Agenda - 09-06-2012 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

34 studies suggest that mortality and disease rates for neighboring residents are significantly higher in areas of industrial activity, such as outdoor materials storage and processing, transportation of uncovered materials, and particularly near such facilities that operate without paved operations areas, with unpaved roads and few mitigation efforts. The situation becomes worse if these activities allow movement of fugitive dust from their areas of operations, and if transportation of raw and finished products flow through residential areas. The most significant human and animal responses to airborne materials are those caused by inhalation of very fine particles. It is appropriate to note that these are the particles that are most easily picked up and carried long distances by even slight breezes or during transportation, especially if the winds are turbulent, such as those passing over and through rough ground, past elevated structures including buildings, highway and powerline rights-of-way and through forested transportation routes. Please note that this describes rural Orange County quite well, and is specific to the area of concern of the EDD south of Highway 70 and inclusive of all of Old NC 10, along which three commercial particulate sources (a concrete mixing plant, a precast concrete manufacturer, and a concrete, asphalt, and organic materials grinding operation) are located. Though all three are probably operating "within Orange County Codes", there is no evidence that they meet basic mitigation or "best practices" responsibilities, and there is no evidence that the County has the capability to measure the danger to it's citizens in areas of risk. The gist of this discussion suggests that the Planning Department and the Board are being asked to make decisions on programs and projects that may severely impact the well-being of Orange County residents, without valid and reliable data to determine what that risk may be. Data abounds in the scientific and health communities that clearly describe the effects of airborne particulates on humans, animals, vegetation, and indeed, water quality in the vicinity of producers of such particles; yet, they are not being used to evaluate such facilities in land-use or zoning decisions, nor are they being used to require known, effective mitigation practices to reduce or eliminate risk. The OC Economic Development Department confirms that there has been no objective analysis of the overall economic benefit that the proposed EDD EDE-2 heavy- industry category would offer for the County; nor is there sufficient information to allow evaluation of the economic loss to the residents by becoming neighbors to the operations of additional pollution-creating, high-traffic, heavy-machinery facilities. However, it can be easily proved that there are significant threats to the local residents, and through review of published scientific reports suggest the increased levels of risk to them. Without an understanding of the potential benefits there is no opportunity to evaluate the risk/benefit equation, and there are no public assurances as to which takes precedence, the risk or the benefit. This presupposes a "if you build it, they will come" situation; however, if you recall the movie "Field of Dreams", the only place "they came" was to the specific location where "it" was built, it was for a very brief time, and no benefit accrued to anyone else. The difficulties causing my concerns are likely caused by a long-running series of related but not coordinated decisions that could have been improved upon with the application of knowledge from readily available and proven technologies. My first exposure to the movement of airborne materials came in 1959 as a field worker for the US Department of the Interior. Since then, I have frequently been involved in the 2