Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Lane County' Board of Commissioners <br />and Eugene Cit)r Council <br />c/o Stephanie Schl.ilz, Plal111er <br />J antlarv 22, 2()07 <br />Page i' of 9 <br /> <br />IJ1vly~ htt slJ and. a11d I 11a\Te bee11 11()ticil1g a large increase in dttst <br />build-up ill our home, to the point that I think it is ttnhealthyto <br />li,re in. I wipe nlY COtlllter tops evet)1 dayalld by the next day I <br />can already see a gooli amount of dust build-up.1I C()InplaiIltNc). <br />13748 (Emph.asis added). <br /> <br />It Inllst LIe €111pllasized tl1at this c()lnpla.int related 0111)1 to 'lisible anl0ltnts of <br />d.llSt. It is literaH.y ilnpossiL)le to kI10vV 'vvllat dose of ilT\lisible, and harlnful <br />ill11alable particulate matter that the complail1ant and llt!1ers arOUl1d her were <br />receivi11g fronl tIle activities i11 tIle pit. <br /> <br />Moreover, ratl1er than conduct an investigatioll to deterluine vvhetI1er <br />t11e pit \tvas actually. producillg amOu11ts al1d t)rpes of dtlst \l\Thich vvere <br />actually harmful to su.rr(}u.ndillg propert}r o\l\rners, LRAP A representatives <br />attell1pted to mi11inlize 1\;1r8. POll(l'S concerns. LRAP A represelltative Tonl <br />Freelna11 first appears to qtlestiol1 vvhether Ivlrs. Rond has a11}' frame of <br />referellce tC) base her clailn tl1at there l1as beell a "large dust build up" given <br />that slle 11ad apIJarentl)T anl:? recently 11loved illtO tIle area. !vir. Freeluan <br />\/Ve1lt 011 tC) indicate that, althougl1 IIsmaller [dust] particles might be luore of a <br />prot) 1 ern. for sonle people/fI the visible .dtlSt tl1at Mrs. PC)lld and her fanlily V\las <br />experiencing v\Tas 'Iprabably be classified as a "n.uisan.ce" du.st, as opposed to <br />a healtll risk." Complaint No. 13748 (En1p11asis ad.ded)~ <br /> <br />\Vllat is renlarkable abC)tlt this c()rrespon.dence is tile fact tllat Ivfr. <br />Freema11 appears to be \/villing tC) render an opinion 011 the health effects of <br />tl1e existirtg operatiollvvithout actttally. verif:yillg or }Jerfofl11i!1g all)l testing to <br />determine if t11ere is a l1ealt11 h.aza.rd. Botl1 .DEQ- arid LRAPA regulations <br />place stri11gellt restrictio11S on tIle amOtl11t of i11vrisil)le dtlSt - onl.y nlicrons 111 <br />size - that l1lay be produ.ced. b:y the operatio11. III fact tvfr. Freenla11 ev'en <br />aCkl1Cyvvledges tllat tllese i1sn1aller particles" pose a il10re significal1t l1ealth <br />risk. '~{et,f it appears t11at 11e 0111)' "\\!ellt by Delta" t() see if e\ler}1tIlillg looked <br />all rig11t.Conlplail1t No. 13748. Dri\lil1g by aI1 ()peratiC)Il to detern1il1e if tIle <br />illvisible partiCtllate nlatter is \\rithin safe limits is not an adequate protection <br />of tIle public 11ealtl1. <br /> <br />U11fc)rtlll1atel:y/ tIlis is r1C1t an isolated incidel1t. ()f tIle 13 conlplail1ts <br />prtJvided l-)yLRAI)~l\, none reflect th.at LRt\Pl\ t:tndertook testing to \lerify <br />that Delta vvas cOllfor11ling to applicable DEQ al1.d LRAP f\ stal1dards for <br />particlllate dtlst. In fact, o11ly h,v() of th.e otller cOlnplai11ts reflect t11at <br />investigators forL.Rf\P j\ actually 'vvel1t to locatiol1.See Complaint No. 8852 & <br />13041. Five of the complaints reflect that LRAP A took no action <br />''''}la.tsoever. See Complaint No. 8225, 8371, 9023, 13132, & 13152. For <br />i11stal1ce, on Septelnber 7, 2001, a cOlnplai11a11t stated tllat: <br />