MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, May 17, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Ed Washington (Chair), Susan McLain (Vice Chair), Rod Park

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 1:32 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 5, AND APRIL 19, 2000

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S UPDATE

Terry Petersen, Director of the Regional Environmental Management Department, gave a summary of the department’s recent activities. (The summary is attached to the meeting record.) Items included the following:

•  The US District Court ruled in favor of Metro in the Waste Connections vs. Metro lawsuit.

•  In another lawsuit, which does not directly involve Metro but could have implications for it in the future, ruled in favor of haulers over local jurisdictions regarding transport of mixed loads from single-generator non-residential accounts.

•  Governor Kitzhaber signed an Executive Order on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, adopting goals and guidelines to promote sustainability in Oregon. Metro will be sending representatives to a conference on sustainability to learn how the principles can be applied in this agency.

•  REM’s annual compost bin sale is planned for five different sites on June 3-4.

•  The annual conference of hazardous waste professionals will be held in Troutdale May 21-26. Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton will give the welcome speech.

•  REM has been collecting data as part of a pilot Performance Measures Program for the department. Changes have recently been made to improve data gathering and tracking. (The Third Quarter Progress Report relating to this item is attached to the meeting record.)

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-851A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REGARDING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Councilor Park asked REM staff to summarize its conversations with the Department of Agriculture over language in the original version. That language was problematic in that it could have been misconstrued as authorizing Metro’s regulation of use of some hazardous substances.

Scott Klag, Senior Solid Waste Planner, REM, said the department had contacted Chris Kirby, administrator of the Oregon Pesticides Division of the state Department of Agriculture. They had discussed whether the term “use” in the original ordinance implied that Metro was trying to regulate pesticide use. Mr. Kirby had suggested replacing the word “use” with the phrase “exposure to,” to address that concern. For example, the new wording would make the sentence in Section 4, number 2 of the ordinance read: ”Focus outreach and education programs on reducing the risk from exposure to improper storage of or improper disposal of household hazardous products.” In addition, Mr. Kirby also suggested that Metro address the importance of proper use of hazardous products in addition to promoting the use of alternatives in, for example, home gardens or construction projects.

Councilor McLain said she wanted to make sure that the message remained intact that alternatives too many hazardous products not only work but also might be preferable in some cases.

Mr. Klag said he thought that message remained intact. He referred to the natural gardening principles as an example of a format that clearly promotes alternatives.

Councilor Park thanked the staff for working with him and the Department of Agriculture on this. He said that by so doing a repeat of the “toxic tomato” incident would be avoided. He also said he thought this version made it clear that proper use was the key to safe use of these products. He noted that proper use was important for all products, natural or chemical, organic or inorganic, and this wording helped make that clear.

Councilor Park will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

3.  REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION PLAN POLICY WORK SESSION

Mr. Petersen introduced the work session by explaining that Metro’s current Regional Solid Waste Management Plan rules out new transfer stations in the region. However, a little more than a year ago cities, counties, and haulers raised the question of whether that policy should be changed to allow more stations. The reason for allowing more stations would be to lower collection fees in areas of the region where transportation times had increased to the point that collection fees have gone up. Additional full-service facilities could reduce costs through reducing transportation times. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) has been studying the issue and discussed its recommendations at a meeting that morning. Mr. Petersen introduced Mr. Anderson, who would present those recommendations.

Doug Anderson, Manager, Planning and Outreach, REM, summarized the information contained in the document dated May 17, 2000, titled “Regional Policy toward Transfer Station,” included in the meeting record. The key conclusion was that new transfer stations might be needed to provide greater access to station capacity by reducing transportation time and, therefore, cost. The SWAC concluded that more stations would also eliminate double handling of wastes.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Anderson what factors had been included in determining accessibility aside from travel time. She noted that some haulers might choose longer routes for a variety of reasons, including being owned by vertically integrated companies.

Mr. Anderson said travel times had been the primary criterion; however, they were defined as optimal times, not actual. Optimal times were then compared with times to reach potential full-service facilities—i.e., facilities that already exist but that do not currently accept all types of waste.

Councilor McLain expressed concern that accessibility to capacity had been defined only in terms of travel time; factors such as geography and road size, type, and level of congestion had not been included. She said that many factors other than travel time contribute to what makes businesses efficient, good, and profitable. She also said that the system has capacity, so even though accessibility in terms of travel time might be lacking. If more capacity were added, the financial viability of some facilities might be compromised.

Mr. Petersen said a SWAC subcommittee had studied not only travel times and related transportation costs, but also the tonnage impact on all the facilities in the region. He said those analyses would be presented as part of a larger report the REM staff would be bringing to the committee.

Councilor McLain suggested that congestion associated with time of day and road level of service be included when estimating travel time, not just distance.

Mr. Anderson said he would work with Councilor McLain before legislation comes back for a vote to address issues that had not been included in the study so far. He said many of the issues she was concerned about might have been addressed but were not included in this overview.

Mr. Anderson said that given that siting transfer stations has always been problematic, chances were slim that new facilities would be sited and built; most likely additional capacity would come from converting existing facilities to full-service stations. SWAC members raised the concern that if new wastes were accepted, the capacity for dry waste might be compromised. To address that, SWAC suggested establishing a 25% minimum recovery rate for all solid waste facilities—not just transfer stations. SWAC suggested that credit incentives by themselves had not worked to encourage sufficient recovery efforts because they could not be made large enough. They suggested that incentives—the carrot—coupled with minimum requirements—the stick—might work better.

Councilor Park said that he had understood that SWAC members would prefer to restore the minimum recovery rate in place of the incentive.

Mr. Anderson said the industry had expressed a desire to establish minimum recovery at 25% rather than 45%. The reason for selecting 25% was that it represented a meaningful number that was not so great that it might encourage a vertically integrated company to slack off on recovery to enrich their waste stream in order to meet a rate at their facility. He said the choice of the rate remained deeply controversial, and some parties were pushing for a higher rate.

Councilor McLain questioned the utility of establishing 25% minimum recovery rather than 45% while keeping the incentive, which the industry had said was not large enough to encourage recovery.

Mr. Anderson said that one aim would be to adjust the fee credit schedule to make the minimum work with the incentive. One element staff was looking at was whether the incentives were in the right places. For example, currently facilities that achieve rates of greater than 50% receive nearly a full refund. Rates of 25% would be almost impossible to achieve under some circumstances, such as where strong source-separation programs are in place. In those cases, credits would be moved to an achievable range. The details have not yet been fully worked out, but the aim would be to make the two policies work together.

Councilor McLain said that Councilor Park had been working on a way to connect Metro’s excise tax rate with recycling goals. She suggested that this might be a place where that could be implemented, but only if the system fee credit schedule worked with the excise tax credit. She asked if a working group had been formed to focus on that.

Councilor Park said that SWAC had been looking at the issues, although no formal group has been created to deal directly with that aspect. He said one tie-in would be to make the rate of 25% adjustable by future Councils, so the two policies could work together.

Mr. Anderson said another element would be that the policy would apply to all transfer stations, not just new ones. The policy would be unworkable if a minimum were set only for a regional transfer station if another transfer station existed nearby that did not have a minimum.

Another criterion, which is part of existing policy, affirms that regional transfer stations have a public obligation and would assure that any new stations operated by private companies accommodate the same array of public services, although Metro would likely manage those services.

Another criterion would distinguish among reloads, local stations, and regional transfer stations. (See details under #4 on page 3 of the summary.) Metro’s stations have public obligations that private stations do not. They serve the public, have longer hours, and accept wastes of last resort. Any new “large” regional transfer stations would be required to offer a similar array of services. In addition, because regional stations operate as stations of last resort, recovery minimums appropriate for other stations might not be possible to meet.

Councilor Park asked if there had been studies about how often Metro’s stations were used as stations of last resort. His concern was that if 25% were established as a minimum for recycling tax credits, a hauler who had a really low-recovery load or several of them might naturally pick one of Metro’s stations.

Mr. Anderson said that concern had been raised at SWAC that morning. There might be some incentive to do that, but transportation considerations dominate, so the temptation probably would not be that great. And 25% is not so onerous that a company would not be able to counterbalance low-recovery loads with higher ones to achieve the overall minimum.

Councilor McLain asked how many new facilities, even small ones, Metro’s stations could stand and still stay in business. She said it would be important to know that before any decisions about new transfer stations were made.

Mr. Anderson said that information was being investigated. He said he would put together what has been studied so far and bring it back to the committee.

Mr. Anderson assured the committee that the scenario suggested by Councilor McLain had been considered, but that the summary today did not include the analysis. He said he would provide that information either one-on-one or to the committee at a subsequent meeting.

Councilor McLain said she did not see how the systems fee adjustment alone could be the only tool. She said that Metro, for example, bears the public cost of housing the permanent household hazardous waste site.

Mr. Petersen said his department had assumed that the Council would not take any action that would damage Metro’s own two facilities. He said Mr. Anderson’s analyses surprised even him, but indicated there would be surprisingly little impact on a per-ton basis at Metro’s transfer stations—the transfer cost would be the primary cost that would increase when tonnage is lost. The other costs are either included in the regional system fee or they are per-ton costs associated with transport and disposal.

Councilor Park asked, as a follow-up to Councilor McLain’s concern, whether the regional system fee could be used to cover the shortfall if it were to occur.

Mr. Petersen said that would be a policy question the Council would need to decide. However, any additions to the system fee would need to be justified as regional costs. Those that pertain to only the transfer stations would need to be confined to transfer station fees.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Peterson to clarify which cost might be considered regional and which would be considered unique to the transfer station.

Mr. Petersen said transfer, transport, and disposal would be facilities’ costs.

Councilor Park asked whether the approval of new transfer stations to help out the region but that hurt Metro’s transfer stations could justifiably be considered regional costs.

Mr. Petersen said that would be a Council policy decision.

Councilor McLain said that even though the decision was only whether to open up the possibility of accepting applications for new transfer stations, it was crucial to establish strict criteria so that denials of applications could be explained. She said any increases to Metro’s systems fee would discourage business. She felt that all the criteria needed to be known before approving any part of it.

Mr. Anderson said the point of view of the department and SWAC was that the system might be better off if certain new facilities were allowed in certain locations. He said that would not mean that any facility anywhere would make the system better off. The Council would need a process to guide it in deciding whether to approve a particular facility. The purpose of this presentation was to suggest to the committee what the next steps would be. The next steps would be to begin drafting more specifics on the evaluation criteria.

Chair Washington said he had assumed that the Council would need to approve a change as large as this.

Mr. Anderson said his comment was intended to assure Councilor McLain that criteria were high on his list and would be forthcoming. Before getting into those specifics, the department wanted to know whether there was a general objection to even considering new transfer stations. They did not want to put a lot of work into developing specifics for a major policy change that would not be adopted anyway.

Chair Washington asked for a head-nod test on the concept. The concept passed the test.

Councilor McLain said she was nodding with the caveat that more information would be forthcoming. She said that accessibility and capacity were two different things and that the decision to approve any new stations would depend on those two things intersecting. She noted that some years ago a station in Wilsonville had been turned town because sufficient capacity existed in spite of the need for greater accessibility.

Councilor Park asked if some parts of the region had been penalized because of long drive times compared with others. He said that could raise a fairness question.

Mr. Anderson said curbside rates were affected by distance from the station. That particularly affects cities that do not average their rates over a geographic band.

Councilor Park said that the profitability of Metro’s transfer stations might come at a cost to some residents of the region who pay more at the curbside based on transportation costs.

Councilor McLain said accessibility to capacity was the subject. In spite of that, there might be other ways to deal with the accessibility to capacity other than building new facilities. Tiered rates, for example, might be set up to take transportation distances into account.

Chair Washington reminded the committee that the purpose of the work session was to provide background and discuss whether Metro would have the authority to authorize new transfer stations. He said this was not a work session to decide whether to approve a new station. He said before any new stations would be authorized, the Council would need to determine that the whole system would benefit.

Mr. Anderson said the last criterion involved increasing Metro’s oversight of public obligations and performance standards at transfer station. The department had not pursued this with SWAC, as it did not know whether the Council would even approve of the concept of approving more transfer stations. Thus, SWAC had made no recommendations on it.

Councilor Park asked when the issue would be brought back before the committee.

Mr. Anderson said amended language for the plan and the code, which would include decision criteria, could be ready within a week. To complete and report on the additional analyses requested by Councilor McLain would take longer.

Councilor McLain said that when approval is given to considering more transfer stations, an expectation would be built for the industry. Before, the code said no new transfer stations. Just passing acceptance of the concept would change that policy. She said she would not accept an application that 1) was not needed, and 2) was unfair to one portion of the region even though it benefited another. She would accept an application that equalized the system. She said that more details needed to be known not only about the criteria for approval but also the criteria for processing applications. For example, how long would an application be held in queue—30, 90 or 120 days?

Chair Washington asked Mr. Petersen and Mr. Anderson if they had worked with the transportation department in calculating travel times.

Mr. Petersen said REM’s data were based on data supplied by the transportation department. He said he hoped that when the full analysis was shared with the committee it would provide sufficient information that the committee could decide whether to change the policy to accept applications for new transfer stations in the region. If and when an application is submitted, more sophisticated and detailed analyses would be done to evaluate its particular merits.

Councilor Park said that if the cost of serving a particular section of the region were higher due to transportation cost, perhaps that area might be offset by lowering the tipping fee as an alternative way of addressing the inequity.

Citizen Communication

Aleta Woodruff, 2143 NE 95th Place, Portland, OR, offered testimony as a private citizen on Ordinance 00-851A, relating to household hazardous waste. She asked about use of the term “household” in “household hazardous waste.” She noted a recent story on Oregon Public Radio about migrant children and their absorption of pesticides from their households and playgrounds. She said that although this was not likely something the REM subcommittee could address, she thought some part of Metro ought to be working with commercial users of hazardous wastes. She asked Councilor Park if there was any measure for commercial hazardous waste in the region.

Councilor Park said the Oregon Department of Agriculture controlled the use of pesticides in the commercial sector. The Department of Environmental Quality and the Bureau of Labor and Industry also have jurisdiction in those areas. Those would be the agencies to approach with this concern. He said Metro has no authority over the use of pesticides, only their disposal.

Ms. Woodruff asked if Metro accepted waste from commercial sources.

Mr. Petersen said Metro does not accept fully regulated commercial hazardous waste. He said some businesses are considered conditionally exempt. Those are small businesses and small farms. Metro does accept quantities below the level of being fully regulated from those generators.

Ms. Woodruff added that she was disappointed that Metro’s REM department had declined help to her neighborhood, Madison South Neighborhood Association, with its annual cleanup.

4.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 2:55 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 17, 2000

Testimony Card

Aleta Woodruff