reality wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:12 PM:The City is wasting our money on someting that will not be approved. Even if it was it would cost us money every year. Granite is a reasonable company. The City should be talking to them to get something out of this. We cannot afford ($$$$$) to have this attitude.

kathy wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:40 PM:This City is wasting our money. They pick fights with Pechanga, the County and now Granite Construction. We need new leadership.

SpinMeister wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:42 PM:Gary Johnson is banking on Granite's lame "air quality" spin. Granite states that because some of huge gravel hauling trucks will get on the freeway at Rainbow and head south toward the "major construction areas", air quality in Temecula will improve. I guess Gary doesn't know the wind blows across the freeway and will carry dust and carbon monoxide from the quarry/trucks straight into Redhawk. By his own explanation, Gary's lame claim of improved air quality "in Temecula" is specious at best. What happens when Barstow becomes the "new" growth area? Then those southbound trucks will all be going north - right through Temecula! I'm proud of the city council for standing up to this Goliath who seeks to destroy for Money, money, money!

not dumb wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:20 AM:What the City doesnt tell you is how much the application process to LAFCO will cost or how much money they need to set aside when one of the landowners sues the City over their EIR.

Scorpion wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:50 AM:Let's see. Consultant does such poor job with first report that residents are able to shred it, requiring consultant to re-do report.
In my line of work if I botch a job, I usually have to redo it for free. But the consultant gets to charge another $85,000.
I guess I went into the wrong line of work.

SpunMeister wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:05 AM:Um, right through Temecula? So, do you mean they'll get off the freeway and go through Ynez, Rancho California, Highway 79 South and Margarita? Or, is it just 3 miles of freeway? Get a clue dude! Yours is the lamest excuse NOT to build a quarry. Temecula wants to keep on building but they don't want the raw material readily available? If they don't want it then Murrieta needs it for the Triangle and the new hockey rinks so hold your breath while the trucks pass by.

To Scorpion wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:20 AM:Go to a Council meeting or at least read the reports online to get some actual facts. The original consultant did a poor job and a new consultant had to take over. I don't know of anyone who would finish someone else's job for free. If you do, please enlighten us all.

In the meantime, let's recap shall we. The main issue in arguments against the quarry should be air quality related to silica dust, a known carcinogen. The OSHA website is chock full of information about the dangers of prolonged exposure to silica dust. This quarry will be here for how long? 70 plus years.

Anyone want to guess what mineral is packed into granite - you guessed it, silica.

What will Granite Construction be mining again - oh yeah, granite.

How will they get it out of the mountain - blasting you say? Does blasting create silica dust? Yes.

Which way does the prevailing wind blow? Toward Temecula.

Will the prevailing wind carry silica dust into Temecula? Every day that the winds are 24.99 miles per hour or less. That's every day for 70 plus years, or around 25,567.5 days with extra days for leap years thrown in.

If this quarry goes in, buy yourself a respirator while the gettin' is good.

If you are so inclined, for your reading pleasure, check out the EIR for a rock quarry in San Raphael, CA. This document discusses the significant unavoidable impacts to the environment due to blasting and transporting (that means trucks)of silica dust.

If increasing the amount of locally generated truck trips, or damage to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, or any other of the many reasonings against this quarry do not bother you, you should at a minimum consider the potential permanent damage to your lungs that silica dust will cause you. Keep in mind that short of a lung transplant, once you have silicosis, there is no cure.

Warden wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:52 AM:The city should spend what it needs to keep the quarry out. Granite will do whatever it takes to make the big $$$, so you can't really trust them. Some health impacts, no big deal on the bottom line. Think about it.

Waste of Tax Dollars wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:53 AM:Great article!

While the city is screaming about the state possibly taking their tax dollars, the city is wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on empty symbolic gestures like this one which they know is doomed to fail.

There is no way LAFCO, made up of representatives from cities with quarries currently supplying Temecula, is going to buy the argument that Temecula is too good for a quarru, and that quarries should only exist in crappy cities like those represented by the LAFCO board!

Good luck with that, Temecula whine country!

Stop the scare tactics. wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:27 AM:Personally I do not want the mine in there since I do live near Redhawk. But I would recommend that when you use scare tactics to say that silica causes cancer you better study a little more about the subject. It does not cause cancer is causes silicosis. Where the small particles of silica that are inhaled cut into the lung sacks and cause scarring, after years of continued (heavy) exposure your lungs will be scarred to the point where they cannot absorb the oxygen from the air and you basically suffocate.

You are not going to get silicosis from the quarry and you'll waste your time using that to try to stop them. But they still cannot allow any of the dust to be transported in the air outside of their property. That would violate the air quality regs. Use that instead.

Its Not a Scare Tactic wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:50 AM:I have studied the subject and at great lengths. Don't believe my earlier post, research for yourself. There are plenty of valid studies out there. For example, MSDS sheets posted on OSHA's website describe silica dust as a known carcinogen. I didn't make that up nor am I in cahoots with OSHA to post false information. It is fact, not conjecture. Silicosis damage from exposure comes in two forms, heavy exposure for relatively short durations, or (even mild) exposure for prolonged periods of time. I certainly think 70 years qualifies as long term exposure regardless of the concentration of silica dust in the air. Blasting in the region will significantly increase the amount of silica dust in the air. There is absolutely no way to prevent that if this quarry goes in.

From OSHAs Website wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:17 PM:You want facts, here you go. Here is some public information copied directly from the OSHA Website. Anyone can look online and get the same info:

"Silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million U.S. workers, including more than 100,000 workers in high risk jobs such as abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work and tunneling. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to occur in sandblasters and rockdrillers. Crystalline silica has been classified as a human lung carcinogen. Additionally, breathing crystalline silica dust can cause silicosis, which in severe cases can be disabling, or even fatal. The respirable silica dust enters the lungs and causes the formation of scar tissue, thus reducing the lungs’ ability to take in oxygen. There is no cure for silicosis. Since silicosis affects lung function, it makes one more susceptible to lung infections like tuberculosis. In addition, smoking causes lung damage and adds to the damage caused by breathing silica dust."

And:

"Chronic/classic silicosis, the most common, occurs after 15-20 years of moderate to low exposures to respirable crystalline silica. Symptoms associated with chronic silicosis may or may not be obvious; therefore, workers need to have a chest x-ray to determine if there is lung damage. As the disease progresses, the worker may experience shortness of breath upon exercising and have clinical signs of poor oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange. In the later stages, the worker may experience fatigue, extreme shortness of breath, chest pain, or respiratory failure."

The dust creating by blasting granite is "respirable crystalline silica" dust. Wind can carry this suspended particulate matter for miles. I chalenge anyone to dispute this or OSHA's information.

Well read wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:41 PM:Would you people please read, and study the facts that are available regarding the quarry. Granite, say they can mitigate 97.5% of the dust, but what about the other 2.5%. And 2.5% of dust from 50k tons of rock per year, is a lot of dust, dust that contains silica, and silica that causes silicosis, and silicosis that causis DEATH.

Okay you got me on that one. wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:09 PM:I stand corrected on the carcinogen statement.

However, there is no proof that the silica particles will be of significance. Once they run a study that the dust exposure off of the property is not detectable, you're out of luck. All I am saying is that you need to look at more important issues that would have a bigger impact on stopping the mine.

Water usage (biggie), traffic, impact to wildlife, dust control, historical and cultural sites, storm water, slope stability, nighttime light impacts, emissions from trucks, waste removal and hazardous waste, dust control for waste piles,etc. etc.

To Okay wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:42 PM:Thanks. I agree with you, too, that there are many other important issues to consider. But do not underestimate the impact of silica dust exposure over time. Granite can skew data with bogus models, pretty pictures, and specialized reports prepared on their dime for their purposes. The only real data would come if/after they start operations. But then it would be too late.

reality wrote on Aug 22, 2008 2:19 PM:Do you realize that Redhawk and the Cioty hired an air quality consultant to review the reports? What have they said?

The County is hiring a consultant. What has he said?

SCAQMD and EPA will read and comment on the EIR.

There is nothing "bogus" about this stuff.

Can you find one, just one example of a quarry causing silicosis to people living near it?

Not-Reality-Actuality wrote on Aug 22, 2008 3:51 PM:I'm sure there are lawsuits out there for dust emissions from quarries. I'm more worried about press releases like these:

Nevada-"According to state records, the Nevada Environmental Commission fined Granite several times over the past 17 years: $3,500 in September 1993, $12,000 in January 1998, $8,000 in March 1998, $30,000 in September 1998, $9,670 in December 1999, $6,785 in April 2000 and $15,400 in August 2000.

Oregon-"Most citations the regulatory agency issued dealt with failure to control dust at various plants and construction sites. One was issued for operating a new crushing and screening operation near Carson City without a permit. Another was issued for digging a discount store site without a permit in Nevada's capital city."
In assessing the penalties, DEQ expressed serious concerns about Granite Construction’s failure to take into account potential impacts to water quality when it decided to clear roughly 160 acres of steeply sloped terrain in the project area during the summer of 2006, shortly after work began on the project. DEQ was also alarmed about the company’s failure to implement adequate erosion controls before the onset of the 2006-07 rainy season in the Coast Range. Due to lack of adequate protective measures, silt and sediment from the cleared, steep slopes eroded and discharged into the Yaquina River and several of its tributaries, including Eddy Creek, Trapp Creek, Crystal Creek, Little Elk Creek and Cougar Creek. These streams provide valuable spawning and rearing habitat for sensitive fish species, including cutthroat and steelhead trout and coho, chinook and chum salmon."

You can have all the "Best Management Practises's a company can use, but if you can't follow the law then we all have a problem. And don't be surprised that the conditions of approval, if you get that far, will make your mining costs above what you ever expected. There are alot of soccer moms out here that will be eager to sit outside your property and call the EPA, CARB, whatever the moment you violate the law.

To Reality wrote on Aug 22, 2008 4:42 PM:Hey, Reality, thanks for issuing the challenge. I'll be searching the web. In fact, while I'm at it, I think I'll look for other Granite violations and fines paid. Ain't the internet a peach?

Why Arent More Concerned wrote on Aug 22, 2008 4:59 PM:As always, it will be the naysayers now that will later be the ones complaining when their children are affected with the affects from silica. But of course...all of us that have been fighting it all along can only continue to take the hits and try our best not to say "We told you so" later when it happens if Granite is allowed here. It's so much easier to turn your back and say "I don't care" and "Why don't you people just give it a rest" when it's not in your back yard. But when it IS in your back yard...God help us all!!

Watcher wrote on Aug 27, 2008 5:36 PM:So Temecula spends a few hundred thousand dollars (David) compared with the $10,000,000 Granite (Goliath) has already spent. And Johnson sez it's a waste, who is fooln who?