02/28/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

e e . Councilor Hansen said he felt the council should have been provided with informa- tion on how the proposed $200 fee was derived. He expressed concern that the proposed ordinance gave the City Manager the discretionary powers to set discharge standards greater than State or Federal standards and noted for the record that he would not want to see this done. Councilor Holmer questioned Section 6.460 (4) on page 13 of the proposed ordi- nance, which required the City to publiSh a list of significant violators in the local newspaper with the largest circulation and asked whether there might be more efficient means to make the information public. Mr. Cook said that this was a Federal requirement. Public hearing was opened. James tvlorris, 564 Mary Lane, represented Monsanto Company. He said the firm supported the program but would like to comment and suggest changes to portions of the ordinance. He asked that Section 6.440 (h) on page 8 be deleted, since his firm did not feel that proprietary information was needed to protect either the treatment plant or the environment. He suggested that the 30-day period for notification of permit change in Section 6.440 (3) on page 9 was too short and suggested that the period be changed to 90 days. Referring to Section 6.440 (m) on page 5, Mr. Morris said the section was redundant, since its provisions were covered in Section 6.525, and should therefore be deleted. James L. Conner, 3390 Balsam Drive South, Salem, represented Agripac, 799 Ferry Street, Eugene. He submitted his testimony in writing. He said Agripac supported the ordinance and its intentions but objected to some of the wording, much of which was taken from language suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency and which reflected more a "police" attitude than one of industry cooperating with the City. He said that he had worked on a similar ordinance adopted by the City of Salem and that the resulting ordinance was a good one. He suggested several changes: 1) Section 6.440 (g)--delete requirement for a schematic diagram of the industry process and substitute requirement for site, floor, and plumbing plans; 2) Section 6.440 (h)--to protect industry confidentiality, substitute for proposed language a requirement for a description of activities and materials on the firm's premises as related to wastewater discharges; 3) Section 6.440 (9) delete requirement for providing access to all parts of premi ses at all reasonabl e times and substi tute requi rement for access wi thout unreasonable delay to points of wastewater discharge, sampling stations, etc.; 4) Section 6.440--Mr. Conner agreed that it was appropriate for the user to maintain pretreatment facilities but felt that the manner in which the user achieved the result should be left to the user's descretion; 5) Section 6.465-- Mr. Conner suggested deletion of the $50 fee for appeals to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, which he felt was in the nature of harassment; and 6) Section 6.990 (5)(b)--Mr.Conner felt that the right to cut off the sewers to a non-complying firm was punishment enough and that addition of punishment by fine or incarceration should therefore be deleted. He urged the council to consider the proposed changes. Mr. Conner asked whether if a firm's discharge is severed due to a disagreement with the City Manager regarding pretreatment the firm's ensuing losses could be recovered from the City in the event that the firm's appeal is upheld. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 9