Oregon Fish Consumption Rate Project
Fiscal Impacts and Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting 3
Tuesday April 8, 2008
9:00-4:30
Location: US EPA - Region 10 (503 326-3250)
805 S.W. Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97205
Proposed Agenda
Purpose of this meeting: To hear, share and develop information relevant to the FIIAC’s work.
9:00 Get Settled, Welcome and Introductions—Donna Silverberg, Facilitator
9:10 Follow-up from Meeting 2
• Update and follow-up on SAIC Cost Analysis work, including next steps on the analysis contract and co-chairs’ memo
• Other
10:10 Road Map for FIIAC’s Work
• Review and discuss a proposed outline for the FIIAC report/memo and path to get there.
10:30 Thinking About Benefits
• The last meeting included presentations on the cost analyses done by a variety of sources. This meeting the group will look at ideas about benefits—Kristin Lee
10:45 Break
• 11:00 FIIAC Continue Benefits discussion & brainstorm
12:00 Lunch on your own
1:00 Continuing to ‘Set the Stage’:
o 1:00 Human Health Effects from Priority Contaminants –Deanna Connors, DHS
o 1:30 “Price of Pollution” report – Renee Hackenmiller-Paradis, Oregon Environmental Council
o 2:15 Sample Fiscal Impacts Statement – Handout provided by DEQ
2:30 Break
2:45 Continue Discussion and Brainstorm about Implementation: Last meeting the group discussed that there may be a variety of strategies around implementing an increased FCR. This agenda time will be used to expand on the list of implementation ideas developed last meeting and establish a plan for moving ideas forward.
4:00 Next Steps
• Assignments
• Next Meeting; May 6th
4:30 Adjourn
Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project
Fiscal Impact and Implementation Advisory Committee (FIIAC)
Meeting Summary
April 8, 2008
In attendance for all or part of the meeting:
Members: Deanna Conners (DHS), Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR), Rich Garber (Boise, Inc.), Kristin Lee (ECONorthwest), Eric Scott (Grand Ronde Tribe), Susie Smith (ACWA), Willie Tiffany (League of Oregon Cities), Kathryn VanNatta (Northwest Pulp and Paper Association)
Resource Advisors and Others: Tim Connor (on phone, EPA Headquarters), Renee Hackenmiller-Paradis (Oregon Environmental Council), Jannine Jennings (EPA), Neil Mullane (DEQ), Jordan Palmeri (DEQ), Mike Poulson (DEQ), Mary Lou Soscia (EPA), Ryan Sudbury (CTUIR), Jennifer Wigal (DEQ)
Facilitation Team: Donna Silverberg and Robin Gumpert, DS Consulting
Welcome and Introductions
After a round of introductions, Facilitator Donna Silverberg acknowledged the many sensitivities from all angles of the fish consumption rate issue, and noted that some of these sensitivities were elevated during the April 2 Workshop in Pendleton. She acknowledged that all members of the FIIAC were present for today’s meeting except Sarah Kruse, and for the process moving forward, asked that participants please let her know if conversations are not working well, so that we can make adjustments to best support everyone moving forward together.
Follow Up From Meeting Two
Tim Connor and Mary Lou Soscia, EPA, updated the FIIAC on the current status of the SAIC analysis. A sub-group conference call was held following the last FIIAC meeting to discuss the comments received on the analysis, after which Tim began preparing responses to the comments, either by revising the draft report or beginning new work. During the call Tim clarified that DEQ is the client for the report, and he still needed to discuss with DEQ how DEQ wanted to proceed with the comments and subsequent work. Tim offered that next steps include: preparing responses to FIIAC comments and making revisions to the report; research on TMDL costs; examining ‘worst case scenarios’ for cost; reviewing existing technologies, follow-up on statistics and the representativeness of the facilities chosen for the analysis; adding new pulp and paper facilities; looking for examples of successful alternative implementation programs and use of variances in other regions; and exploring options to describe benefits. In addition, EPA could look at how the landscape in Oregon compares to other states to determine if and how Oregon might take similar approaches.
Comment responses were expected to be nearly complete by the end of April. Once SAIC completes its work, it plans to turn its findings over to DEQ to determine how to use the information and what the final product will look like.
FIIAC member questions and comments
• Action: Tim requested information from NPPA on the CH2M Hill Report and sampling data that were presented at the last meeting (the presentation was already sent). Kathryn VanNatta, NPPA, offered to look into this and respond to Tim.
• Are you planning to look at toxics reductions strategies used in other regions? EPA response: Yes
• It is not clear if and how FIIAC member comments will be incorporated into this report/process. EPA response: EPA asked SAIC to include FIIAC comments in the report and any additional work since the FIIAC did not have the opportunity to comment on the original scope of work. They also emphasized that there is a fixed amount of funding to complete a fixed product under this contract.
• We have not seen DEQ’s comments so it is unclear how their edits will change the document. Response: DEQ had not yet provided written comments to SAIC. The final report is not anticipated to be finalized until after the May FIIAC meeting, so there will be an opportunity to see the next iteration (with DEQ comments) before it is finalized. DEQ plans to use the SAIC report to inform their fiscal impacts statement – if the agency chooses to take a different implementation approach than what is discussed in the report (based on FIIAC input), they could go back to request additional analysis. And, this is not anticipated.
o Action: DEQ will discuss their comments, intentions for the analysis and how they plan to interact with SAIC with EPA and SAIC, then follow up with a conference call to share all this information with members of the FIIAC no later than the end of April.
• The SAIC analysis is a DEQ/SAIC and EPA document – we expect the final report to reflect this and that it is not a work product of the FIIAC. FIIAC will have an opportunity to write its own report.
Road Map for FIIAC’s Work
A draft memo developed by the FIIAC co-chairs was provided as a handout during today’s meeting that attempted to capture and organize individual comments on the SAIC analysis. Kristin Lee, ECONorthwest, suggested that this summary could end up as part of the FIIAC memo that would be shared with the EQC.
FIIAC members provided comments:
• Good capturing of balanced view, but content gets lost. Some comments were more active than ‘may/may not’ and we do not want our comments to get lost if this is what is presented to the EQC.
• Good starting point for our final memo; doesn’t reflect the engineering perspective.
• Need to add comment on lack of representative facility samples used in the analysis.
• Good first start of compiling, next step could be to look for and highlight points of consensus and areas of disagreement.
• Suggestion: Have individuals boil their own comments down into succinct bullets to include in a group memo.
• Suggestion: The bolded sections, combined with the headlines listed on the sample Fiscal Impacts and Economic Statement, could be the table of contents for the FIIAC memo. It was noted that the fiscal impacts statement will need to be completed after a decision is made on a FCR that will be written into Rule, so for now the FIIAC should focus more broadly at ‘universal costs’ associated with implementation of a higher number. The FIIAC could include those items from the Statement needed to advise DEQ in their rulemaking.
• Concern was raised that impacts to small business have not been addressed yet, and there is an interest in making time for this discussion in the FIIAC process.
• We need to focus our efforts on creative implementation options, how to make them work, and the costs and benefits associated with them. EPA needs to identify what alternative approaches have worked elsewhere.
Thinking About Benefits
Kristin Lee, ECONorthwest, provided handouts on economic benefits of environmental policy, and noted that analysis of benefits is both difficult and an important component of policy-setting. She emphasized that pollution costs are considered externalities, which are unintended consequences borne by parties that are not involved in the activities generating the pollution. She explained that because these costs are “external,” too much pollution will be produced than is economically optimal, and to fix the disconnect, the benefit of reducing those external costs should be taken into account. She asked the group to consider the range of benefits that they could envision flowing from an increased FCR. One member suggested that discussion around benefits might best happen during discussion of implementation strategies. Another member suggested the group look at costs and benefits at different levels of protection. The group agreed to re-visit the benefits discussion later during the meeting.
Continuing to Set the Stage
Human Health Impacts/Risk Drivers: Mike Poulsen, DEQ, provided information about human health risk drivers, noting that in Oregon, the highest risks, in terms of percentages, are PCBs, dioxin, mercury, DDT, arsenic and pthalates. He said that the water quality standard is based on an acceptable excess lifetime cancer risk of one in one million, and that current levels of pollutants in fish represent an approximate risk of one in one thousand. The calculated risks depend on the fish species, where they were caught, the parts of the fish consumed (whole body or fillet), and the fish ingestion rate. Mike suggested the fish risk needs to be addressed by addressing sediments. He provided a summary of the Portland Harbor Superfund site, noting that DEQ’s efforts were directed toward resident fish. Three studies were presented: CRITFC, Mid-Willamette and Portland Harbor.
Action: Deanna Connors, DHS, offered to provide the FIIAC an additional health consultation study for the Siletz Tribe on lamprey at Willamette Falls.
“Price of Pollution” Report: Rennee Hackenmiller-Paradis, Oregon Environmental Council, provided a summary of the Price of Pollution Report on annual spending in Oregon to address health effects from preventable pollution. For example, the report estimated that 30% of asthma is attributable to environmental factors. Lead exposure has costs associated with reduced IQ and earning potential. All information was based on peer reviewed literature and, Renee suggested, the estimates were conservative. Pollution was defined as man made or naturally occurring air, water and soil contaminants. OEC is working to educate the public on pollution sources so they understand that chronic exposure to things like every day household products can lead to disease.
The companion report, People in Pollution, found that methylmercury, which can only be exposed through fish consumption, was found in 9 of the 10 Oregonians’ tested at significantly higher levels than the national average. Also, high PCB levels were found in all the test individuals. OEC is looking at several pollution prevention initiatives, including upstream erosion control, sustainable farming practices, containing contaminants and education to reduce individual use of toxic substances – e.g. diesel retrofits.
Process Questions and Timeline: Neil Mullane laid out DEQ’s anticipated schedule for getting to a new FCR and Rule:
• April 25/end of April: SAIC report call with EPA, DEQ followed by conference call to share information with Kathryn, Kathleen, Susie, Rich, Kristin and Sarah.
• April/May: Develop outline of FIIAC report
• May 6 and May 23: FIIAC meetings to discuss implementation inventory and fiscal impacts/costs and benefits for traditional and alternative options; review latest SAIC report comments; develop workshop ideas; develop/discuss FIIAC memo
• June 4-5 Workshop: Implementation and Toxics Reduction (this may change to June 3 and 4 based on FIIAC member schedules)
• June/July: Examine information from public
• July: Respond to public comments from workshop
• August 21-22: EQC meeting including information item on FCR process with two panels: HHFG and FIIAC
• August-September: DEQ staff report development. Report will include: fish consumption rate being considered, fiscal impact for point sources to meet the range of fish consumption rates, identification of implementation options, and the costs of implementation of various options and alternative approaches.
• October: EQC meeting to discuss recommended fish consumption rate, identification of the ‘traditional’ costs, identification of implementation options, and the cost of these options.
• Post-October EQC decision: Revise the current water quality standards tables to include new human health criteria in water quality standards tables based on the new fish consumption rate and describe in the revised rule how the new human health criteria will be implemented.
Action: Mary Lou Soscia, EPA, offered to pass along information to the FIIAC on other implementation programs for pollution prevention.
It was further clarified that the expectation of the FIIAC is to attend the June workshop, August 21-22 and October 22 EQC meetings.
Draft Implementation Inventory Template
A draft implementation inventory template was displayed on flip charts, and was later shared as an Excel spreadsheet by Rich Garber. It was posed as a starting point for folks to develop traditional and alternative implementation ideas that consider aspects such as cost and benefit, affected stakeholders, expected results and feasibility. The group walked through the template with an example of the mercury pollution prevention program.
Action: Susie, Willie, Rich and Kathryn will provide information for the table that can be reviewed and further discussed at the next FIIAC meeting. Other FIIAC members were encouraged to share ideas or fill in details on the spreadsheet as it is developed, and all were asked to get feedback from their constituents prior to the next FIIAC meeting to aid in the discussion.
A question was asked about examples of narrative criteria that have been used, to which Jennifer Wigal, DEQ, responded that there are examples of narrative statements that would compliment a FCR number (since the states are required to associate a number with their toxics pollutants criteria).
Action: Jennifer will send language/citation of the statute on this.
Ideas for the FIIAC report:
A list of components that could be included in the FIIAC memo/report was developed, and will need further refinement at the next meeting:
• Full set of comments on SAIC report (when final)
• Bolded headings from the co-chair memo – themes of comments on the SAIC analysis
• Inventory and any agreed upon priority implementation actions
• Gap analysis and needed information before moving forward
• Recommendations and conclusions
Next Meeting, May 6
Agenda items include:
• Implementation Strategies discussion, including Benefits
o Members will input to Implementation Inventory template prior to the meeting and be prepared for refinement discussion
• SAIC latest draft report comments
o A conference call will be convened with FIIAC members by the end of April to discuss DEQ comments and intentions
• Workshop ideas
o Proposed June 4-5 date may change to June 3-4 to accommodate FIIAC members
o FIIAC will discuss agenda, format and audience to have useful discussion at the workshops and reduce some expressed frustrations with workshop process
• FIIAC report
o DS Consulting will work with the co-chairs to develop a draft outline prior to the meeting