Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

expert in the record who had stated that many neighborhoods would be impacted by. dust emissions from the site. She added that there was also a physician on record talking about pulmonary diseases and other health impacts to nearby residential areas. She noted that the applicant did not do an air dispersion model for the west end of the site and said this was a serious oversight and an inaodequacy in the record. She said the expansion area was in closer proximity to neighbors and would therefore produce 50 to 60 percent more .particulate matter. She said increased exposure to particulate matter would actually decrease longevity. She said she would like to hear from the applicant as to whether it could do better mitigation measures on dust emissions. Ms. Nichols cominented that the dust mitigation portion of the applicant's report mentioned less than normal setbacks and remarked that this did not seem like mitigation of impacts. . Mr. Zdzienickisaid the LRAP A permit had not yet been given. He raised concern over making a blanket decision that the expansion area would be included in the same permit that was currently in use. Mr. Becker said there had been- no quantitative analysis of dust impacts as part of the record. . He questioned how it was assumed that the applicant would comply with dust emission standards when there had been no analysis. _ Mr. Carmichael stressed that there was currently mining going on and there was currently an LRAP A permit. He said dust emissions were being examined according to LRAP A standards. He said if mining continued at its current level in a different area then a logical person would assume that whatever was currently going on now would be going on in the future. He said the issue was whether there would be more or less dust e~ssions. He acknowledged that there was some concern from commissioners that dust could be a conflict but expressed his opinion that dust emissions would not be a -greater concern than it currently was. Mr. Becker said his issue was the closer proximity of mining operations to nearby residential areas. He. noted that the opposition had claimed that there would be 50 percent more dust particulate in the air. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding whether LRAP A changed its standards according to proximity.to residential areas, Mr. Lanfear said the LRAPA standard was a maximum contaminate level based on proximity to the source of the emissions. Mr. Duncan said analysis of dust emissions was an ongoing process. He stressed that analysis was going on all the time. He said LRAP A would make the determination as to what was acceptable dust emission. Mr. Carroll said it was difficult to arrive at an objective resolution to the issue. He said if the applicant met the applicable standard then the commissions would have to find that standards had been met. He said the issue was a matter of the total production of dust by the facility and whether that production met the established standard. In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding whether other communities in Oregon had an organization similar to LRAP A, Mr. Latifear said he did not know of any other area that had an organization similar to LRAP A MINUTES~ane County Planning Commission - -1u1y'25,2006.-: Page 8.