Laserfiche WebLink
was the only agency offering that service. He suggested that the City might consider operating its <br />own crews, over which it would have control. <br /> <br />D. WORK SESSION: Request from the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) to <br /> Revise Eugene Code Section 6.250 <br /> <br />The council was joined by Brian Jennison of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), <br />who asked the council to amend the City Code related to new standards for certain types of <br />particulate matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked the source of the proposed standards, and how often staff envisioned the <br />conditions that the standards were intended to address occurring. Mr. Jennison said that the <br />source of the standard was the federal health-based standard for fine particulates, PM 2.5, and <br />LRAPA wished to avoid violating that regulation; if it could preclude emissions when the <br />community reached a reading of 55, it could avoid violating the federal standard. He said that a <br />Stage 1 advisory had never been called, and the agency had been using PM 2.5 all year; it had <br />called more yellow advisories than in the past. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly referred to new subsection 4 of the proposed ordinance and said that while red was <br />defined, <br />"green" and "yellow" were never defined. He suggested legal counsel check into that. He asked if <br />"opacity" was easy to measure in the field. He also asked what the likely impact would be of a <br />green/yellow advisory: no more wood stove use? Mr. Jennisen said those who use wood stoves <br />properly will have no problem with the opacity limitation. It was an enforcement tool to help <br />inspectors in the field determine whether a particular wood stove was a neighborhood nuisance. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked how the ordinance would be enforced. Mr. Jennisen said that the City Manager <br />had, through administrative order, delegated the enforcement of the rule to LRAPA. LRAPA had <br />been enforcing the ordinance for some time. If the agency had to call a red, it would send out <br />field staff. Inspectors would knock on the doors of offenders and ask them to stop burning. If <br />they refused, they could be cited and fined. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Jennison that Section 6.250(3) was a list of what constituted <br />garbage and could cause dense smoke if burned. Mr. Pap8 determined that the ordinance applied <br />to fireplaces, and asked about fireplaces and stoves that were ignited by propane or gas. Mr. <br />Jennisen was not aware of a fireplace which was ignited by gas and burned wood. If a fireplace <br />was designed to be started with a gas fuel, th ordinance would not apply. He said that the focus <br />of the ordinance was on items thrown into a fire after it was started. Mr. Pap~ was aware of such <br />fireplaces, and was concerned about the specificity in Section 6.250(3), particularly the mention of <br />petroleum byproducts. Mr. Jennisen said that the reference to petroleum by-products was a <br />reference to waste oil and rags, for example. He emphasized that the focus was on solid-fuel <br />space heating devices, which did not include gas heated fireplaces. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Jennisen that LRAPA's enforcement officers could decide whether <br />the ordinance was being violated by evaluating degrees of opacity. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr thanked Mr. Jennison for the work that LRAPA did. He determined from Mr. Jennisen that <br />barbeques and the cooking of food for human consumption were exempt from the ordinance. He <br />asked how arbitrary enforcement could be avoided. Mr. Jennisen said that he was also <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />