Cal/EPA Environmental Management System Project
Meeting Summary: Northern California Working Group
September 23, 1999   San Francisco, California

Return to list of meeting summaries.

I. Introductions
Richard Corey, Cal/EPA team member from the California Air Resources Board, opened the meeting by welcoming those in attendance. Participants introduced themselves before we continued to the next item.

II. Relevant Activities Since Last Meeting
MSWG Conference, Milwaukee, WI – Jason Morrison, Pacific Institute, gave a brief overview of the MSWG Conference held in Milwaukee, WI on July 22-23, 1999. The purpose of the conference was to bring together different sectors (government, industry, NGOs) to discuss environmental management systems (EMS). A few things that became clear from the conference is that it is not currently known how to effectively integrate EMS into the regulatory structure and the need to differentiate between ISO 14001 and other EMSs. Papers that were presented at the conference are available on the Pacific Institute’s web site at http://www.pacinst.org.

Submittal of Baseline Data – Jennifer Smith Grubb reported that the baseline data for all the California proposed projects had been submitted to the University of North Caroline (UNC). UNC in now in the process of QA/QC the data and hope to have the data available on the web by the first of the year.

So. CA Working Group Meeting – A summary of this meeting was provided to the members in their packet that was mailed on September 2, 1999. Therefore, this item was not discussed at the meeting. If there are questions regarding the So. CA Working Group, please contact Tom Lanphar at (510) 540-3925 or e-mail him at tlanphar@dtsc.ca.gov.

III. Briefing on AB 1102
Bob Stephens, Program Director, briefly described the purpose of AB 1102, the requirements, and the optional language in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to determine whether and how the use of an EMS 1) increases public health and environmental protection, and 2) provides better quality and quantity of information to stakeholders than existing regulatory requirements. The Bill requires at least one public hearing to obtain public comment on the pilot projects proposed to be selected. Not more than eight pilots are to be selected.

The Bill further provides the secretary of Cal/EPA with the option to develop evaluation and monitoring parameters for the purpose of making the evaluation required by the Bill. There is also an option of developing and entering into a memorandum of understanding with the pilot project organizations. However, if either of these options is used then a public hearing must be held to obtain public comment.

The Working Group was mailed copies of the Bill prior to the meeting so that most members had the opportunity to become familiar with the language. In addition, the breakout session was intended to provide an opportunity for the Working Group members to provide suggestions on how to proceed with the implementation of AB 1102.

IV. AB 1102 Breakout Session
Andrea Lewis, Cal/EPA’s Assistant for Quality Programs, led the Working Group members through an exercise called Passing the Envelope. Participants were divided into 5 groups. Each group was given 8 minutes to respond to one question (total of 5 questions). At the end of the 8 minutes the question and that group’s response was put into an envelope and passed to another group. This continued until each group had responded to each of the 5 questions and the groups had their original question back. At this point the groups summarized the responses to their questions. Below is a summary of each group’s presentation for each of the five questions discussed during the breakout session.

We plan on using the information gathered from this exercise to prepare for the public hearing(s) that are required by AB 1102. Below is a list of each of the questions and responses developed during the breakout session:

Questions and Summary of Responses from the Breakout Session
1. What information is needed to determine if an EMS improves public health or environmental protection beyond that provided by existing requirements?

Response:
A. Good baseline data: Aspects/impacts not required to be reported, look at trend or key factors.

B. Sector specific minimum set of requirements: Report or explain why not. Identify key aspects from risk/science point of view – What is important to health.

C. For public involvement and other educated stakeholders (define "involved"), need to agree on benchmarking/key impacts.

2. What is needed to determine if an EMS increases the quantity and quality of environmental information available to the public beyond that provided by existing requirements?

Response:
A. Goals (environmental quality, public health) = objectives = information (information quality = information utility not number of data points)

B. Stakeholder involvement/consensus
Stakeholders: governments, employees, peer organizations/companies, NGOs, general public, shareholder/investment advisors, customers

C. Information distribution: EMS Academy, public outreach (e.g. schools, etc.), media (press, etc.), web page, real time distribution.

3. What information that is not requested in the Multi-State Working Group Protocols should be included to meet the requirements of AB 1102?

Response:
A. Ecosystem relationships

• Relating Protocol to existing databases
• Unique regional (local) information
• Focus/customize reportables by sectors

B. Health/risk performance indicators

• Workplace safety
• Survey employers

C. Stakeholders

• Use external stakeholders as arbiters of better information
• Increase stakeholders involvement

D. Supply chain management/customer requirement

E. More focus and simplicity

F. Data evaluation

• Management
• Measurement tools
• Quantification, analysis and collection
• Identify data gaps
• Test end points

4. What should the role of the Northern California Working Group be on meeting the requirements of AB 1102 (e.g., participation in public meetings, reports to the Legislature)?

Response:
A. Advisors, liaison, facilitators, forum, nonpartisan body, reviewer, editor to regulators, stakeholders, legislature

B. Provide clearinghouse for information

C. Help distill/clarify/define project goals

D. Help develop new protocols as appropriate

E. Work products:

• Writing reports
• Review reports
• Position papers crafted by Working Group
• Editing opportunities
• Ghost writing
• Case studies critique
• Focus analysis

F. Reports to the Legislature "Qualities":

• Coherent
• Useful
• Publicly accessible
• Concise
• Timely

G. Encourage outreach to non-represented groups

5.  What criteria should be used as the basis for selecting any additional proposed pilot projects?

Response:

• Diversity: Location/geography, Size, Industry type/sector, Impacts
• Relative impact
• Known regulatory deficiencies/inefficiencies
• Established EMS^*
• Existing public involvement
• Employ innovative technologies
• Willing to share information
• Established track record
• Commitment to further improvement

* Pilot should represent a range of EMS maturity. (This was a minority comment. More participants believed the proposed pilot projects should have an established EMS.)

Where Do We Go From Here?
Richard Corey briefly discussed the upcoming training for Working Group members. The training will begin in the next several weeks and will be given in both Northern and Southern CA. As soon as the dates are set, members will be notified. Also mentioned was the Working Group web site which will be available in the next few weeks. Meeting information will be on the web as well as information on upcoming activities.

Richard also committed to having a draft summary of this meeting out to members within approximately two weeks. In addition, he committed to scheduling the next Working Group meeting early next year prior to the public hearing required by AB 1102.

Because of the time it was agreed that the "Parking Lot" items would be an attachment to this summary. If there are questions that need to be addressed regarding these issues, members should contact Richard.

Parking Lot Issues

1. MSWG meeting in Oakland on December 9-19, 1999. The discussion will focus on the role of 3rd party auditors. Contact Jason Morrison at jmorrison@pacinst.org for further information.
2. California conference on EMSs, July/August, 2000.
3. EQM – Journal articles (MSWG website: www.mswg.org)
4. Baseline data on above website.
5. EMS objectives and premises (provide feedback), www.pacinst.org.
6. Quality of the baseline data.
7. Information vs. data.
8. Information sharing – creative opportunities; broaden scope.
9. A way to relate changes in performance to root causes/analysis/reasons (a better link).
10. Necessity of working group – A place to converse/dialogue in a non-threatening environment; work and grow.
11. To evaluate EMS performance, protocols are different; 2nd goal, do EMS’ provide the public with better information; also ask regulators and involve other states.
12. What works? Appropriate vehicles for sharing data?
13. What are we trying to achieve? Hope there aren’t too many barriers in the protocols; EMS permit? Need incentives for participation.

Please contact the Cal/EPA EMS Pilot Project Manager, Richard Corey, at (916) 323-1079 or by e-mail, at rcorey@arb.ca.gov for more information about the Northern California Working Group.