Portland Water Bureau (XLC)
October 29, 1998 Meeting #1 Summary
Project XL for Communities Sponsor/Stakeholder
Meeting for
Portland's Lead Hazard Reduction Program (LHRP)
Meeting Summary
Meeting #1, October 29, 1998 , 9:00am-12:00pm
In Attendance:
Facilitator - Joan Brown-Kline
Sponsors - Bert Seierstad, Stacey Drake Edwards, Curt Ireland
Co-sponsors - John Dougherty, Chris Johnson, Dave Leland
EPA Stakeholders - Bill Glasser, Kristina Heinemann, Monica Kirk, Barbara Rose
Direct Participant Stakeholders - Jerry Arnold, Dean Fritzke, Alan Hipolito, Annabelle Jaramillo, Ellen Johnson, Ann Kimerling, Rick Leiker, Alfonso Lopez, Harvey Rice, Rick Hill, Damon Whitehead
The following were presented as Desired Outcomes for Today's Meeting:
- Establish participant roles and groundrules for the Final Project Agreement (FPA) development process
- Obtain and respond to input from stakeholders in order to shape the LHRP and the FPA
- Develop a common understanding of the components and objectives of the Lead Hazard Reduction Program
- Develop a common understanding of the elements and objectives of the Final Project Agreement
All meeting participants introduced themselves, indicating their role in the Portland XL for Communities project as Sponsors, Co-sponsors, or EPA stakeholders, or by which organization or group of stakeholders they represented.
Establishment of Groundrules for Today's Meeting
The group agreed on the following groundrules:
- Allow and encourage everyone to participate
- There are no stupid questions
- LISTEN - create space and silence - allow for reflection
- Since we don't all know each other, identify yourself by name/affiliation the first two times you speak
- Work to stay focused and pace the meeting well so that we finish what we set out to do
Note: Refer to the handouts for more detailed information. EPA personnel (Bill Glasser and Kristina Heinemann) presented information on the development of a Final Project Agreement (FPA): the participants, the key steps in the process, the need for clear definitions of stakeholders' roles and a clear Decision-Making process, and the provisions for Public Comment (typically 30 days). Information was also presented on the significance of the FPA, and what it is, and is not. FPAs are not legally-binding documents, but they are "firm agreements" which "reflect serious commitments" on the part of project sponsors. The components of an FPA include: an overview of the project, the applicable XLC Selection Criteria, description of the stakeholder process, commitments of the sponsors and stakeholders, legal mechanisms, how the project will be evaluated, and administrative provisions. Signatories to the FPA include project sponsors, the EPA, and Direct Participant stakeholders who wish to accept that role and commitment. Direct Participants who sign the FPA will need to be clear about whether they are signing as individuals, or as representing their organization. The "implementing mechanism" for the Portland XLC project has been provided by the Oregon Health Division as the drinking water regulatory authority in Oregon as granted primacy by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Because of the nature of XL for Communities projects, It is clear that traditional outreach methods don't always produce the most effective community-based programs. Recognition of this need is the primary reason for convening these Sponsor/Stakeholder meetings and developing the FPA for the Portland XLC project in a participatory manner which involves those persons and populations who have the greatest stake in the project's outcomes.
Review of Lead Hazard Reduction Program Components
Note: Refer to the handouts for more detailed information on each
of the components of the LHRP. Bert Seierstad presented information
on the Water Treatment and Water Quality Monitoring program component.
Chris Johnson and John Dougherty presented information on the Home Lead
Hazard Reduction Program, CLEARCorps, Evaluation, and the Lead Dust
Prevalence Study. Stacey Edwards presented information on Stakeholder
Involvement, Public Education, and Outreach for all components of the
LHRP. Curt Ireland presented information on the Lead-in-Water
Testing program component.
The Lead Hazard Reduction Program is being managed by the Portland Water Bureau for compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule on behalf of the Bureau and its wholesale water purveyors. The LHRP applies to the Bull Run Service District (see "Water Providers Map handout). As the components of the program continue to be implemented, it will be very important to ensure equitable availability of outreach, education, and program resources across the Bull Run Service District.
The pilot year of the CLEARCorps program has produced data indicating that 31% of the window sills and 66% of window wells of participants' home exceed the Action Levels for lead dust. The CLEARCorps Team does spread bark dust on bare soil which is found to be a significant source of lead. The Lead Dust Prevalence Study is being conducted on eleven zip codes in the Bull Run Service area which contain about 50% of the homes built before 1950, including 10,000 homes that have children. About 40-50 houses have been sampled, and the study is ongoing. The results are very preliminary, and can not be cited here. Approximately half of the houses appear to have a lead dust problem, which preliminarily indicates a somewhat higher magnitude problem than perhaps would have been expected in the Portland area.
Stakeholder involvement for the Lead Hazard Reduction Program began in the first year of the program with outreach which was focused primarily on education and recruitment of participants from the pilot neighborhood in Northeast Portland. Current outreach efforts have been expanded to encompass all four components of the LHRP, the entire geographical area of the Bull Run Service District and its identified target populations, and to include education on numerous routes of lead exposure (not just lead dust/paint and water). Outreach is being developed which will reach additional populations which the programs will serve (Asian, Hispanic, Russian, etc.).
Establishment of Groundrules for the FPA Development
Process
The group began a discussion of the groundrules (or Guiding Principles)
that would be necessary for successful development of an FPA:
- Principles for Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholders' Roles:-
- We need clear definitions of the roles of all
stakeholders (Direct Participants, Commentors, and General Public)
- This group of Direct Participants has been identified, and now the invitation needs to go out to Commentors-
- We need discussions about the best methods to
bring stakeholders into this process, especially special populations.
Stakeholder participation needs to be inclusive and available to
all persons who have a stake in the outcomes of the programs.
- All stakeholders need to determine and be comfortable with their level of involvement
- Given the current timelines and development of the LHRP components, it was agreed that this is a good time to expand stakeholder involvement, and presents an opportunity to maximize that participation
- Non-traditional outreach methods will continue to be of prime importance - Principles for the Final Project Agreement
Process
Decision-Making Process:-
- This group of Sponsors, Co-sponsors, Direct Participants,
and EPA Stakeholders needs to come to agreement on the specific
Decision-Making process which we will use for the development of
the FPA and the implementation of the XLC program. The process
should be one of partnership and empowerment of the participants.
- The roles of the Sponsors, Co-sponsors, and all stakeholders need to be clear and well defined
- Decisions need to be made as to who will function as signatories of the Final Project Agreement, and whether signatories represent a group/organization, or themselves as individuals
The time remaining was short (about one-half hour), but the following subset of three critical XLC Selection Criteria were presented and used as a basis to begin discussion of the LHRP components and identify stakeholders' issues and concerns:
- Environmental Results
- Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation
- Stakeholder Involvement, Support, and Capacity for Community Participation
- There appears to be a lack of, or limited, participation by renters and landlords (only about of the houses in the first year of the Home Lead Hazard Reduction Program)
- Schools need to be more involved, including water testing in school buildings and water fountains
- Ensurance of (and demonstration of the effectiveness of) follow-up testing, education, and ongoing contact with participants in the Home Lead Hazard Reduction Program
- Explore ways to increase the involvement of additional stakeholders beyond those who are present for this process; do advocacy on behalf of people in the areas which the programs target
- This process should be used to strengthen existing efforts, including the Comprehensive Lead Planning efforts being lead by the Urban League
- Alternatives for resource availability should be pursued to ensure that outreach is broad-based and inclusive
- All aspects of the outreach process should be culturally sensitive, e.g. with respect to language, imagery, and means of communication
- Children and youth should be made aware of the programs and lead issues
- Considerations should be given to how national vs. local issues should be most effectively discussed and acted upon
- All stakeholders speaking on behalf of the community should be careful to state their concerns and issues legitimately
- The process should empower participants to be partners in this effort, and allow for reasonable flexibility around issues such as the desired timeline for completion of an effective process
- The Housing subcommittee for the Comprehensive Lead Planning effort is currently working on getting landlords (especially "Mom and Pop" landlords) more educated and involved; Landlord/Tenant Associations are involved in the material being developed for the Metro-wide Lead Education Campaign
- Schools have been offered lead and copper water testing opportunities by the Portland Water Bureau, and the Lead-in-Water Testing Program will be developed to do outreach to schools within the Bull Run Service area
- Follow-up testing, education and ongoing contact with participants in the Home Lead Hazard Reduction Program is in place and ongoing; results of these efforts will be included in program reports
- Outreach is ongoing and being expanded to all four components of the LHRP, the entire geographical area of the Bull Run Service District and its identified target populations (Asian, Hispanic, Russian, etc.). Outreach and education will encompass numerous routes of lead exposure utilizing a process that is culturally sensitive
- Schools, day care centers, youth groups, etc are being targeted for the Metro-wide Lead Educational Campaign, and for offering of opportunities for involvement in programs such as "Train the Trainer"
Next Steps:
- Convene for the next meeting on November 16
- Provide a written summary of this meeting (Bert)
- Provide a complete list of the nine XLC Selection Criteria to this group
- Consider whether we want to think beyond what we initially came together to do
- Explore additional resource opportunities before the next meeting, e.g. EPA XL Stakeholder Assistance Grants
- Find out if there is a need for (and people are willing to) meet in the evening