My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCAgenda-3/10/04WS
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-03/10/04WS
>
CCAgenda-3/10/04WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:13:01 PM
Creation date
3/5/2004 9:34:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/10/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SOME FACTS ABOUT EUGENE'S <br /> TOXICS RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW <br /> AND CURRENT ATTEMPTS TO KILL IT <br /> <br />What are the two.basic elements of Eugene's Right-to-Know law that <br />Eugene voted to place in the City's constitution ("Charter") in 19967 <br /> <br /> 1. Hazardous substance-using businesses must report their toxics releases. <br /> They must tell Eugene's citizens how many pounds of which hazardous <br /> substances they use and produce AND where these hazardous substances <br /> go (e.g., air, water, products). <br /> <br /> 2. Hazardous substance-using businesses must cover the costs of reporting <br /> their toxics releases. <br /> They, and not citizens exposed to these released toxics, must cover the <br /> costs of reporting their hazardous substance use, production, and release. <br /> <br />Has the law changed so much that it's time to put it out to the voters? <br /> <br /> NO. The entire toxics reporting system (with one insignificant change) has <br />remained almost entirely unchanged for its entire six-year history, despite attacks on it by <br />some businesses in court and two Legislatures. <br /> <br /> The fee structure has been altered, at the behest of the businesses themselves. In a <br />bizarre 1999 court opinion,x the businesses succeeded in prohibiting Eugene from <br />collecting fees only from those businesses who actually report hazardous substance use. <br />As a result, businesses that use fewer or even no hazardous substances and therefore don't <br />fill out annual reports to the public must also pay fees. <br /> <br /> The businesses then got the Oregon Legislature to cap Eugene's toxics reporting <br />fees at $2,000 per company, which cap goes into effect this year. This shiRs fees from <br />the large businesses to the smaller businesses: <br /> <br />~ The Court ruled that Eugene's RTK program is like the State Fire Marshal's what-mixtures-are-stored-on- <br />site-in-barrels-for-when-firefighters-come prognun. In the 1980s, the State Fire Marshal, in an attempt to <br />keep all fire marshal stored-on-site data in Salem, got the Legislature to prevent "quantity-based" fees on <br />local hazardous substance programs that are like the State Fire Marshal's program (i.e., local fire marshals' <br />programs). The State Fire Marshal's program is completely different than Eugene's RTK program: It does <br />not require any reporting of chemicals released to air, water, or soil; requires no inpnt-output balancing; <br />requires no repotting of ba?ardous substances produced on site; allows reporting of mixtures rather than <br />chemicals; allows reporting of ranges rather than precise amounts, etc. <br /> <br /> City Council Agenda page 649 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.