documents. Tables 2 through 9 (located at the end of this report) provide the emission calculations and engineering assumptions for the annual estimates associated with each category. A brief overview on the emissions derivation assumptions for each category is presented below. Residential Fireplaces & Woodstoves The emission factor for both wood -burning categories was expressed as tons (per year) per tons of wood used. Clayton obtained the average wood use per household from an EPA -sponsored study. 11 The wood consumption value was expressed as mass quantity of wood per heating degree-days (HDD). We assumed that the average number of HDD throughout the nation is about one-third the value reported in Reference 11 for the Northeast. Bakeries The emissions factor for bakeries was an equation with several variables, which yields pound of pollutant per ton of baked bread. The numbers Clayton used for each variable in the emissions equation were obtained from an EPA reference listed values for different oven sizes. Clayton selected variables associated with an oven with medium-sized production. 12 Barbeque Grills The emission factor for barbeque grills was expressed as pound of pollutant per minute of cooking time. Clayton employed technical judgment to determine the average cooking time and number of times per year of barbeque usage. 5 Lawn Mowers The emission factor for lawn mowers was expressed as pound of pollutant per horsepower -hour. The EPA reference which provided the emission factor was also used to identify average horsepower rating and average hours per year of usage. Auto Refueling The emission factor for gas station refueling was expressed as pound of pollutant per gallon of fuel consumed. The average fuel consumption per gas station was obtained from the EPA reference from which the emission factor was obtained. Fast -Food Restaurants The emission factor for fast-food restaurants was expressed as milligram of pollutant per kilogram of meat cooked. Clayton determined the average annual meat consumption by contacting the Holdings Group for a local fast-food restaurant chain. 6 3.0 COMPARISON OF AIR EMISSION ESTIMATES Clayton developed a comparison of air pollution emissions for the various source categories based on specific pollutants or groups of pollutants. The list of pollutants for the comparison included: • Total Organic Compounds (TOC), • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), • Particulate Matter (PM), • Toluene, • Benzene, • Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) • Benzo(b)fluoranthene • Benzo(a)pyrene • Fluoranthene, and • Pyrene. The phrase "total organic compounds" is a generic term, referring to any compound containing a carbon atom. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are essentially all organic compounds that contribute appreciably to the formation of tropospheric ozone. The term VOC includes most organic compounds except methane, ethane, and a handful of halogenated compounds that have a neglible effect on ozone formation. Another group of air pollution compounds are classified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and are regulated by the EPA under Title III of the Clean Air Act. Of the 189, benzene, toluene, xylene, and selected PAH's were used for comparison. These HAPs were selected since three of the sources had published emission factors for these compounds. Table 10 (located at the end of this report) presents emissions comparisons between a typical hot mix asphalt plant and several source categories. The information is presented 7 in such a way to allow the reader to understand the ,amount of emissions from an asphalt plant relative to other consumer -oriented source categories. 8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Emissions from hot mix asphalt plants are comparable to many consumer -oriented source categories for a number of pollutants. A useful comparison of air emissions can be based on either the VOC or TOC emissions, since all the sources reported either TOC or VOC. The VOC emissions from a "typical" hot mix asphalt plant are approximately the same as those from about a dozen residential fireplaces and an order of magnitude less than those from a bread bakery. Furthermore, the TOC emissions from a typical hot mix asphalt plant are comparable to common residential emission sources from a small neighborhood. For TOC, the equivalent emission levels ranged from 12 gasoline filling stations to 382 residential woodstoves burning wood throughout the heating season. Particulate emissions from a typical asphalt plant had the largest emissions compared to other sources. However, even the PM emissions were comparable to those from a neighborhood with about 90 fireplaces or 160 woodstoves. It was difficult to develop a comparison of emissions for PAHs because not all of the same PAH species were reported for each source category. However, it is significant to note that the speciated PAHs emissions from our "typical" hot mix asphalt plant were generally lower than the same PAH species for the other sources investigated. 9 5.0 REFERENCES L U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP -42. Section 11.1 - Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. (DRAFT) 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP -42. Section 1.9 ---- Residential Fireplaces 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP -42. Section 1.10 - Residential Woodstoves. 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP -42. Section 9.9.6 - Bakeries. 5. Radian Corporation. Estimation of Emissions from Charcoal Lighter Fluid and Review of Alternatives. January 1990. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. P1390-186313. 6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Non -road Engine and Vehicle Emission Study Report. November 1991. Office of Mobile Sources. EPA -21A-2001. 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions of Benzene. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA -454/R-98-011. 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions of Toluene. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA -454/R-93-048. 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions of Xylene. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA -454/R-93-047. 10. Rogge, WF, et.al. Sources of Fine Organic Aerosol. 1 - Charbroilers and Meat Cooking Operations. 1991. Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 25, Number 6, 1112-1125. 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study. November 1987. Office of Research and Development. EPA160017-87- 026a. 12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Alternative Control Technology Document for Bakery Oven Emissions. December 1992. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA14531R-92-017. 10 S d X X X X X X X X X X X X v O XX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X n. X S X X XX X X XX X X 5 O O O OO O • .= § £ E EE am EE '4.2co O W LL N y- CO N N 02 0) ma 1- CO 0) C rc = coo B 0 E E 6 H tau_ in O) 0 rn0 co u) r "g * f<1 Co 3o C L A W 1i Barbeque Grills ' ig 10 22 c 0 C E B E12 m W LL O 0 0 1 t S N v 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 + Units F c O .0 11 1 q m 4 1 4 V liS W a?. LL i 4 iRM K M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MMM M CO M M M M M M M M M Residential Woodstoves .+. C G �� G C C CCCCCCCCC O O a_Bam3an3 gg 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 2 CCCCC 0 0 B222° 0 0 0 C O a C 00 B CCC a3.o SCO, C Baa C CC C BBB C C C +� W1le Ii tD co 0'ZZ C �� t- 00110 w. v Q (0 �O d' c010 V 041001 X00.-0 N 10 020) O) Oaf �a00N 60°06 CO�tN0 r 0 O p 000 OOO V0 000 000 cO 000 000 NN tl1 8 a * 15 K N N N N N N N C4 N . a + M O O .0-0.0.0.0 O o 0 O .0 O O .0a 2 A. .C+0 + me aP. E a WLL CO c. g w N 0C04 g N . 4 O a o 0pN N 40 0 fV B enzo(g, h, I )Fluora nthene Benzo(gh peer Anna 1 1 nF-n71 Ih/tnn 1 1 0 _ + < :,; 75 c r CCC 000 a a 0 0 2 C 0 B cc 0 a/3 0 c .c) a c 0 z -- c a CO. o BB C 0000000 a C C xi C C C C i ii 0 i� .O x r CC •0)0 Wu- MII1 'NM9O O co .- yi O to N N O a 010 •-c4 v N- 0 00101. V .- (O N co NN. CO V O) . . Benze(k)fluoranthene B P 1enzo(a) yrens Benzo(e)Pyrene Biphenyl C A o OI a 2200ZZFO O N X Q N 02CC) X C TNMOC r•ue [ O Ethane Eth lane Y Acetylene Pro ane P 'Propene i- Butane n -Butane BPentt nes ue anes AIdey h des Acetaldehyde Benzene d m .c1 C[ .0 E y W uC Furan Frf el VI u r Methyl Chloroform Methyifuran 2,5 -Dimethyl Furan rDuI none Toluene v.ne..e 2 D c Z u X d 00 om.cawc..r••v ButyraldehydeAsobu t Id h de yra ey Crotonaldehyde u d . C . dp - < nw. ICICI. .. Acenaphthylene Ill Gene FI Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene - _ -- 4 a. p XXXXXX xxxxx C Y7 XXX .❑ B XX X X fa n 1 n r 0 — 1 1 ''a CD 4 C/ o'o'o Q o: C/ p ' r a - z x 6 va Q-- O O °r' o q U, 4 [ll N v 4 W r Ul 4' LLJ N 1 L # c O q , n m a y 2 E a E 1q Ii [q C I N a u_,,LL m o a 0 D _ weg ri d cv m 5 a o 5 Q 11m11/1 9 t m ) at L/�r cr w .5 .E N w 4i • .- r - - r ILawn Mowers / - r r r a 3 C D n C D �I C C 0 A w SJ LLl LI. C cc O O fl . 2 2 1 Fs CCCCCCCCCC ❑ A9_0 1 , O d 1Alnq 2 g d b a O D n S] a, T _H 0 g m<o W U. r 6r— w r r W° C' 41 D <❑ C! 9 W 1.4 6 6] 4'3 (") 9 C I ul ' (0 (0 o 05 I r, (P 9 0 !11 W O o ca m fir] U[) ry 5 W 4 .- S 4,1 O Y tO 4, 6 9 ll1 C} .-. n] i I ` r !i) 9 W W O Cl +n ni (o e 0 dY u C m C 0 of O > n U 0i N a "• N (o O C c U 0 n a LI. C o -C y C C 4, Vrrop iOo N .r y. e, ?. c L N 2 ,, c'* — W m r m C i iilL A - m m C w N— X C 41 SE m z R a) N N a' cE r >. G.Q. 0 E' E' m .t Q3. n] (`7 ('7 t7 M ('1 C1 C C C C C C C C C C CC =� 4 0 0 0 0 0 ❑❑ O O p b 2 LTi m o C Y7 n n .❑ B .Q 1- 75 .fl n fa n n r 0 — 1 vE W LL ''a CD 4 C/ o'o'o Q o: C/ p ' C7 O 6 a�Qo C1 0 9 6 6 va Q-- O O °r' o q U, 4 [ll N v 4 W r Ul 4' LLJ N L # c I a Ii [q C I 0 D _ weg ri at L/�r cr .- r - - r .- � ,-r.,-.- - r r fl, 3 C D n C D C 0 3 C C 0 A C cc O O fl . 2 2 1 Fs CCCCCCCCCC ❑ A9_0 O O l O d 1Alnq 2 g d b O O D n S] a, T _H 0 g m<o W U. r 6r— w r r W° C' 41 C 1- 6U 4 LU ii 6 r C 6 %6y, <❑ C! 9 W 1.4 6 6] 4'3 (") 9 C ul ' (0 (0 o 05 ED P 9 9 W W 0 cp rn v 1• 6 r, (P 9 0 !11 W O o ca m fir] U[) ry 5 W 4 .- S rL ¶- o C) W W P O ill 47 <i ti 6 9 ll1 C} .-. n] 4-) (0 (0 9 9 6 W W W Ci CD Cf ul r CO .- r N h b'.4 d1 C% rn (D r !i) 9 W W O Cl +n ni (o e 0 dY u C m C 0 of O > n U 0i 1�M.1 C fl — m L' C N _h - a N •- a r- li "• N (o O C c U 0 n a LI. C o -C y C C 4, Vrrop iOo N .r y. e, ?. c L N 2 ,, c'* — W m r m C i iilL A - m m C w N— X C 41 SE m z R a) N N a' cE r >. G.Q. 0 E' E' m .t Q3. E E 2. `m (tea al () , E' E 7 m R m FT , 0Y a® U ✓ N C --. 're en M J'�f1 u Y. E m c Vl IV . 13 - fA w 0" 45 , S Table 2. Hot Mix Asphalt Emission Estimates a Emissions from rotary drum dryer and Toad -out, silo filling, and post load out operations. b Emissions from rotary drum dryer and Toad -out and silo filling operations. Pollutant Emission factor Units Ref # Emissions from a typical plant (tons/yr) PMb 0.033 Ib/ton 1 3.37 COb 0.14 Ib/ton 1 14.1 CO2 32 Ib/ton 1 3200 NOX 0.058 Ib/ton 1 5.8 SO2 0.011 Ib/ton 1 1.1 TOCa 0.044 Ib/ton 1 4.93 CH4 0.012 Ib/ton 1 1.2 VOC 0.032 Ib/ton 1 3.2 Isooctane 4.00E-05 Ib/ton 1 0.004 Benzene 5.10E-04 Ib/ton 1 0.051 Ethylbenzene 2.40E-04 Ib/ton 1 0.024 Formaldehyde 2.50E-03 Ib/ton 1 0.250 Toluene 1.50E-04 Ib/ton 1 0.015 Xylene 2.00E-04 Ib/ton 1 0.020 2-Methylnapthalene 7.40E-05 Ib/ton 1 0.0074 Acenaphthene 1.40E-06 Ib/ton 1 1.40E-04 Acenaphthylene 8.60E-06 Ib/ton 1 8.60E-04 Anthracene 2.20E-07 Ib/ton 1 2.20E-05 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.10E-07 Ib/ton 1 2.10E-05 Benzo(a)pyrene 9.80E-07 Ib/ton 1 9.80E-07 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.00E-07 Ib/ton 1 1.00E-05 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.10E-07 Ib/ton 1 1.10E-05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.10E-08 Ib/ton 1 4.10E-06 Chrysene 1.80E-07 Ib/ton 1 1.80E-05 Fluoranthene 6.10E-07 Ib/ton 1 6.10E-05 Fluorene 3.80E-06 Ib/ton 1 3.80E-04 Indendo(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.00E-09 Ib/ton 1 7.00E-07 Naphthalene 9.00E-05 Ib/ton 1 9.00E-03 Phenanthrene 7.60E-06 Ib/ton 1 7.60E-04 Pyrene 5.40E-07 Ib/ton 1 5.40E-04 TOTAL PAHs i 1.87E-02 Arsenic 5.60E-07 Ib/ton 1 5.60E-05 Barium 5.80E-06 Ib/ton 1 5.80E-04 Cadmium 4.10E-07 Ib/ton 1 4.10E-05 Chromium 5.50E-06 Ib/ton 1 5.50E-04 Hexavalent chromium 4.50E-07 Ib/ton 1 4.50E-05 Copper 3.10E-06 Ib/ton 1 3.10E-04 Lead 1.50E-05 lb/ton 1 1.50E-03 Manganese 7.70E-06 Ib/ton 1 7.70E-04 Mercury 2.60E-06 Ib/ton 1 2.60E-04 Nickel 6.30E-05 Ib/ton 1 6.30E-03 Selenium 3.50E-07 Ib/ton 1 3.50E-05 Zinc 6.10E-05 Ib/ton 1 6.10E-03 a Emissions from rotary drum dryer and Toad -out, silo filling, and post load out operations. b Emissions from rotary drum dryer and Toad -out and silo filling operations. Table 2. Hot Mix Asphalt Emission Estimates Calculations & Assumptions: Post load out TOC emissions = 0.0011 lb/ton of asphalt Loaded 1.10E+02Iblyr Post load out TOC emissions = 5.50E-02 tonslyr Load -out and silo filling operation emissions PMtot EF (Iblton)=.000181+0.00214(-V)euo.0251}[T+460)-20.43 V = asphalt volatility, default value of -0.5 T = Asphalt temp in F, default temp of 325F PMtot EF (lb/ton) = 0.000181+0.00214(-(-0.55))e({°.°251j{325+46°}2°.43}) PMtot EF (lb/ton) = 0.000181+0.00214*0.5*0.4836 PMtot EF (lb/ton) = 0.000698 PMtot emissions from load -out and silo filling operations (tons/yr) = EF * 100,000 tonslyr *1 ton/2000 lb 0.0349 TOC EF (Ib/ton)= 0.0172(-V)e«©.41251 +460)-20.43] TOC EF (Iblton) = 0.0172*0.5*0.4836 TOC EF (Iblton) = 0.004159 TOC emissions from load -out and silo filling operations (tons/yr) = EF * 100,000 tonslyr *1 ton/2000 lb TOC emissions from Toad -out and silo flung operations (tonslyr) = 0.208 CO EF (Iblton) = 0.00558(-V)e1°_°z51xT+460)-20.43 CO EF (lb/ton) = 0.00558*0.5*0.4836 CO EF (lbfton) = 0.001349 CO emissions from load -out and silo filling operations (tons/yr) = EF * 100,000 tonslyr *1 ton/2000 Ib CO emissions from load -out and silo filling operations (tons/yr) = 0.0675 Notes: Emissions were calculated for a continuous drum mix asphalt plant with 200,000 tons per year production. 9 Emissions were based on #2 fuel oil used for dryers. > For HAP and PAH emissions it was assumed that the dryer had a fabric filter. > No emissions for hot oil heaters were included. • No lead emissions from a waste oil -fired dryer were included. • No uncontrolled fugitive PM emissions from the following sources were included: crushed stone processing, paved roads, unpaved roads, heavy construction operations and aggregate handling and storage piles. > No emissions from asphalt storage tanks were included. Table 3. Residential Fireplace Emission Estimates Pollutant Emission Factor Ref # Emissions per household (ton/yr) Emissions for 13 households (ton/yr) PM10 34.6 Ib/ton 2 0.0373 0.0485 CO 252.6 Ib/ton 2 0.2726 3.544 3400 Ib/ton 2 3.6688 47.700.0028 CO2 2.6 Ib/ton 2 0.0365 NOX N2O 0.3 Ib/ton 2 0.0003 0.0004 0.0042 0.0056 0.4 Ib/ton 2 SOX 229 Ib/ton 2 0.2471 3.212 VOC 1.60E-02 Ib/ton 2 1.73E-05 0.0002 POM Aldehydes 2.4 Ib/ton 2 0.0026 0.0337 Calculations & Assumptions Throughput of an average fireplace: Assume that the same amount of wood is burned in the average woodstove as in the average fireplace annually. Reference 11: P.G. Burnet, Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study. Volume 1, EPA/600/7-87-026a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1987. Equation from Reference 11 is as follows: 1. Calculate an average wood use by calculating an average of the mean wood use values for all stove types using scale weighing and woodpile measurements. Aver wood use per household = (0.64+0.85+0.53+0.91+0.67+0.85+0.46+0.89)/8 Aver wood use per household = 0.725 dry kg of wood/ heating degree days (HDD) 2. Convert wood use from dry kg/1000 HDD to tons dry wood use/year (a) Convert from kg to tons dry kg/1000 0.725 HDD X 2.205Ib/kg X 1ton/2000 Ib 7.99E-04 dry ton wood/ heating degree days (HDD) (b) Convert from 1000 HDD to year Assume that the Vermont and upstate New York region has three times as many HDD as the rest of the country. The reference reported 8,000 to 9,000 HDD/yr. Therefore, assume that there are 2,700 HDD/year. 7.99E-04 dry ton wood X 2,700 HDD = 2.16 dry ton wood/yr Table 4. Residential Woodstove Emission Estimates Pollutant PM10 Emiss Factor Units 19.6 lb ton Ref # Emissions per household per year (tons/yr) 2.11E-02 Emissions for 31 households (tons/yr) 8.08E+00 CO SOX 140.8 Ib/ton 1 0.4 Iblton 1 1.52E-01 4.32E-04 5.80E+01 1.65E-01 TNMOC _ 12 lb/ton 1 1.29E-02 4.95E+00 CH4 Ethane 16 1.47 Iblton 1 Iblton 1 1.73E-02 1.59E-03 6.59E+00 6.06E-01 Ethylene 4.49 lb/ton 1 4.84E-03 1.85E+00 Acetylene 1.124 Iblton 1 Propane 0.358 Propene 1.244 Ib/ton 1 lb/ton 1 1.21 E-03 3.86E-04 1.34E-03 4,63E-01 1.48E-01 1 -Butane 0.028 Ib/ton 1 n -Butane Butenes 0.056 1.192 Iblton 1 Ib/ton 1 3.012E-05 6.04E-05 1.2.9E-03 Pentenes 0.616 Ib/ton 1 6.65E-04 Benzene 1.938 Iblton 1 2.09E-03 5.13E-01 1.15E-02 2.31 E-02 4.91E-01 2.54E-01 7.99E-01 Furan 0.342 lb/ton 1 3.69E-04 1.41 E-01 Furfural 0.486 lb/ton 1 5.24E-04 2.00E-01 MethylEthytKetone 0.29 Ib/ton 1 3.13E-04 1.20E-01 2-Methylfuran 0.656 ib/ton 1 2,5 -Dimethyl Furan 0.162 lb/ton 1 Toluene 0.73 lb/ton 1 9 -Xylene 0.202 Ib/tan 1 7.08E-04 2.7E-01 1.75E-04 7.88E-04 2.18E-04 6.68E-02 3.01 E-01 8.33E-02 .Acenaphthene 0.01 lb/ton 1 1.08E-05 4.12E-03 Acenaphthylene 0.032 Ib/ton 1 3.45E-05 1.32E-02 Anthracene Ben zo(b )fl uoranthene Benzo(g, h, I)Fluoranthene 0.009 0.004 0.028 Iblton 1 9.71E-06 3.71E-03 ib/ton Ib/ton 1 4.32E-06 3.02E-05 Benzo(g,h,l)perylene 0.02 lb/ton 1 2.16E-05 Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.006 lb/ton 1 6.47E-06 1.65E-03 1.15E-02 8.24E-03 2.47E-03 Benzo(e)Pyrene 0.002 Ib/ton 1 Biphenyl 0.022 lb/ton , 1 216E-06 2.37E-05 8.24E-04 Chrysene 0.01 lb/ton 1 1.08E-05 9.07E-03 4.12E-03 Dibenzota,h)anthracene 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)Anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene lndendo(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9-Methylanthracene 12-Methylbenz(a)Anthracene 1-Methylphenanthrene Naphthalene Perylene Phenanthrene 0.004 Iblton 1 4.32E-06 1.65E-03 0.004 ib/ton 1 4.32E-06 1.65E-03 0.008 Iblton 1 8.63E-06 3.30E-03 0.014 Iblton 1 1.51E-05 5.77E-03 0.02 lb/ton 1 2.16E-05 8.24E-03 0.004 lb/ton 1 4.32E-06 1.65E-03 0.002 Ib/ton 1 2.16E-06 8.24E-04 0.03 0.144 ib/ton , 1 lb/ton 1 3.24E-05 1.24E-02 1.55E-04 5.94E-02 0.002 Ib/ton 2.16E-06 8.24E-04 0.118 lb/ton , 1 Pyrene Total PAHs Cadmium 0.008 Ib/ton 1 1.27E-04 8.63E-06 4.86E-02 5.41E-04 3.30E-03 2.07E-01 Manganese 2.0E-05 Ib/ton 1.4E-04 lb/ton 1 1 2.16E-08 1.51E-07 8.24E-06 5.77E-05 Nickel 2.0E-05 lb/ton 1 216E-08 8.24E-06 Table 4. 'Residential Woodstove Emission Estimates Calculations &Assumptions: Noncatalytic woodstove type assumed for criteria pollutants, PAH's and metals. Conventional stove type assumed for organic pollutants. Assume the same wood use as was calculated for the fireplace calculations, which is 2.16 dry tons of wood/yr. Table 5. Bakery Emission Estimates Pollutant Emission Factor Units Ref # Emissions ton/yr) (from equation) VOC 6,9 lb/ton 4 60 Calculations & Assumptions: Reference for values in equation and bread production: Alternative Control Technology Document for Bakery Oven Emissions, EPA 453/R-92-017, December 1992. From the model ovens listed in the ACT, the one with medium-sized production and the largest emission factor was chosen, that is, model oven number 23. In addition to listing values for the variables in the emission factor equation, the ACT listed the emission factor and annual VOC emissions. These numbers were used. AP -42 Equation: VOC= 0.95Y1+0.195ti-0.51S-0.86ts+1.90 Ib VOC per ton baked bread; Y i= initial baker's % of yeast; t i= total yeast action time in hours; S = final (spike) baker's % of yeast; is = spiking time in hours The variables for model oven no. 23 are: oven size=6X10"6 BTU/hr, Bread production =17,308 tons /yr, Y=4,25, S=0, ti=5.15, ts=1, VOC emission factor (lbs/ton) = 6.9 and VOC Emissions (tons/yr) = 60 Table 6. Barbeque Emission Estimates Pollutant Emission Factor Units Ref # Emissions per Household per year (tons/yr) Emissions for Neighborhood of 271 Households (tons/yr) OC 0.0605 Ib/min 5 0.01815 4.9 Calculations & Assumptions: Cooking time (min) on barbeque grill 30 Number of times per year using grill 20 Single household emissions 0.0605 Ib/min * 30 min/event * 20 events/yr = 36 Ib/yr = 0.01815 tons/yr Table 7. Lawn Mower Emission Estimates Calculations & Assumptions: Ave horsepower rating @ 30% load 1.2 Ave hours per year of operation 50 Calculation for TOC (437 glhp-hr * 1.2 hp* 50 hrslyr)1(454 gllb *2000 Iblton) = 0.02888 tonslyr Emissions for Pollutant Emissions per Neighborhood of Emission Factor Units Ref # Household per 171 Households year (tonslyr)— (tons/yr) TOC 437 g/hp-hr 6 0_028813 4.938 PM 7.7 glhp-hr 6 0_00051 0.087 Aldehydes 2 glhp-hr 6 0.00013 0.023 Calculations & Assumptions: Ave horsepower rating @ 30% load 1.2 Ave hours per year of operation 50 Calculation for TOC (437 glhp-hr * 1.2 hp* 50 hrslyr)1(454 gllb *2000 Iblton) = 0.02888 tonslyr Table 8. Auto Refueling Emission Estimates Pollutant Emission Factor Units Ref # Annual Emissions (tons/yr) Benzene 0.105 Ib/1000 gal 7 0.032 Toluene 139.9 mg/I 8 0.350 Xylene 5.5 mg/I 9 0.014 Total "VOC" 0.393 Calculations & Assumptions: Throughput: Locating and Estimating document reported that the average filling station's throughput is 50,000 gallons per month. Benzene emissions = 0.105 Ib/1000gal *50 (1000ga1/mo) * 12 mo/yr * 1 ton/2000 Ib = 0.0315 tons/yr Toluene emissions = 139.9 mg/I * 3.7854 1/gal * 50000 gal/mo * 12 mo/yr * 1 g/1000mg * 1 Ib/453.593g * 1 ton/2000lb Xylene emissions = = 0.350 tons/yr 5.5 mg/I * 3.78541/gal * 50000 gal/mo * 12 mo/yr * 1 g/1000mg * 1 Ib/453.593g * 1 ton/20001b = 0.0138 tons/yr Table 9. Fast -Food Restaurant Emission Estimates Pollutant Emission Factor Units Ref # Emissions (tonslyr) TOC 2,405 mg/kg 10 0.18 2-Methylfuran 16.1 mg/kg 10 1.2E-03 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.29 mg/kg 10 2.1E-05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.21 mg/kg 10 1,5E-05 Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.19 mg/kg 10 1.4E-05 Benzo(e)Pyrene 0.19 mg/kg 10 1.4E-05 Fluoranthene 0.35 mg/kg 10 2.6E-05 Pyrene 0.74 mg/kg 10 5.4E-05 Total PAHs 1.4E-04 Calculations & Assumptions: To calculate throughput: Called Walker Holdings Group on 9/11/00. They own 8 Wendy's restaurants in the NC/southern VA area. Mr. Bert Walker reported that only data for their drive-thru sales were readily available. Mr. Walker reported that the average (for 8 Wendy's) drive thru activity was 2,821 cars per week. He added that the average check per car was $4.12. Assumptions: The same amount of sales occurred on foot (in the restaurant) as by the drive-thru. The average sale consisted of one burger (plus fries and drink and other side dishes) The average burger weighed 1/2 pound. Throughput calculation: Weekly number of sales = 2821 *2 = 5642 Number of "half -pounders" sold = 5642 Weekly number of pounds of hamburger cooked = 5642/2 2821 Iblweek Annual mass of hamburger cooked at the average fast-food restaurant = weekly mass * 52 2821 lb/week * 52 week:5/yr 146692 lbs of hamburger cooked/yr To calculate annual emissions: TOC Emissions: TOC Emissions (tons/yr) 2405 mg/kg * 0.4536 kgllb * 146692 Ib/yr * 1 9/1000 mg * 1 b/453.593g *1 ton/2000lb TOC Emissions (tons/yr) = 0.1764 EXHIBIT IAkA- Eagie Springs Organic Growers are faced with many difficult challenges every day. We are essentially attempting to restore and maintain entire ecosystems using the tools provided to us by nature. Without the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and the like, we have very little margin for error. We are extremely concerned with the possible repercussions of having an asphalt plant move in adjacent to our farm. We strive to create a healthy soil web, ideal climate and moisture levels, provide the correct fertilizer components and foster populations of beneficial insects. This complex system of growing supports stronger, healthier, more nutrient dense plants and produce. Each aspect is completely interdependent on the others. Every change we make has a direct and sometimes immediate effect on our environments. Chemicals such as those used by asphalt processing plants and those emitted as a byproduct of said process could disrupt our ecosystems, resulting in anything from poor crop health and reduced yields to complete crop failure. The National Organic Program, along with the Colorado Department of Agriculture has very stringent rules and regulations governing organic certification. In order to maintain our certification, we must keep detailed records of every item we use on our farm; from soil amendments to animal feed, pest controls to cleaning agents, all must be approved by the certifying agency. Each year we are required to submit our organic plan, all products we use in our operation, soil, air and water tests, etc. to our certifier. This is then followed up by a physical inspection of our farm by an objective third party to ensure that the system of checks and balances is successful. Furthermore, the Colorado Department of Agriculture can, at any time (without notice}, pull our product from either directly on the farm or from our customer's shelves for residue testing. If residues are found, and we fail to meet organic standards, we face the risk of not being eligible for recertification. If we are to comply with these requirements, we must know what environmental hazards are in our soil, air and water sources, and maintain records ensuring that these contaminants are within allowable levels or ideally, not present at all. The presence of certain chemicals in our crops, pastures, or greenhouses could cause us to lose our State Organic Certification. Currently, we maintain "buffer zones" between us and existing hazards, such as herbicide or pesticide overspray and drift from neighboring operations. There is no way to "buffer" against the air particulates released from a smokestack on a windy day. Additionally, we are concerned about the effect this could have on our future organic markets. Our sales plans and financial projections are based on market prices for organically grown products. If we were to lose our organic certification, a smaller operation such as ours would not be able to compete with the market prices for commercially grown produce that is available from California and Mexico. If we were to experience a drop in soil fertility, crop failure, or Toss of organic status, forcing us out of business, this would impact our local economy and community through loss of jobs as well as through the Loss of revenue generated by our operation. Thank you. a 0 0 w w u w .O 0. EXHIBIT 6(5 r t 4 ✓ 3- -^ Y X )3 t .'..t.. ' 'y io (i) .p VA i 1 LU •3N H gj a N ", A o `P .n 4 .n M 1.21n o 2 o n o.. t na ,m no m w m a P N o .. .w a M C �'► O O91 ,.1 N n .N 1:2 n. a 2 n V,' N . p ®® N p R aNnOa w .x V w e 0 ryb yeN V N w M w ap 5 N N � 8N H C $ ng T O UU U n 0 n r 0 a - O PJ L..';' w .+i 0 0000000000000 O 0 O 0 0 0 00006000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 00000000 0 0 d 0 0 00 0000000 9 N v, O ei - N ,•,',1 V nm nO o O 0K �O wO. .pN 6 .YO O O d OH O N O . 0 0 O d a �. m N - O `..L] w O 'd j av O 6 p 0O 0 0 N p n o *J p . O q 0ni d w '. ^' 0 0 y YOLf]N „ N '" O ®n n O n O N f.i0 O N O Ln O N 0 O d '.f...ry O 0O c2 O ''O ,LP.,N G d 2 J? O VO S 4 } z 7 m 3 uy ..o ,y O 0n p o = p .. w al W, o0 w O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 N .-e 0 0 0 M o,''' w 0 d 0 G N N = O = O o0 O d 0 0 0= 0090 N 0 v 2 .-+ ., o 0 m N N ., w .. 0 v 0 0 v m d 0 0 0 . v 4 0 r.. o w . d v 04 ov1 400000000 0 em n v 0 0 V • m 3 c D 0 p O dv „ N w„qG O O 4 a w tim v O d O O O _s 4 n , ° u 9 o Z., ,A or dita o 4 I d am �° 0 4m 3 - a P, p a 3 a r 5 d ,_, g y' ' d - N DA . v o o m E c °C_ .$ v 3 -,i_-, o s u u' m o � ° E� �° -Cr a c .- N a Ln a c' m' M m ar n a l W d m . 2'n 0J `. c c LL @ 0 ._z .0. a E E W 3 to •f o o a _ o • 'Ck.•"‘. • '•• P-0 ,..L., z 54.34A County Road 346 Silt, Colorado 81562 United States CERTIFICATION NUMBER LAST ANNUAL INSPECTION Initial Effective Date See Addendum Of Products 8 Let N cc• 4, . , • • • ''.i.•••77,k • ri sr t. • ri• C 0;e t :Cf • ,;(:•*..0 7' "P.... • . • • 71.791.. • 0. 7. • .1. 6.,f; : ' 't • • 5454A County Road 346 EXHIBIT CCC I have built my personal residence on this property, organic farm and a solar project all focused around sustainability of our USDA certified Organic Farm Invested over $12 million in Garfield County including the Colombine shopping center, which will become a year round farrners market, flea market and Community meeting space that will employee over 150 people combined Last year we were the largest customer of many Garfield County Businesses including CED, Fastenal, Chelewskis, Valley Lumber An asphalt plant in proximity to an organic farm is totally incompatible It is actually the worst possible neighbor that an organic farm could have They emit carcinogens and pollutants including benzene, arsenic, formaldehyde and heavy metals We met with the applicant and asked them for studies showing what emissions They would emit. And how they planned on controlling those emissions THEY HAD NO STUDY We asked how they planned on controlling dust and windblown particulate that would affect the nearby crops. They said they would use water. Since they do not have enough water on site , they would have to truck in water They admitted they cannot control dust totally and especially in wind storms that we get on the mesa THEY HAD NO STUDY I read that One way to control emissions is to have a very high smoke stack. Since they are on the landing path of the airport, their stack would actually have to be LOWER which would increase contamination. on our crops. Toxic emissions come from both the plant, loading of vehicles with asphalt and the vehicles themselves BUT THEY HAD NO STUDY We have no idea how much the emissions and dust will affect production on or solar project in which $4 million has already been invested. Of COURSE WE HAVE NO STUDY The approval of this project will cause us to lose our organic certification. There would be NO way for them to control the toxic emissions which would contaminate our land, water crops and animals. Since all depends on this organic certification 1 have put on hold a number of job creating projects until I get todays outcome Colombine Market project Steakhouse on Colombine Outparcel Next phase of solar project ALL put on hold I ask that you not condemn my organic property by allowing this change of land use. There is NO community need for an asphalt plant, however there is a need for food, power and jobs. This agricultural land must remain agricultural Please deny the application and save our farm EXHIBIT 1 P99 Board of County Commissioners February 6, 2012 — Continued to February 21, 2012 MI PA-7030/GH SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT INFORMATION -- STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit for an Asphalt Batch Plant and Related Accessory Uses APPLICANT (OWNER) Bedrock Resources LLC, Charles Ellsworth, Manager At the February 6, 2012 public hearing the Board of County Commissioners formalized a request of County Staff and the Applicants to provide more information on air quality concerns and compatibility with the adjacent organic farming operation located just east of the proposed site for the Asphalt Batch plant. Outlined below is additional research intended to help clarify the issues associated with compatibility. As necessitated by the short time frame available some sections reference verbal comments and answers from agencies in response to questions raised by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional information is anticipated from the Applicant and from neighboring property owners and will be provided in supplements to this report, L RESOURCES AND RESEARCH • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) — Air Quality Control Division and Construction Permitting • Colorado Department of Agriculture — Organic Certification Division • Environmental Protection Agency — web site and related links/reports II. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PULIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Source: Phone conferences with CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division • The Division provided clarification on State Air Quality Permits and the limitations they include on certain emissions including PM (Particulate Matter), NOx, SO2, VOC and CO (Carbon Monoxide). The amount of emissions allowed is based in part on the level of production at the plant. If the Applicant stays within the approved production levels they should be in compliance with the emission standards • Applications to the State for Air Pollution Emissions Notice (ADEN) and Construction Permits are reviewed based on the National (EPA) Ambient Air Quality Standards (see attached), The emission standards are intended to protect health and environment. Emissions data for the current location of the Asphalt Batch Plant from the Applicant's existing CDPHE Permit has also been provided by the Applicant (see attached). • Enforcement occurs if the operator exceeds the production limits and therefore would be exceeding the emissions allowances. Plants are typically inspected once every three years. The inspections focus on compliance with permit requirements and may not include specific on-site testing with the inspection. • The State does have odor regulations. They are not health based but nuisance based regulations most of which deal with a specific type of agricultural production (see attached excerpt). • Dust management plans are important part of the State's review especially when dealing with downwind properties. Vapors from this type of operation are subject to the State's 20% opacity standards and do not typically result in fallout to the ground. • In response to questions regarding differences between how industrial and agriculture activities are regulated by the Air Quality Regulations the following clarifications were provided. O Agriculture may be exempted from certain regulations (i.e. open burning, odor, dust) o The industrial air quality permitting is based on Federal EPA Regulations o Agriculture lands that are converted to other uses such as land development or subdivision then come under the appropriate State regulations o Issues of adjacent uses and related impacts are typically left to local jurisdictions (i.e. Counties). III. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Source: Notes from phone conferences with Colorado Department of Agriculture, Organic Certification Division • The National Organic Program addresses off-site impacts through the requirement of buffer zones on the organic farm site. In addition buffer zones are often required within the farm site itself between organic and non-organic production areas. • Typically a 20 — 30 ft. buffer zone might be created to avoid any overspray or drift of pesticide applications or applications of synthetic fertilizers. Another buffer strategy is stormwater diversions to avoid water entering the organic site carrying traces of prohibited non-organic materials. • Organic inspections typically look for symptoms of drift or off-site impacts. Symptoms can be reflected on the crops, crop performance issues or evidence of residue on the plants. A percentage of all organic farms are inspected each year. The National Organic Program regulation does contain provisions related to "unavoidable residual environmental contamination" (see attached). Residue testing by the Department is typically for pesticides and other synthetic fertilizers. • In response to inquiries about examples of industrial activities in the vicinity of organic operations, no examples were cited by the Division. The Agricultural Department maintains a list of over 200 Certified Organic Operators in the state. • The Division indicated that the odors that they typically look for are from pesticides. If they noted an industrial related odor at facility they would likely make note of it in the inspection records. • If residue or evidence of purposeful applications not allowed by the National Organic Program are found during inspection there could be a loss of certification for that portion of the farm and a 36 month delay in reinstatement. Residue may also indicate an insufficient buffer. Excerpts from the State Organic Certification Questionnaire reflect concerns for water quality, weed management techniques, pest and disease control (see attached). IV. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • An excerpt from the EPA, "Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emission Assessment Report" is provided and includes background information relevant to emissions issues. • EPA Ambient Air Quality Standards indicate the emissions that are tested for and related air quality standards (see attached). • Information on changes in EPA Regulations (2002) regarding Asphalt Batch Plants and related correspondence from the CDPHE are provided. V. GARFIELD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Source: Notes from conversations and referral discussions with Jim Rada, Garfield County Environmental Health Manager • Production of hydrocarbon emissions are typically in a gaseous or molecular form and not in the form of a mist, aerosol, or droplet. • Cooperative agreements on buffering and pesticide usage may be an effective option for the two property owners.. • Vegetation sampling adjacent to the Applicant's current location may allow assessment of impacts on agricultural activities in the area. VI. UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION AND COMPATIBILITY SECTIONS The following sections of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 are noted as they deal with compatibility issues (Section 7-108), protection of agricultural lands (7-201), air quality (7-208) and standards for industrial operations (7-810). SECTION 7-103 COMPATIBILITY. The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land. SECTION 7-201 PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. A. No Adverse Affect to Agricultural Operations. Land use changes on lands adjacent to or directly affecting agricultural operations shall not adversely affect, or otherwise limit the viability of existing agricultural operations. Proposed division and development of the land shall minimize the impacts of residential development on agricultural lands and agricultural operations, and maintain the opportunity for agricultural production on the most productive and viable parcels of land. B. Domestic Animal Controls. Dogs and other domestic animals that are not being used to assist with the herding or the care of livestock shall not be permitted to interfere with livestock or the care of livestock on agricultural lands. The County shall require protective covenants or deed restriction as necessary to control domestic animals. C. Fences. Fences shall be constructed to separate the development from adjoining agricultural lands or stock drives as required to protect agricultural lands by any new development. Fences shall be maintained and any breaks in fences shall be at properly maintained metal or wood gates or cattle guards by the development's homeowners association. D. Roads. Roads shall be located a sufficient distance back from the property boundaries so that normal maintenance of roads, including snow removal, will not damage boundary fences. Dust control shall be required, both during and after construction, to minimize adverse impacts to livestock and crops. E. Irrigation Ditches. 1. Maintenance. Where irrigation ditches cross or adjoin the land proposed to be developed, the developer shall insure that the use of those ditches, including maintenance, can continue uninterrupted. 2. Rights -of -Way. The land use change shall not interfere with the ditch rights- of-way. 3. Maintenance Easement. A maintenance easement of at least twenty-five (25) feet from the edges of the ditch banks shall be preserved and indicated on any final plat for subdivision, or the final development plan for any non - subdivision use. When approved in notarized written form by the ditch owner(s), that distance may be decreased. SECTION 7-208 Air Quality. The land use change shall not cause air quality to be reduced below acceptable levels established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. SECTION 7-810 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO INDUSTRIAL USE. A. Enclosed Building. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. B. Loading and Unloading. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. C. Outdoor Storage Facilities. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. 1. All outside storage abutting or facing a lot in a residential or commercial zone shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site -obscuring fence to obstruct the storage area from view. The fence shall be of material and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. D. Industrial Wastes. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. E. Sound. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. F. Ground Vibration. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property G. Interference, Nuisance or Hazard. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. • National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 1 Air and Radiation l US EPA Air andRadiation You are here: EPA Home»Air and Radiation *National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NA http://www.epa.g Last updated on Tuesday, N Page 1 of 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants. They are listed below. Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic meter of air (pg/m3). Pollutant [final rule cite] Primary/ Secondary Averaging Time Level Form Carbon Monoxide 31, primary 8 -hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year [76 FR 54294, Aug 1 -hour 35 ppm 2011] Lead 12, primary and secondary Rolling 3 month average 0.15 pg/m3 al Not to be exceeded [73 FR 66964, Nov 2008] Nitrogen Dioxide 9, 2010] primary 1 -hour 100 ppb 9ealrspercentile, averaged over 3 y [75 FR 6474, Feb primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb 21 Annual Mean [61 FR 52852, Oct 8, 1996] Ozone 27, and secondary 8 -hour 0.075 ppm Annual fourth -highest daily maximum 8 -hr concentration, averaged over 3 years [73 FR 16436, Mar 2008] Pollution PM2.5 primary and secondary Annual 15 ug/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years 24-hour 35 Ng/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years [71 FR 61144, Oct 17, 2006] PM10 primary secondary a d 24-hour 150 pg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years Sulfur Dioxide 22, 2010] primary 1 -hour 75 ppb al 99th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years [75 FR 35520, Jun [38 FR. 25678, Sept 14, 1973] secondary 3 -hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year as of October 2011 (1) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 pg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. (2) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1 -hour standard. (3) Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth -highest daily maximum 8 -hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1 -hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard ("anti -backsliding' ). The 1 -hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html 2/10/2012 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 1 Air and Radiation US EPA Page 2 of 2 (4) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour 502 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking. However, these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved. See historical tables of NAAQS standards • Carbon Monoxide • Lead • Nitrogen Dioxide * Ozone • Particle Pollution • Sulfur Dioxide http://www.epa.gov/airlcriteria.html 2/10/2012 Glenn Hartmann From: Charles Ellsworth [Charles(a7FrontierPavinglnc.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:41 PM To: Glenn Hartmann; Jeff Simonson Cc: Damian Ellsworth Subject: Emission Data for BOCC Feb 8,2012 February 8, 2D12 Description Particulate Matter Part. Mat. 10 Micron Nitrogen Oxide EXHIBIT FRONTIER PAVING ASPHALT PLANT Emission Data Per Permit #07GA0457 Emissions a@ Emissions @ Emissions Federal EPA Limits Permit Limit 2009/2010/2011 Per Stack Test Emission 120,000 Ton/Year Average 58,100 Average 58,100 Factor Tons(Calculated) Tons/Year PM 0.0650 3.9 1.888 0.339 0.04 grldscf PM10 0.0630 3.78 1.830 NOX 0.0550 3.3 1.598 Volatile organic CompoundsVOC 0.0320 1.92 0.930 Carbon Monoxide CO 0.2350 14.1 6.827 5.810 Sulphur Dioxide SO2 0.0580 3.48 1.685 Acetaldehyde 0.0017 0.102 0.049 Formaldehyde 0.0031 0.186 0.090 The Particulate Matter (PM) and the Particulate Matter 10 Micron (PM10) are tested as one emission. The combined allowable emission for PM & PM10 is 7.7 tons/year, FPI's plant emits 0.72 tons/year based on 120,000 tons/year The allowable emission for CO is 14.1 tons per year, Frontier's plant emits 12.0 tons per year based on 120,000 tons/year or 14 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment tests for Particulate Matter and CO. The other emissions are of such minute quantity or of such little significance, CDPHE and the EPA does not test for these materials, GRIDSCF = Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Foot EXHIBIT GGG DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMEI; Air Quality Control Commission REGULATION NUMBER 2 ODOR EMISSION 5 CCR 1001-4 PART A GENERAL PROVISIONS Pursuant to Section 25-7-109(2)(d), G.R.S., the following Emission Regulations are issued: No person, wherever located, shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air contaminants from any single source such as to result in detectable odors which are measured in excess of the following limits: l.A. For areas used predominantly for residential or commercial purposes it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more volumes of odor free air. I.B. In all other land use areas, it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with fifteen (15) or more volumes of odor free air. I.C. I.0.1. When the source is a manufacturing process, the source shall have an affirmative defense to a violation of Sections I.A. and I.B.. Part A, of this Regulation Number 2, provided that the source demonstrates that it is utilizing the best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous gases. In determining whether the source has met its burden of utilizing the best practical control methods, the source need not consider any method which would result in an arbitrary and unreasonable taking of property or in the practical closing of any lawful business or activity, if such would be without corresponding public benefit, I.C.2. For all areas it is a violation when odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with one hundred twenty seven (127) or more volumes of odor free air in which case provisions of Section I.C.1., Part A, of this Regulation Number 2 shall not be applicable. II. For the purposes of this Part A of Regulation Number 2, two odor measurements shall be made within a period of one hour, these measurements being separated by at least fifteen (15) minutes.. These measurements shall be made outside the property line of the property from which the emission originates. 111. For the purposes of this Part A of Regulation Number 2, personnel for evaluating odors shall be selected using a "detectability rating test" as outline in "Selection and Training of Judges for Sensory Evaluation of the Intensity and Character of Diesel Exhaust Odors." USPHS Pub. #999 - AP -32. IV. An instrument, device, or technique designated by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division may be used in the determination of the detectability of an odor and may be used as a guide in the enforcement of this Part A of Regulation Number 2. V. The provisions of this Part A of Regulation Number 2 shall apply throughout the State of Colorado. Except that this Part A of Regulation Number 2 shall not apply to housed commercial swine feeding operations, or to agricultural production that is not considered a major stationary source. PART B HOUSED COMMERCIAL SWINE FEEDING OPERATIONS Applicability The provisions of Regulation Number 2, Part B shall apply statewide, to new, expanded, and existing housed commercial swine feeding operations, with the following exception. This Part B of Regulation Number 2 is intended to work in conjunction with Section 61.13 of the Water Quality Control Commission's Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations Number 61. kl. Definitions The following terms are defined specifically for this Part B of Regulation Number 2. For any terms not defined in this Part B of Regulation Number 2, the definitions in the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (Sections 25-7-101, C.R.S., et seq.) and Commission's Common Provisions (5 G.C.R. 1001- 2) shall apply. II.A. Aerobic Means a waste treatment method that utilizes air or oxygen. I1 B. Anaerobic Means a waste treatment method that, in whole or in part, does riot utilize air or oxygen. II.C. Applicable Requirements Means all of the following as they apply to emissions units in a housed commercial swine feeding operation: II.C.1. any term or condition of any permit to operate issued pursuant to this Part B of Regulation Number 2; II.C.2. any standard or other requirement provided for in this Part B of Regulation Number 2; and II.C.3. any standard or other requirement provided for in the State Act or Commission regulations that apply to housed commercial swine feeding operations. II.0. Aquifer Means a formation, group of formations, or part of a formation containing sufficient saturated permeable material that could yield a sufficient quantity of water that may be extracted and applied to a beneficial use. II.E. Capable of Housing Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 1 of 2 Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of Federal Regulations a Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Electronic Code of Federal Regulations TM e -CFR Data iscurrent as of February 7, 2012 Title 7: Agriculture PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Subpart G—Administrative Inspection and Testing, Reporting, and Exclusion from Sale Browse Next § 205.670 Inspection and testing of agricultural product to be sold or labeled "organic." (a) All agricultural products that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as "100 percent organic," "organic," or "made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))" must be made accessible by certified organic production or handling operations for examination by the Administrator, the applicable State organic program's governing State official, or the certifying agent. (b) The Administrator, applicable State organic program's governing State official, or the certifying agent may require preharvest or postharvest testing of any agricultural input used or agricultural product to be sold, labeled, or represented as "100 percent organic," "organic," or "made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))" when there is reason to believe that the agricultural input or product has come into contact with a prohibited substance or has been produced using excluded methods. Such tests must be conducted by the applicable State organic program's governing State official or the certifying agent at the official's or certifying agents own expense. (c) The preharvest or postharvest tissue test sample collection pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section must be performed by an inspector representing the Administrator, applicable State organic program's governing State official, or certifying agent. Sample integrity must be maintained throughout the chain of custody, and residue testing must be performed in an accredited laboratory. Chemical analysis must be made in accordance with the methods described in the most current edition of the Official Methods of Analysis of the ADAC International or other current applicable validated methodology determining the presence of contaminants in agricultural products. (d) Results of all analyses and tests performed under this section: (1) Must be promptly provided to the Administrator, Except That, where a State organic program exists, all test results and analyses shall be provided to the State organic program's governing State official by the applicable certifying party that requested testing; and (2) Will be available for public access, unless the testing is part of an ongoing compliance investigation. (e) If test results indicate a specific agricultural product contains pesticide residues or environmental contaminants that exceed the Food and Drug Administration's or the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory toierences, the certifying agent must promptly report such data to the Federal health agency whose regulatory tolerance or action level has been exceeded. EXHIBIT Browse Next For questions or comments regarding a -GFR editorial content, features, or design, email ecfr@nara goy. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/egi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e f73 666 7ef2d7a3 9 fd0d2c45a3c77d... 2/9/2012 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 1 of 1 Home Page n Executive Branch n Code of Federal Regulations a Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Electronlp Code of Federal Regulations e - CFR TM e -CFR Data is current as of February 9, 2012 Title 7: Agriculture PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Subpart G—Adrninistrative Inspection and Testing. Reporting, and Exclusion from Sale Browse Previous j Browse Next § 205.671 Exclusion from organic sale. When residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerance for the specific residue detected or unavoidable residual environmental contamination, the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced. The Administrator, the applicable State organic program's governing State official, or the certifying agent may conduct an investigation of the certified operation to determine the cause of the prohibited substance. Browse Previous 1 Browse Next For questions or comments regarding e -CFR editorial content, features, or design, email ecfr( nara.gov. For questions concerning e -CFR programming and delivery issues, email webteam@ggo.gov. Section 5081 Accessibility http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgilt/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=Oece81 c 107b45cb12677f 35b3e8a... 2/13/2012 STATE OF COLORADO COL R .ADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Division of Plant Industry 760 Kipling Street, Suite 4600, Lakewood, CO 80215-8000 D PARTA[ENT OF Tet: (303) 239-4140 Fax: (303) 239-4177 www.colorado.govlagldpi AGRICULTURE Organic Certification Program DPI.ORG-OGSCPCQ (Rev 6111) 627 OFFICE USE ONLY - DO Reviewed by Organic Greenhouse/Specialty Crop Plan Certification Questionnaire f 1 have made copies of this form and other supporting documents for my own records QUESTIONNAIRE NIUST BE FULLY COMPLETED AND TYPED OR IN INK Every question must be completed for this plan to be sent to the inspector, If a question does not pertain to your operation, simply state "n/a". Attach current production map(s) detailing all areas. Other attachments include Inspection Appointment Form, Summary Statement, Field History Sheets, applicable tests for water, soil, and plant tissue andlor residue analyses, if required. Section 1: General Information Applicant/Company Name (This is what will he printed on your certificate) DBA (if applicable) Owner's Name Manager's Name Primary Contact's Name Physical Address City State Zip Code County Mailing Address City State Zip Code County Phone Fax Email Best way to contact you to complete the plan Year first certified List previous organic certification by other agencies List current organic certification by other agencies Do you understand the organic standards? Yes No Year when last complete Process Handling Questionnaire was Vast submitted: For re -certification, were conditions placed on your last year's certification? Yes u No If yes, what were the conditions? Were all conditions addressed? Yes No ri If yes, how? Have you ever been denied certification? Yes No If yes, describe the circumstances Do you have any outstanding noncompliances? Yes Q No If yes, what is(are) the noncornpliance(s)? CDA Organic GreenhousefSpecially Crop Plan Questionnaire for. Date Page 1 of 20 Section 2: Crop Plan Information NOP Rule 205.201(a) and 205.202(a) and (b) Please complete the table below and attach field history sheets and current maps that show all fields or Greenhouses (organic [0], and non-organic [C]) field numbers or Greenhouse numbers, acres or sq. ft., crops planted, projected yields and projected total production. The acreages listing in this table must equal Field Histories and maps. 36 month history is required for all cropsflands sowed In the ground; it is not applicable for container plants/crops. Attach additional sheets if needed Crop Requested for Certification Organic (0) or Non- organic (C) Field Numbers/ Range/House {if applicable Total Acres or Square ft per Crop Projected Yield/Acre or Sq. ft. Projected Total Production Total Acres or Sq. Ft. Organic Section 3: History and Eligibility NOP Rule 205.202(b) The NOP Rules require that to be eligible for certification, a site producing crops intended to be sold, labeled or represented as organic must have had no prohibited substances applied to it for at least 36 months preceding harvest of the crop. 1. Do you grow any plants in the ground? Yes No 0 //no, please skip to Section 4 2. Have you completed a three-year field history form for all sites used for organic crop production? If no, you must complete and attach a three-year field history form for these areas. 3. Have you managed all areas intended for organic crop production for 3 or more years? Yes LJ No n Yes n No If no, you must attach an affidavit completed by the landowner or manager(s) of any areas not managed by you for the past 3 years. 4. Are all fields/Greenhouses requested for certification located at the main farm address listed above? Yes Complete this information for each parcel that is in a separate location from the main farm address: No Field Numbers/Greenhouse Parcel Address/Legal Description No. Acres or Sq. Ft. OrganicfTransitionatl Rented (R)J Conventional Owned (0) Q CDA Organic Greenhouse/Specialty Crop Plan Questionnaire for. Date: Page 2 of 20 D. WATER USE: . For what purposes is water used on your operation: irrigation E foliar sprays I washing crops u greenhouse ❑ cooking Li cleaning organic product aNone coaling 2. Source of water: 11 on-site wells cleaning equipment [ other (specify): U river/creek/pond [ spring municipal/county irrigation district Name of municipal / irrigation district, if applicable. Include current water tests for coliform bacteria and nitrates. 3. Type of irrigation system: dr p [I flood overhead sprinkler other (specify): 4. What input products (fertilizers, insecticides, etc.) are applied through the irrigation system? Inputs fisted above should be Listed on the Fertility Input Table on page 5. What products do you use to clean irrigation linesfnozzles? 6. Is the system shared with another operator? If yes, what inputs and/or cleaning products do they use/ Li none none © none Yes U No 7. Is the system flushed between non-organic and organic use? Yes No ® N/A (no non-organic use) If Yes, how is the flush documented? 8. List known contaminants in water supplies in your area. Attach residue analysis and /or salrnity test results if available. 9. What water contamination problems do you experience (why and where)? 19. Describe your efforts to minimize the water contamination problems listed above. 11. Describe how you monitor the effectiveness of your water quality program. 2. How often do you conduct water quality monitoring? weekly 1 monthly n annually n as needed other (specify): CDA Organic Greenhouse/Specialty Crop Plan Questionnaire tor. Date. Page 8 of 20 NOP Rule 205.205, 205 Section 7: Speciality Crop Management The NOP Rule requires a crop rotation plan that maximizes soil organic matter content, prevents weed, pest and disease problems, and man deficient or excess plant nutrients. Your crop rotation may include sod, cover crops, green manure crops and catch crops. Producers must utilize sanitation measures to remove disease vectors, weed seeds and habitat for pests. Cultural practices, including selection of plant spe• and varieties adapted to site-specific conditions, must be used to enhance crop health. Approved synthetic materials on the National List 205.601 may only be used when management practices are insufficient to prevent or control problems, All weed, pest and disease inputs mi. be approved. A "restricted" input has specific annotations for its use. If you use a "restricted" material, you must provide evidence of how y address the annotation. A. Crop Rotation Plans 0 NJA: No Crops Planted in the ground (Skip to Section B) Crop Rotation Plan (List Cro Sequence Include Green Manure, Cover Crops and Fallow) Location Where Plan is Followed Anticipated Changes B. Weed Management Plan: 1. How do you monitor the effectiveness of your weed management program? weed counts n observation of weed types n observation of crop health p comparison of crop yields records of observations 1 counts U other (specify): 2. How often do you conduct weed monitoring? weekly monthly annually as needed 3. Rate the effectiveness of your weed management program: 11 excellent satisfactory needs improvement What changes do you anticipate? 4. What are your problem weeds? 5. What weed control methods do you use? crop rotation n tillage prevention of weed seed set 0 seeding monitoring use of fast emerging van mechanical cultivation 0 hand weeding mowing 0 livestock grazing n flame weeding 7 fallow ❑ black non -synthetic mulch ri synthetic mulch n soap -based herbicides other (specify): U No weed problems smother crops fl cover crops Egreen manure crops n other (specify): 6. Do you keep a record of how often you utilize these weed control methods, (e.g., dates and fields when you cultivate or flame weed a specific field?) Yes N eties 0 COA Organic GreenhouseISpecially Crop Plan Questionnaire for Date Page 9 of 20 7. List all weed control products used or intended for use in the current season on proposed organic fieldsicrops. All weed control inputs used during the last 36 months must also be listed on your Field Histories. Attach labels for all inputs. Attach Additional Sheets if Needed Pest Problem Product Name (including Formulation) I I Not applicable (No weed control products used) WSDAjor Manufacturer or Brand Name OMR! Approved? C. Pest Management Plan: 1. How do you monitor the effectiveness of your pest management program? U insect monitoring with traps ❑ observation of crop health U monitoring records kept II other (specify): comparison of crop yields Have copies of any test results available for inspection. 2. How often do you conduct pest monitoring? • weekly monthly ❑ annually U as needed ❑ other (specify): 3. Rate the effectiveness of your pest management program: • excellent ❑ satisfactory needs improvement What changes do you anticipate? 4. What are your problem pests? insects (list): Li rodents gophers Li birds 1_ 1 other animals 5. Do you work with a pest control advisor or Commercial Pest Control Company? If yes, give name: 6. What strategies do you use to control pest damage to field crops? U crop rotation ❑ monitoring ▪ companion planting ❑ IPM ❑ lures ❑ insect repellents ▪ use of approved products ❑ trap crops hand picking ❑ animal repellents ❑ other (specify) ❑ No pest problems ❑ crop quality testing Yes Li No n None development of habitat for natural enemies ❑ timing of planting selection of plant species/varieties ❑ traps release of predators/parasites of pest species ❑ physical removal use of restricted products ❑ physical barriers limited use of prohibited products 7. Do you keep a record of how often you utilize these pest control methods? (e.g., dates when you scout or apply inputs to a specific field or crop)? Yes No CDA Organic Greenhouse/Specially Crop Plan Questionnaire for. Date Page 10 of 20 8. List all pest control products used or intended for use in the current season on proposed organic fields 1 crops. All pest control inputs used during the last 36 months must also be listed on your Field History Sheets. Attach Additional Sheets if Needed Li Not applicable (No pest control products used) Pest Problem Product Name (including Formulation) Manufacturer or brand name WSDOIL or SRI approved? D. Disease Management Plan: 1. Rate the effectiveness of your disease management program: excellent satisfactory [J needs improvement What changes do you anticipate? 2. How do you monitor the effectiveness of your disease management program? ▪ soil testing observation of soil ▪ tissue testing ❑ crop quality testing • other (specify): Have copies of any test results available for inspection. 2. How often do you conduct disease monitoring? Eobservation of crop health comparison of crop yields limited use of prohibited products • microbiological testing El weekly U monthly U annually P as needed Li other (specify): 4. What are your problem crop diseases? 5. What disease prevention strategies do you use? • crop rotation ❑ field sanitation plant spacing ri vector management ri use of approved materials ❑ heat treatment • timing of planting El other (specify). selection of plant species/varieties companion planting use of restricted materials No Disease problems Q none timing of planting/cultivating compost/tea use n limited use of prohibited materials CDA Organic GreenhouseISpecoalty Crop Plan Questionnaire for Date page 11 or 20 United States Office Of Air Quality Environmental Protection Planning And Standards Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 EXHIBIT Air a EPA HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS EMISSION ASSESSMENT REPORT EPA 4541R-00-019 HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS EMISSION ASSESSMENT REPORT This document was prepared by: Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards United States Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC and under contract, by: Midwest Research Institute Kansas City, MO and Cary, NC EPA Contract Number 68D-98-027 and Eastern Research Group, Inc. 1600 Perimeter Park P.O. Box 2010 Moorisville, NC EPA Contract Number 68-D7-0068 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 December 2000 DISCLAIMER The information in this document has been funded by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under contract 68-D-98-027 to Midwest Research Institute and under contract 68-D-70-068 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. The EPA has made additions and revisions to the information submitted by the contractors. This final report has been subjected to the Agency's review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 OVERVIEW OF HMA INDUSTRY 1 1.3 DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR IIIVIA FACILITIES 1 1.4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL LIMA FACILITIES 2 2. ASSESSMENT OF HOT MIX ASPHALT EMISSIONS 9 2.1 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION 9 9 2.1.1 Batch Mix Plants 2.1.2 Drum Mix Plants 2.1.3 Recycle Processes 2.1.4 Emissions and Controls 2.2 EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR AP -42 SECTION 11.1, HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS 10 10 11 11 2.2.1 Batch Mix and Drum Mix Dryers 12 2.2.2 Hot Oil Heaters 13 2.2.3 Truck Load -Out 13 2.2.4 Silo Filling 14 2.2.5 Asphalt Storage Tanks 14 2.2.6 Yard Emissions 14 2.3 OTHER APPLICABLE AP -42 SECTIONS 15 2.4 EMISSION INVENTORY FOR TYPICAL HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS 16 2.5 EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR TYPICAL HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS 16 APPENDIX A AP -42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, December 2000 APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Number Emission Factor Documentation for AP -42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Production, December 2000 Final Report Chapter 3: Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (HIP), July 1996. LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants 4 2. General process flow diagram for counter -flow &urn mix asphalt plants 5 vii LIST OF ACRONYMS ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials Btu British thermal unit CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide (as measured by EPA Method 10) CO2 carbon dioxide (as measured by EPA Method 3) EPA Environmental Protection Agency HAP hazardous air pollutant (listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) HMA hot mix asphalt NOx nitrogen oxides (as measured by EPA Method 7) PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (a class of HAPS) PM particulate matter (as measured by EPA Methods 5 or 1.7) PM- 10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM -2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter RAP reclaimed asphalt pavement RTFOT rolling thin film oven test (ASTM Method D2872-88) SCC source classification code SO2 sulfur dioxide (as measured by EPA Methods 6 or 8) SOx sulfur oxides TOC total organic compounds (as measured by EPA Method 25A) VOC volatile organic compound (refer to 40 CFR 51.100); VOC is TOC plus formaldehyde, less methane, ethane, acetone, and other chemicals listed as negligibly photochemically reactive. ix 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents an assessment of emissions from hot mix asphalt (HMA) manufacturing facilities. Included in the report is a description of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated with HMA production; the procedures for developing emission factors and emission inventories for the HMA industry; and estimated annual emissions for typical HMA facilities. 1.2 OVERVIEW OF HMA INDUSTRY Hot mix asphalt is used primarily as paving material and consists of a mixture of aggregate and liquid asphalt cement, which are heated and mixed in measured quantities. Hot mix asphalt facilities can be broadly classified as either drum mix plants or batch mix plants, according to the process by which the raw materials are mixed. In a batch mix plant, the aggregate is dried first, then transferred to a mixer where it is mixed with the liquid asphalt. In a drum mix plant, a rotary dryer serves to dry the aggregate and mix it with the liquid asphalt cement. After mixing, the HMA generally is transferred to a storage bin or silo, where it is stored temporarily. From the silo, the HMA is emptied into haul trucks, which transport the material to the job site. Figure 1 presents a diagram of a typical batch mix HMA plant; a typical drum mix HMA plant is depicted in Figure 2. In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants, approximately 2,300 are batch plants, and 1,300 are drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMA production from batch and drum mix plants is estimated at about 240 million tons and 260 million tons, respectively. Based on these figures, an average batch mix plant produces approximately 100,000 tons of HMA annually, and an average drum mix plant produces about 200,000 tons of HMA per year. Natural gas fuel is used to produce 70 to 90 percent of the I -IMA. The remainder of the HMA is produced using oil, propane, waste oil, or other fuels. The primary emission sources associated with HMA production are the dryers, hot bins, and mixers, which emit particulate matter (PM) and a variety of gaseous pollutants. Other emission sources found at HMA plants include storage silos, which temporarily hold the HMA; truck load -out operations, in which the HMA is loaded into trucks for hauling to the job site; liquid asphalt storage tanks; hot oil heaters, which are used to heat the asphalt storage tanks; and yard emissions, which consist of fugitive emissions from the HMA in truck beds. Emissions also result from vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate storage and handling operations, and vehicle exhaust. The PM emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria pollutants PM -10 (PM less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter) and PM -2.5, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals, and HAP organic compounds. The gaseous emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC), as well as volatile HAP organic compounds. 1.3 DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HMA FACILITIES An emission factor relates the quantity (weight) of pollutants emitted to a unit of activity of the source. Emission factors for the HMA industry are generally determined in units of pounds of pollutant emitted per ton of HMA produced. These emission factors typically are used to estimate area -wide 1 emissions for a large number of facilities and emissions for specific facilities where source -specific emissions data are not available or where source testing is cost prohibitive. To develop emission factors for the HMA industry, data from more than 390 emission test reports and other documents on the industry were compiled and reviewed. Through a careful screening process, the documents that were determined to be unusable for emission factor development were excluded from further evaluation. The remaining reports were compiled by plant type, emission source, pollutant, and emission control. For each emission test, emission factors were calculated by dividing the measured emission rates by the HMA production rate measured at the time of the emission test. These emission. factors were then grouped by source, pollutant, and control device, and an average emission factor was calculated for each group. Emission factors can be used to estimate emissions from one or more HMA facilities by multiplying the emission factor by the HMA production rate. For example, the emission factor for CO emissions from a natural gas-fired drum mix dryer is 0.13 pounds per ton (lblton). If the dryer produces 200,000 tons per year (tonlyr), the estimated CO emissions during that period would be: 200,000 tonlyr x 0.13 lb/ton = 26,000 lb/yr or 13 tons/yr. 1.4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL HMA FACILITIES Annual emissions for a facility can be estimated by summing up the emissions from each emission source over the course of a year. Annual emissions for a specific source can be estimated by multiplying the annual throughput or production rate for that source by its corresponding emission factors. For an HMA facility, annual emissions can be estimated by multiplying the annual HMA production rate by the emission factors for each type of source at the facility. Table 1 summarizes annual emissions for a typical HMA batch mix plant, and Table 2 summarizes annual emissions for a typical drum mix HMA plant. The estimates presented in these tables account for ail of the identified emission sources at each type of facility. For both batch mix plants (Table 1) and drum mix plants (Table 2), the estimate includes emissions from the dryer/mixer, load -out operations, asphalt storage, yard (fugitive emissions from loaded trucks), diesel exhaust, paved and unpaved road dust, and aggregate processing (screening, conveyor transfer, and reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP] crushing). Additionally, for the drum mix plant (Table 2), the estimate includes emissions from silo filling operations. Estimates are presented for criteria pollutants (pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards have been developed) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, as defined in section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments). Criteria pollutants include PM -10, VOC, CO, SO2, and NOx. Emissions for three classes of HAPs are presented in Tables 1 and 2: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic HAPs, and metal HAPS. The emissions were estimated using the emission factors developed for the HMA industry and the following assumptions: • Dryers are fueled with natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil (estimates are presented for both types). It is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of HMA plants use natural gas, although some HMA plants use fuel oil as an alternative to natural gas. • Dryer emissions are controlled with fabric filters. • PM emissions from load -out and silo filling are entirely PM -10. • Annual HMA production rate for a typical batch mix plant is 100,000 tonlyr. • Annual HMA production rate for a typical drum mix plant is 200,000 tonlyr. • The typical HMA plant has two 18,000 -gallon asphalt storage tanks. As indicated in Table 1, a typical batch mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer emits over 74,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical batch mix plant using a natural gas-fired dryer emits over 2 56,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 41,000 lb/yr are CO and approximately 10,700 lb/yr are PM -10; emissions of other criteria pollutants range from about 500 to about 12,000 lb/yr. The same plant would emit about 770 lb/yr of HAPS. A typical drum mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer emits about 83,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical drum mix plant using a natural gas-fired dryer emits around 75,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 28,000 lb/yr are CO, about 10,000 lb/yr are VOC, and around 31,000 lb/yr are PM -10. A typical drum mix plant emits from 1,300 to 2,000 lb/yr ofHAPs, depending on the fuel used in the dryer. STATE OF COLO Bill Owens, Governor Jane E. Norton, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. 5. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co.us August 28, 2002 Tom Peterson Executive Director Colorado Asphalt and Pavement Association 6880 South Yosemite Court, Suite 110 Englewood, Colorado 80112 Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Delisting of Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing Dear Tom: EXHIBIT i K Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Congratulations to the hot mix asphalt industry of Colorado and to the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association ("CAPA") for the EPA ruling that de -lists hot mix asphalt plants from the list of major polluters. This is a significant announcement and speaks well for the environmental accomplishments of the industry. On February 12, 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("US EPA") issued a decision that deleted asphalt concrete manufacturing as a source type that would require US EPA to promulgate a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAP"). The Clean Air Act requires, under section 112, that EPA list all categories of major sources emitting hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs") and such categories of area sources warranting regulation and promulgate a NESHAP to control, reduce, or otherwise limit the emissions of HAPS from such categories of major and area sources. On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), pursuant to requirements in section 112(e), US EPA published a schedule for the promulgation of emission standards for each of the 174 initially listed source categories. The asphalt concrete manufacturing industry was one of these source categories. The US EPA may, where appropriate, delete categories of sources on the US EPA's own motion or on petition. On February 12, 2002, US EPA deleted the Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing source category on the US EPA's own motion. US EPA included this source category on the initial list notice (57 FR 31576, July 1992), because at the time, US EPA believed there were major sources in each category, either because they were major sources in their own right or because of collocation with other sources of HAPS. This source category was deleted because available data indicate that there are no major sources in any of the source categories. US EPA used emissions data and emission factors to estimate HAP emissions from eleven asphalt concrete manufacturing plants employing various production processes and different fuels. Emissions of total HAPs at the individual plants ranged from 1.5 tons per year ("tpy") to 6.4 tpy. In addition, emission factors were used to estimate HAP emissions from a plant with a high annual production of 1.2 million tons of asphalt concrete. US EPA estimated total HAP emissions from that plant to be 6.2 tpy. Based on the above information, US EPA concluded that no asphalt concrete manufacturing facility has the potential to emit HAPS approaching major source levels. As a result of this decision, the US EPA will not develop a specific regulation for the asphalt concrete manufacturing industry that requires affected sources to implement work practices and install control equipment to reduce HAP emissions. This decision does not exempt individual sources that are major sources from potentially having to comply with other regulatory requirements concerning HAP emissions. If a facility is concerned that it might be operating as a major source for HAPs, the Air Pollution Control Division ("Division") recommends the facility conduct an emissions inventory and contact the Division's Operating Permit Program. The asphalt industry of Colorado continues to make significant strides towards environmental excellence and we are pleased to be partnering with your industry on the COMPASS Project and the newly initiated COMET project. Thank you for your continued cooperation in the partnership with the Division. Sincerely, Margie Perkins -1 Director, Air Pollution Control Division cc: Chuck Hix, APCD Jill E. Cooper, Office of Environmental Programs 68124 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 2171 Friday, November 8, 20021 Notices issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 105 days from the date of this notice. Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title -COMMENTS", "REPLY COMMENTS", "RECOMMENDATIONS," "TERMS AND CONDITIONS," or "PRESCRIPTIONS;" (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010. Linwood A. Watson, tr., Deputy Secretary. (FR Doc. 02-28442 Filed 11-7-02; 8:45 ern] BILLING COOE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket ID Nos. OAR -2002-0041 and OAR - 2002 -0036; AD-FRL-T406-41 RIN 2060-AK34 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 112(0)(6) and 112(k) of the Clean Air Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of revisions to the area source category list and inventory. SUMMARY: This notice removes five area source categories of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (i.e., asphalt hot -mix production, fabricated metal products, paint and allied products, paper coated and laminated, packaging and transportation equipment manufacturing) from the list developed under section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). It also removes an additional area source category, Open Burning of Scrap Tires, from the anthropogenic stationary source categories included in the inventory analysis for section 112(c)(6) and 112(k). Consequently, that source category will no longer be a candidate for regulation under either section 112(c)(6) or 112(k). The revisions in this notice have not been reflected in any previous notices and are being made without public comment on the Administrator's own motion. Such revisions are deemed by EPA to be without need for public comment based on the nature of the actions. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2002. ADDRESSES: The offtcial public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara B. Driscoll, Policy, Planning and Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD -C439-04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, facsimile number (919) 541-0942, telephone number (919) 541- 1051, electronic mail (e-mail): driscall.barbara@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under the Docket ID Nos. OAR -2002-0041 and OAR -2002-0036. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. Electronic Access You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the "Federal Register" listings at http://www.epa.gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.govledocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in this document. Once in the system, select "search," then key in the appropriate docket identification. Worldwide Web (WWW) In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the notice will be posted an the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules, http:l/www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg, The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384. L Revisions to the Section 112(c)(6) Source Category List A. What Is the History of the Source Category List for the Seven HAP Specified Under Section 112(c)(6)? Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA instructs us to list categories and subcategories of sources to assure that sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregated emissions of each of seven specific HAP (alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter (POM), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDF) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)) are subject to standards under section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), The EPA published a list of categories for section 112(d)(2) rulemaking pursuant to section 112(0(6) on April 10, 1998 (63 FR 17838). In the April 1998 Federal Register notice, we provided a summary table of 1990 emissions inventory data for known sources of the seven specific HAP titled "Summary of 1990 Emission Inventory Data for Section 112(c)(6) Pollutants (tons/yr)." Emissions inventories consist of estimates of annual emissions to the air from all the sources for which data are available such as power plants, chemical plants, automobiles, and wildfires. Using these inventory data, we identified the sources of the total emissions of these seven HAP. However, we did not further evaluate certain types of sources that are not considered appropriate for section 112 regulation. The sources excluded Federal Register 1 Vol. 67, No. 2171 Friday, November 8, 20021 Notices 68125 from further evaluation are wildfires and prescribed burning, mobile sources (cars, airplanes, etc.), residential combustion sources (fireplaces, woodstoves, oil and coal heaters), pesticide application, cigarette smoke, utility boilers, gasoline distribution stage II (evaporative emissions from gas stations), and consumer products usage. The April 1998 Federal Register notice also contains a table of source categories subject to regulation which is titled "1990 Anthropogenic Stationary Source Category Percentage Contributions and Associated Regulations." This table provides the individual percentage contributions for each source category toward the total 1990 anthropogenic stationary source emissions of each of the seven HAP. The table also lists any associated regulation for each source category. A review of the available data indicated that a substantial majority of source categories emitting the seven HAP had already been listed for regulation under section 112(d)(2) of the CAA or were subject to substantively equivalent regulation under other CAA authorities. Consequently, in April 1998, we listed only two additional source categories in response to the requirements in section 112(c)(6) to ensure that sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the emissions of the seven HAP had been targeted for regulation. These were Open Burning of Scrap Tires and Gasoline Distribution (Aviation Fuel), which includes evaporative losses associated with the distribution and storage of aviation gasoline containing lead. In addition to these two new source categories, EPA's list of categories subject to regulation in the April 1998 notice included both the major and area source components of many source categories for which we had not yet promulgated a section 112(d) regulation. We stated that: When the regulations for each of those categories are developed, EPA will analyze the data specific to those sources and determine, under section 112(d), in what manner requirements will be established. Some area categories may be negligible contributors to the 90 percent goal, and as such pose unwarranted burdens for subjecting to standards. These trivial source categories will be removed from the listing as they are evaluated since they will not contribute significantly to the 90 percent goal. (63 FR 17841) B. Why Is EPA Revising the Section 112(0(6) List? This notice announces the removal of five area source categories, all of which are emission sources of POM, from the air toxics source category list identified in the April 1998 Federal Register notice (63 FR 17838). We are also removing an additional area source category, Open Burning of Scrap Tires, an emission source of POM, from the anthropogenic stationary source categories considered in the section 112(c)(6) inventory analysis. Consequently, Open Burning of Scrap Tires will no longer be a candidate for regulation under section 112(c)(6). With these changes, EPA is still able to meet the requirement to list categories and subcategories of sources to assure that sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregated emissions of each of seven HAP specified in section 112(c)(6) are subject to standards. Specifically, we have determined that the following five area source categories of POM are not needed to achieve the statutory requirement to subject to standards those sources accounting for 90 percent of the aggregated emissions of POM: Asphalt Hot -Mix Production: Fabricated Metal Products; Paint and Allied Products; Paper Coated and Laminated, Packaging; and Transportation Equipment Manufacturing. This is because we now include the area source contribution of Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1) toward the 90 percent requirement for POM. We included this category as a candidate for listing in the April 1998 notice, but at that time it was not counted toward the 90 percent requirement since we had not yet determined whether we would develop regulations for the area source component of Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1). Subsequently, we added this category to the list of area source categories for regulation under a July 1999 Federal Register notice for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706) and, therefore, now list it as a source category subject to regulation under section 112(c)(6). We are removing a seventh area source category of POM, Open Burning of Scrap Tires, from the list of anthropogenic stationary source categories subject to section 1'12(c)(6) inventory analysis; consequently it is no longer a candidate for regulation under section 112(c)(61, For reasons similar to our rationale for exclusion of a number of other source categories (e.g., wildfires), we do not consider Open Burning of Scrap Tires to be a source category appropriate for regulation under section 112 of the CAA. Open burning of scrap tires is generally a result of arson, accident, or lightning. There is no business or industry that uses open burning of scrap tires. Moreover, this activity is already banned in all 50 States either through State statute or under health, and public safety codes. For the section 112(c)(6) inventory analysis, we used three surrogates for POM which are described in the April 1998 Federal Register notice (63 FR. 17845). These are: (1) Extractable organic matter (EOM), (2) the sum of the seven polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds that are probable human carcinogens (7—PAH), and (3) the sum of the sixteen polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds measured in EPA test method 610 (16—PAH). The area source category revisions in this notice impact the section 112(c)(6) analysis for two of these POM surrogates; 7—PAH and 16— PAH. Because the area source category of Open Burning of Scrap Tires was estimated to represent 294 tons per year of 16—PAH in 1990, we removed this tonnage from the total 1990 emissions of 16—PAH subject to section 112(c)(6) analysis. Similarly, because Open Burning of Scrap Tires was estimated to contribute 52.5 tons per year of 7—PAH in 1990, we removed this tonnage from the total 1990 emissions of 7—PAH subject to section 112(c)(6) analysis. Table 1 of this notice provides an updated sununary based on the changes described in this notice of the source categories that emit 16—PAH and the percentage of 1990 emissions attributable to each category. Table 2 of this notice provides the same information for source categories that emit 7—PAH. In both Tables 1 and 2, we list the area and major source emissions contributions for each source category separately to show the relative contributions. For 16—PAH, Table 1 reflects an update of major versus area source contributions to emissions for two source categories: Primary Aluminum Production and Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills. For 7—PAH, Table 2 reflects an update of the major versus area source emissions contributions for Primary Aluminum Production. Table 3 of this notice contains the revised emissions contributions as a result of the updates to the major and area source contributions for each of these source categories. The update reflects that both Primary Aluminum Production and Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills are source categories consisting of 100 percent major sources. Consistent with the discussion in the October 18, 2000 Federal Register notice on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing (65 FR 62414), Table 2 in today's notice reflects the removal of the source category and 68126 Federal Register f Vol. 67, No. 217 /Friday, November 8, 20021 Notices POM emissions (7 tons in the form of 16 -PAH) from Tire Manufacturing. This is because the POM emissions from this source category are due to combustion associated with the use of steam boilers in the rubber tire manufacturing process. We believe that these emissions are already accounted for under the POM (16 -PAH) emission estimates for boilers. In Tables 1 and 2 of this notice, we sum the percentage contributions for each pollutant to show the total emissions of 16 PAH and 7 -PAH subject to standards. For 16 -PAH, the total is 92.2 percent (of 8,404.69 tons per year) and for 7 -PAH, it is 99.1 percent (of 314.4 tons per year). II. Revisions to the Section 112(k) Area Source Category Inventory A. What Is the History of the Emissions Inventory Development for POM Under Section 112(k)? As discussed in the July 19, 1999 Federal Register notice on the National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Strategy (64 FR 38706), section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires us to identify not less than 30 HAP that are estimated to pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas as a result of emissions from area sources. The EPA's list of area source HAP includes POM. For the evaluation of POM as a potential public health threat in urban areas, and for the subsequent source category analysis, we used 7 -PAH as a surrogate for the much larger, more complex and diverse mixture of POM. Under section 112(k), we are required to identify sufficient area source categories to assure that sources accounting for 90 percent or more of the aggregate emissions of each of the 30 identified HAP are subject to standards under section 112(d). In determining the aggregate area source emissions of 7 - PAH, EPA considered area source categories that were subject to existing standards, or which were expected to be subject to standards based on their inclusion in the existing regulatory agenda for area source categories. Since Open Burning of Scrap Tires was identified in the April 1998 Federal Register notice for section 112(c)(6) as an area source category we intended to regulate, we included it as a category for regulation under section 112(k) and counted its emissions of 7 -PAH toward the total subject to the 90 percent requirement. B. Why Is EPA Removing Open Burning of Scrap Tires From the Section 112(k) Inventory of Area Sources? As previously discussed in today's notice, we do not consider Open Burning of Scrap Tires to be a source category appropriate for regulation under section 112 of the CAA. Therefore, it is no longer a candidate for regulation under section 112(k). Because the area source category of Open Burning of Scrap Tires was estimated to contribute 45.5 tons per year of 7 -PAH in urban areas in 1990, we removed this tonnage from the total 1990 emissions of 7 --PAH subject to the section 112(k) area source category analysis. The effect of this change in the area source categories being listed under section 112(k) will be addressed in a future Federal Register notice. 111. Administrative Requirements Today's notice is not a rule; it is essentially an information -sharing activity which does not impose regulatory requirements or costs. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply to today's notice. Also, this notice does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), a regulatory action determined to be "significant" is subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines "significant" regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may either (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The OMB has determined that this action is not significant under the terms of Executive Order 12866. Dated: November 4, 2002. Robert Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. TABLE 1.-1990 ANTHROPOGENIC STATIONARY SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS (TONSIYEAR) AND PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 16 -PAH Source category Area emis- Bions Major emis- sions Percentage of emissions Cumulative percent Aerospace Industry (Surface Coating) 1.64e+03 19.51 19.5 Petroleum Refining: All Processes 1.07e+03 12.77 32.3 Primary Aluminum Production 6.62e+03 7.88 40.2 Pulp and Paper Kraft Recovery Furnaces 6.49e+02 7.72 47.9 Coke Ovens: Charging, Topside & Door Leaks 5.39e+02 6.41 54.3 Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching & Battery Stack 5.17e+02 6.15 60.4 Blast Furnace and Steel Milts 4.99e+02 5.94 66.4 Industrial Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 2,23e+02 2.65 69.0 Pulp and Paper- Lime Kilns 1.83e+02 2.18 71.2 Industrial Coat Combustion 1.10e+02 1.31 72.5 Plastic Foam Products Manufacturing 1.O8e+02 1.29 73.8 Fabricated Metals Products 1.07e+02 1.28 75.1 Chemical Manufacturing: Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production 1.01e+02 1.20 76.3 (',.i, rh.... Pv_Prruiilr^t Pornvanr Plants .. 7.78e+01 0.93 77.2 Federal Register 1 Vol, 67, No. 2171 Friday, November 8, 20021 Notices 68127 TABLE 1.-1990 ANTHROPOGENIC STATIONARY SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR) AND PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 16 -PAH -Continued Source category 9 ry Area emis- sions Major emis- sions Percentage of emissions Cumulative percent Industrial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion 5.50e+01 0.65 77.9 Paper Coated and Laminated. Packaging 5.43e+01 0.65 78.5 Napthalene Production 4.52e+01 0.54 79.5 Portland Cement Manufacture: Non -Hazardous Waste Kilns .. 3.83e+01 0.46 79.9 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (SICs combined) 3.87e+01 0.46 50.4 Asphalt Roofing Production 3.72e+01 0.44 80.8 Secondary Lead Smelting 3.64e+01 0.43 812 Industrial Oil Combustion 3.56e+01 0.42 81.7 Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1) 3.55e+01 0.42 82.1 Commercial Coal Combustion 3.458+01 0.41 78.9 Commercial Printing, Gravure ... 2.87e+01 0.34 82.8 Industrial Stationary IC Engines: Natural Gas 2.86e+01 0.34 82,8 Paints and Allied Products 2.37e+01 0.28 83.1 Phthalic Anhydride Production 1.83e+01 0.22 83.3 (Surface Coating) Ship Building and Repair 1.36e+01 0.16 83.4 Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 1.11e+01 0.13 83.6 Comrnercial Oil Combustion 1.07e+01 0.13 83.7 Portland Cement Manufacturing: Hazardous Waste Kilns 1.26e+01 0.15 83.8 Commercial WoodiWood Residue Combustion 7.16e+00 0.09 83.9 Industrial Stationary IC Engines: Diesel 3.51e+00 0.04 84.0 Chloroalkali Production 1.36e+00 0.02 84.0 AREA SOURCES Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1) 3.20e+02 3.80 87.8 Commercial Coal Combustion 1.38e+02 .... 1.64 89.4 Industrial Coal Combustion 4.71e+01 0.56 90.9 Commercial Oil Combustion 4.26e+01 0.51 89.9 Secondary Lead Smelting 3.36e+01 0.40 90.3 Commercial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion 2.86e+01 0.34 91.2 Napthalene Production 1.94e+01 0.23 91.5 Industrial Stationary IC Engines: Natural Gas 1.90e+01 0.23 91.7 Industrial Oil Combustion 1.538+01 0.18 91.9 Industrial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion 1.38e+01 0.16 92.0 Phthalic Anhydride Production 7.86e+00 0.09 92.1 Chloroalkali Production 3.16e+00 0.04 92.2 Chemical Manufacturing: Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production 3.20e+00 . 0.04 92.2 Plastic Foam Products Manufacturing 1.56e+00 .. 0.02 92.2 Industrial Stationary IC Engines: Diesel 1.51e+00 0.02 92.2 Total: 694 7060 TABLE 2.-1990 ANTHROPOGENIC STATIONARY SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR) AND PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 7 -PAH Source category Area emis- sions Primary Aluminum Production Coke Ovens: Charging, Topside & Door Leaks Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching & Battery Stacks Petroleum Refining: All Processes Commercial Coal Combustion Pulp and Paper: Kraft Recovery Furnaces tndustrial Coal Combustion Portland Cement Manufacturing: Non -Hazardous Waste Kilns Portland Cement Manufacturing: Hazardous Waste Kilns Asphalt Roofing Production Industrial WoodMtood Residue Industrial Stationary IC Engines: Natural Gas Pulp and Paper: Lime Kilns Commercial Wood/Wood Residue Industrial Stationary 1C Engines: Diesel Industrial Oil Combustion AREA SOURCES Commercial Coal Combustion Industrial Coal Combustion Commercial WooddWood Residue Combustion Portland Cement Manufacturing: Non -Hazardous Waste Kilns Industrial Stationary IC Engines: Natural Gas Industrial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion Industrial Stationary IC Engines: Diesel 2.88e+01 9.27e-01 8.08e-01 5.20e-01 4.12e-01 2.42e - 01 2.68e-02 Major emis- sions 1.41e+02 7.188+01 3.01e+01 1.60e+01 7.20e+00 3.74e+00 2.16e+00 2.08e+00 2.08e+00 1.43e+00 9.68e-01 6.18e-01 2.508-01 2.02e-01 6.25e-02 2.10e- 02 Percentage of emissions 44.85 22.84 9.57 5.09 2.29 1.19 0.69 0.66 0.66 0.46 0.31 0.20 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.01 9.16 0.29 0.26 0.17 0.13 0.08 0.01 Cumulative percent 44.8 67.7 77.3 82.3 84.6 85.8 88.8 86.5 87.1 87.6 87.9 88.1 88.9 88.9 89.0 89.0 98.1 98.7 98.4 98.8 99.0 99.1 99.1 0 0 68128 Federal Register I Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Notices TABLE 2.-1990 ANTHROPOGENIC STATIONARY SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS (TONSIYEAR) AND PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 7 -PAH -Continued Source category Area emis- sions Major emis- sions Percentage of emissions Cumulative percent Commercial Oil Combustion Total: :... 2.40e-02 31.8 280 0.01 99.1 TABLE 3. -REVISED MAJOR/AREA SOURCE DISTRIBUTIONS OF 1990 EMISSIONS Source category Blast Furnace and Steel Mills Primary Aluminum Production [FR Doc. 02-28502 Filed I1-7-02; 8:45 am] BELLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [E R-FRL-6634-7] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7167 or http://www.epa.govl compliancelne a. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed October 23, 2002, through November 01, 2002, pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 020445, DRAFT EIS, COE, Lake Sidney Lanier Project, To Continue the Ongoing Operation and Maintenance Activities Necessary of Flood Control, Hydropower Generation, Water Supply, Recreation, Natural Resources Management, and Shoreline Management, Section 10 and 404 permits, Dawson, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Hill and Gwinnett Counties, GA, Comment Period Ends: December 23, 2002, Contact: Charles H. McGregor (817) 886-1708. EIS No. 020446, DRAFT EIS, JUS, AZ, Programmatic EIS -U.S. Border Patrol Activities within Borders Areas of the Tucson and Yuma Sectors, To Gain, Maintain, and Extend Control of the Border to Prevent Unlawful Entry of Persons into the U.S., Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pine and Yuza Counties, AZ, Comment Period Ends: December 23, 2002, Contact: Charles H. McGregor (817) 886-1708. EIS No. 020447, FINAL EIS, COE, NJ, South River, Raritan River Basin Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration,. Implementation, Middlesex County, NJ, Wait Period Ends: December 9, 2002, Contact: Josephine R. Axt (212) 264-5119. EIS No. 020448, FINAL EIS, FRC, ID, C.J. Strike Hydroelectric Project (FERC NO. 2055), New License Issuance, Snake and Bruneau Rivers, Owyhee and Elmore Counties, ID,. Wait Period Ends: December 9, 2002, Contact: John Blair (202) 502-6092. EIS No. 020449, DRAFT EIS, AFS, MT, Windmill Timber Sale and Road Decomissioning Project, To Implement Timber Harvesting, Road Construction and Road Decommissioning in the Mill Creek Drainage of the Absaroka Mountain Range, Gallatin National Forest, MT, Comment Period Ends: December 23, 2002, Contact: Mike Dettori (406) 222-1892. EIS No. 020450, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, FHW, WV, VA, Appalachians Corridor H, To Construct a 16 -mile Highway Between Kerene to Parsons, Battlefield Avoidance, Randolph and Tucker Counties, WV, Wait Period Ends; December 27, 2002, Contact: Thomas J. Smith (304) 347-5928. EIS No, 020451, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, NOA, ME, VT, Cr, NH, MA, RI, Federal Lobster Management in the Exclusive Economic Service, Implementation, American Lobster Fishery Management Plan, NY, NH and MA, Wait Period Ends: December 09, 2002, Contact: Harold Mears (202) 482-5181. EIS No. 020452, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, AFS, GA, AL, FL, SC, LA, NC, MS, TX, Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/ Piedmont, Proposal to Clarify Direction for Conducting Project -Level Inventories for Biological Evaluations (BEs), US Forest Service Southern Region, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, LA, MS and TX, Wait Comment Ends: December 9, 2002, Contact: Robert Wilhelm (404) 347- 7076. This document is available on the Internet at: http:llwww ferc.gov. EIS No. 020453, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, AFS. AL. GA. KY, NC, SC, TN, VA, Major source contributions, percent Area source contribution, percent 100 100 WV, Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains, Proposal to Clarify Direction for Conducting Project -Level Inventories for Biological Evaluations (WAS), AL, GA, KY, NC, SC, TN, VA and WV, Wait Period Ends: December 9, 2002, Contact: Robert Wilhelm (404) 347-- 7076. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www.apo.lc.usbr.gov. EIS No. 020454, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, AFS, OK, AR, Vegetation Management in the OzarklQuachita Mountains, Proposal to Clarify Direction for Conducting Project -Level Inventories for Biological Evaluations (WAS), Qzark, Quachita and St. Francis National Forests, AR and. McCurtain and LeFLore Counties, OR , Wait Period Ends: December 09, 2002, Contact: Robert Wilhelm (404) 347- 7076. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www.so uthregion, fs. fed. us/planning/ vmeis/index.htm. EIS No. 020455, FINAL EIS, IBR, CA, Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation and Transfer Project and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HGP), To Implement a Grant and Section 10 Permit to Authorize the Incidental Take, Colorado River, Imperial County, CA , Wait Period Ends: December 09, 2002, Contact: John A. Johnson (202) 513-0673. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.lc.usbr.govlicrlvops/ html. EIS No. 020456, FINAL EIS, IBR, AZ, NV, CA, Implementation Agreement (IA), Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy (IOP), and Related Federal Actions, Implementation, Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), Lower Colorado River, in the REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 February 14, 2012 Regulatory Division (SPK -2012-00113) Mr. Jeff Simonson Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Incorporated 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 New Castle, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Simonson: EXHIBIT FEB 152012 S GF'. We are responding to your resubmittal of the November 8, 2011 request, via ERO Resources Corporation, for a Department of the Army permit for the Frontier Paving project.. This project involves activities, including discharges of dredged or fill material, in waters of the United States to construct an access road. The project is located east of Man= Creek and the Garfield County Airport, 0.3 mile south of the 1-70/County Road 315 interchange within the SE '/ of Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Latitude 39.5245°, Longitude - 107.7028°, Garfield County, Colorado. Based on the inforrnation you provided, the proposed activity will impact 0.007 acre of wetlands adjacent to an unnamed drainage Swale. Our office has exceeded the Corps review time, therefore, your project is authorized by Nationwide General permit number (NWP) 14 Linear Transportation Projects. Your work must comply with the general terms and conditions listed on the enclosed NWP information sheets. You must sign the enclosed Compliance Certification and return it to this office within 30 days after completion of the authorized work. This verification is valid until March 18, 2012, when the existing NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant NWP is modified or revoked, you will have twelve (1 2) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this NWP. Failure to comply with the General Conditions of this NWP, or the project -specific Special Conditions of this authorization, may result in the suspension or revocation of your authorization. D -2 - Please refer to identification number SPK -2012-00113 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Carrie Sheata at Colorado West Regulatory Branch, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 134, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, email Carrie.A.Sheata@usace.army.mii, or telephone (970) 243-1199, extension 14. We appreciate your feedback. At your earliest convenience, please tell us how we are doing by cornet pleting the customer survey on our website under Customer Service Survey. Sincerely, Susan Bachini Nall Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch Enclosures: 1. Nationwide General Permit Summary 14 2. Compliance Certification Copies Furnished: Ms, Aleta Powers, ERO Resources Corporation, Post Office Box 932, Hotchkiss, Colorado 81419 Mr. Fred Jarman, Garfield County Building & Planning, 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Permit File Number: SPK -2012-00113 Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 14 Linear Transportation Projects. Permittee: Mr. Jeff Simonson Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc. 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 New Castle, Colorado 81601 County: Garfield County Date of Verification: February 14, 2012 Within 30 days after completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Colorado West Regulatory Branch 400 Rood Avenue, Room 134 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 FAX (970) 241-2358 DLL-CESPIC-RD-Compliance@usace. army.mil Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit your authorization may be suspended, modified, or revoked. If you have any questions about this certification, please contact the Corps of Engineers. 1 hereby certify that the work authorized by the above -referenced permit, including all the required mitigation, was completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit verification. Signature of Permittee Date SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS February 16, 2012 Mr. Glenn Hartman, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Bedrock Resources Major Impact Review Air Emissions for Asphalt Plant Dear Glenn, EXHIBIT tfl 970.945.5948 FAx The purpose of this letter is to provide you more information on the anticipated emissions relative to the Frontier Paving asphalt plant and their APEN as previously issued by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Please note that this letter and the attached spreadsheet will provide you a comparison of the actual emissions versus the permit limits. You previously had been provided a copy of the current APEN for Frontier Paving which identifies the permit limits for the plant if operating at 120,000 tons per year. Note that the plant has on average operated at nearly half that rate at 58,100 tons per year. It is anticipated that the production rate of the plant is to remain in the same range. Notable conclusions that can be reached are as follows: For Particulate Matter the permit limit for the plant is 3.9 Tons per year while the average emissions (based on last three years) is 1.9 Tons per year. This is 48.7% of the permit limit. Note that the combined allowable emission for PM and PM10 is 7.7 tons per year while the plant actually emits 0.72 tons per year or 93.50% less than allowable permit limits. The EPA limits for PM are 0.04 grfdscf while the actual emission from the previous stack test is 0.015 grfdscf. This is 37.5% of the EPA allowable limits. Finally, you will note, as noted in the APEN, that the Dust collector and baghouse are 99.88% efficient in removing Particulate Matter and 99.50 % efficient in removing Particulate Matter < 10 um. For NOx, the permit limit for the plant is 3.3 tons per year while the average emissions (again, based on last three years) is 1.83 tons per year. This is 55.4% of the permit limit. For the VOC (volatile organic compounds), the permit limit is 1.92 tons per year while the average emissions s 0.93 tons per year. This 48.4% of permit limits. You will note that we have provided 4 APENs for tank batteries on 4 of the adjacent 5 gas pads. From the tank batteries alone, the actual uncontrolled 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, (JNIT 102 PO Box 2 1 55 ASPEN. CO 8 161 I 970.925.8727 970.925.4 157 Fax 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE. SUITE A GUNNISON, CO 970.641 .5355 970.641 .5358 FAx 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE BUILDINO I . SUITE 205 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAx 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER. CO 81641 970.6 78.5 1 80 970.878.4181 FAx SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G; N' E E R S' S U R V E Y O R S emissions for VOC's are 8.1, 7/, 14.3 and 10.3 tons per year totaling 40.4 tons per year from the 4 pads. The permit limit for the plant at 120,000 tons per year production is only 4.75% of what the existing tanks, alone, are permitted to emit. For CO (carbon monoxide), the permit limit is 14.1 tons per year while the average emissions is 6.83 tons per year based on the average asphalt production for the plant and standard emission factor used by the APCD. From the stack test, the CO emits 5.81 tons per year for the three year average production rate. This is 41.2% of the permit limit. For Sulphur Dioxide, the permit limit is 3.48 tons per year while the average emissions are 1.69 tons per year. This is 48.6% of the permit limit. I hope this letter and the attached information meets its intended purpose. If you have any questions or need additional information please don't hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFM Cc: Charlie Ellsworth David Smith FRONTIER PAVING ASPHALT PLANT February 8, 2012 Emission Data Per Permit #07GA0457 Y C 73 Q _Ne 1) cis Q G rr CA w L Zr) O. Federal EPA Limits Emissions Per Stack Test 0.015 grldscf co G 0.20 lbs/ton co 0 cry r r z,- co OL) • 0 O In 0 (6 co coQ IX00cO0P'-LL C7)0 r Q 1) exp C� ) CA ce ) ry 07 v 0)a C .m a7 m LO CA x) co. p Q Vy N - r r r O CO r© 6 oo C 0 117 0 r U Q 0 m 0 NU LL e c ( Cna.DC3t r COCV cU c7 r ;- coO O ✓ r CO J o . H c7 E d E t O w d 0 N r `0 CO CO 1.O CN,`) c7 11, O 0 '47.-'0000.N000 co 0 0 0 6Q Q C7 [O LU O CL d Particulate Matter Part. Mat. 10 Micron 0©00 Z>OOD N 'CY C O E O U -o C oc Q7 x -0 0 o2°p"C 03 0)= OL f4 The Particulate Matter (PM) and the Particulate Matter 10 Micron (PM10) are tested as one emission. N Q 0 C C] N 42) C7 r CD co 0 l3 .0 0 • E0 • (4 C aw 0 N O 1. c w C cup ca E • - O Q3 To. is , `� E 00 CT_ v ' - LL C G4 C Q3 Ll .CO 7) -8.a) r 5 N '= .-• — 07 . • C r.. 4) r` o t--.: ILL0 N an E O 73 a p co O q9) tQ w • d3 cl C .0 E o6 w CO U) 2o C Cr (-13 Q) .,r • r« D O C w-- Q) E r;n 7 -- U a ) O d o m U w O c O 2 -7 I O ... co co • w O C w E Ow co 0 C r( O 15 co 0 CV • -Q m c O ill CZ E o I O CL Lt O75 _r0 I— - U H U GRIDSCF = Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Foot Permit Number: Facility Equipment 1D: Section 01 — Administrative Information Request for NEW individual permit or newly reported emission source Request MODIFICATION to existing permit (check each box below that applies) 0 0 'U L) z Change company name 0 0 0 Transfer of ownership Change permit limit 0 1 0 G 0 U Lai cccc Source Locati C- 0 0 Request for coverage under GENERAL PERMIT number EPOS a.; 0 es LJ N 1625 17th Street, Suite 300 Request APEN update only (check the box below that applies) 0 >, 0 0 C C 0 v O C .^ O E E r -i d] C' v-.) - as 0 N0 0 nei i 3 0 Y U SAN Q 0 sY1 4- 444 4 'n B 0 G ' V '0 0 G 0. 0 El CI Jerry Alberts Person To Contac jalberts@anteroresources.com E-mail Addres 0 Ci 0 b 2 arl Section 03 — General: information d sources, the projected startup Far existing sources, operation began on: ❑ z z z z ri r ›- DO ©❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0, C` - C` LA C in E in an O U 0 0 Normal Hours of Source Operation: 0 0 0 0. ea R7 ea e. 0 0 0 0 .0 ca 0 QRS 3 rj 0 G o -, ea 7 E4-- e _00 r0rl E O E 4 c Tat C cd u u `a ..= m - 0 0 ea—= C X Y U v LIS Fes. 0 G C U 5 w '+I '0 0, 0 v O .0 r, b63 `r 0 ".� u A 0 ' 0 Q o a Q A. E m ea !A 0 0 '0 0, vs Ls. 0 0 E1 0U 0 0 Q Q an :- 0 0 g .. c E c 0. .0 0 ry p sap vt vy r n = d !1. E z y s5 re'.. i is r'Y rn 0 P. L' r4 G W N N N 44 C 0 ca 1-, @ m E en r' en 0 G d N7 V 0 ea 0 0 .g P. w '0 as p' L. v i r _ e. C s- '-U !.. G a c C = y-+ffe aa r6 d W' L-1 sr m E t :n ` +ci °ii xE 7 d1. 14,10'4 Y C. s T E .�. v e , „ L . a 0 d..> v. 0 C C 7 C ot C C U E 97 . g. y ....s 4? r '0 d, 0 C7 E _ a� 'D T. rn i s 0 na c W ai,0 4n m s.. a a E a i i V' 0 >at o E &I ‘i a a_�,- p Y a •- c 2 ee ,a W4 a r; m t' o c U 0on Q :1 1 I ! vi U 'J 0.' 0 t4 `9 7 O Q. ' *£J k' 0 .- W t U '[ r0 For guidance on how to complete this APEN 0 APEN forms: http:// pississpcpt.html F Application sta Number of tanks: V COe OC 0 0 0 z.zz '7a 0tat m` CS oc rq GC 'C 04 u 0 G' ater throughput a ci) o the vapor phase due t 0 2 L cam and downstream. z a. Q.. 0 0 0. 0. 44 0 0 44 0. 0 0 J 443 G E 0. COI APEN 207 Dever A Pad. scion (Datum & either LatfLang or UTM) Source. if no combos Section 05 — Stack Information (Combustion stacks 1D 11. u 0. O F L Fit trot E N 00 .0 1.. .0 0 Width (inches) = 5 gTs 'W oE Ud E ar u 7 ❑ ❑ 0 .0 N 01.0 Con x tw U G V g c Q • v. C m D A W 0 VJ 7 — Control Device information cc av 01r C g ae L Ga ti a rn C �VV sR 1 Waste gas heat content: 00 0 1 p # o .1) N an I,: .0 g as es y 0 . 13G G ❑ {i U 0 7 as r E E ID 41.1a m i 0 A E 0., 61 u Eo o U u = 0 a 00. E U H O 0 0 U ar .0 x 0 C 0 0 0 is C+. 0 0 0 U LY R 6 p U used for contra E x 0 1 0 d VOC & HAP Co O PG 0 0 U a) d O b 0 rn 3 9 w ar C7 � ga3 6.1 9 CS or Estimation Method or Emission Factor Source APCD F a G4 w a.0 0 a m sa it. 0 1 wt C m 0 c t i G L. 5 I. E b d b TS et C DQ. w Requested Permitted Emissions Uncontrolled Controlled (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) Actual Calendar Year Emissions Uncontrolled Controlled (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) 7.7 039 0, Q C1 N C7 CT CS C] WV{ Ylll L.ICAli91 1 . i01.1.. u1.1• uwv.. - . _ -. ••• Emission Factor Uncontrolled Basis Units 4.178 lbfbbl G G C E C 4.1 m F C e E 0 0 E .❑ 0 1 0 O U C w CD G 1^ 47 0 J >' APFN 207 Dever A Pad.docx f 0 0 FORM APCD-207 d 1.4 k AR 0 I EA 4 h c Co) C 1a CP 4tE uested Action (Check applicable request boxes) Section 02 — Re F D as istrative In Section 01 — Ad. y o. O C. C7 u9 ❑O V '_ E S o C. r Ta P'1 U �? - C ?.E;, a, 0 a C, c GJ C] ea c. D as 'E 3 u. 0 v z a 0 w ° a)7 6 a 0 x. b a 4 . - ' C w n c J 0 0 0 0 it°' z D z z ❑ 10^el b2 ❑ =� ❑ Q 97 4) 1- b c 4) ,n N O W SWNW, Secl7, T6S, Source Location:. Mailing Address: Person To Contact: 303-357-7315 z 4) j utberts®nnteraresources.com ral Inform$ re C. t m sources, the project Don't Know zz z z. y >.. ❑❑❑❑ 2 0= 1-.5 a 4)u • v >, .0 u 4:. CJ .4 0 es 6) 0 D• �_ 3 a 4 3 a) v ci 44 E 6 6 4 5 'O 4,.., 7 D q M r -i 0 5 ❑ P 0 0 q m 4 c as Li 0 0 V v V 0% C [,1' 0 6 L -5 . 0 0 m 'a . 3 a cs G v w E `o O N E- , E 0 6 T .o C r G 9 0 D W R U f. m C - ❑ N C 6so 0 Ci en ' d C .E Y N 47 C C ° x .. _ D I- 0 0 4. A 0 G a P. vpi�r� w y A^ ^ . 47 6 r E Z U y. 4 W [+l f.I P"1 6 �. a N H ` a.< c 4? y ❑; 6C7 G t❑'O W W1 - E r�, n M o W 40 A .3 .3 S7 a YR t''' 0 [.C'y d 4 = C C N v' F Z 4' 4Ci U w sa W Q c .� C G,0? i s C 0 W 1" L E cC CZ sx. Irl O �"" CS G. v ` L A C CIO N ❑ 4 C v 0- p i a Qom. ,Q 4) y E 4 c;= �- D A a.� w? a 6 G as 6 w3 ` m s. ^? •t' 4 E 4 t E N - Q 0 ^ Q 2 C C ® V C G ' 'V 2 c- s't a U g J V G. . r. v 6. g m 7'. 0_ Et G. i.:.0. ' C. O. o 0 m H. - a>•. gw=4-L3Qva w Q� m Lel d b0 3 APEN forms: ht Application sta on 04 —Tank Iia 41 4) 0 e, Number of tanks: w A a a 1- C m 73 V ie n O v 7 0 - Ce Ce Produced Water throughput zzz 00 41) 94] v c 47 �I c E4 0 S -0 ere:;j Gee 0 D g a 4, V C gEg . m G ,EZ. • E: G. - 3 a- Q 0 n G p O E T] G D ,U .=° W .0 P. ❑, p C V B t U .-- E L 40 C 0 G U 0 ' m a ® y a. p Z 4s es ee3 es4)M 10 "0 0 3 _m c c 41 4 D C1 C? 0 ❑ 73 2 Q ,C ?e X 7 3 E SO e=n F U TJ 4 m r U. sn Ln CA a es , D F ..c d4 cn a 5 cn AA APEN 207 Dever C Pad.docx FORM[ APCD-207 E Permit Number: m & either LatlLong or UTM) Section 06 -Stack (Source. if no combustion) Locatlo Section 05 — Stack Information (Combustion stacks must be listed here) w5. 6IS rtr 4 6 0o @A a g0 Io 00 -107.699644 rri Horizontal ❑ Down ❑ Other. Length (inches) = 0 Direction of stack outlet (check one): ❑ Vertical ❑ Vertical with obstructing raincap Exhaust Opening Shape & Size (check one): ❑ Circular: Inner Diameter (inches) ontrol Device Information Information & Emission Control Information 08 — Emissions f3 C Estimation Method or Emission Factor Source APCD APCD a. Aloe-Crlterta Reportable Air Pollutant Addendum form to reportpollutants not listed above. Requested Permitted Emissions ti w 0 0 C? F Uncontrolled (TonslYear1 Actual Calendar Year Emissions l L. r 'p© O 0.009 I en N P u O�.. 0 C L0 4 .r e o Emission Factor Uncontrolled Basis - o 4 d G e — P 08 0 15 U h cL 7 identify In Section 07 1 Please use the APCD Control Device Description g 2 fJ7 E c a x © a E. I Ethylbenzene Xylene v = 41 cd W vi 2 APEN 207 Dever C Pad.docx 10 ayo A .0 mvcs •3 r U C6 001- v y 0 0 Ti Cn a . 0 in E J 0 as FORM APCD-207 FORM APCD-205 TO—EO—SO-OTO Z X33\T—TOO—L8LT—gbO Air Pollutant Emission Nstice (ADEN) — and — App&stied for C*eitrliedon Permit 011, AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK BATTERY 3 -u Current Status (Chock all that apply) f y? . fur ADEN Submittal (Check all that apply) a AIRS ID it': I. - t: V (- ' AI'EN ug ore only' New of previously uet�sperted team I [ S! Modif+cetivn to existing sourest Previously mad battery' .4 Raztratian for coverage under gamut pctmit oo. GP01 and Synthetic mirror facility cancellation repast for individual permire: Located to the 6 -hr Ozone Control Area Registered soder general permit no. GPO1 Permitted ander individual permit: Application for or Modificstaas of an individual permit Administrative pormrt anlesdnsseM' r ., '. n / r1 Other: F�J ti . J For individual permit applications, check if you want': 0 A copy of the preliminary analysis conducted by the Division To draft the to iamb= review a of permit prior Company Name': Antero Resources Piceairio:c Corp, OGCC Operator #: 10079 Mailing Address': 1425 17" Street, Swire 300 City; Deaver State: CO Zip: *0202 E-mail: intereiveources.oawa Cene.ct Name: Jerry AYrla Phase: 303-357-7341 Fix: 303-337-7315 Teat Santry Name": Gentry B Pad Nrwriber amok': 2 Location" (QQ Sac. Twp. Rehire.): SENW, SecI7, TOS, R92W County: Garfield Total task capacity [bbl]: 440 Calendar for w `Acini' data applies": 2010 Year(s) Welds) true placed is service14: 2005 yaw Clairol Description's: Cimarron barna Costal may": 95% Candeassae Throughput" [bb4(.rtar) Requested": NIA Maximum for PTE cakettlaboo": 2,440 While Connote Op 2,050 Actual': 2,050 asIicerule' Other equipment at fact: Nose CaeromeaU: Nate listed Use N/A /es roues miser reforesting err infliw rinsif Estimated aviation* at threeghpues above. 0 Cheek if the Division is to oaiculait esrtissiasar. Feuer far rulwssed Bung rl rmagir_r fiwisss Check if site-specific an ssioe beam provided RequaNad Eaaie"siews" person to mandate emissions'. Actual Ereissiasrw Ex antics Politismarm [Ihltebt} voC [ ] 10 4 y ?ITV 12.3 Uotos strellrr NA Cannoneer' NA Uscarrlratlgdi` 10.3'J/ Casimir 0,5 NOx [1/y ] 0 NA NA CO [lomlyar] 0 NA NA llisetxsns (tkelyesri 0.041 1.11 NA NA 51 tf 5 u-Hwse Illesiyaar] 0.14 344 ' NA NA 4 Wells Ierviea d by this teak or punt b.11ary" AM 0: 63-045-13U7 Naris: Gentry III 0 Newly Reported Well Apt 0: 05-045-13043 Name: Gantry 13 0 Newly Reported Well _ API #: 05445-1410 Nasse: Gentry 010 0 Newly Reported Wel! API N: 05445-14157 Name (Jcr4ry I1111 [] Newly Reported Welt API P: Tae 0 Newly Reported Well _ API 9: Nude: Q Newly Reported Well API M: Name: El Newly Reported Well The grottos below indicates that 1 have knowledge of the facts Went set forth mid that the same are cruse, rccucstc, mg complex to the but of my knowledge and belief. titbit is a recon for coverage under general permit GPI, I fusible' certify that this' attaint is old will be operated is full vn of general permit GPI. erye .Aer-( L--1 to Signature of Lepliy Authorized Person (sot a vendor or consultant) Dase Grusin G. Alberts Menges, Ertviroaaaeatal & Re 1atoey Type cr Print Name of Parson Suring Above Official Title Submit this form, along with $132.90 for each Colorado Department of Public Welt and Eatviromnent For information cat +1 filing of up to 5 tank battery APENS. Include Air Pollution Control Division, APCD-SS-B1 (303) 692-3150 $250 General Permit fee for each new GP 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South reaction to: Denver, CO 80246-1530 Page 1 of 2 GentryB_APEN.doc Tank Battery Name": Gentry E Pad Location13 (QC) Sec. Twp. Range.): SESW, Secl7, T6S, R92W Calendar year for which "Actual" data applies": Control Description's: Cimarron Burner Condensate Throughput" [bbl/year] Other equipment at facili Comments: None None Number of tanks: 2 County: Garfield Total tank capacity f bbl]: 600 2008 Year(s) tank(s) were placed in servicer": 2006 Control Efficiency' 6: 95% NIA Maximum for PTE calculation", r'. )S4142 2,868 While Controls Operational2' 2,868 Requested 't • Actual'°: Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) — and — Application for Construction Permit 011 AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK BATTERY Current Status (Check 11 that pply) AIRS ID #': Oy/ [141 /ODI ® New or pre iously unreported battery ❑ Previously grandfathered battery © Synthetic minor facility ❑ Located in the 8 -hr Ozone Control Areas ❑ Registered under general permit no. GPO! Q Permitted under individual permit: Reason for APEN Submittal (Check all that apply) �, p,y A 0 ❑ APEN update only`, Il 4 Modification to existing source' Registration for coverage under general permit no. GPO] and cancellation request for individual permit': ❑ Application for or Modification of an individual permit Q Administrative permit amendment' ❑ Other: t'a For individual permit applications, check if you want': OA copy of the preliminary° analysis conducted by the Division ❑ To review a draft of the permit prior to issuance Company Name': Mailing Address": Antcro Resources Piccance Corp. 1625 1713 Street, Suite 300 OGCC Operator #: 10079 City: Denver Contact Name: Jerry Alberts jalbertS® State: CO Zip: 80202 E-mail: anteroresources.com Phone: 303-357-7341 Fax: 303-357-7315 Estimated emissions at throughputs listed above. Use NIA for requested throughput/ emissiion values unless requesting an individual permit [] Check if the Division is to calculate emissions. ❑ Check if site-specific emission factors provided to calculate emissions". Pollutant'VOC [tonslyear) NOx [tons/year) CO [tons/year) Benzene f ibs/year] n -Hexane Ilbslyearl Emission Factor ' [IbibbI) 10 Battery PTE' _ 17- —' Requested Uncontrolled36 NA Emissions'® Controlled" NA Actual Emissions° Uncontroltad'6 I4.3." Control l_e f 7 0.7iv 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NA 137.7' / 6.9 0.048 i(.5"` NA 0.14'T Literdrativiii NA NA 401.5'( 20.1" API #: API #: API #: API#: API #: API #: API #: 05-045-13927 05-045-13926 05-045-14191 05-045-14190 Name: Name: Name: Name: Name Name: Name; Wells serviced by this tank or tank batter Gentry El Gentry E4 Gentry E6 / , it Gentry E8 - ciat SCANNED si:" :: , % 12:1 Newly Reported Well ® Newly Reported Well Newly Reported Well El Newly Reported Well 0 Newly Reported Well ❑ Newly Reported Well ❑ Newly Reported Well The signature below indicates that I have know my knowledge and belief, i is awe st in full cos •It cc with ea ofthe is h orth and that the same are true, accurate, and complete to the best of undar permit GPI, 1 funher certify that this source is and will be operated Signa . re of Legally Authorized Gerard G. Alberts - SSP _6 /5 arson (not a vendor or consultant) Date Manager, Environmental & Regulatory Type or Print Name of Person Signing Above Official Title Submit this form, along with $152.90 for each tiling of up to 5 tank battery APENS, include $250 General Permit fee for each new GP registration to: FORM APCD-205 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environ Air Pollution Control Division, APCD-SS-B 1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 r information call: (303) 692-3150 Page l of 2 GenlryE_APEN.doc EDWARD MULHALL, J. SCOTT BALCOMS LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHER L. Co).LE t THOMAS J. HARTERT CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER SARA M. DUNN SCOTT GROSSCUP CHAD J. LEE' LUCAS F VAN ARSDALE Via Email andHand Delivery BALCOMI3 & GREEN, P. C . ATTORNEYS AT LANA' P. 0. DRAWER 790 SIS COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.945.65 16 FACSIMILE: 970.945.8902 www.balcomb gree n.com February 17, 2012 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners c/o Glenn Hartmann 108 8' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT 9 NrJnl KENNETH BALCCMS 1920-2005) Or COUNSEL: JOHN A. THULSON 'also licensed in Oklahoma *also licensed in Wyoming RE: REQUEST FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATION O1. BEDROCK RESOURCES, LLC, FOR ASPHALT BATCH PLANT ADJACENT TO ORGANIC FARMING OPERATION Dear Garfield County Board of County Commissioners: Our firm represents Eagle Springs Organic LLC and Organic Growers LLC ("Eagle Springs"), both of which operate an existing organic farming operation adjacent to the property presently proposed to be sited with an asphalt batch plant under the application of Bedrock Resources, LLC. Simply stated, the proposed asphalt batch plant presents significant adverse impacts to the Eagle Springs organic operation, directly contravenes explicit agricultural protections afforded under the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2007 as amended ("ULUR"), and presents significant adverse economic impacts to the county generally. A. EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC FARMING OPERATION. Eagle Springs owns over 1,200 acres in Garfield County, of which 195 acres are cultivated under an organic certification. A copy of the Eagle Springs organic certification is attached as Exhibit A. This acreage, all of which is irrigated, is directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the proposed asphalt plant site and, thus, is directly downwind of all emissions and dust to be generated by this proposed facility. Eagle BM COMB & GRE N, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 17, 2012 Page 2 Springs, as appurtenant to its organic operation, has also constructed 2 greenhouses of 58,000 and 10,000 square feet respectively. The Eagle Springs organic arm has operated for over 2 years and provides a model for the future potential growth of Garfield County's agricultural sector. At present, Eagle Springs employs 49 people. Under estimated growth projections this workforce is anticipated to grow to over 59 people this summer. Eagle Springs' projected production requirements for this summer season are attached as Exhibit B. Eagle Springs currently supplies 2 major purchasers, Organic Growers in Denver and the future Whole Foods in Willits. In addition, it also provides organic produce for over 17 other local restaurants, including the Pullman, Italian Underground, Florindo's, New Castle Diner, Carbondale Food Co-op, 689, and Russets. To further expand this nascent organic market, Eagle Springs has also purchased the former Columbine Market in Rifle, which it intends to redevelop into an organic retail market and is pursuing further retail expansion in its Aspen Market. Factoring in the presently planned -for redevelopment and continued production expansions, Eagle Springs anticipates growth of its work force to over 150 employees by 2014. Eagle Springs has expended over $12 Million to date on land acquisition and infrastructure development costs for its existing organic operation. Approval of the proposed asphalt plant jeopardizes all of this. Given the protections of afforded under the ULUR to existing agricultural operations, approval as such would directly contravene the purpose and mandates of the ULUR and as a precedent, would place into doubt the investment backed returns of future agricultural producers in this area. B. PROPOSED ASPHALT BATCH PLANT WILL SEVERELY IMPACT THE VIABILITY OF THE EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL OPERATION I) ADJACENT USES ARE INCOMPATIBLE The role of this Board is to reconcile neighboring land uses and ensure reasonable compatibility and general conformity of land uses, as required by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution ("ULUR"). The ULUR requires that the "nature, scale, and BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 17, 2012 Page 3 intensity of the proposed use [bel compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land.' (ULUR § 7403). Simply stated, heavy industrial operations are per se incompatible with organic farming operations. 2) LAND USE CHANGES `SHALL NOT" LIMIT THE VIABILITY OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. Most importantly, the ULUR provides a clear mandate that new uses not adversely affect existing agricultural operations, such as Eagle Springs, in any manner, to wit: "SECTION 7-201 PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. A. No Adverse Affect to Agricultural Operations Land use changes on lands adjacent to or directly affecting agricultural operations shall not adversely affect, or otherwise limit the viability of existing agricultural operations. Proposed division and development of the land shall minimize the impacts of residential development on agricultural lands and agricultural operations. and maintain the opportunity for agricultural production on the most productive and viable parcels'of land.'" (emphasis added). Had Section 7-201 not have been contained within the ULUR, Eagle Springs most certainly would not have purchased its properties or invested so much in capital improvements on its farm. Given the general incompatibility of the uses, the Applicant cannot satisfy this standard under any circumstance. However, for purposes most relevant here, Applicant has provided neither the information or analysis to evaluate or assess such potential impacts to the Eagle Springs operation and the record as a whole is similarly devoid of such information or analysis. Specially, no stack testing or air modeling has been completed of any kind. To date, the Applicant and County have treated this analysis as a moot issue, perhaps in reliance upon the air emission permit Applicant must obtain from the State. However, this air emission permit will fall far short of providing the requisite protection to Eagle Springs, as required by the ULUR. B.ALCOP.13 & GREEN, P.G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 17, 2012 Page 4 3) ASPHALT PLANT EMiSSIONS Asphalt batch plants emit substantial amounts of toxic airborne pollutants. For example, Applicant operates an existing plant in the Fry Gravel Pit area. Eagle Springs commissioned a test for various pollutants in several locations around this existing plant. This test indicated that the presences of several toxins exceeded EPA recommendations for several toxic compounds, including (1) 1 -methylnaphthalene; (2) 2 -methylnaphthalene; (3) naphthalene; and (4) Phenanthrene, among other toxic compounds. There is no reason to suspect that the proposed plant will be any different. The adverse health, property value, and environmental impacts of asphalt plants generally are well known ..Asphalt plants mix gravel and sand with crude oil derivatives to make the asphalt used to pave roads, highways, and parking lots across the U.S. These plant release millions of pounds of chemicals to the air during production each year, including many cancer-causing toxic air pollutants such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde. and cadmium. Other toxic chemicals are released into the air as the asphalt is loaded into trucks and hauled form the plant site, including volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and very fine condensed particulates. - (Asphalt Plants, Center for Health, Environment & Justice, FactPack - PUB 131, August 2011, Pg. 1, attached as Exhibit C, hereinafter "2011 Report"). The attached 2011 Report documented property devaluations of up to 56% due to the presence of a nearby asphalt plant. In another study cited in the 2011 Report, nearly half of residents living within a half mile of an asphalt plant reported a deterioration of their health after the plant opened, with the most pervasive health effects being high blood pressure, sinus problems, headaches, and shortness of breath. Perhaps the largest risks are unknown. According to Dr. Luanne Williams, a North Carolina state toxicologist, 40% of toxins released from asphalt plant smokestacks meet air quality standards, but the state lacks sufficient data on the other 60% of toxins to even quantify a safe level. I3ALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 17, 2012 Page 5 The adverse impacts to the existing agricultural operation are not just the specific pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established. Eagle Springs will also be impacted by the dust and other debris that will inevitably drift onto the Eagle Springs property, including the so-called "fugitive emissions" released as the asphalt is moved around in trucks and conveyor belts, or is stored in stockpiles on the property. Dust from the asphalt operation will accumulate on the leaves of plants and inhibit photosynthesis, leading to decreased overall production. This dust, occasionally laden with fugitive emissions, will also be absorbed into the produce itself, making the produce much less desirable and valuable. Given the proximity of the organic farm to the proposed asphalt plant, these emissions do not have the time to dissipate to a steady state before reaching the farm. These toxins will show up in the air, soil, water, and produce. Eagle Springs will almost certainly lose its organic certification as a result, and if somehow it didn't, it would be branded as a pariah of the organic community due to the presence of a major polluter next door. 4) ORGANIC CERTIFUCATION REQUIREMENTS Organic farms are highly regulated. Part 205, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the National Organic Program regulations (attached, as Exhibit D). Organic farms are, among other requirements, subject to rigorous environmental testing and reporting. (See 7 C.F.R. § 205.670). Where there are unavoidable environmental residues from off-site activities, an organic farm can no longer sell its produce as "organic" and will lose its certification. (7 C.F.R. § 205.671). These standards are presently being expanded. (See Federal Register, attached as Exhibit E). All organic farms are inspected annually to ensure compliance with regulations. Inspections look for symptoms of drift or off-site impacts by testing the soil, water, and plant residue. Eagle Springs is directly downwind from, and immediately adjacent to, the proposed asphalt plant. If toxic chemicals are found, Eagle Springs will lose its certification, and the property will likely be contaminated for decades. 5) EXPERT OPINI©N THAT EAGLE SPRINGS WILL BE "SEVERELY IMPACTED." Eagle Springs has recently retained an expert to investigate the potential effects to the farm. This expert, Dale Softley, is a Certified Professional Agronomist. A draft BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 17, 2012 Page 6 Affidavit and Curriculum Vitae are attached as Exhibit F; we will obtain an executed version by Tuesday. Based on a preliminary review of this matter, Mr. Softley has concluded that Eagle Springs "is likely to be severely impacted by the proposed location of the Frontier Asphalt Plant." Mr. Softley needs at least three weeks to prepare a report. Therefore, we ask that the BOCC continue this matter for at least four weeks. 6) GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Unlike an asphalt plant, an organic farming operation cannot be moved. Organic farming operations are difficult to site and, as evidenced by the significant expenditures incurred by Eagle Springs to date, even more difficult to operate and maintain. If as the proposed asphalt would most assuredly do, an organic farm is allowed to be contaminated, the facility will be lost altogether. In light of the above severe adverse impacts, the application of Bedrock Resources, LLC should be denied. Such denial is mandated by the ULUR and will best serve the economic interests of the County as a whole. C. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED We request that this hearing be continued for at least four weeks. Eagle Springs continues to investigate the potential impacts of this project and has recently hired a Certified Professional Agronomist to examine the potential effects of this batch plant on Eagle Springs's organic operation. This expert has requested at least 3 weeks to finalize and issue a report and testimony before the BOCC addressing these impacts. This testimony is required for the full development of the record on this matter. As such, Eagle Springs respectfully requests that the BOCC continue this matter for at least four weeks. In the absence of such continuance and further development of the record, that any approval would be without merit and not justified by fact. It is clear from the attached documents that this is a much more complex issue than staff perhaps originally contemplated. D. MANDATORY CONDITIONS NECESSARY IF SOMEHOW APPROVED If the BOCC should nevertheless decide to approve this project without further delay, such approval must impose conditions to ensure that best available technology is implemented at the asphalt plant site to minimize impacts to Eagle Springs specifically, i.COMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 17, 2012 Page 7 other neighboring properties, and the county in general. To date nothing within the record indicates or suggests that such best available technologies have even been considered. EAGLE SPRINGS REQUEST FOR CONDITIONS IN THIS REGARD SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN ANY FORM TO CONSTITUTE A CONSENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. FOR REASONS ABOVE STATED EAGLE SPRINGS OPPOSES ANY SUCH APPROVAL AND THE BELOW CONSTITUTE NOTHING MORE THAN RECOMMENDATIONS TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT MOST ASSUREDLY WILL BE INCURRED BY EAGLE SPRINGS SHOULD THIS APPLICATION BE APPROVED. Although the plant will need to obtain a Colorado Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APED) and Construction Permit, this will only ensure that the plant complies with general state regulations. It will not ensure it does not adversely affect the viability of Eagle Springs' organic agricultural operation. According to the CDPHE, it is the BOCC's responsibility to resolve issues of incompatible land uses. Given the sensitivity of the neighboring land use, it is entirely appropriate to require the asphalt batch plant to comply with the following conditions: 1) The heat source must be natural gas or propane, not diesel fuel; 2) The plant must install a "double drum" to reduce emissions; 3) The plant must install a silo scrubber to reduce emissions; and 4) The plan must be constructed entirely within an enclosed building; and 5) No pesticide use on Applicant's property. Conditions 1-3 above were recently voluntarily implemented by several asphalt batch plants in Eagle County to ensure sustainability of the operations. Eagle County itself sponsored and encouraged these conditions. The industry's adoption of these conditions is an acknowledgement that they are entirely appropriate and necessary to reduce or eliminate pollution. It is also our understanding that condition 4 is a mandatory condition for asphalt plants in areas of high air quality concern, such as Phoenix, Arizona. Given that all of these conditions are generally accepted in the industry, we believe the BOCC should impose these on any conditional approval it may issue. However, it is our hope that the BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 17, 2012 Page 8 BOCC continues this hearing to allow Eagle Springs to fully investigate and appreciate the potential impacts, and to more fully suggest a list of alternatives if the project is approved. Again, however, we believe that there is no possible way to operate an asphalt batch plant adjacent to an organic farm which would not adversely affect this agricultural operation. E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN GARFIELD COUNTY In order to promote economic development within the County, the BOCC must provide regulatory certainty to the business community and must recognize growth in the truest sense of the term. Simply stated, the present application constitutes fake development because it destroys more jobs that it creates. This is not a choice between jobs or the environment; but rather, a choice between a developing organic farm operation and the relocation of an existing industrial use. To reiterate, the protections afforded under the ULUR, specifically Section 7-201, provide this certainty and should not be undermined in such a manner as being requested by Applicant. F. CONCLUSION The application of Bedrock Resources, LLC should be denied or, at a minimum, continued to determine adequate mitigation. Enclosures Cc: Client Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. GIDBy L Scott Balcomb Attorney for Eagle Springs Organic LLC and Organic Growers LLC • malewb.17.2012 0126 PM Eagle Springs Organic, LL 9708761979 • in • • • • ▪ f?T, `:" .11-"" f?Vtkrtj, arY:f„ele:', • oft, IN., (.1t• f'4.1744, tlirPA.$'1...14:40k•V !1.•14'4.4A' '1_54,417AA: . . . T-70 Pcs tet:4N. tf 1 t kFt tVg' 'r.c'tV'''.4741t14te • ./r4 • • ,rri..'"j.". ••••• '• • PAGE. 1/ 2 bt N 3 1 spnpold 40 wnpuaPPV aaS NOLID3ciSNI Tr-ntsuNtv ISYI 38WrIN NOILLVD1i11113J Z9C I it °Pr4010D `I.US 9ff Pv°71 (U1)O3 SDNRIdS 11DV] C"` rri Z -II r— : f y . r ;01.4N;;.-4AJ L'•c' r- • 0%1 ,4 /PI • PA! ."t* 1 • I M At: rs'• ,4 ' .1k."46••t:'7 16t • " 1/4 r • • .!0.741" EXHIBIT Aj v '� 0 C r mIZ. F m ,.et O n a a m a t.��,w� T 3 do E. Er .. rn r R � R 000.- o o 2 o V 9 55 a i a 2— b � a r F o a c a R c Ae43 a x '� 6. 0 . m 2 a` r° v V `- Y 73.-Z, ` 0.3w. T -,- - O P V 3 w e a c o c" r' 3 F. " s a ro i 3 x 3 3 �,a o s g gr � a p ` c 7 `;',7•A c 3 b 8 S 0 O d O i^y. Q ae "" .--• V a K r C 4 g ^ ... Fr _ 4 Q— w ro a'S; 1c;� -T, 2 r O D d? 9 G `o i ..-0,7 .,%:,gm-222 o 0 i m 3 QN' N 0, = m. 0' ,- w 6 t2 II a -73 ET"._ b'pp E 6 N �" a p C -- o_ O . .�. A �. 0 g e7 G C r, O IQ - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~O C O a o 0 0 0 N r7.0.5.7 ..0AOasN 0 cm m — A 7 ... w t A no n.1 0 co W N 4 0 A ... A YO P w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000.0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 i., ... A 0 w 0 A A 0 0 r- 0,,,,,-0 0 +- 0 k. .•. 0 0 .- 0.,-.1,0 0 w O .- .. , 0 w O N - 09 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 A 0 0 A ♦- ru r.. 0 r .+ iv M %i [i. .+ C A .- 0 w A 0 0 .^' ... w 0 ' 0 0 0 i-. w 0 0 .-• '.-• 0 9 0 0 .- 0 .. 0 0 0 O.-• 0° 0 0 .-. N3 01-.000 w •.. 0° 0 0 .- 0 QN .+ 0 0° 0 0 0 •' !'. n S 0. 0 w a 8 0 0 A , O .• v© 0 0 0 µ r r* r 0 N n. N w -• •G.J n rA - ~0Nas 4 0 0 0 0 A M A a 0 4 u+04. 0 In N N IO v. J• C] 0 a7 r N 0 4 0 m Q O 0 r - 0 N N an N G 4a6 alr r .,. O I.0,0 .� .+ W W A 4 0 O N w ii 0 0 COI 0 0 0 00 0 N 4 ,_N O ry vi ✓. � 0 0' 0 f P N '3 .. ii, w A'.. ] 0 4 C 0w r.r .- ✓ 0 0 0 C 0 .. u 0 O A e.. 4 A T +1: +-. ti T p A 0 0 ^J 0 N O .L' 0 00000 Q .n N w •- N 00 6000 4 0060 s O 0 O 0 0 5M. �N f3„i Oa.. N W.0R r N 0 .v y.. Fn.N ... NjW 4n MI rn 0 361, IVY w. 7' D N ^0 Au0, ..- •� 0000 N NN 0Ow 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 o 0 Y 0 a 0 0 0 0 4 r. l ro 0i 0 0 4 .- v G wP ~ 00-"00a,'" 4 . r, .,,..4 �.+ m 0 0 0 - "- a 0 y 2 '0„ ° 1. 0 0 M1. w N 0 .- .- .- 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 .. L 0 0 n. �x =00,000000,, 0 0 O 4. 0 O O O O O 0 'O o .- 0 0 O 4 0 "i 4 4 0 ~ g e~. y Z 0 +.:.% 0 p 43' '':" .wD A 0. G, 0 .n o m 0 Q. b p A 0 N pp 8pp� p p p �o cNi 8 0 6 b g 'u O� O O pj 0N � n S S G .i 0 1O i• w S5 b o 0 4 0 P O O O 0 ..+ .+ 0 0 o N 0 0 0 N P w 0 N N 0 w A 0 .' 5 N 5 M 4 0 N W CI N p� 6 Q8 w o o a vii 'el� va. 0 O d W N N 0 C a H t 9 aAry W 0 N O o e V V N yNj ti `-' In 'r wV ...,-;1:1; g 0 ., s �p W C .p e. e] o 0 4 IA of N u. 0 b w 0 8 •Q N r A A a. ti Zi u $ a C . b .,Q '2'4..0 N' 4, 0 tr .- It Projected Production Requirements EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C 1 Asphalt Plants ••••• .‘4174 '• ILL.:444% r'r'4141444' 111. ro FactPack - P131 le 4 \ V.i-imifirf tin Center for Health, Environment & Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 chej@cheborg www.chej.org --71111111111Migir.' r:41rd Asphalt Plants Center for Health, Environment & Justice FactPack - PUB 131 August 2011 CHEJ Copyright 2011 by Center for Health, Environment & Justice. All rights reserved. For Permission to reprint, please contact CHEJ. Printed in the U.S.A. P.O. Box 6806 Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 chej@chej.org www.chej.org (CHEJ Center for Health, Environment & Justice P0. Box 6806 • Falls Church,VA 22040 • Phone: 703.237.2249 • Fax: 703.237.8389 www.chej.org Mentoring a Movement Empowering People Preventing Harm About the Center for Health, Environment & Justice CHEJ mentors a movement building healthier communities by empowering people to prevent harm caused by chemical and toxic threats. We accomplish our work through programs focusing on different types of environmental health threats. CHEJ also works with communities to empower groups by providing the tools, direction, and encouragement they need to advocate for human health, to prevent harm and to work towards environmental integrity. Following her successful effort to prevent further harm for families living in contaminated Love Canal, Lois Gibbs founded CHEJ in 198t to continue the journey. To date, CHEJ has assisted over 10,000 groups nationwide. Details on CHEJ's efforts to help families and communities prevent harm can be found on www.chej.org. Table of Contents (page numbers are listed in upper right hand corner) Introduction to Asphalt Production Asphalt Plant Production — BE SAFE Campaign 1 Asphalt Plants: Frequently Asked Questions — North Carolina Department of 5 Environment and Natural Resources, Air Quality Division Asphalt — Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Evans, J) 5 Asphalt Plant Emissions: What are the Issues during Site Selection? —Massachusetts 10 Association of Health Boards Quarterly Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emissions Assessment Report — US EPA 12 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Hot Mix Asphalt Plants — US EPA 28 Proposed Revision to AP -42, 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants — US EPA 57 Asphalt Fumes Studies Document Negative Impacts from Asphalt Plants — Blue Ridge Environmental 58 Defense League Asphalt Plant Fugitive Air Emissions: A Public Health Hazard — Blue Ridge 59 Environmental Defense League Asphalt Plant versus Wood Stove Pollution — Blue Ridge Environmental defense League 60 Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt — National Institute of Occupational 62 Safety and Health Asphalt Fumes — Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens 72 Exposure to Biturneh Fumes and Genotoxic Effects on Turkish Asphalt Workers — 74 Clinical Toxicology Studies of Carcinogenicity of Bitumen Fume in Humans — American Journal of Industrial 75 Medicine Acute Symptoms Associated with Asphalt Fume Exposure Among Road Pavers — 76 American Journal of Industrial Medicine Toxic Health Effects Including Reversible Macrothrombocytosis in Workers Exposed to 77 Asphalt Fumes — American Journal of Industrial Medicine Literature Review of Health Effects Caused by Occupational Exposure to Asphalt 78 Fumes — National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Health Services Cancer Risk in Asphalt Workers and Roofers: Review and Meta -Analysis of 87 Epidemiologic Studies — American Journal of Industrial Medicine Community Action Risk of Cancer/Illness from Asphalt — Kunda Park Neighbours 88 Asphalt Plant, and its Pollution Potential, Part of Quarry Deal — The Pottstown Mercury 90 Groups Charge Maymead with Intentional Violations — Blue Ridge Environmental Defense 94 League Website — Calgary for Clean Air 96 Health Impacts PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated Dust from Coal -Tar Sealcoated Pavement is 100 Widespread in the United States — U.S. Geological Survey Increased Suicide Rate is Possibly Linked to Chemicals Released from nearby Asphalt 101 Plants, Study Suggests — UNC School of Medicine Asphalt Pollution Probe Extends — Recycling Today 104 Carcinogens Discovered Near Maymead Plant — Blue Ridge Ertvironmental Defense 106 League Childhood Brain Cancers Near Asphalt Industry in Salisbury, North Carolina — Dr. 108 Richard Weisler Childhood Cancer and Pollution — Rachel's Environmental and Health News 110 Asphalt Plants: Contaminants of Concern -- Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League 112 News Items Asphalt Plant Would Expose Children to Toxins — Petaluma 360 Indians Appeal Asphalt Plant — Mendocino Country Environmentalist Group Opposes Asphalt Plant: The Plant would be about Half Mile from Colfax Elementary School — News and Record (Greensboro, NC) Mountain Air Action Project Asphalt Plant Report — Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund APAC: Polluting Without Boundaries — Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund Paving the Way: Behind -the -Scenes Lobbying Allows Big -Money Interests like the Asphalt Industry to Steamroll Citizens — The Independent Weekly (Durham, NC) Resource Alternatives Coal Tar -Containing Asphalt Resource or Hazardous Waste? —Journal of Industrial Ecology Green Asphalt and Concrete: Eco Friendly Streets — EcoFuss Reference Bibliographic Information 116 118 120 122 130 139 150 151 152 ASPHALT PIwr POLLUTION CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 1 .1sphalt plants mix gravel aid sand with cntde nil derivatives to snake the asphalt used to pare roads, highways, and parking lots across the US. These plants release millions of pounds of chemicals to the air during production each year, including many cancer-causing toxic aur pollutants such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and cadmium. Other toxic chemicals are released tnro the air as the asphalt is loaded into tricks and hauled from the plant site, including volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (P.M Is), and very fine condensed particulates.[EP:1] t� 1,• . Fitt ;ere .:r i .. To i--5. The federal Environmental Protection :Agency (EP -1) states "Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing rnanufacnuing facilities are major sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, pr,lycychc organic matter, and toluene. Exposure to these air tomes may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, Iivcr damage, respiratory problems and skin irritation " ,EP 1]. According to one health agency, asphalt fumes contain substances known to cause cancer, can cause coughing, wheezing or shortness of breath, severe irritation of rhe skin, headaches, dizziness, and nausea. FNJI)1ISS] .Animal studies. show PAI Is affect reproduction, cause birch defects and arc harmful to the immune system. N1DI 1 SSI The US Department of Health and Human Services has determined that P.11Is may be carcinogenic to humans. [1)1.1}1S] {-",_:,;, �rr - 3C 5 Lo' _ _ r` "I.'he Blue Ridge 1:nvironrncntal Defense 1.eague (BRF DI,), a regional environmental c-irgaui1zation, has done two studies on the adverse impacts on property values and health for residents living near asphalt plaints. 1 property value study documented losses of up to 56'0 because of the presence of a nearby asphalt plaint. In another study, nearly half of the residents reported negative impacts on their health from a new- asphalt plant. The door-to-door health survey found 45°0 of residents living within a half mile of the plant reported a deterioration of their health, which began atter the plant ripened. The most frequent health problems cited were high blood pressure (18' of people, surveyed), sinus problems (18°'0), headaches (.1-40), and shortness of breath (9°'i,). II3h1:D1.1 Fia.' `ft U. • r _i.. F • s. In addition to smokestack emissions, large amounts of harmful "fugitive emissions" are released as the asphalt is moved around in trucks and conveyor belts., and is stored in stockpiles. :1 small asphalt plant producing 1i.11i thousand tons of asphalt a year may release up to 50 tons of toxic fugitive emissions into the air. pr. R.'Nadkarnii Stagnani air and local weather patterns often increase the level of exposure to local communities. In fact, most asphalt plants are not even rested for Toxic emissions- The amounts of these pollutants that are released from a facility are estimated by computers and mathematical formulas rather than by actual stack testing, estimates that experts agree do not accurately predict the amount of toxic fugitive emissions released and the risks they pose. According to Dr. Luanne Williams, a North Carolina state toxicologist, 4U°;0 of the toxins from asphalt plant smokestacks even meet arc yualtty standards—and for the other 6O"'0 of these emissions, the state lacks sufficient data to determine safe levels. BE SAFE is coordinated by the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. To sign the platform or for more information, contact us at CHEJ, P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040, 703-237-2249, or 518-732-4538, or visit www.besafenet.com c i-iEJ Hspnaat act z 1. HEED EARLY "tit." AR 1\fl NG SIGNS `There is documented evidence from health experts and federal and state regulators of the serious health effects of asphalt plant emissions. We roust heed these earl' warning signs and take action to prevent communities from further exposure to cancer-causing substances released by asphalt plants. The following actions ire needed: S it rust i•iums on asphalt plant construction and operation an communities where people live and go to school; SLric:tci' to . i and enforcement of air quality standards at asphalt plants; and IR�ia-o^,ec'_ it F`e r. girds that address all toxic contaminants—including fugitive emissions. 1-1"11-1 y,,•It �• r 1.ti,C_ -_ Even if an asphalt plant meets all state and federal aur pollution standards, people living nearby are still exposed to cancer-causing substances that can cause long-term darnage. These standards are based on the principle of "acceptable risk", and assume each state will enforce the standards, the plants will operate perfectly, and the owners can be trusted to operate on an honor system where they are expected to follow all the laws and regulations that apple to thein- facility without any government oversight. In the malornty of cases, it is unknown whether the `theoretical' air emissions predicted b'v computer models and used by plant owners accurately reflect air emissions from a plant's daily operations. We must put safety first and shut down or overhaul the current system that fails to protect. communities from the daily health hazards of asphalt plant pollution. EXERCISE )EMOCRACY Federal regulations based on the "acceptable risk" model and self-regulating honor systems are inadequate to protect public health. Many states rely on inadequate federal standards that do not take into account local factors such as how close an industrial facility is to homes and schools, local weather patterns, ;incl additional `nuisance' factors such as the effect acrid and nauseating smells have on the quality of life in these communities. Organizations are working to improve federal and state standards and add asphalt plaint fumes to the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) list under the federal Clean Air Act. Communities can take advantage of any state laws aimed at protecting local values that allow counties to determine where new industrial facilities will be located. These communities can band together to work with their county governments to prevent new asphalt plants from being located in their neighborhoods and prevent existing plants from renewing their permits until farther evaluation of public health risks are conducted. 4. CHOOSE THE SAFEST SOLUTION• ; Communities faced with an asphalt plant proposal should push for setbacks from residences and community bl.iildi11 i, site specific health -based aur pollution modeling and monitoring, enclosures for loading zones, and preferably a zero emissions aspllalr plant, with total containment of air pollutants. L ](:1 C2.5tin PC:'111 in Yu !l" To Lind out more abour asphalt plant pollution in Four area, go to 'ww scorecard.org c Join ti C' n . C7 . p' n. Support the cainpaigf 011 asphalt plant pollution. To Lind out Imre, contact the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense I rague at www.bredl.org Take precautionary action to prevent asphalt plant pollution. Sign on to the BE SAI+. Platform on the next page. Be counted when we deliver this national Platform to the White House it1 2OO`). 1 ndorse the B[. SAFT Platform todav at www besafenet.com. Yr- y CO" The next election will set the country's course on asphalt plant regulations. 1;,,r information on enviroivnental voting records, contact www.sierraclub.org and iti-ww. lcv, org. To register to voce, contact www. earthday net efe e _ CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 3 Clean Ai' Campaign Harts Asphalt Pollution & Improves Air Policies "Nothing could have prepared us for the horrors of that plant: we cannot be outside when it operates, we are prisoners." Jerry Starr. Macon County, NC Blue Ridge 1?nvire.Inmental Detclise league (BRI TM) has i:icen leading :t Clean .lir Campaign to reduce toxic pi,]lution to ni asphalt plants in North Carolina. In partnership with many commumry groups, BR1'_Dl_ dcteated numerous asphalt plant proposals, spearheaded .t trend of countywide moratoriums on asphalt plant construction and operation, and mounted plant permit challenges. '1"he campaigns included radio mels. posted yard signs, newspaper display ads, and stones In Irilcaal newspapers. 1381 DI. and the Clean .lir Campaign have succeeded in reducing asphalt pollution :and improving an- quality policies. North Carolina and 'Tennessee signed an .agreement to protect int- quality altyualtty in the Great Smoky \fountain \:itli nal Park and either wilderness areas. " rth Carolina has improved methods to analyze fugitive toxic air emissions and expanded the "toxic -lir Pollutant program to include .ill operating ;and proposed :asphalt plaints. 1 1.;5 EP -1 Office of Air Qualm° Planning c1 Standardis, .4P-42. 1 --Oh Edition. f cllurne 1, Chapter 11- .11ineral Products Indusia j. [EPA] http://www.epaa.gov/ttn/chieflap421eh11/fnaliel1s01.pdf Final to Reduce IoxieAir Emissions l ['ram Asphalt Processing c1 ,shalt Roofing Manufacturing Facilities. Environmental Protection .Agency..1une 2000 [EPA 1. Il oaidoits Substance 1 -act Sheet, Asphalt Fumes. New Jersey Department of lleaith and Senior Services. January 2001 [NJDHSS]. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ATSDR). 1995. 1oxicolo?gical Profile Jar Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Ri/Is). Atlanta_ GA: C.I.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service[Dl-IHS]. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Leaeue.Asphalt Health Survey. [BREDL]. Dr. R. Nadkarni developed mass balance equation to estimate total fugitive emissions and his comments to Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality are at www.bredl.org/pdf/DEQ072503.pdi. [Dr. R. Nadkarni]. Primary Contributor: Lou Zeller; Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 4 . L�i iY,. i s orm In the 21.st century, we envision a world in which our lbod, wafer and air are clean, and our children grow up healthy and thrice- Everyone needs a protected, safe community and workplace. and natural environment to enjoy We can make this world vision a reality The tools we bring to ibis work are prevention. safety, responsibility and democracy. Our goal is to prevent pollution and environmenial destruction before it happens. We support this precautionary approach because it is preventive medicine fpr our environment and health. 11 makes sense to: Prevent pollution and make polluters. not taxpayers. pay and assume responsibility for the damage they cause; Protect our children from chemical and radioactive exposures to avoid illness and suffering, - Promote use of safe, renewable, non-toxic. technologies; Provide a natural environment we can all enjoy with clean ail; swimmable, _fishable water and stewardship for our national forests. fl e, choose rt "hetier safe than sorry" approach motivated hr caution and prevention. if e endorse the common-sense approach outlined in the BE S.,4FE's four prineiples listed below: Platform Principles nA.RLy Ya LT' Government and industry have a duty to prevent ]farm, when there is credible evidence that harm is occurs ng or is likely to occur—even when the exact nature and full magnitude of harm is not vet proven. PUT SAFETY FIR industry and government have a responsibility to thoroughly study the potential for harm from a new chemical or technology before it is used—rather than assume it is harmless until proven otherwise. We need to ensure itis safe now, or we will be sorry liter, Research on impacts to workers and rhe public needs to be confirmed by independent third parties. Precautionary decisic,ns place the highest priority on protecting health ;and the environment, and help develop cleaner technologies and industries with effective safeguards and enforcement. Government and industry decisions should be based on meaningful citizen input and munial respect (the golden rule), with the highest regard for those whose health may be affected and for our irreplaceable natural resources not for those with financial interests. i'ncompromised science should inform public policy. f ry FT: '7—:-iro 1,.72 —1 '11-JTT1C'- Decision -malting by government, industry and individuals must include an evaluation of alternatives, and rhe choice of the safest, technically feasible solutions. We support innovation and promotion of technologies and solutions that create a healthy environment and economy, and protect our natural resources. T..' a e'e:-u,: o. ,ry ,t`o to -, 'evean'. .,'.. it ,; at: ('u E= on. o f e S '` _ Be counted when we deliver this national platform to the White House in 2005. Endorse the platform today at w-ww.besafenet.com BE SAFE is coordinated by the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. To sign the platform or for more information, contact us at CHEJ, P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040, 703-237-2249, or 518-732-4538, or visit www.besafenet.com 0 111.3 ca r - f/3 7 77 Q - 01 a f. C, r'L rek an I find out more about a:- tater Ouality control ASPARAGINE. See Amino acids. ASPARTIC ACID. See Amino acids. ASPHALT Asphalt is a dark brown to black cementitious material in which the predominating constituents are bitumens that occur in nature or are obtained - in petroleum processing. Asphalts characteristically contain very high molecular weight hydrocarbons called asphaltenes and are essentially soluhle in carbon disulfide, and aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Bitumen is a generic term for a class of black or dark -col- ored (solid, semisolid, or viscous) cementitious substances, natural or manufactured, composed principally of high molecular weight hydro- carbons, of which asphalts, tars, pitches, and asphaltites are typicaL Prior to 1907, most of the asphalt used occurred naturally and in- cluded native asphalts, rock asphalts, and lake asphalts. Since the early 1900s, however, most asphalts have been produced from the refining of petroleum and used primarily in paving and roofing applications. Unlike native asphalts, petroleum asphalts are organic with only trace amounts of inorganic materials. At normal service temperatures, asphalt is viscoelastic; at higher temperatures, it becomes viscous. The disperse phase is a micelle of asphaltenes and the higher molecular weight aromatic components of the petrolenes. Determination of the components of asphalts has always presented a challenge because of the complexity and high molecular weights of the hydrocarbons present. The component of highest carbon content is the fraction termed carhoids, which is insoluble in carbon disulfide. This fraction, although organic. is nonasphaltic. The so-called carbenes are insoluble in carbon tetrachloride and soluble in carbon disulfide. Both carhoids and carbenes, if present, occur in small amounts. Asphaltenes have a great influence on the viscosity of asphalt. They seem to be relatively constant in composition in residual asphalts, despite the source, as determined by carbon- hydrogen analysis. The Table I. Properties of Asphalts CHEJ AsphalgoigLick 7 137 -ionasphaltene components of asphalt are called rnaltenes or petrolenes. Properties of asphalts appear in Table 1. Asphaltsare used as protective films, adhesives, and binders because of their waterproof and weather -resistant properties. Some movement without fracture can occur because of their viscous (nil) nature. They have long and continuous satisfactory service because of their slow rate of hardening from heat, oxidation, fatigue, and weathering. Exposed asphalt films harden partially from a loss of volatile oils and to a greater extent from the formation of additional asphaltene fractions and loss of maltenes through oxidation. Such chemical change undoubtedly is cata- lyzed by uv irradiation. Recent studies have indicated that asphalt stiffness can be used in optimizing performance, although fundamental measures of mechanical properties are preferable, A stiffer asphalt. under uniform loading conditions, could reduce pavement deflection, extend fatigue life, and allow less flow deformation. A softer material would normally allow a longer weathering life before the maltene-asphaltene composition becomes critical in service. Usually, the softest material allowed by initial service needs is selected. The water resistance of asphalt films is also a manifestation of durability. Asphalts that have a low content of soluble salts show a low water absorption. The pickup of water is primarily a surface manifesta- tion; is softens the film and can cause blistering. Even with a high rate of absorption, asphalt films show little loss of bond to surfaces on con- tinued immersion in water and continue to protect metals from corrosion for long periods of time. Bacteria and fungi can attack the very low molecular weight portion of bituminous materials - Mineral fillers often are added to asphalts to influence their flow properties and reduce costs. They are used commonly as stabilizers in roofing coatings at concentrations up to 60 wt%. Mineral -filled films show improved resistance to flow at elevated temperatures, improved impact resistance, and better flame -spread resistance. Fillers may in- crease the water absorption of asphalts. Mineral fillers commonly used are ground limestone, slate flours, finely divided silicas, trap rocks, and mica; they often are produced as by-products in rock -crushing opera- tions. Opaque fillers offer protection from weathering. Asbestos filler has special properties because of its fibrous structure, high resistance to flow. sued toughness. It has ile+e s used in asphaltpaving mixes to increase the Property Straight - reduced, residual Thermal residual Air blown softening point [ring and ball), °C penetration of 100 g at 25.0 for 5 s. taro/10 ductility at 25°C, 5 cm/min, cm specific gravity, 15.6/15.6°C mean coefficient of cubical expansion/°C 15.6-65,6°C 15.6-2."32°C specific heat, J/fkg • Kr 4-4°C 93.3°C 204.4°C thermal conducti ity at 26,7°C, W/#m - K) permeability constant at 25°C, kg • nn/(m2 • s • Pa)s water vapor oxygen water absorption of ]0 -mil films on aluminum panels, wt% 50 weeks 10U weeks surface Mesion, rnN/rn f'c dyn/cm) 28°C 100°C dielectric strength, spherical electrodes, V/m dielectric constant. 50 Hz at 20°C 46 90 150 1.013 0,00063 0.[x1068 1675 1968 2345 0.16 0.62-1.93 x 10 is 34 27 11-45 X 10° 2.7 113 U too hard 1.12 0.00058 ❑.00063 1549 1842 2177 0.16 93 20 3,2 1.05 0.00063 0.01068 1633 1926 2.'3113 0.16 1.1 x 10' 15 1.25-2.4 x 10 " 0.08 x 10 -is 36 X 10' 3.0 1.5--10 2.5-16.5 .12 28 :319-35 ri 10e 2.7 Ta convert J to cal, divide by 4.184. 5To convert Pa to nun Hg, multiply by 0.0075. 138 ASPHALT resistance to movement under traffic and in roofing materials for fire - retardant purposes (see Fillers). Petroleum -derived asphalt, which represents > 99% of total asphalt and asphalt products sold in the United States, is manufactured by the following methods: Straight reduction. Crude oil at 840-400°C is injected into a frac- tionating column. The lighter fractions are separated as overhead prod- ucts, and the residuum is straightreduced asphalt. Crude oil containing ca 30% or more of asphalt can be refined completely in an atmospheric unit to an asphalt cement product. However, most crude cel cannot be distilled at atrnospheric pressure because of high percentages of high boiling fractions. As a supplement to the atmospheric process, a second fractionating tower (a vacuum tower) is added. This two-stage process is particularly applicable to crude oils containing 18-30% asphalt. Straight -reduced asphalts are used mainly in pavements, where they serve primarily as binders in paving mixes. The most important recent technical innovation in asphalt paving has been to use asphalt throughout the entire pavement structure (termed total asphalt) to provide more efficient and economical distribution of traffic stresses to the subgrade and provide better protection of the base from intrusion of outside materials, eg, water, soil, etc. Air -blowing. Asphalt stock (flux) is converted to a harder product by air contact at 200- 275°C. Air -blown asphalts are generally more re- sistant to weather and changes in temperature than straight -reduced asphalts and are produced by batch and continuous methods. Air -blown asphalts of diverse viscosities and flow properties with added fillers, polymers, solvents, and in water emulsions provide products for many applications in roofing and other industries. Air -blowing is also used to produce the harder paving -asphalt grades when the crudes available have a low asphalt content and cannot be reduced directly to grade. Propane deasphalting involves the precipitation of asphalt from a residuum stock by treatment with propane under controlled conditions. The petroleum stock is usually atmospheric -reduced residue from a primary distillation tower. Propane usually is used in this process although propane -butane mixtures and pentane have been used with some variation in process conditions and hardness of the product. Propane deasphalting is used primarily for crude oils of relatively low asphalt content, generally c 12%. Asphalt produced from this process is blended with other asphaltic residua for making paving asphalt. Thermal asphalts differ from other asphalts in that they are products of a cracking process. They have relatively high specific gravity, low viscosity, and high temperature susceptibility, and they contain cokelike bodies (carbenes) as indicated by the spot test. Thermal asphalts are used principally as saturants for cellulosic building products such as insulation boards, brick -finish siding, end fiber soil pipes. Currently, their use in road asphalts is rare, Thermal asphalt actually is in very short supply because of changes in cracking methods, and there is little likelihood that it will ever become commonly available. Blended asphalts may be produced when a refinery stocks two grades of asphalt, one at each end of the viscosity spectrum of the entire product grade requirements. Intermediate grades are prepared by blend- ing {proportioning) the extremes. Emulsions are immiscible liquids dispersed in one another in the form of very fine droplets from ca 1-25µm and an average of 5 µm dia. In the 300 " ▪ ¢ 21)1) eree 8E - E O - yy o ^ RIC Al2 rise • i • 1 • 1 e/ r CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack B most common asphalt emulsion, ie, the oil -in -water type, the asphalt is the dispersed (internal) phase, and water is the continuous (external) phase (see Emulsions). Colloid mills are most commonly used for the manufacture of road emulsions in the United States. A colloid mill usually consists of a rapidly revolving conical disk (rotor). The asphalt, water, and emulsifying agent are forced through the narrow clearance between the rotor and the stator (stationary section). Industrial emulsions have applications outside the road -building in- dustry. They are made with harder grades of asphalt and contain days, casein, gelatin, or blood albumin as peptizing agents. Certain clays, such as bentonite, are good emulsion dispersants and impart a buttery con- sistency to the emulsion. These emulsions have a wide variety of applica- tions, such as in surface coating of asphalt pavements, for built-up roofs, and for other weather coverings, The large demands for asphalt as a building material were created primarily by mass production of the automobile and the development of asphalt roofing materials (qv) for home construction. The use of asphalt in pavement base -course construction (instead of untreated aggregates), hydraulics, rapid growth in home construction, and the interstate road system have greatly increased its use. In recent years, the paving market has consumed ca 80% of the product, Asphalt has been used to surface 94% of the United States' highways. The roofing industry typically has accounted for ea 15, of the asphatt market, and miscellaneous industrial asphalts make up the remaining 5%. These products usually axe classified only by types (Bureau of Mines), eg, liquid, solid, emulsion; or by use, eg, laminates, pipe coating, automotive asphalts, etc. The petroleum industry can produce larger quantities of asphalt by adjusting the use of the residual product from refining processes. The integrated refineries have alternative uses for crude -oil residua, ie, coke and residual fuel oil. Very recently, technology improvements have allowed the use of crude residua in existing catalytic cracking units which, in the absence of sufficient distillates normally used for this purpose, places a high alternative value on residua without the atten- dant need for capital to expand coking facilities. The value of residua for coking and residual fuel establishes a basis for asphalt prices. Asphalt is the preferred product from high sulfur crude stocks because it is a construction material and does not require desulfurization for use as a fuel. Asphalt yields from three crudes are shown in Figure 1, No significant air -pollution problems are associated with emissions from hot paving operations using several asphalt cements. Concentra- tions of gaseous substances and emissions from paving -asphalt cement have been found to be very low and within existing EPA and OSHA standards, even when the ambient air sampling was done under confined conditions. Asphalt's very minor content of high molecular weight poly- nuclear aromatic constituents, however, has been studied as a possible health hazard. The conclusion from these studies suggests that unlike tars, asphalt can he classified in the same manner as particulate dust, but surveillance should be continued although asphalt has not been shown to be a material of significant ha:eard. Steps to minimize potential safety hazards in the handling of asphalt are set forth by the American Petroleum institute and the Asphalt Institute, Hazards include sudden pressure increases from hot asphalt in contact with moisture in enclosed tanks or transports, exposure to air at tele v rr r'amufC. Me, • ..../ 1.. 1 1 1 1 1 lilt 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 16 18 36 3E 40 02 44 45 48 56 58 60 62 64 6E 6a 70 72 V*14 an u,rde.. a1 % Figure 1. Asphalt yield from three crudes. } Ein= 4 w = ! O. Z \ ) / 0u Z . -2 > 2 %} �T5 § /ƒ a #7 7/ • \ \J 25 < ▪ tk <2 CP /$) -i >w U • "�z \( }( O • ,\ f CO » ( e $ / - w & u / §\ mak&% & § t / w) §g t / 4©»ic E 4k2}%J\ 2 w \ §£I)- =/2» -5 aii ~/] )$ ±i/ $ » [ ,z •9..,-t } ;) \ 2m .} ›k/ }u\/\r °ee }0 #59 ( \ mac = a) 0� � a[ -/ \/ 2«/\\\\\ \ \) }\\\/)) ASPHALT PLANT' EMISSIONS: WHAT ARE. THE. ISSUES DURING SITE AssrcNNIENT? ruv Ravi :''relk.arni • CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 10 %.N • 1 t known an•clieFtrade as 'blue strtoke". Because these condensed organics are in the form of sub -micron particles. then don't settle out lilt -elitist particles and will travel great distances before their concentration becomes cao low for therm to be visible However, i• ? :. the characteristic odor of asphalt w%.. reveal their presence, The • Air Emissions; Emissions of pollutants to the air come from tiap types of sources: the various 'stacks in the plant and from other miscellaneous sources, which are called fugitive emissions. At an •asphalt plant. incoming stone and gravel are dried`in a fuel -fired dryer (which uses natural gats andfor fuel oil) and then mixed with Gty of Boston Board of Health and Hospitals has collected • infprmition' front many cities and towns about asphalt plants. '"They find that complaints about odor, indicating the presence of r `r hese'volatiliaed organics, have been recorded at distances as far as r. a' mire "fronsasphalt plana indicating the distance that these heated liquid asphalt: The -games from the dryer, the mixer, and ,. t ernissions'tfavr1.: The concern about these organic emissions is • `from various pieces of enclosed equipment are cleaner! its a fabric -' ce'o fold,: The lighter VOCs fend to smog, More important, the fsltrr (like a Large vacuum -cleaner bag) and sent to the main stseit .' b �' etnissioTus conuin significant concentrations of The emissions from this stick include gases iuch as nitrogen �rpolptiuclear ;aromatic- compounds. Which cause canter and W oxides, carbon diiaxide and sulfur dioxide which result from fuel •. mutation, Unfortunately, the EPA anti DEP have toully ignored combustion• In addition, they contain various hydrocarbdns : 'fugitive eriiiuions anal 'now. This'-. unforssnate since these` • which are citherunburnt fuel or velsurtzed organic compounds?A' fugitives.:�istain: hydcx:carban. VUC,t, regulated zs ozone which tome from the hot asphalt. Asphalt is. a residue faint •::precursors,'snd particulate condensed organics which contain ;• oetmle'tim refining; Whileit it a solid at repo' rrr':eaiperature, ie is: x211ce4:2tsing cFiemicals, which should be regulated but are not. There hai a watery, low -viscosity ligiiid•at,the operating teriperartnr•or: bcen.a sigufeant effort de'oced to quantification of around 300 to 350 degrees F. This asphalt is stored in heated these fugitive emissions by concerned citizens. Tne EPA and err k which has its own suck for rhe heater (which burns fuel to DEP :.re being reluctantly dragged into accepting the face that hest the asphalt) and a vent to allow asphalt vapors to escape when !mese crni.ssions can't and should not be ignorers . ' the tank is being filled. Stack casissions contain various "criteria"..: An ==:talc plane is often associated with a quarry and a screening pollutants which are regulated under the Dean Air Act : These • • . include sulfur dioici ' plash for-cusbed sttsne and gi-aveL The plants generate a lot of . de, nitrage:L azides and paructilaees. °-'.Usir °.'dust. Even wherian adiacent atiarrf is absent, the mashed stone Settle ls chat Stack '�Crr115514n5: are" 'asuiyzed.,properly by. : . Massachitse-t-a Department of Environmental Protection during While duac.'contm! ,is easy in principl with the use of water the rniew of the Air Permit Application. Nationally, the same is'' , .• - more Or less true 'since til states operate in a similar failtion with sprays sprays to-• suppress its generation, it %'s mtely implemensed technicIi guidance from the EPA. :properly: First, there is -an economic incentive not to be generous - • " ' ' ' •wthi the -water sprays; after ail this limier has to be purchased and Fneitive emissions` These are uneaniroied'emissioiss,`okesi--•'.:then. it hitstv'be-e' pirated. in the dryer using purchased fossil •' '' ueL-•-Seeiirt.; .21°i. of the chase. ie i e crated try the truck traffic --con ▪ ground level, from equipment such as hat asphaft'norsge silos, fv;. , r ' " ssociattf• tthe :spltart plans'and/or tgtarry, Much of chi`s , . •'-.conveyors, etc, dr from .misaifarieous _openings:— Fugstave • etrtissirsris also 'occur during rciutine operations inc li'as the .•'dust riti be depoaisited on put tic triads and streets and i$ na longer , . •'process of ronding hot main asphalt.irito true i- Asphalt: c ot-fiirii•.-tort the: plant property •aithough•it 'originated on the plant ▪ a wide 7."‘ tli of light and heavy hjrdrocarbarzs`derived fr-irhe''. "P Y Akh4ugh enhaiing targe arnounu of such dust leads to . • r ;'salter- bbuat war era an prig bon are generally not exposed to' processus of peiraleufh cfudcs',At"the opetiting tcmpersaiti. • rhe'lghta,�mpanenda•evaparate Frain •the.ligvid •and iiecomc ';ateraariii'gs where t us becomesaserious problem. Rather, it is .: nn_is .rr �c and z.taajar source•©'. complaints. 'fugitive emissiors'of hydrrxirbvns.-r.Tlttre•tsrt Ywo rtatpr;. uttegoi'ies: The it'll-its-ible•cinissions are mainly,naa-tondersibIr y '' • • Etnissions.to CVater WhilC hot tnx:itiplult Si produced' by a • 'Voimtile ethnic Gpmpoui ds (VpCsy`evluicia'cantribute io smog'''. • , , i .• EF'A rest -arch has shown -that these VG1C,s ire abut3O%-of the :Ictally p[aeess;esrli utricleis riortrrilly'coated with a "1eleue ,•'agent" ;to ptri�erit' the;asphalc.frot-% ati•clting to the truck body tats! hydrocarbon's Haat volatilize 'Cliescciiiidcacegory contates , •.` heavier hydrocaroons that evaporate at theaperating ter iperatiuree,,,; •- trilase {. - • • --... t kttv'sene lta • • . used as re3eue . ,of around 300 degrees F but sheet co • - dense in itte•cooie1i int . ,- s. ..is in the gait, thc'cu rent p'rzc ••; u to use a ivater-nscd '; release'.agent • called Polyslip This Polyslip- foam is appried air.. These condensed orgiunie•• compounds• are• visible "and are ' gcneroodY to tht truck body by the tnack driver. and the excess drips to the ground as is carried into ground water by rain or runoff.' . 4'olyslip contains a .mixture of Synthetic detergents such as sodium metasilicate and sodium tripolyphosphate The other' components are butoxyethanal and dodecyl benzene sultanate These' chemicals are poisons, ' The toxic dose based • on. oral ingestion by mice, rats and rabbits, is about l gram per kilogram of body weight: For humans, this acute CaxrC dose translates to about I ounce for an adult., Generally, acute toxicity will not be an issue. However, at much lower concentrations and chronic exposures, butorvetha.ol is a teratogen (=uses birth defects) and a mutagens in its ester fora_ We have seen such facilities sited near supplies of drinking water or near 1 cranberry bog, in one instance. The asphalt plants generally call these maccriafs,'a soap solution approved by IDE? and dismiss the issue of health effects beeause these chemicals are supposedly biodegradable. Boards of Heahin need to pay more attention to this arra, especial'l'y whert there is potential for contamination of drinking water supplies. $olid Wastes: A hot mix plant does not produce solid wash but is often can consume solid and hazardous wastes such as Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) and soil contaminated with oil. RAP is generally much higher in volatile components than is the case with new hot mix asphalt so the air emissions are higher when RAP is being used. A real concern is haw these materials are stored on site and whether the toxic chemicals in these solids can be leached into ground water by rainfall Noise and other nuisance issues: Asphalt plants arc noisy because of the truck tr.f ic. because of associated quarry operations and because the irrrcr on the dryer is also noisy. In addition, if the plant has a contract with Mass Department of Highways; itis required to operate around the clock, regardless of local ordinances_ Complaints from neighbors during such periods indicate that the noise from backup alarms on trucks and other mobile equipmeac is particularly annoying at night. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 11 Overall, the concerns about asphalt plants are a result of their emissions to the sir and water and their propensity to be sited near residential areas with rninimal buffer zones and in areas such as gravel pits which are also aquifers and sources of drinking water. Some states like South Dakota only allow mobile asphalt plants so that a particular neighborhood does not have to breathe asphalt fumes for scores of years. Even in a petroleum -friendly state like Texas, a half mile buffer zone is required so :hat an asphalt pant can't be sited closer that half mile from any residence without special state environmental review. •'� 0 rn )01 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 12 United States Office Of Air Quality EPA -454/R -OO -019 Environmental Protection Planning And Standards December 2O00 Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Air mi,�, EPA HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS EMISSION ASSESSMENT REPORT CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 13 LIST OF ACRONYMS ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 13tu British thermal unit CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide (as measured by EPA Method 10) CO2 carbon dioxide (as measured by EPA Method 3) EPA Environmental Protection Agency HAP hazardous air pollutant (listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) HMA hot mix asphalt NOx nitrogen oxides (as measured by EPA Method 7) PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (a class of HAPS) PM particulate matter (as measured by EPA Methods 5 or 17) PM -10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM -2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter RAP reclaimed asphalt pavement RTFOT rolling thin film oven test (ASTM Method D2872-88) SCC source classification code SO2 sulfur dioxide (as measured by EPA Methods 6 or 8) SOx sulfur oxides TOC total organic compounds (as measured by EPA Method 25A) VOC volatile organic compound (refer to 40 CFR 51.100); VOC is TOC plus formaldehyde, less methane, ethane, acetone, and other chemicals listed as negligibly photochemically reactive. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 14 This report presents an assessment of emissions from hot mix asphalt (NMA) manufacturing facilities. Included in the report is a description of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated with HMA production; the procedures for developing emission factors and emission inventories for the HMA industry: and estimated annual emissions for typical HMA facilities. 12 OVERVIEW OF HMA INDUSTRY Hot mix asphalt is used primarily as paving material and consists of a mixture of aggregate and liquid asphalt cement, which are heated and mixed in measured quantities. Hot mix asphalt facilities can be broadly classified as either drum mix plants or batch mix plants, according to the process by which the raw materials are mixed. In a batch mix plant, the aggregate is dried first, then transferred to a mixer where it is mixed with the liquid asphalt. In a drum mix plant. a rotary dryer serves to dry the aggregate and mix it with the liquid asphalt cement. After mixing. the HMA generally is transferred to a storage bin or silo, where it is stored temporarily. From the silo, the HMA is emptied into haul trucks, which transport the material to the job site. Figure 1 presents a diagram of a typical batch mix HMA plant; a typical drum mix HMA plant is depicted in Figure 2. In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants. approximately 2,300 are batch plants. and 1,300 are drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMA production from batch and drum mix plants is estimated at about 240 million tons and 260 million tons. respectively. Based on these figures, an average batch mix plant produces approximately 100,000 tons of HMA annually. and an average drum mix plant produces about 200,000 tons of HMA per year. Natural gas fuel is used to produce 70 to 90 percent of the HMA. The remainder of the HMA is produced using oil. propane, waste oil, or other fuels. The primary emission sources associated with HMA production are the dryers, hot bins, and mixers. which emit particulate matter (PM) and a variety of gaseous pollutants. Other emission sources found at HMA plants include storage silos. which temporarily hold the HMA: truck load -out operations, in which the HMA is loaded into trucks for hauling to the job site: liquid asphalt storage tanks; hot oil heaters, which are used to heat the asphalt storage tanks; and yard emissions, which consist of fugitive emissions from the HMA in truck beds. Emissions also result from vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate storage and handling operations, and vehicle exhaust. The PM emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria pollutants. PM -10 (PM less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter) and PM -2.5. hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals, and HAP organic compounds. The gaseous emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC), as well as volatile HAP organic compounds. 1.3 DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HMA FACILITIES An emission factor relates the quantity (weight) of pollutants emitted to a unit of activity of the source. Emission factors for the HMA industry are generally determined in units of pounds of pollutant emitted per ton of LIMA produced. These emission factors typically are used to estimate area -wide 1 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 15 emissions for a large number of facilities and emissions for specific facilities where source -specific emissions data are not available or where source testing is cost prohibitive. To develop emission factors for the HMA industry. data from more than 390 emission test reports and other documents on the industry were compiled and reviewed. Through a careful screening process, the documents that were determined to be unusable for emission factor development were excluded from further evaluation. The remaining reports were compiled by plant type, emission source, pollutant. and emission control. For each emission test. emission factors were calculated by dividing the measured emission rates by the HMA production rate measured at the time of the emission test. These emission factors were then grouped by source, pollutant. and control device, and an average emission factor was calculated for each group. Emission factors can be used to estimate emissions from one or more HMA facilities by multiplying the emission factor by the HMA production rate. For example, the emission factor for CO emissions from a natural gas-fired drum mix dryer is 0.13 pounds per ton (lb/ton). if the dryer produces 200.000 tons per year (ton/yr). the estimated CO emissions during that period would be: 200.000 ton/yr x 0.13 lb/ton = 26,000 Ib/yr or 13 tons/yr. 1.4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL HMA FACILITIES Annual emissions for a facility can be estimated by summing, up the emissions from each emission source over the course of a year. Annual emissions for a specific source can be estimated by multiplying the annual throughput or production rate for that source by its corresponding emission factors. For an HMA facility. annual emissions can be estimated by multiplying the annual HMA production rate by the emission factors for each type of source at the facility. Table 1 summarizes annual emissions for a typical HMA batch mix plant, and Table 2 summarizes annual emissions for a typical drum mix HMA plant. The estimates presented in these tables account for all of the identified emission sources at each type of facility. For both batch mix plants (Table 1) and drum mix plants (Table 2). the estimate includes emissions from the dryer/mixer, load -out operations. asphalt storage. yard (fugitive emissions from loaded trucks). diesel exhaust, paved and unpaved road dust. and aggregate processing (screening, conveyor transfer. and reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP] crushing). Additionally. for the drum mix plant (Table 2), the estimate includes emissions from silo filling operations. Estimates are presented for criteria pollutants (pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards have been developed) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPS, as defined in section 1 12(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments). Criteria pollutants include PM -10, VOC, CO, SO2, and NOx. Emissions for three classes of HAPs are presented in Tables 1 and 2: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). volatile organic HAPS, and metal HAPs. The emissions were estimated using the emission factors developed for the HMA industry and the following assumptions: • Dryers are fueled with natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil (estimates are presented for both types). It is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of HMA plants use natural gas. although some HMA plants use fuel oil as an alternative to natural gas. • Dryer emissions are controlled with fabric filters. • PM emissions from load -out and silo filling are entirely PM -10. • Annual HMA production rate for a typical batch mix plant is 100,000 ton/yr. • Annual HMA production rate for a typical drum mix plant is 200.000 ton/yr. • The typical HMA plant has two 18.000 -gallon asphalt storage tanks. As indicated in Table I, a typical batch mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer emits over 74,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical batch mix plant using a natural gas-fired dryer emits over CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 16 56,000 Ib/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 41,000 lb/yr are CO and approximately 10,700 lb/yr are PM -10; emissions of other criteria pollutants range from about 500 to about 12,000 Ib/yr. The same plant would emit about 770 lb/yr of HAPs. A typical drum mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer emits about 83,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical drum mix plant using a natural gas-fired dryer emits around 75.000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 28,000 lb/yr are CO, about 10,000 lb/yr are VOC, and around 31,000 Ib/yr are PM -10. A typical drum mix plant emits from 1,300 to 2,000 lb/yr of HAPs. depending on the fuel used in the dryer. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 17 Annual emissions by source, pounds per year CU fj 0 4 0 C: 0 0 C7 O oc 0 n kr) 0 a C fV C6 rt Ci e b -- C7 n r - O 0 0 b G T.-- +n 0 0o tt p .-. - oo C`a Tr- 0) of 0 er, kr! rd d 0 G N CV 6 tp 00 Criteria air pollutants Q 0 0 C? 0 GC 0 d• 0 oo Q 000 O N C7 00 N 0 0 0 0 C1 0 C1-6 O N OMO a 1/1 0 C 0 O 00 G 0 co 0 C G 0 0 0 os L. Sulfur dioxide (SO) z CJ 0 C 0 z Hazardous air pollutants (l-IAPs) .— 0 .--, kro 40 n n C7 0 0 C m Volatile HAPs Metal HAPs T Total HAPS 0 G CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 18 TABLE 2. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL DRUM MIX HMA FACILITY S I (0 40 00 ami • a a 0 G © ea N CO ov t o ,© N rr1 0 0 C, 0 C C O O N C - C? er0J N r5 0 00 0 0+ 0C 0 +- 0 00 _ r.i :fl rr C N N N (0 0 00 B.. O < r 6 M J7 N (es w. G o, r 00 0- •3' C? N rv• 0 0 0 0 O 1p co �G N ua V"! rJ r� N — Yr C ti 0J 1. ,' w L7-'" '0 0' ' 4 N C 7 `7 N — C3 C O 0B C G• © N 0' N N vt 0' 0' Volatile organic compounds (VOC) Carbon monoxide (CO) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Nitrogen oxides (NO,) 0 0 Volatile HAPs Metal HAPS 7 tU nt .7, g— W! • O 0 C] 6] 7 0 o.c-. = w 4 C t+0 O G O i 03 C? " RAJ RS C 0 U C] 0. 30 (A'd 0 C L., G.. 01 R O N N.�, ,i1 _a.G 0 i < < " Q tbG O - U • x Ct VI A '= n _V _ N rtl iq ▪ 5 5ts) 3 Q G i Vcz E 0 .C4 � Cl G 47 G 0 00 0 - 0,o 0, 0 "tl m E c,n •= t, 5 C G tw. :: E E L N. ©,,," as a.a a o y 0 0 Co,Q v 7 N ✓ 3 -o _E0 X CC co .-] ii. ,E caa, [^ CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 19 The emissions estimates presented in Tables 5 through 12 are based on the emission factors developed for the HMA industry and the following assumptions: Batch mix plant and drum mix plant dryers are fueled with either natural gas or fuel oil. It is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of HMA plants use natural gas, although some HMA plants use fuel oil as an alternative to natural gas. As shown in Tables 5 and 8. fuel oil -fired mixers and dryers have higher emissions of S02, NOx, and some HAPs. • Batch mix plant dryer, hot screens. and mixer and drum mix plant dryer emissions are controlled with fabric filters. • PM emissions from load -out and silo filling are entirely PM -10. (However, the organic portion of these emissions also can be assumed to be PM -2.5. Information is available in AP -42 Appendix B.1. Particle Size Distribution Data and Sized Emission Factors for Selected Sources, for categorizing the inorganic or filterable PM into PM -10 and PM -2.5 fractions.) • Average asphalt loss on heating is -0.5 percent (asphalt volatility). • Average HMA Load -out temperature is 325°F. • The typical HMA plant has two asphalt storage tanks that are 50 feet long and 8 feet in diameter. It is estimated that these storage tanks require a total heating capacity of about 200,000 Btu/hr. based on a heat loss of 60 Btu/ft2 of tank surface area. The asphalt storage tanks are kept at 325°F continuously for the five months the HMA plant operates. As a result. 720 million Btu are used to maintain the temperature of the asphalt in the storage tank. For a gas-fired hot oil heater. 720,000 ft3 of gas is combusted. For an oil -fired hot oil heater. 5.100 gallons of fuel oil are combusted. It should be noted that this fuel usage is about 3 percent ate fuel used in a typical batch mix plant and 1.6 percent of the fuel used in a typical drum mix plant. TABLE 3. MATRIX OF EMISSION FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR HMA SOURCES Plant type Source Criteria pollutants HAPs Other pollutants Batch mix Drum mix Dryer. hot screens, and mixer Hot oil heaters Load -out Yard emissions Dryer Hot oil heaters Load -out Silo filling Yard emissions PM -10, NOx. CO, S02, VOC P CO, VOC, VOC PM -I0, NOx. CO, SO2, VOC PM, CO, VOC PM, CO, VOC VOC 24 organic HAPs 9 metal HAPs 22 organic HAPs 41 organic HAPs 19 organic HAPs 58 organic HAPs 11 metal HAPs 22 organic HAPs 41 organic HAPS 28 organic HAPs 19 organic HAPs CO2 4 other organics 3 other metals 3 other organics CO2 15 other organics. 6 other metals 3 other organics 3 other organics 17 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 20 TABLE 5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT DRYER, HOT SCREENS, AND MIXERa Pollutant Criteria Pollutants PM -10 voc CO SO2 NO, PAHs (semi -volatile HAPs) Naphthalene 2 -Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i )perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indendo(1.2,3-cd)pyrene Phenanthrene Pyrene Volatile HAPS Acetaldehyde Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Quinone Toluene Xylene Metal HAPs Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Oil -fired dryer ( Natural gas-fired dryer Emissions, lb/yr 2,700 820 40,000 8,800 12,000 2.700 820 40,000 460 2.500 Total PAF -Is Total Volatile HAPs 3.6 7.1 0.090 0.058 0.021 0.00046 0.000031 0.00094 0.00005 0.0013 0.00038 0.0000095 0.016 0.16 0.00003 0.26 0.0062 11 32 28 220 74 27 I00 270 751 3.6 7.1 0.090 0.058 0.021 0.00046 0.000031 0.00094 0.00005 0.0013 0.00038 0.0000095 0.016 0.16 0.00003 0.26 0.0062 11 32 28 220 74 27 100 270 751 Total metal HAPs 0.046 0.015 0.061 0.057 0.089 0.69 0.041 0.3 0.049 1.35 0.046 0.015 0.061 0.057 0.089 0.69 0.041 0.3 0.049 1.35 a Dryer, hot screens, and mixer controlled by fabric filter producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Between 70 and 90 percent of HMA is produced using natural gas; most of the remaining HMA is produced using fuel oil. 19 CHEZ Asphalt Fact Pack 21 TABLE 6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT LOAD -OUT OPERATIONSa Pollutant I Emissions, ib/yr Criteria Pollutants PM -10 VOC CO 52 391 135 PAHs (semi -volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene 0.089 Acenaphthylene 0.0095 Anthracene 0.0239 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0065 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0026 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00075 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.00065 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00078 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.0027 Chrysene 0.035 Dibenzta,h)anthracene 0.00013 Fluoranthene 0.017 Fluorene 0.26 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.00016 2-Methv inaphthalene 0.81 Naphthalene 0.43 Peri.=leve 0.0075 Phenanthrene 0.28 Pyrene 0.051 Total PAHs 2.02 Other semi -volatile HAPs Phenol 1 _ 0.40 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0,22 Bromomethane 0.040 2-Butanone 0.20 Carbon disulfide 0.054 Chloroethane 0.00087 Chloromethane 0.062 Cumene 0.46 Ethylbenzene 1.16 Formaldehyde 0.37 n -Hexane 0.62 Isooctane 0.0075 Methylene chloride 0.00 Methyl tert-butyl ether 0.00 Styrene 0.030 Tetrachloroethene 0.032 Toluene 0.87 i,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.00 Trichloroethene 0.00 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.0054 m -/p -Xylene 1.70 o -Xylene 0.33 Total volatile HAPs 6.18 Uncontrolled emissions from 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. 20 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 22 TABLE 7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT ASPHALT STORAGE TANKa Pollutant 1 Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM -10 VoC CO PAHs (semi -volatile HAPs) ND 32 3 Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Fluoranthene Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total PAHs 0.0027 0.0010 0.00092 0.00051 0.00022 0.00016 0.087 0.025 0.00016 0.12 Volatile HAPs Benzene Bromomethane 2-Butanone Carbon disulfide Chloroethane Chloromethane Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde n -Hexane Isooctane Methylene chloride Phenol Styrene Toluene m -/p -Xylene o -Xylene Total volatile HAPs 0.010 0.0016 0.012 0.0051 0.0012 0.0074 0.012 140 0.032 0.000099 0.000086 0.00 0.0017 0.020 0.061 0.018 140 a Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Includes emissions from oil -fired hot oil heaters. All calculated PAH emissions and almost all of the formaldehyde emissions are from the oil -fired hot oil heater. 2I CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 23 TABLE 8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL DRUM MIX DRYERa Pollutant Criteria Pollutants No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer Natural gas-fired dryer Emissions, lb/yr PM -10 vac CO SO2 NO. PAHs (semi -volatile HA -Ps) 2 -Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(e)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i )pery!en e Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2 3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Perylene Phenanthrene Pyrene Volatile HAPs Isooctane Hexane Benzene Ethy'benzene Formaldehyde Methyl chloroform Toluene Xylene 4,600 6,400 26,000 2,200 11,000 4,600 6,400 26,000 680 5,200 Total PAHs 34 0.28 4.4 0.62 0.042 0.0020 0.020 0.022 0.0080 0.0082 0.036 0.62 2.2 0.0014 130 0.0018 4.6 0.60 180 l5 0.28 1.7 0.044 0.042 0.0020 0.020 0.022 0.0080 0.0082 0.036 0.12 0.76 0.0014 18 0.0018 1.5 0.11 37 Total volatile HAPs 8.0 184 78 48 620 9.6 580 40 1,568 8.0 180 78 48 620 9.6 30 40 1,020 Metal HAPs Lead Mercury Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Manganese Nickel Selenium Total metal HAPs 3 0.52 0.036 0.11 0.000 0.082 1.1 1.5 12.6 0.070 19 0.12 0.048 0.036 0A l 0.000 0.082 1.1 1.5 12.6 0.070 16 Dryer controlled by fabric filter producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Between 70 and 90 percent of HMA is produced using natural gas; most of the remaining HMA is produced using fuel oil. 22 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 24 TABLE 9. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT LOAD -OUT OPERATIONSa Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM -10 VOC co 104 780 270 PAHs {semi -volatile HAP Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i )petylene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(e)pyrene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd )pyrene 2 -Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Pery lene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total PAHs 0.177 0.0191 0.0477 0.013 0.0052 0.0015 0.0013 0.00157 0.0053 0.070 0.00025 0.034 0.53 0.00032 1.62 0.85 0.015 0.55 0,10 4.05 Other semi -volatile HAPs Phenol 0.80 Volatile HAPs Benzene Bromomethane 2-Butanone Carbon disulfide Chloroethane Chloromethane Cumene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde n -Hexane Isooctane Methylene chloride Methyl teri-butyl ether Styrene Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane m -/p -Xylene o -Xylene Total volatile HAPs 0.43 0.080 0.41 0.11 0.0017 0.12 0.91 2.3 0.73 1.25 0.015 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.064 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.011 3.40 0.66 12.35 a Uncontrolled emissions from 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. 23 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 25 TABLE 10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT SILO FILLING OPERATIONSa Pollutant 1 Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM -10 VOC CO I20 2,400 240 PAHs (semi -volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene 0.24 Acenaphthylene 0.0071 Anthracene 0.066 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.028 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.0048 Chrysene 0.11 Fluoranthene 0.076 Fluorene 0.51 2 -Methylnaphthalene 2.7 Naphthalene 0.92 Perylene 0.015 Phenanthrene 0.91 Pyrene 0.22 Total PA I Is 5.8 Other semi -volatile HAPs Phenol ; 0.00 Volatile HAPS Benzene 0.78 Bromomethane 0.12 2-Butanone 0.95 Carbon disulfide 0.39 Chloroethane 0.095 Chloromethane 0.56 Ethylbenzene 0.93 Formaldehyde 17 n -Hexane 2.4 Isooctane 0.0076 Methylene chloride 0.0066 Styrene 0.13 Toluene 1.5 m -/p -Xylene 4.6 o -Xylene 1.4 Total volatile HAPS 31 a Uncontrolled emissions from 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. 24 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 26 TABLE 11. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT ASPHALT STORAGE TANK` Pollutant 1 Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM -10 VOC CO ND 64 6 PAHs (semi -volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Fluoranthene 0.0027 0.0010 0.00092 0.00051 0.00022 Fluorene 0.00016 Naphthalene 0.087 Phenanthrene 0.025 Pyrene 0.00016 Total PAHs _ 0.12 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.020 Bromomethane Q.0031 2-Butanone 0.025 Carbon disulfide 0.010 Chloroethane 0.0025 Chloromethane 0.015 Ethylbenzene 0.024 Formaldehyde 140 n -Hexane 0.064 Isooctane 0.00020 Methylene chloride 0.00017 Phenol 0.00 Styrene 0.0035 Toluene 0.040 m -/p -Xylene 0.12 o -Xylene 0.036 Total volatile HAPs 140 Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Includes emissions from an oil -fired hot oil heater. All of the calculated PAH emissions and almost all of the formaldehyde emissions are from the oil -fired hot oil heater. 25 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 27 TABLE 12. ESTIMATED ANNUAL YARD VOC EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX AND DRUM MIX HMA PLANTSa a Fugitive VOC emissions from loaded haul truck for eight minutes after completion of load -out. b Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 100.000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. C Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. 26 Batch mixb Drum mixc Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM -10 ND ND VOC 110 220 CO 36 72 PAHs (semi -volatile 1 -IAPB) ND ND Other semi -volatile HAPs Phenol ! 0.00 1 0.00 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.057 0.11 Brotnomethane 0.011 0.021 2-Butanone 0.054 0.11 Carbon disulfide 0.014 0.029 Chloroethane 0.00023 0.0046 Chloromethane 0.017 0.033 Cumene 0.12 0.24 Ethylbenzene 0.31 0.62 Formaldehyde 0.10 0.19 n -Hexane 0.17 0.33 Isooctane 0.0020 0.0040 Methylene chloride 0.00 0.00 Styrene 0.0080 0.016 Tetrachloroethene 0.0085 0.017 Toluene 0.23 0.46 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.0014 0.0029 m -/p -Xylene 0.45 0.90 o -Xylene 0.088 0.18 Total volatile HAPs 1.6 3.3 a Fugitive VOC emissions from loaded haul truck for eight minutes after completion of load -out. b Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 100.000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. C Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. 26 CHUJ Asphalt Fact Pack 28 AP -42 FIFA EDMON IANUARY 1995 COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS VOLUME 1: STATIONARY POINT AND AREA SOURCES Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards Office Of Air And Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 January 1995 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 29 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants 11.1.1 General' 2 392-39a Hot mix asphalt (HMA) paving materials are a mixture of size -graded, high quality aggregate (which can include reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP]), and liquid asphalt cement. which is heated and mixed in measured quantities to produce HMA. Aggregate and RAP (if used) constitute over 92 percent by weight of the total mixture. Aside from the amount and grade of asphalt cement used, mix characteristics are determined by the relative amounts and types of aggregate and RAP used. A certain percentage of fine aggregate (less than 74 micrometers [µm] in physical diameter) is required for the production of good quality HMA. Hot mix asphalt paving materials can be manufactured by: (1) batch mix plants, (2) continuous mix (mix outside dryer drum) plants. (3) parallel flow drum mix plants. and (4) counterflow drum mix plants. This order of listing generally reflects the chronological order of development and use within the HMA industry. In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants, approximately 2300 are batch plants, 1,000 are parallel flow drum mix plants, and 300 are counterflow drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMA production from batch and drum mix plants is estimated at about 240 million tons and 260 million tons, respectively. About 85 percent of plants being manufactured today are of the counterflow drum mix design, while batch plants and parallel flow drum mix plants account for 10 percent and 5 percent respectively. Continuous mix plants represent a very small fraction of the plants in use (A0.5 percent) and, therefore, are not discussed further. An HMA plant can be constructed as a permanent plant. a skid -mounted (easil) relocated) plant, or a portable plant. All plants can have RAP processing capabilities. Virtually all plants being manufactured today have RAP processing capability. Most plants have the capability to use either gaseous fuels (natural gas) or fuel oil, However, based upon Department of Ener�wy and limited State inventory information, between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA is produced using natural gas as the fuel to dry and heat the aggregate. 11.1.1.1 Batch Mix Plants - Figure 1 1.1-i shows the batch mix HMA production process. Raw aggregate normally is stockpiled near the production unit. The bulk aggregate moisture content typically stabilizes between 3 to 5 percent by weight. Processing begins as the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the appropriate hoppers of the cold feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyer belt and is transported into a rotary dryer (typically gas- or oil -fired). Dryers are equipped with flights designed to shower the aggregate inside the drum to promote drying efficiency. As the hot aggregate leaves the dryer, it drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of vibrating screens. where it is classified into as many as four different grades (sizes) and is dropped into individual "hot" bins according to size. At newer facilities. RAP also may be transferred to a separate heated storage bin. To control aggregate size distribution in the final batch mix, the operator opens various hot bins over a weigh hopper until the desired mix and weight are obtained. Concurrent with the aggregate being weighed, liquid asphalt cement is pumped from a heated storage tank to an asphalt bucket, where it is weighed to achieve the desired aggregate -to -asphalt cement ratio in the final mix, 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-1 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 34 11.I-2 P A[] H - o7 2.1 PI W y© E6 O W z Wzcc LL�Lr1} a� 0 coU dw W d, ¢C� CN 4 Q �L1J 0 c> • ■ • x:11 il' u p�rryy1.31 ■■ uu FAH' ,iiil Ike Y U U ELM LU uJ Emission Points • Ducted Emissions Process Fugitive Emissions Open Dust Emissions 000 EMISSION FACTORS LL 3/04 CHE.1 Asphalt Fact Pack 31 The aggregate from the weigh hopper is dropped into the mixer (pug mill) and dry -mixed for 6 to 10 seconds. The liquid asphalt is then dropped into the pug mill where it is mixed for an additional period of time. At older plants, RAP typically is conveyed directly to the pug mill from storage hoppers and combined with the hot aggregate. Total mixing time usually is less than 60 seconds. Then the hot mix is conveyed to a hot storage silo or is dropped directly into a truck and hauled to the job site. 11.1.1.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants - Figure 11.1-2 shows the parallel flow drum mix process. This process is a continuous mixing type process, using proportioning cold feed controls for the process materials. The major difference between this process and the batch process is that the dryer is used not only to dry the material but also to mix the heated and dried aggregates with the liquid asphalt cement. Aggregate. which has been proportioned by size gradations, is introduced to the drum at the burner end. As the drum rotates, the aggregates. as well as the combustion products, move toward the other end of the drum in parallel. Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump electronically linked to the new (virgin) aggregate and RAP weigh scales. The asphalt cement is introduced in the mixing zone midway down the drum in a lower temperature zone, along with any RAP and particulate matter (PM) from collectors. The mixture is discharged at the end of the drum and is conveyed to either a surge bin or HMA storage silos, where it is loaded into transport trucks. The exhaust gases also exit the end of the drum and pass on to the collection system. Parallel flow drum mixers have an advantage. in that mixing in the discharge end of the drum captures a substantial portion of the aggregate dust. therefore lowering the load on the downstream PM collection equipment. For this reason, most parallel flow drum mixers are followed only by primary collection equipment (usually a baghouse or venturi scrubber). However, because the mixing of aggregate and liquid asphalt cement occurs in the hot combustion product flow, organic emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol) may be greater than in other asphalt mixing processes. Because data are not available to distinguish significant emissions differences between the two process designs, this effect on emissions cannot be verified. 11.1.1.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants - Figure 11.1-3 shows a counterflow drum mix plant. In this type of plant. the material flow in the drum is opposite or counterflow to the direction of exhaust gases. In addition, the liquid asphalt cement mixing zone is located behind the burner flame zone so as to remove the materials from direct contact with hot exhaust gases. Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump which is electronically linked to the virgin aggregate and RAP weigh scales. It is injected into the mixing zone along with any RAP and particulate matter from primary and secondary collectors. Because the liquid asphalt cement. virgin aggregate. and RAP are mixed in a zone removed from the exhaust gas stream. counterflow drum mix plants will likely have organic emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol) that are lower than parallel flow drum mix plants. However, the available data are insufficient to discern any differences in emissions that result from differences in the two processes. A counterflow drum mix plant can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with little or no observed effect upon emissions. 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-3 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 32 Z1-- « 411 ) M f§f wo 11.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS _.( § asphalt plants (source Figure 11.1-2. General process flow diagram for parallel -flow dr 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 33 3/04 0 f 0 N lu $ chb <0 0aatf _•0 V7 O rrLLa � aid I- 3 0 J 09 turf Cry ra) Q H Qci W O oe{uy 0 ¢00 LU (1) ca Lo Z L. >- 0 b 2 L4 0J 0r U J LU W u0 Q) OC -4. rr u.1 00 w 0 0 00 0 0 0 LW W Jaa uJ IL Lr Emission Points 1' Ducted Emissions 0.1 0 E LU 4, Q ai Open Dust Emissions 000 } Z 0 U 02 -ccuJ <0 0 U Em) CONVEYOR lI cr LU w 1 [Y z t Mineral Products Industry f^� 10 aU 0 L tS .0 0 1 0 0 G .71 10 U 0 v: 0 Q 0. 2 Ql 0 0 '.7 G ZC 45 0 VI 0 C.S 0 1 a 0 m C7 r, 11.1-5 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 34 11.I.1.4 Recycle Processes393 - In recent years. the use of RAP has been initiated in the HMA industry. Reclaimed asphalt pavement significantly reduces the amount of virgin rock and asphalt cement needed to produce HMA. In the reclamation process, old asphalt pavement is removed from the road base. This material is then transported to the plant, and is crushed and screened to the appropriate size for further processing. The paving material is then heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable), and the proper amount of new asphalt cement is added to produce HMA that meets the required quality specifications. 11.1.2 Emissions And Controls= 3 23 Emissions from HMA plants may be divided into ducted production emissions, pre -production fugitive dust emissions, and other production -related fugitive emissions. Pre -production fugitive dust sources associated with HMA plants include vehicular traffic generating fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate material handling, and other aggregate processing operations. Fugitive dust may range from 0.1 p.m to more than 300 pm in aerodynamic diameter. On average, 5 percent of cold aggregate feed is less than 74 ltm (minus 200 mesh). Fugitive dust that may escape collection before primary control generally consists of PM with 50 to 70 percent of the total mass less than 74 pm. Uncontrolled PM emission factors for various types of fugitive sources in HMA plants are addressed in Sections 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing", 13.2.1. "Paved Roads'", 13.2.2, "Unpaved Roads", 13.2.3. "Heavy Construction Operations", and 13.2.4. "Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles." Production - related fugitive emissions and emissions from ducted production operations are discussed below. Emission points discussed below refer to Figure 11.1-1 for batch mix asphalt plants and to Figures 11.1-2 and 1 L1-3 for drum mix plants. 11.1.2.1 Batch Mix Plants - As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, batch mix HMA plants have two major categories of emissions: ducted sources (those vented to the atmosphere through some type of stack, vent, or pipe). and fugitive sources (those not confined to ducts and vents but emitted directly from the source to the ambient air). Ducted emissions are usually collected and transported by an industrial ventilation system having one or more fans or air movers. eventually to be emitted to the atmosphere through some type of stack. Fugitive emissions result from process and open sources and consist of a combination of gaseous pollutants and PM. The most significant ducted source of emissions of most pollutants from batch mix HMA plants is the rotary drum dryer. The dryer emissions consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM; products of combustion (carbon dioxide [CO,], nitrogen oxides [NQ] and sulfur oxides [SOi); carbon monoxide (CO); and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including volatile organic compounds [VOC]. methane [CH4]. and hazardous air pollutants [HAP]). The CO and organic compound emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. It is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent ofthe energy used at HMA plants is from the combustion of natural gas. Other potential process sources include the hot -side conveying, classifying, and mixing equipment, which are vented either to the primary dust collector (along with the dryer gas) or to a separate dust collection system. The vents and enclosures that collect emissions from these sources are commonly called "fugitive air" or "scavenger" systems. The scavenger system may or may not have its own separate air mover device. depending on the particular facility. The emissions captured and transported by the scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain gaseous organic compounds and a fine aerosol of condensed organic particles. This organic aerosol is created by the condensation of vapor into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement in the mixer (pug mill). The amount of organic aerosol produced depends to a large extent on the temperature of the asphalt cement and aggregate entering the pug mill. Organic vapor and its associated 11.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 35 aerosol also are emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck load -out, from the bed of the truck itself during transport to the job site. and from the asphalt storage tank. Both the low molecular weight organic compounds and the higher weight organic aerosol contain small amounts of HAP. The ducted emissions from the heated asphalt storage tanks include gaseous and aerosol organic compounds and combustion products from the tank heater. The choice of applicable emission controls for PM emissions from the dryer and vent line includes dry mechanical collectors, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have met with little success. Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment such as large diameter cyclones, skimmers, or settling chambers. These chambers often are used as classifiers to return collected material to the hot elevator and to combine it with the drier aggregate. To capture remaining PM, the primary collector effluent is ducted to a secondary collection device. Most plants use either a fabric filter or a venturi scrubber for secondary emissions control. As with any combustion process, the design. operation, and maintenance of the burner provides opportunities to minimize emissions of NO, CO, and organic compounds. 11.1.2.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants - The most significant ducted source of emissions from parallel -flow drum mix plants is the rotary drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate): PM; products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC, CH,, and HAP). The organic compound and CO emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel and from heating and mixing of the liquid asphalt cement inside the drum. Although it has been suggested that the processing of RAP materials at these type plants may increase organic compound emissions because of an increase in mixing zone temperature during processing, the data supporting this hypothesis are very weak. Specifically, although the data show a relationship only between RAP content and condensible organic particulate emissions. 89 percent of the variations in the data were the result of other unknown process variables. Once the organic compounds cool after discharge from the process stack. some condense to form a fine organic aerosol or "blue smoke" plume. A number of process modifications or restrictions have been introduced to reduce blue smoke. including installation of flame shields. rearrangement of flights inside the drum. adjustments of the asphalt injection point, and other design changes. 11.1.2.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants - The most significant ducted source of emissions from counterflow drum mix plants is the rotary drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM; products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC, CH,, and HAP). The CO and organic compound emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion of the fuel. and can also be released from the heated asphalt. Liquid asphalt cement, aggregate. and sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in contact with the hot exhaust gas stream. As a result. kiln stack emissions of organic compounds from counterflow drum mix plants may be lower than parallel flow drum mix plants. However, variations in the emissions due to other unknown process variables are more significant. As a result, the emission factors for parallel flow and counterflow drum mix plants are the same. 11.1.2.4 Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants - Process fugitive emissions associated with batch plant hot screens. elevators, and the mixer (pug mill) are not present in the drum mix processes. However, there are fugitive PM and VOC emissions from transport and handling of the HMA from the drum mixer to the storage silo and also from the load -out operations to the delivery trucks. Since the drum process is continuous. these plants have surge 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-7 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 36 bins or storage silos. The fugitive dust sources associated with drum mix plants are similar to those of batch mix plants with regard to truck traffic and to aggregate material feed and handling operations. Table 11.1-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM and PM -10. condensable PM, and total PM for batch mix HMA plants. Particle size data for batch mix HMA plants, based on the control technology used. are shown in Table 11.1-2. Table 11.1-3 presents filterable PM and PM -10. condensable PM. and total PM emission factors for drum mix HMA plants. Particle size data for drum mix HMA plants, based on the control technology used, are shown in Table 11.1-4. Tables 11.1-5 and -6 present emission factors for CO, CO2, NO„, sulfur dioxide (SO,), total organic compounds (TOC). formaldehyde, CH4. and VOC from batch mix plants. Tables 11.1-7 and -8 present emission factors for CO, CO„ NO„, 502, TOC. CH,, VOC, and hydrochloric acid (HCI) from drum mix plants. The emission factors for CO, NOx. and organic compounds represent normal plant operations without scrutiny of the burner design, operation, and maintenance. Information provided in Reference 390 indicates that attention to burner design. periodic evaluation of burner operation, and appropriate maintenance can reduce these emissions. Table 11.1-9 presents organic pollutant emission factors for batch mix plants. Table 11.1-10 presents organic pollutant emission factors for drum mix plants. Tables 11.1 -II and -12 present metals emission factors for batch and drum mix plants, respectively. Table 11.1.13 presents organic pollutant emission factors for hot (asphalt) oil systems. 11.1.2.5 Fugitive Emissions from Production Operations - Emission factors for HMA load -out and silo filling operations can be estimated using the data in Tables 11.1-14, -15. and -16. Table 11.1-14 presents predictive emission factor equations for HMA load - out and silo filling operations. Separate equations are presented for total PM, extractable organic PM (as measured by EPA Method 315), TOC, and CO. For example. to estimate total PM emissions from drum mix or batch mix plant load -out operations using an asphalt loss -on -heating of 0.41 percent and temperature of 290°F, the following calculation is made: EF = 0.000181 + 0.00141(-V)elfu 'l j('' 46O -2043) = 0.000181 + 0.00141(-(-0.41))e" 's1x29n' 4s01.2o43r = 0.000181 + 0.00141(0.40e-1'1)51 0.000181 + 0.00141(0.41)(0.2009) =0.000181 +0.000116 = 0.00030 lb total PM/ton of asphalt loaded Tables 11.1-15 and -16 present speciation profiles for organic particulate -based and volatile particulate -based compounds, respectively. The speciation profile shown in Table 11.1-15 can be applied to the extractable organic. PM emission factors estimated by the equations in Table 11.1-14 to estimate emission factors for specific organic PM compounds. The speciation profile presented in Table 11.1-16 can be applied to the TOC emission factors estimated by the equations in Table 11.1-14 to estimate emission factors for specific volatile organic compounds. The derivations of the predictive emission factor equations and the speciation profiles can be found in Reference 1. For example. to estimate TOC emissions from drum mix plant load -out operations using an asphalt loss -on -heating of 0.41 percent and temperature of 290°F, the following calculation is made: EF = 0.0172(-V)eu0 0231 t 290 46O) - 20 431 =0,0172(-(-0.41 460)-2043) = 0.0172(0.41)e"-' 605 = 0.0172(0.41)(0.2009) 0.0014 lb TOClton of asphalt loaded 1 1.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 37 To estimate the benzene emissions from the same operation, use the TOC emission factor calculated above and apply the benzene fraction for load -out emissions from Table IL I -16: EF = 0.0014 (0.00052) 7.3 x 10-' lb benzene/ton of asphalt loaded Emissions from asphalt storage tanks can be estimated using the procedures described in AP -42 Section 7.1, Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, and the TANKS software. Site-specific data should be used for storage tank specifications and operating parameters. such as temperature. lfsite-specific data for Antoine's constants for an average asphalt binder used by the facility are unavailable, the following values for an average liquid asphalt binder can be used: A = 75.350,06 B = 9.00346 These values should be inserted into the Antoine's equation in the following form: — 0.05223A IogyoP = T + 13 where: P = vapor pressure. mm Hg T = absolute temperature, Kelvin The assumed average liquid molecular weight associated with these Antoine's constants is 1,000 atomic mass units and the average vapor molecular weight is 105. Emission factors estimated using these default values should be assigned a rating of E. Carbon monoxide emissions can be estimated by multiplying the THC emissions calculated by the TANKS program by 0.097 (the ratio of silo filling CO emissions to silo filling TOC emissions). Vapors from the HMA loaded into transport trucks continue following load -out operations. The TOC emissions for the 8 -minute period immediately following load -out (yard emissions) can be estimated using an emission factor of 0.00055 kg/Mg (0.0011 Ib/ton) of asphalt loaded. This factor is assigned a rating of E. The derivation of this emission factor is described in Reference 1. Carbon monoxide emissions can be estimated by multiplying the TOC emissions by 0.32 (the ratio of truck load -out CO emissions to truck load -out THC emissions). 11.2.3 Updates Since the Fifth Edition The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995. Revisions to this section since that date are summarized below. For further detail. consult the background report for this section. This and other documents can be found on the CHIEF Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chiefl.. or by calling the info CHIEF Help Desk at (919)541-1000. December 2000 • All emission factors were revised and new factors were added. For selected pollutant emissions, separate factors were developed for distilate oil, No. 6 oil and waste oil fired dryers. Dioxin and Furan emission factors were developed for oil fired drum mix plants. Particulate, VOC and CO factors were developed for silo tilling, truck load out and post truck load out operations at batch plants and drum mix plants. Organic species profiles were developed for silo filling, truck load out and post truck load out operations. 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11,1-9 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 38 March 2004 • The emission factor for formaldehyde for oil fired hot oil heaters was revised. An emission factor for formaldehyde for gas fired hot oil heaters and emission factors for CO and CO2 for gas and oil fired hot oil heaters were developed, (Table 11.1-13) 11.1-10 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHF,' Asphalt Fad Pack 39 Table 11.1-9. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM BATCI--I MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS' Process Natural gas- or No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer. hot screens. and mixer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-45,-46) Pollutant CASRN Name Non -PAH Hazardous Air Pollutants` 75-07-0 71-43-2 100-41-4 50-00-0 106-51-4 108-88-3 1330-20-7 Acetaldehyde Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Quinone Toluene Xylene Total non -P -1 HAPs Emission Factor, lb/ton 0.00032 0.00028 0.0022 0.00074 0.00027 0.0010 0.0027 0.0075 Emission Factor Rating E D D D E D D Ref. Nos. 2434 24,34.46. 382 24.46.47.49 24.34.46,47.49.226,382 24 24.34_46.47 24,46,47.49 PAH HAPs 91-57-6 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 218-01-9 53-70-3 206-44-0 86-73-7 193-39-5 91-20-3 85-01-8 129-00-0 2-Methy lnapltthalene` Acenaphthene` Acenaphthylene` Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene` Benzol a)pyrene` Benzo(b) f l uo ranthene Bcnzo(g,h,i)perylene` Benzo( k)fiuoranthenc` Chrysene` Dibenz(a.h }anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene` lndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrem' Naphthalene Phenanthrene` Pyrene` Total PAH HAPS 7.1x 10-' 9,0x10-7 5.8x10-' 2.1x10'' 4.6x10" 3.1x10'° 9.4x10'' 5.0x10-1' 1.3x10' 3.8x10' 9.5x10-" 1.6x10'' 1.6x 10'`' 3.0x10''" 3.6x10-' 2.6x10'' 6.2x10 0.00011 D D D D F D E E E E D D F D D D 24.47,49 34.46,226 34.46.226 34.46.226 46.226 226 34.46,226 226 34.226 46.226 226 34.46.47.226 34.46.47, 226 226 34,46.47.49,226 34.46.47.226 34,46.226 Total HAPs 0:0076 Non -HAP organic compounds 100-52-7 78-84-2 4170-30-3 66-25-1 Benzaldehyde Butyraldehydel isobutyraldehyde Crotonaldehyde 1-Iexanal Total non-HAPs 0.00013 3.0x]0'` 2.9x10"` 2.4x10-` 0.00019 E 24 E 24 E 24 E 24 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-19 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 40 Table ILI-9 (cont.) Process Waste oil-, drain oil-. or No. 6 fuel dryer. hot screens. and mixer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-47) Pollutant CASRN I Name Non-PALI Hazardous Air Pollutant 75-07-0 71-43-2 100-41-4 50-00-0 106-51-4 108-88-3 1330-20-7 Acetaldehyde Benzene Eth) !benzene Formaldehyde Quinone Toluene Xylene Total non -PAH HAPs PAH HAPsb 91-57-6 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 218-01-9 53-70-3 206-44-0 86-73-7 193-39-5 91-20-3 85-01-8 129-00-0 2 -Meth) !naphthalene. Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene` Benzo(b)fluoranthene` Benzo(g.h.i)pery tette' Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a.h)anthracene` Fluorarithene Fluorene Indeno(1,2.3-cd)p)renel Naphthalene Phenanthrene` Pyrene` Total PAH HAPs Emission Factor, Ib/ton 0.00032 0.00028 0.0022 0.00074 0.00027 0.0010 0.0027 0.0075 7.1x10' 9.0x10-7 5.8x10.7 4 .6xI04 3.1x10-111 9.4x10 5.0x104' 1.3x105 3.8x10'9 9.5x10 -n 2.4x10' 1.6x10' 3.0x10' 3.6x10-' 3.7x10.-5 5.5x10-5 0.00023 Emission Factor Rating 1) D D E D D D E E E E E D E 113 E E Ref, Nos. 24.34 24,34.46, 382 24.46.47,49 24,34,46,47,49.226. 382 24 24,34.46,47 24.46,47,49 24,47,49 34.46,226 34,46.226 34.46,226 46,226 226 34.46,226 226 34.226 16.226 226 49 34.46.47,226 226 34,46,47.49, 226 49 49 Total HAPs Non -HAP organic compounds 100-52-7 78-84-2 4170-30-3 66-25-1 Benzaldehyde Butyraldehyde/ isobutyraIdehyde Crotonaldehyde Hexanal Total non-HAPs 0.0077 0.00013 3 .CNIW 2.9x10 2.4x10' 0.00019 E 24 E 24 E 24 E 24 Emission factor units are lb/ton of hot mix asphalt produced Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC =- Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kgfMg, multiply by 0.5. Hazardous air pollutants (1 -TAP) as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter. as defined in the 1990 CAAA. 11.1-20 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 41 Table 111-10. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS' 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-21 Pollutant Emission Factor, Iblton Emission Factor Rating Ref. No. Process CASRN Name Natural gas-fired Non -PAH hazardous air pollutants` dryer with fabric filter' (SCC 3-05-002-55, -56,-57) 71-43-2 100-41-4 Benzened L.thylbenzene 0.00039 0.00024 A D 25,44,45,50, 341, 342, 344-351, 373, 376, 377, 383, 384 25,44,45 50-00-0 Formaldehyde` 0.0031 A 25.35.44.45,50, 339- 344. 347-349, 371- 373, 384, 388 110-54-3 Hexane 0.00092 E 339-340 540-84-1 Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) 4.0x10`5 E 339-340 71-55-6 Methyl chloroform' 4.8x10' E 35 108-88-3 Toluene 0.00015 D 35,44,45 1330-20-7 Xylene 0.00020 D 25,44,45 Total non -PAH HAPs 0.0051 PAH HAPs 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalener 7.4x10-5 0 44,45,48 83-32-9 Acenaphtheneg 1.4x10-" E 48 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene" 8.6x10"" D 35,45,48 120-12-7 Anthracene" 2.2x10'7 E 35,48 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene` 2.1x104 E 48 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene` 9.8x10'' E 48 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene` 1.0x10'' E 35.48 192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrener' 1.1x10-7 E 48 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h.i)perylene` 4.0x10_' E 48 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene' 4.1x104 E 35,48 218-01-9 Chrysener 1.8x10-7 E 35,48 206-44-0 Fluoranthene} 6.1x10"7 D 35,45,48 86-73-7 Fluorenek 3.8x10"c' 0 35.45,48,163 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenes 7.0x10-9 E 48 91-20-3 Naphthalene' 9.0x10-] 0 35,44,45,48,163 198-55-0 Perylener 8.8x10"9 E 48 85-01-8 Phenanthrene`-` 7,6x10° D 35,44,45,48,163 129-00-0 Pyreneg 5.4x101 0 45,48 Total PAH HAPs 0,00019 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-21 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 42 Table 1 I.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant CASRN Name Emission Factor, lb/ton Emission Factor Rating Ref. No. Natural gas-fired dryer with fabric filter' (SCC 3-05-002-55, -56,-57) (cont.) No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60) Total HAPS Non -HAP organic compounds 106-97-8 74-85-1 142-82-5 763-29-1 513-35-9 96-I4-0 109-67-1 109-66-0 Butane Ethylene Heptane 2-Methyl-l-pentene 2 -Methyl -2 -butene 3-Methylpentane 1-Pentene n -Pentane Total non -HAP organics Non -PAH HAPS` 71-43-2 100-41-4 50-00-0 110-54-3 540-84-1 71-55-6 108-88-3 1330-20-7 Benzenes Ethyl benzene Formaldehydes Hexane Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) Methyl chloroform` Toluene Xylene Total non -PAH HAPs 0.0053 0.00067 0.0070 0.0094 0.0040 0.00058 0.00019 0.0022 0.00021. 0.024 0.00039 0.00024 0.0031 0.00092 4.0x10A 4.8x10' 0.0029 0.00020 0.0078 E 339 E 339-340 E 339-340 E 339,340 E 339.340 D 339,340 E 339-340 E 339-340 A 25,44,45,50, 341, 342, 344-351, 373, 376, 377, 383, 384 D 25.44,45 A 25,35,44,45,50, 339- 344, 347-349, 371- 373, 384, 388 E 339-340 E 339-340 E 35 E 25, 50, 339-340 ID 25,44,45 PAH fIAPs 91-57-6 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 192-97-2 2- M ethy 1 n aph tha i e nes Acenaphthene" Acenaphthyleneg AnthraceneY B enzo(a Jan thrac en e-` Benzo(a)pyreneF Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(e)pyrene$ 0.00017 1.4x 10-' 2.2x10-5 3.1x10` 2.1x10-7 9.8x10' 1.0x]0' 1.1x10'' E E E E E E E E 50 48 50 50,162 48 48 35,48 48 ] i.1-22 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 43 Table 1 l .1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor, Iblton Emission Factor Rating Ref. No. CASRN Name No. 2 fuel oil -fired 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene'-' 4.0x104 E 48 dryer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60) (cont.) 207-08-9 218-01-9 206-44-0 Benzo(9c)fluorantheneg Chryseneg Fluorantheneg 4.1x104 1.8x10.7 6.1x10'' E E D 35,48 35,48 35,45,48 86-73-7 Fluoreneg 1.1x10' E 50,164 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneg 7.0x 1r E 48 91-20-3 Naphthalene` 0.00065 D 25,50,162.164 198-55-0 Pervlene` 8.8x10' E 48 85-01-8 Phenanthrene" 2.3x10'5 D 50,162,164 129-00-0 Pyrene 3.0x10'4 E 50 Total PAH HAPS 0.00088 Total HAPs 0.0087 Non -HAP organic compounds 106-97-8 Butane 0.00067 E 339 74-85-1 Ethylene 0.0070 E 339-340 142-82-5 Heptane 0.0094 E 339-340 763-29-1 2-Methyl-l-pentene 0.0040 E 339340 13-35-9 2 -Methyl -2 -butene 0.00058 E 339,340 96-14-0 3-Methylpentane 0.00019 D 339.340 109-67-1 1-Pentene 0.0022 E 339-340 109-66-0 n -Pentane 0.00021 E 339-340 Total non -HAP organics 0.024 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-23 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 44 Table 1 1.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant CASRI Name Fuel oil- or waste oil -fired dryer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-58, - 59,-60,-61,-62, - 63) Dioscins 1746-01-6 40321-76-4 39227-28-6 57653-85-7 19408-24-3 35822-46-9 3268-87-9 2,3,7,8-TCDDg Total TCDDg 1,2,3,7, 8-PeCDD5 Total PeCDDg 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDDg 1,2,3,6,7,8-111xCDDg 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDDg Total HxCDDg 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDDg Total HpCDDg Octa CDDg Total PCDDg Emission Emission' Factor, Factor lb/ton Rating 2.1x10'" 9.3x10-" 3.1x101' 2.2x 10" 4.2x10-13 1.3x1012 9.8x10-" 1.2x10-" 4.8x 10-12 1.9x10-11 2.5x10-11 7.9x10'11' E E E E E E E E E E E Ref. No. 339 339 339 339-340 339 339 339 339-340 339 339-340 339 339-340 Furans 51207-31-9 39001-02-0 2,3,7,8-TCDFg Total TCDFg 1,2,3.7.8-PeCDFg 2,3,4,7, 8-PeCDFg Total PeCDFg 1,2,3,4,7,8-l-IxCDP 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDFg 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDFg 1.2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF i otal HxCDFg 1 2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDFg 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDFg Total HpCDFE Octa CDFg Total PCDP Total PCDD/PCDP 9.7x10-" 3.7x10-12 4.3x10-12 8.4x 10`' 8.4x10-'1 4.0x101` 1.2x10-'2 1.9x10'12 8.4x 10-12 1.3x10'11 6.5)(10'2 2.7x 10-12 1.0x10" 4.8x10-12 4.0x10'" 1.2x 10-1° E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 339 339-340 339-340 339 339-340 339 339 339 340 339-340 339 339 339-340 339 339-340 339-340 11.1-24 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 45 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor, lb/ton Emission Factor Rating Ref, No. CASRN Name Fuel oil- or waste oil -fired dryer (uncontrolled) Hazardous air pollutants` Dioxins (SCC 3-05-002-58. Total HxCDDg 5.4x10'12 E 340 -59,-60.-61,-62, 63) 35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDDg 3.4x10''' E 340 Total HpCDDg 7.1x10-" E 340 3268-87-9 Octa CDDg 2.7x10'9 E 340 Iota' PCDD$ 2.8x10° E 340 Furans Total TCDFg 3.3x10" E 340 Total PeCDP 7.4x 10'' E 340 1.2,3,4,7,8-HxCDFg 5.4x10`' E 340 2,3,4,6,7,8-1-xCDFg 1.6x10-12 E 340 Total HxCDFg 8.1x10'` E 340 Fuel oil- or waste 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDFg 1.l x10 -n E 340 oil -fired dryer �" (uncontrolled) Total HpCDFg 3.8x10 E 340 (SCC 3-05-002-58, Total PCDFg 1.5x10'1° E 340 -59,-60.-61.-62, -63) (cont.) Total PCDD/PCDFg 3.0x10'° E 340 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-25 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 46 Table l I.1-10 (cont.) 11.1-26 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Pollutant Emission Emission Factor Factor, Process CASRN Name Iblton Rating Ref. No. Waste oil -fired dryer Non -PAH HAPS` with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-61, 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde 0,0013 E 25 -62,-63) 107-02-8 Acrolein 2.6x10'` E 25 71-43-2 Benzene' 0.00039 A 25,44,45,50,341,342, 344-351, 373, 376, 377, 383, 384 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.00024 D 25,44,45 50-00-0 Formaldehyde` 0.0031 A 25,35,44,45,50,339- 344,347-349,371-373, 384, 388 110-54-3 Hexane 0.00092 E 339-340 540-84-1 Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) 4.0x10.5 E 339-340 78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 2.0x10' E 25 123-38-6 Propionaldehyde 0.00013 E 25 106-51-4 Quinone 0.00016 E 25 71-55-6 Methyl chloroforms 4.8x10-5 E 35 108-88-3 Toluene 0.0029 E 25, 50, 339-340 1330-20-7 Xylene 0.00020 D 25,44,45 Total non -PAH HAPs 0.0095 PAH HAPs 91-57-6 2 -Methylnaphthalene 0.00017 E 50 83-32-9 Acenaphthene' 1.4x10'6 E 48 208-96-8 Acenaphthyleneg 2.2x10`5 E 50 120-12-7 Anthracenes 3.1x10'6 E 50.162 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthraceneg 2.1xI0-' E 48 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyreneg 9.8x10-9 E 48 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthenes 1.0x10'' E 35,48 192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyreneg 1.1x10' E 48 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h.i)peryleneg 4.0x10.8 E 48 11.1-26 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 47 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor, 1b/ton Emission Factor Rating Ref. No. CA SRN Name Waste oil -fired dryer 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.1x10-' m Q Q rn m Q m 35,48 with fabric filter 218-01-9 Chrysene` 1.8x10-' 35,48 (SCC 3-05-002-61. -62,-63) (cont.) 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 6.1x10' 35,45,48 86-73-7 Fluorene 1.1 x l0'` 50,164 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.0x10'`' 48 91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.00065 25,50.162,164 198-55-0 Perylenes 8.8x10" 48 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 2.3x10` 50,162.164 129-00-0 Pyrene 3.0x 1e 50 Total PAH HAPS 0.00088 Total HAPs 0.010 Non -HAP organic compounds 67-64-1 Acetonei 0.00083 E 25 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 10.00011 E 25 106-97-8 Butane 0.00067 E 339 78-84-2 Butyraldehyde 0.00016 E 25 4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde 8.6x 10` E 25 74-85-1 Ethylene 0,0070 E 339,340 142-82-5 Heptane 0.0094 E 339,340 66-25-1 Hexanal 0.00011 E 25 590-86-3 lsovaleraldehyde 3.2x10'` E 25 763-29-1 2-Methyl-l-pentene 0.0040 E 339,340 513-35-9 2 -Methyl -2 -butene 0.00058 E 339, 340 96-14-0 3-Methylpentane 0.00019 D 339, 340 109-67-1 1-Pentene 0.0022 E 339. 340 109-66-0 n -Pentane 0.00021 E 339, 340 110-62-3 Valeraldehyde 6.7x10 c E 25 Total non -HAP organics 0.026 Emission factor units are lb/ton of hot mix asphalt produced. Table includes data from both parallel flow and counterflow drum mix dryers. Organic compound emissions from counterflow systems are expected to be less than from parallel flow systems. but the available data are insufficient to quantify 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-27 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 48 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) accurately the difference in these emissions. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt pavement. Because of limited data, the effect of RAP processing on emissions could not be determined. Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), Based on data from 19 tests. Range: 0.000063 to 0.0012 lb/ton; median: 0.00030; Standard deviation: 0.00031. Based on data from 21 tests. Range: 0.0030 to 0.014 lb/ton; median: 0.0020; Standard deviation: 0.0036. Compound has negligible photochemical reactivity. Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter. as defined in the 1990 CAAA. Total PCDD is the sum of the total tetra through octa dioxins; total PCDF is sum of the total tetra through octa furans: and total PCDD/PCDF is the sum of total PCDD and total PCDF. 11.1-28 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 49 Table 11.1-11. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS' Process Pollutant Emission Factor. Ib/ton Emission Factor Rating Reference Numbers Dryer. hot screens. and Arsenic` 4.6x10-' D 34, 40, 226 mixerb Barium 1.5x10'€' E 24 (SCC 3-05-002-45,-46,-47) Beryllium` 1.5x10-7 E 34, 226 Cadmium` 6.1x10'' D 24, 34, 226 Chromium` 5.7x104 D 24, 34.226 Hexavalent chromium` 4.8x10_ E 34, 226 Copper 2.8x10"b D 24, 34.226 Lead` 8.9x10"' D 24, 34, 226 Manganese` 6.9x10' D 24. 34, 226 Mercury` 4.1x10-7 E 34. 226 Nickel` 3.0x10'6 D 24, 34.226 Selenium` 4.9x10", E 34.226 Zinc 6.8x10.0 D 24, 34, 226 a Emission factor units are lb/ton of HMA produced. Emissions controlled by a fabric filter. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lblton to kg/Mg. multiply by 0.5. b Natural gas-. propane-. No. 2 fuel oil-, or waste oil -/drain oil -/No. 6 fuel oil -fired dryer. For waste oil -/drain oil -/No. 6 fuel oil -fired dryer. use a lead emission factor of 1.0x10' lb/ton (References 177 and 321, Emission factor rating: E) in lieu of the emission factor shown. ` Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium. chromium. hexavalent chromium. lead. manganese. mercury. nickel. and selenium are HAPs as defined in the 1990 CAAA. 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-29 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 50 Table 11.1-12. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS' Process Pollutant Emission Factor, lb/tan Emission Factor Rating Reference Numbers Fuel oil -fired dryer, uncontrolled I Arsenic' Barium 1.3xI0'6 0.00025 E E 340 340 (SCC 3-05-002-58. Beryllium' 0.0 E 340 -59,-60) Cadmium' 4.2x10' E 340 Chromium' 2.4x105 E 340 Cobalt' 1.5x10-5 E 340 Copper 0.00017 E 340 Lead' 0.00054 E 340 Manganese' 0.00065 E 340 Nickel' 0.0013 E 340 Phosphorus' 0.0012 E 340 Selenium' 2.4x10-6 E 340 Thallium 2.2x10-6 E 340 Zinc 0.00018 E 340 Natural gas- or Antimony 1.8x10'' ' E 339 propane -fired dryer, with fabric filter Arsenic' Barium 5.6x10-7 5.8x10.6 D E 25, 35, 339-340 25, 339-340 (SCC 3-05-002-55, Beryllium' 0.0 E 339-340 -56,-57)) Cadmium' 4.1x10"' D 25. 35, 162, 301, 339-340 Chromium' 5.5x10' C 25, 162-164, 301, 339-340 Cobalt' 2.6x10'$ E 339-340 Copper 3.1x10 D 25, 162-164, 339-340 Hexavalent chromium' 4.5x10 - E 163 Lead' 6.2x10' E 35 Manganese' 7.7x10'' D 25, 162-164. 339-340 Mercury' 2.4x10'' E 35, 163 Nickel' 6.3x105 D 25, 163-164, 339-340 Phosphorus' 2.8x10'5 E 25, 339-340 Silver 4.8x10-' E 25, 339-340 Selenium' 3.5x10-7 E 339-340 Thallium 4.1x10.4 E 339-340 Zinc 6.1x10_s C 25, 35, 162-164, 339-340 11.1-30 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 51 Table 11.1-12 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor, lb/ton Emission Factor Rating Reference Numbers No. 2 fuel oil -fired Antimony 1.8x10'' E 339 dryer or waste oil/drain Arsenic' 5.6x10-7 D 25, 35, 339-340 oil/No. 6 fuel oil -fired Barium 5.8x10'`' E 25, 339-340 dryer, with fabric filter Beryllium' 0.0 E 339-340 (SCC 3-05-002-58, Cadmium' 4.1x10-7 D 25. 35, 162, 301. 339-340 -59,-60,-61,-62,-63) Chromium" 5.5x104 C 25, 162-164, 301, 339-340 Cobalt' 2.6x104 E 339-340 Copper 3.1x10' D 25, 162-164, 339-340 Hexavalent chromium' 4.5x10"7 E 163 Lead" 1.5x10'5 C 25, 162, 164, 178-179. 183, 301, 315.339-340 Manganese" 7,7)(10' D 25. 162-164. 339-340 Mercury' 2.6x10-' D 162, 164, 339-340 Nickel' 6.3x10-' D 25, 163-164, 339-340 Phosphorus' 2.8x 10'5 E 25. 3 39-340 Silver 4.8x10"' E 25, 339-340 Selenium' 3.5x10-7 E 339-340 Thallium 4.1x10'" E 339-340 Zinc 6.1 x 10-` C 25, 35, 162-164. 339-340 Emission factor units are lb/ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. Emission factors apply to facilities processing virgin aggregate or a combination of virgin aggregate and RAP. n Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel. and selenium compounds are l-IAPs as defined in the 1990 CAAA. Elemental phosphorus also is a listed HAP. but the phosphorus measured by Method 29 is not elemental phosphorus. 3104 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-31 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 52 Table 11.1-13. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT HOT OIL SYSTEMS' Process Pollutant CASRN Name Emission factor Emission factor units EMISSION FACTOR RATING Hot oil system fired with natural gas (SCC 3-05-002-06) Hot oil system fired with No. 2 fuel oil (SCC 3-05-002-08) 630-08-0 124-38-9 50-00-0 630-08-0 1 24-38-9 50-00-0 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 745-99-2 206-44-0 86-73-7 91-20-3 85-01-8 129-00-0 Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Formaldehyde Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Formaldehyde Acenaphtheneb Acenaphthyleneb Anthraceneb Benzo(b)fluorantheneb Fluorantheneb Fluoreneb Naphthaleneb Phenanthreneb Pyreneb Dioxins 19408-74-3 1,2.3,7, 89-HxCDDb 39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDDb HxCDDb 35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDDb HpCDDb 3268-87-9 OCDDb Total PCDD Furans 67562-39-4 39001-02-0 TCDFb PeCDFb HxCDFb HpCDFb 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDFb OCDFb Total PCDF Total PCDD/PCDF 8.9x 10-b 0.20 2.6x10 0.0012 28 3.5x 10`6 5.3x10-7 2.0x104 1.8x10`' 1.0x10-7 4.4x104 3.2x 10`8 1.7x10`5 4.9x104 3.2x10`8 7.6x10-13 6.9x10`13 6.2x 10-12 1.5x10-'1 2.0x10-11 1.6x 10`10 2.0x10`'0 3.3x10'' 4.8x10' 2.Ox 10`i2 9.7x10-12 3.5x10'12 1.2x10` 1 3.1x10-11 2.3x10'10 Ib/ft' C lb/ft3 C lb/ft3 C lb/gal C Ib/gal C lb/gal C Iblgal E Ib/gal E Iblgal E Ib/gal E lb/gal lb/gal E lb/gal E Iblgal E lb/gal E Reference 395 395 395 395 395 395 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Ib/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 Ib/gal E 35 Ib/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 Ib, /gal E 35 ib/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 lb/gal E 35 lblgal E 35 Emission factor units are lb/gal of fuel consumed. To convert from pounds per standard cubic foot (Ib/ft" to kilograms per standard cubic meter (kg/m", multiply by 16. To convert from lb/gal to kilograms per liter (kg/1), multiply by 0.12. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code. b Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter, as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Total PCDD is the sum of the total tetra through octa dioxins; total PCDF is sum of the total tetra through octa furans; and total PCDD/PCDF is the sum of total PCDD and total PCDF. 11.1-32 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 53 Table 11.1-14. PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR LOAD -OUT AND SILO FILLING OPERATIONS' EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C Source Pollutant Equation Drum mix or batch mix Total PMb EF = 0.000181 + 0.00141(-V)el,"25111T.464J-20431 plant load -out fIU"251}{Tt4trGl-2443} (SCC 3-05-002-14) Organic PMC EF = 0.00141(-V)e TOC`' EF = 0.0172(-V)ei1002511[T+460)-2043) CO EF= 0.00558(-V)efl"02511(T4460)-2043) Silo filling Total PMb EF = 0.000332 + 0.00105(-V)eU002 1 T+460)-20431 (SCC 3-05-002-13) Organic PM c {(no2st)CT+A6oJ-'Q43J EF = 0.00105(-)eV TOCa EF= 0.0504(-V)e'f0025) )T' 4(44.204?) CO EF = 0.00488(-V)e{(00251 XI • 4601-26470 ° Emission factor units are lbiton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg. multiply by 0.5. EF = emission factor; V = asphalt volatility. as determined by ASTM Method D2872-88 "Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test - RTFOT).'" where a 0.5 percent loss -on -heating is expressed as "-0.5.'" Regional- or site- specific data for asphalt volatility should be used. whenever possible; otherwise, a default value of -0.5 should be used for V in these equations. T = HMA mix temperature in °F. Site-specific temperature data should be used, whenever possible; otherwise a default temperature of 325°F can be used. Reference 1. Tables 4-27 through 4-31.4-34 through 4-36. and 4-38 through 4-41. b Total PM, as measured by EPA Method 315 (EPA Method 5 plus the extractable organic particulate from the impingers). Total PM is assumed to be predominantly PM -2.5 since emissions consist of condensed vapors. Extractable organic PM. as measured by EPA Method 315 (methylene chloride extract of EPA Method 5 particulate plus methylene chloride extract of impinger particulate). d TOC as propane. as measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train or equivalent sampling train. 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-33 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 54 Table 11.1-15. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR LOAD -OUT, SILO FILLING, AND ASPHALT STORAGE EMISSIONS—ORGANIC PARTICULATE -BASED COMPOUNDS EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C Pollutant PAH HAPs Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fl uoranthene Benzo(k)tluoranthene i3enzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(e)pyrene Chrysene Dibenz(a.h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 -Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Perylene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total PAH HAPs Other semi -volatile HAPs Phenol CASRN' 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-1207 56-55-3 205-99-2 207-08-9 191-24-2 50-32-8 192-97-2 218-01-9 53-70-3 206-44-0 86-73-7 193-39-5 91-57-6 91-20-3 198-55-0 85-01-8 129-00-0 Speciation Profile for Load -out and Yard Emissions' Speciation Profile for Silo Filling and Asphalt Storage Tank Emissions Compound/Organic PM` 0.26% 0.028%® 0.070% 0.019% 0.0076% 0.0022% 0.0019% 0.0023% 0,0078% 0.103% 0.00037% 0.050% 0.77% 0.00047% 2.38% L25% 0.022% 0.81% 0.15% 5.93% 1.18% Compound/Organic PM` 0.47% 0.014% 0.13% 0.056% NDd NDd NDd NDd 0.0095% 0.21% NDd 0.15% L01% NDd 5.27% 1.82% 0.030% 1.80% 0.44% 11.40% NDd • Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number. n Emissions from loaded trucks during the period between load -out and the time the truck departs the plant. • Emission factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound by the emission factor for extractable organic particulate (organic PM) as determined from Table 11.1-14. ND = Measured data below detection limits. 11.1-34 EMISSION FACTORS 3104 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 55 Table 11.1-16. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR LOAD -OUT, SILO FILLING, AND ASPHALT STORAGE EMISSIONS -ORGANIC VOLATILE -BASED COMPOUNDS EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C Pollutant CASRN Speciation Profile for Load -Out and Yard Emissions Speciation Profile for Silo Filling and Asphalt Storage Tank Emissions Compound/TOCaa Compound/TOC (%}a VOCb 94%6 100% Non-VOC/non-HAPs Methane 74-82-8 6.5% 0.26% Acetone 67-64-1 0.046% 0.055% Ethylene 74-85-1 0.71% 1.1% Total non-VOClnon-HAPS 7.3% 1.4% Volatile organic HAPS Benzene 71-43-2 0.052% 0.032% Bromomethane 74-83-9 0.0096% 0.0049% 2-Butanone 78-93-3 0.049% 0.039% Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 0.013% 0.016% Chloroethane 75-00-3 0.00021% 0.0040% Chloromethane 74-87-3 0.015% 0.023% Cumene 92-82-8 0.11% ND` Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0,28% 0.038% Formaldehyde 50-00-0 0.088% 0.69% n -Hexane 100-54-3 0.15% 0.10% Isooctane 540-84-1 0.0018% 0.00031% Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 0.0%' 0.00027% MTBE 596899 0.0%d ND` Styrene 100-42-5 0.0073% 0.0054% Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.0077% ND` Toluene 100-88-3 0.21% 0.062% 1,1.1 -Trichloroethane 71-55-6 0.0%d ND` Trichloroethene 79-01-6 0.0%d ND` Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 0.0013% ND` m -/p -Xylene 1330-20-7 0.41% 0.2% o -Xylene 95-47-6 0.08% 0.057% Total volatile organic 1.5% 1.3% HAPs 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-35 a b c d CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 56 Table 11.1-16 (cont.) Emission factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound by the emission factor for total organic compounds (TOC) as determined from Table 11.1,- 14. The VOC percentages are equal to 100 percent of TOC minus the methane, acetone. methylene chloride, and 1,1.1 -trichloroethane percentages. ND = Measured data below detection limits. Additional compounds that were not detected are: acrylonitrile, allyl chloride. bromodichloromethane, bromoform. 1,3 -butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroform, dibromochloromethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, l,]-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1.1-dichloroethane. cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-l,2-dichloroethene, 1.2-dichloropropane, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, trans-1.3-dichloropropene, 1,2-epoxybutane, ethyl acrylate. 2-hexanone, iodomethane, methyl methacrylate, 1,1,2.2 -tetrachloroethane. 1,1.2 -trichloroethane, vinyl acetate, vinyl bromide, and vinyl chloride Values presented as 0.0% had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency -corrected measured concentration. 11.1-36 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors 1 Propo... Page 1 of 2 Emission Factor & Inventory Inform.- hoc, Conferences Publications Em .-sion Inventory Improvement Program AirDATA Rel ted Sites Site 11.1ex CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 57 Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors Contact Us 1 Print Version Search: GO EPA Home a Technology Transfer Network >CIearinghouse for Inventories & Erussron Faciors >Emission Factor Information > P-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors > Chapter 11 r:inerai Products Industry ] Proposed Revision to AP -42. 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Proposed Revision to AP -42, 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants December 2, 2003 The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) has proposed a revision of the emission factors for hot oil heaters at hot mix asphalt plants. A preliminary review of their proposal was performed by EPA to verify that the published procedures for developing emission factors ( P c?cedures for Preparing Emission Facial Documents , EPA -454/R-95-015, November 1997, PDF 477K) were followed. As a result, the proposed revisions are being posted on the CHIEF web site as draft for comment. EPA will accept comments on the draft revisions until January 16, 2004. Comments concerning the proposed revisions should be e-mailed to Ron Myers at nye-s rcn@ep goy with copies to Una Connolly of NAPA at uconnolly©hotmix orc. To assist reviewers in commenting on the revisions, the following documents are being made available on the CHIEF web site: Memo from Bryan Shrager and Rick Marenshaw of RTI International to Ron Myers of EPA proposing Hot Mix Asphalt AP -42 Revision. ;''DF f -7 Quality Assurance Project Plan & Site-specific Test Plan, Formaldehyde Emissions Testing from Asphalt Heaters - March 19,2003. !PDF 2M Test Report - Formaldehyde Emissions Testing from Asphalt Heaters - October 2003.iPDF 1 BM. Comprehensive Emission Inventory Report As Required Under The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information & Assessment Act Of 1987, September 1990, Reference 35 for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants I.PDF 2 75M) At the conclusion of the comment period, EPA will provide the comments to NAPA for evaluation, preparation of responses and revision of the portions of the Section and Background report. EPA will evaluate the responses and revisions prepared by NAPA and determine whether they are scientifically and technically sound and consistent with established EPA procedures. While the information included in this draft concerns only formaldehyde, CO and CO2 emissions from hot oil heaters, the final AP -42 Section and Background Report will be published as a single set of documents which incorporate these revisions. AP -42 Emission Factors by Chaf: rr 1 Office of Air Quality Planning 8 Standards 1 Technology Transfer Network 1 1 Gle.aringrouse folInventories & Emission Factors 1 http://www.epa.govittn/chief/ap42/chil/related/c. 1 1 s1O 1 rev ison.htmI 3/24/2004 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 58 STUDIES DOCUMENT NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM ASPHALT PLANTS PROPERTY VALUES AND PUBLIC HEALTH SUFFER The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League has released two studies showing the adverse impacts on property values and public health for residents Living near operating asphalt. plants in Avery and Macon counties. The property value study shows losses of up to 56% around a plant in Pineola, and in Cullasaja nearly half of the residents report negative impacts on their health since asphalt plant operations began in 1999. In Avery County tax office officials used distance from Maymead Materials, Inc. asphalt plant and noxious odor emissions as the bases for property devaluation in Pineola. The largest percentage drop was recorded on property located directly across the road from the plant. The largest dollar loss of $45,300 was at a church adjacent to the plant. The study documents property value losses up to 3,200 feet from the plant. Pineola resident Date Thompson and many of his neighbors sought tax relief when the asphalt plant effectively reduced their use and enjoyment of their homes and land. Mr. Thompson cited smoke and vile odors as reasons why he and his family can no longer spend time outdoors at either recreation or work. In a second study, the Blue Ridge Environrnental Defense League conducted a survey in response to health concerns of residents in the mountain community of Bethel in Macon County. The door-to-door survey shows that 45% of the residents living within a half mile of the two year old Rhodes Brothers asphalt plant report a deterioration of their health which began after the plant opened. The most frequent problems include high blood pressure (18% of people surveyed), sinus problems (18%), headaches (14%). and shortness of breath (9%). Pineola's experience with property devaluation gives us only a part of the picture. The effect on the health of residents in these two communities is devastating. People who have only a passing acquaintance with asphalt fumes know little about the true dangers of this pollution. Good health is priceless—It's simply absurd to say that asphalt plants have no impact. Louis Zeller January 6. 2004 BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE PD Box 88 Glendale Springs, Hoath Carolina 28629 Phone 336-9$2-2691 Fax 336-982-2959 Email bred]@slki'hest,cem www.BR.EDL.org CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 59 Asphalt Plant Fugitive Air Emissions: A Public Health Hazard The effect of fugitive emissions on local pollution levels may exceed the effects of pollutants emitted from the smokestack. Fugitive emissions are air pollution from a source close to ground level. Hot mix asphalt contains gravel and sand mixed with asphalt cement obtained from crude oil. Hydrocarbons released into the air by the hot mix asphalt as it is loaded into trucks and hauled from the plant site include volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and condensed particulates. Because fugitive emissions occur close to ground level, wind velocity is reduced and air pollution is not subject to the dispersion which occurs at smokestack levels. Stagnant air conditions and inversions increase the level of exposure to the local community. Asphalt cement is a mixture of hydrocarbons including naphtha which contribute to the vaporization of organic compounds at operating temperatures of 300-350 degrees F. Condensation of particulates occurs at ambient temperatures of 70 degrees F. These very fine particles carry polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons which are a danger to public health. If you know the annual consumption of asphalt cement, you can calculate the asphalt vapor emissions from any plant. Asphalt cement comprises 5% (0.05) of the total hot mix plant production. Fugitive air emissions equal 1.07% (0.0107) of the consumed asphalt cement (data from Dr. R.M. Nadkarni). For an asphalt plant producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. 100,000 tons hot mix x 0.05 = 5,000 tons/year of asphalt cement consumed. Fugitive air emissions equal 1.07% (0.0107) of the consumed asphalt. 5,000 x 0.0107 = 53.5 tons per year of asphalt vapor fugitive emissions The bulk of these fugitive emissions are condensed particulates. Volatile organic compounds (VOC's) emissions are about 29% of the this total. Therefore, about 15 tons of VOC's and 38 tons of particulates may be emitted by a 100,000 ton/year asphalt plant as fugitive emissions. To this must be added the total emitted from the smokestack itself. The US Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) may be carcinogenic to humans. Animal studies show that PAHs affect reproduction, cause birth defects, and cause harmful effects on skin, body fluids, and the immune system. Similar effects could occur in humans. September 3, 2002 Louis Zeller BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE www.BREDLorg — PD Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 280 — Phone 336-982-2691— Fax 336-982.2954 — Email bred)@skybest.cam CHU Asphalt Fact Pack 60 BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE www.BREDLorg PD Box 88 Glendale Sprits, North Carolina 28629 - Phone (336) 982-2691 - Fax (336) 982-2954 - Email: BREDL@skybest.ow Asphalt Plant versus Wood Stove Pollution Comparing Apples and Hedgehogs Asphalt plants and household wood stoves burn fuel to produce heat. Although they bum different types of fuel, both emit some of the same chemical compounds into the air as a result of the combustion process. But a household wood stove emits but a tiny fraction of the pollution emitted by an asphalt plant. This is why one expert said that this is like comparing apples to hedgehogs, because apples -to -oranges simply does not convey the huge disparity in pollution emitted by these two sources. The table below evaluates air pollution from a conventional household wood heater stove and an average size asphalt plant. In every category, the asphalt. plant emits from hundreds to thousands or even millions of times more air pollution. Air pollutant Wood stove emissions Ib/y Asphalt plant emissions lb/y Comparison % Wood to asphalt Carbon monoxide 249.7 39,000 0.64 % Nitrogen oxides 3.02 16.500 0.02 % PM -10 33.05 6,900 0.48 % Sulfur dioxide 0.43 3,300 0.01 % Total organic compounds 89.6 13,200 0.68 % Methane 32.4 3.600 0.9 % Benzene 2.09 117 1.79 % Toluene 0.79 70 1.13 % Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 0.79 264 0.30 % Cadmium 0.00002 1.26 0.0016 % Chromium <0.000001 7.2 0.000014 % Nickel 0.000015 390 0.000004 % Emission data from US Env-ronmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Emission Factors Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, AP -42, 11.1 3/04 at http:l/www.epa.gov/ttn/chief7ap42/chl 1/final/el 1s01.pdf Residential Wood Stoves, AP -42. 1.10 10/96 at http:/lwww.epa.govlttnlchief/ap42/ch01 /final/001s 10.pdf The US Environmental Protection Agency's most recently available air pollution emission factors for both wood stoves and asphalt plants were used to compile the data in this report. The combustion of wood produces atmospheric emissions which are highly variable. For Pruned on i00% recycled paper using a chlorine free process CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 61 Page 2 Comparing Apples and Hedgehogs example, when wood is added to a wood -burning heater stove, emissions increase for a short period because ofa high burn rate. Then a longer period at lower burn rate follows during which time charcoal is burned, resulting in reduced emissions. Many wood stoves manufactured after 1986 have pollution reduction features. The manufacture of asphalt paving produces high levels of atmospheric emissions. Some of these pollutants are emitted through the smokestack after passing through a fabric filter, some are released at ground level without any pollution controls. The ground -level emissions are poorly estimated by state and federal air quality guidance. To calculate the annual pollution totals for this report, we compared a drum -mix asphalt plant burning number 2 fuel oil producing 300 thousand tons of asphalt per year with a residential wood stove burning three cords of oak wood per year. The Carolina Asphalt Paving Association claims that ten residential wood stoves emit as much polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as an asphalt plant.(http://www.carolinaasphalt.org/ about_research.asp). Plainly. this assertion is not supported by EPA data. In fact, an average sized asphalt plant can emit more PAH than 300 wood stoves, more sulfur dioxide than 7.000 wood stoves, and more cadmium than 63,000 wood stoves. Air pollutant Fireplace emissions Ibly Asphalt plant Emissions lbly Comparison % Wood to asphalt Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 247.3 9,600 2.6 % Emission data from iJS Env ronmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Emission Factors Residential Fireplaces. AP -42, 1.9. 10!96 at http://www.epa.govittniehiefiap42/ehl1/finalle01s09.pdf Further, CAPA states that "during the course ofa year. an asphalt plant gave off the VOCs of two residential fireplaces." Again. the EPA emission factors tell a different story; a single medium sized asphalt plant produces as much VOC as 39 fireplaces burning three cords of oak. Other categories of pollutants emitted by fireplaces are similar to those of wood -burning stoves. Open fireplaces are inefficient sources of heat because combustion is poorly regulated. Uncontrolled air and a lack of secondary combustion results in relatively high quantities of unburnt compounds going up the chimney. Nevertheless, comparing the air pollution from a modern type asphalt plant with an old-fashioned fireplace is like comparing apples to hedgehogs. Louis Zeller October 20, 2005 Pruned on 100% recycled paper uswg a chlorine free process CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 62 HAZARD REVIEW HEALTH EFFECTS OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASPHALT Contributors: Mary Ann Butler_ Ph.D. Gregory Burr. C.I.H. David Dankovic, Ph.D. R. Alan Lunsford_ Ph.D. Aubrey Miller. M.D. Mimi Nguyen. M.P.H. Larry Olsen. Ph.D. Douglas Sharpnack, Ph.D. John Snawder. Ph.D. Leslie Stayner, Ph.D. Marie Haring Sweeney. Ph.D. Alexander Teass. Ph.D. Joann Ness, M.S. Ralph Zumwalde, M.S. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health December 2000 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 63 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY n 1977, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSI-1) reviewed the available data on the health effects of occupational exposure to asphalt and asphalt fumes. NIOSH determined the principal adverse health effects to be irritation of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae and mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. NIOSH also acknowledged that evidence from animal studies indicated that asphalt left on the skin for long periods of time could result in local carcinomas but that no comparable reports of these effects existed for humans. On the basis of this evidence, NIOSH recommended an exposure limit (REL) for asphalt fumes of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air (5 mg/m3) measured as total particulates during any 15 -minute period. In testimony to the Department of Labor in 1988, NIOSH recommended that asphalt fumes also be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. Since then, additional data have become available from studies of animals and humans exposed to asphalt, paving and roofing asphalt fume condensates, and asphalt -based paints. This document evaluates the health effects data that have become available since publication ofthe 1977 NIOSH criteria document; it also assesses exposures associated with occupations that involve the use of roofing and paving asphalts and asphalt -based paints. Asphalt is a dark brown to black, cementlike semisolid or solid produced by the nondestructive distillation of crude oil during petroleum refining. The three major types of asphalt products are paving asphalts, roofing asphalts, and asphalt -based paints. Performance specifications—not chemical composition --direct the type of asphalt produced. Most of the asphalt produced in the United States is used in paving and roofing operations. Only about 1% is used for waterproofing, damp -proofing, insulation, paints, or other activities and products. Approximately 300,000 workers are employed at hot -mix asphalt facilities and paving sites; an estimated 50,000 workers are employed in asphalt roofing operations; and about 1.500 to 2,000 workers are exposed to asphalt fumes in approximately 100 roofing manufacturing plants. The exact chemical composition of asphalt depends on the chemical complexity of the original crude petroleum and the manufacturing processes. The proportions ofthe chemicals that constitute asphalt (mainly aliphatic compounds. cyclic alkanes. aromatic hydrocarbons. and heterocyclic compounds containing nitrogen, oxygen. and sulfur atoms) can vary because of significant differences in crude petroleum from various oil fields and even from various locations within the same oil field. Further analysis of the chemical data indicates that paving and roofing asphalts are qualitatively and quantitatively different: therefore, the vapors and fumes from these asphalt products may also be different. Other factors that increase the variability of asphalt vapors and fumes include temperature and mixing during the manufacturing process, and temperature and extent of mixing during laboratory generation or field operations. Studies indicate that the composition of asphalt fumes generated in the laboratory may differ qualitatively and quantitatively from asphalt fumes generated during field operations. However, one study showed that it is possible to generate asphalt fumes in the laboratory that are representative of field fumes. Data are limited regarding the presence of carcinogens in asphalt fumes generated at U.S. worksites. The occasional detection ofbenzo(a)pyrene, B(a)P, in asphalt fumes generated at worksites as well as the more frequent detection of B(a)P and other carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds in laboratory -generated asphalt fumes indicate that under some conditions, known carcinogens are vii CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 64 likely to be present. Moreover, asphalt fumes generated at high temperatures are probably more likely to generate carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than fumes generated at lower temperatures. Studies of the acute toxic effects of asphalt fume exposures in workers have repeatedly reported irritant symptoms of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae (eye irritation) and the mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract (nasal and throat irritation). These health effects are best described in asphalt road pavers and typically appear to be mild in severity and transient in nature. Similar symptoms were also reported in workers exposed to asphalt fumes during the manufacture of asphalt roofing shingles and fluorescent lights, the insulation of cables, and exposure to a malfunctioning light fixture in an office environment. Workers employed in five segments of the asphalt industry (hot -mix plants, terminals, roofing, paving. and roofing manufacturing) experienced mild transient symptoms of nasal and throat irritation, headache. and coughing. In addition to mucosal irritation, workers with differing occupational exposures to asphalt fumes (e.g., paving operations. insulation of cables. and manufacturing of fluorescent light fixtures) also reported skin irritation. pruritus. rashes. nausea. stomach pain, decreased appetite. headaches, and fatigue. Such nonspecific symptoms require further investigation to clarify and establish the nature of causal relationships with asphalt fume exposure. Results from recent studies indicated that some workers involved in asphalt paving operations experienced lower respiratory tract symptoms (e.g., coughing. wheezing, and shortness of breath) and pulmonary function changes. Irritant symptoms were noted in workers involved in open-air paving operations whose average personal exposures were generally below 1.0 mg/m.3 total particulates and 0.3 mg/m3 benzene -soluble particulates calculated as a full -shift time -weighted average (TWA). Although an exposure -response relationship has not yet been established in these studies. the identification of health effects related to higher mean personal exposures during underground asphalt paving' indicates that such a relationship may exist. Bronchitis that is possibly related to lower respiratory tract irritation has also been reported among asphalt workers and highway maintenance workers: however. the data are insufficient to conclude that the bronchitis was caused by occupational exposure to asphalt fumes. A recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of roofers indicates an excess of lung cancer among roofers, but it is uncertain whether this excess is related to asphalt and/or to carcinogens such as coal tar or asbestos. Data from studies in animals and in vitro assays indicate that laboratory -generated roofing asphalt fume condensates are genotoxic and produce skin tumors in mice. Known carcinogenic PAHs have been identified in roofing asphalt fumes. In contrast to the studies of roofers. epidemiologic studies of pavers exposed to asphalt fumes have yielded contradictory results regarding lung cancer. Although some of the studies reported an elevated risk for lung cancer among pavers exposed to asphalt, design limitations of these studies precluded any strong conclusions. Confounders included smoking and coexposure to coal tar and other potential lung carcinogens (e.g., diesel exhaust. silica, and asbestos). Furthermore, a recently Total particulate or benzene -soluble particulate measurements were up to 10 times higher than measurements taken during open-air paving. but they were still below 2.2 mg/m3. viii CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 65 conducted meta-analysis of these studies failed to find overall evidence for a lung cancer risk among pavers exposed to asphalt. However, carcinogenic PAHs have been detected in asphalt paving fumes—although at lower concentrations than those found in fumes from roofing asphalt. No published data examine the carcinogenic potential of paving asphalt fumes or fume condensates in animals. A few studies reported an association between cancer at sites other than the lungs (e.g.. bladder. kidneys, brain, and liver) with occupations having potential exposure to asphalt. Since the interpretation of these findings is limited by the study designs and the lack of good exposure data and consistent findings, no association can be made at this time. Further confirmation is needed by studies with better control of confounding variables and better identification of asphalt exposures. Conflicting results were obtained when raw roofing asphalts were applied dermally to mice. In one study, the raw roofing asphalt was weakly carcinogenic and caused malignant skin tumors in mice. In the other study. the raw roofing asphalt was not carcinogenic. Available data also indicate that several forrnulations of asphalt -based paints cause benign and malignant skin tumors in mice. However. these paints were not Mutagenic in the Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay, either with or without metabolic activation. Several other asphalt -based paints caused the formation of DNA adducts in the skin and lungs of treated mice and in fetal and adult human skin cultures. Conclusions In this hazard review. NIOSH has evaluated the scientific evidence concerning the potential health effects of occupational exposure to asphalt. On the basis of available data from studies in animals and humans, as well as in in iii/ro studies. NIOSH concludes the following about the acute health effects of asphalt exposure: The findings of this hazard review continue to support the assessment of the 1977 NIOSH criteria document on asphalt fumes. which associated exposure to asphalt fumes from roofing. paving, and other uses of asphalt with irritation of the eyes, nose_ and throat. Furthermore, in studies conducted since the publication of the 1977 criteria document. these symptoms have also been noted among workers exposed to asphalt fumes at geometric mean concentrations generally below 1 mg/m; total particulates and 0.3 mg/m3 benzene -soluble or carbon disulfide -soluble particulates, calculated as a full -shift TWA. Recent studies also report evidence of acute lower respiratory tract symptoms among workers exposed to asphalt fumes. These data are currently being further analyzed to assess the relationship between lower respiratory tract symptoms and asphalt fume exposure. The available data on chronic pulmonary effects (such as bronchitis) are insufficient to support an association with asphalt fume exposures. In 1988, NIOSH recommended to OSHA that asphalt fumes be considered a potential occupational carcinogen based on the results of an animal study in which laboratory -generated roofing asphalt fume condensates induced malignant skin tumors in mice. Since then. investigators have described differences in chemical composition, physical characteristics, and biological activity between asphalt fumes collected in the field and those generated in the laboratory. The relevance of these differences in ascribing adverse health effects in humans is unknown. Data from studies in humans indicate that ix CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 66 some workers exposed to asphalt fumes are at an elevated risk of lung cancer; however, it is uncertain whether this excess is related to asphalt and/or other carcinogens in the workplace. Although carcinogenic PAHs have, been identified in asphalt fumes at various worksites, the measured concentrations and the frequency of their occurrence have been low. Based on evaluation of these data, the following conclusions were drawn regarding the carcinogenicity of asphalt under several conditions of use: Data regarding the potential carcinogenicity of paving asphalt fumes in humans are limited. Only one study identified B(a)P in field fumes, but it was unclear whether paving asphalt fumes were the source of the B(a)P. Chrysene has been identified only in laboratory - generated paving asphalt fumes. The available data from studies in humans have not provided consistent evidence of carcinogenic effects in workers exposed to asphalt fumes during paving operations. No animal studies have examined the carcinogenic potential of either field- or laboratory -generated samples of paving asphalt fume condensates. Although genotoxicity assays (but no carcinogenicity assays) using laboratory -generated and field - generated (storage tank paving asphalt) fumes have been conducted, only the laboratory - generated fumes were genotoxic. Therefore. NIOSH concludes that the collective data currently available from studies on paving asphalt provide insufficient evidence for an association between lung cancer and exposure to asphalt fumes during paving. The available data, however, do not preclude a carcinogenic risk from asphalt fumes generated during paving operations. The results from epidemiologic studies indicate that roofers are at an increased risk of lung cancer, but it is uncertain whether this increase can be attributed to asphalt and/or to other exposures such as coal tar or asbestos. Data from experimental studies in animals and cultured mammalian cells indicate that laboratory -generated roofing asphalt fume con- densates are genotoxic and cause skin tumors in mice when applied dermally. Furthermore. a known carcinogen, B(a)P, was detected in field -generated roofing fumes. The collective health and exposure data provide sufficient evidence for NIOSH to conclude that roofing asphalt fumes are a potential occupational carcinogen. The available data indicate that although not all asphalt -based paint formulations may exert genotoxicity, some are genotoxic and carcinogenic in animals. No published data examine the carcinogenic potential of asphalt -based paints in humans, but NIOSH concludes that asphalt -based paints are potential occupational carcinogens. Current data are considered insufficient for quantifying the acute and chronic health risks of exposure to asphalt, asphalt -based paint, or asphalt fumes and vapors. However, data from at least two studies of acute effects are currently being evaluated to determine their usefulness in deriving an REL. Additional studies of workers exposed to asphalt fumes, vapors, and aerosols (e.g., during paving. roofing, and painting operations) are needed to better characterize exposures and to evaluate the risk of chronic disease, including lung cancer. A Iso required are experimental animal studies that use laboratory generation methods to produce fumes and vapors representative of asphalt roofing and paving operations. Until the results of these studies become available, NIOSH recommends minimizing possible acute or chronic health effects from exposure to asphalt, asphalt fumes and x CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 67 vapors, and asphalt -based paints by adhering to the current NIOSH REL of 5 mg/m; during any 15 - min period and by implementing the following practices: • Prevent dermal exposure. • Keep the application temperature of heated asphalt as low as possible. • Use engineering controls and good work practices at all work sites to minimize worker exposure to asphalt fumes and asphalt -based paint aerosols. Use appropriate respiratory protection (see Appendix C). xi SELECTED ABBREVIATIONS AC asphalt cement Al Asphalt Institute AREC Asphalt Roofing Environmental Council ARMA Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers' Association ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials B(a)P benzo(a)pyrene CAS Chemical Abstracts Service CI confidence interval DNA deoxyribonucleic acid FHWA Federal Highway Administration GCIFID gas chromatography with flame ion- ization detector GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spec- trometry GM geometric mean HMA hot -mix asphalt HMW highway maintenance workers HPLC high-performance liquid chro- matography IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer LC liquid chromatography NAPA National Asphalt Pavement Asso- ciation NMR nuclear magnetic resonance NMRD nonmalignant respiratory disease OR odds ratio PAC polycyclic aromatic compound PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PEFR peak expiratory Clow rate PMR proportional mortality ratio REL recommended exposure limit RR relative risk xiv CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 68 RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chem- ical Substances SCE sister chromatid exchange SEM standard error of mean SIR standardized incidence ratio SMR standardized mortality ratio STEL short-term exposure limit TLV'' threshold limit value TPA 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13- acetate TWA time -weighted average VOC volatile organic compound cm g g/mL hr in/ft L/min mg mg/m3 min mL rn V ng/cm' nm sec oC °F wt Ng ug/m3 centimeter gram grams per milliliter hour inches per foot liters per minute milligram milligrams per cubic meter minute milliliter millivolt nanograms per square centimeter nanometer second degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit percent weight percent microgram micrograms per cubic meter microliter GLOSSARY OF TERMS Aggregate: Graduated fragments of hard, inert mineral material that are mixed with asphalt. Aggregate includes sand, gravel crushed stone. and slag [Stein 1980]. Asphalt (CAS number 8052-42-4): The product of the nondestructive distillation of crude oil in petroleum refining; it is a dark brown to black cement -like semisolid or solid. Depending on the crude oil used as a feedstock, the distillation residuum may be further processed, typically by air blowing (sometimes with a catalyst) or solvent precipi- tation, to meet performance specifications for individual applications [AI 1990b]. It is a mixture of paraffinic and aromatic hydro- carbons and heterocyclic compounds contain- ing sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen [Sax and Lewis 1987]. Asphalt cement: Asphalt that is refined to meet specifications for paving, roofing, in- dustrial, and special purposes [AI 1990b]. Asphalt, cutback: An asphalt liquefied by the addition of diluents (typically petroleum solvents). Cutback asphalts are used in both paving and roofing operations depending on whether a paving or roofing asphalt is lique- fied [AI 1990b; Roberts et al. 1996; Speight 1992a]. Asphalt, emulsified: A mixture of two nor- mally immiscible components (asphalt and water) and an emulsifying agent (usually soap. but may be starch, glue, gum, colloidal clay, or other materials with similar properties) that allows the asphalt and water to mix. Emul- sified asphalts are either cationic (electro - positively charged micelles containing asphalt molecules or anionic (electro -negatively charged micelles containing asphalt mole- cules) depending on the emulsifying agent. Emulsified asphalts are used for seal coats on asphalt pavements, built-up roofs, and for other waterproof coverings. Emulsified CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 69 asphalts are also called asphalt emulsions [Al 1990b; Roberts et al. 1996; Speight 1992a: Stein 1980]. Asphalt fumes The cloud of small particles created by condensation from the gaseous state after volatilization of asphalt [NIOSH 1977a]. Asphalt -based paints: A specialized cutback asphalt product that can contain small amounts of other materials such as lampblack, aluminum flakes. or mineral pigments. They are used as a protective coating in water- proofing operations and other similar ap- plications [Al 1990b] . Asphalt, ho mix (HMA): Paving material that contains mineral aggregate coated and cemented together with asphalt cement [Al 1990b]. Asphalts, liquids: These are asphalts that are liquids at ambient temperatures. Liquid asphalts include cutback and emulsified asphalts [Roberts et al. 1996: Speight 1992a]. Asphalt, mastic: A mixture of asphalt and fine mineral material in such proportions that it may be poured hot into place and compacted by hand -troweling to a smooth surface [Al 1990b]. It is similar to hot -mix asphalt, but it is a finer aggregate. Asphalt, oxidized (blown or air -refined) /CAS number 64742-93-41: Asphalt treated by blowing air through it at elevated temper- atures to produce physical properties required for the industrial use of the final product. Oxidized asphalts are typically used in roofing operations, pipe coating. undersealing for Portland cement concrete pavements, hy- draulic applications, membrane envelopes [AI 1990b], and the manufacture of paints [Speight 1992a]. xv Asphalt, roofing: Asphalt that is refined or processed to meet specifications for roofing. Asphalt, paving: Asphalt that is refined to meet specifications for paving. Bitumen: The term more commonly used in Europe to refer to asphalt. Coal tar: A tar that contains polycyclic aromatic compounds and is produced by the destructive distillation of bituminous coal [gingham et al. 1980]. Distillation of coal -tar produces a variety of compounds such as coal tar pitch, creosote, and other chemicals oroils [NIOSH 1977b]. It is used in roofing, roads, waterproofing, paints, pipe coatings, sealants, insulation, and pesticides [Sax and Lewis 1987]. Cowl tar pitch (CTP): A black or dark brown cementitious solid that is obtained as a residue in the partial evaporation or fractional dis- tillation of coal tar [Bingham et al. 1980]. CTP is used in coatings. paints, roads, roofing, coal briquettes, and sealants [Sax and Lew is 1987]. Coal tar pitch volatiles (CTPY): Volatile matter emitted into the air when coal tar, coal tar pitch, or their products are heated [NIOSH 1977b]. Fog coat: Light application of slow -setting asphalt emulsion diluted with water. Fog coats are used to renew old asphalt surfaces and seal small cracks and surface voids [Stein 1980]. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorization of agents as to their carcinogenicity: Group I—The agent is carcinogenic to humans. Group 2A—The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. xvl CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 70 Group 2B—The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. Group 3—The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. Group 4—The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. Penetration macadam: Roadway consisting of a liquid asphalt sprayed onto a coarse ag- gregate (usually crushed gravel, slag, or stone) of uniform size [Stein 1980]. Polycyclic aromatic compound (PAC): A class of chemical compounds that contains two or more fused benzenoid rings. This class of compounds includes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and hete- rocyclic derivatives where one or more of the carbon atoms in the benzenoid rings have been replaced by a heteroatom of nitrogen (N -PAC). oxygen (O -PAC), or sulfur (S - PAC) [Vo -Dinh 1989]. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH): A class ofchemical compounds that only contain carbon and hydrogen in two or more fused benzenoid rings [Vo -Dinh I989]. Prime coat: Application of a viscous liquid asphalt by spraying onto an absorbent surface. It is used to prepare an untreated base for an asphalt overlay. The prime penetrates the base, filling voids, and hardens the top so that the asphalt overlay will bond [Stein 1980]. Seal coat: A liquid asphalt treatment used to waterproof and improve the texture of an asphalt wearing surface. Many seal coats are covered with an aggregate [Stein 1980]. Slurry seal: A mixture of a slow -setting emul- sified asphalt, fine aggregate, and mineral fil- ler with enough water added to form a slurry [Stein 1980]. Surface treatments The addition of an asphaltic material to any road surface, with or without a covering of aggregate, that increases the thickness of the surface by less than T inch [Stein 1980]. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 71 Tack coat: A light application (usually by spraying) of a liquid asphalt cement to an existing pavement so that a bond can form with the new asphalt pavement [FAA 1991]. xvi i Asphalt Fumes 97 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 72 ASPHALT FUMES Description: Asphalt fumes have been defined by NIOSH (1) as the nimbose effusion of small, solid particles created by condensation from the vapor state after volatilization of asphalt. In addition to particles, a cloud of fume may contain materials still in the vapor state. The major constituent groups of asphalt are asphaltenes, resins, and oils made up of saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons. The asphaltenes have molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 2,600, those of the resins fall in the range of 370 to 500, and those of the ails in the range of 290 to 630. Asphalt has often been confused with tar because the two are similar in ap- pearance and have sometimes been used interchangeably as construction ma- terials. Tars are, however. produced by destructive distillation of coal, oil or wood whereas asphalt is a residue from fractional distillation of crude oil. The amounts of benzo(a)pyrene found in fumes collected from two dif- ferent plants that prepared hot mix asphalt ranged from 3 to 22 nglm3; this is approximately 0,03% of the amount in coke oven emissions and 0.01% of that emitted from coal -burning home furnaces. Code Numbers; (Petroleum asphalt fumes) CA 8052-42-4 DOT Designation: — Synonyms: None. Potential Exposure: Occupational exposure to asphalt fumes can occur dur- ing the transport, storage, production, handling, or use of asphalt. The com- position of the asphalt that is produced is dependent on the refining process applied to the crude oil, the source of the crude oil, and the penetration grade (viscosity), and other physical characteristics of the asphalt required by the consumer. The process for production of asphalt is essentially a closed -system distilla- tion. Refinery workers are therefore potentially exposed to the fumes during loading of the asphalt for transport from the refinery during routine main- tenance, such as cleaning of the asphalt storage tanks, or during accidental spills. Most asphalt is used out of doors, in paving and roofing, and the workers' exposure to the fumes is dependent on environmental conditions, work prac- tices, and other factors. These exposures are stated to be generally intermittent and at low concentrations. Workers are potentially exposed also to skin and eye contacts with hot, cut-back, or emulsified asphalts. Spray application of cut- back, or emulsified asphalts may involve respiratory exposure also. Because of the nature of the major uses of asphalt and asphalt products, it is not possible to determine accurately the number of workers potentially exposed to asphalt fumes in the United States, but an estimate of 500,000 can be derived from estimates of the number of workers in various occupations in- volved. Permissible Exposure Limits in Air: Occupational exposure to asphalt fumes shall be controlled so that employees are not exposed to the airborne particu- lates at a concentration greater than 5 mg/m3 of air, determined during any 15•m inute period. ACGIH gives a tentative STEL of 10 mg/m3 as of 1983/84. Occupational exposure to asphalt fumes is defined as exposure in the work- place at a concentration of one-half or more of the recommended occupa- tional exposure limit. If exposure to other chemicals also occurs, as is the case when asphalt is mixed with a solvent, emulsified, or used concurrently with CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 73 98 Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens other materials such as tar or pitch, provisions of any applicable standard for the other chemicals shall also be followed. Determination in Air: A gravimetric method is recommended for estimation of the air concentration of asphalt fumes (A-1). When large amounts of dust are present in the same atmosphere in which the asphalt fume is present, which may occur in road -building operations, the gravimetric method may lead to errone- ously high estimates for asphalt fumes, and to possibly undeserved sanctions and citations for ostensibly exceeding the environmental limit for asphalt fumes or nuisance particulates. NIOSH recommends (1) that where the resolution of such problems becomes necessary, a more specific procedure which involves solvent extraction and gravimetric analysis, be employed for the determination of asphalt fumes. The best procedure now available seerns to be ultrasonic agitation of the filter in benzene and weighing of the dried residue from an aliquot on the clear ben- zene extract. NIOSH is attempting to devise an even more specific method for asphalt fumes for use under such conditions. Permissible Concentration in Water: No criteria set. Routes of Entry: Inhalation of dusts and fumes. Skin exposure can cause thermal burns from hot asphalt. Harmful Effects and Symptoms: The principal adverse effects on health from exposure to asphalt fumes are irritation of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae and the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. Hot asphalt can cause burns of the skin. in animals, there is evidence that asphalt left on the skin for long periods of time may result in local carcinomas, but there have been no reports of such effects on human skin that can be attributed to as- phalt alone. No reliable reports of malignant tumors of parenchymatous organs due to exposure to asphalt fumes have been found, but there has been no ex- tensive study of this possible consequence of occupational exposure in the asphalt industry. Points of Attack: Skin, respiratory system. Medical Surveillance: Details of recommended preplacement and periodic physical examinations and record-keeping have been set forth by NIOSH (1). Personal Protective Methods: Employees shall wear appropriate protective clothing, including gloves, suits, boots, face shields (8 -inch minimum), or other clothing as needed, to prevent eye and skin contact with asphalt. Respirator Selection: (1) Engineering controls shall be used when needed to keep concentrations of asphalt fumes below the recommended exposure limit. The only conditions under which compliance with the recommended exposure limit may be achieved by the use of respirators are: (a) During the time required to install or test the necessary engineer- ing controls, Ibi For operations such as nonroutine maintenance or repair activities causing brief exposure at concentrations above the environmental limit (c) During emergencies when concentrations of asphalt fumes may exceed the environmental limit. (2) When a respirator is permitted by (1) above, it shall be selected from a list of respirators approved by NIOSH. Disposal Method Suggested: Incineration. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 74 Karaman A, Pirim 1 Exposure to bitumen fumes and genotoxic effects on Turkish asphalt workers. Clin Toxicol (Phila.) 2009, Apr 14 :1-6. Objective: Bitumen fumes consist essentially of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their derivatives. some of which are known to be carcinogenic or cocarcinogenic in humans. The aim of this study was to investigate exposure to asphalt fumes among Turkish asphalt workers and determine whether any effects could be detected with genotoxic tests. Study Design. The study included 26 asphalt workers and 24 control subjects. Sister chromatid exchange (SCE) and micronucleus (MN) were determined in peripheral lymphocytes. Urinary 1-hydroxypyrene (1- OHP) excretion was used as a biomarker of occupational exposure to PAHs. Results: The asphalt workers had a significant increase in SCEs and MN (for each, p < 0.001). A positive correlation existed between the duration of exposure and rates of SCE or MN frequencies (r = 0.49, p < 0.05; r = 0.53. p < 0.05, respectively). The concentration of 1 -OHP in urine was higher for the asphalt workers than for the controls (p < 0.001). However, we found that there was no statistically significant correlation between the urinary 1 -OHP concentration and SCEs or MN frequencies (r = 0.25, p > 0.5; r = 0.17. p > 0.5, respectively). Conclusions: This study shows that Turkish asphalt workers have an increased exposure to PAHs from bitumen fumes, and genotoxic effects could be detected by SCEs and MN tests. http://www.inforraworld.com/smpp/content- content=a910409985--db=all jumptype=rss CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 75 Studies of carcinogenicity of bitumen fume in humans American Journal of Industrial Medicine Volume 43, Issue 1, Date: January 2003. Pages:1-2 Paolo Boffetta, Igor Burstyn Abstract Since antiquity humans have used bitumen. either naturally occurring or derived from crude oil [Broome and Hobson. 1973], and it may have been the binding inaterial described for bricks used in the construction of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11, 3).Chemically, bitumen is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons consisting of both aliphatic and aromatic compounds. some of which bear nitrogen, oxygen. or sulfur functional groups [Broome and Hobson, 1973]. This material has been in widespread use since the industrial revolution. The first bituminous road was built in 1810 in Lyon, France. Large-scale industrial use of bitumen began with the exploitation of natural bitumen deposits in Trinidad. with the first commercial shipment arriving in England in the 1840s. Bitumen's main use, in terms of volume, has. been in ,paving, as a binder for inorganic fillers in asphalt mixes. According to conservative estimates, there are at present approximately 4000 asphalt mixing plants in western Europe. A typical mixing plant employs five to ten individuals. These plants produce approximately 275 million tons of hot and 10 million tons of cold asphalt annually. Asphalt mixes are applied to road surfaces by approximately 1.00,000 paving crewmen across western Europe. Other important uses of bitumen are in waterproofing and roofing. Thus, assessment of the health hazards of bitumen fumes may have far-reaching industrial, economic, and public health implications. Of specific concern is the potential carcinogenicity of bitumen fume inhalation. In 1985 and 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC. 1985, 1987] evaluated extracts of steam -refined and air -refined bitumen carcinogenicity in experimental animals and classified them as possible human carcinogens (IARC Group 2B). while for undiluted bitumen. the evidence of carcinogenicity in humans was inadequate (IARC Group 3).Meta-analysis identified and reveiwed the epidemiological studies informative of cancer hazard in asphalt workers [Partanen and Boffetta. 1994]. However, the aggregated data could not explicitly address effects of bitumen fumes. Agent -specific exposure data were lacking, conjectured, or controversial, leaving open a number of questions with regard to the interpretation of the results. The aggregated results suggested an increased risk of cancers of the lung, (relative risk 1.8; 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.0).The main uncertainty in the assessment of previous epidemiological data arises from the inability to exclude the possibility of confounding by concurrent use of both coal tar a recognized carcinogen. and bitumen by pavers. roofers, and waterproofers [IARC. 1985. 1987]. The voluntary discontinuation of coal tar use by the asphalt industry in western Europe during the past few decades presented an opportunity to discover whether it is likely that bitumen exposure per se is carcinogenic [Partanen et al.. 19951. To address this question, a historical cohort of asphalt workers was assembled by IARC in eight countries (Denmark, Finland. France, Germany. the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Israel) in order to obtain diverse exposure profiles and a sufficient number of cases for the main health outcome of interest: lung cancer. Detailed results on the mortality of the workers included in the international study have been published in an IARC Internal Technical Report [Boffetta et al.. 2001]. In this issue of the Journal. several papers report the key findings on cancer mortality [Boffetta et al.. 2003a,b], which provide the most complete assessment of cancer hazards among workers exposed to bitumen fumes. It is a complex task to organize and conduct international occupational cohort studies. This project was a successful example of collaboration between academic research groups, public bodies. and industrial associations. Among other challenges, it overcame the Babel of multiple languages. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 76 Acute symptoms associated with asphalt fume exposure among road pavers American Journal of Industrial Medicine Volume 49, Issue 9, Date: September 2006. Pages: 728-739 Allison L. Tepper, Gregory A. Burr, H. Amy Feng, Mitchell Singal, Aubrey K. Miller, Kevin W. Hanley, Larry D. Olsen Background: Although asphalt fume is a recognized irritant. previous studies of acute symptoms during asphalt paving have produced inconsistent results. Between 1994 and 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluated workers at seven sites in six states. Methods: NIOSH (a) measured exposures of asphalt paving workers to total (TP) and benzene - soluble particulate (BSP), polycyclic aromatic compounds, and other substances; (b) administered symptom questionnaires pre -shift. every 2 hr during the shift, and post -shift to asphalt exposed and nonexposed workers; and (c) measured peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) of asphalt paving workers when they completed a symptom questionnaire. Results: Full -shift time -weighted average exposures to TP and BSP ranged from 0.01 to 1.30 mg/m' and 0.01 to 0.82 mg/m3, respectively. Most BSP concentrations were <0.50 mg/a'. Asphalt workers had a higher occurrence rate of throat irritation than nonexposed workers [13% vs. 4%, odds ratio (OR) = 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-13). TP, as a continuous variable, was associated with eye (OR = 1.34.95% CI: 1.12-1.60) and throat (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.06-1.85) symptoms. With TP dichotomous at 0.5 nnglm3. the ORs and 95% CIs for eye and throat symptoms were 7.5 (1.1-50) and 15 (2.3-103), respectively. BSP, dichotomous at 0.3Cp mg/in', was associated with irritant (eye, nose. or throat) symptoms (OR = 11, 95% CI: 1.5-84). One worker, a smoker, had PEFR-defined bronchial lability, which did not coincide with respiratory symptoms. Conclusions: Irritant symptoms were associated with TP and BSP concentrations at or below 0.5 mgim3- http://www.mbimlm.nih.govipubmed/16917829 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 77 American .Iournal of lndustriai Medicine 25:279-2,89 ( ]994) Toxic Health Effects Including Reversible Macrothrombocytosis in Workers Exposed to Asphalt Fumes Robert M. Chase, MD, FRCP(C), Gary M. Liss, MO, ?As, FRCP(C), Donald C. Cole, Md, FiiCP(C), and Bonnie Heath, MHSc We investigated an outbreak of irritative and neurotoxic symptoms associated with exposure to asphalt fumes in a commercial lighting factory; 27 symptomatic female workers were clinically assessed including hematologic resting. When compared with a laboratory reference gaup (n = 107), the workers' mean platelet volume (MPV) was significantly higher and mean platelet count was lower (p 0.013 and p = 0.048, respectively). Five months Nater, rhe factory's ventilation system was substantially mod- ified. Follow-up .,sessments 6 months postmodifica ion on 15 of the original workers documented a significant decline in acute symptoms and a lowering of the subjects' mean MPV towards normal (p = 0.0001 by paired t-test). The findings suggest that reversible macrothrombocytosis (enlarged platelets) can occur among symptomatic workers exposed to asphalt fumes. &+ 1494 Wiley -Liu. inc. Key words: blood platelet disorders. hematological parameters, occupational exposure, asphalt, benzene, biological effect, follow-up studies INTRODUCTION Lakeshore Area Multiservice Project (LAMP) Occupational Eiealth Program (.OHP) is a community-based occupational health service in Toronto. Ontario, C:- atia funded by the provincial government. In Nfarch 1988, several employees from a local plant carne to LOHP with complaints of nausea, headache, fatigue, skin rashes, and eye, nose and throat irri- tation. The onset of these symptoms coincided with the introduction of a new asphalt formulation in the manufacturing process in November 1987. The plant employs approximately 200 production employees. mostly female, manufacturing fluorescent ballast boxes and coils for fluorescent and high intensity Iighting. The production area is open, without partitions (approximately 250 x 200 ft with 20 ft ceiIings). In 1987. general ventilation (fan) was used to disperse fumes from the soldering stations and. Occupational Health Program. Lakeshore Area Multi -service Project tR_M.C.. D.C.C.11, Health and Safety Studies Unit. Ontario Ntisustry of Labour IG,M.L.); Com=munity Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health (9.I -E.1. Ontario. Canada. Address reprint requests to Robert M. Chase, MD. L.A.M.P. Occupational Health Prograr=s, 185 Fifth Street. ELobkeke, On'tar'io, Canada ti15V Accepted for publication March 15, 1993. 1994 Wiley -Liss. Inc. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 78 http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.govlindcx.c i in?objectid=0 DA9CSCD-F 1 F6-975 E-763113117EEDF8C31) LITERATURE REVIEW OF HEALTH EFFECTS CAUSED BY OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASPHALT FUMES This Interim Review Produced by NIOSH in Support of Nomination to the National Toxicology Program 6/23/97 CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES* *Information obtained from Sax and Lewis [ 1987]. Chemical name CAS number 8052-42-4 Synonyms Asphaltum; asphalt cement; asphalt emulsion; bitumen; blown asphalt; cutback asphalt; oxidized asphalt; petroleum asphalt; petroleum bitumen; road asphalt Physical state at room temperature Black or dark -brown solid or viscous liquid Solubility in water at 20°C Insoluble Solubility in organ solvents Carbon disulfide Definition of asphalt - Asphalt production is dictated by performance specifications rather than by a specific chemical composition. To meet those specifications. the residual product of petroleum distillation may be further processed, usually by air - blowing or solvent precipitation. The precise chemical composition and physical properties of the resulting products are influenced by the composition of the original crude petroleum oil and the manufacturing processes. The bask chemical components of crude petroleum oil include paraffinic. naphthenic, and aromatic hydrocarbons as well as heterocyclic molecules containing sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen [AI 1990a]. The proportions of these chemical components may vary significantly because sources of crude petroleum oil occur in various locations throughout the world involving different geologic formations. As a result of these variations, crude oils from different fields may vary in their chemical composition and sometimes variations in chemical composition of crude oils can be found among different locations in the same oil field [Puzinauskas and Corbett 1978]. Therefore, no two asphalts are chemically identical, and chemical analysis defining the precise structure and size of the individual molecules found in asphalt is almost impossible. Asphalt fumes are defined as the cloud of small particles created by condensation from the gaseous state after volatilization of asphalt. Fumes from some asphalts have been analyzed and their chemical compositions are presented in Table 1 [Al 1975] and Table 2 [Reinke and Swanson 1993]. Asphalt PRODUCTION, USE, AND POTENTIAL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE Paving asphalts are manufactured principally by simple atmospheric distillation or by atmospheric distillation followed by fractionation under vacuum. They may also be manufactured by solvent precipitation and mild partial air -blowing. Roofing asphalts are generally produced by atmospheric or vacuum distillation followed by air -blowing [NAPA 1994]. Most of the asphalt produced in the United States is used in paving and roofing. Only about 1% is used for waterproofing, dampproofing, insulation, paints, and other activities [Al 1990a]. The National Occupational CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 79 Exposure Survey (NOES) [NIOSH 1983] estimates that during the period 1981-83, more than 473,000 U.S. employees were potentially exposed to asphalt. lahle 3 presents the 10 industries and the 10 occupations (excluding janitors) with the most employees potentially exposed to asphalt. Paving Asphalt Of the three types of asphalt products used in the construction of paved surfaces in the United States: asphalt paving cements (hot -mix asphalt or HMA), cutback asphalts, and asphalt emulsions, HMA (asphalt mixed with mineral aggregate) accounts for 85% of the total used. Cutback asphalts and asphalt emulsions are used for road sealing and maintenance, and account for 4% and 11% respectively, of the total used. Currently, about 4,000 HMA facilities and 7,000 paving contractors employ nearly 300,000 employees in the United States [Al 1990a]. Roofing Asphalt Four types of asphalt (1 through IV) are used in roofing products in the United States. The type of asphalt used is determined by the grade or slope of the roof. For example, Type 1 roofing asphalt, often referred to as "dead level," has a low softening point and is used on surfaces with a grade of 0.5 inch per foot or less. Types 11 and I1I roofing asphalt are typically used on roofs with slopes of 0.5 to 1.5 and 1 to 3 inches per foot, respectively. Type IV roofing asphalt (a hard asphalt with a high softening point) is used on roofs with a grade of 2 to 6 inches per foot [ASTM 1992]. In 1990, an estimated 46,000 on -roof employees were exposed to asphalt fumes in the United States, and about 6.000 to 12.000 employees were exposed in approximately 120 plants manufacturing asphalt roofing shingles arid rolls and modified bitumen2 roofing products [Al 1990a]. General Exposure The major route of occupational exposure to asphalt fumes (e.g., paving, roofing, and asphalt -based paints) is by inhalation; they may also be absorbed through the skin. A summary of representative information on the occurrence of asphalt fumes in the workplace is presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Dermal exposure to asphalt fumes has been examined using skin wipes (see Table 5). Skin wipe samples were collected at various worksites (e.g., refineries, HMA facilities. paving and roofing sites, and roofing manufacturers) and analyzed for PAHs [Al 1991]. The PAH concentrations determined from postshift samples ranged from 2.2 to 520 ng/cm2 (see Appendix A). Exposure Limits The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) currently has no permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asphalt fumes. In 1989, OSHA announced that it would delay a final decision to establish a PEL for asphalt fumes because of complex and conflicting issues submitted to the record [54 Fed. Reg. *2641]. The PEL originally proposed to reduce the potential carcinogenic risk of occupational exposure to asphalt fumes was 5 mg/m3 as an 8 -hr TWA. In 1992, OSHA published another proposed rule for asphalt fumes that included a PEL of 5 mglm3 (total particulates) for general industry and for the maritime. construction, and agricultural industry [57 Fed. Reg. 26182]. Comments are still being received by OSHA and a final decision is pending. In a 1977 criteria document, NIOSH established a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 5 mg/m3 as a 15 min ceiling for up to a 10 -hr work shift. during a 40 -hr workweek, to protect against irritation of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae and the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract [NIOSH ]977a]. In 1988, NIOSH testimony to the Department of Labor and OSHA recommended that asphalt fumes be considered a potential occupational carcinogen [NIOSH 1988]. This recommendation was based on information presented in the 1977 criteria document [NIOSH 1977a] and a study by Niemeier et al. [ 1988] showing that exposure to condensates of asphalt fumes caused skin tumors in two strains of mice. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit value (TLV'') is 5 mg/rn3 as an 8 -hr TWA and was recommended to reduce the risk of possible carcinogenicity [ACGIH 1991]. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have also limited occupational exposures to asphalt fumes to 5 mg/m3 as an 8 -hr TWA. Additionally, the United Kingdom has established a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 10 mg/m3. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Rack 80 Germany currently rates asphalt fumes as "suspected of having a carcinogenic potential [ILO 1991]. STUDIES OF GENOTOXICITY AND CARCINOGENICITY (ANIMALS) Mutagenic Effects The five fractions cif laboratory -generated roofing asphalt fume condensates and unfractionated asphalt fumes used by Sivak et al [1989] (see description of Sivak study under Carcinogenic Effects) were examined for their mutagenic potential in Salmonella. Fractions A through E combined, and fractions 13 and C were positive; fractions, A. D, and neat asphalt fumes were weakly positive; and fraction E was negative [NTP 1990]. Positive responses required exogenous metabolic activation. The same fractionated asphalt fume condensates from the Sivak et al.study [1989] were also tested using a modified Ames assay [ Blackburn and Kriech 1990] and the results were comparable to those of the NTP [ 1990] study. Eight asphalt fume samples collected on teflon filters at HMA plants as part of an Interagency Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) were tested for mutagenic activity in a Salmonella mutagenicity assay. Preliminary results indicate that there was no mutagenic activity in the whole fume fraction: however. results of 2 of the 8 samples were inconclusive [Olsen, personal communication]. Two Type III roofing asphalts representing different crude oil sources , one of which was similar to the asphalt air - blown using a ferric chloride catalyst and used by Niemeier et al.[1988] and Sivak et al. [1989]; 18 paving asphalts (representing 14 crude oil sources and various process conditions); and Type 1 coal tar pitch; and their fume condensates were examined not only for mutagenic activity in a modified Ames assay, but also for PAH content [Machado et al. 1993]. The fume generation temperature of all roofing materials was either 232 or 316°C and that of all paving materials was 163°C (one sample was heated to 221°C). The results of the modified Ages assay are presented in. Table 6. The data indicate that all samples tested exerted mutagenic activity; however, the mutagenic responses of the asphalt fume condensates were approximately 100 -fold less than the coal tar pitch samples and weak to moderate in potency [Machado et al. 1993]. Responses for the positive control group were all within the expected ranges. Results of analyses for PAH content. measured by HPLC fluorescence, of the roofing and paving asphalts, coal tar pitch, and their fume condensates were as follows [Machado et al. 1993]. Concentrations of individual PAHs in samples of asphalt and asphalt fume condensates were less than 50 parts per million by weight (ppm), while most concentrations of individual PAHs in roofing (232°C or 316°C) and all concentrations in paving (163°C, except for one sample at 221 °C) asphalts, whole or fumes. were less than 10 ppm and 2 ppm, respectively. Concentrations of individual PAHs in the coal tar pitch samples were 100- to 1000- fold higher than in the roofing and paving samples. Benzo[a]pyrene (BP) was detected in all samples examined; the maximum concentrations of BP in whole asphalt, whole coal tar pitch, asphalt and coal tar pitch fume condensates were approximately 6 ppm, 18,000 ppm, 0.1 - 2.8 ppm. and 250-480 ppm, respectively. AIthough PAH content correlated with mutagenicity indices for some samples, for others it did not. The investigators concluded that the data suggest that crude oil source along with processing conditions had some influence on the PAH content of the various materials tested [Machado et al. 1993]. Reinke and Swanson [unpublished data 1993] examined the relationship between field-, 146-157°C (295-314°F), and laboratory -generated, 149°C (300°F) and 316°C (600°F), asphalt fume condensates by comparing their chemical content (i.e., PAHs and sulfur heterocyclics) and mutagenic potential. The asphalt tested was a straight run, vacuum distilled 85/100 penetration grade asphalt derived from a blend of Canadian heavy, sour crudes. The field asphalt fume condensates were collected from the head space above an asphalt storage tank, stored between 146-157°C (295-314°F), at a HMA production plant into a cold trap system for about 36 continuous hours. The results of the chemical analyses (GC -MS) for PAHs and sulfur heterocyclics and the modified Ames assay are provided in fable 7 and summarized in Table 8. The data indicate that field -generated asphalt fume condensates exerted a MI of>0 and < I, white fumes generated in the laboratory at 149°C (300°F) and 316°C (600°F), exerted MIs of 5.3 and 8.3, respectively. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 81 Chromosomal Aberrations Condensates of Type 1 and Type III roofing asphalt fumes generated in the laboratory (same methodology as Sivak et al. 1989) at temperatures (316 + 10C) similar to actual roofing operations caused a dose-related increase in micronucleus (MN) formation in exponentially growing Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts (V79 cells) [Qian et al. 1995]. The results of immunofluorescent antibody staining showed that both roofing asphalt fume condensates induced mainly kinetochore -positive MN (68-70%). The authors suggested that Type I and Type III roofing asphalt fume condensates are aneuploidogens and possess some clastogenic activities. Reinke and Swanson [1993] also tested 3 asphalt fume condensates (field and lab -generated) in a chromosomal aberration assay and the results were negative. The authors reported that the absence of positive findings may be explained by the fact that this assay has not as yet been optimized for petroleum asphalt fumes. Intercellular Communication The five asphalt roofing fume fractions used by Sivak et al. [ 1989] were tested for inhibition of intercellular communication, i.e., one of several proposed mechanisms of tumor promotion. The inhibition of intercellular communication by a tumor promoter is believed to isolate an initiated or preneoplastic cell from the growth regulatory signals of surrounding cells. leading to the development of neoplasia. All fractions inhibited intercellular communication in chinese hamster Tung fibroblasts (V79) cells in Toraason et al. [1991]. The greatest activity was in fraction D and E and the least activity in fraction A. Similarly, Wey et al. [ 1992] examined the effect of these fractions on intercellular communication in human epidermal keratinocytes. All asphalt roofing fume fractions inhibited intercellular concentrations in a concentration dependent fashion. Carcinogenic Effects Since publication of the NIOSH criteria document [NIOSH ] 977a], there have been reports of carcinogenicity following dermal applications of laboratory -generated asphalt roofing fume condensates [Niemeier et al. 1988; Sivak et al. 1989] and raw roofing asphalt [Sivak et al. 1989]. Additional data from these studies are summarized in detail in Appendix B. Niemeier et al. [1988] investigated the tumorigenicity of fume condensates generated at 232°C (450°F) and 316°C (601'F) from Types 1 and III roofing asphalt and Types I and I1I coal -tar pitch through topical applications to the skin of male CD -1 and C3 HIHeJ mice. A total of 48 groups of 50 mice each (1 strain) received applications of cryogenically collected fume condensates singly and in combination (Type III asphalt and Type I coal -tar pitch, both generated at 316°C [601°F]) biweekly for 78 weeks (18 months). Half of each group was exposed to simulated sunlight to determine whether photochemical reactions might alter the carcinogenic activity. Analysis of the skin painting solutions by GC/MS revealed that the solutions containing coal -tar pitch fume condensates had higher concentrations of select PAHs than the solutions containing asphalt fume condensates. The authors report that analysis by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) indicated that the asphalt fume condensate was <1% aromatic and >99% aliphatic, whereas the coal -tar pitch condensate was >90% aromatic. 13aP was selected as a marker compound based on correlations of BaP concentrations and carcinogenicity. Tumors were produced by fume condensates of both types of asphalt (see Tables 9 and 10) and both types of coal -tar pitch. The majority of benign tumors were papillomas; the majority of malignant tumors were squamous cell carcinomas. The fume condensates from the coal -tar pitches had slightly greater carcinogenic activity than the fume condensates from the asphalts, but the total amount of select PAHs or BaP needed to produce a 50% tumor incidence was much smaller for the asphalt fume condensates (PAHs, 0.58 to 2.63 mg; BaP: less than or equal to 13.6 mg) than for the coal -tar pitch fume condensates (PAHs, >24.5 to 357.4 mg; BaP, 354 to 405 mg). Tumor response to the coal - tar pitch fume condensates was comparable with that of the BaP controls, based on the total dosage of HaP administered. Both strains of mice exposed to asphalt fumes had significantly (P=0.01) more tumors than the control groups, although the C3HIHeJ mice demonstrated a greater tumorigenic and carcinogenic response to both asphalt and coal -tar pitch fume solutions than did the CD -1 mice. The C3HIHeJ mice showed a significant increase (P=0.01; Fisher -Irwin exact test) in tumorigenic response for both types of condensed asphalt fumes generated at 316°C (601°F) compared with those generated at 232°C (450°F): a similar increase was noted only for Type 111 coal -tar CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 82 pitch fumes. Overall, simulated sunlight inhibited tumorigenic responses. The authors speculated that this inhibition may have resulted from the photo-oxidation or photodestruction of the carcinogenic components ofthe test materials. Niemeier et al. [1988] concluded that the enhanced carcinogenic activity ofthe asphalt fume condensates may have been due to their high concentration of aliphatic hydrocarbons, which have cocarcinogenic effects. They also concluded that higher generation temperatures may have further increased that hazard. Finally, Niemeier et al. [1988] concluded that the carcinogenic activity of the coal-tar pitch fume condensates (but not that ofthe asphalt fume condensates) could be explained by their BaP (or PAH) contents. Sivak et al. [1989] heated Type 111 roofing asphalt at 316°C, generated fume condensates, and separated them by high-performance liquid chromatography [Belinky et al.]. The chemical composition of the fractions (A through E) is provided in Table 11. Raw asphalt. neat asphalt (whole or unfractionated condensate) fume, the reconstituted asphalt fume. and the asphalt fractions. individually and in various combinations, were then tested for their carcinogenic and tumor-promoting activity. Fractions A through E were dissolved in a 1:1 solution of cyclohexane and acetone to yield concentrations proportional to their presence in the neat asphalt fume condensate, i.e., 64.1%, 8.3%, 10.5%, 11.5% and 5.6%, respectively, and were applied biweekly to 40 groups of male C314JHeJ mice and 2 groups of Sencar mice (30 male mice per group) for 104 weeks (2 yearn). A single initial treatment of BaP followed by individual treatments with fractions A, D, and E was used to test the tumor-promoting activity of the asphalt fume condensate. The cocarcinogenicity of fractions A, D, and E was tested with three different doses of BaP. Fractions A. D, and E were used because they were the fractions Sivak et al. [1989] deemed most likely to exhibit cocarcinogenic or tumor-promoting activity based on their chemical compositions, i.e.. primarily long chain alkanes and phenol compounds. Two groups of male Sencar mice were included to allow for possible genetic variation and sensitivity to tumor promotion. One of the two groups of Senear mice was treated with neat asphalt fume (whole condensate), and the other was used as an unexposed solvent control. The negative control group ►vas treated with cyclohexane and acetone, and the positive control groups were treated with three different concentrations of BaP: Table 12 presents only the treatment groups which induced histopathologically confirmed carcinomas (malignant tumors). the number of carcinomas per group. the number of mice with histologically confirmed carcinomas. and the average time (in weeks) to carcinoma development. The raw asphalt and neat asphalt fume induced carcinomas (local skin cancers) in 3 of 30 and 20 of30 C3HIHeJ mice, respectively. Fractions B and C induced carcinomas in 10 of 30 and 17 of 30 C3HJHeJ mice, respectively, while fractions A, D, and E failed to induce any carcinomas when applied singly. All the combinations ofthe fractions induced tumors only if they included B or C; combinations A and D: A and E; and A, D, and E failed to induce any tumors. Furthermore, fractions A. D, and E failed to act as either tumor promoters or cocarcinogens. Fourteen of the 30 Sencar mice treated with the asphalt fume condensate developed carcinomas. As noted previously, only fractions B and. C applied singly and in combinations elicited tumor responses. Fractions containing B and C PACs including PAHs, S-PACs, and O-PACs such as alkylated aryl thiophenes, alkylated phenanthrenes, alkylated acetophenones, and alkylated dihydrofuranones. Fraction B contained most of the S-PACs. and only a few were carried over to fraction C. Fraction C contained a small amount of 4-ring PACs (refer to previous Table). Sivak et al. [1989] stated the need for additional cocarcinogenesis and tumor-promotion experiments using a wider range of experimental variables, further chemical separation of fractions B and C. more short-term genotoxicity assays, and additional carcinogenicity assays to identify biologically active materials in the roofing asphalt fume condensates. Table 10 lists the positive tumor responses among the groups of mice studied. The raw asphalt (diluted with a 1:1 solution of cyclohexane and acetone to a final concentration of 0.5 glml) produced carcinomas in 3 of 30 C3HJHeJ mice. The neat asphalt fume (diluted with a 1:1 solution of cyclohexane and acetone to a final concentration of 0.5 g/ml) produced carcinomas in 20 of 30 C3HJHeJ mice. Fraction B produced local skin cancers (carcinomas) in 10 of 30 male C3HIHeJ mice, and fraction C produced local skin cancers (carcinomas) in 17 of 30 male C3HJHeJ mice. Fractions A, ID, and E failed to produce any carcinomas when applied singly. Of the other combinations of fractions, all produced tumors except the following: A and ID; A and E; and A, D, and E. None ofthe groups of mice with the initiating dose of 200 mg of BaP developed tumors, but 7 of the 9 groups tested for cocarcinogenicity developed carcinomas (see Table 10). Fourteen of the 30 Sencar mice treated with neat asphalt fumes (whole condensate) produced carcinomas, and 1 mouse in the Sencar solvent control group produced 1 tumor (sarcoma). Mice in the CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 83 C31-II1-1eJ solvent control group failed to develop tumors, whereas the C3HIHe] mice in two BaP control groups developed skin tumors (see 0.01% and 0.001% BaP groups in Table 10). Sivak et al. [ 1989] observed no tumor responses with the three roofing asphalt fractions (A, D, and E) they considered most likely to exhibit cocarcinogenic or tumor -promoting activities based on their aliphatic hydrocarbon, alcohol, and phenol contents. Treatment with the combined fractions did not produce any synergistic effects. However, tumor responses were elicited by other fractions (8 and C) that contained PACs including PAHs, S -PACs, N -PACs, and O -PACs such as alkylated aryl thiophenes. alkylated ,phenanthrenes, alkylated phenylethanones, and alkylated dihydrofuranones. Fraction B contained most of the S -PACs, and only a few were carried over to fraction C, which contained mainly O -PACs. Because the O -PACs may result from the air-blowing/oxidation refining process common among roofing asphalts, they may be present only in roofing asphalt. If such is the case, the refining process could be altered to eliminate the O -PACs and possibly the carcinogenicity of fraction C. Sivak et al. [ 1989] stated the need for additional cocarcinogenesis and tumor -promotion experiments using a wider range of experimental variables, further chemical separation of fractions B and C. more short-term genotoxicity assays, and additional carcinogenicity assays to identify biologically active materials in the roofing asphalt fume condensates. HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE Asphalt fumes are irritants to the mucous membranes of the eyes and respiratory tract; hot asphalt can also cause bums of the skin [NIOSH 1977]. It has been reported that irritant effects on the respiratory tract can possibly progress to such nonmalignant lung diseases as bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma [Hansen, 1991; Maizlish et al. 19881. Workers engaged in road repair and construction reported symptoms of abnormal fatigue, reduced appetite, eye irritation, and laryngeal/pharyngeal irritation [Norseth et al. 1991]. CHRONIC Considerable data from epidemiological studies on workers exposed to asphalt fumes during paving and roofing operations, and during the production of asphalt, have become available since the publication of the NIOSH criteria document on asphalt [NIOSH 1977]. The mortality experience of Danish mastic asphalt workers [Hansen 1989a: Hansen 1991] and Swedish asphalt road pavers [Engholm 1991] was investigated (see 'table 13). Hansen [1989a] reported that the mastic asphalt workers, when compared with the total male Danish population , experienced significantly increased mortality from cancers of the digestive and respiratory systems, with standardized incidence rates (SIR) of 227 (95% confidence interval of 142-344) and 195 (95% confidence interval of 236-493). respectively. The SIR for all malignant neoplasms was 195 (95% confidence interval of 153-244). Overall. Hansen [ 1989a] reported that she observed a three -fold increase in the expected number of lung cancers in the mastic asphalt workers compared with the general Danish population. For an assessment of the induction of primary lung cancer Hansen divided the cohort into subcohorts based on birth year because it was necessary to determine the number of employees potentially exposed to coal tar pitch, which had been added to mastic asphalt during World War II. The SIRs for primary lung cancer were then determined to range from 632 (for employees aged 40 to 54) to about 300(for employees aged 64 to 89). Although smoking histories of the cohort were unknown, an inquiry was made in 1976 into the smoking habits of mastic asphalt workers and a pattern emerged. Based on the approximate rates that were calculated. Hansen suggested that smoking could not account for the three -fold increase she had observed. When Hansen [1991] updated her cohort and adjusted for smoking and urbanization, she reported that the statistically significant (P<0.01) increase in cancer mortality among mastic asphalt workers remained. The SIR for lung cancer mortality was 224 (95% CI, 145-330). Criticisms by Wong et al. [1992] and Kreich et al.] 1991] of the Hansen studies [ 1989a; 1991] are provided in the comments section of Table 13 and include the following: possible exposure to coal tar pitch and inadequate adjustment for smoking and urbanization. Engholm et al. reported [1991] the occurrence of lung (SIR of 207) and stomach cancers (SIR of 207) in Swedish asphalt road pavers (see Appendix C). Data on previous and current smoking histories had been collected and were used in determining the relative risk (RR) for lung cancer. The RR for lung cancer was on the order of 2 before adjustment for smoking, and it was on the order of 3 after adjustment for smoking. Despite the short follow-up period (an average of 11.5 years) and the very young age (42 years) of the cohort, the authors concluded that this CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 84 cohort exhibited a slight excess of lung cancer. However, in a later submission to NIOSH [Engholm and Englund 1993j, the results of an update based on the inclusion of three additional years of follow-up were reported. Engholm [1993] indicated that: 1) with the additional follow-up, all measures of any cancer risk were not statistically signigicant; 2) the study results may reflect some selection bias; 3) exposure of the cohort is in doubt. Results ofa proportionate mortality study of California highway maintenance workers [Maizlish et al. 1988] and a long-term mortality study of Minnesota highway maintenance workers [Bender et al. 1989] are also presented in 'Table 13. Maizlish et al.[1988] determined that the increased mortality from alI malignant neoplasms for their cohort was not statistically significant. Additionally, exposure measurements and data on tobacco or alcohol consumption of the cohort were unavailable. Bender et al. [ 1989] reported that workers with 30 to 39 years of work experience had a statistically significant (P<0.01) SMR of 425 (95% CI, 170-870) for leukemia deaths. The authors concluded, however, that they were unable to relate these findings to asphalt exposure. After additional study of this cohort (case -control studies, cytogenetic studies, updated chhort mortality. and personal air monitoring effort. the Minnesota Department of Health [1993] concluded that it was unlikely that the excess leukemia mortality observed among the highway maintenance workers was job-related. Only one study is available regarding the mortality experience of roofers [Engholm et al. 1991]. During their investigation of asphalt road pavers in Sweden, these investigators also examined a cohort of roofers (see Appendix C). After adjustment for smoking. the RR for lung cancer in roofers was on the order of 6. The data indicated that though the number of cases was small, there was a lung cancer excess among roofers [Engholm et al. 19911. Even though the authors acknowledged that the short follow-up period (11.5 years) and the young age (42 years) of the cohort were too short for the normal latency period of a potential carcinogen, they concluded that an excess of lung cancer existed among roofers. In 1993 Engholm and Englund presented to NIOSH information based on their three-year follow-up of Enghom et al. 1991. They concluded that results of the follow-up study " did not permit any final conclusions" regarding health risks of the respective cohorts. Partanen and Boffetta [1994] conducted a review and meta-analysis of the epidemiologic studies regarding cancer risk in asphalt workers and roofers. They concluded that existing data are insufficient to make a judgment with regard to asphalt. Most epidemiologic studies for lung carcinogenicity (as well as other cancer sites ) are either too non-specific for exposure (e.g._ highway maintenance workers . census occupational data), or confounded by coal tar exposure. In 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated the available studies involving asphalt fumes [IARC 1987] and concluded that the carcinogenicity of bitumens (shich include asphalt ) is unclassifiable in humans. NIOSH investigators (Kyle Steenland) agree with the review of Partanen and Bofetta [1994]. In addition to the studies' deficiencies already enumerated, insufficient latency for workers exposed to asphalt is also noted. Deficiencies of the Hansen [1989, 1991] studies include the unresolved controversy concerning possible exposure to coal tar, possible selection biases, and the appropriate beginning of person -time at risk. REFERENCES ACGIH [1991]. Asphalt fumes. In: Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices, 6th ed. Vol.]. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, pp. 95-96. AI [1990a]. Report to OSHA and NIOSH: Status of Asphalt Industry Steering Committee research program on the health effects of asphalt fumes and recommendation for a worker health standard. Lexington, KY: Asphalt institute. AI [1991]. Final report. Asphalt industry, cross sectional exposure assessment study. Text and Appendix A. Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute, July 12, 1991 (prepared by Radian. Corporation). ASTM [1992]. 1992 Annual book of ASTM standards. Part 15 -road. paving, bituminous materials: traveled surface characteristics. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Belanger PL, Elesh E [1979]. Health hazard evaluation report: Kentile Floors, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. Cincinnati. OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Report No. HHE 78-73-612, NTIS No. PB -80-195-308. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 85 Bender AP, Parker DL, Johnson RA, Anderson WK. Crozier MA, Williams AN, et al. [ 1987]. The Minnesota highway maintenance worker mortality study: 1945-1984, Preliminary report. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, Section of Chronic Disease and Environmental Epidemiology. No Report No. Bender AP, Parker DL, Johnson RA. Scharber WK, Williams AN, Marbury MC, Mandel JS [1989]. Minnesota highway maintenance worker study: cancer mortality. Am J Ind Med 15:545- 556. Burgaz S, Bayhan A, Karakaya AE [ 1988]. Thioether excretion of workers exposed to bitumen fumes. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60(5]:347-349. Engholm G. Englund A, Linder B [1991]. Mortality and cancer incidence in Swedish road paving asphalt workers and roofers. Health Environ 1:62-68. Hansen ES [1989a]. Cancer incidence in an occupational cohort exposed to bitumen fumes. Scand J Work Envir Health 15(2):101- 105. Hansen ES [ 1989b]. Cancer mortality in the asphalt industry: a 10 -year follow-up of an occupational cohort. Br J Ind Med 46(8):582- 585. Hansen ES [1991j. Mortality of mastic asphalt workers. Scand J lkork Environ Health 17:20- 24. Hansen ES [ 1992]. Cancer mortality and incidence in mastic asphalt workers. Author's reply [letters]. Scand J Work Environ Health 18:135-I41. Hatjian BA, Edwards. JW, Williams FM. Harrison J, Blain PG [ 1995a]. Risk assessment of occupational expousre to bitumen fumes in the road paving industries. Paper presented at the 1995 Pacific Rim Conference on Occupational and Environmental Health, Sydney, Australia, October4-6, 1995. Hatjian BA, Edwards, JW, Harrison J. Williams FM. Blain PG 11995b]. Ambient, biological and biological effects monitoring of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Toxicol letters 77:271-279. Herbert R, Marcus M, Wolff MS, Perera FP, Andrews L, Godbold JH, et al. [ 1990]. Detection of adducts of deoxyribonucleic acid in white blood cells of roofers by 32P-postlabeling. Scand J Work Environ Health 16:135-143. ILO [19911. Occupational Exposure Limits for Airborne Toxic Substances, 3rd edition. Values of Selected Countries Prepared from the ILO -CIS Data Base of Exposure Limits. Geneva: International Labour Organization. pp. 34-35. Lafuente A, Mallol.1 [1987]. Urinary thioethers in workers exposed to asphalt: an impairment of glutathione S -transferase activity? .1 Tox Envir Health 21(4):533-534. Lee BM. Baoyun Y, Herbert R. Hemminki K, Perera FP, Santella RM [199!]. Immunologic measurement of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon -albumin adducts in foundry workers and roofers. Scand J Work Environ Health 17:190-194. Lunsford RA. Cooper CV [ 1989]. Characterization of petroleum asphalt fume fractions by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry_ Cincinnati. OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Machado ML, Beatty PW, Fetzer JC, Glickman AH, McGinnis T [ 1993]. Evaluation of the relationship between PAH content and mutagenic activity of fumes from roofing and paving asphalts and coal tar pitch. Fund Appl Toxicol 21:492-499. Maizlish N, Beaumont J, Singleton J [ 1988]. Mortality among California highway workers. Am J Ind Med 13(3):363-379. Minnesota Department of Health [1993]. The Minnesota highway maintenance worker mortality study 1945-1989. Final report. May 1, 1993. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, Chronic Disease and Environmental Epidemiology. Monarca S. Pasquini R. Scassellati Sforzolini G, Savino A, Bauleo FA, Angell G [1987], Environmental monitoring of mutagenic!carcinogenic hazards during road paving operations with bitumens. Intl Arch Occup Envir Health 59(4):393-402. NAPA [19941 information presented during a meeting on February 7, 1994, between M. Acott, T. Brumagin, L. Miller. N. Beckthalt representing the National Asphalt Pavement Association and J. Wess, R. Niemeier, and C. Ellison from the Divisions of Standards Development and Technology Transfer. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Niemeier RW. Thayer PS, Menzies KT. Von Thuna P, Moss CE, Burg J [ 1988]. A comparison of the skin carcinogenicity of condensed roofing asphalt and coal tar pitch fumes. In: Cooke M. Dennis AJ, eds. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Decade of Progress. Tenth International Symposium. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, pp. 609-647. NIOSH [1977a]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to asphalt fumes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-106. NTIS Publication No. PB -277-333. NIOSH [I983b]. National occupational exposure survey (NOES) 1981-1983: estimated total and female employees. actual CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 86 observation and trade -name exposure to asphalt and asphalt fumes, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluation and Field Studies, Surveillance Branch. Unpublished data base; provisional data as of 7/1/90. NIOSH [ 1988]. NIOSH testimony to the Department of Labor: Statement of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the public hearing on occupational exposure to asphalt fumes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NTP [1990]. NTP Results Report. Results and status information on all NTP chemicals produced from NT? Chemtrack System. Washington, DC: National Toxicological Program. Puzinauskas VP, Corbett LW [1978]. Differences between petroleum asphalt, coal -tar asphalt, and road tar. College Park. MD: Asphalt Institute. Research Report No. 78-1, 31 pp. Qian HW. Ong T, Whong WZ [1996]. Induction of micronuclei in cultured mammalian cells by fume condensates of roofing asphalt (submitted for publication in Am J Ind Med). Sax NI, Lewis RJ, eds. [1987]. Hawley's condensed chemical dictionary. l Ith ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., pp. 102-103; 290; 320. Sivak A. Menzies K, Beltis K, Worthington J, Ross A, Latta R [ 1989]. Assessment of the cocarcinogeniclpromoting activity of asphalt fumes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science. NIOSH Contract No. 200-83-2612, NTIS Publication No. PB -91-110-213. Tharr DG [1982a]. Health Hazard Evaluation Report: Roofing Sites, Rochester and Buffalo, NY. Cincinnati. OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Report No. HETA 81-432-1105. NTIS No, PB -84-141-860/A02. Tharr DG [ 1982b]. Health hazard evaluation report: McAlpin's Department Store, Cincinnati. Ohio. Cincinnati. OH: U.S, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Report No. HETA 82-034-1121. Toraason M, Bohrrnan JS, Elmore E, Wyatt G, McGregor D, Willington SE, et al. [1991]. inhibition of intercellular communication in Chinese hamster V79 cells by fractionated asphalt fume condensates. J Toxicol Environ Health 34:95-102. Wey HE, Breitenstein MJ, Toraason MA [ 1992]. Inhibition of intercellular communication in human keratinocytes by fractionated asphalt fume condensates. Carcinogenesis 13(61:1047-1050. Wolff MS. Herbert R. Marcus M, Rivera M, Landrigan PJ, Andrews LR [1989]. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) residues on skin in relation to air levels among roofers. Arch Envir Health 44(3):157-163. Wong 0, Bailey WJ, Amsel J [ 1992]. Cancer mortality and incidence in mastic asphalt workers [letters]. Scand J Work Environ Health 18133-135. Zey JN [1992a]. Letter of July 10. 1992. from J.N. Zey, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies. to Forrest Cash, Quality Control Department. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Zey JN [ 1992b]. Letter of July 27, 1992, from J.N. Zey, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies. to Blair B. Bury, Vice President of Construction. Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Hopkins, Minnesota. Zey JN [1992c]. Letter of August 14, 1992, from J.N. Zey, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, to Gerald D. Jordan, Branch Manager, APAC Mississippi, Inc.. Greenville, Mississippi. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 87 Amar can ]ours?1 of Industrial Mechei.ne 2,6:72I-140 (199a) ARTICLES Cancer Risk in Asphalt Workers and Roofers: Review and Meta -Analysis of Epld?rnlologic Studies Tama Partanert, 1511), Mkt, lied Paolo Soffetta, MD, MPH Twenty cpldernologic studies have described dancer risk in asphalt wasters and rooters ht various countries. A current C0»cern for these workers is the potential carcinogenicity posed by inhalation or bitumen fume= or dermal exposure to h:turnens. B it:zrncrs *re Chemically different from many Carcinogenic coat-usr based materiels, BDL have been amptoyed in mad paving and wFatcrpvaftng. We examined and combined are results of the epidcmiologlc studies ebndtscted on asphalt workers and roofers. We examined the tan;,er risk separates}' in three broad job caeca^_ries: Ih roof rs (t.",posed to h?turner, fusnts and previously often 10 coil.tar fames): 2) highway maintenance workers . (HMWs) and road pavers (deposed to bitumen fumes as well as possibly Coal -tar fumes ioutily); and 3) miscellaneous and unspecified bitumen.'asphalt workers, In roofers, •xrt increased risk was suggested Cor ce;necrr or the lung (aggregated relative risk 1.8, V.5% confidence lmcrvai 1.:+-2 t). sror,:r:l,, ti .7, 1.1-2.51, nonmelanoma skin (4.0, 4.$-12), end leukemia {1.7- 0.9-2.91. Some of the excesses may be attributable to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (FAH) from call -tar products. The aggregated rela- tive risks in road pavers and HMW; were coszi;tently lower than in roofers for cancel of the tun; (0.9. 0.K -1,U), stomach (1.1. 0.8-1.5). bladder (1.2. 0.7-1.8), skin (2.2., 12-3.71. and leukemias (1-3. 0.9—i.8). Their risi•: of skin canter was significant)) increased. bast -d On one study. Miscellaneous end unspcci cd worker's had i sistnlfacant excess (1.5, 1.2•-I.a) of tun: cancer_ The date were poorly fotul.td to sddre;s the carcinogenicity of bitumen fumes. UN t;antrasied with cal'-dtrived exposures, For the prospect of shedding matt lishl an the bituni_c,-cancer controversy, the feasibility of a powerful m;tltieentzr cohort is currently being studied by the international Agency for il:cscarth on Cancer (1ARC), r. tu'l: W'ti;y-Li i. lac, Key s' rds: itiphatl, bitumen. tar. renters, pavers, epidemitt10u, conccr. resicu , mrta-anall.sh Unit or ttnelytictl Ellidemiulu y. international Agency for Research on Cate,-. Lynn. Fryrsce Aeparment or Epidcnaluingy and alostutihltc,, lnstitt+ts of Occupational Health. Helsinki. Finland rr.P.1. Addr`xF rsprlrll requests to NoloBei eti:t, In;arnationat A;eney ler Research on Closer, ISO Court. Ashen -proatlas. 1` 119)72 Lyon CeJex Rh. France. Abbreviaeinns t1 sP, BCnkt+ {n) p rcnc: Ci. con:idence int rvxl; CONCAN'E. Oil Companies' European Organi5utiun For Envim.rnentll and ltrslih Prateelian; F. dcgrce; of freedom: E. c ncd ntenaaer ur expvzec' CUSCN {Lc.. Cit,•a fsltias: Ir an lktuRarsn,la: caw -i :yr, EAPA. Europeats ASpr&i Patvemer.: Acroci;ttion: L'UgourrvMn: Cuntpeun elv,,ntt_n HMW, hilt tray tttaimenunce wort en IARC, UntcrrtutinnnI Alters.,:}' for Rotinn:11 t n t'umcr. Cl, tlSvrrtxi nunitrr of exposed gores (Le., fila falling In sett uccupaiiun;LP c:ttcistryt: OR, odds treks; PAH. polycrelic ;measle kydmesrbN' PMR. prsrs.-tinntl mnnp111y mein; RR. relative,risk; S1Fa, ,. uthitdlxed ineuicnec rwtin: SNIP.. isundurelie.;i tnttnaliay tulles: TWA, tioso-Wtig;ttcal ureraes, Arccpl: d fur publication February it 1944, p IPA Wiley -Liss, inc. Risk of cancer/ illness from asphalt CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 88 Link back to "Health" Science says cancers and illness are linked to asphalt and hot asphalt fumes: *********************** A powerpoint presentation on health and asphalt is available as an attachment at the bottom on this page. ************************ There is a growing list of scientific papers that conclude exposure to hot asphalt emissions can significantly increase the incidence of many types of cancers above background. There are no studies on children near asphalt plants, although there are various reasons (age, metabolic rate, body proportions, activity levels, growth rates) why children can be more susceptible to carcinogens than adults. Like many long tern studies on cancer, it may take a generation or so before we are aware of the full consequences and dangers of exposure to certain chemicals from asphalt plants. We expect the evidence for asphalt to lag several decades behind that for cigarette smoking (only recently did "big tobacco" stop refuting the health risks from smoking). Many new scientific papers now find a connection between cancer and asphalt, but some of the early and some current studies do not detect associations or strong associations. It is universally agreed that exposure to chemicals in asphalt causes cancer in animals. Components of asphalt fumes, including benzene are highly carinogenic (we even know how these chemicals biologically induce cancer). Overall, the fact that we are now seeing evidence of increased cancer risk in humans from a number of studies on asphalt is troubling and points to even stronger associations as populations age and we get more data, So if some papers say yes, and some no, about asphalt causing cancer in humans, which do we go with? Some studies say several fold increase, some say 10-5D% increase in cancer rates. What do we do? Toss a coin, take a bet about our children's future? If we bet no effect, and find out that these negative papers were funded by asphalt industries, then we've failed to take a precautionary approach for our children. If we beton low levels of cancer rates, then how many collateral deaths are worth it for the sake of having an asphalt plant dose by? Overall, all agree that asphalt fumes contain strongly carcinogenic material (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs). The disagreements seem to be over the level of exposure that causes a specific and public health risk. This is why the issue of stiil air over Kunda Park especially in winter is such an important issue, as the still air and temperature inversions will greatly magnify the concentration of carcinogens, and their risk. -benzene-and-cancer (1 of 8) [8/412011 4:31:02 PM] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 89 ca m-0 0 U.3 0 0 a C m t v a7 •�' c a) o w 1213 "E Q o a> no - is D t c `) 10 NI a aJ Y E - pa.. UJ = 0, ,a (v n cu a m (u - a- c m 0 a) — = -c a) c0 -t = ?� (a - en -CI a) 0, c (a ra L E W m a c .c, c a, u, > a1 co 3 u 0) CD - C/3 C 15 .c _ -0,.., -= = tti 67 0] CQ7 - 0 `=--- U) {a - co aJ C -U J C? E n. aJ 0 ro o as a) v, - C 0 C - Ca QJ - 3 A 7 m a 0 C on CO.- aD C2. C] b7 r Y aS 4'Q- N L 'c- 0 v a) (7i u�7 [a Q7 0- - _ a] a) u7 CD 0 b CA - [0a U Cil -.0 -C C p N a) a`J F- p 7) 4 g., C u: a Ca C(,.T U (i ] (a Cf � U aJ 0J (i) Q iT C a) L1 1'' ay c� o c [) E .63 E .0 ca -` _ N Q - U ai U _c = = u3 {� a = rA - 0. a 0 U. a) 5 4f (a 0 g 0) c co .- o ->1 e - co a a) C w C �- C cu 0 Cp 0U N N 1C c0i us Co a' c -o 0 -a (n v' `U (a O a to CCS -o a) C E o Ca -0 a1 O (n -0 aJ O al y p c 2 - 3 N .( a m C4 u`5 a� - E `n (a 5' a -U 7 O -0 C 7 C fly a) (A Q d 0 [_7 C C a3 Q c[a. 0 a] E -o E 40 CD 0 .- V7 Q E C) 0 a] (, E a Ca •try o - a) `) u, ca Q a) p C O ui 0 C a7 o U E C Ca C3 E w Teo (a O C 5 E ,,`` •/ V3 a) utt La CL N a'a Ca a(3 n in •c d Tc ca a) E E O Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc,com) CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 90 The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com), Serving Pottstown, PA Print Page News Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal Sunday, April 5, 2009 By Evan Brandt e b ra n dt© pottsm erc. com NEW HANOVER — Signing a proposed settlement with Gibraltar Rock to end litigation over the quarry the company wants to build off Route 73 may obligate the township to support an application for an asphalt plant likely to spew dangerous chemicals into the air. According to the proposed agreement made public by the supervisors, if the settlement is approved, "the township shall support Gibraltar Rock's applications for air quality permits for a hot mix bituminous concrete plant," among other applications. In the proposed settlement, the township would also "agree that it will not object to or oppose any permit applications or permit modification applications by Gibraltar Rock related to the activities contemplated by this agreement." Robert Brant, the attorney who has been negotiating on behalf of the township with Gibraltar Rock's lawyers for more than a year, said he is not sure that language would prevent the supervisors from objecting to increased air pollution from an asphalt plant. "I don't know if the agreement gives (Gibraltar Rock) carte blanche to any permits at all times," he said. Brant said in the past, when discussing pollution from the blasting and rock crushing operation neces sary to a quarry, the township used a consultant who specializes in air pollution. But Christopher Mullaney, the lawyer representing the Ban the Quarry group, thinks differently. What will govern what the township government can say and do is not what a consultant says Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc,com) about the air pollution that comes with an asphalt plant, but what thect'etterlieritililrfguage says the township must do, Mullaney suggested. "The proposed settlement would mandate the township supervisors to support that application," Mullaney said. "It says 'shall' right there in the language. That doesn't give you a lot of options. I think the township wouldn't be allowed to object." The substances to which township officials might not be able to object include an alphabet soup of chemicals classified by the federal government as hazardous air pollutants, or HAPs, and volatile organic compounds, also known as VOCs. Lynda Rebarchak, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Southeast Regional Office in Norristown, said no application related to the asphalt plant has been filed yet by Gibraltar, but one is expected. The permit her office oversees is an air quality permit, one of two the company had to obtain from the DEP for the mining portion of the project. A separate permit, complete with public hearings, would be required for the asphalt plant. Hot -mix asphalt plants come in several varieties, with several types of fuel to provide the heat -- some are even mobile — and as such their emission profiles differ. Rebarchak was reluctant to characterize what sort of emissions might be regulated under a permit for which no application has been made, but said generally, every asphalt plant emits carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide — known as "NOX and SOX" — and volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a little more specific, issuing in 2000 a report assessing the most common emissions from hot -mix asphalt plants. The primary variables that dictate emissions are the type of mixer, "drum mix or batch mix," the type of fuel used for the dryer, oil or natural gas and the size of the plant or how much material it processes, according to the EPA study. About 70 to 90 percent of the plants surveyed in 1996 use natural gas as a dryer fuel, the EPA found. According to the EPA, "a typical batch mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil -fired dryer emits over 74,000 pounds per year of criteria pollutants and a typical batch mix plant using a natural gas fired dryer emits over 56,000 pounds per year od criteria pollutants of which approximately 41,000 pounds per year are (carbon monoxide) and approximately 10,700 pounds per year are PM -10 emissions." PM -10 emissions are particulate matter, or dust, of 10 micrometers or Tess. Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com) In addition to the larger volume pollutants mentioned above, the EPAcarstilblihttittibt a typical batch mix plant emits 1,500 pounds per year of volatile organic compounds, whereas the average drum mix plant emits 10,000 pounds of VOCs per year. For example, in terms of sulfur dioxide, the average drum mix plant emits 2,200 pounds if its dryer is oil fired and 710 pounds if it uses gas. The average batch mix plant emits 8,600 pounds of sulfur dioxide a year if its dryer is oil -fired and 480 pounds per year if it uses gas, the EPA concluded. As for volatile hazardous air pollutants, the typical drum plant emits 1,800 pounds into the air per year if its dryer is oil -fired and 1,200 pounds per year if it uses gas. The average batch mix plant emits 760 pounds of volatile hazardous air pollutants into the air, no matter what fuel is used in its dryer, the EPA reported. The effects of these pollutants on human health is not entirely explored or known, although many of them are believed by the federal government to exacerbate breathing problems and asthma, and some are even considered likely carcinogens. For example, at high concentrations sulfur dioxide "is considered immediately dangerous to life and health," according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. According to data collected from the Occupancy Health and Safety Administration "long term exposure to persistent levels of sulfur dioxide can also affect your health." Tests using low-level exposure on guinea pigs found changes in their ability to breath deeply or as much air per breath, reports ATSDR, which also noted "children may be exposed to more sulfur dioxide than adults because they breath more air for their body weight than adults do." Also, "it is known that exercising asthmatics are sensitive to low concentrations of sulfur dioxide," the agency reported. Concerns about the effect of quarry operations on asthmatic children at New Hanover/Upper Frederick Elementary School and the Perkiomen Academy, both of which are within a mile of the site of the proposed quarry and asphalt plant, have been raised by residents at several public meetings. In addition to small amounts of lead, mercury and arsenic, the EPA study also found most hot mix asphalt plants also emit a long list of other volatile hazardous air pollutants in varying amounts. Among the highest are ethylbenzene, xylene and formaldehyde. According to ATSDR "health statements" on ethylbenzene, Tong -term exposure in the air caused kidney damage in animals and "potentially irreversible damage to the inner ear in the f Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com) hearing of animals." CNEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 93 More worrisome is the fact that the International Agency for Research on Cancer "has determined Tong -term exposure to ethylbenzene may cause cancer in humans," according to the ATSDR. According to the same agency, the effects of long-term exposure to xylene at low levels is not well -studied, but there is some information if can cause damage to the nervous system if inhaled. "Animal studies showed that xylene absorbed by the mother can cross the placenta and reach the fetus" and some studies found the offspring of those mothers sometimes have reduced body weight and trouble with motor coordination. The ATSDR also reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services "has determined that formaldehyde may reasonably be anticipated to be a numan carcinogen." Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer "has determined that formaldehyde is probably carcinogenic to humans," a conclusion also reached by the EPA. "Some studies of humans exposed to lower amounts of formaldehyde in workplace air found more cases of the cancer of the nose and throat than expected," but other studies did not find the same results, the ATSDR health statement says. While all of the information provided here is in the public domain, some question whether the New Hanover Township Supervisors would be permitted to raise objections based on these or other factors if the proposed settlement is ultimately approved. There are several asphalt plants in the region, including in Upper Frederick and in Bechtelsville. Ron Comisky, executive director of the Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Association, said that there are about 137 asphalt plants in the state and that there has been no significant increase or decrease in their number in the past 10 years. URL: http: / / www. pottsmerc.com f articles/ 2009 / 04/ 05/ news/ srv0000005039118.prt © 2009 pottsmerc.com, a Journal Register Property CHEJ Asphalt Fact Rack 94 J3LU RIDGE ENVIDNMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE Central office: PQ Box 88 Glzndaie Springs, '4C 28629 (910)982-2691 fax: (910) 982-2954 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 9, 1997 CONTACTS: Louis Zeller (910) 982-2691 Janet M. Zeller (910) 982-2691 Michelle Kilborne (704) 262-3245 Dale Thompson (704) 733-2478 GROUPS CHARGE MAYMEAD WITH INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS At a press conference today in Boone, representatives of three citizens' groups charged that Maymead Materials, Inc. has a history of noncompliance with Tennessee and Virginia regulations in their operation of asphalt pla.rts.. Representatives of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), Pinecla Concerned Citizens (PCC), and Citizens Against Pollution (CAP) released Notices Of Violations, citizens' complaint records, and legal enforcement- actions from state files in Johnson City, Tennessee and Abingdon, Virginia. Records show violations of permits including excess hourly and total annual asphalt production at plants in Russell_Covnty, Virginia and .Mountain City, Te.4ressee. Other Notices Of Violations included burning 14 waste oil instead of 12 Diesel and visible emissions of 52%. Complaint files included nearby residents reporting frequent odors and dust. Of particular concern to BREDL, PCC, and CAP is Maymead's long history of what appears to be intentional violations. "Flow can any operator burn or buy waste oil without knowing it:" said Lou Zeller, community organizer for BREDL. "In Pineola, NC and now in Mountain City, TN Maymead has been caught burning #4 oil which emits. many -more- CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 95 -2- more toxic air pollutants than their permitted fuel." In a letter dated April 9 to Alan Klimek, head of the NC Division of Air Quality, Zeller wrote, "Maymead cannot be trusted to operate asphalt plants in residential communities in North Carolina; their history.of violations in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina reveal a disturbing pattern of willful noncompliance." Zeller's letter concluded: "On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and an behalf of the Pineola Concerned citizens and Citizens Against Pollution, 1 request that the NC Division at Air Quality deny Maymead's permit application for the Roby Green site and re -open the permit for the Pineola plant. Nothing short of an on-site inspector is adequate to enforce compliance by a company of Maymead's character." Representatives of Pineola Concerned Citizens are gathering data about the adverse health impacts suffered by neighbors of the Maymead plant. A)day CAP launched a health survey which their members will carry door-to-door in the residential communities near Roby Green Road, the proposed site for a new Maymead plant. This survey is designed to identify high-risk citizens who have respiratory diseases, pregnancy, etc. Dale Thompson of PCC reported that neighbors of the recently re -started Pineola plant have experienced odors and witnessed smoke. Re also reported that he and his wife Nancy have had a reduced property value because of the asphalt plant. Other Pineola property owners have also been .assessed reduced property taxes. —ena.— 1-800-222-6514. Clean Air for Calgary thatirry affr•,cts hur?yin heeitr, '15C vrry"i'•frrr C: rd tro, o; onr'n7y Environment Canada `ie`.'.Dha 1 rt -least• it iiitlf gem '.els to ice. a,r ourlrrq [.r+Ja"!c1m,-- each 1C vi'r-, d ::1:r• i••i E PA www.ca[garycfeariair.corn Home What to Do Health Issues FAQ's Contact Us Significant Issues Pertaining to Poor Air Quality in the Calgary Area... # 1 - NW Asphalt Plant Prime Minister Harper has campaigned on the devotion to real, result oriented, environmental policies and against race -biased policies. The question needs to be asked are we violating both of those principles right? in his own riding, allowing this plant to behave in a way that is damaging the environment and making people in the surrounding communities ill. 1 had noticed 1 was breathing a Tittle better and had asked a neighbor if they had also noticed it and their comment was yes —since the plant has closed for the season" "How much longer do we have to wait with this plant. when it would have been shut down if located in any other location?" What to do if you Smell a PetroleurnfDirsel-like ©dour? Environment Alberta cannot keep up with volume of calls, and will only be taking down a count of the number of calls. Please call their Hotline at: roe ng "ews 313012007 - Calgary Clean Air's review of the Final Screening Report for Sarcee Asphalt Plant. " Ultimately, while there is little debate among residents that the major contributing factor to offensive odour and other emissions from this particular facility is its use of "used/waste oil' as its fuel and that a switch to a cleaner fuel such as natural gas or propane would virtually eliminate the odour problem at this facility, and while INAC does not compel the Sarcee Asphalt Plant to switch to a cleaner burning fuel, we must view INAC's requirement that this plant not "cause an offensive odour", with healthy skepticism that the sources of the toxic fumes in our neighbourhoods will actually be mitigated. " Read it here Clean Aar for Calgary 3/16/2007 - CEAA Environmental Screening Report for Sarcee Asphalt Plant is corn pletez iLitAslahiAidizlddt tioW recommended mitigation measures be implemented." Including... "Install and properly operate necessary commercially available pollution control technologies to successfully mitigate offensive odours and emissions. Odours from the plant should not be offensive." read the entire report 3/1/2007 - Federal Clean Air Act - interestingly enough, Jim Prentice's (Minister for Indian Affairs) official web site mentions his interest on Canada's Clean Air Act (read more about the Act here), 110812007 - Here is the letter we sent to Hon. John Baird, the new Minister of the Environment. download VVord version 'ere previous news below Why Does this Smell Occur in the SW? There is an unlicensed asphalt plant located on the Tsuu T'ina Nation, which is owned and operated by the Tsuu Tina Council and CARM- yes. This plant has been operating without any required permits for over 2 1/2 years. According to the Prime Ministers office To remain competitive with other asphalt plants in Calgary, the Tsuu Tina Nation (Council's & Carmacks) plant is using waste oil, whereas other producers rrow use only propane or natural gas, which considerably diminishes the odour emanating from their plants." Are Asphalt Fumes Dangerous to our Health? Asphalt Fumes are Known Toxins "Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities are major sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. Exposure to these air toxics may cause cancer.. central nervous system problems, liver damage, respiratory problems and skin irritation." [EPA] more on Health issues Previous News on the Asphalt Plant 10/23/06 - Sleepless in South Calgary - Calgary Herald - ....the plant burns dirty, used oil rather than cleaner natural gas. The federal government is now keeping the plant open while it assesses emissions. Federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice wants to wait for the results of stack tests. If I built an asphalt plant, without a permit that burned dirty fuel upwind from a residential area and 500 Calgarians complained it was making their children sick, would 1 be granted that leniency? Download 10119/06 - CBC Radio 1 Eye Opener - "I've been thinking about how societies encourage good behaviour. Most start with the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. The Sarcee Asphalt plant, started up in 2004, upwind of Oakridge community, burns dirty bunker oil instead of cleaner natural gas or propane. The Tsuu Tina just never bothered to get the required federal permits and have run the plant illegally for two and a half years. After over 500 Calgarians complained that the plant is making their kids ill, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said he wouldn't shut down the illegal facility, Concerned Calgarians should write to Stephen Harper, whose riding includes all the communities affected by the Tsuu Tina actions, and Jim Prentice, who's responsible for Indian Affairs. Tell them you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore." read the transcript Clean Au for Calgary 10/14!06 - CTV News - Residents experiencing nauseating, burning sensation throughout severifIZAAttleinfratirtilitios98 Complaints received by residents both on and off reserve. Several hundred elementary and pre-school children are be subjected to the Tsuu Tina and Carmarcks un -permitted asphalt plant emissions_ Over 600 health complaints received regarding emission of the asphalt plant, however Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) says results so far are normal and acceptable. Note: None of the tests completed so far deal with the odour and its affects, stack tests will be done sometime in the next 2 weeks according to INAC. 10!05/06 - Calgary Clean presents the public input into the Permitting, EA and Screening process. Download document here 9/26106 Calgary Herald - Asphalt Plant owner and City of Calgary Supplier Carmacks Enterprises Summoned to Court to Face 8 Charges for Failing to Ensure the Health and Safety of Workers - Two local companies could be facing up to $500,000 in fines after a Calgary worker was seriously hurt by an electric shock two years ago. The province has laid eight charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against Carmacks Enterprises Ltd. and D&D Enterprises. The companies are accused of failing to ensure the health and safety of workers, along with other charges. Both companies have been summoned to appear in Calgary Provincial Court on November 10. Carmacks is currently providing to Alberta Transportation the highway maintenance services on the Deerfoot Trail in the City of Calgary Indian and Northern Affairs Commitment - ''The Department will encourage the Nation to operate within the terms and conditions of the permit. but if it is determined that the plant poses a health risk to Nation members or the public, the Department will do everything within its power and authority to have the plant shut down until remedial action is taken." red the entire I4-•tt[rr 9/21/06 Numerous Health Concerns have been Reported. If you live in one of the SW Calgary neigbourhoods affected by the Tsuu Tina Council & CARMACKS asphalt plant (Oakridge, Palliser, Braeside, Lakview, Bayview, CedarBrae, Woodbine) and have experienced unusual health concerns over the summer, you are not alone. Common ailments associated with asphalt plant emissions include: asthma, coughing, wheezing or shortness of breath, severe irritation of the skin, headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Please send an e-mail to infot caloarycleanarr.com with your health issues and contact information. 9/13/06 READ our Responses and Questions (including satellite photos of the site). After careful review of the Tsuu T'ina's Council submitted EA and Screening report, over 8 pages of inconsistencies where uncovered, including: Incorrect distances (the plant is actually 2.5kms from the City, not 4kms as the Tsuu Tina state in the report); the Tsuu T'ina Assessment is silent on the description of the oil products that are being used at the asphalt plant; Contamination of groundwater is a serious matter and has significant adverse environmental effects if not properly mitigated; the Assessment states that trucks leaving the asphalt plant need to travel across a one -lane bridge that crosses the Elbow River, The Elbow River crossing site is immediately upstream of the Glenmore Reservoir and this is the water body used by the City of Calgary as its major source for drinking water for the city's population. Should a malfunction or accident occur due to either spillage or an unfortunate accident with a truck carrying asphalt leaving the bridge and entering the river, this could have significant impact on the water quality; A critical concern lies with the volume and type of oil stored on the plant site and the significant adverse effect that could occur should these tanks rupture or ignite. There is no mention of secondary containment or fire extinguishing equipment or procedures in the Assessment, The resulting potential safety hazard as well as adverse environmental effects would be experienced by both the residents of the Reserve and the City of Calgary (possibly similar to the experience relating to the Nub Oil facility explosion and fire in Calgary, AB). Download Document 9/11/06 Download the Tsuu Tina's Environmental Assessment and Screening Report 9/11/06 Calgary Herald article in City Section - An environmental report completed by the plant operators (Tsuu T'ina and Cara cks Enterprises ) were advised to use cleaner fuels and introduce odour neutralizers to mitigate fume problems. However, the Tsuu Tina and Carmacks Enteprises are clearly ignoring those recommendations by continuing to operate the illegal asphalt plant. Due to jurisdiction issues, the province hasn't been testing on Tsuu T'ina land, but has offered to do so. So far, the proposal hasn't been accepted. Clean Au for Cal gar, 9110/06 - Asphalt Plant is back in illegal Operation!! - After 8 days of clean air, Calgary andCT+'.T>tresiclbrilis9lere once again woken by the toxic smell of petroleum/diesel early Sunday morning. It appears not having a permit, or following the Provincial standards outlined for the operation of an asphalt plant has not stopped the Tsuu T'ina Council and Carmacks Enterprises from operating this plant. 9/8106 Calgary Herald article in City Section - Alberta Environment admits due to jurisdiction issues they have not been testing at the plant site. This is contrary to what Tsuu Tina Nation 's Peter Mannywounds said on the Rutherford show on August 31st, where he indicated that any o e testing agency can come on to the reserve. Read the article 9/6/06 QR77 Radio RUTHERFORD SHOW Interview - Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice confirms that if plant doesn't meet rules it will be shut down. Minister also mentions the asphalt plant could be using waste oil instead of properly scrubbed oil. Caller also says "if this plant was built on City property so close to the Elbow River is would be shut down in a minute."' 8/31/06 CTV News 5pm - Headaches, fatigue, throat and eye irritation plague City residents from fumes coming from an un -permitted asphalt plant on Tsuu Tina. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada spokesperson says funding to the reserve could be affected if this plant does not meet the environmental regulations. Tsuu Tina Nations comment to CTV News: no comment, they are hoping the problem will just go away. 8/31/06 City of Calgary - City Director of Roads says "the City is not purchasing at this time and is awaiting the Environmental report findings.'" 8/31/06 QR77 Radio RUTHERFORD SHOW Interview - Department of Indian and Northern Affairs clearly states a land use permit and environment impact assessment were required from the band before an asphalt plant can be built, they also confirmed this was not done until after the plant was operating. Carrrtacks Enterprise has partnered with the Tsuu Tina Council to run this un -permitted asphalt plant. 8/30/06 CBC News Canada - Paulson told CBC News that while he is concerned about the complaints, there isn't much that can be done right now, adding that the plant is just one of the inconveniences that comes with industrial development.' tvi the emit e story. Listen 8129/06 CBC News Canada - some people in southwest Calgary say an asphalt plant on the nearby Tsuu Tina First Nation has been harming their health, complaining that the aboriginal operators aren't operating under the usual environmental regulations. Alberta Environment officials had been taking air samples but stopped after they were told the reserve falls under federal jurisdiction. (C) 2007 CalgaryCleanAir.com Terms of use. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 100 PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated Dust from Coal -Tar Sea'lcoated Pavement is Widespread in the United States Peter C. Van Metre*, Barbara J. Mahler and Jennifer T. Wilson U.S. Geological Survey, Austin, Texas Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (1), pp 20-25 We reported in 2005 that runoff from parking lots treated with coal -tar -based sealcoat was a major source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to streams in Austin, Texas. Here we present new data from nine U.S. cities that show nationwide patterns in concentrations of PAHs associated with sealcoat. Dust was swept from parking lots in six cities in the central and eastern U.S., where coal -tar -based sealcoat dominates use., and three cities in the western U.S., where asphalt -based sealcoat dominates use. For six central and eastern cities, median ZPAH concentrations in dust from sealcoated and unsealcoated pavement are 2200 and 27 mg/kg, respectively. For three western cities. median IPAH concentrations in dust from sealcoated and unsealcoated pavement are similar and very low (2.1 and 0.8 mg/kg, respectively). Lakes in the central and eastern cities where pavement was sampled have bottom sediments with higher PAH concentrations than do those in the western cities relative to degree of urbanization. Bottom - sediment PAH assemblages are similar to those of sealcoated pavement dust regionally. implicating coal -tar -based sealcoat as a PAH source to the central and eastern lakes. Concentrations of benzo[a]pyrene in dust from coal -tar sealcoated pavement and adjacent soils greatly exceed generic soil screening levels, suggesting that research on human -health risk is warranted. http: .n m.nijpubmed 11)209579 : tea C=171 cra. -e7iEa1-relea,t..•froi_ near'), a -I.al lan _gge CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 101 i _._oro ree LI F -ll [ ..1 LE Ca = : o L1 111 e IT1 C a el ill I. _ C f TT1TTTl n e ne ne n e News Release ori e isc e e-TJT1IL o Ili Increased suicide rate is possibly linked to chemicals released from nearby asphalt plants, study suggests A_ cool of e i ine CIA - __ - : o :re n to le el of ly roger) lfi a an o . - i ly o er air . orne e i :al fro near y a - 1 al lan lay a e on ri e o an in sea e l i e ra :e in a or Carolina o ni y y gge ___ for e fir i l e n e l l era a in --o ali ry _ :C : neig or :oo _ i_ . a fon © e I L er 1 ! , : in ii i lal a year ro g i e e la e i e a _erage -a a e in . o ni y re or -_ lonfir e y ea i _er ifi a e for -a year y e l e 'i-_ge _n iron en al efen a leag e e y' lea a :ori r : i _. ar _ _ ei ler a ln rofe .or of y is ry' a e ni er i y of _ or Carolina a C a "el ill ool of e i ine a _ L n a i an rofe -or of y _ is ry a 1 e ni: er i. y e i al Cen er an of neer __er =olla orabr-in TA re ear=_ ere r ::ona an ' a )_len 1 rofe .prof .y is ry a e ni..er'iy - e:li al Cen er- r.Tynn Cro . y a o i _ologi i 0 eller : ire or_ o e aylor- le era ire or of Clean a er for or_ Carolina eila :Ingle on _e e 1 re ire or of le C e re _=ion an i olar ! - or Allian e an = - eli la _iffier an a - _b ga _in ergra Ia e a ' e ni er i y' i _ola - ool of e n iron en an --i- er in _ern e neig 1 or oo ! o ri.ing -o - len T ra 10 gro LI on cine -.a b al of I re i en - _o ere li ing i = e-ia .ely _o _ n -in _ fro a li T - a ::..1..al :r_ inal an a _ I a1= _o - . i lan _! _ i al 0 on aine a for er C - e ar . en of ran or._a ion of =en -_ on a ina e- lean J .i e ere -_e -_ a re io l ly LE e_- _o) en - 1e for _e _ling a —Lal - a -on a ina e for er .e role _I an far e - een I1 L an -7 LL1Lea er ifi a e e al a .ion _ for _e = o ali - ry neig ] or 00 L o e a - ree fol = a i li :ally _ignifi =an in rea e in = e e ra a Te --i-y fo n 1 Lo -r ea I - y =i i e in a 11:- ere re or e fro e - _ - r en -in -e len_ L ra -lo gra .-1 .11 o ea -1 y i i e in a 1l -_. -ere re er e a ong ___e re i en of en :_1 is T_io-groZ _L my -- o i e 0 1 e e _ Le -:e for i o 1 la ion o era 1 year erio iv 711 _e__ereo-ler__ei C' e _ relca.e " irrea e i i e ra e 1 . o 'i ly lin e : o . e. 1 al Idea e fro near j a _ 1ai17an-: gge ore a. -.le ! ere in :'.e logro. i neig _1 or oo in e _ ii17-1:I e fon one ea - yci=fAi spr act aEleltery a e e I ring ._. e or = i T I -_ on 1 erio Vier ._ . an a erage of one ea :: y 1] i.e fore _ ery i ..eo le in -e re of or Caolina .. ei ler ai I en e a i a a i ga _.e l a 7_e ei ler iai - of : y -rogen Jfi e I _ e o1_ -or : a fre l . en Ty a _ Laren l _ -en li e -ere a _ a 111 _an -1a .er " en _i y o ler l - • o li ie1 in _=e neig -i or oo:_ fro ; L _ 11 ver lea.- in 117 1:: a -year __L1 I:1e _ :C I e_arii en =of .gin .iron: en an a rat e o r e - C _ _ _e_ i. a e _e a erage a i r y rogen ::lfi e le -el in a large lar of ,::e affe _'e=area a .I I: ar er illion I 1 I J ile =o.: e e:'aon-orf e neig Igor o0:_1 ,_ere re_ ore a to a- 11 .L11-1 oreo_er:La:e on Heir o n air - o Ting y 1 :e C e a e . =_a ' i ori al relea e of y rogen Llfi.=e rea _=.e - a erage - a i I_ le el of =- I I .__ in a fe re Len -e ery near .:.e a ', al fa ili ie y - o ari _on e orl eal rgani a ion =a -a 11 in Ie e: Lb__re 7lan _=ar of fi e .. L:1-1 e California one o ran ar i .: , ene _ ly re i e 111 I no ye i _ le :en .e.1.[ - or " Carolina I Lo _ r . y rogen _ lfi e ...an ar i _ _ _e e o re a : 0: anie ' for al .o lain _ _o -e Ci y of _all _illy fro arJi lTiI n [ 1 1 1 1 for no _ o._ o or an _a _o is a re lira ory moo':le: 1'_ .i _i are Ill D1171 rring - -o .g a -a re;Tie Ira e - ai ei Jeri n a pion o gge :ion of an in rea e i i le ran. [ e in i en e ra`e of _i -ary rain "an-er_in -e-e neig [:orioo _i= fro o _ 0 e an in rea e a o 1- I'- i e -grey er _-an eiLe_Telfor __e o i la ion To ii]y _Te o len ene an o __er of en e 1 o re ei ler ai 1 - e _eral :: _. ie -a : e ._ o _. n in :reale _ ra a of l ng an rain an era ong orler = i long: ger _ e lfo re a al e i .- "ion e re -ear :' er__ _ai 1 ei _ler an i 1 ea a ea y o ei al lin _ _-een _y rogen lfi e an -i _i._e l_e n iologi ".al ita. iiiili y __ey no.e a v rogen lfi _e affe rain ne.iro JieL_ i -ry a a ire ga eoil+ne-ro o _ la or a o en idly affe -- - oo.= a e an .e y . ()Logi al :.re re one ;in ani al ie i a een o n o al er ene to ran i .-er era onin nore ine rine ._o a ine a _ ar a e an - gl :a a e le el _ _y_rogen : lfi e al o affe e y -D _ ala i i ._i ary a_renal a i an or i oro in relea ing fa :or in ani al -_Lie __Le re, or=1ai-T e _aria Le rain in of -e in e re ::re _on elan _ e . in i'_._.al o in-ol e_ in _Iy_ ologi al re.Hien .:ylio ea le eal i:- ..-re : or ei .Ier ai [ _fre -L en ly a.. -o is e i _ oo i _or 7er _ an ire are -gge .:ion a re ilien y i i aire en eo le are i i aI .. e ! y ea re .ore a 1-; i.onal ne roo o n -I a en_ene _i-Jlorina a ol..en-.an. ar =on i -Ifi _e_a ang o __er iJlere relea e in n 1 anile - v e a =al er7 inal an _ D. --_ 1 _ a _ Car -on i 71l :e:al o a ne "ro a _n _I a . een lin s._ o er nali y _.anger oo __ i --or ger-an _ i1i e in oma ional a _;ng _-I_e re ear ler ail_ Mi._ a_ Tion I_ o ere -ear _ _-gge TI . a ig -Lay or er :e I Lo _ e o a a al -::-ol en _f1 e _ _ o _ an in -real of T -.i __e ra e _ an . rain an er A f_11 -ara eri a ion of __.e r�_of -.e i..alIan _e Leel:of relea _e _a -.7e li7:1 a -I -al .er inal i nee ei Jail 1 ei ler- Al o nee_e "1Le a 717 Ti re-ro lb_Th-Le grain laver onil inaion _o cling 1_Ly al le - for in 1 1 C7 e _ ar == en of : eal an _L an C e- release hjea-e -s i.e rae [_o- .ii ly n'=e =, n . t alp release £to= near;4 a. 1 17ian' 11Cy _gge CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 103 __ er i l e o _ ore o _. _ le ely n-er �an le =o _ ii7e a .ie of -_eal ro le _ in eaffe e : neig . or 00 ono ; no ifgro n a-er _ o cling lo 1 el 1 n er an -e Ilii e 1 ; ` -in e --ere ere e . o re i o 1 e fl of lo a e __a_- o-eling infor _ a ion e .a e o cling _o 1- er.ainly el i _ in er re ing _e an er a a a - -eo le i rain 1—mg ? loo. 1_1=an=rea i I rea -:-an olon an er a leen or ay la een . ing of en on a ina a ell a er for e _ ten a Brio 11 ei ler ai a i : on ai e a i or an ._ _oin for eo le ore a er i a -effe _ -i e rea ._ en _ e i . T for i i al e re __ion i en -a . i _i e an e a ragi on e _[ ene o e re ion `.eo le o are e. l Brien ing er -en y lo of -ere lion o 1 on a __r..eir cal are ro i ler fora sofe lional a al a ion _ . e ai IL- e fin ing of i y ay =:gge ano it o en ial ri fa nor for i i e Ili -i _ nee J o e onfir e.. in f 1 re _._i ie e o a ane ina leie o0 llna ili a f n .ion effe i ely on e on i ere lea. ra le ; o ial on yo .of e re .. ion in 1 _ e to of in ere in i i ra al g y ly in or or fa - i a ion _an i of_en_ a feeling of o k,r : ne --an e . air: i i - - ` e o _ele Inc .a an lea o _ i i al ..o _ g ' ora lion a i Jon a e A ser on -_i_ a fa ily i _ory of : i i ea e Car ' an le a_1 e ay e a grey er ri - an o _er . _e ai 1- a ling in _:e _ , y fin .-ing ay e en :ally - gge ye anal -er ri fa -or for i i e— a ing f r er y all e _ore i or an ei _ler an .: a _i -on - e i a i e a nee oe I 1 a e re i en of _eaffe e area a o 1 00 an _an ie y -i or -er- a l ell a 1 Lane I e i -or .er _an -eir rea en -- or a1 eat - -: _ie of e o neig i-br -oo 1 an _o _er o en ial i e i e i ale o :. re are eing lanne -a C _ool of li eal e eal - _"a - _of re i en o le _y _ i i e ill -e in a iga e: f r er in - yin of ing r een ing a =-o is e rafe : or of e i e iology an o.__er-_-a C = ool of li eal lignifi an e a e alrea _y een a _en =iai ei -ler 1 re 1: ing o en ially° .o i e . o re fro e in . rial lan anT_ afe lean of -_e of . en an a role 1 on a ina a area i e ill e r t ial _ e _o no no i ien if -er ain y a _-e area . i i =e are lin e'_ _o a ar o..1 e i al e i o. re . e no ena g o re o en a i i no or a -ing any ore .—an eon -e o en ial a to is ion__ ei ler 'mien a -e fin ing _ - a i : 1 o .. e 1' Ann : al i y - is ri an en al eal Congre in an iego Note: _-or a _ia in _ i. irie a o i i nary an - o . ea i ei ler ion a _-Cry==al in -on iller a UNC School of Medicine contact: -ang 1 1 1 1 1 1 111_1 or lltlri4 e 11 e Duke University Medical Center contact: ra ey oe 1 e 1 1_1__ 1 1 I or oe .e y 1Gng _o ay aga.ine _A. -alSgll_Tion 1oCk.'TenC_• rinLt o aga ine are O 1 GHPJ Asphalt F tt Pack itl4 Asphalt Pollution Probe Extends u re ' 1412 o a\ a rtt n A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pollution investigation of asphalt companies, which mix crude oil and gravel to make road -building materials, has expanded from Ohio to Indiana and other states. The agency has ordered pollution tests and company records from two asphalt plants in Illinois and one each in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and in Fairborn, Ohio, near Dayton, The o ; t reported. Two Columbus, Ohio, asphalt companies got similar orders earlier in the year. While the agency hasn't discussed the investigation publicly. the EPA said earlier that demands for internal records are the first official steps taken when it suspects Clean Air Act violations. Ohio has more than 300 asphalt plants. There are more than 1,100 asphalt companies nationwide, many with several operating plants, Plant owners and the industry's trade association said they didn't know the reason for the EPA directives and questioned the cost - "I'm one of 200 or so plants in Illinois," said Stephen Kennedy, vice president of Rock Road Cos., which runs a plant in Rockford_ "I'm wondering why I'm doing this and my competitors are not" Bill Omohundro, a U.S. EPA spokesman, would not comment about the expanded investigation, the newspaper said. Omohundro could not be reached for comment July 5th. The letters sought new air -emission tests for soot, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. Companies must provide information about modifiers put into Liquid asphalt and about the fuel burned to keep asphalt from hardening. Alvin Evans, chief operating officer for J.H. Rudolph & Company Inc. in Evansville, Ind-, said he was asked to test for things the state doesn't require. He said Indiana requires estimates of volatile organic chemicals. nitrogen oxides and sulfur emissions. "We've asked for an extension of the time period we've been given," Evans said. The other companies facing directives from the EPA were Central Specialties Inc. of Alexandria, Minn., Ajax Materials Corp- of Warren, Mich., Barrett Paving Materials Inc. of Fairborn and Chester Bross Construction of Loraine, III., the newspaper said. None could be reached for comment July 5th, Gary Fore, vice president of environment and safety for the National Asphalt Pavement Association, called the letters unprecedented and said his group would discuss them with the EPA. Fore said the industry has worked for 10 years with the EPA on studies that show asphalt plants are not major sources of pollution, Theresa Mills, director of the Buckeye Environmental Network, and Simony Vaclavikova, a program director for Ohio Citizen Action, say the tests might not cover all the hazardous substances asphalt plants emit into the air_ Both said neighbors began to complain about asphalt plants in Ohio around 2000. Mills suspects complaints might be linked to the used oil some plants burn as fuel or new modifiers put in the asphalt. The industry -supported Asphalt Institute said asphalt is the environmental choice of highway builders because, in part, c y long o ay as^a ine A al ' all ion ru e it can be colored to match the surrounding environment and, without seams like concrete sections814AmIgfriiiklirPack 105 amid heavy truck traffic. o to e CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 106 BLUE RIDGE E j . 1 ONIENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE Central QT. PO Bar 3$ Giecd.ale Spn.gs, NC 23629 (910) 9$2-2691 rax: (910) 932-2954 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACTS: JULY 24, 1997 Dr. Richard Maas (704) 251-6441 Lou and Janet Zeller (910) 982-2691 Dale and Nancy Thompson (704) 733-2478 Dotnna Autrey (704) 733-5653 Ron Chivers (704) 262-0070 CARCINOGENS DISCOVERED NEAR MAYMEAD PLANT Today at a press conference in Pineola in Avery County, citizens' organizations released laboratory test results showing both drinking water well contamination and surface water pollution. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Pineola Concerned Citizens. and Citizens Against Pollution pointied to the large Maymead asphalt plant as a likely source of the contamination. Test results of water samples taken from the well of Dale and Nancy Thompson and from area streams show high levels of formaldehyde. The Thompsons live next to the 325 ton per hour Ma_ymead plant. Asphalt plants area major sauce of formaldehyde, which is highly soluble in water. The laboratory test results were reviewed by Dr. Richard Mass, a leading water Quality expert and head of the Environmental Quality Institute at UNC -Asheville. Dr. Maas concluded, 'The analysis shows a severe level of contamination by formaldehyde which is a ka.own carcinogen." The Thompsons' well water test results revealed .22 mg(L of formaldehyde. Water samples gathered from a pond and streams which drain the asphalt plant area were also high ty contaminated with .23 mg/L of formaldehyde. -rnore- CHU.1 Asphalt Fact Pack 107 page 2 The citizens' groups called for an immediate shut down of the Maymead plant, for the installation of groundwater test wells around the facility, and for testing of all drinking water wells within one-half mile of the plant. Lou Zeller, community organizer for BREDL, said, "The state of North Carolina has permitted this plant and the state must take action. now to assess the damage to the people of Pineola." Zeller cnatinued, "Slate air and water permits must mean that the environment and public health are protected." In the next two weeks, the groups expect the North Carolina Division of Air Quality to release xis decision about a proposed Maymead asphalt plant cast of Boone. According to the draft permit, that 150 ton per hour plant could release OVLr 3,000 pounds of formaldehyde s n n ually. Ron Chivers of the Watauga -based Citizens Against Pollution, called on the state to deny the new Maymead permit. Chivers said, "We implore you to remember your own mesion goals, to preserve first and foremost the health ani ;welfare of the people you serve." The Avery County Board of Cornrolssioners has requested a full toxic inventory of pollutants coming from the Pineola plant. The NC Division of Air Quality has not yet issued that report. State officials are also conducting a health risk assessment for the Pineola community. -end- CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 108 Childhood Brain Cancers Near Asphalt Industry in Salisbury, North Carolina A LIIIIR:frolE a aeranliihn OrMiliar ei ler Dia DiEge OnCironEen al _efen -e "eagle Health Problems lbJeaaliCanar Da o Dar year=bry rare I 1 11E0)00 .1-ain nLrLIE aen oDiaring a0 ra@DI:DdlEeDDIalTelJiDin lIrtec an =RID:linear aaililDilan110anID linlikaDgroEtil I Ia@r arnDinalbrialDin d ilfor0 DillDMID IlifiNJ of o 1111 fold cirloElere i.13nCifiel:1 Ey a lone I=Lyalan an D D ay al arellilnal anal anier ralbE o DCS agelof JEe I [ ilEten Liagno _e Di al dain Tan -er—IDere 1_1_1 Llinn o pa ra of DorLiEiljt Day in of _Je 1 rain an er in Jail -ay Dere agnoUtlillielTeen 111 anLJLH 1 11LII1LlJof _e an er _ ere iagnoDin LLL neap 1-16Cen yearElEaDreen I 111 lanD 1 LI 1 ▪ I:Ter DealELD Era 1 [ 1 1 1 J a e of an er of .Je 1 mg Eian7reallitmEDooD14111D aLlear GiE indeare,"[ e a Le of e y _e liof dm i inaionIMITer aa11101toEleDDinJA:ing LearD li_ea _CaTro c al NI I alflaei in!'roiL1EiLaE are of greamEernD • Ci Ten aflan of A Dibn o l-Tel=1. of :orn-Carolina faille] 0 aowli1 1 Ile Leal ClEof re:Jana-of LI ilforD _Len o no client 11:107e DC illearEflenDaf DriCironDenDan0Dallial De5bErIaLiDill oneiIy aII1 LL riliMfroD LII I 1 t-Oi Cal MiE&DELIEllaa Bbnilina@DEIBEribEDIIhi51r11 • aE1lidEin11111Try anD a EC ilearEEenEbf DranlIbrIltabn ata faile0 Bean iTlEITIDenEironflen121 i a 1r anLi L1aE El area Ilife for reCiandiE o 0111Dalb1y[ 1 11 im eaIoffi ial nee0 L-triofrea7trilILIEttJ1mlinvan111 Eii a LIoar --eam o Da Elan iDEd a i _in LC iEniflLion of reCiEen Milan:Dorftr100 aa Lien el Itlfel CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 108 Childhood Brain Cancers Near Asphalt Industry in Salisbury, North Carolina Adapted from a presentation by Dr. Richard Weider Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League January 2003 1-Iealth. Problems Increased Cancer Rate • Over the Iasi live years, very rare childhood brain cancers have been occurring at rates 11 times that expected in three census tracts near asphalt plants and untreated groundwater contaminated sites in the Milford Hills community of Salisbury. o The four cases were identified by a lone physician and may underestimate the actual cancer rate. o The ages oldie children diagnosed NA iili brain cancers were 3, 9. 1 1, and 16. • The rate of morbidity may be increasing: 14 of the 19 brain cancers in this survey were diagnosed between 1995 and 2002. Just 5 of the cancers Gere diagnosed in the previous seven years. between 1988 and 1995. • Other Health Problems o Rates of cancers of the lung, pancreas. and blood system appear to be increased. o Because of the types of contaminatim other health problems including heart disease, stroke. asthma. diabetes, and thyroid disease are of great concern. • Citizens' Plan of Action o The State of North Carolina failed to protect the health of residents of Milford Hills. Citizens do not believe that the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources will honestly assess the true risks from the chemical poisons that have contaminated this community. o The asphalt industry and the NC Department of Transportation have failed to clean up this environmental disaster and make the arca safe for residents. o Ultimately, public health officials will need the help of residents past and present to do a proper health study. o Our plan is to assist in the identification of residents and workers who have been exposed. 1 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 109 The Polluters • Chevron Asphalt o Poisoned the air. water. and soil for about 45 years with benzene, solvents. asbestos, lead, cadmium, dangerous fine particles, hydrogen sulfide, and other cancer-causing chemicals by the manufacture of "cutback asphalt." o Illegally delayed reporting dangerous contamination nine years after finding it, never reported friable asbestos, and never notified workers or neighbors who were exposed, o Never controlled or treated toxic plant emissions. • Exxon Mobile o Poisoned the underground water supply and soil with acres of oil products for many decades. o Contaminated the air with dangerous chemicals from old storage tanks, spills. and leaks. o Emitted benzene at levels 1,233 times about maximum acceptable levels next to a Little League park. o Never informed residents or elected officials about the exposure and associated health risks. • NC Department of Transportation o Contaminated shallow and deep groundwater supply for decades. For example, trichloroethylene levels in well water reached 7,600 ppb (the acceptablc. maximum is 2.8 ppb). o Failed to properly limit or advise monitoring for dangerous solvent exposure of workers or residents. o Never told residents or city officials of the risks. o Delayed cleanup, which remains inadequate. • Associated Asphalt o Released immediately life threatening hydrogen sulfide into the air measured at 2,400 ppm on-site, triggering asthmas at great distances from the plant. o Emitted sickening odors that permeated homes and drove people indoors. o Poisoned the air with dozens of toxic chemicals. o Unlawfully removed asbestos -insulated storage tanks and pipes in 1998 without permits. o Scrapped carbon air filters and replaced with ineffective Ecosorb system to save money. o Grossly under -reported toxic releases. 2