CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT

COMPLIANCE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

INSPECTION TYPE:	ANNUAL (INS1, INS2)		COMPLAINT/DISCOVERY (CI)		
			RE-INSPECTION (FUI)		ARMS COMPLAINT NO:   10908

AIRS ID#: 1010036  DATE:  03.11.2008	ARRIVE:  1425	DEPART:  1530

FACILITY NAME:  CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, L.P.

FACILITY LOCATION:		9143 Wire Road
		     
		ZEPHYRHILLS   33540

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:  JASON JONES	PHONE:  (813)269-1240

CONTACT NAME:   Jason Jones	PHONE:  (813)269-1240

REMITTANCE YEAR:       	  ENTITLEMENT PERIOD:  9/15/2007	/	9/15/2012
	(effective date)	(end date)

PART I:  INSPECTION COMPLIANCE STATUS (check R only one box)

   IN COMPLIANCE         MINOR Non-COMPLIANCE 	 SIGNIFICANT Non-COMPLIANCE

PART II: TESTING/RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS – Rule 62-296.414, F.A.C.
	(check R appropriate box(es))

	Stack Emissions
	1.  Were visible emissions tests conducted during this site visit according to EPA Method 9 (Ref.: Chapter
		62-297, F.A.C.)?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
	2.	Are emissions from silos, weigh hoppers (batchers), and other enclosed storage and conveying equipment
		controlled to the extent necessary to limit visible emissions to 5 percent opacity?-----------------------------	Yes   No
	3.	During visible emissions tests of the silo dust collector exhaust points was the loading of the silo conducted
		at a rate that is representative of the normal silo loading rate, or at least at the minimum 25 tons per hour rate,
		unless such rate is unachievable in practice?--------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
	4.	Are emissions from the weigh hopper (batcher) operation controlled by the silo dust collector? (If answer
		to this question is “Yes”, then continue on to questions 4.a) and 4.b) below. If answer is “No” then
		skip 4.a) and 4.b) and continue on to question 5.)--------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
		a)  Was the batching operation in operation during the visible emissions test?----------------------------------	Yes   No
		b)  During the visible emissions test, was the batching rate representative of the normal batching rate and
		duration?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
	5.	If emissions from the weigh hopper (batcher) operation are controlled by a dust collector, which is separate 
		from the silo dust collector, are the visible emissions tests of the weigh hopper (batcher) dust collector 
			conducted while batching at a rate that is representative of the normal batching rate and duration?---------	Yes   No 

PART II: TESTING/RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS – Rule 62-296.414, F.A.C. – (continued)
	(check R appropriate box(es)

	Compliance Demonstration - (Rule 62-296.401(5)(i), F.A.C.)
		1.	Is each dust collector exhaust point tested according to the visible emissions limiting standard as part of the
			annual compliance demonstration? (Rule 62-297.310(7)(a), F.A.C.)--------------------------------------------	Yes   No

	New Facilities – (permitted pursuant to Rule 62-210.300(4), F.A.C., Air General Permits)
		2.	Did this facility demonstrate:
			a)	initial compliance no later than 30 days after beginning operation?-----------------------------------------	Yes   No
			b)	annual compliance within 60 days prior to each anniversary of the air general permit notification form
				submittal date?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No

	Existing Facilities – (permitted pursuant to Rule 62-210.300(4), F.A.C., Air General Permits)
		3.  	In order to demonstrate annual compliance, was an annual visible emissions test conducted 60days prior to
		the AGP Notification form submission, and within 60 days prior to each anniversary date?----------------	Yes   No

	Test Reports – (Rules 62-213.440, F.A.C. and 62-297.310(8)(b), F.A.C.)
		4.  Was the required test report filed with the department as soon as practical, but no later than 45 days after the
			test was completed?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No

PART III:  OPERATING/RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS – Rule 62-210.300(4)(c)2., F.A.C.
	(check R appropriate box(es))
	
	1.  Is this facility:   1) a stationary ;   2) a relocatable ; or does it have:  3) both, stationary and relocatable  
		concrete batching and/or nonmetallic mineral processing plants? (Please check R only one box.)

	2.  If this is a stationary concrete batching plant, is there one or more relocatable nonmetallic mineral processing
		plants using individual air general permits at the same location? (If your answer to this question is YES,
		then proceed to questions 2.a), thru  2.d),) below.)----------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
		a)	Are there any additional nonexempt units located at this facility?------------------------------------------	Yes   No
		b)	Is the total combined annual facility-wide fuel oil usage of all plants less than 240,000 gallons per
			calendar year?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
		c)	Is the quantity of material processed less than ten million tons per calendar year?----------------------	Yes   No
		d)	Is the fuel oil sulfur content 0.5% by weight or less?---------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No

	3.  Does the owner/operator of the concrete batching plant maintain a log book or books to account for:
		a)	fuel consumption on a monthly basis?---------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
		b)	material processed on a monthly basis?-------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
		c)  the sulfur content of the fuel being burned (Fuel supplier certifications)?--------------------------------	Yes   No

PART III:  OPERATING/RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS – Rule 62-296.414(2)(a) and (b), F.A.C. (continued)
	(check R appropriate box(es))
	
	Unconfined Emissions – (Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), F.A.C.)
	1.  Does the owner /operator of the concrete batching plant take reasonable precautions to control unconfined
	     emissions by:
		a)  management of roads, parking areas, stock piles, and yards, which shall include one or more of the following:
			1)  paving and maintenance of roads, parking areas, stock piles, and yards?------------------------------	Yes   No
			2)  application of water or environmentally safe dust-suppressant chemicals when necessary to control
				emissions?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No 			3)	removal of particulate matter from roads and other paved areas under control of the owner/operator to
				re-entrainment, and from building or work areas to reduce airborne particulate matter?------------	Yes   No
			4)  reduction of stock pile height, or installation of wind breaks to mitigate wind entrainment of
				particulate matter from stock piles?---------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes   No
		b)  use of spray bar, chute, or partial enclosure to mitigate emissions at the drop point to the truck?-----	Yes   No

PART IV:  SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES – Rule 62-210.300(4)(d)4., F.A.C.
	A.  New or Modified Process Equipment

	1.  Since the last inspection has there been 
		a)  installation of any new process equipment?------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes	 No
		b)  alterations to existing process equipment without replacement?------------------------------------------	Yes	 No
		c)  replacement of existing equipment substantially different than that noted on the most 
			recent notification form?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes	 No
		d)  If you answered YES to any of the above, did the owner submit a new and complete
			notification form and appropriate fee (Rule 62-4.050, FAC) to the appropriate DEP or
			local program office?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	Yes	 No

Joseph V Panetta								03.11.20089202007
_______________________________________________		___________________________________
	      Inspector’s Name (Please Print)				     Date of Inspection

								2009
_______________________________________________		___________________________________
	            Inspector’s Signature				     Approximate Date of Next Inspection

COMMENTS:  Unchecked boxes are Items that don't apply.       
Complaint # 10908 came in on March 10, 2008 by Dawn Marler to Danielle D. Henry, Compliance Supervisor. The complaintant stated that it sounded like a bomb went off and there was a big  black cloud of smoke. Ms. Marler said she followed the black cloud to 9143 Wire Road, Zephyrhills. Ms. Marler further expalined there were men standing around smoking cigarettes and did semed to be concerned when she asked what happened.
Visited facility March 11, 2008. I  inspected the facility. The facility was dust or fly ash free and the facility appeared to be in compliance.
Spoke with  Danny Nix, operator of plant. Mr. Nix Stated The High Light (the light that comes on when the silo is full) must have been broken. 
Mr. Nix continued with, during the flyash silo loading the truck driver notice flyash blowing out of the top of the baghouse. The truck driver went to remove his hose from the silo and because of the baghouse failing. When the hose was removed flyash backflowed out of the filler line and hose and out it the air and on the ground.The High light was repaired. The baghouse was fine, just the pop up valve popped.
There were 16 bags inventoried on site.  No detailed malfunction report was available at time of inspection. Records and maintanence logs attached.
03/11/2008  after leaving the facility I called Ms. Marler. Left message explaining the situation. I expressed that she call me back to let us know of the situation. If she had any questioins or needed further assistance at 813-632-7600 ext. 105 
03/12/2008 1413 called Mr. Jason Jones RO. I explained that a review of the maintenance logs did not show specific information  about who did the maintanence, when the maintenance was done or what maintenance was done. Logs do not say when the last time the bags were cleaned or changed out.
Jason Jones stated he would write a full incident report to the Deparment. Mr Jones added the facility is closing for good. 
He will send a letter stating this. The letter will be attach to the report.
The Deparment received the the report on March 26, 2008. After reading the report  I called Mr. Jones and explained the report did not answer questions I had asked during our phone converstion on 03/12/2008. So I reiterated the questions and he sent in a report that was received on April 4, 2008. Again a few questions I had were left unanswered so I called Jason Jones and explained this. I said that I would email him the questions so he could have a hard copy of the questions. On April 10, 2008 the Deparment received the answer  that the Facility would implement a procedure at this plant and each plant to reduce the risk of this happening in the fututre.
On March 27, 2008 the Deparment received a letter from R/O Jason Jones stating the facility rescinds it permit/registration do to business slowing down. Will refer this to Danielle Henry to Inactivate facility.

03/31/2008 1055 Ms. Marler  called to ask what happened wih the investigation. I explained what happened and that there is room for a one time malfunction in the rule. We appreciate her concern and we will now be aware, if this occurs in the future and we can show that something was  done in excess of the rules we would persue that avenue. Then I let Ms. Marler know that I am expecting a letter from the RO of the facility saying they are closing the facility. Ms. Marler said she did notice that the piles of sand and rock were gone, the sprinklers were not running and the gates were locked. She was thrilled. and happy the facility was closed.