MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, September 4 2002

Council Chamber

Present:    Bill Atherton (Chair), Susan McLain (Vice Chair), David Bragdon

Absent:    Rod Park (excused), Rod Monroe (excused)

Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 7, 2002 SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING.

2.  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR’S BRIEFING

Terry Petersen, Manager, Regional Environmental Management, updated the committee on the work Metro is doing with the City of Portland to site an organics composting facility to serve the region, gave details of Competitive Waste Reduction Grants that have been awarded to local governments, reported on a six-hour Program Evaluation Workshop that was presented in early August, explained recent enforcement actions against Pride Recycling and K.B. Recycling, reported an incident with a discarded propane canister that ignited when it was run over by a loader at Metro South Station, and introduced two new REM employees, Bob McMillan, Senior Engineer, and Olivia Jonason, Records and Information Analyst. (For more detail, see the copy of the Regional Environmental Management Director’s Updates attached to the permanent record of this meeting).

Councilor McLain said it would be important to include in the news release how many applicants had received Competitive Waste Reduction grants before and how many were new ones. She added it would also be nice to know which of the department’s performance measures were targeted by those grants. Dr. Petersen said he had a department memo that summarized the process and the awards that he would get to her.

Councilor Bragdon asked if Lisa Skumatz, who had presented the Program Evaluation Workshop had given any indication of how our programs compared to others she had seen. Dr. Petersen responded that feedback he had received from Ms. Skumatz and others was that the Metro region is viewed as being a leader in many areas of waste reduction.

4.  COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF METRO FEES TO DREDGE MATERIALS

Dr. Petersen summarized the staff report (see copy of the report in the agenda packet included with the permanent record of this meeting). He noted that dredge materials in this report meant all sediments that come out of a waterway, whether it is channel dredging or cleanup of contaminated sites next to a dock. He discussed current disposal options, which depend on the amount of contamination contained in the sediment. He added that current Metro code is unambiguous in defining the material as solid waste when it goes to any landfill Metro has a relationship with, and required fees and taxes are to be collected. He commented on the lower fee and tax the Council approved for nonrecurring environmental cleanups and said he thought most of the dredge material would fall in that category and was unlikely to go to landfill unless there was some level of contamination. He recommended a code change saying that all dredge materials going to a landfill would be charged the environmental cleanup fee. He thought the current transport and landfill system was adequate to handle the amount of dredgings that were likely come within the next few years, and they were ready to help facilitate disposal if contacted by any generators. In response to a question from Councilor Bragdon, Dr. Petersen said from a regulatory view, there was no difference between dredge and land excavation materials. He said operationally they were different, as dredge materials would need to be dewatered according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines before going to a landfill. Chair Atherton asked when they expected dredging to become a major issue. Dr. Petersen said they were already starting to see some material show up in the system but did not think any had gone to a landfill yet. He understood the bulk of it was several years out before they would see a large quantity of the material showing up at landfills. Chair Atherton asked about taking slightly contaminated material to Arlington for use as daily cover. Dr. Petersen said there was a potential for use as beneficial purposes such as that. He said daily cover to a landfill required DEQ authorization and dredge material was not on the list at this time. He said to be exempt from Metro fees and taxes, the material would have to be accepted at the landfill as beneficial, had to be accepted at no fee, and had to be used as beneficial use.

Lise Glancy, Regional Affairs Manager, Port of Portland, said the DEQ had a process for consideration of dredge materials to be used for daily cover. She said the Port would be pursuing that trial application with their Terminal 4 maintenance project. She added it was a yearlong trial and they had to pay DEQ fees. Ms. Glancy told Chair Atherton the Columbia River material is course, grainy and clean, and the Willamette River material tended to be fine so contaminates adhere more. She said it is important to note that all Willamette River material is not contaminated.

Chair Atherton asked about taking the material outside the region. Dr. Petersen said if it was clean enough to be disposed of outside the region, it would be exempt from Metro’s regulatory oversight.

Councilor McLain understood there would be time to work out the risks and implications of accepting this. She was concerned about a possible change in the amount of waste due to the DEQ trial and that it could make a difference in the system. Dr. Petersen did not see an urgency to do things differently as code, regulation, and fees and taxes would all be assessed before a decision was made. Ms. Glancy commented that the costs and new impacts on the system were true for the Port as well. She said the DEQ trial would be a 12-18 month process and it is important to have consistent definitions and a streamlined process. Dr. Petersen recommended actively participating with the DEQ process, as they are the regulator and their definitions would determine what the disposal options are for different types of material.

3.  COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF ELECTRONIC WASTE

Dr. Petersen said the aim was to be proactive regarding options for electronic waste recovery so computers would not become a problem like tires. He noted that the Recycling Information Center (RIC) had been getting an increasing number of calls about what to do with old computers and monitors. He reviewed the Executive Summary of the Assessment of E-Waste Collection and Processing for the Metro Region (included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting) and offered to provide copies of the full report to the committee. He said the region is lucky to have 8-10 businesses that do some segment of the e-waste recovery option. He added there was a gap, however, and about one third of the potential demand is being met. That gap is not likely to be met without assistance from a government. He concluded that he would like to develop a budget proposal for next fiscal year. He thought the key elements of that proposal would be for Metro to help develop the current infrastructure and help promote awareness of recovery options. He cautioned that some places have been overwhelmed by the huge stockpile of e-waste waiting for somewhere to go. He said they also wanted to keep an eye on product responsibility, for instance manufacturers should take more responsibility for the end of life of their products. Councilor McLain had heard comment from SWAC members wondering what Metro’s role was as an agency dealing with solid waste. She asked for committee discussion and Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (RSWMP) performance measure review before a budget proposal is brought forward. Councilor Bragdon added that in preparation for a budget package, some attention should be paid to the revenue side and they should not presume that ratepayers would shoulder the costs without making some attempt to have generators share in the cost, either the producers or the original consumer. Dr. Petersen agreed that they should not completely subsidize the collection and recycling. Chair Atherton commented that they could learn from what other states have done. Dr. Petersen agreed.

Wayne Rifer, said his involvement in this issue has been with the National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) and the Western Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (WEPSI) and he is a member of the national negotiating process between industry and government and NGOs to find a national solution to this issue. He said they are currently in the throes of that process. He said something becomes hazardous, not only when it has hazardous substances in it, but when they can find a pathway to the ecology. He said that is a point of the debate. There is lead in color monitors, but the question is how much of that lead can actually get out into the environment. He said traditional testing demonstrates that the lead can leach out of that glass in landfill conditions, but added that there had been no detection of that in landfills. It is still an open question. There is lead and other potentially hazardous and toxic material in other components of e-waste, as well, i.e. solder, mercury. He said it is possible they could be managed well in a closed loop system. Chair Atherton asked why it would not be worth trying to recover the lead. Mr. Rifer said there are several efforts afoot to develop a more effective recovery system. A major problem is that they are not necessarily used in the places where they are manufactured. At the present time there is one facility in Pennsylvania that recovers the lead, but it is not big enough to take it all. Another option is a smelting operation to recover the lead, but there are environmental problems with that as well. He said the Environmental Protection Agency had found that monitors are hazardous and not appropriate for landfills. There is an exception if it is generated from a household rather than a business.

Tom Badrick, Legacy Health Systems Recycling Manager, said it is imperative to start coming up with solutions to the e-waste problem now. He said there are overwhelming amounts of material. He said there is a whole debate on how and where to recycle the material. He said it is possible there are hundreds of monitors being stored in the community waiting for a place to recycle them. A huge problem is where does the money come from to help dispose of them.

Dave White Oregon Refuse & Recycling Association (ORRA), commented that there are lots of business people willing to pick up the material, but the question becomes is it outside the system or source separated material. He asked the committee to remember that they are players and participants, and if Metro steps up and subsidizes this, it makes it difficult for those business people who have their franchises to compete in a subsidized market. He said they would want to participate in any task force or committee set up to study the issue.

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the Solid Waste & Recycling Committee, Chair Atherton adjourned the meeting at 4:54 p.m.

Prepared by

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record for the

Solid Waste & Recycling Committees Meeting of September 4, 2002

Testimony Cards:

None.