The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About790395 BEFORE THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO IN THE MATTER or ) FINDINGS OF FACT , RULANDA FEEDS . INC, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAO RLVJCATIJN OF EMISSION ) AND DECISION AND ORDER PERMIT NO. C- 11 , 328 ) THIS MATTER HAVING COME CN for nearing he fare the Colo- rado Air Pollution Control Commission ( the Commission ) on February 15. 1979 to consider the request of Rolando Feeds . Inc . (Rolando Feeds ) to re-consider the order of the Commis- sion issued January 25, 197-9 affirming the decision of the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health ( toe Division ) and revoking the air contaminant emission permit ( No. 0-11 , 328 ) under -which Rolando Feeds is operating ; AND, Rolando Feeds being represented by Anthony V. Larlengo, Esq . and Albert G. Dekose , Esq. , and the Division acing represented by the Col orada Attorney General , through Hubert A . Forbes , Jr . , First Assistant Attorney General , and Lawrence A. DeClaite. Assistant Attorney General ; AND. having heard the testimony , reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing, and considered the statements of counsel . the Commission hereby makes its findings of fact , conclusions of law , and decision and issues the following order in this matter : E1�21U��_QE_EAc1 1 . In April of 1976 , Rolando Feeds was discovered ny representatives of the Weld County Health Department to oe operating a poultry waste drying facility , an air contami - nation source . at 6509 Weld County Road 51 , Kennesburg, Colo- rado, without having obtained a valid emission permit there- for from the Commission . Representatives of the Weld County 790395 PLUs4O lealth Jepartment assisted officers of Rolanda Feeds in the preparation of an application for an emission permit for operation of the poultry waste dryer then heinl operated by olanda 'Feeds ( unit No. 1 ) . Said application was submitted to the Uivision , as a result of which emission permit number C- 11 , 169 was issued with initial approval to Rolanda Feeds on august 10, 1976 for operation of Unit No. 1 . Said Unit No. 1 is not now in operation and has not been in operation far more than one year as of the date of this hearing. 2 . By application dated March 7 . 1977 , Rolanda Feeds apolied for and was given initial approval by the Divi - sion on March 25 , 1977 of emission permit No. C- 11 , 328 for operation of a nc,ch larger poultry waste dryer ( Unit No. 2 ) . 3 . Prior to final approval of sail permit No. C- 11 , 328 , representatives of the Division and the Weld County Health Department discovered Rolando Feeds to be operating its Unit No . 2 in violation of the provisions of Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 1 , section 1 . A . 1 . ( station- ary air contamination source opacity reyulation, limiting the opacity of emissions from air contamination sources to 20% opacity ) on June 14 , 1977, with emissions from the facil - ity being recorded with opacity from 35% to 50%. As a result of said violation , representatives of the Division initially recommended denial of final approval of emission permit No. C- 11 . 328 ; but after conference with Rolanda Feeds , recom- vended )ranting of final approval conditioned upon Rolanda reads ' installation of certain air pollution control equip- ment ( venturi scrubber ) at its facility , which installation was undertaken and completed . 4 . Prior , however , to final approval of said permit No. 0- 11 , 326, representatives of the Weld County Health Department again discovered Rolanda Feeds to he operating its Unit No. 2 in violation of the Commission ' s regulations . -2- in November lb, 1977 . said Unit No . 2 was operated by Rolando Feeds in violation of the provisions of Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 2 . section A . ( 3 ) ( b ) (manufacturing Process and agricultural operation odor emission regulation makin_( it a violation to cause or allow emissions with odors detectable after the odorous air has been diluted with 127 _or more volumes of odor free air ) with odors from the facil - ity being detected after the odorous air had been diluted witn at least 170 volumes of odor free air . 5 . On November 21 and 22 , 1977 , source tests were conducted at the kolanda Feeds facility by Envirn- Test, Ltd . of Lakewood, Colorado and monitored by the Division for determination of whether said operation could he con- ducted in compliance with all applicable emission standards and regulations of the Commission. Said tests were conducted under certain measurable conditions and demonstrated that the facility could operate in compliance with applicable Com- mission regulations under those conditions. In light of pre- vious violations and to help insure operation in compliance witn applicable standards , the permit was specially condi - tioned to require, inter_@li .d, operation of the poultry drying facility under the same conditions under which the source tests were conducted ( specified dryer temperature . scrubber water f_eedrate, raw material feedrate, and concen- trations of certain chemicals in the scrubber feedwater ) . Final approval of the permit was ,ranted by the Division on November 30, 1971 subject to ten ( 10) conditions . At the request of kolanda Feeds . condition number nine ( 9) was changed and an amended final permit issued January 25 . 1978 . Said amended permit is the subject permit of the hearing and is subject to the following special conditions : 1 . That the emission rate of particulate matter does not exceed 23 .0 lbs/hr . , and is not greater than 20t opacity ; -3- 2 . That the emission of odorous air con- taminants does not exceed that allowed by Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 2 ; 3. That the feedwater rate to the venturi scrubber be maintained not less than 2s gals . /min . ; 4 . That the scrubber be operated at a pressure differential , measured across the venturi and associated mist eliminator , of at least 6. 6 inches of water ; 5 . That the direct-fired rotary dryer be operated between 200-275 degrees Fahrenheit at all times ; 6. That the direct- fired rotary dryer be operated with a raw material input not greater than 20 TPH ; 7. That the scrubber feedwater be chemi - cally treated prior to injection into the scrubber to control emissions . This treatment shall con- sist of the following constituents at the follow- ing minimum concentrations : (a) Emulsifiable Orthodichlorobenzene at 0. 125% ; (b ) H2S04 at 0.0063%; (c ) Wex at 0.0063%. 8. That a new batch of chemically treated feedwater be made when 75% of the previous batch . has been expended. The above chemicals shall be added to the feedwater tank prior to the addi - tion of any water . A log shall be maintained of when each batch of feedwater is prepared and the quantities of chemicals added. These logs shall be available for inspection upon request . 9. Rolanda Feeds , Inc . , shall submit to the Division, copies of their logs showing -4- • dates , time, quantity of scrubber water additives used , and the name of the individual responsible for formulating the mix . Copies of all purchase orders and invoices for each chemical used in the scrubber water shall be furnished to the Division . These reports and submissions shall -be provided to the Division each month and certi - fied authentic by a company official . ) 10. The Division reserves the right to take whatever samples it deems necessary to ' assure compliance with the conditions of this permit . The Division would not have issued the permit without the above conditions . . 6. On January 30. 1978 , representatives of the Weld County Health Department discovered Rolanda Feeds to be operating its Unit No. 2 in violation of Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No . 2 , section A. ( 3 ) ( b ) , and Condition No. 2 of its permit with odors from the facility being detected after the -odorous air had been diluted with 170 volumes of odor free air . The Division, by letter of February 7 , 1978 advised the company of its intent to revoke kolanda Feeds ' emission permit ( permit No. C- 11 , 328 ) . Rolanda Feeds requested a conference before the Commission to seek review of the Division ' s action. The conference was held April 27 . 197.8 and , upon finding the Division had documented no violations of the Commission ' s regulations or the condi - tions of permit No. 0- 11 , 328 by Rolanda Feeds between the January 30, 1978 violation and the date of the conference . and after hearing assertions from Rolanda that all odors were being fully controlled. and in the absence of any corn- plaints from any resident of the area around the Rolanda facility, the Commission ordered reinstatement of the Permit. 4, Y �7 • • • 7. ( d) On November 8. 1978 , representatives of the weld County Health Department discovered kolanda Feeds to be operating in violation of three of the permit condi - tions . The facility was being operated in violation of Air Pollution o ution Control Commission N Regulationsection A . ! o 2 . A . ( 3 ) ( b ) and Permit condition No. 2 with odors from the facility being detected after the odorous air had been diluted with at least 170 volumes of odor free air ; the dryer was being operated at temperatures ranging from 300 degrees to 400 degrees Fahrenheit for a period of three hours in violation of permit condition No. 5 ; and the chemicals required for odor control were not being added to the scrubber feedwater nor were logs -beingmaintained and made available for inspec- tion concerning feedwater preparation in violation of permit condition No. 8 . Further investigation by the Division revealed that Rolanda Feeds had also failed to file copies of the scrubber feedwater logs with the Division on a monthly basis as required by Condition No. 9 of permit C- 11 , 328 and that the submittals were several months behind . Specifi - cally . as of the date of the Division ' s notice of intent to revoke ( November 15, 1978 ) , the Division had not received logs for any dates after August 13 , 1978. logs for August 14 , 1978 through October 14, 1978 were not received until December 2 , 1978. (b ) Based on the violations of the four permit conditions as detailed in subparagraph 7 ( a) , above, the Divi - sion by letter of November 15 , 1973 nave notice of its intent to revoke Rolanda Feeds emission permit and the factual basis for such action . Counsel for Rolanda Feeds by letter of November 30, 1978 requested a conference before the Com- mission pursuant to C .R .S. 1973 , section 25-7- 112 (4 ) (e ) to seek reversal of the Division ' s action. Said request was granted and a conference was held before the Commission on January 25, 1979. After considering statements from the • -6- • counsel for Rolanda Feeds ( although no evidence of any kind was presented by the company ) , statements of residents of Weld County who live near the Rolanda Feeds facility. and statements and evidence presented by representatives of li local governments in weld County . the Commission affirmed the decision or the Division and revoked Rolanda Feeds ' emis- sion permit subject to the right of the permittee to request o formal hearing for reconsideration of the issue. By letter of January 31 . 1979, Rolanda Feeds , through counsel and pur- suant to I .R . S. 1973. section 25-7- 112 (4) ( f ) , requested a hearing before the Commission to appeal the Commission' s decision of January 25. This hearing. held on February 15 . 1979 was conducted pursuant to Rolanda Feeds ' request and the time , place and nature thereof were properly noticed by written notice dated January 8, 1979. 8 . Since the inspection and violations of November 8 , 1978, representatives of the Division and the Weld County Hlealth Department discovered the following violations by Rolanda Feeds of the conditions of its emission permit No. C- 11 . 328 : ( a) Dn November 30. 1978 the concentra- tion of orthodichlorobenzene (an odor control agent ) in the scrubber feedwater was only . 000009X, in violation of permit condition No. 7 .a. (b ) On January 11 , 1979 the facility was operating in violation of the provisions of the Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation Nu. 2 , section A . ( 3 ) (b ) and permit condition No. 2 (odor ) , with odors from the facility being detected after the odorous air had been diluted with at least 170 volumes of odor free air ; and tt 1 JS the concentration of orthodichlorobenzene in the scrubber feedwater was only .022X. in viola- tion of permit condition No. 7.a. -7- VT 4•�r 7C( ( c ) On January 22 , 1979 the concentration of orthodichlorobenzene in the scrubber feedwater was only .046%, in violation of permit condition No. 7 .a. (NOTE : the inspection on January 22 , 1979 was conducted at the request of Rolando Feeds and Rolanda Feeds had notice on January 19. 1979 of the exact date of the inspection . ) ( d ) On January 23, 1979 the facility was operated in violation of the provisions of Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 1 . . section 1 .A . 1 . and permit condition No. 1 with . emissions from the facility being recorded with opacity from 30% to 40'%. ( e ) On February 14 . 1979 the concentra- tion of orthodichlorobenzene in the scrubber feedwater was only .046%. in violation of permit zondition No. 7.a. Further . on the same date the dryer was being operated at temperatures ranging from 300 degrees to 460 degrees Fahren- heit for a period of two to three hours in viola- tion of permit condition No. 5. Finally , inspec- tors requested to be allowed to inspect the scrubber feedwater logs , but no logs dating after January 22 . 1979 were made available, con- trary to the requirements of permit condition • No. B. ( f ) Scrubber feedwater logs for the period Gctober 16, 1979 through December 31 , 1978 were not submitted until January 19, 1978. As of the date of the February 15, 1979 hearing before the Commission, no logs had been received by the Division for any date after December 31 , 1978. These late submittals and failures to submit the scrubber feedwater logs are in viola- -8- than of permit condition No. 9. 7. All of the above cited violations of Air Pollu- tion Control -Commission Regulation No. 2 . section A . ( 3 ) ( b ) and permit condition No. 2 ( odor violations ) were detected by representatives of the Division or the Weld County Health Department -who mere . at the time of each and every observa- tion of violations certifiej odor observers as required by Regulation No. 2 ; and all such odor observations were con- ducted in accord with the requirements ofi Regulation No. 2 . 10. All of the above cited violations of Air Pollu- Lion Control Commission Regulation No. 1 . section 1 . A . 1 . and permit condition No. 1 (opacity violations ) were detected by representatives of the Division or the Weld County Health r ,P Department who were. at the time of each and every observa- f+ k than of violations, certified opacity observers ; and all pr's! such opacity observations were conducted in accord with the r , . procedural requirements of the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency ' s Method 9 ( for visual determination of the opacity '+pta{' of emissions from stationary sources ) as modified by Air Pol - lution Control Commission {Regulation No. 1 , section I .A . 1 . 11 . With respect to all the above cited odor and opacity violatins , notice of such violations was given to Rolanda Feeds immediately after the violations were detected by supplying Rolanda Feeds with copies of mritten analytical reports of violations ( form APC-55 ) prepared during inspec- tions . Rolanda Feeds -was verbally notified by the inspectors • 41,;1 ' at the time of the taking that scrubber feed-water samples were being taken and in writing by letter -of February 9, 1-979 of the laboratory analyses of the samples for concentra- Ne tions of orthodichlorobenzene in the feedwater ( exc-ept for the violation of February 14, 1979. the results of -which ) _ were not available until the morning of February 15. 1979) . o `p The inspectors verbally notified Rolanda Feeds of violations t " • �IpY of permit condition No. 8 ( availability of scrubber feedwater logs for inspection ) at the tine of discovery of the viola- tions . The Division notified Rolanda feeds of the' violation of permit condition No. 9' ( monthly submittal of scrubber feedwater logs to the Division ) by letter of November 15 . 197d . Rolanda Feeds continuously monitors and records the temperature of the poultry waste dryer on disc graphs during operations, and violations of permit condition Na. 5 were based upon review of Rolanda ' s own graphs . 12 . -when operated in violation of the permit condi - tions . the Rolanda Feeds poultry waste drying facility emits smoke and a highly offensive odor which are detrimental to the health. welfare , convenience, and comfort of the inhabi - tants of the Hutson-Keenesburg area and interfere with their enjoyment of nature, scenery and other resources of the state and the use of their property : (a ) At various times , smoke ( particulate emissions ) from the Rolanda Feeds facility obstructs visibility in the Hudson-Keenesburq area ; (b ) At various times , the odor emissions from the Rolanda Feeds facility adversely impact on the health of some of the residents of the Hodson-Keenesburg area resulting in symptoms which include nausea, vomiting. headaches , muscle tightness , and incoherence ; and, in some cases . trigger allergic reactions which temporarily dis- able the victims thereof and prevent or substan— tially impair their performance of routine activ- � + ities , such as housework and the caring for of one' s family. a ; ( c ) At various times , freshly laundered i clothing left outside on clothes lines and other r objects left outside in the Hutson-Keenesburg area are saturated with and retain for long - ED- kr' rFc rk,gr 9 4 • periods the highly undesirable odor of the poul - try facility as a result of the emission there- from, requiring repeated cleaning and re-cleaning of such property to remove the odors . ( d ) At various times and especially in the summer , the strongly odorous emissions from the Rolanda Feeds facility prevent residents in the Hudson-Keenesburg area from enjoying outdoor activities at their homes such as picnics , bar-b-ques, and "brandings". At various times , the residents are unable to allow the cool summer evening breeze to blow through their homes because of the strongly odorous emissions from the Rolanda Feeds facility. The foul odor at vatious times permeates the -homes of residents in the Hudson-Keenesburg area and sometimes even when doors and windows are closed . At various times the emissions interfere with the local residents ' sleep , meals, -work, recreation , and even family care. 13. Stanley L . Stolte , President of Rolanda Feeds , Inc . , was properly served -with a valid subpoena duces tecum on February 1 . 1979 requiring him to attend the hearing before the Commission and to bring certain documents relating to this matter ( including certain of the scrubber feedwater logs ) . Mr . Stolte neither attended the -hearing nor caused , the subpoened documents to be presented at the hearing. 14. Neither said Stanley L . Stolte nor Lloyd Land, the owners and operators of Rolanda Feeds , attended the February 15 , 1979 hearing. -Rather , Rolanda Teeds was repre- sent-ed only by legal counsel as indicated in the preface hereof . Despite Rolanda Feeds having requested the hearing • before the Commission , Rolanda Feeds presented no evidence at the hearing. In response to the inquiry of counsel for - 11- the Division as to whether Mr . Zarlengo was authorized by nis client to proceed in the absence of Mr . Stol to and Mr . Land , Mr . Iarlenyo responded : Well , obviously, Mr . DeClaire , we /TO here and -we are authorized to do what we are doing. And what we are doing here has been sluilied and calculated and we know what we are going to do here . ( Emphasis added . ) Neither Mr . Zarlengo, Mr . DeRose , nor any other representa- tive of -Rolanda Feeds attended the afternoon portion of thn February 15, 1979 hearing. Rather , Mr . larlengo telephonically advised the Commission through the Commission 's technical secretary , Mr . Joseph Palomba , Jr . , -during the lunch recess that Rolanda Feeds had no objection to the hearing proceedinsl in his absence or that of other representatives for Rolanda Feeds in the event he failed to return to the hearing after lunch. C4UC�Q.S.WNa_QF_LAW In the course of its deliberations and ancillary to its findings and decision and order in this matter , the Com- mission has made the following conclusions of law : 1 . The Division has authority to issue emission per- mits subject to certain terms and conditions as it deems necessary for a proposed project or activity in osier to assure such project or activity will meet applicable emission standards and regulations of the Commission and not interfere 400k" with the attainment or maintenance of applicable ambient air quality standards . If such terms or conditions of the permit are violated at any time , the Division is authorized to revoke such permit . c .R . S. 1-973, section 25-7- 112 ( 4) (d ) . 4�� # r The terms and conditions attached to emission permit No. C- 11 , 328 are _proper and authorized by C .R .S . 1973, section `' 4 r , 25-7-112 ( 4) ( d ) . The Division ' s notice of revocation of ,0;:v:- permit No. C- 11 , 328 was properly based upon violations of l ` ' dV4 - 12- 1';G! ai permit terms and conditions and was authorized by C .R . S . 1973, section 25- 1- 112 ( 4 ) ( d ) . 2 . If the Division revokes an emission permit as specified in paragraph 1 above , the aggrieved party may request a conference with the Commission or a hearing before tine Commission in accord with the provisions of C . R .S. 1973 , section 25- 7- 116 ; and the Commission is authorized to conduct such conference and hearing and to issue orders affirming or reversing the earlier decision of the Division and revoking or re- instating the permit in question. If a conference has been requested in lieu of a hearing and the party whose permit has been revoked is not satisfied with the results of such conference , said party may request a hearing before the Commission in accordance with the provi - sions of C .R .S . 1973, section 25-7- 11-6 for reconsideration of the propriety of the Division ' s permit revocation action . The conference and hearing granted to Rolando Feeds were con- ducted in accord with the procedural requirements of the Col- orado Administrative Procedures Act , all applicable provi - sions of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Act , and provi - sions of the Procedural Rules for Prodeedings before the Air Pollution Control Commission and the Air Pollution Vari - ance Board ( Procedural Miles ) . Orders of the Commission become final upon date of issuance . C .R . S. 1-973 sections 2-5-7-112 ( e) - ( y ) , 25-7- 1D6 ( 2 ) . 25-7- 11th , 24-4- 104 (-6 ) , and 3. Rolanda Feeds has received proper and timely notice of : all violations ( including all odor and opacity violations ) referenced in the Findings of Fact ? Conclusions of Law? and Decision and Order ; the Division ' s revocation ac- tion ; and the time , place and nature of the conference and heariny before the Commission ; all in accord with C .R .L. 4M,; rJDiv p� 1973 , section 25-7- 116 and 24-4- 105 ; and section IV of the 1 " procedural rules . , - 13- k 4 . At all times herein relevant , the provisions of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission ' s Regulation No. 1 . , section I . 4 . 1 . . and Regulation No. 2 . . section A . ( 3 ) ( b ) . and the terms and conditions of emission permit No. C- 11 . 328 have been and are applicable to the operation of and the air contaminants emitted from the Pnlanda Feeds poultry waste drying operation . `i . It is unlawful for any person to operate any equipment or device or conduct any activity which emits air contaminants without a valid emission permit from the Commis- sion , C .R . S. 1973. 25-7- 112 ( 4 ) . 6. An emission permit which has been revoked pur- suant to O .R . S. 1973, section 25-7- 112 ( 4 ) (d ) - (g ) , and Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 3, must be sur- rendered by the permittee forthwith to the Division. Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 3 , section V . E . 7 . The Commission is authorized to issue subpoenas requiring attendance of witnesses and the production of evi - dance. C .R .S . 1973, 25-7- 106 ( 2 ) . The subpoena duds tecum issued and served on Stanley L . Stolte . President of Rolanda Feeds , Inc. on February 1 , 1979 and referenced in paragraph 13 of the above findings of facts is a valid subpoena . prop- erly issued and seemed in accord with the provisions of section VII . B. of the procedural rules and the applicable provisions of rule '.5 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Proce- dare. 41=C1114ti_LND_4RaER Upon formal motion and by majority vote. the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission hereby finds that Rolanda Feeds . Inc . has repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of emission permit No. C- 11 , 328 issued to Rolanda Feeds for operation of a poultry waste drying facility at 6909 - 14- . h weld County Roat1 51 , Keenesburrl, Colorado. The Commission affirms the decision of Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health to revoke air contaminant emission permit NB. C-11 , 323 and does hereby finally revok-e soil air contaminant emission permit No, C- 11 , 329 . Rolanua Feeds is hereby ordered to immediately cease operation of the previously permitted activities , which include the 10 x 42 economy dryer, the cyclone dust collector .and the venture scrubber and associated cyclonic mist eliminator at its Keenesburg poultry -waste drying facility. -Rolando Feeds is further ordered to surrender emission permit No. C- 11 . 32.8 forthwith to the Division . The following members of the Colorado -Air Pollution Control Commission voted in favor of this decision and order : Dr. Myron L . Corrin Mrs. Labotya Garnand L . Michael Henry . -Esq. Mr . Craig M . Weaver Dr . Alfred T-. , Whatley The following members of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission voted against this decision : None DATED this c day of icbru-aey,1979 , u n _QL4tunc to Feuruary 15 , 1979. AIR POLLUTION CONTRUl COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO 4 2P • Alfr d T . hitley , Chairman AG File Na. -CNR/ROLANDA/IMK Rr, f ,v S 13, t tpY t Hello