Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Air Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Genola residents press council on dust from gravel pits; council discusses air monitors and permitting limits
Summary
Residents and councilors discussed dust and air-quality concerns from nearby gravel pits and quarries; the council explored low-cost air monitors (TELUS/Teledyne options) and learned that county approval does not replace Department of Air Quality/DEQ permitting, which requires modeling and mitigation plans.
Unidentified Speaker 8 introduced air-monitoring options during public comment and said some consumer-grade monitors run about $2,000 with an additional ~$150/year for cellular service. "Telus is one that that their quality people mentioned it's around $2,000, for the system... and it's about a $150 a year for that service," Unidentified Speaker 8 said, adding the devices give citizens real-time readings and a way to document conditions to send to legislators and air-quality agencies.
Councilors and residents focused on what the monitors measure. Unidentified Speaker 8 and others explained that some systems concentrate on PM2.5, while the community's concern is larger dust (PM10). "The 1 that he's talking about... it doesn't really measure the PM10... they specifically are are geared for the PM2.5, which is not really what we're concerned with," Unidentified Speaker 8 said; he also noted some systems use filter collection that allows lab analysis of deposited particles.
On permitting, Unidentified Speaker 2 clarified that county approval of a new pit does not guarantee it will open: Department of Air Quality modeling must show the pit will not prevent attainment of air-quality standards, and the permit flow involves the Department of Natural Resources then the Department of Environmental Quality. "They approve, then it goes to department of natural resources, then it goes to the department of environmental quality," the meeting chair said. Councilors raised concerns about water used for mitigation, noting instances where 'strawberry water' or Bureau of Reclamation water were involved in mitigation and asking whether that use was lawful.
Speakers urged organized constituent action: one councilor said regular, targeted emails to state agencies and representatives are the most effective route to compel action. Unidentified Speaker 8 summarized the council's options: monitoring would at minimum give residents data and a record to support future advocacy.
What happens next: staff said they would circulate monitor bids and recommendations by email for council consideration; residents discussed fundraising for additional monitors and possible placement on town property (water tank on Hillcamore Drive was suggested).
