State officials have approved a new permit for the controversial asphalt plant in Irasburg, finding that changes requested by owner Jeff Hutchins comply with Vermont’s Act 250 land use law.
The decision Thursday from the District 7 Environmental Commission deals a blow to opponents who had hoped to curb the asphalt operation on Route 58.
Neighbors have complained for years about smells, noise and emissions at the facility owned by J. Hutchins Inc., a Richmond-based company.
Their concerns grew last year after Hutchins replaced the plant with a larger one, meant to better control emissions and odors. It was an effort to address community concerns, he said. The upgraded plant, operational since May 2020, is outfitted with a “blue smoke” kit designed to take the fumes produced by asphalt processing out of the air.
The three regional Act 250 commissioners ruled that the replacement plant met permit criteria.
October 2020 testing showed that the new plant produced fewer total emissions per ton of hot asphalt mix than the original facility, according to the commission’s order, even though the new plant produced more than twice the amount of asphalt over three, one-hour tests.
Emissions of particulate matter decreased by 58%, and carbon monoxide emissions dropped by 73%, according to the documents.
The effectiveness of the blue smoke system on the new facility was not tested, but it “is expected to further reduce emissions from silo filling and truck loadout by approximately 80% and 16% respectively.”
But “actual emission rates may vary,” the commissioners said, and the new plant is allowed “higher short-term emissions” than the original one.
A state expert verified the accuracy of the air quality testing, while saying it represents only one point in time.
Despite alarms raised by residents about air quality impacts, the commissioners said “sufficient evidence was not presented to rebut the presumption or challenge the technical determinations” made by the Natural Resources Board. The Agency of Natural Resources oversees many Act 250 cases, but administration of the statute is overseen by a separate entity, the Natural Resources Board.
On the question of aesthetic impacts, the commission concluded that the project is “compatible with its surroundings and will have no adverse aesthetic impact in terms of its immediate setting.”
But because the new plant is slightly larger than the old one — with a third silo and silos more than 10 feet taller — the commission said it “may have an adverse impact, corresponding to the scope of these differences, to the extent they create greater visual impact from off-site viewpoint.”
That meant the commission had to determine whether the impact was undue. Ultimately, commissioners wrote, it wasn’t.
“The commission finds that the project may shock or offend some people who view it in the context of the larger permitted industrial site; however, the subject project [replacement of the original plant with the subject replacement plant] is not offensive or shocking,” the order said.
The decision can be appealed within 30 days.
Correction: This article has been corrected to say the state Natural Resources Board made the decision on the asphalt plant.
