RE: CT-RM Proposed amendments to fee rule

From: SPENDELOW Peter H

Sent: Wed Jun 20 10:26:44 2012

To: FULLER Brian

Subject: RE: CT-RM Proposed amendments to fee rule

Importance: Normal

Hi Brian,

Generally no, I am not proposing that transfer stations, MRFs, and composting facilities pay the 81 cents per ton. I probably need to define or describe better what I mean by "final "disposal or destruction" but the intent is that the 81 cents would only be charged when the waste is:

· landfilled

· burned as mixed solid waste in an incinerator with energy recovery

· burned for the purpose of disposal in an incinerator without energy recovery (includes separated wastes as well as mixed solid waste)

· destroyed or treated and disposed by a solid waste treatment facility

· converted by a conversion technology facility that uses mixed solid waste as a feedstock

· composted by a composting facility that uses mixed solid waste as a feedstock. Note that under our composting rules, we would not give a composting permit to a facility that receives mixed solid waste as a feedstock so this would be a treatment facility that is covered under the 4th bullet. This covers both aerobic composting and anaerobic digestion.

The rules should be set up so that the 81 cents per ton is only charged a single time on a piece of waste that is destined for disposal, at that charge should be levied closest to the time of disposal. The rule also should be set up so if the generator of the waste makes no attempt to separate the waste for recycling or some other productive use, the fee will eventually be charged on that waste. One exception is the wood, cardboard, metal, and other recyclables separated out by a MRF, in that the fee would only be charged on disposal and not on the materials separated for recycling. Looking forward to potential new proposed facilities, I would like the 81 cents to be charged on facilities making refused derived fuel that includes paper, plastic, and other carbon-containing recyclables, even if the metal and non-burnables are removed from the fuel. The same is true for facilities that may take mixed solid waste, separate out the non-organic materials, and subject the rest to anaerobic digestion or ethanol production. The intent is that we should charge the fee any time the generator fails to separate out materials so that they can go to a high use. The exception for MRFs handling dry waste is for two reasons. First, we currently do not charge this fee on the waste they accept - only on the waste they dispose (and only at the landfill or incinerator - not at the MRF). Second and most importantly, with dry waste, it is usually possible to separate out the material for recycling into a high use. The metal, cardboard, and wood separated out by these facilities is almost as easily recycled as if the material had been source-separated.

There is one complication - facilities that receive mixed solid waste, separate out metal and some other materials for recycling, separate out some materials and residue for disposal, and then use the rest to produce a fuel. I would recommend that these facilities be charged the 81 cents per ton on incoming material, but subtract out the tons sent for final disposal elsewhere since we will be collecting the 81 cents per ton at that final disposal site. Optionally, we could also allow them to subtract out the tons of metal and other material that they send off for high-level recycling.

One final unrelated thing - the proposed fee rules include a separate fee for plan review, but in Division 96 we decided to lump the plan review fee in with the initial application fee. Thus, the Division 97 fee rules proposal needs to be updated to reflect changes we made to our Division 96 proposals.

Peter Spendelow
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
503-229-5253

_____________________________________________
From: FULLER Brian
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:03 PM
To: SPENDELOW Peter H
Subject: RE: CT-RM Proposed amendments to fee rule

Peter

In regards to $.81/ton fee proposal, are you suggesting that TS, MRF, Treatment and composting facilities start paying .81/ton? This may be beyond the scope of the CT rulemaking.

_____________________________________________
From: SPENDELOW Peter H
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 4:36 PM
To: FULLER Brian
Subject: RE: CT-RM Proposed amendments to fee rule

HI Brian,

My draft did not make any changes to the compost rule screening fee (currently $150), but it did propose an application fee for CT facilities of $500 if less 7,500 tons per year, and $1000 if more than 7,500 tons per year. Most of them would also require an operations plan approval, which I'm proposing costs ranging from $750 to $5,000, depending on size.

We can revisit these amount later.

Peter Spendelow
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
503-229-5253

_____________________________________________
From: FULLER Brian
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 4:18 PM
To: SPENDELOW Peter H; BARROWS Bob; PICKERELL Loretta; LUMPER Bruce; RAWSON Stephanie; RHOADES Cathie
Subject: RE: CT-RM Proposed amendments to fee rule

Peter,

Thanks for getting a jump on the fee piece of the rulemaking. Since we’ve dedicated our last meeting to fees, I’d like the main focus to be on getting the rules and related issues ready for our June meeting.

I have not had a chance to look at what you have proposed but I think that we need to revisit the fees charged. The $150 application fee comes nowhere close to covering our costs and we need to move in the direction of being able to cover our costs with permit fees.

I’m not wanting to start that conversation right now but just provide some initial feedback.

Thanks

_____________________________________________
From: SPENDELOW Peter H
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 9:43 PM
To: BARROWS Bob; PICKERELL Loretta; FULLER Brian; LUMPER Bruce; RAWSON Stephanie; RHOADES Cathie
Subject: CT-RM Proposed amendments to fee rule

Hi everybody,

I've uploaded a draft with proposed changes to the fee rules related to conversion technologies, available here:

http://deqmoss/sites/LQ/SW/CT%20Rule%20Making/Shared%20Documents/RuleChanges/CT-FeeRule-1.docx

The main points in the proposal include the following:

1) No changes in fees are suggested (yet) for anaerobic digestion (except for mixed waste anaerobic digestion).

2) A permit application fee (equivalent of the composting screening fee) for CT facilities

3) There are also plan review fees and annual compliance fees proposed for CT facilities

4) I'm proposing major revisions to the 81-cent per ton fee rule, to capture fees from anyone receiving and processing mixed solid waste. This is similar to the fact we charge this same fee on waste entering the Marion County burner.

5) The one thing I did not do yet is add a special application fee for anyone operating a trial facility. This fee would be in addition to all the other fees, and cover the costs of evaluating trial data on the operation of facilities. If we decide not to have a rule on trial facilities, we should also probably skip a fee on trial facilities.

Peter Spendelow
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
503-229-5253