The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 3/29/2000 Mar. L8. LUUU U :UJrM 1'1 U, U I j 0 I, U J .' I<.ilJ.Jltj;mf Mnllll.lilttllrillJJ (;1J1/1pj~IJY ~. '. M,arch 29, 2006 RECEIVED . rfra' ,---8-- 231~~ '.' BY;lA1 John Tamulonis . Director, City Dcvelopment'Scrvices City of Springfi~ld 22S .Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 RE: Article 17 Driilkin<! Water Protection Overlav District , . , Dear Mr, Tarmilonis: ."" . .. On behalf of The Clorox Company' and Kingsford Manufacturing Company, I wish to express Qur support for the policy objectives embodied in proposed Article 17 of the Coun~y Municipal ~odes. In short., we endorse the CiW's efforts to create safeguards protecting the. quality cif well water in the City of Springfield. After examining the proposed Article 17, we have discovered a number of technical issues that will create b\lrdensunrelated to the protection of ~ell water. In fact, we believe . these burdens could undermine the City's efforts to create an effective. well water proteciion process. 'We do not believe' the City desires to create such burdens: Therefore,. we present. our concerns below. We believe the City can achieve its policy objectives by limiting the scope of Article 17.solelY to substances known to present a threat to well water. The li'st of dense npn-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) would 'appear to be an appropriate starting point. '. BACKGROUND In addition to establishing new requirementsJor DNAPLs, Article 17 proposes to create'ne>>, requirements for the handling of substances defined as hazardous materials. Specifically, materials.subject to this ordinance include any substance which would be a hazardous materidl pursuaht to the Uniform Fire Code ("UFC").The UFC definition of hazardous materiab includes materials considered hazardous for any number ofreasons, many of which have little to do with the potential threat'the material poses to groundwater. Essentially, the UFC includes as hazardous any material required to have a Matetial Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Although there are hundreds ofthousands ofmatenals h~ving MSDSs, only 27 are currently specifically excluded by the proposed Article J 7. Air, oxygen, uncontaminated water and cement are among the excluded substances. .'l{lri-rljl/irhf fJ[IHL~ .,.,IS .\In:"i"!/Io f(mlff ,'>{I;-j,!ll'tict.f,lJl{ ()7...1;',\' (in) ,1.flj-I.)CI(JI 1'/1.\" (.'i-II) 7r-,'N(lJ Ma~: i~. iUUU Ii: UJfM HNlrSIUKU ~rKI11\Ji ItLV 1~'U:'U1S0 r. J/J Mr. Tamulonis March 29, 1999 . Article 17 proposes 10. require that a permit be obtBlned whenever there is any change at a facility or business that may alter the "storage, use, handling, treatment, . production, [or1 transportation': of regulated hazardous materials. An increase .in thc amounts' "used, stored or produced" also require a permit. See, proposed Article 17.050. Article 17 proposes to prohibit the storage of more than 500 gallons of . hazardous materials or hazardous materials in containers exceeding 5 gallons at . businesses located within areas designated as "O~J yearTOTZ" See, proposed Article 17.070(l)(a).' Storage of solid hazardous materials would be prohibited because they would be considered liquids. See, proposed l7.050(2)(a). TECHNICAL ISSUE #1: PER SEREGULATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS APPEA.RSTO PRQVIDE LITTLE PROTECTION OF.WATER WELLS. " '. There are approximately 500,000 substances designated, hazardous materials. Most of these subst~cesare so designated because they' may preser:t a safety hazards unrelated to protection ot' groundwater contamination. For example, oxygen is on this list because, in pure form, it creates a'flammability hazard.' Similarly, most construction materials also are classified as hazardous materials because they presem a risk of skin 'or eye irritation. A carpenter choosing to alter how sheet rock is stored or handled would, in certain circumstances, be required to obtain a permit prior to doing so. We do not believe the City intends to designate such a long list of : substances as. being.th.reats to groundwater and a basis to limit land use. .. TEC~CAL ISSUE #2: THE PROCESS TO EXCLuDE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. FROM THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 17 IS LlKELYTO BE OVERWflELMED. While Article 17 proposes to create a petition process for excluding substances fro~ the list of materials than trigger a permit application, the process requires examination' by the Direclor in consultation with the.SUB. See, proposed Article I i060(2)(~). Further, the applicant has the responsibility of proving that the substance presents no threat and is subject to review by technical experts. Ibid. If Article 17 is adopted in its current form, the City is likely to be burdened with a . significant number of permit applications and petitions for exclusions in order for the business corrimunity to comply. J:or example, if the City determines.that 250 . . hazardous substances indeed present a risk to gronndwater, it woufd need to exclude approximately 499,750 substances. At 25 substances per page, 19,990 pages of . exemptions would be needed. TECHNICAL ISSUE #3; PROPOSED ARTICLE 17.050(1) APPEARS TO REQUIRE A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NOMINAL BUSINESS . CHANGES. . , .J Ma r'. L~ LUUU I L: UHM K1NG."eUKV .orK1J1Gr lHV 110. U 1 :J 0 r.. 41 J. Mr. Tamulonis March Z9, 1999 According to Artitle .17.050(1); a business must apply for a permit 'whenever it changes how it handles or stores hazardous materials putsuant to: . "(a)... a change in use... ofaprciperty...,: (b) ... the Buildil'lgpermit pro!=ess; . (c) ...an internal alteration of a building that dcies not requir~ a Building permit, or (d) . . any development application including but not limited to ...." The above criteria appear to be imprecise and likely to create confusion in the regulated community. Subparagraph (a) requires apcrmit application where there is a . '.'changecif use ... d' a property. "This does.not 'appear to be defined. Subparagraph (c) requires a permit applic:ation whenever there is a chan'ge in the handling, storing, etc. of a hazardous'materiil.l.pursuant to an "internal alteration" that does not require a . building permit. 'Presumably this would include innocuous construction such as building or installing of:shelves. Subparagraph (c) appears expansive with little limit. As a consequence, the City may be overwhelmed by permit applications having no bearing on the protection of well water. . . TECHNICAL ISSUE#4: ARTICLE 17 IS LIKELY TO PUT LOCAL BUSINESSES AT A COMPETITIVE DlSADV ANT AGE. Because local businesses and the City will be subject to a process requiring issuance of permit applications for changes in .the handling (If hazardous malerials, businesses may not be able to legally make adjustments to market place demands in a timely manner. The list of exemptions will need to grow as businesses review the materials they handle. It will be. difficult to determine whether particular substances are included within the listed exemptions. . Accordingly, existing businesses will be challenged to compcte and prospective business will be prudent to evaluate their . ability to adjust to market conditions in light ofthc permitting burdens proposed by . Article )7. RECOMMENDATION .The complexity and implementation burdens associated with the proposed requirements could be avoided by focusing on the.materials of primary concern- dense non-aqueous phase liquids ("DNAPLs"). Rather than requiring a permit appliCation anytime there'is ail alteration in the use of ha~dling of a hazardous material, we recommend that the City consider limiting this ordinance to these DNAPLs. DNAPLs pose the major threat.Co contaminated drinking water due to their persistence and tendency to sink through groundwater. B'y focusing on DNAPLs, this threat to drinking water could be addressed without overburd~ning business and industry. . Ma.r: i~. i:UUU Ii: UHM ~ 111~;H.U KV .on 111u r 1 CLU 1~ U, U 1 :1 0 . I, 'J/:.J . , Mr. Tamulollis March 29, 1999 TheClorox Co~pany and Kingsford Manufacturing Company look forward to discussing the above concerns with you. We support your efforts and believe that by working together, we ean.develop standards that will enable the City to effectively and ~fficicnt1y achieve its policy objective to protect Springfield's water supply.' To this end,.we have a mutual interest. Please do not hesitate to give me a call at 744-4515' or contact the Plant Engineering-Managercat 744~4526. One of us will provide YC;lU with as much constructive input as we can. S?il~ .-----' Calvin Pittman Plant Manager .-