Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo

Appendix B

Contacts for Compliance Screening

Project XL Roundtable

January 13, 1997

--2/25/97 Final Summary--

 On January 13, EPA invited representatives from industry, from the state regulating community, from non-governmental organizations, and from the local citizenry to participate in a roundtable discussion on Project XL. This is a summary of these discussions.

The following meeting summary is designed to provide a relatively in-depth paraphrasing of the comments made by the participants at Project XL Roundtable Meeting, without being an actual transcript of the meeting.

Opening Comments: Fred Hansen

Purpose of this meeting:

The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for discussion among stakeholders in Project XL. This is very important for Project XL. There has not been much discussion across stakeholder groups thus far, and this meeting is meant to enable that.

EPA sees Project XL as an opportunity to experiment with a series of new approaches allowing the move to a new stage of environmental protection that includes: 1) increased stakeholder involvement; 2) enhanced environmental protection; and 3) cost-effective solutions that will get us to our goals of environmental protection. Today, we hope to find common ground wherever possible--this should not be viewed as the "one meeting" where all issues need to be resolved, rather it is a place to begin our mid-course evaluation and readjustment.

Project XL is an evolutionary process--it is not supposed to be a permanent solution. Its purpose is to utilize lessons learned from experimental approaches and then make changes to existing programs. While we realize that there are areas of disagreement on parts of particular projects, progress has been made. We need to take advantage of this opportunity to learn from the differing viewpoints and then be willing to make the necessary changes in order for this Project to be successful.

EPA is committed to providing access and a single point of contact for Project XL. To demonstrate that, Lisa Lund has been appointed the full-time program manager. In addition, there is now an ombudsperson in each region, (either the Deputy Regional Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator) who is there to provide you with an opportunity to raise issues in a way that is sensitive to your concerns. In order to move forward with this process, single sector meetings for stakeholders will be held every 6-8 weeks so that a consistent dialogue can be maintained. Multiple party stakeholder roundtables will be held on a regular basis to allow for a changing group of stakeholders to discuss whatever issue(s) are most pressing at the time. We are also leaning towards holding some of these roundtables outside of Washington to allow broader participation.

Project XL is not the only forum for discussion of these issues. For example, PCSD, Enterprise for the Environment, and the Common Sense Initiative are all discussing similar issues, as is the Aspen Institute’s Alternative Path Project. EPA is also looking into academic institutions to host research and additional dialogue on XL.

Issues that have been brought to EPA’s attention:

1) The issue of technical assistance resources was raised. Lisa Lund and David Gardiner are looking into how additional resources can best be utilized. While EPA’s preference is for a project sponsor and the involved stakeholders to secure adequate support and funding for the stakeholder process, EPA is willing to commit up to $25,000 for each project for use to be determined by the stakeholders. We want those resources to be targeted for specific assistance that otherwise would not be available to a stakeholder group. The requests for needed assistance should come from stakeholders after discussion within the stakeholder group. The mechanics for this still needs to be worked out. One option is the development of a public private partnership that would manage funds and arrange for the requested assistance.

2) How to provide technical assistance is another important element that has been raised. EPA has significant technical expertise and is willing to make it available to stakeholders.

The three issues of importance to be discussed for this meeting are based on the three papers that were mailed to you. These include:

1) Superior environmental performance;

2) Stakeholder involvement process; and

3) Flexibility

Comments from Participants:

Ely Dorsey-- I am quite pleased with the steps you are proposing in that they indicate you are starting to hear our concerns and are responding to earlier requests. Pleased that "impoverished" groups are being asked to participate. EPA is beginning to recognize that there is an lack of parity among stakeholders and a need for this consideration. The $25,000 commitment is a good initial action.

John Ehrmann:

Ground Rules

Purpose of meeting: to provide an opportunity for multiple stakeholders to give their comments on the three papers you received in December. This is not a consensus-decision making session, but rather an opportunity for discussion.

The Keystone Center has experience in some of the broader stakeholder issues and realizes that there are other issues that won’t be in these 3 papers--we want to be sure that people can raise those issues as well. But, we also want to give adequate time to each of the documents.

There has been a wide range of expectations on Project XL--some see it as a real paradigm shift for EPA and its way of doing business; others see it as first step to do regulatory reinvention and still others as a first step to do regulatory reform. Basically, it is important to realize that there are different expectations and it is important to get a sense of those different perspectives.

Many people have invested a lot of time and resources in this project and we want to be sure to provide the opportunity to hear all of the issues that people have. We will try to go through the agenda and the papers as listed, but won’t be able to work through all of them in detail. A balancing act of grounding comments with experience and telling detailed stories is necessary so that we can achieve this goal.

[At this point in the meeting, Ely Dorsey suggested that his and EDF’s comments on XL be copied and circulated among the participants.]

David Gardiner:

There are three things over course of last year that we’ve been hearing about along with corresponding questions:

1) XL was intended to be an experiment where lessons learned would be brought back into existing process for broader application--perhaps would lead to regulatory change, etc. This could lead to a change in how whole system works. We recognize that not everyone shares this view; therefore we ask the following: Was the original vision the right vision? Do we need to change course?

2) What do each of the three major issues actually mean? Superior Environmental Performance; Flexibility; and Stakeholder Involvement. Are the definitions we’ve come up with right or wrong for each of the three categories? Do they need to be defined in better terms? This will be a focus of today’s discussion.

3) Management and communication issues: EPA has worked to overcome some of the internal problems that have existed since the beginning. We also recognize that external communication is a major issue as well. The questions then are: Is the list of things EPA is doing the right list, or are there more or different things they should be doing? Are there management and communication issues that need to be addressed that we are not discussing as of yet?

John Ehrmann: Let’s get some thoughts and comments on the vision and plan for XL and on the third question that David posed regarding the management and communication issues.

Comments from participants on opening questions/thoughts:

 Jim Lemmon--very few state representatives are here. Will there be a roundtable with those level of stakeholders as well as federal level?

David Gardiner responded--we realize the importance of involvement by state level representatives.

Ely Dorsey--I see XL as an opportunity for a paradigm shift. Communication has been a serious problem among all of the players. There is a need to recognize the disconnects and try to fix them. The purpose of XL is to allow companies to do pollution prevention and community remediation. XL must address issues of importance to the communities. From the Environmental Justice perspective, decisions will be made based on questions such as how this impacts the community and worker health and how does this reduce the propensity for worker disease?

Bill Sugar--I applaud EPA for their effort at experimentation; however I am not clear on how to get to the future (away from command and control). Not everyone has the common view that the existing system will get us there and that there is a need for experimentation, etc. That is why there is a need for improved communication.

Gordon Wegwart--agrees with EPA’s vision; agrees with 3 areas that EPA is focusing on and looking for new ways to do things, etc. This requires risk-taking--experiments, which lead to learning--people need to understand up front that this is experimental.

David Hawkins--Comments regarding resource commitment: Participants must feel as though they are getting something out of this process in order to justify the commitment they are making. From the NGO and local perspective, the payoff for the substantial investment in XL must be clear.

The relation between regulatory flexibility and innovation is of great concern to us. We would like a clearer link between the amount of flexibility granted and the amount of innovation proposed by the company. It appears that the regulatory flexibility is being granted regardless of the need for it or the amount of innovation proposed. As an experimental process designed to test flexibility and innovation, XL doesn’t seem currently constructed to most efficiently test either concept. More linkage between the two would be helpful.

Tim Mohin--There are lots of different perspectives on this issue. We see XL as opportunity to reinvent a process that is quite costly and may not get the best results. This is an opportunity to find common ground with each other. We are looking for guidance today on how to improve the program and don’t want to recreate some of the problems that exist in the current system to meet one certain mandate--don’t want to perpetuate "one size fits all." Cautions that we are developing guidelines and not regulations.

Sara Kendall--Expressed a concern that the process will get "put back into the box." Non-prescriptive nature has been productive to program. Enabled Weyerhaeuser to think out of the box. XL should continue to support efforts at experimentation.

Jim Rue--the problem with the current regulatory scheme is that it is process-focused. We must look at how to promote environmental quality. We need to focus producing better results.

Sanford Lewis--Two points: 1) The strength of XL is the community level interest and the experimentation aspects. We have a problem with the presumption that regulatory relief is the way to get to innovation. Innovation towards excellence is right direction for program to head, not what kind of regulatory relief can you get.

2) Role of stakeholders--our role is to legitimate (or encourage) efforts to go out of the box. One lesson learned is that it is too easy for companies to demonstrate stakeholder support for something a company wants. For example, all the company needs to do is support and encourage its supporters, while boring, confusing, marginalizing and exhausting its opponents. This is not real support, but creates an appearance of support If EPA is going to use local stakeholder involvement as a legitimizing mechanism, there is a need for agency to take an active role in developing that, rather than a hands-off approach that has thus far taken place.

Alan Bedwell--I am supportive of the vision and would like to see it remain broad and open. If we try to set too many thresholds and criteria, the vision may cloud-up. Don’t want to prematurely limit the types of projects that are considered.

Ted Smith--likes vision that encourages innovation; likes some of the original eight criteria in concept that are supposed to be safeguards for stakeholders; however, he thinks that they are vague and have not been defined or implemented in ways that have provided those safeguards.

Must take into account resource disparities because of the critical role that stakeholder involvement must play in these processes. Everyone must be heard in order to end up with a truly superior result. He quoted Anatole France to illustrate his point: "The law, in its majesty, allows the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridges." Project XL does nothing to address the tremendous power imbalances and disparities that currently exist, and that in this context, to talk about flexibility guarantees that the imbalance will continue to exist unaddressed. For a new innovative system to help, it must encourage and support the maximum feasible participation of the affected community and workers.

Kevin Mills--Agrees with concept of experimentation; but concerned about effort to make incremental changes. The goal is to franchise successes.

Scott Bernstein--concern about terms that are used--role of community in partnerships; doubts that potential of XL will be achieved with role of community as is: Community involvement will require a greater, broader vision. If we’re successful, we will want a lot more of this to happen--once we learn, we can move toward franchising it and build systems regulated by community/government, etc., to reach goals. Accountability isn’t there yet and the discussion can’t be limited to stakeholder conversation. We need to do some score-keeping in order to better measure results, and we need to agree on process for criteria to ensure success of project.

David Matusow-- It is appropriate to have NGOs and community organizations involved. In addition, we should look at ways to involve individuals from the community. Otherwise, it is the same people talking to each other--Federal Government and NGOs.

Peter Molinaro--the term innovation has been used a lot today. We need to work the definition of innovation among this group and encourage people to figure out what that means in terms of XL, i.e., aspects of working with the local community could be an innovative feature (rather than just coming up with a new valve for example).

Thinking outside the box has been difficult--this has been a different way of doing things--innovation on process side is needed as well. I’ve learned that we don’t know as much as I thought we did so any transition to a new system will be harder and longer than I originally thought.

Bill Sugar--What about "incentives?" There hasn’t been much comment about that. For example, just as individuals commuting don’t have the incentive to carpool, incentives to go to the next level of environmental innovation are not there. That is why XL is exciting, it allows for innovation. Would like to see more discussion of innovative incentives.

Ely Dorsey--Involvement of stakeholders is innovation and it must be looked at like that. That involvement will create a new way of doing business by changing boundaries and creating incentives and a different sense of community. We need to see how others see things.

I want to see how to work with others to create a new world rather than listening for the purpose of defense, which is what is a common way of doing things in these types of meetings. I haven’t seen the kind of dialogue that is needed yet. How can we do something together? Success today would mean that this group can leave knowing how to work together.

Steve Tarnowski--I agree with Jim Rue. There has been too much analysis of the process and debate about the process. It is holding up the efforts at experimentation. Searching for the perfect is standing in the way of the good. Only one project has been approved. We need to get a bunch approved and then analyze lessons learned.

John Glenn--Not to disagree but I am glad to hear that people are interested in discussing and analyzing the process issues. Particularly the issues around the process of consensus.

David Hawkins--Feel compelled to note that that past 15 months haven’t been about the perfect standing in the way of the good. Rather, it has been an effort on our part to ensure that the proposed projects are worthwhile enough to justify a large NGO effort in understanding them.

 John Ehrmann--some of the common issues that have been discussed thus far include: innovation; regulatory flexibility; the notion of community; and experimentation.

Review of Papers:

The group then moved to discussion on the 3 papers on Superior Environmental Performance; Flexibility; and Stakeholder Involvement..

 I. Superior Environmental Performance

Jon Kessler--overview of paper:

1) each of the three papers is critically important to XL.

2) the first outlines a two tiered system:

Tier 1--is project better than equivalent? Is it better than if there were no XL?

Assumption that has been controversial: assume things that are not compelled by regulation wouldn’t have been done, and things done in the past prior to XL would have been done, and therefore are included in the baseline.

Tradeoffs-- where facility or XL proposal meets baseline for one environmental parameter but not the other. Tried to break up into tradeoffs: 1) tradeoff in same environmental loading or problem--where there is strong rationale for trading off; 2) where there is no way to figure out net tradeoff; 3) may not have perfect methodology to merge or compare numbers, but it looks like a win-win.

Tier 2--highlight commitment to do better than before--made others not part of the project feel confident that the commitment is real.

Accountability--Important for projects to be clear about how they would hold themselves accountable about different solutions. What kind of goal should be set?

No matter what guidance is offered and what this paper looks like, EPA realizes that this will not work in every case. Want to provide opportunity to allow people to say "OK, this is your guidance, but it doesn’t work here because..."

Lisa Lund-- re: tier 2; want to get to a more global thinking of environmental concerns; force people to think about environmental performance higher in the thought process--that’s what they mean by continuously improving.

Comments regarding Superior Environmental Performance:

Tim Mohin-- It is important for the group to understand that not all interests agree that superior environmental performance must be a prerequisite. Must look for cost saving and efficiency markers to improve the system. The debate between allowables and actuals has a long history--don’t want to see it repeated in XL guidance.

Ely Dorsey--Superior environmental performance/flexibility/stakeholder involvement-- seen as all one topic. If you see this as a paradigm shift, then the rules change altogether. Stakeholder involvement in the front-end of project will have an impact on the end result (health issues, lowering costs, infectious diseases, etc.); rather than allowing the project to be designed, etc., and then seeing how it impacts the community.

Doesn’t like what EPA did on superior environmental performance if talking about a paradigm shift. If you see XL as creating incremental changes, then his comments will not be relevant. Challenge to the group, what are we seeing?

John Glenn--strongly encourages XL to test paradigm shifts, not just incremental change.

JoLani Hironaka--workers should be recognized as important stakeholders to get to risk-reduction and exposure-reduction emphasis. A key area that XL offers for innovation, but part of the problem, is that communities’ and workers’ needs are not being addressed and heard adequately.

Problem with document--no commitment in language or process thus far to ensure that workers will get something out of it. To have issues taken seriously and get something out of it, this must be built into the process.

There is frustration because these issues have been raised from the beginning and they are not being heard. This is an incredible burden for stakeholders to be a part of this process. The role of the community should be addressed in tier one, not tier two of the document.

Scott Bernstein--How can we use XL to stimulate a broader range of involvement for individual facilities and communities?:

1) In what ways can we be assured that superior environmental performance for facilities will also be superior environmental performance. for communities?

2) Real time monitoring as basis for reviewing performance--how can this happen?

3) How can we recognize the changing nature of what industry does? There are effects up and down the line, and this isn’t being discussed. Should look at the link between the facility and its suppliers/vendors and customers.

4) Measurable affects--life-cycle costing affects. Lower input and demand for resources and materials. There is nothing that explicitly looks at life-cycle costs.

5) Is the tier one/tier two distinction appropriate? Aren’t these things interconnected? Are there ways to allow communities to integrate?

Discuss on this basis and determine if we’re talking about paradigm shift or incremental change.

Andrew Ronchak--Current system of command and control can only go so far--what incentive is there to go further than compliance? What’s the outcome? Will XL create a system that will lead to improved environmental performance?

Concern--some hidden stumbling blocks in this language--must take into consideration what people have done in the past; otherwise it will be a disincentive to partake in XL.

Measurements--lots of criteria for environmental performance. TRI a good example of how to drive emissions down at facilities and that should be taken into consideration.

Ely Dorsey asks--What was the nature of the stakeholder involvement in the 3M project?

 Andrew Ronchak replies--there was a local community group and a state-wide group, which had community representatives and representatives of the plant.

Peter Molinaro--building on what JoLani said: link all three aspects (superior environmental performance, flexibility, and stakeholder involvement) and weigh them to see if you have a good product at the end.

Rules of engagement--get together with group before you decide to go ahead with project--what’s the game plan? Get that straight at the beginning and address process issues as early as possible.

John Ehrmann--How can agency provide guidance that raises the stakeholder question and the superior environmental performance at the same time? Good discussion to keep moving forward.

Jim Rue--Question for Scott, JoLani, and Ely concerning stakeholder involvement at product development time: this could be a problem for certain products where quick turnaround time is an issue. How do you ensure good community involvement?

Scott Bernstein--I don’t want micro-management of the company and its product lines. Rather, I want to assure that there is sufficient alignment among the company, community, and other stakeholders so that TQM type processes can be in place that are guiding all the efforts towards goals that have broad-based agreement and support.

Bill Sugar--Need to figure out exactly what we’re trying to achieve at government, community, and industry levels. We should line up around the "what’s" and then leave it up to the government to provide incentives to motivate stakeholder groups to achieve those "what’s" in an appropriate time schedule. Allow flexibility to achieve those.

Regarding Superior Environmental Performance--cutting costs would not be credited in XL which is a bit of a problem, I think. If you’ve achieved better environmental performance and saved money, then there is money available to the company to do other things. Must focus on the numerator and denominator.

[There then ensued some discussion among several participants about the appropriate role of economics and cost savings in Project XL.]

Jim Lemmon--savings are one of the superior environmental performances--what you do with those savings is up for discussion. A paradigm shift is desirable, but how to make such a shift in this stand-alone XL process is difficult. I squirm a bit when I hear people say that the local stakeholder process should control when the company savings from XL should be spent. But, I agree that this is an important issue. There may be a need for academic input to provide the neutral information that is needed. There is not a model yet that can provide the educational and training infrastructure for participants that would be involved as stakeholders in order to make that paradigm shift occur.

David Hawkins--Managers in regulated industry have been drivers of projects thus far. This is not necessarily bad, but will not by definition lead to superior environmental performance.

He then suggested a preliminary step to get a multi-stakeholder group to identify a semi-prioritized list of environmental goals (could be an environmental management system, new technology for efficient reduction, product stewardship, etc.). The XL Projects would then be identified and even recruited to meet those needs or goals.

Tim Mohin asks--would part of list be looking for problem areas?

David Hawkins responds--wouldn’t exclude, but could be part of needs that community identified.

 Carol Wiessner--If a certain regulation was holding a company back from a source reduction project.

Allan Bedwell--Has three points to make: 1) Looking at the most recent language on Superior Environmental Performance, it is apparent that EPA thinking has evolved; 2) Superior Environmental Performance should be based on compliance reality, not compliance theory. For many companies that means being able to be at 100% compliance; and 3) Superior Environmental Performance should be based upon meeting standards in the most cost-effective manner -- not necessarily going beyond for three important reasons. First, to ask companies to go beyond 100% compliance means that in many cases they will encounter a huge marginal cost associated with additional performance since they are already "high performers." Second, seeking additional reductions beyond 100% compliance ignores comparative risk and is very likely mis-targeting beneficial reduction efforts. Third, essentially EPA is "taxing" volunteer companies who are stepping up to the plate to assist EPA in reforming its regulations.

David Hawkins--I agree that there will be incremental gains from incremental efforts, but XL is about break-throughs.

John Ehrmann--There are a whole host of efforts at EPA and elsewhere on regulatory reform and reinvention. Would it be possible to put some categorization on the process, rather than allowing the current system that says "come forth with projects" to continue?

Ely Dorsey--I hear some people saying that getting some companies up to regulation is in itself a paradigm shift. We don’t want to create thresholds that are so low as to prevent innovation.

Questions--How do we feel about David’s point?

How do we feel about being an XL review board? (as a suggestion) This would create ways to approve XL projects that respect different levels of ability to comply and would take into account the companies that need to meet standards versus those that you could and would expect more from.

Question to John Kessler--with XL vs. not with XL is not the way to go. Because XL is an evolving, dynamic process to shift the way of thinking and it doesn’t have boundaries around it--you can’t say this is what it would be like with or without XL when the projects have not been formed yet--XL is being formed as we speak. We don’t know where we are now with Project XL yet.

Jon Kessler replies--Look at this in terms of a community that has a heath problem--what Ely wants is to start with a problem and then engage the community in exploring solutions. This suggestion is very similar to the suggestion of industry and the state of MN on the 3M project, which is to start with the science. Difference in EPA approach is to take loadings to the environment and the regulations and see what can be done from there. XL’s guidance needs to show where the battle is but not preordain solutions.

Mike Polumbo--Speaking from the perspective of XL communities:

1) Commend EPA for the changes to date.

2) Is there a better way to create interaction between XL facilities and XL communities in order to get strength from both perspectives? From community stand-point, we’re looking at a micro-perspective from firms and a macro-perspective from communities

3) There seems to be some common ground--everyone wants to get to continuous improvement and beyond compliance. This degree of complexity is more than XL can address, however (remember other programs that are involved in these issues). XL can help move us there, but not by itself. Maybe it can serve as a funnel to other projects. We don’t want to get into path of least resistance--agreement on goals and commitment is the baseline, and this can evolve over time as it becomes more clear.

Carolyn Hartman--NGOs were brought into these discussions as 5 or 6 projects were ready to move forward. Therefore, there is a feeling of frustration with what to do about those projects. This is a very stimulating discussion and we wish we would have had this type of opportunity for a dialogue before any companies were accepted into the program.

Hope that XL and CSI will move toward pollution prevention, source reduction and toxic use reduction are the major issues from my perspective. The definition of superior environmental performance must include worker safety and products made, not just releases into the environment.

Regarding the discussion about industries with 1-2 year product life cycle: maybe XL is not the right program for that product at this time. XL is new and everyone is learning as we go along. It is not the be-all and end-all for everyone. Congress is another factor and another source of pressure. The public wants environmental protection and they will listen to that.

Meena Palaneippan-- Jon Kessler described the SEP paper as the line around which the debate or battle can occur--that is an interesting concept, but the SEP paper does not adequately present where the dicussions between Industry, EPA, and NGOs currently are. Tim Mohin and other Industry representatives mention the need for measures of production normalized efficiencies, Lisa Lund detailed the need for more global thinking on environmental concerns and increased involvement in the product planning process, NGOs discuss the need to address the needs of communities and workers in acheiving superior environmental performance. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria are missed opportunities to outline innovative metrics to move companies upstream in the production process to implement design and production efficiencies that truly improve environmental performance. Tier 1 should focus on moving metrics towards more meaningful measures of materials and process efficiency per unit product. In Tier 2, issues of concern to communities and workers should be substantively addressed and not merely considered. If the SEP paper details where the "battle lines" truly are, it is clear from the discussion today that the paper needs to be taken a step farther.

Sara Kendall--Must have participants for project XL to be successful. XL is too resource intensive to survive because of public good will. The project has been worthwhile for Weyerhaeuser.

Superior Environmental Performance should be accommodating individual circumstances, not making a single template. Guidance from EPA should be accommodating of all the factors, not just air or water effects. It must include the issue of trust up front in their guidance to companies. This is fundamental to the success of XL projects. Many companies are interested in this, but are just scared about the costs, etc. Must look at drivers/incentives to invest in this program.

John Ehrmann--Finding the balance points for all stakeholders has been a problem with XL. Because of the time table and urgency with which this project was to be implemented, it created an atmosphere whereby people were unwilling to take the risks that are necessary. People here seem to be saying that there is a desire to go back to finding out how to allow people to trust and take those risks.

Ted Smith--"Trust but verify." The concept of proportionality is a good lesson learned from the computer and electronic sector of the Common Sense Initiative. This has to do with the proportionality between improvement in the regulatory flexibility; environmental, health, and safety; and the engagement of and accountability to communities and workers. The following definition of proportionality comes from that effort:

  • "Proportionality means that facilities seeking substantial increased operational flexibility demonstrate equally substantial improvements in environmental, health and safety performance above Track 1 levels and demonstrate equally substantial involvement of communities and workers in defining facility EMS goals and monitoring programs. Stakeholder involvement can be more than a transaction cost or necessary hassle."
  • Further, the stakeholder process must provide for more participation and more involvement in the decision making as the projects get more complex and provide for more regulatory streamlining. In other words, if projects provide potentially significant regulatory relief, the stakeholders must hold sign-off authority in order to assure accountability. Otherwise, stakeholders would become mere window dressing to provide a cover of community support. Likewise, parity of results--where all parties receive roughly equal benefits--can only come about if there is real equality in bargaining power. Project XL doesn’t address these points.

    He had the following specific comments about the superior environmental performance language:

    1) Environmental medium and loading is not clear if it includes occupational hazard--there is not enough on work place exposure.

    2) The per unit basis is a good approach, however it should be per product not per revenue.

    3) Tier two stakeholder involvement need to be moved to tier one.

    4) Disagrees with the comment that the Project XL agreements don’t need to be enforceable.

    JoLani Hironaka--doesn’t agree with the point that superior environmental performance rolls into the stakeholder process. It is a separate concept and should be kept separate. Having a stakeholder process is not innovation nor is regulatory flexibility alone innovation. Need to be talking about superior performance. Superior performance is an important matter of policy and EPA should make that clear and up front. This is a management and communication problem. We’ve been asking for this type of meeting for a long time. "I suppose it’s better late than never."

    Supports David Hawkin’s suggestion to put together a list of priorities and needs, but did not think that it would be an appropriate task for companies to take on by themselves.

    A fourth aspect that XL should be addressing is disproportionate impacts and avoiding risk shifting. A system of metrics and measuring is needed and should be addressed at front-end. The issue of front-line workers and how XL projects affect their health must also be discussed at the front-end. Don’t want to necessarily start with the health problems, but recognize that those health problems are a symptom of a more fundamental problem. The current system of risk assessment on a limited number of substances is not working. Instead, we should have systems in place to identify trends and feed back into agency regulation and setting standards for continuous improvement. Identify what substances are causing serious environmental impacts.

    Hazardous materials communication and tying into a disease registry on a local level are examples of solutions. We want to discuss this on a level that pieces things together--integrate criteria, not in a survey approach.

    David Gardiner--it is very helpful to hear suggestions of what we should do. I like David’s suggestion as well. Come up with priority list and then ask for proposals that meet those priorities.

    Kevin Mills--Tier 2 examples of the document indicate that EPA is thinking too narrowly about innovation. The examples should illustrate how to think outside the box and should capture the imagination of those in the Board room.

    The role of NGOs can be to help define the needs and to educate all participants. This is a dynamic learning opportunity. The use of a business planning tool in EDF’s Great Partner’s project was a successful approach with up-front stakeholder involvement that allowed for the end goal of pollution prevention to be more obtainable.

    Sanford Lewis--On the issue of tradeoffs, would like to discourage EPA from allowing for the types of tradeoffs described here. It encourages the wrong discussion. Many of the risk assessment models and assumptions such as low-dose exposures and disease responses are not agreed upon by scientists. This places local people in an impossible situation--to reach agreement on a course of action where the scientists widely disagree, and without their expertise. It will paralyze local action, and bog people down in an impossibly complex discussion.

    Likes the idea of looking at health problems and finding ways to combat them. There needs to be more vision on shaping projects so that the discussion at the local level is manageable and not overwhelming.

    John Glenn--Some cross-media trading can be confusing, but not all. In some cases there are discharges which can be allowed which pose no possible health risk, with great environmental improvement resulting overall. Doesn’t want EPA to adopt a blanket no to this.

     Sanford Lewis replies--I agree that if there is no possible health risk involved then a tradeoff might make sense. But any time there is even a possible health or environmental risk, these tradeoffs should be off limits.

    The criteria that all enforceable actions need to be attached to the permit is too limiting. It may be useful to leave an opportunity for other types of enforceable mechanisms as well. This would be good for flexibility.

    Gordon Wegwart--Thinks that superior environmental performance is a defensive approach that doesn’t allow for enough offense and risk taking. Need to have a good defense and a good offense and good players. Pick out the best players that have done well and you believe in to start this process. Let all the stakeholders have a say and work as a team with your best performers as the players. Make it more proactive. The bar should be that you are doing better than what’s required to get into the program.

    Carol Wiessner--expressed frustration with the outcome of the 3M project. We must get to a point where people can understand benchmarks and progress that is being made; but people need to be willing to go for it and take the risk to go forward.

    Peter Molinaro--The RFP idea has been thrown around a lot. This leads to a concern about the people in the local community who will not be involved in this process (specifically referring to proposal of a review group). Need to allow for them to be involved.

    Regarding the unit of product versus the unit of revenue comment--their stakeholders want to see both reduced emissions and reduced costs. If we get too rigid on the criteria for superior environmental performance, then good ideas may go untested because they didn’t meet criteria.

    Tim Mohin--Might be some commonality on the suggestion to prioritize needs. Some XL participants have already talked about this. Another suggestion was to have a review panel on back-end of project to see where lessons have been learned.

    Scott Bernstein --Need to address question of motivation. Examples from discussion: three times "good will" has been mentioned as a fuzzy concept, when in reality, it is not. All companies have a line in their budget for good will--it is tracked specifically. In what instances is superior environmental performance taking into consideration motivation and how can it contribute to good will?

    Need to think about economics as it relates to superior environmental performance. In what instances would companies be willing invest savings back into more superior environmental performance or in other ways to benefit the community? A discussion guide from EPA could stimulate this conversation and provide some options for parties.

    Sara Kendall--expressed another view on the goodwill issue: other stakeholders, such as investors and stockholders have given negative feedback for investing dollars for equipment that goes beyond compliance. This is heard from Wall Street a lot, as well as customers who will often wonder if their product is going to be affected by changes being made.

    Scott Bernstein--these type of comments should occur in pre-project dialogue to get these issues out on the table.

    Ely Dorsey--empowerment within corporations is very important to consider. XL is an opportunity for companies themselves to empower other individuals within their own companies to find solutions and ways to save money through pollution prevention, etc. There are opportunities that haven’t even been seen yet.

    John Ehrmann--there are ways that this process can help make changes happen within organizations in order to make projects successful.

    David Matusow--the first bullet in Tier 1 is impossible to achieve or measure. "Generally representative industry practice" can be problematic to define. The Discussion Guide is an excellent idea. Public stakeholders need some place to start and this would be a great tool for them.

    Editor’s Note: It is our understanding that the Discussion Guide refers to the concept of a document that would be used by all stakeholders, particularly those at the community level. This document would help all the stakeholders better understand the FPA process, the issues they will be expected to address and ways in which they can get answers. While available to all stakeholders, it would be written for the local and "public" stakeholders.]

     Discussion on Next Steps for this draft and issue of Federal Register notice:

     Lisa Lund--Regarding the next steps for this draft: EPA won’t be circulating drafts for more comments. We will revise the documents based on comments, and then issue the document in the Federal Register.

    David Gardiner--these drafts have been circulated for some time. We will make some more changes and then submit to the Federal Register.

    Ely Dorsey--I’m uncomfortable with the superior environmental performance document. EPA agency folks should participate more actively in the conversation.

    Jon Kessler--has heard a lot of comments today that would lead him to want to substantially change the draft; The Federal Register process will have its own value and purpose different from this purpose. It will be to provide for broader circulation.

    John Ehrmann--EPA will have additional opportunity to make changes after the Federal Register notice comments are received. These documents will continue to go though an iterative process into the future.

    Carol Wiessner--In Minnesota, defining and measuring the benchmark has been very difficult. The benchmark has been a key number

    David Gardiner--The 3M example told us it is very difficult to measure the benchmark. Our lesson learned is to involve the stakeholders in this process.

    Lydia Wegman--In 3M project, issue was over toxics, not just attainment or non-attainment. Need a place to start from to measure environmental results. Seeing environmental improvement is an important part of this program.

    Ely Dorsey--Question they are asking is what are you measuring. Health measurements must be tied to this in order for them to become comfortable. Can we entertain different measurement models? Must understand synergy, multi-media, cumulative risk, and risk to workers. Concerned about rush to publish document in Federal Register until scientific risks are known.

    Scott Bernstein--before Federal Register notice is done, get a group of people to work on a "story telling" type of procedure to see if what has been done so far can be done better.

     David Gardiner responded by saying that the documents from EPA are their attempt to "write the story."

    Jim Rue--Noted that over the course of the morning there had been apparently contrasting views of how to proceed with implementing superior environmental performance. Based on the morning’s discussion, he posed the following questions:

    1) Is a good stakeholder process a demonstration of superior environmental performance?

    2) Does superior environmental performance require a reduction in contaminant loading for workers and fence-line communities?

    3) Does achieving superior environmental performance have to wait for full understanding of all the synergistic effects?

    This illustrates the complexity of these issues and this suggests that the document is about as good as we can do.

    Jim Lemmon--Intel experience tended to overfocus on superior environmental performance instead of looking for more innovative ways to do things--this is a lesson learned for them.

    This group has been talking about this all day and hasn’t come to any agreement.

    The conversation then move on the next document on Flexibility.

     II. Flexibility Document

     Jon Kessler--overview of document

    1) Success of XL depends on providing incentives to do this.

    One incentive is regulatory flexibility to remove barriers to implementation directly or by indirectly producing cost-saving benefits. Terms of flexibility need to be understood. EPA’s view is that they have tools to deliver flexibility in certain situations, such as in regulatory flexibility. In terms of statutory flexibility, they do not have flexibility.


    2) 2 and 3 paragraphs--how does flexibility affect citizens’ rights in balance with EPA’s

  • a) can produce mechanisms to implement projects seeking relief, that are not going to be subject to citizen lawsuits (in other words the bad side of citizen litigation)

    b) also think this can be done in way to protect citizens’ rights to litigate (good side)

  • 3) Incentives--what’s out there? EPA made a list of incentives that are out there:

  • --money from reg. flexibility

    --corporate good will

    --lowering of community health costs by addressing community health risks

    --cost savings from pollution prevention

    --desire to be part of regulatory reinvention--will be more useful to firm if you’re part of it and just desire to be part of a good thing.

    --direct tax advantage for doing things beyond compliance.

  • Lisa Lund--noted that there were two more incentives from her perspective:

  • --competitive advantage

    --flexibility in companies’ operations

  • Alan Bedwell--does that mean the document is not enforceable? And if so, how can EPA hope for "breakthrough" projects when applicants are hobbled in their efforts by being anchored to the old regulatory system?


    Jon Kessler responded that while the FPA itself was not intended to be enforceable in many if not all instances, it would be accompanied by an underlying permit or other regulatory action that was enforceable.

    Scott Bernstein--regulated entities should talk about collaborative rather than competitive advantages. Also, some people do this because it is the right thing to do. In 3M discussions, a lot of time was spent on figuring out how to know that it was real, which led to use of real-time measurements and to putting measurements on-line.

    If really aiming for zero emissions, you’d want to put measurements on line to brag about it. Companies that have expressed interest so far, seem to be big enough and sophisticated enough to do this. Add a principle to say that flexibility is based on real-time monitoring.

    Tim Mohin--Purpose of XL is to demonstrate flexibility not just to have 50 projects achieving results in isolation. Based on the documents we are reviewing, it appears that EPA does not care as much about flexibility as they do superior environmental performance and stakeholder involvement.

    David Matusow--disagrees that flexibility is the primary purpose of XL (that assumes that the business perspective is the only way). Not what I’m here for--I’m here to change the method of communication between parties.

    John Ehrmann--people have come with different perspectives; what’s lacking is a discussion of the interplay between three pieces. There may be a need for a preface to these documents that will discuss this.

    Tim Mohin--question is to agency--is purpose to test alternative policy mechanisms or is to achieve environmental performance in 50 little sites across country?

    David Gardiner--purpose is not one or the other, rather it is both. Stakeholder involvement is other piece here.

    Lydia Wegman--flexibility and environmental performance go hand in hand. Can’t be flexibility alone. Must be able to point out the environmental advantages.

    Bill Sugar--need to have a program that captures senior management attention. EPA’s typical target, big companies with lots of money, is changing these days as a result of downsizing, etc. If EPA doesn’t come with enough incentives, then they will lose those big companies as well. Times are changing and this needs to be taken into account.

    Pat Hill--putting data on the net addresses some information needs. Frustration with previous discussions today, is discussions about guidance and where this is headed. Don’t want to have to define what is flexible and what is not. Also superior environmental performance can vary from one community to the next. Must be more creative and ensure that there is plenty of measurement to comfort EPA. The proposal needs to have a long preface. This would help companies such as Georgia Pacific who is trying to convince leadership that this is a good idea.

    Ted Smith--flexibility and proportionality of enforceable promises--who gets the benefit and same for unenforceable promises. This is not proportional if the company gets benefits and the community doesn’t. Parity in promises is the key.

    Meena Palaneippan--doesn't think it is meaningful to calculate the number of pages allocated to each topic (SEP, flexibility, stakeholders). Although the stakeholder involvement paper is longer, the credibility of the stakeholder process outlined in that paper is still questionable. Phrases like "hassle factor" are being thrown around, and she questions whether industry really sees a role for stakeholders in Project XL.

    Sanford Lewis-- initiation of projects by stakeholders is a good concept. Flexibility should only be rolled into a new project if it is necessary. It shouldn’t be a central and mandatory piece of this.

    Jim Nelson--can’t deviate from statutory requirements, but looking at how they can interpret regulations to determine a different way to do this. XL is one of many things EPA is doing--a particular path looking at particular circumstances. We’re setting a higher standard for "getting into the box" on this one. Don’t want to load up XL so that nothing happens.

    Sanford Lewis replied--Question about suits for competitors: Could companies sue because EPA is putting competitors at an advantage? The document should state that competitors or citizens might try to sue over an exemption, not imply that citizens will file "frivolous" suits or that local citizens are the only ones who might sue.

    Lisa Lund--agreed that the flexibility document was not as well developed as the others but reminded people that XL has three equal parts: flexibility, superior environmental performance, and stakeholder involvement.

    Jon Kessler--Doesn’t think that case has been made effectively that XL is worth it to the industry or to NGOs who say this isn’t worth it to us: what’s the give for the environment; Industry saying that this isn’t worth it because our board rooms won’t accept; consumer advocates say this isn’t worth it because it takes too much time. Strongest incentive has been that status quo is the alternative.

    Susan O’Keefe--Concern about offering flexibility for its own sake

    Sara Kendall--1) Companies have to be willing to come to the table. Objects to the suggestion that flexibility should only be granted when directly related to the innovation proposed in Project XL. It was the promise of greater flexibility on a broader basis that sold our senior management on doing an XL project. Can’t only link flexibility to project commitment.

    2) Proportionality is important--look at what you’re doing and rank flexibility proportionately to what you’re willing to commit (it should not necessarily be the case that you have to pass through a lot of hoops before getting to be XL project);

    3) There needs to be a description of what a company is going to get from doing an XL project. There needs to be real examples within this document and a list of what is specifically being discussed. Flexibility can mean a lot of different things: it doesn’t just mean that you’re filling out less forms. Should lay out examples in more detail so that you can induce people into the program. This program is part of a longer term paradigm shift.

    John Ehrmann--This past interchange reinforces the need for a preface that links these documents together.

    Bill Sugar--The way the program is currently structured penalizes those companies who have previously taken voluntary steps to reduce pollution beyond regulatory levels.

    Scott Bernstein--Proportionality with respect to outcomes: this must be sold to plenty of people in order for it to work. Need to understand what the incentives are and for whom. Interested in mutual gain, join stakes, and collaborative opportunities, which will allow us to proliferate the gains from this.

    This document looks like a give-away with environmental communities right now. The flexibility piece is viewed as a give-away by many environmental groups in Chicago.

    Real time data would increase awareness and flexibility could do the same. How do we present this in a way to gain potential multiple benefits in a scenario that can benefit us all?

    John Ehrmann--this is complicated--it’s important for people to get an understanding of each other and sometimes that gets ‘ugly.’ Now is a good time to sort through and figure how to move things forward. There seem to be a lot of common issues that people are talking about.

    III. Stakeholder Involvement

    Jon Kessler--Points to highlight that are different than previous approach to stakeholder. Wanted to lend structure to stakeholder process to meet needs of industry and national environmental groups so they can understand what a good process is.

    Highlights of key points:

    1) Tried not to differentiate local and national stakeholder levels; rather stated that a stakeholder is a stakeholder. Then divided into three categories that stakeholders can fall into: direct participants; commenters; and the general public.

    2) Prior to formal proposals of projects, there should be attempt to seek out other input in the form of preproposal activity; also should be attempt to develop a stakeholder proposal.

    3) Whatever authority relationship exists among stakeholders, should be made clear from outset (people have been surprised about authority that they may or may not have had).

    4) If someone wants to participate, they should be able to do so in whatever capacity they chose (open-door policy).

    5) Role of EPA: 1) must be guarantor of process; 2) agency will always be a participant in process--not the referee. They are a participant with an independent view and independent ability to carry out those views.

    6) Resources--should be made available to stakeholders and should be aggressive about offering those resources (i.e., technical resources, expertise, etc.) . Hasn’t been enough of that so far.

    Keith Laughlin--There are three concepts raised by this document that I would like to discuss.

    The first is innovation, both social and technological innovation. Technological innovation allows for achieving cleaner environmental goals cheaper. Yet social innovation is needed to allow for the processes to be developed to achieve these technological goals. The second concept is that Board rooms for all the stakeholders (environmentalists, industry, etc.) must be convinced that this will work. The third concept is developing sufficient trust among all the stakeholders to allow these important innovations to go forward.

    Finally, I believe we need more consideration of how to improve the initial process (including stakeholder involvement) and up-front requirements so that projects have some steam or momentum going when they enter XL.

    Alan Bedwell-- Constituent involvement in MADEP's effort to build its XL application was crucial. We should have constituent groups involved in the development of XL applications. However, I do not like requiring outright and total support of constituents as a criteria for approval by EPA. That's what the traditional public review process is for. In order to try new things, we must get constituents involved and allow for the opportunity to publicly participate and voice opinions -- Not kill off projects before they've seen the light of day and had wider review. Yet, it is not reasonable to expect all constituents to wholeheartedly support a project at the beginning. Constituents and the public have the right to evaluate a project as it unfolds, and they should have the ability to prod the participants to do more.

    Ted Smith--flexibility as an inducement has led to one of the problems with XL. There is too much of that dynamic. Industry sees XL has the preferred place to play, but this is not the only place to play. If this process doesn’t work, there are other things out there.

    There is a need for safeguards in the stakeholder process: we are talking about significant resources here. He then referenced a chart that showed a comparison of community Participation Models with the Intel project that brings safeguards into process that will be needed to make it work and to really buy into notion that there is value added for community participation.

    Scott Bernstein--would be a shame to give up on this process after 14 months. We can use this document and the EPA process to do this better. There is a document by the American Planning Association on levels of stakeholder involvement that is relevant here (offered to get a copy to Lisa Lund).

    Need to create feeling of joint ownership. Does EPA offer of technical assistance do that? What about companies that do that now? This is an ongoing process of engagement vs. a one-time negotiating process. The stakeholder process should be about a vehicle to jointly craft something. Therefore there needs to be a way for communities to be a part of this. If the document describes a role for community then they will come. This document reads too much like an extended public hearing and doesn’t go enough toward building a sense of community.

    Scott noted the similarities between the banking industry and Project XL. The banking industry has to publish a lot of bank specific information and the banks also take a variety of steps to work with their communities. Over time this has led to capacity building within states, communities, and the banking community to work with each other on redevelopment issues and other issues of importance to the community. This appears quite applicable to the XL effort.

    Ely Dorsey--Describing community involvement for development of projects and the paradigm shift so that we feel that our interests are being met: Social innovation in XL means a company with an XL project immediately thinks "how does this project help the public good?" This should be a first statement. It also means that the company is open to suggestions from outside to work on a particular XL project. That’s how he sees social innovation.

    Kevin Mills--The language on decision-making is vague and at odds with the goal of building community and shared ownership. Not comfortable with the way the eligibility section is laid out. Is there a likelihood that it will succeed?

    Partnership leads you to quality processes with shared perspectives up front. Specific EDF example: stakeholders thought together about how to get the right people at the table, up front in the process. No one company can know everyone that needs to be there.

    Carol Wiessner--How do you ensure that the right people get there? In Minnesota for example, MPCA can’t be at every meeting or ensure that the NGO community is always there or at least represented.

    Scott Bernstein--You need to find ways to promote shared ownership of outcomes. Must say that these groups are organized to make decisions. The PCSD document could be helpful to this. All stakeholders have a role to play in implementation. They must have shared ownership up the chain in order to have a successful process.

    JoLani Hironaka--What is the actual impact of exposure on health? This is a fundamental question when developing these projects. We need to take a look at what is actually happening to workers.

    We can’t wait for studies to document the harm. Make exposure reduction one of the goals of an environmental management system.

    Jim Lemmon--how can we maintain confidentiality and look at individual health records? This is a fundamental issue--confidentiality.

    John Ehrmann--the point being made is that in XL there needs to be more emphasis on workers’ health.

    JoLani Hironaka--There are models available to making this happen. Need to commit to exploring models and making this happen. Environmental management systems are never put together with particular points, such as injuries and potential systemic poisoning problems in mind. There are significant cost savings for the public and facilities stand to gain a lot, such as increased productivity, reduced health costs, and reducing detrimental environmental health impacts. Stakeholders should involve disease registries and local health care providers in their groups.

    Andrew Ronchak--would like to see more experimental models to compare one model to another to see what differences would enhance proactive stakeholder participation. EPA needed a direct participation stakeholder group in beginning of this process--(may not be helpful now, but in developing other projects it may be).

    We must be able to reach the general public in ways they haven’t been able to previously. People need to understand bottom-line impacts so that they can put pressure on companies to make changes. The Internet reporting piece at 3M project would have gone a long way to test that theory

    David Matusow--this document needs a lot of work. We need to understand what a stakeholder is. The individual person as a stakeholder is in a unique situation. Those who are a part of the public and are influenced by the facility are different than other stakeholders who incorporate responsibility for these types of activities into their jobs. Companies somehow compensate for their employee activities because they can see the value. Someone like David does this over and above normal activities. It may require taking time off of work and could be detrimental to one’s "regular life." EPA can’t expect this sort of commitment without allowing all participants to have a say in results and decisions, or else there will be no reason for them to come to the table.

    Tim Mohin--David is raising an very important issue if you want average citizens to participate in this process. We want stakeholder involvement, but we’re asking certain stakeholders to put in a lot of time and resources without any compensation.

    David Matusow replied--People will participate if it is a true bottoms-up, open process. If people don’t think they’ll really be listened to, or that they’ll have any authority, they won’t.

    Ely Dorsey--Be clear that from the environmental justice perspective, XL lives or dies over the stakeholder issue. That’s what makes innovation happen. Must have parity. Don’t think that this point has been integrated into people’s decisions about XL. We expect to see a real commitment from companies on this.

    Sara Kendall--Pre-proposal work should not be only to eliminate conflicts before it gets to EPA. It must talk about obligations: stakeholders bring obligations, interests, and different sources of expertise. Can have disingenuous stakeholders as well--this proposal protects those stakeholders, which is not good.

    Statutory boundaries exist regarding the role of EPA. Therefore, the concept of stakeholders having veto authority makes me very uncomfortable. Stakeholders have a right to be heard, but shouldn’t have that decision-making authority. There is a clear chain of authority and delegation in this country: Congress to the Executive Branch to the States. Citizens are not a part of that.

    David Matusow--Posed a question about an individual stakeholder who has been sitting at the table throughout the entire process. What is their role? What authority should they have?

    Sara Kendall responded--regarding regulators, I would say yes, but for citizens that are there for their community, I’m not sure. Congress didn’t ask citizens to make those decisions, even though there may be very valid points that should be heard.

    Lisa Lund--if stakeholders as a group don’t want a project to go forward, EPA won’t consider it; if only one stakeholder is making the suggestion, we may look into it, but wouldn’t necessarily eliminate the project from consideration.

    Mindy Lubber--seems like people may not be that far apart. What does shared decision-making mean?

    Kevin Mills replies--Will need representatives in implementation to make changes in their practices in order to implement. Don’t have legal authority from Congress, but in this process, you need them to share in decisions to achieve end result.

    Sanford Lewis--regarding social innovation: As a baseline, he looks at what community groups have been able to achieve without EPA involvement. As shown in my handout and on our web page, Project XL projects look very weak by comparison.

    Regarding the document--there are seeds of good ideas here: stakeholders could be initiators; worker involvement/worker sovereignty; training of stakeholders. However, there are some things missing: 1) there is a need for EPA to affirmatively shape stakeholder participation with credible guidelines, not to be a passive recipient of companies’ efforts; 2) there is a need for technical assistance; 3) EPA needs to ensure that companies know they need to start earlier, and screen out projects that will not have enough time for genuine stakeholder participation; 4) sovereignty and independence of community participants is not mentioned in document. Where company has control over facilitator, that is not independent; and 5) workforce participation: the interplay with community members is a very important exchange between internal and external stakeholders.

    According to the document, stakeholders only represent themselves. What if there is a union or a civic organization--they should be able to represent those parties as well. There needs to be a consensus model for stakeholders as well.

    Jim Lemmon--it’s very important to have a debriefing on projects. This sort of model could be put on the web page along with a lessons learned model.

    Ted Smith--page 8-- A concern over EPA’s responsiveness to the NGO community and their understanding of the best process for community outreach was expressed. Communication with potential stakeholders by putting information on the web site is not adequate. This is symptomatic of how far we have to go.

    Next Steps:

     John Ehrmann--Some themes that I’ve heard coming out of today’s discussion:

    1) 3 components -- people have gotten flavor for how these weave together. Must be done in a creative way and there’s still work to do there.

    2) General approach of XL is still worth people’s time--people still committed to the concept and to work through tough issues;

    3) documents need some kind of tie-together reference for Federal Register for those that haven’t been a part of these discussions;

    4) EPA should look for some sort of categorization to prioritize. Look for particular areas of innovation --social and technical;

    5) Discussion with people with different expectations/experiences, etc., is important--need to understand where everyone comes from in order to make this successful. EPA must now digest this.

    Lisa Lund--Next steps:

    1) Pleased with level of constructiveness and willing to take time out of your busy schedules to do this. There are clearly a lot of divergent comments which we will need to go back and ponder. We will not be able to get something out in the Federal Register by end of January;

    2) We invite written comments in next two weeks for folks to have opportunity to put more things in front of us while we revise the documents;

    3) In February, we will publish in the Federal Register a draft set of documents. We will receive comment on these and revise them on a continual basis (rather than typical final notice). I would anticipate late spring or early summer for the next draft;

    4) The up-front work done on issues will be discussed in more detail. (David Hawkins suggestion);

    5) We will make meetings with individual groups more regular--every six weeks or so starting at end of February, beginning of March;

    6) We recognize that we could have used this dialogue a long time ago and propose to have these types of meetings on a quarterly basis around the country, not just in D.C. in order to move forward with this process;

    7) We will work with PCSD to see what lessons can be learned from them; and

    8) We will look for mechanisms to put in place technical assistance from EPA.

     Ely Dorsey--pointed out that people sitting in the same meeting will often have differing perspectives on what transpired. It would be helpful, therefore, to have access to the notes that were taken today. He’s concerned that we’re walking out of this room with different perceptions of like terms.

    Lisa Lund--We will provide a summary of the meeting and will make those notes available if requested.

    The meeting ended at approximately 5:45 p.m.

    Appendix A

    Project XL Roundtable

    Attachments Submitted


    The following is a list of documents and the people that submitted them at the January 13 Project XL Roundtable Discussion. In an effort to save costs, we are listing these documents and would request that you contact Keystone staff (Judy O'Brien at 202-783-0248) if you would like to receive copies.

    Participant Name Organization Submission
    1. Ted Smith Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
    • Press Release re: Intel Project;
    • Matrix on Community Participation;
    • Articles re: Intel Project
    2. Ely Dorsey Howard University Reflections on the EPA Definitional Paper of SEP
    3. Kevin Mills Environmental Defense Fund Initial Response to Draft Guidelines
    4. Peter Molinaro Union Carbide Union Carbide Project Highlights and Summary
    5. Sanford Lewis The Good Neighbor Project Project XL contrasted with "Good Neighbor Agreements"
    6. David Matusow Intel Project XL Stakeholder Thoughts on Public Involvement in Project XL
    7. Kevin Mills and Ted Smith EPA’s Common Sense Intiative

    -- Computer and Electronics Sector

    • Fact Sheet on ASEP
    • Draft Document: "A Facility-Based Alternative System of Environmental Protection"
    8. Scott Bernstein Center for Neighborhood Technology American Planning Assoc.-- Stakeholder involvement document

    Local Navigation

    Jump to main content.