(1) The record contains no believable evidence <br />toxic substances would be introduced into the <br />sanitary sewer system by employees, e.g., fr+)m <br />use of toilets and wash basins; <br />3 <br />(2) The other waste water discharge source, the <br />14 cooling system utilized in the man.ufact.uring <br />process, is a self-contained unit, directly <br />S connected to the sewer system, does not appear <br />to contain any hazardous chemicals, and appears <br />6 to raise no problem of heat pollution; <br />7 (3) waste water discharges by Permawood wi.1.1 <br />involve periodic, monitoring by the city <br />8 pursuant to code requirements; problems could <br />thus be detected and remedied or the city could <br />9 stop operations of the plant. Record at 14-16. <br />10 <br />The question presented is whether there is substantial <br />11 <br />evidence in the record to support the city's determination <br />12 <br />concerning the sewer system's adequacy. ORS 197. 835 (g) (a) (C;) . <br />13 <br />Substantial evidence consists of evidence a reasonable mind <br />14 <br />could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. `Ilomebuilders <br />13 <br />Association of Metropolitan Portland v. METRO, 54 Or App 60, <br />16 <br />62, 633 P2d 1320 (1981); Christian Retreat Center v. Board of <br />17 <br />Comm. of Washington County, 28 Or App 673, 560 P2d 1.100 <br />6 di <br />(1977). 'l'he~ burden of producing such evidence and bringing it <br />19 <br />rests on respondents. <br />to they attention of this Board on appeal po <br />tit) <br />In this case, the record contains numerous repor°ts, and <br />21 <br />exhibits pertaining }d:..o Permawood's proposal. and the surrounding <br />22 <br />rareaw Presumably, a good deal of technical information about <br />23 <br />the proposal was also presented orally to the city during the <br />24 <br />permit- hearings. However, only a partial transcr::ipt of the <br />25 hearings was prepared for our review, and that por.tiorr was <br />26 <br />Page 19 <br />