"I am a chemical engineer who has lived and worked in Bend for over 19 years. I am also a Republican who supports local [rather than state or federal] control where feasible .It would seem wise to me [and more in the Republican spirit] to require, on a uniform basis statewide, a minimum level of information from manufacturers on the use or production of hazardous materials, and to allow local communities to collect [not prevent them from collecting] any additional information that the local public deems appropriate."
               Citizen Kelly Smith's letter to Rep. Dennis Luke

HB 3281

The second hearing on HB 3281, which would nullify Eugene's Toxic Right to Know law, was held May 21 before the House Energy and Environment Committee, when neither biologist Mary O'Brien nor chemist Paul Engelking, both with key testimony, could attend. The committee staff person, Judith Gruber, had been specifically asked not to schedule the hearing on the 21st and had assured O'Brien this would not happen. The April 9th hearing had ended before citizens from Portland, Corvallis and Eugene who came to testify against the bill were called to the mike.

Other opponents of HB3281 stepped forward, including the League of Oregon Cities, representing 238 communities that objected to the bill's pre-emption of home rule. The bill would not only overturn the Toxic Right to Know law passed by Eugene last fall, but prevent all jurisdictions from requiring any reporting on toxic chemicals used by private industry if a major intent was to inform the public.

This objection was echoed by Michael Carrigan of Oregon Peaceworks, while Randy Tucker of OSPIRG testified that current reporting is not only quite inadequate for citizen protection, but not easily accessible. Corvallis City Council went on record as unanimously opposing HB 3281, as did a majority of Benton County Commissioners, and Gayle Carpenter, mayor of Veneta.

Rep Jim Welsh [R-Elmira], who authored the industry-sponsored bill, charged that the Eugene law was aimed solely at Hyundai, and was "blatantly discriminatory." The law was initiated when citizens seeking data on chemicals Hyundai would use, and on chemicals already being used in the community, found the information unavailable.

O'Brien's testimony was read by her husband, Bob O'Brien. She had written Welsh asking him to clarify his stand on certain facts she believed he had not understood when framing the bill:

1] The Eugene law does not require precise measurement, only the use of readily available information to estimate inputs and releases of hazardous chemicals;

2] The State Fire Marshal only collects information on chemicals stored on site and/or transported to and/or from the site. He collects no information on chemicals produced, but not stored on-site. "If all hazardous chemicals stayed in barrels, the State Fire Marshal's information would be sufficient." she noted. "The chemicals do not stay in barrels";

3] The federal toxics-right-to-know law [Toxics Release Inventory] collects information on chemical releases for a very limited number of toxics, and only if a company uses more than 10,000 pounds or produces more than 25,000 pounds of any listed chemical.

Welsh never responded.

The draft handbook for businesses being developed by the Eugene Toxics Board to implement the law states that "businesses are not expected to purchase new monitoring or measuring equipment for the purpose of reporting to the Toxics Board, unless such equipment is required by other Federal or State regulatory agencies. Businesses are not expected to perform additional sampling or laboratory analysis in order to generate input/output reporting data."

New Jersey, which has a similar law, reported, "Perhaps the greatest benefit of materials accounting is that it encourages facilities to recognize their true inputs and outputs of hazardous substances, and so highlights areas of potential cost savings and environmental benefit."

Regarding violations of the law, O'Brien said, "... no simple mistake will result in a violation." The Board focuses only on gross violations and willful disregard of the law.

The House Committee has not yet made a decision as to whether to send the bill to the floor.

SB 938, which was originally designed to make funding of local hazardous substance programs [e.g., the Eugene Fire Marshal's hazardous materials program] easier, was amended to allow no local funding of such programs, except for communities of over 350,000 people, i.e., Portland. This would kill Eugene's Toxics Right to Know law by cutting off its funding source. It also violates home rule, is discriminatory and has the legislature micro-managing local activities. "Livability" Committee Chair, Sen. Ted Ferrioli [R-John Day], asserted that only statewide laws for hazardous waste reporting make sense -- but SB938 isn't about statewide reporting.

The bill passed out of committee to the Senate, where it will almost surely pass without public debate. It will then go to the House Energy and Environment Committee, to go through the same process as HB 3281, and will probably be rushed through as the session is drawing to a close.

In early May, City of Eugene Attorney Glenn Klein and Toxic Right to Know committee Attorney Charlie Tebbutt of Western Environmental Law Clinic, won the suit brought against the Toxics Right to Know law by 12 corporations under the name 'Advocates for Effective Regulation' [AEF]. Judge Darryl Larson denied all nine charges brought by AEF. His most important ruling was that the law does not duplicate existing regulations.