Cal/EPA Environmental Management System Project
Meeting Summary: Southern California Working Group
September 9, 1999 Cypress, California
Return to list of meeting summaries.
Tom Lanphar, Cal/EPA EMS team member, opened the meeting with a review of the agenda and introductions. There were no modifications to the summary of the 6/24 meeting, but a request to receive the summary sooner after the meeting. Tom committed to getting the summary out in two weeks.
- Ground Rules
- Objectives & Premises of the Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative - Robert Stephens
- Discussion
- Upcoming EMS Presentation and Site Visit at San Diego Wastewater Department Biosolids Center
- Issue: Discuss/Decide
- Questions and Answers
- Break Out Sessions
- Group 1: Pilot Project Selection Criteria
- Group 2: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
- Group 3: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
- Group 4: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
- Group 5: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
- General Discussion on Data Collection
- Next Steps for Southern California Working Group:
- Meeting Evaluation
- What can be improved?
Ground Rules
- Listen to understand
- Build on each others ideas
- Assume we can learn from each person
- We all share in responsibility for success
- Keep information at a level we all can understand
Objectives & Premises of the Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative - Robert Stephens
Robert Stephens, Program Director of the Cal/EPA EMS Innovation Initiative presented the objectives and premises of the program. These objectives and premises were first presented at a meeting in Oakland with the environmental community on July 28, 1999. The meeting was organized by the Pacific Institute (http://www.pacinst.org). The text was given to the meeting participants. Proceedings can be accessed directly at http://www.pacinst.org/isoproceedings.pdf.
DiscussionQ: What kind of financial support is available to the NGO community?
A: Providing support is possible and has been done in this program; however, no formal
system. Bob Stephens committed to formalize system for financial support.
Q: Where can good information be found?
A: There is a summary of the Pacific Institute July 28, 1999 meeting. It can be found on
the Pacific Institute website http://www.pacinst.org.
Faxed copies are available through Tom Lanphar. The Pacific Institute is a public policy
non-governmental organization.
Q: How to reach political community - council members/offices, etc.?
A: An upcoming workshop for public policy makers will be held 10/26 - 27 in Oakland on the
subject of Green Planning - (limited invitation list). This is being organized by Resource
Renewal Institute. For more info on Green Planning see their website at http://www.rri.org
Upcoming EMS Presentation and Site Visit at San Diego Wastewater Department Biosolids Center
Chris Toth invited everyone to a presentation of their EMS and a tour of their biosolids center. The facility in San Diego is 90 minutes travel time from Cypress. Date: 9/28; time 10am meet @ Metro Biosolids Center. Open Invitation.
Agenda for 9/28:
- How EMS is working
- The implementation process
- 1st POTW in U.S. to certify to ISO 14001
- Facility tour
Issue for biosolids: Looking @ recycling vs. landfilling for biosolids
Co-generation of electricity from methane gas.
- digester gas to energy
- LF gas to energy
Issue: Discuss/Decide
What will be the Working Group’s role in providing input (or reporting) to Legislature?
Questions and Answers
Q: Why/how did legislature become involved in EMS Pilot Project?
A: Many state legislators are interested, this project has public policy implications.
Q: Can CMSA and San Diego be combined? Both are POTWs - and would allow more projects.
A: The legislation does not define "pilot project". Could combine the two since they are both POTWs.
Q: How do you define "environment"(E) in regards to a facility and the ISO 14000 standard?
A: Define by pilot projects themselves - "E" = local and/or global interactions not limited by law. ISO 14000 defines "E" broadly
Q: What other facility categories might we include? Pesticides, Transportation
A: This will be discussed during our Breakout session.
Q: You’ve chosen 6 facilities/projects? Are we going to consult on the criteria for pilot section
A: Yes, we need input, topic of break out sessions.
Q: Has the horse left barn? (i.e., have the projects already been selected and the criteria already been decided?)
A: Current proposed projects are good candidates, each will be considered at public hearing; would like to add more projects, we need to get broader base of input.
Q: Need to clarify criteria on "major significant environmental issues".
A: Means major compliance violations.
Break Out Sessions Several smaller groups were formed to discuss the Pilot Project Selection Criteria and Evaluation and Monitoring Parameters (what data is needed to make determinations on better env. protection and better information). No one was interested in discussing the third subject "MOU’s and alternative agreements".Group 1: Pilot Project Selection Criteria
Questions for Break Out Group to discuss:
A) Are the selection criteria adequate to select pilot projects? What other criteria should be considered?
B) In order to determine if a proposed pilot project meets the selection criteria, what information is needed (or must be provided)?
C) Do the six proposed pilot projects meet the selection criteria?
The following are the proposed pilot project selection criteria as presented in the Cal/EPA EMS Innovation Initiative Information Update, July 1999 followed by the notes of the one discussion group interested in providing input to the criteria.
1) Presence of an ongoing or planned EMS that can reasonably be expected to produce greater environmental protection than would otherwise be achieved by the normal regulatory process (from AB 1102): The group felt this criterion is OK.
2) Ability to provide specific data on the implementation and performance of their EMS (from AB 1102):The group felt this criterion is OK.
3) Commitment to environmental compliance.
Discussion: Can’t an industry that has compliance problems benefit from being a pilot? EMS Pilot Projects can need to improve; however, should not be in litigation.
Suggested reword: Commitment to explore environmental solutions to address significant environmental issues.
4) No significant outstanding environmental issues.
Discussion: Criteria #3 and #4 linked but: who decides on commitment? Suggest merging criteria #3 and #4.
Suggested rewording of #4: Commitment to explore environmental solutions to address significant environmental issues.
Rewording #4 would allow industries that do have significant environmental issues, and are committed to improvement. Need at least one problem child.
5) Willingness to work with all stakeholders.
Discussion:
Who are the stakeholders?
- Consumers
- neighbors this brings up EJ "Environmental Justice"
- suppliers
Suggested rewording:
a) Commitment to undertake public outreach to promote environmental awareness.(This was later moved to become selection criteria #9)
b) Commitment to work with all stakeholders toward achieving environmental justice (‘Justice’ was later changed by the group to ‘improvements’.)
6) Balanced representation of industry types and size of business.
OK, and sparked the following discussion.
Need to reach deeper with criteria.
- Choose industry with long-term problem and is working on improving
- Need diversity
- Look at overarching industries that impact large regions
Example Industries: Agriculture (integrated pest management); Mining; Transportation (transit district, air and sea); Utilities; Manufacturing; Medical (hospital research - biotech)
7) Balanced geographic distribution of pilot projects.
The group thought this criterion was OK.
8) Multi-media environmental approach.
The group thought this criterion was OK, and added "air, water, soil, solid waste, etc." as clarification of multi-media.
9) A ninth criterion was suggested by the group:
Commitment to undertake public outreach to promote environmental awareness.
The group raised the following question, that was left unanswered:
Who is helping industry develop systems for environmental management?
All other Break Out Groups discussed the Evaluation and Monitoring Parameters. The following questions were given to them:
1) Will the MSWG Data Protocols adequately address the question of "provide better env. information"?
2) Will the proposed questions on "better information" adequately address the question "provide better information"?
Group 2: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
Will Protocols adequately "verify" better environmental protection?
- Do protocols "line up" with AB 1102 definition of "better environmental protection"?
- Are companies using better/different measurements than asked for in the protocols? e.g., Lockheed uses some different measurements than in the protocol.
Q: Does and EMS provide better information to public? How?
A: Means of communication measures to show improved communication. (How are you going to measure better information?)
A: Protocols don’t meet this target. Public needs to tell business if they are getting right information. How?
- Public forum
- School outreach
- Tours
- Newsletter
- Website
- Science Fair
- (Merit) Partnership
- supplier/contractor education
Who is the target public? How does a business facilitate understanding the right information the public wants?
Suggested questions for information protocols:
- What do you want to know?
- How to learn it? Means?
- How often?
- Who needs to know?
How To Measure
- Attendance at a public meeting.
- Meetings established or (increased) in the neighborhood
- Website hits (start a web)
- Start a newsletter
- Measuring conformance to published evaluation guidelines (like financial reporting)
Group 3: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
Access to better "more quality" information
What EMS information/data should provide
Information on the Web
- Information on recycled materials
- Information in correct context (understandable)
- Sorted by Zip Codes
Frequency of data is improved
Better presentation of data (graphical, tabulation etc.)
Allow manipulation of data
Information Provided by EMS (will result in):
- Broader view of waste management.
- Will give regulators better understating of overall waste management.
- Identify and connect with groups (i.e., NGOs’s, other stakeholders) on significant issues.
- Image of industry/Businesses may improve.
- Private/public partnership facilitates implementation.
- Help small businesses handle their environmental problems.
Group 4: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
What’s "better"? (increased quality and quantity)
- more relevant
- organized
- more available?
- user-friendly
Suggest that the pilot project team conduct a non-punitive EMS audit of protocol data to verify initial information.
Group 5: Evaluation/Monitoring Protocols
Better information - to-whom
- data
- creation
- integration
- transfer
SIC code vs. Clusters
Better definition of what constitutes BETTER
- quantity
- type
- quality
General Discussion on Data Collection
Concern: What is meant by "better" need definition and establish baseline.
Ability to decipher large amounts of information and determine meaningfulness.
Idea: Use or establish public interest group to research and evaluate (EMS organizations)
-3rd party
Next Steps for Southern California Working Group:
- 9/28 San Diego tour
- November training - survey on best/possible dates to come
- Public hearing information to come
Meeting Evaluation
What went well?
- helpful to receive packet - prior to meeting
- update on national effort and California legislative interest
- breakout discussions useful
- same questions visited by different groups was valuable - different interpretations of questions
- thanks for allowing choice of topics
What can be improved?
- need for scheduling information in advance
- complicated material needed in advance
- need access to Dutch model information
- meeting synopsis soon after meeting to review
- summary of websites in minutes
- facilitate car pool - San Diego, esp.
Environmental Management Systems, http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EMS/
General Public Contact, cepacomm@calepa.ca.gov (916) 323-2514