Ordinance No. 20413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

federal standards, to '"minimize a conflict" means to ensure conformance to the applicable standard (OAR 660-023-0180(1)(g). Lane County's airshed is protected and regulated by LRAP A and the applicant currently holds an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) from LRAP A for its existing mining and processing facility on the adjacent Delta property. That ACDP requires that the rock crushing facility of the applicant remain in its current location and also provides a limitation on the amount of rock produced from that facility. Bridgewater provides the list of proposed dust control measures that includes the requirement that the expansion area shall be included within the LRAP A ACDP for the existing Delta Sand and Gravel Company operation, and that the provisions of that ACDP shall be followed by the applicant on the proposed expansion site. A copy of the ACDP is attached to the application (Exhibit 1). The ACDP requires that the LRAP A-approved Fugitive Dust Control Program be followed at the existing company site. The expansion area shall be added to the ACDP and the Fugitive Dust Control Program shall be implemented on the proposed expansion area. We find that the activities proposed for the expansion area will become subject to the current LRAP A ACDP. (See Exhibit 1, Exhibit G) Bridgewater recommends additional dust control measures and those measures are listed below in these findings. Opponents of the application testified that they believe that the applicant cannot minimize dust conflicts from the proposed mining with nearby residential land uses and believe that the aggregate extraction process (mining) creates significant conflicting amounts of dust. They cite past examples of fugitive dust and complaints to LRAP A (Exhibits 63, Knepler, and 65, DuPriest, as examples). We find that potential dust conflicts have been demonstrated to result primarily from three activities associated with mining and processing of aggregate material. Those activities are: 1) excavation of the site for aggregate material, 2) transport of the excavated material to the processing facility and 3) the processing facility (rock crushing operations). We find that the current ACDP includes provisions that regulate the manner in which those activities occur on the existing Delta facility site but that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that these regulations will control production of airborne particulate matter at a level that meets LRAP A (and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) standards, particularly at point of excavation. Furthermore, we find, based upon testimony provided in the testimony that particulate matter that may be harmful to nearby residents and other urban uses are not readily visible to the eye, cannot be effectively regulated based on visual inspection, and may not be visible in videos submitted as testimony (e.g., Exhibit 267). Testimony indicated'that harmful dusts may be created at the point of excavation; that is, at the areas that will be closest to sensitive receptors (e.g., residents and future schools). Evidence in the record also showed substantial winds from the north, northnortheast, eastsoutheast, east, southsoutheast, and south could substantially affect nearby land uses (for example: Exhibit 33b, Concerned Santa Clara Citizens, including reports by Camille Marie Sears and Stephen Kimberley, MD, Exhibit 65, DuPriest, and Exhibit 267, DVD of site conditions). The applicant provided testimony in the form of a DVD (Exhibit 267) of the current extraction process on the existing mining site, intended to show that the process of mining does not produce Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 20