UDEQ Performance Track Working Group - 11/19/01 Meeting Notes

Many of the things discussed have been inserted into the chart outlining Program Concepts for Utah (11/28 version)

Report from work group members who attended Year 2001 Sustainable Business Meeting

- failures of EMSs due to some of following:

- no clear direction/ objective within company

- lack of motivation

- lack of resources

- lack of communication

- lack of ownership/ buy-in by production managers

- lack of full stakeholder involvement

- too complex

- lack of credibility / no perceived value

- regulatory conflicts

- successes of EMSs due to some of following:

- production staff supported effort

- pride of employees

- visible results

- effective communication

- champion within company / top management support

Red Hanger Cleaners brought their EMS-type plan in for work group to look at. Very educational.

Group discussed using ISO-14001 as standard for Utah’s “EMS-type plan”, without calling it that. ISO-14001-certified EMS plans would qualify for membership in Utah performance track, but certification is not required. Group decided to look at ISO-14001 standards during next meeting to see what “short list” of minimum EMS components can be generated.

Discussion about who would review the EMSs for Tier 2 and Tier 3 participation. Group decided that a multi-interest panel would review the EMS documentation and implementation, with recommendations to DEQ for final decision. Three review models were described:

- EPA - 3-4 levels of review within agency; everyone who reviews EMS has had lead auditor training

- Colorado - 3 people review EMSs (one from industry, one to do aspects/impacts review, local government review); not all have had lead-auditor training

- New Mexico - has multi-interest committee with over 80 volunteers; all committee members receive annual examiners’ training, and review EMSs during that training week; use scoring system and review EMSs in groups of 5 volunteers, with one steering committee member in each group of 5

Group liked the New Mexico model best. Utah panel should have a steering committee, with one steering committee member in each smaller review group. EMSs would be assigned to smaller review groups randomly, except where conflicts of interest arise. Utah panel should encompass the following interests:

- DEQ	- environmentalists	- consultants?	- DoD/ DOE
- pollution sources	- academia/ graduate students	- local health depts	- agriculture
- refining	- manufacturing	- mining	- utilities
- community representatives	- League of Women Voters	- general contractors	- county env.al staff

As facilities submit applications for Tier 2 or Tier 3 membership, they could suggest a reviewer who has familiarity with that industry sector.

Suggestion was made that DEQ commit to review Tier 1 applications within a given time period, maybe 30-60 days.

Discussion about what preconditions are appropriate for Tiers 2 and 3 membership. Generally agreed to:

- Tier 2: one full year of EMS implementation

2-3 env.al improvement projects underway (see list of possible project categories)

- Tier 3: three full years of EMS implementation

completed env.al improvement project in each possible project category, plus

one completed “capstone” env.al improvement project

Small businesses might not be able to implement a project in each env.al improvement category; need flexibility to accommodate this; want to give small businesses opportunity to be in Tier 3.

Tier 3 members should do mentoring. Tier 2 members can be mentors if they wish, but would not be a requirement.