State watchdog recommends reversal of rock crusher permit near Burnet
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s Office of Public Interest Counsel voiced support for motions filed to overturn a previous decision to grant a controversial rock crusher a permit for a site just south of Burnet. Image courtesy of Randy Printz
A state environmental watchdog group has recommended overturning a recently approved air-quality permit for a proposed rock crusher just southwest of Burnet, marking a significant development in the ongoing battle over the controversial quarry.
In a 15-page letter filed March 28, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s Office of Public Interest Counsel—a third party tasked with representing the general public—said “issues were incompletely addressed and analyzed” and urged the TCEQ to grant the motions to overturn the permit for Asphalt Inc.’s rock-crushing operation, which would be built at 3221 FM 3509 off of Hoover Valley Road. The site is near two state parks and a children’s summer camp.
“OPIC finds that good cause to overturn the Executive Director’s decision exists, based on substantial evidence provided by the Movants that the emission rates and modeling concerns were not fully addressed,” the agency wrote in its formal filing. “OPIC therefore recommends that the Commission grant the motions to overturn.”
The recommendation is in line with a growing coalition of residents, attorneys, and lawmakers opposing the facility due to its proximity to Camp Longhorn, Inks Lake State Park, and Longhorn Cavern State Park.
The TCEQ executive director approved Standard Permit No. 176835 on Feb. 14, giving its go-ahead to Asphalt Inc. to build a permanent rock and concrete crusher capable of operating 2,640 hours a year and processing up to 200 tons of material an hour. More than 4,000 public comments were submitted during the application period, and multiple parties—including state Rep. Ellen Troxclair, resident Myra Allen Habbit, and attorney Larry Black, who represents SaveBurnet.com—filed motions to overturn the decision.
Two other responses, one by Asphalt Inc. and the other from TCEQ Executive Director Kelly Keel, were filed in opposition to the motions to overturn.
Keel defended the standard permit, arguing it already includes extensive safeguards.
“Operation of the plant is protective of human health and the environment,” she said, adding that dust-control measures and monitoring equipment will help keep emissions from the quarry within acceptable limits.
The response detailed that the permit meets National Ambient Air Quality Standards as well as those of the TCEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Keel also noted that the TCEQ does not have jurisdiction to consider concerns such as location, noise and vibration, or traffic issues.
Austin-based Asphalt Inc. held a similar stance against the filed motions.
“TCEQ should uphold the (executive director’s) approval of Asphalt Inc.’s air quality permit because Asphalt Inc.’s operations at the proposed facility will be protective of human health and the environment,” the company wrote.
The TCEQ now has until May 2 to decide whether to uphold or reverse Asphalt Inc.’s permit at an open meeting. If no action is taken, the motions are automatically denied under commission rules.
SCIENTIFIC CONCERNS NOT ADDRESSED
Central to OPIC’s recommendation is a report by forensic meteorologist Dr. David Mitchell, which raised concerns about the emissions estimates used by Asphalt Inc. in its air-quality permit application.
“Dr. Mitchell opined that these calculations produce an extremely low modeled concentration … and believes that it is not scientifically realistic that a facility such as the one proposed … would produce such a low concentration,” OPIC wrote. “Therefore, the calculations presented … are not reflective of the proposed facility.”
The watchdog also criticized the state commission’s limited response to those concerns.
“OPIC is persuaded from the record … that concerns about the emission rates used in the application were not suitably addressed in the Executive Director’s Response to Comments,” the filing stated.
OPIC acknowledged that broader issues, such as silica dust exposure, endangered species impacts, and air-quality monitoring, fall under existing agency standards. However, it maintained that the permit application’s modeling and emissions estimates warrant further review.
“A standard permit is not adjustable, and an applicant must meet the requirements … as is, otherwise the applicant does not qualify for authorization,” the counsel wrote.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
If the TCEQ grants the motions to overturn, it could deny the permit outright or remand the application back to staff for further investigation. If the motions are denied, the permit is granted. Opponents have the option to appeal in district court.
A hearing date has not yet been scheduled, but the commission is required to give at least seven days’ public notice prior to any open meeting, which must fall before the May 2 deadline.
If the TCEQ permit is granted, Asphalt Inc. will still need to secure additional approvals from several other government agencies, including the Lower Colorado River Authority—which it is currently pursuing—the Central Texas Groundwater Conservation District, the Texas Department of Transportation, and potentially more.
3 thoughts on “State watchdog recommends reversal of rock crusher permit near Burnet”
Comments are closed.
Burnet is small little town already handling the overwhelming traffic and Quary’s that exist, sometimes I want to open my windows and get fresh air, the dirt I get in my house is unbelievable just for 1 day is unreal, we already have a water shortage, and I have small Grandchildren that we go to the lake, why would you wanna pollute the air and cause more damage to the human race, fir greed and money this is just to much there’s plenty if other places to do this sort of business, LEAVE OUR SMALL TOWN ALONE PLEASE!!!!!
Not to nitpick but you guys want want to reference a map when describing where these things are. This facility would be located *West* of Burnet, not “south” as stated in the article. There’s several rock/concrete facilities south of Burnet already so if they were located south near those existing facilities I don’t think there would be as much concern.
What benefit does Kelly Keel get out of this?