Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Lane County Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council January 29, 2007 Page 2 seven years from nearby residents. The opponents' reliance on complaints, rather than enforcement actions taken 'by LRAPA against Delta in response to complaints, is n.ot responsive to the Goal 5 Rule criteria. The. fact remains thatLRAP A has not issued anYnenJorcement action or sanction againstIJe,lta regarding its operation of its. crushing operation, its mining operation or its haul roads. While Delta has received one citation from LRAPA for a violation at a construction site (dust control) and one other citation for failure to cover a load on Delta Highway, it has not been found to be in violation of the LRAPA permit (or fined therefor) related to it operations, both mining and production, on its current facility site. Opponents cite the January 2005 incident during which Delta was cited by LRAPA for failing to water Division Avenue during a period of extreme'ly low temperatures as proof that Delta has not performed its requirements and responsibilities under its LRAP A fugitive air permit. The LRAPA Notice of Violation served on Delta for that incident is the only Notice of Violation received by Delta regarding its operations on or near the subject site. More importantly, Delta points out that it received a complete dismissal of that Notice of Violation and was not sanctioned or fined by LRAP A for that incident. Evidence of that dismissal is cun~ently in the record of this proceeding. Opponents cite the complaints as if they were proof of Delta's n.on-performance of its requirements and responsibilities under its LRAPA permit. Opponents state: H[T]hese comp:laints serve to further illustrate that Applicant's proven track record is not one of adherence to DEQ and LRAPA standard, but rather a track record of adverse dust impacts." No, they do not illustrate such a conclusion. First of all, opponents have not provided any evidence that the complaints were legitimately connected to Delta's operation. Secondly, Delta did not receive a single Notice of Violation from LRAPA regarding those complaints. The mere creation of a complaint is not proof that Delta has violated the conditions of its LRAPA permit. Oppone-nts attempt to disconnect the complaint-to-sanction process by arguing that LRAPA is somehow too inefficient or incompetent to adequately protect the metropolitan area's air shed and that it cannot be truste-d to re-gulate Delta's ope Tations. The fact that LRAPA has cited and fined Delta over incidents at construction sites rebuts the opponents' theory that LRAPA turns a blind eye to Delta operations and allows Delta to operate in violation of its permit. We continue to emphasize that Delta has not bee,n sanctionedbyLRAP A, by fines or other sanctions, for any of its operations on the subject site in the rnanydecades that it has been located on the subject site. It has mined its resource, hauled its resource across the site and has produced aggregate material on the subject site without a single violation of its LRAP A permit. That is Delta's track record. Delta's true track record of fulfilling all of its responsibilities under the LRAPA permit is what the elected officials should and can expect from Delta as it mines and processes aggregate material from the expansion site. Its performance over the last 40 )'ears at its current site is proof of its commitment to fulfillin.g its responsibilities to its neighbors and the public.