Materials Management

In fall 2013, DEQ convened a workgroup to engage stakeholders, solicit input and gain support for key actions needed to fully implement Materials Management in Oregon: 2050 Vision and Framework for Action.

What did they talk about?

The Materials Management Workgroup identified a number of potential changes that would help Oregon move toward the 2050 Vision. Ultimately, the workgroup developed solutions that engendered broad stakeholder, agency and legislative support.
 
The workgroup featured three subgroups focusing on:
 

 

What goals and measures best demonstrate our progress toward the 2050 vision?

Goals can provide a clear signal of intent and direction, and periodic reporting on goals can be a powerful way of communicating both progress and opportunities.

The 2050 Vision and Framework for Action identified the need to identify and evaluate potential new goals and updates to existing goals for materials management. Many of the existing goals and measures utilized by DEQ’s Materials Management program and our partners have been in place for a long time. The existing statewide and wasteshed recovery goals were last revised in 2001 and were set through 2009.

In addition, there is a statewide waste generation goal and several specific measures that are tracked, such as: pounds of mercury collected statewide, percentage of Oregonians with convenient access to household hazardous waste collection service, and pounds of materials collected under Oregon e-cycles and paint product stewardship programs.

We also periodically update the state’s waste composition study. With the exception of the waste generation goals, which serve as a very crude proxy for consumption, all of these goals and measures focus on the tail end of the life cycle. Since the 2050 Vision has expanded our perspective to look at the full life cycle of materials, we need to consider goals or measures that address a larger range of environmental, economic, and/or social issues. This subgroup will explore whether existing goals and measures should be extended or revised, and whether Oregon should adopt other goals or measures that more broadly address the full life cycle of materials.

For more information about this subgroup contact David Allaway

What options could DEQ pursue to achieve sustainable funding?

The 2050 Vision and Framework for Action needs to build a solid foundation in order for Oregon to achieve its vision. Two important actions to create that foundation include researching funding options and securing stable funding. DEQ’s Materials Management program receives no funding from the state general fund. The program is currently funded through annual solid waste permit fees charged to disposal facilities and tip fees on each ton of waste disposed at municipal waste landfills and incinerators. The tip fees were last changed more than twenty years ago and they have never been adjusted for inflation. Historically, disposal was growing and funding was stable. However, since 2008, the economic recession and new recovery efforts have lead to deep cuts in DEQ programs including the elimination of staff positions, hazardous waste collection events and grants. The 2050 Vision also identifies multiple actions that will further reduce waste generation and increase composting and recycling in Oregon. Reductions in waste disposal will result in decreasing revenue. Fees on the solid waste system support many current DEQ activities.

If the only charge of DEQ’s Materials Management program were keeping waste out of landfills, then a funding model that relied on disposal tonnage would make sense. But to achieve the 2050 Vision, including work across the full lifecycle of materials, while we continue to push recovery up and disposal down, the current funding model may not be sustainable. This subgroup will analyze DEQ’s funding sources, trends, and options for different funding sources. The group will also explore the externalities (the costs to society that aren’t currently reflected in disposal and product prices) associated with disposal and the full life cycle of materials and how this might this inform different options to restore and sustain funding for this work

For more information about this subgroup contact Abby Boudouris.

What are the leading options for increasing and improving recycling opportunities in Oregon?

The 2050 Vision and Framework for Action identified the need to increase recycling collection opportunities in Oregon through a review and update of the Recycling Opportunity Act (ROA) including consideration of additional incentives or mandates for increasing multi-family and commercial recycling service as well as expanded education and promotion programs.

ROA was passed in 1983, and has been amended several times, most recently in 2001. This law was largely responsible for bringing curbside recycling to cities and towns with populations over 4,000, as well helping to institutionalize recycling in the waste management culture of the state. The subgroup will explore changes to recycling laws designed to improve and increase recovery of high-value and high-impact materials such as metals, plastic and organics from the wastestream. The subgroup will also focus on those population and economic sectors where recovery of materials has either lagged other sectors or plateaued over time, as has been seen with commercial, multi-family and rural waste recovery.

For more information about this subgroup contact Craig Filip.

 

Who was involved?

DEQ limited membership in the workgroup to maintain a manageable size and discussion. The three supporting subgroups had open membership. More that 90 individuals and organizations participated in the workgroup and subgroups, which met in total 22 times.
  • ​Sam Brentano, Marion County Board of Commissioners and Association of Oregon Counties
  • Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal
  • Morgan Rider, Environmental Quality Commission
  • Meghan Butler, Recology
  • Michael Mason, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation
  • Keith Ristau, Far West Fibers, Inc.
  • Alex Cuyler, Lane County
  • John Matthews, Retired (recycling expert)
  • Timm Schimke, Deschutes County
  • Rob Guttridge, Recycling Advocates
  • Kristan S. Mitchell​, ORRA
  • David Skakel, Tri-County Hazardous Waste & Recycling Program/AOC
  • Barbara Hanley, Hewlett-Packard
  • Megan Ponder, City of Portland
  • Christy Splitt, OLCV- Oregon League of Conservation Voters
  • Andy Kahut, Kahut Waste Services
  • Garry Penning, Rogue Waste Systems
  • Matt Stern, Waste Management
  • Scott Keller, City of Beaverton and League of Oregon Cities
  • Jerry Powell, Resource Recycling
  • Rick Winterhalter, AOR-Association of Oregon Recyclers
  • Matt Korot, Metro
  • Joshua Proudfoot, Good Company
 

Workgroup results

Ideas developed and discussed in workgroup meetings became several legislative concepts. DEQ ultimately introduced these concepts during the 2015 Legislative session as two bills: SB 245 and SB 263. The Legislature amended and passed both bills.

What do SB 245 and SB 263 do?

 
 

How can I learn more?

 
Refer to agendas posted on our workgroup meeting page for additional details:
  • ​Meeting #7, Nov. 18th, 2014
    Meeting Materials: Agenda
  • Meeting #6, June 11, 2014
    Meeting Materials: Agenda
  • Meeting #5, April 30, 2014
    Meeting Materials: Agenda
  • Meeting #4, March 18, 2014
    Meeting Materials:  Agenda
  • Meeting #3, Jan. 30, 2014
    Meeting Materials: Agenda
  • Meeting #2, Dec. 17, 2013
    Meeting Materials: Agenda
  • Meeting #1, Oct. 2, 2013
    Meeting Materials: Agenda
Read papers on sustainable material production, consumption, and end-of-life:
  • Recommendations for Product Stewardship in OregonThis report recommends that Oregon pursue product stewardship as one strategy to reduce the environmental and public health impacts of products. It also recommends eight key elements for product stewardship programs and policy in Oregon.