In an article for the BWNA newsletter last fall, I shared communications with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as part of my appointment to the Asbestos 2017 Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Some key recommendations that came out of the advisory committee efforts were requiring asbestos surveys for demolition and renovations of residential buildings with four or fewer units, improving asbestos protection for workers at hazardous waste transfer stations, holding testing laboratories to higher standards, and demonstrating the proficiency of testing results in determining asbestos content within sampled materials. While these rule changes do not directly address responsible management of asbestos and lead-based paint in residential areas, they hopefully have laid the groundwork for separate implementation of SB 871 requirements, which directed DEQ and Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to establish best procedures for mitigating hazmat impact on surrounding properties for both residential demolitions and major renovations.
Through the efforts of United Neighborhoods for Reform (UNR, a citywide grassroots organization with roots in Beaumont-Wilshire) and like-minded preservationist groups, the Portland City Council adopted an ordinance last February based on the recommendations of DEQ and OHA best practices. Effective July 1, 2018, the new law moved Portland to the leading edge of municipalities in spelling out comprehensive requirements, plans, and compliance inspections to protect the public during urban demolitions. Early feedback from the city permit department is that a number of initial requests for demolition permits have been denied pending further documentation and more inclusive plans as required by the new ordinance. This comes as no surprise, despite ongoing “Lunch and Learn” information sessions made available to contractors by the Bureau of Development Services (BDS). Widespread compliance with significant new requirements like these will take time. But continued permit denials are an effective wakeup call and should help expedite the process.
An important point to note is that the BDS staff is catching these compliance lapses without having to rely on “public watchdogs” to do it for them—too often the case in the past. Moving forward, the exposure of ambiguities, review of contractor educational progress, monitoring of compliance issues, and evaluation of the practical effectiveness of the new demolition ordinance will be accomplished most effectively both in the various committees where public-minded activists have a seat at the table and in the promotion of and support for the broader use of full deconstruction as the preferred method of removing residential structures.