Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project

Fiscal Impact and Implementation Advisory Committee (FIIAC)

Meeting Summary

January 29, 2008

In attendance for all or part of the meeting:

Members: Deanna Connors (DHS), Kathleen Feehan (on phone, CTUIR), Rich Garber (Boise Cascade), Sarah Kruse (Ecotrust), Kristin Lee (Eco Northwest), Eric Scott (Grand Ronde Tribe), Willie Tiffany (League of Oregon Cities)

Others: Brad Carter (EPA intern), Jannine Jennings (on phone, EPA), Neil Mullane (DEQ), Mark Morris (on phone, EPA Headquarters), Jordan Palmeri (DEQ), Mary Lou Soscia (EPA), Ryan Sudbury (CTUIR)

Donna Silverberg and Robin Gumpert, DS Consulting

Welcome and Introductions:

Facilitator Donna Silverberg welcomed everyone to the meeting and offered brief background information about the Oregon Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project, noting that this effort is being jointly convened and led by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). After participants at the meeting were introduced, the three convening governments extended the welcome to members of the FIIAC and offered their perspectives and hopes for the work of this focus group:

Neil Mullane, DEQ: We have an opportunity to move beyond traditional approaches to addressing fish consumption and water quality issues in the state of Oregon. DEQ’s expectation is that the FIIAC will share knowledge and ideas about both traditional costs and benefits associated with a raised fish consumption rate (FCR) and non-traditional approaches to implementation of a new FCR as well as toxics reduction strategies.

Jannine Jennings, EPA: EPA is engaged with CTUIR and DEQ to ultimately recommend a FCR that will be protective of people in Oregon and actually can be implemented. EPA appreciates the time, energy and expertise the FIIAC will put into this process to help the governments reach a rate that satisfies both needs.

Kathleen Feehan, CTUIR: The Tribe also extended a thank you to the members of the FIIAC for contributing their time to this effort. The Tribes have been involved in this issue since the last revision of the FCR which increased the rate from 6.5 grams/day to 17.5 grams/day, a rate that the Tribes do not feel is adequately protective. The Tribes would like to see an increased rate that minimizes impacts to industry, municipalities and others who will be affected by an increase. They have done outreach to these groups and will continue to work with them to find a better solution to toxics criteria.

FIIAC Draft Charter

A draft proposed Charter was distributed prior to today’s meeting. It was clarified that the goal of the FIIAC is to explore options for implementation of a new FCR, not to develop a plan for implementation, a task that is the responsibility of DEQ. In order to meet the convening governments’ goal of presenting nearly final FCR options at a public workshop in July, it is proposed that the FIIAC meet again for two or three all day meetings in March and April and then present their findings at a public workshop in May that will focus on implementation. FIIAC’s final work product will be a ‘memo’ that characterizes the group’s discussions, agreements and disagreements, and any resulting implementation options recommendations that may result. The expectation for ‘consensus’ from this group would be in terms of the characterization of the work of the group, not necessarily on recommended implementation options (though this is also a possibility).

Questions and Comments from Members of the FIIAC:

•  Will the cost of health issues be discussed and answered through this focus group?

o  Answer: If the group determines it is possible to answer this question, then yes.

•  Suggest not limiting the discussion of benefits to just ‘economic’, as benefits could mean toxics reduction, human health, etc. Instead, say ‘associated effects both positive and negative”. (Change introductory language on page 1).

•  Concern that Task #1 (and language in paragraph four of the introduction) is too narrowly focused on the traditional approach of ‘lowering human health water quality criteria’. Would like to consider not being limited to a numeric articulation of water quality standard/criteria.

•  In terms of products, Task #3 seems to require a very specific, traditional product, vs. the other tasks which could result in various products. What is the framework for the work products expected of us?

o  The Scope of Work document outlines three phases of the FIIAC work, and offers ‘product outcomes’ anticipated for each phase. Phases I and II: Out of the box review and brainstorm of approaches and various effects for reducing toxics in the environment, and, later, Phase III: “Traditional” rulemaking using ideas from Phases I and II. As the collaborative approach being offered for Phases I and II is unprecedented, it will be a challenge to determine how best to fit the non-traditional and traditional (Phase III) components together, and how to present them to the EQC. The group will need to help sort this out together with the agencies.

o  One industry member noted their organization’s responsibilities to meet guidelines under the traditional rulemaking approach, suggesting that this is an equally important aspect of the FIIAC’s work together – and offered that the proposed process laid out for the FIIAC could be considered ‘traditional plus’.

o  EPA added that this process will set precedent for others throughout the region and nationally. Because of this, EPA has an interest in bringing key people into the conversation to find creative and successful solutions – and sees the members of the FIIAC as key to meeting that interest.

•  EPA is working on a toxics reduction strategy for the Columbia River and hopes to inform and be informed by this effort – EPA could add their list of toxics reduction strategies to the ‘Implementation Strategies Inventory’ proposed in Phase I of the FIIAC Scope of Work.

•  Parking Lot Issue: There is commitment to engaging in a creative process – are DEQ and others also open to a creative result at the end of the day?

•  Spell out SAIC – Science Applications International Corporation

•  Action: DEQ will check to see if the reference in Task #3 to OAR 183.333 is a rule or a statute, and will verify that with the FIIAC.

SAIC Scope of Work

Neil Mullane offered that the original expectation was that the FIIAC would be convened four months prior to today and would help shape the original scope of an independent economic analysis the three convening governments agreed to run during this process. EPA provided funding and contracted the work out to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a group that has done other similar analyses. Given the delay in convening this group, SAIC has already started its Oregon analysis using a traditional methodological approach, and has been working closely with DEQ and EPA up to this point. EPA suggested that in addition to running the traditional analysis, the firm is capable and available to run non-traditional alternatives if they receive input from the FIIAC relatively soon. EPA is willing to seek additional funding for this effort if the FIIAC determines they would like additional analyses run.

Mark Morris, EPA Headquarters, and Mary Lou Soscia, EPA, presented an overview of the SAIC’s draft “Cost of Compliance with Water Quality Criteria or Toxic Pollutants for Oregon Waters” analysis. Seventeen randomly selected facilities in Oregon were analyzed for baseline cost, changes needed for proposed criteria and drivers of cost. Generally, the analysis found that arsenic was a main driver, and mercury was potentially a driver. The methodology used was similar to that of the Great Lakes Initiative and work done in California. It involved:

•  choosing random samples from an identified list of potentially affected facilities;

•  pooling all available data;

•  applying new criteria; and

•  costing out the required changes to meet the new criteria (e.g. new technology).

Mark noted that timeframes were not associated with cost in this analysis; that non-point sources and cost-benefits are difficult to analyze; and that the purpose of the analysis is not to promote or prohibit changes in Rule but rather to provide additional information as a resource to the public in making decisions. The criteria used for running the analysis ranged from the baseline (17.5 grams) to 620 grams. In response to a question, Mark said that the analysis reflects reality in that it shows preferences for pollution prevention over use of technology to treat toxics for those levels that are not capable of detection.

Questions and Comments from Members of the FIIAC:

•  Non-point sources are a major contributor in this region so we should focus on them, not just on constraints to addressing point sources.

•  Do we already have a cost analysis for treatment of the two major pollutants, arsenic and mercury? Yes. Given that known information, should we be looking at contaminant-specific implementation strategies instead of the broader universe of toxins?

•  What relative contributor information is available for Oregon, and what trading systems exist around relative contribution?

o  ACTION: DEQ will provide relative contribution information at an upcoming meeting.

•  What assumptions are made in the analysis about dilution areas (mixing zones)? Is it possible through this analysis that additional water bodies could be added to the 303(d) list if a higher criterion was put in place?

o  Parking Lot Issue: 303(d) list parameters and new criteria –implications for implementation (as a compliance issue)

•  While there is an appendix on non-point sources, many pollution prevention strategies are not included in the analysis – this is an area where the FIIAC could focus its efforts.

Next Steps for the SAIC analysis:

•  The FIIAC will review the report (it was emailed out as a PDF file on January 31) and provide comments and suggestions for additional analysis at the next FIIAC meeting.

•  SAIC will take the comments and determine how best to respond, and will work with EPA on additional funding needs.

Next Steps for FIIAC:

With a shared interest of maximizing benefits while minimizing costs, the group shared information needs and agreed to next steps leading up to the next FIIAC meeting:

•  A problem definition is needed. To develop this, the following information is needed and will be shared at or prior to the next meeting (March 5, 2008):

o  Water quality impacts information: DEQ will provide relative contribution and toxics monitoring information.

o  Cost impacts: ACWA and industry folks will present available information on costs for treatment technologies and “holistic” compliance, and regulatory streamlining ideas.

o  Narrowing the focus on chemical constituents: EPA will provide its list of ‘contaminants of concern’ for the Columbia River and work to refine this with DEQ and DHS.

o  Human Health and other Benefits: The group will have a brainstorming session at the next meeting on a ‘potential benefits’ list – all FIIAC members were asked to give this some thought and share ideas ahead of time by emailing ideas to the facilitation team.

•  Chairperson: The Charter suggests a Chairperson be appointed to work with committee members to finalize the ‘memo’ summarizing the group’s discussions, agreements, disagreements and consensus recommendations; work with the facilitation team to help the group work effectively together; and represent (or delegate representation of) the FIIAC in any public forums including EQC meetings. Sarah Kruse and Kristin Lee agreed to serve as co-chairs for the committee.

•  The facilitation team will provide summary notes following FIIAC meetings. The group agreed that members of the FIIAC will be given a 48-hour opportunity to suggest revisions to the notes, after which time the notes will be posted to DEQ’s website and available for sharing with the broader public.

Next Meeting: March 5^th , 9-5 in Portland. Presentations and other information will be exchanged. The Co-chairs will work with the facilitation team to develop a robust agenda.

Meeting Three was tentatively scheduled for April 8 and will focus on implementation strategies.