New Search
The Administrative Rule <br /> i Prior to submittal of the Part Two, stormwater-app the Vactor Waste Study <br /> City Code was rev to include a p rohibi t ion on the Completed in May 1995, th Stormwater Waste <br /> I discharge to the stormwater system of any solid, l or i Management Facility" easibFility Study examined the issues <br /> other material other Irian stgrnwater. issues <br /> to this ' : and concerns associated with the manag of stormwater <br /> p • are discharges pursuant to N <br /> an PDES pemut, system waste materials. The study explored the feas <br /> I discharges resulting,: - from fire fighting ac , tivities, and i of a regional facility to assist local agenci es in address <br /> discharges with written ,approval - -from the -City. Under ; this important elementofstormwa oper and <br /> existinode,; this prohibi , 'would be enforced throug t he maintenance. Parti in th °stu include the Cit o f <br /> g c <br /> i City's nuisance abatement procedures. While provid the Eugene' and Springfield, and Lane County A vactorwaste <br /> City th s <br /> wiuffcieiint authority to p roh ibit discharges, the charac terizatio n s was • m ear ly October 1 995 <br /> n uisance abatement procedures allow the responsible party 10 ; • as a supplemental shad t itt Reg ional Stotmatewr Wast <br /> i day :i: t corre the nu isance ' In th e c of environmentally Management Facility Feasibility Study. T purpose o that <br /> threatening materials, the time delay associated with the study was to determine whether- substances a detrimental, <br /> I abatement p c prove unacceptable I n - ;some nature are present in the: waste material which is, rouh nely- <br /> • insta ces n where. the material, i question has e scaped t o the , collected (vactored) from .th e., public .stormwater piped ,. <br /> environment, a .is not pos sible T staff , systems. The waste characterization study ;was a l s o; intended <br /> ': determined that , ain :Administrative le was needed to to aid.':in the design . flf the regional waste facility by <br /> i sup th City Code The Rule consists of "three $ determining the 'treatability ofthe compounds found. . <br /> elements <br /> These results characterize one sampling event:, at six <br /> . El ' ' .. :...- Abatement;:::'-- The !City may initiate abatement a locations, and may not represent the concentration of <br /> 1 without delay, and without is any prior orders to correct ' pollutants in 'catch basin materials throughout the <br /> I or attempting to secure voluntary compliance or correction of i Eugene/Springfield area. To produce .statistically valid <br /> th e violation. The City may issue a Civil Penalty concurrent i results, additional sampling over a longer period of time is <br /> with abatement. required. Time constraints and high lab costs prevented a <br /> longer, more comprehensive evaluation. However, the data <br /> Cease and Desist Order - An enforcement officer indicate that longer• settling time reduces. the concentration <br /> 1 may issue the responsible persona cease and desist and/or stop !i of total' metals, which is consistent with the results of other <br /> i work order, • whichever is applicable. stud <br /> Administrative Civil Penalty - The City may issue an ;i Lane County has received approval to construct a construct' a.' <br /> A dministrative Civil': Penalty..with prior written notice and waste handling facility at the County's Central Receiving <br /> ;opportunity to correct However, if the violation is intentional Facility in Glenwood: The facility will accept waste from <br /> knowing, or repetitive, no written nonce or opportunity to ? the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County public system, <br /> i c orrect is required. The amount of the Civil Penalty is ; and from private systems, Construction is anticipated in the <br /> co from a formula,' :which takes into account a num Summer of 1996, with completion in the. Fall of 1996. <br /> I. of factors including: (1) the history of the responsible party„ , ;; <br /> (2) the number of .prior. violations, (3) .the gravity and <br /> i magnitude of the violation, (4) the timeliness ofthe mitigation <br /> response, (5) the level of effort by the responsible party, (6) <br /> I the number of prior enforcement actions, and (7) whether or <br /> not the violation was an unavoidable accidentor an intentional <br /> act. <br /> • i T he Administrative Rule will be implemented upon review <br /> an signature by the Ci Manager, and 30-day public' notice. 'i <br /> i T he Rule is anticipated to be in effect by July 1996. <br /> 12 <br />