06/08/1992 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e revlslon, if environmental contamination resulting from a discharge presented no immediate risk to public health and safety, the City would defer to agen- cies with expertise in these matters, such as the Oregon Department of Envi- ronmental Quality (DEQ). Mr. MacDonald brought up the issue of the Amazon Canal, and the underground oil storage tanks that leaked into the soil and water. He said that this is not an immediate risk to the public health and safety, and therefore, under the revision, would not be addressed by the City. Mr. Nuss said the in that case, the City would rely on another agency to address the problem. In re- sponse to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Nuss said that the amount of money this revision would save is difficult to determine, because staff re- sources are still needed to determine whether the discharge is a threat to the public health and safety. Mr. Green expressed a concern about the response time of the City, if a discharged substance is determined to be an immediate threat to the public health and safety. Mr. Nuss said that the ordinance allows the City to either clean up the waste or force the responsible party to clean it up. Mr. Gleason clarified that the ordinance would allow the City to take the responsibility to act. Mr. Nicholson wondered what would result if the responsible party could not be found or no longer existed. Glenn Klein, City Attorney's Office, said that the ordinance does not require the City to clean up the discharged substance. He added that the City would not be liable in such a case. In response to a question from Mr. Boles regarding option 3, Mr. Gleason said that the DEQ only enforces remediation and does not actually clean up hazard- 4It ous discharged substances. In response to a question from Mr. Green regarding enforcement, Mr. Nuss said that the existing fire code language extends authority to the fire and safety crew to act in a situation where the public health or safety is threatened. Ms. Bascom commented that option 4 seems most reasonable, in light of present financial considerations. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to direct staff to present an ordinance based on option 4, the "limited authority" option. Mr. Robinette shared Mr. MacDonald's concerns, although he pointed out that there are significant cost impacts if the City has the authority to remediate hazardous substance discharge. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Nuss said that option 4 differs from the current situation in that it clari- fies the role of the City in locating the responsible parties and it clarifies the appropriate fines for noncompliance. He said that the fire code is vague, and this ordinance revision attempts to alleviate its unclarity regarding this issue. The motion passed, 5:3 (Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Boles, and Mr. Nicholson voting in opposition). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council 5:30 p.m. June 8, 1992 Page 8