Flip Chart Notes from 7-17-01 Meeting

with Industry and Community Representatives

Introducing Concept of Performance Track Program

(notes have been grouped by facilitator)

Program Development Process Suggestions

- need coordination with federal enforcement

- state enforcement needs to be a part of developing the program

- Oregon experience

- lots of stakeholder involvement

- look at other states’ programs in developing Utah’s program

- learn from others

- do not reinvent the wheel

- how are other states implementing their programs

- multi-state working group sponsored by EPA

- history of other state programs?

- increased or decreased staffing?

- shifted focus

- Env.al Council of States (ECOS) / EPA Joint Agreement on Innovation

- are there states who have started and dropped this type of program?

- Indiana dropped program due to lack of interest within agency

- 21 states nationwide have received grants from EPA to investigate or support a performance track-type program

- work group should not assume there will be a program in Utah

- consider if there should be a program, and if so, how it should work

- first task - what has worked and not worked in other states

- ensure full agency commitment

- other interests to include in program development discussions

- EPA enforcement

- small business

- mobile sources (e.g., metro planning agencies)

- small quantity generators/ currently unregulated small businesses (e.g., dry cleaners)

- large institutional sources (e.g., schools, hospitals, prisons)

Ideas to Consider

- Oregon experience

- focus on documenting improvements and their value

- lots of stakeholder involvement

- provide good incentives to facilities seeking to participate

- ISO 14001 is not adequate to meet Oregon requirements

- agriculture - non point source issues mostly

- create technical resource within UDEQ to talk about various env.al issues

- Utah DNR’s recognition program

- is recognition a valuable motivator?

- projects are not done to get award, but acknowledgement is welcome

- EPA rule change was motivation to change process, not potential for recognition

- internal incentives (within facility) for improvements need to be considered

- need to be measurable

- biggest incentive:

- quicker process for permitting

- initial permit and permit changes

- agriculture Clean Water Initiative

- assess operation re: water quality impacts

- proactive/ fix it

- recognition - Division of Water Quality “Blue Label”

- developed criteria - major effort

- any specific industries identified to be included in UDEQ program?

- aerospace approached UDEQ

- inducement for excellence/ superior performance

- taxes - create tax incentives

- e.g., recognition that certain equipment is a tax write-off

- cost is a major factor for non-compliance

- find ways of reducing costs or

- creating financial benefit

Questions/ Concerns to Take Into Account

- can we identify “best practices”?

- are there repercussions to not participating?

- don’t create disincentives to environmental compliance

- create flexibility in participation

- include options for range of facilities, from small business to large refinery

- which agency will administer program?

- where will budget come from?

- will program be supportable?

- environmental community nationally has concern re: how performance track process works

- does it have teeth?

- is it meaningful?

- is it commensurate to size of operation?

- benefits need to be looked at closely

- are they weakening regulatory system?

- what is their cost?

- Oregon - audit privilege re: reduction in fines based on self-audit and self-initiated corrections

- EPA and environmental groups had discomfort

- need level of trust

- will this do away with state oversight?

- will only create better relationship with regulators

- will “improved performance” become a requirement over time?

- “moving floor”

- will facility need to implement old method and “improved” method or system (e.g., monitoring)?

- provide flexibility to create incentives

- will regulatory flexibility for participants create pressure to change regulations for all?