Full Text
October 9, 2024 Sent via email: [EMAIL REDACTED] John Persons Engineer Utah Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 144820 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 Subject: Comments of Millcreek Granite’s Responses to Utah DAQ Requests for Information, DAQE- NN161200001A-24 New I-80 Aggregate Mining Facility Dear Mr. Persons: Millcreek, a Utah municipality, submits the following comments to the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), on Granite’s responses to DAQ’s Requests for Information relate to the above-referenced Intent to Approve an air quality Approval Order (AO) for an aggregate mining, crushing and screening facility known as the I-80 South Quarry to be operated by Granite Construction Company (Granite Construction) on the south side of I-80 in Parleys Canyon. Millcreek is a municipality in Salt Lake County with more than 63,000 residents. Millcreek borders Parleys Canyon, and many Millcreek residents live in the Canyon Rim neighborhood, an area on the south side of the rim of Parleys Canyon. These residents and their properties have been adversely impacted by fugitive dust emissions emanating from the existing rock quarry mining operations (Kilgore Quarry) located on the north side of I-80, across from the site of the new I-80 South Quarry.1 A study recently traced fugitive dust transported from the existing quarry onto properties in Millcreek.2 These fugitive dusts pose a threat to the health, safety, and general welfare of Millcreek residents and adversely affect air quality and properties in 1 Utah Division of Oil Gas & Mining, Mineral Permit Files Permit S0350055 Millcreek’s Objection to NOI to Commence Small Mining Operations of Granite Construction Company, Exhibit A—Mayor’s Declaration (June 27, 2022), 2 Kyle Brennan, Pilot Study on Tracing Fugitive Dust Using from the Parleys Canyon Kilgore Quarry, Utah., HYDROSHARE (June 21, 2023), (concluding that “approximately 60.35% of the dust sample collected from the Canyon Rim neighborhood is attributable to the Kilgore Quarry”). ---PAGE BREAK--- Comments of Millcreek DAQE-NN161200001A-24 Page 2 Millcreek. The new aggregate mining facility proposed in proximity to Millcreek’s municipal boundary will likely cause similar impacts and harms.3 Accordingly, Millcreek previously submitted comments to DAQ’s Intent to Approve the I-80 South Quarry. See Comments of Millcreek, July 27, 2023, attached as Exhibit A. Those prior comments incorporated and adopted Technical Comments prepared by Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu (submitted as Appendix 1 to Exhibit A) and detailed several reasons the proposed AO should not be issued. Millcreek now submits these comments to the additional information that Granite Construction provided to DAQ in response to DAQ’s Requests for Information and in Granite Construction’s July 9, 2024, letter (together, the Response). Millcreek adopts and incorporates Dr. Sahu’s Second Technical Comments, attached as Exhibit B, and asks that the DAQ respond to the requests identified in Dr. Sahu’s comments and take the requested actions identified in this letter. Millcreek remains concerned that the proposed AO and Project File will not adequately control potential fugitive emissions from the new I-80 South Quarry and do not meet the existing standards required for approval. In addition, Millcreek raises several concerns related to the reliability of the data that forms the basis for Granite Construction’s Response. 1. Granite Construction’s Revised Modeling Shows That the Approval Order Would Cause a Violation of PM10 NAAQS and That Additional Modeling Is Necessary. Millcreek and others previously commented that Granite Construction’s modeling was flawed, in part because the meteorological data within Parleys Canyon differs significantly from the data at the Salt Lake City airport. Presumably in response to these comments, Granite submitted—and the DAQ published for comment—prognostic meteorological data using AERMOD modelling and Weather Research and Forecasting data. While this effort to use data proximate to the proposed site is appreciated, the findings highlight significant issues that call into question the Intent to Approve. The new modeling demonstrates that reducing the grid resolution to more closely align with the proposed location has a notable impact: when the new modeling is considered, the proposed annual tonnage must be reduced to comply with the NAAQS for PM10. In response to the findings, Granite Construction has reduced the proposed annual tonnage to 875,000 and 900,000 TPY for Phase 1 and 2 Operations. However, these adjustments still result in fence line concentrations that are alarmingly close to the NAAQS—99% for Phase 1 and 97% for Phase 2. Despite this information, DAQ has not amended its Intent to Approve. Thus, it is not clear whether DAQ intends to stand by the Intent to Approve, which will result in noncompliance with the NAAQS for PM10, or whether DAQ intends to move forward with an amended Intent to Approve, incorporating Granite Construction’s proposed reduction in annual tonnage without an 3 Utah Division of Oil Gas & Mining, supra note 1, at Exhibit A. ---PAGE BREAK--- Comments of Millcreek DAQE-NN161200001A-24 Page 3 opportunity for public comment on an amended Intent to Approve. Neither of these options are appropriate. Furthermore, and as detailed in Dr. Sahu’s report, the new modeling demonstrates that even further refinement is needed to determine whether the findings of the modeling—resulting in Granite Construction’s proposed TPY reduction—are sufficiently robust. The validation of the new model with Salt Lake City wind speed data shows that the model’s “pseudo-meteorological predictions are very inaccurate and subject to large errors at the SLC airport. We have no confidence, given these results, that the WRF model as currently used is providing useful or accurate data for use in AERMOD at the far more complex mine site.” See Dr. Sahu report. The technical memorandum attached to Granite Construction’s July 9, 2024, letter emphasizes that “[i]t is essential that the selected . . . WRF modelling grid resolution should resolve the complex terrain induced mountain – valley airflow features, which would be impossible using a coarse-resolution WRF modelling . . . grid.” However, WRF modeling could be done at a spatial resolution of 444 meters, and “the 444 meter resolution is warranted given the complex topography at the mine site itself, which is not resolved well at the 1.33 km spatial scale.” Dr. Sahu report. This change in resolution would likely improve the SLC validation and would also “likely result in additional throughput reductions in order to avoid further NAAQS violations.” Meteorological data more proximate to the proposed location is publicly available.4 DAQ should also require Granite Construction to provide WRF predictions using such meteorological data sets located in or near the proposed site, as these data will be more representative than those at the airport. Requested Actions: A. DAQ should withdraw its Intent to Approve and should not issue the proposed AO. B. DAQ should require Granite Construction to re-model using a spatial resolution of 444 meters. C. DAQ should require Granite Construction to re-model using meteorological data more proximate to the proposed site. 2. DAQ Should Not Act Until Granite Construction Demonstrates Its Ability to Make Water Available on Site to Meet Opacity Standards. In the DAQ’s Request for Information, Granite Construction was specifically requested to provide “information on how much water the applicant can bring to the site or make available at the site to meet the opacity standards.” Granite Construction responded with an objection to the request. Similarly, in responding to Request for Information Granite Construction merely points to its “response to RFI in relation to how it will control dust “using water sprays, hoods, dust collectors or other controls. . . 4 See WeatherFlow-Tempest, Inc., Wind Alert, available at ---PAGE BREAK--- Comments of Millcreek DAQE-NN161200001A-24 Page 4 The Response fails to demonstrate that Granite Construction is prepared to rely upon water to meet opacity standards or that doing so is feasible. DAQ’s requiring such information is within the scope of its jurisdiction. See Utah Admin. Code R307-401-8(1)(a), (requiring best available control technology before any approval order may be issued). If water is brought to the site for use as a control technology, rather than available on-site, this could create a perverse incentive to further limit such water use. Millcreek previously commented that the Requirements and Limitations in the Intent to Approve are flawed and largely unverifiable, in part because monitoring and enforcement is placed on the owner/operator. This self-monitoring, coupled with the lack of information about how Granite Construction will make water available on-site, demonstrates the need for DAQ to monitor and enforce the requirements and limitations. Requested Actions: A. DAQ should not issue the proposed AO or take other action until Granite Construction has provided information documenting that it has a sufficient source of water, how it will make water available on-site, and how doing so is feasible. B. DAQ should commit to monitoring and enforcement of requirements and limitations either in addition to or instead of placing such responsibility on the owner/operator. 3. More Information Is Needed to Determine Cost Effectiveness of Control Technologies. As further detailed in Dr. Sahu’s report, there are several deficiencies in Granite Construction’s Response regarding the cost effectiveness of various control technologies. First, while Granite Construction did include various vendor quotes, it failed to include the assumption upon which those quotes were based. Such information is necessary to understand the accuracy and applicability of the quotes. Second, the equipment life expectancy appears to be artificially low. For example, Granite Construction assumes a three-year equipment life expectancy for Aggregate Processing Equipment Enclosure. This short life expectancy assumes that Granite Construction will have to completely replace all such equipment every three years, driving up the annualized costs of such control technology. The Response states that the reason for the short life expectancy is because of “the quarry’s progressive nature.” However, there is not sufficient information in the Response to demonstrate why this progressive nature would require some equipment to be used for three years while other equipment is used for five, or why equipment (or some portion thereof) could not be moved in three years rather than being completely replaced every three years. ---PAGE BREAK--- Comments of Millcreek DAQE-NN161200001A-24 Page 5 Third, the Response assumes an interest rate of 7.5% without justification. Such interest rate has an obvious impact on the cost of control technologies and DAQ should require Granite Construction to provide support for this assumption. Finally, the Response includes assumptions about control efficiencies of control technologies without sufficient justification. For example, the Response includes an assumption about the control efficiency for water application on disturbed land and an assumption of the particular suction capacity to control particulate matter from drilling. Where the Response asserts particular assumptions without sufficient basis, DAQ should require Granite Construction to provide the bases for such assumptions. Requested Actions: A. DAQ should obtain the complete records of discussions between Granite Construction and the enclosure vendors. B. DAQ should require Granite Construction to calculate cost effectiveness with fully supported data about the useful life of equipment, interest rate assumptions, and control efficiencies. 4. Clarity About the Mine Location Is Necessary. The additional information fails to specify the property boundary and fails to define Phases 1 and 2. Such information should be provided to DAQ and to the public. The topography of the entire property is highly variable and includes steep slopes. Granite Construction’s new modeling required a decrease in output for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. However, because the record does not clearly define those phases and their precise locations, it is not possible to adequately comment on the accuracy of the assumptions, modeling, and responses as applied to any specific location. Clarity about the mine location is also required to ensure compliance with fugitive dust regulations. “[O]pacity caused by fugitive dust shall not exceed: 10% at the property boundary.” Utah Admin. Code R307-309-5(1). Thus, the specific boundaries at issue must be defined in order to enforce any permit. In order to ensure compliance with this regulation, DAQ should provide further clarity about the exact location of the proposed operations. Requested Actions: A. DAQ should define Phases 1 and 2. B. DAQ should clearly define the location of the property boundary. 5. DAQ Should Analyze PM2.5 Under the Revised NAAQS. Granite Construction has not provided modeling for PM2.5 or stated a reason for failing to do so. In February of 2024, the NAAQS for PM2.5 were revised downwards.5 Yet the revised modeling relied upon by Granite Construction was solely focused on PM10 and did not consider PM2.5. As 5 EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM, available at pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm (last visited October 8, 2024). ---PAGE BREAK--- Comments of Millcreek DAQE-NN161200001A-24 Page 6 Dr. Sahu recommends, “PM2.5 from the plant and cumulative sources should be modeled for the revised annual NAAQS as well as the current short-term 24-hour average NAAQS.” Requested Actions: A. DAQ should model PM2.5 under the revised NAAQS. Millcreek values DAQ’s consideration of the comments above and appreciates the opportunity for public comment and engagement throughout this process. As detailed above, DAQ should withdraw its Intent to Approve and not approve the AO as proposed, should require Granite Construction to provide the additional information outlined above, and should provide additional opportunity for public comment on any amended Intent to Approve. Sincerely, Mayor Jeff Silvestrini ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit B ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Comments on Granite’s Responses to the Utah DAQ Via Letters Dated July 4 and July 16, 2024 By Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu1 I am providing the following comments after a careful review of Granite’s responses to the DAQ’s various Requests for Information (RFIs), including its additional air dispersion modeling using Weather Research Forecasting (WRF) meteorological data. Phasing & Scope of Mine 1. The definitions and scope of Phase 1 and Phase 2 as noted throughout the record is not clear. DAQ should clearly define in the Approval Order what is meant by these two terms. Specifically, DAQ should clarify the areas that will be affected (on an annual basis) in each of these Phases. 2. DAQ should also clarify the total area that will be mined. The current documents suggest that the total mined area will be just 20 acres2 – over an undefined period of time – with no more than 10 acres being mined at any one time. That seems to be the basis of the analysis and modeling. But, it is clear that the total available area for mining is substantially larger than 20 acres at this site. Regardless of whether the total area will be mined under a separate permitting or regulatory approval process than the current permit, DAQ should provide a fuller, complete, and accurate discussion of the operator’s eventual mining goals for this site. This issue is critical to determining air quality consequences to the project. With steep terrain slopes of 70 degrees and the proposed “reclamation” consisting of “six inches of topsoil” on those slopes, meaningful revegetation is impractical and not likely to be effective. So if the mine owners/operators believe that they can progressively mine over a much larger area than 20 acres in a piece meal approach, then each 10 acre parcel being progressively mined will represent only a fraction of the total source of fugitive dust, which will steadily increase over time. Revised Air Dispersion Modeling 3. The revised modeling (results presented in the July 4, 2024 SLR Report) only focused on PM10 and did not consider, at all, PM2.5. There is no reason stated in the Granite modeling nor in the DAQ documentation as to why PM2.5 was not modeled. Nor is PM2.5 addressed in Granite’s July 16, 2024 responses to the various DAQ RFIs. In fact, the mining activities will generate PM2.5 and this pollutant will disperse, almost like a gaseous pollutant, given the fine particulate size. Given its size, it will also present additional 1 I have previously provided my resume and biographical information in this matter. I can provide that again, if requested. 2 See Granite’s July 16, 2024 letter responding to DAQ’s RFI ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 challenges for capture/control. Finally, as the DAQ is aware, on February 7, 2024, the EPA revised the annual NAAQS for PM2.5 downward to 9 ug/m3.3 For all of these reasons, PM2.5 from the plant and cumulative sources should be modeled for the revised annual NAAQS as well as the current short-term 24-hour average NAAQS. 4. It is a step in the right direction that Granite has now modeled the impacts from the mine using a prognostic modeling approach,4 and that Granite proposed a reduction of annual throughput from the mine to 875,000 tons per year for Phase 1 and 900,000 tons per year for Phase 2 – from 1,000,000 tons per year originally assumed to be possible with no potential violations of the NAAQS. In other words, Granite and the DAQ were mistaken about the impacts as previously modeled using non-representative meteorological data from the SLC airport. While the current prognostic model is an improvement, I believe that it needs additional improvements: The validation of the current model with SLC data for wind speed (R2 = 0.77) as presented by Granite’s consultant is not acceptable. In fact, the graphical presentation of this in Figure 8 of the modeling report, reproduced below, shows that even with very well defined geometry information as well as direct SLC meteorological data used for the comparison, the WRF pseudo-meteorological predictions are very inaccurate and subject to large errors at the SLC airport. We have no confidence, given these results, that the WRF model as currently used is providing useful or accurate data for use in AERMOD at the far more complex mine site. In addition, I am not persuaded that the WRF model is acceptable given its better correlation for ambient temperatures (R2 = 0.98), given that the temperature is a much more insensitive parameter. 3 4 I fully concur with the discussions about why, given the complex terrain features at the mine site (see Section 3.1 of the SLR Report) and mountain valley flows as a result (see Section 3.2 of the SLR Report), using SLC airport meteorological data, as was previously done by Granite, was completely inappropriate. As SLR confirms at page 8 of its report, “[T]his comparison underscores that the local wind conditions and temperature patterns at the project site are markedly distinct from those observed and predicted at SLC.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Therefore, DAQ should ask Granite to explain how the SLC validation for wind speed can be improved. Specifically, and at a minimum, Granite should re-model using a spatial resolution of 444 meters (which is 1/3 of the 1.33 km resolution and the next higher level of spatial resolution in WRF) instead of the 1.33 km currently used. Not only will this likely improve the SLC validation, the 444 meter resolution is warranted given the complex topography at the mine site itself, which is not resolved well at the 1.33 km spatial scale. The 444 meter resolution would be much more reflective of canyon topography and winds, and would likely result in additional throughput reductions in order to avoid further NAAQS violations. In addition, Granite should determine if any of the model physics options listed in Section 2.2 of the SLR July 4, 2024 modeling report should also be improved in order to further improve the SLC wind speed comparison. In addition to comparisons of WRF and the SLC airport data, DAQ should provide comparisons with available meteorological data measurements collected in the canyon itself. For example, WindAlert lists a monitor at the “Mouth of Parleys Canyon.” In addition, there appears to be a monitor maintained by an entity called WeatherFlow-Tempest near Kilgore. DAQ should also require Granite to provide WRF predictions to the measured wind data collected at these sites and also any additional meteorological data sets that the DAQ may be aware of which are located in or around the Canyon and therefore more representative than the SLC airport locations. Proper validation at these Cayon-sites will provide more ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 confidence that the WRF is properly providing a representative met data set at the mine site for use in AERMOD. 5. The importance of using proper met data using WRF is illustrated by the extremely close modeled results for PM10 NAAQS as confirmed in Table 1 of the July 9, 2024 letter from Granite to the DAQ, excerpted, with highlights below. Note the fact that even with the lowered annual throughput production values, the predicted percent of PM10 NAAQS are 99% and 97% for Phases 1 and 2. These results confirm that even lowering the production that Granite now accepts, i.e., 875,000 tons per year, is not enough to robustly prevent the exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Of course, there is absolutely no information about how the modeling results may compare with the PM2.5 NAAQS as noted earlier – since no PM2.5 NAAQS modeling has been done. Cost-Effectiveness of Controls for Reducing Particulate Matter Emissions 6. Granite’s July 16, 2024 Response to the DAQ is also deficient in many ways. First, this response presents cost-effectiveness calculations using certain capital cost data obtained from vendors, along with additional assumptions. Because the cost-effectiveness calculations rely on an incomplete and skewed set of the assumptions, DAQ cannot reasonably rely on these calculations unless it does the following: DAQ should obtain from Granite the complete record of the discussions it had with the two vendors for enclosures – leading to the presentation of the cost information provided in Attachment B to this July 16, 2024 letter. For example, what information about the mine activities, storage piles, throughput rates, emissions calculations, and other details were presented to the vendors? Granite’s cost-effectiveness analysis presents highly skewed and high cost- effectiveness values because it assumes that capital costs for all of the options considered need to be amortized over a very short period of time, namely just 3 years “…due to the quarry’s progressive nature.”5 This makes no sense. Even with the progressive nature, all ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 air pollution controls including enclosures and/or watering equipment will not be completely discarded and new equipment obtained every three years. In fact, much of the equipment should be reuseable. Therefore the assumption of 3 years as the useful life of controls, which drives up the calculated cost-effectiveness, is wrong. DAQ should require Granite to re-calculate the cost-effectiveness, with fully supported data about the useful life of equipment. Similarly, the cost-effectiveness calculations assume an interest rate of 7.5% per year,6 also with no support. DAQ should obtain support from Granite for this value. At a minimum, the public record must show Granite’s Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) given its corporate structure and allocations between equity and debt. Granite makes numerous assumptions about the control efficiencies of the various options it considers as described in the July 16, 2024 letter. For example, it says that it used a control efficiency of 70% for water application on disturbed land (see Response to RFI Yet, there is no technical or engineering support for this 70% reduction assumption and how that is related to the “high-pressure sprinkler system” and the curious precise design details (such as its radius of 178 feet and its discharge rate of 247 gallons per minute, etc.) Similarly, it is not clear in Response to RFI #4 why the use of a suction capacity of a very-precise 706 cubic feet per minute should properly control “particulate matter) from drilling. Of course, its is obvious that the suction capacity will depend on particle size, which is not addressed in this response. The July 16, 2024 letter also seems to raise an equity issue – namely that “other aggregate producers in the region have not been mandated to implement similar control technologies.” This is wholly besides the point. The need to limit emissions from the mining activity so as to protect NAAQS and other values is highly site specific. Topography, meteorological data, production levels, availability of resources such as water for dust control, and other factors – collectively affect the degree to which pollutants including PM10 and PM2.5 should be controlled. These factors vary from site to site. Therefore what may or may not be required at a different site – even in the Canyon itself – is irrelevant. The July 16, 2024 response also provides summary calculations about how much Granite’s cost of production (in $/ton of production, as summarized in Table 2 to Granite’s July 16, 2024 Response) would increase under various control scenarios. Finally, Granite’s response to DAQ’s RFI #5 simply and inappropriately dismisses the source of water that Granite relies on for controlling particulate matter emissions, simply noting that “…sufficient water will be available under a source or combination of sources 5 As shown in Table 1 to its July 16, 2024 Response to the DAQ, Granite uses either 3 years or 5 years depending on the type of source in order to determine cost-effectiveness. Both are too short and both assume that there will be no reuse of capital equipment. 6 See Table 1 in Granite’s July 16, 2024 Letter Response to DAQ. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 of water.” Punting this issue that is central to limiting emissions from the mine is inappropriate. DAQ should not accept this response. 7. Granite’s July 16 Response to RFI #6 regarding fugitive dust control measures and how they will be complied with under Utah Admin. Rules R207-309-10(3) is nothing more than a regurgitation of the regulatory language itself with little additional details about how compliance with the regulations will actually be achieved.