1976-12-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- 5. Item 2.b. has been revised at Gordon Rendering Co.'s request to provide for 2 hour notice prior to the tests so that the plant manager can be present. This has been changed in both resolutions. 6. Item 2.c. has been revised to show the correct date and it is now required that we consult with each rendering plant prior to selection of the firm to do the testing. The Council required that the firms be given "certain rights" in the selection. This selection proposal gives the rendering plants the opportunity to object to the administration or the Council in regard to any firm we would propose to hire. We do not feel we can agree to give the rendering plants a list of acceptable testing firms from which they would make the final selection because there is only one firm in the area at this time that is performing the tests as we require them to be performed. Perhaps, in the future this could be changed. We also feel that there is less potential for conflict-of-interest if we, rather than the rendering plants, make the selection. We feel that it may make it clearer to the testing firm for whom it is they are actually working. 7. Revise item 2.g. to refer to "applicable portion of APC-9". This change would be redundant since it is not possible to violate an inapplicable portion of APC-9. If it is not applicable, it is not a violation. The reference to APC-9 is valid. There is very little of it that is not applicable to rendering plants and APC-10, which specifically covers odors from processing of animal matter, also refers to APC-9 in its last paragraph. 8. Item 3 should statefi'the suspension occur when the City knows the operator has caused a sewage problem:' This change would make the provision unenforcable since we would have no way of knowing in many cases from which plant the grease had come or how much had come from each plant. The practice has been to charge the cost of cleaning to all firms putting grease into a line that becomes plugged. A further change in this section was made at the request of Gordon Rendering to limit the responsibility to the firms who make use of the part of the system that becomes plugged. This would cover a situation such as plugging of a sewer line from Minneapolis Hide and Tallow, for example, at a point before the other two rendering plants. In that situation only Minneapolis Hide and Tallow would pay the cost. The previous wording implied that all three firms would pay the cost. As directed by the Council, this