UPHE sent the following comments to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ahead of their September 11, 2024 meeting to hear Granite Constructions permit for a concrete manufacturing.

Summary

In summary, this batching plant is inconsistent with M-1 zoning goals. The commission is allowing the applicant to game the system to qualify its application. The commission’s recommendations for mitigation are inadequate and in many cases meaningless. It is not “reasonable” to allow the applicant to exploit existing residents in the area, and operate a facility that will cause significant health harm to people who are already victims of environmental injustice, given the multiple sources of pollution they are already exposed to. This application should be denied.

Comments to: rylee.hall@slc.gov

Dear Mr. Hall:

The signers of these comments formally request that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission rescind their recommendation for approval of a conditional use for a concrete manufacturing facility at 1055 N Warm Springs Rd, for the multiple reasons outlined below.

The Staff Report Errors in Concluding the City is Obligated to Approve the Application

The report states, “State and City code require that a Conditional Use be approved if reasonable conditions can be imposed on the use to mitigate any reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the use. A conditional use can only be denied if the Planning Commission finds that reasonably anticipated detrimental effects cannot be mitigated with the imposition of reasonable conditions.”

The health hazards associated with concrete batching plants can vary tremendously depending on the precautions and pollution controls used by the operator. But even in ideal circumstances they are significant sources of air pollution of numerous types–particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds, water and noise pollution. The terms “reasonable,” and “mitigate” are extremely vague, they make this standard very much subject to individual interpretation, and do not obligate the city to approve the application. Is it “reasonable” to allow a business that is virtually guaranteed to harm the health of nearby residents and property owners? What constitutes mitigation? How much reduction of known health hazard qualifies as “mitigation”?

In the statement of intent for 2A.28.010 of Zoning Standards for M-1, it states that the intent of the manufacturing district is to “enhance property values…” This project hardly enhances the property values of nearby property owners, whether they are residents or businesses. Further, in the purpose statement of 2A.28.020 it states, “The purpose of the M-1 Light Manufacturing District is to provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties, that desire a clean attractive industrial setting, and that protects nearby sensitive lands and waterways.” None of the above stated goals is consistent with a concrete batching plant, as the pollution, truck traffic, and noise all constitute an “appreciable impact on adjacent properties, that desire a clean attractive industrial setting…”

Recommendation number 7 says that, “No portion of the use (including any accessory uses) can be within the portion of the property that is within 1,000 ft. of a single or two-family zoning district. Otherwise, the use would be prohibited.” Previous commenters have noted the planning commission has allowed Granite to game the system with the way they have drawn the center point of the 1,000 ft. set back radius. The commission is allowing Granite to determine how the ambiguity in that ordinance is to be interpreted, undermining the intent of the ordinance which obviously is to provide some protection for the residents.

Even so, as the report notes, “A portion of the subject parcel is [still] located within 1,000 ft. of an area zoned R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential. However, the use is prohibited from operating within the portion of the property that is within this 1,000 ft. buffer area.” We raise the question: “Once operation has begun, does the city have any staff or means by which that limitation will be enforced?” If not, then even deferring to Granite to draw those boundaries leaves the buffer area meaningless.

The commission’s staff report justifies approving the application in part because it claims there has been a shortage of concrete in the Salt Lake Region, and in that “Approving this use will allow additional concrete production in the Salt Lake area and support new construction and development.” They offer no details and no references for the claim, and nothing in the ordinance obligates them to consider such a shortage.

Nonetheless, according to reports in 2022, the limiting factor in concrete shortage at that time was a shortage of cement due to multiple factors. Utah’s baseline production of cement is already low, but one of the only two cement plants in Utah had maintenance issues and broken equipment. There were supply chain problems related to the pandemic, a rise in shipping rates, a national shortage of truck drivers, and a global labor shortage in the industry, all of which further decreased the supply of cement. Fly ash, another ingredient in cement, became harder to obtain for several reasons. This concrete batching plant will not increase the supply of cement or fly ash, and therefore will do essentially nothing to increase concrete supply in the Salt Lake Valley.

Air Pollution from Batching Plants

The Commission has already received numerous letters of opposition from the public primarily on concerns over air pollution. Based on nationwide and routine public opposition to batching plants from citizens that live nearby, one can assume that common mitigation strategies are not adequate to protect residents.

Residents who are unfortunate enough to live near these plants know very well about the pollution they are continuously exposed to. Comments from residents who live near these plants in Harris County, Tx, said, “It’s hard to breathe with a concrete plant in your backyard.” “The dust that blows from concrete batch plants covers their roofs, their cars, their barbecue pits. They can’t go outside. They can’t have friends over.”

The staff report downplays the air pollution issue. It states, “Air quality concerns are most acute during winter months but may also occur at other times of year.” In reality, the air pollution burden of the Wasatch Front is a year-round concern. In the North Salt Lake area there is no “off season” for air pollution given the multiple sources that surround them.

Dust from any source is toxic. When inhaled, it triggers a systemic inflammatory cascade, and in turn, a long list of clinical consequences, nearly as long as the list caused by smoking cigarettes. When dust settles over homes, yards, and penetrates indoors, then everyone living in those homes can be re-exposed over and over as the dust is disturbed and resuspended with activity, especially children playing in the yard or on an indoor floor. In some ways, people living near dust producing industrial sites are even more exposed than workers, because for them the exposure is 24/7, whereas workers at these sites are typically exposed only 40 hours a week. Even short-term exposure to aggregate dust from gravel pits is associated with increased risk of hospitalization for heart disease.

The dust from components of wet concrete, i.e. cement, sand, and aggregate, can contain respirable crystalline silica and cause deterioration of lung function and impair lung growth in children. The smallest particles that are most easily inhaled and therefore cause the most damage, can remain suspended in the atmosphere for days or even weeks and travel far from their source with minor winds. It is virtually guaranteed that ultrafine particulate pollution from this plant would drift over to Salt Lake City’s downtown and Temple Square.

These plants are also epicenters of nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution from the diesel trucks. NOx are a triple health threat because they are precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone, and they are toxic in and of themselves. One study in Houston, Tx found that near concrete batching plants and metal recyclers, atmospheric NOx was 48% higher than the rest of the city.

Another study of the pollution from concrete batching plants in Harris County, Tx, estimated that the PM2.5 alone from the 131 plants in the county was responsible for health damages annually costing $29 million and two premature deaths. The study was done by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, a state agency notorious for favoring industry.

The facility will generate 232 daily vehicle trips, 176 of which will be diesel emitting concrete mixing trucks. However, this number does not include trucks delivering raw materials like aggregate. That is a significant additional pollution burden to nearby neighbors, and diesel emissions are generally the most toxic in the urban mix, because of high concentrations of ultrafine particulates, and highly toxic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). While Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC) and Diesel Particle Filters (DPF) are fairly effective in reducing black carbon emissions, they are largely ineffective in reducing ultrafine particles, the most toxic of the particle subsets because of their extremely small size and absorbed PAHs. They are completely ineffective in reducing emission gases, like nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide.

Diesel exhaust is a proven, potent carcinogen, revealed by recent research to be even more toxic than previously thought. A recent landmark study indicates that long term exposure to even low levels of diesel exhaust raises the risk of dying from lung cancer about 50% for residents who live near industrial operations involving diesel exhaust, and about 300% for the workers who are heavily exposed.

The homes across the freeway, west and downwind of this property, are already exposed to multiple sources of concentrated pollution. The freeway, soon to be expanded, the refinery, the nearby airport, emissions from nearby massive warehouse farms that the city approved, and dust from the Great Salt Lake. Approving this plant just adds to their existing environmental justice burden, including more toxic dust, more deadly diesel exhaust, more disease and an earlier death upon this neighborhood.

Commission trivializes noise pollution

The planning commission’s discussion about noise pollution suggests they do not understand the issue. While the impact of batching plant noise is not additive to the freeway noise, noise from the freeway will not overwhelm and therefore “obscure” the noise from the batching plant, it will add to it. The end result is more subtle than directly additive noise volume, but the plant will inflict additional noise on the nearby residents. The graft below explains.

It is also important to note that decibels are in logarithmic scale. A small increase in number represents a large increase in noise and therefore human health impact. For example, 80 decibels is twice as loud as 70 decibels. Overall noise pollution is the second most hazardous environmental pollution after air pollution, and it causes many of the same disease impacts via stress on the autonomic nervous system. Moreover, chronic exposure to 85 decibels can provoke hearing loss.

Virtually no detail was given to the claims about noise by the planning commission. Important details were completely left out, such as:
Were noise tests actually done to support the claims about plant noise?
Who measured the noise?
At what location(s) was the noise tested?
What was the applicable averaging time, if any, for such testing? Instantaneous, 5 seconds, one minute, one hour, overnight, etc.?
What type of noise meter was used?
From a practical standpoint, is it likely a noise limit will be enforced, and who will enforce it?

Commission’s recommendations are inadequate to protect residents

The planning commission’s recommended list of conditions, while better than nothing, is inadequate to protect the health of near by residents. There is no value in the multiple provisions recommended by the planning commission unless enforcement can be expected. We are unaware of any enforcement capability on the part of the city, and it is clear that state agencies will not be involved.

Who will enforce the preferred, outlined truck route, intended to spare the residential area to the West? Likewise for the idling restrictions. Posting signs that declare idling will be limited to 2 minutes, and stating that “idling will be discouraged” is not a substitute for actual enforcement, especially on private property. It seems like compliance will be up to individual truck drivers to adhere to an honor system prompted by signs.

Health hazards from the fugitive dust is the number one concern for protecting residents. The commission states, “The applicant intends to manage fugitive dust by applying water as needed to areas that generate dust and aggregate materials will be rinsed before arriving at the facility.” That is wholly inadequate. Yet, the planning commission is recommending approval before the dust control and mitigation plan is submitted to DAQ. Furthermore, every gravel pit in the SL Valley has a dust mitigation plan on file with DAQ, and the ineffectual results of those plans and their enforcement can be readily seen every day of the year, at every one of these sites. The gravel pit near this site in North Salt Lake is a daily example of the failure of those mitigation plans.

The commission says, “The fugitive dust plan must address immediate actions to eliminate fugitive dust during wind events,” but yet is recommending approval without that plan even being submitted to DAQ. It is recommending “Landscaping, non-permeable windbreaks, and/or walls,” but again no specifics required prior to their recommending approval. The commission says, “The height of any outdoor material storage shall be limited to below the height of the installed windbreaks.” That will not be sufficient to protect the surrounding area from fugitive dust.

As noted in the staff report, once the project receives a “Small Source Exemption” from the DAQ, there will be no further renewal or inspection of the plant by DAQ, and for all practical purposes, no one else either. And among the many questions that raises is: who will enforce the production limits set by the Small Source Exemption? At a minimum the commission should require best practices by the facility. We cannot find no evidence that is the case.

Cement storage silos need to be fitted with a reverse pulse fabric filter dust collector (FFDC) or other dust control technology with an equivalent or better performance. But that technology needs to be maintained consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions, otherwise efficacy can quickly and easily be lost. It does not appear there will be any enforcement of critical maintenance of that technology.

Sand and aggregates should be delivered in a dampened state, using covered trucks. If the materials have dried out during transit they should be dampened again before being dumped into the storage bin to minimize dust emissions during loading. We see no mention of this as a requirement.

The truck loading bay is another source of dust and water pollution. Raw materials should be loaded into the truck agitators by either a telescopic chute (preferred) or a flexible sleeve to prevent spillage. Where is the specification of what Granite will be required to install at this stage in the process?

The plant should have wheel-wash facilities to prevent contaminants from being tracked out of the site on truck tires on to the street, where they can be washed into stormwater drains. All trucks should be provided with spill kits to cover clean-up needs in transit. Spills during transit need to be cleaned up immediately to prevent contaminants entering stormwater drains or waterways.

Concrete batching plants must be designed and operated to prevent cement and fly ash from being blown, swept, hosed or left to be washed by rain into gutters or the stormwater system. Who will enforce that with this project? Relying on the good will of Granite to provide all this regulation offers no confidence to us, nor should it to the planning commission or the city, given Granite’s poor ethical and environmental track record, which includes 39 violations since 2000, fines of over $22 million, eight different fines for environmental violations, and over $20 million for fraud.

Water Consumption and Waste Water Management

These plants also consume large amounts of water and generate waste water that can contribute to ground water pollution. As other commenters have pointed out, the commission is merely taking Granite’s word that they will not exceed the 200,000 gallons per day water use limit. The commission must require verification of that claim.

The facility should be connected to a water management system to prevent contaminants such as spilt cement, aggregate or concrete slurry from entering stormwater drains. It should be designed to enable recycled water from the water management system. Other commenters state that Granite is only proposing a catch basin with no outlet to store waste water. If so, common sense suggests that is grossly inadequate to protect ground water or nearby properties and could be a mosquito breeding site.

Sand and aggregates need to be kept out of stormwater drains, creeks and other waterways because they are prescribed water contaminants that can degrade or destroy aquatic habitats. Concrete batching plants must be designed and operated to prevent dust and aggregates from being blown, swept, hosed or left to be washed by rain into gutters or the stormwater system. So far there is no evidence that Granite intends to use the wide range of best practices that should be required.