Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> . staff member Greg Mott was present in the audience to answer questions, and <br /> indicated that there would be no action taken on the item tonight. <br /> Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, <br /> Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. <br /> IX. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DISCHARGE AND REMOVAL ORDINANCE <br /> Fire Marshal David Nuss introduced the agenda item. He said that the <br /> ordinance in question dealt specifically with remediation of abandonment, <br /> discharge, and dumping of hazardous materials and included provision for <br /> holding building permits in the case of site contamination. The ordinance <br /> also provides for fines of violators. Mr. Nuss noted that the ordinance had <br /> been redrafted following council discussion of a previously submitted <br /> ordinance. <br /> Mr. MacDonald asked Mr. Nuss if the City had discussed the narrowed scope of <br /> the ordinance with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or similar <br /> authorities for more information about the DEQ response to spills or <br /> discharges not threatening to life. Mr. Nuss said that DEQ has the authority <br /> and responsibility to respond to such situations, although not necessarily <br /> the staff or financial resources. He said that DEQ may act slowly, but is <br /> aware of the scope of the City's response and knows the City is not <br /> attempting to supplant DEQ. <br /> e Mr. MacDonald asked if DEQ commented on its ability to respond to such <br /> incidents. Mr. Nuss responded that DEQ staff contended that the agency is <br /> aware of its responsibility under State law and indicated the agency's <br /> willingness to respond to such incidents. <br /> Mr. Green asked how the City would respond in those cases where DEQ was <br /> working with a violator who was slow to mitigate spills or discharges: were <br /> the City to act locally, would DEQ reimburse it for its costs, and what <br /> response time did staff expect for such incidents. Mr. Nuss said that were a <br /> responsible party under orders to clean up from DEQ or the Environmental <br /> Protection Agency (EPA), the City's ordinance had no effect. He said were <br /> the responsible party to have applied for a loan for clean-up assistance but <br /> was not under a clean-up order, the City would have the authority to require <br /> the cleanup. The City could clean the spill or discharge and find and fine <br /> the responsible party, or require the responsible party to clean up. Mr. <br /> Nuss added that, under the ordinance, the responsible party would have the <br /> ability to use an appellate process if it believed the clean-up order was <br /> unjustified. <br /> Mr. Robinette asked City Attorney Bill Gary if the term "welfare" should be <br /> removed from the phrase in the ordinance, "public health, safety, and <br /> welfare" due to the possibility the word would broaden the scope of the <br /> ordinance beyond the council's intent. Mr. Gary said that the phrase was a <br /> "catch phrase" used to describe the general public good. Public health and <br /> safety was a concept distinct from public health, safety, and welfare. Mr. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 12 <br /> 7:30 p.m. <br />