Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

for the west end of the site and said this was a serious oversight.and an inadequacy in the record. She said the expansion area \vas in closer proximity to neigllbors and ,,'ould 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 froIn the applica11t as to whether it could do better mitigation nleasures on dust emissions. Ms. Nichols commel1ted that the dust mitigation portion of tile applicant's report mentioned less t11an normal setbacks and re111arked that this did not seelll like nlitigation of inlpacts. . Mr. Zdzienicki said the LRAPA pennithad not yet been given. He raised concern over making a blanket decision that the expansion area ",'ould be included in the san1.e 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 \vas aSSUflled that the applicant would conlply with dust emission standards when there had been no analysis. Mr. Carmichael stressed that there \vas currently Inining going on and there was cu.rrently an LRAP.l\ penuit. He said dust etnissions were being exall1ined according to LRAPA standar~s. He said if mining continued at its current level in a different area then a logical person ",'ould.assume that whatever was currently going on no\v would be going on in the future. He said tbe issue was \'\tllether there \vouldbe more or less du.st emissions. He acknowledged that the.re was some concern from C01111111ssioners that dust could be a conflict but expressed his opinion that dust emissiollS \vould 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 notedthat the oppositiol1 had cIahned that there \vould be 50 percent more dust particulate ill the air. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding \vhether LRAP A changed its standards according to proximity to residential areas, Mr.. Lanfear said the LRAPA standard \vas a 111axitnum contamil1ate level based on proxitnity to the source of the en1issions. Mr. Duncan said analysis of dust e11lissions was an ongoitig 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 111et the applicable standard then the COmtllissions \vould have to fllld that standards had been Inet. He said the issue \vas a matter of the total production of dust by tlle facility and \vhether that production ulet th.e established standard. In respollse to a question. froln Mr. Dignam regarding whether other cOffilnunities in Oregon had an organization similar to LRAP A, Mr. Lanfear said he did not know of any other area that had an organization similar to LRAP A Mr. Dignanl stressed that Lane County \vas fortunate in that there was an expert ,organizatio11 that did not11.ing but nlonitor'pollution levels. He said he did not feel that he needed to second guess LRAPA \vhen it callle to dust emission standards. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Conlmissioll July 25, 2006 Page 8