Industrial Footprint Project Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 Industrial Footprint Project Carol Kraege Washington State Department of Ecology I’m the manager of the Industrial Section- a group of 25 people with multi-media responsibility. We regulate the largest industries in the state- pulp and paper/ aluminum smelting/ oil refining. We do all the environmental regulation – air/water/waste/cleanup and all the functions are done by one engineer- permitting / inspections/ enforcement. In addition, I’ve recently taken on management of the state’s PBT program, which is just in its infancy, but was put in my group because it is a multi-media activity as well. This project came out of our experiences in the cross program world

Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 What’s a footprint? A holistic measure of the impacts of a facility Social Economic Environmental Conceptually, not very complicated- in practice, we expect it to be a little more difficult

Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 Why a footprint? The current regulatory system often frustrates progress High cost, often for small return Global and local problems persist Permits become a battlefield Priorities are driven by piecemeal laws, not environmental needs Important concerns aren’t addressed; e.g. global warming, resource depletion, energy and water conservation, habitat/ species loss, local issues such as odors No framework for prioritizing among issues, impacts Much of focus is on administrative matters Rules are prescriptive, lack flexibility

Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 With Limited Resources… Footprint Approach Traditional Regulation Start with Footprint Measurement Starts with Laws, Standards What a facility's “footprint” encompasses and how to measure it are not simple questions, as we’ll see later. We started out with the idea that it might be measured much like sticking a thermometer in it – this idea has been used in other contexts, e.g. to quantify the footprint of nations or other human populations on the earth’s resources and waste assimilative capacity, with many simplifying assumptions. To attempt this for an industrial facility, where we might be concerned with such disparate types of impacts as cancer risks from air emissions to odors, to greenhouse gas emissions, so many assumptions would have to be made, and subjective judgments as to their relative significance, that it became clear that a participatory, consensus-driven process is needed to address them. Results: Compliance, and Maintenance +/- of Facilities Regulated Environmental Footprint Hypothesis: Greater Reduction in Facility’s Overall Environmental Footprint is Possible

Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 If you want to reduce the footprint, which do you measure? Regulations Laws OR? Here Here’s another way of looking at it. “What You Measure is What You Get” Regulations Laws

Facility Reporting Project Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 Facility Reporting Project http://www.facilityreporting.org/FRPPilotDraft.htm The Facility Reporting Project (FRP) is a multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a generally-accepted facility-level economic, environmental and social sustainability reporting framework. We looked at a lot of multi-media measurement schemes and settled on the FRP We are participating in the pilot of the FRP and have access to Ceres for help with stakeholders, etc. FRP was designed for facilities to report, so we are using the indicators for a different purpose, but we believe it will serve our purposes well, plus it’s being vetted by industry now, so it helps with credibility.

What should be measured? Economic Indicators Purchase of local goods Total payroll Taxes and subsidies Donations Local infrastructure investment

What should be measured? Social Indicators Labor practices and decent work Employment Management relations Health and safety Training and education Diversity and opportunity Human Rights Society

What should be measured? Environmental Indicators Materials Energy Water Biodiversity and natural habitats Emissions, effluents and waste Compliance Nuisance and quality of life

How will we get the data? Start with data we already have Other publicly available data Data directly from facilities Use grant funding for a contractor to assist in data collection and analysis

How would a footprint approach work ? Collaborate with stakeholders Choose indicators Measure industry’s footprint Use the measurement to drive priorities, actions

How can the footprint be used? Provide a performance measurement tool for individual facilities Provide a baseline for sectors Provide a basis of comparison between facilities Assist regulatory agencies in prioritizing work Serve as a building block to a more effective regulatory framework

Short term goals Find out if the process of developing agreed upon indicators leads to a credible footprint Find out if footprint measurement tells us more than we knew before Find out if footprint measurement makes priority setting easier Find out if footprint measurement is sensitive enough to measure progress

Possible benefits for industry Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 Possible benefits for industry Public and peer recognition More flexibility to accommodate changes Reduced administrative burden in non-target areas in exchange for better-than-required performance in target areas. Increased competitiveness and viability Improved relations with stakeholders There’s a lot of work to be done in this arena, we have been focused on figuring out how to do the measurement. To get companies to share data, we will…. Develop a stakeholder involvement plan

Possible Benefits to Regulators Better Environmental Results Conserve valuable resources More responsive process Address issues of concern to community, workers, interest groups, etc. Make industry, community more sustainable

Possible Benefits to Communities Save local jobs Keep local economy strong Reduce confrontation, costly appeals Get things done

Stakeholder Involvement Local communities Input regarding selection of indicators Input regarding priorities Education about the mill Facilities Focus on pulp and paper industry Pursue consensus regarding indicators Education about community needs

Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 Success Measures Credible measure Broad Robust Cost-effective Safe Transferable Informative

Success Measures Substantial environmental improvement Facility performance does not regress in any area Progress is measurable Good faith/partnering is essential

Regulatory Performance Advisors, November 13, 2003 Example A couple examples of what it might look like in visual summary form: Profile aggregates impacts of similar types, e.g. several types of greenhouse gasses. Relative heights aren’t comparable but facilities can be compared with each other.

Some Likely Concerns Current Laws & Rules won’t go away EPA won’t allow it We’ll get sued We’ll lose our ability to sue It’ll cost too much It’ll allow industry to back off on protections It’ll start a bad precedent Congress and the legislature already set policy Ecology has no business…

Long term possibilities Develop a single permit for air, water and waste Identify facility specific priorities Consider community needs Consider facility opportunities Develop incentives Pursue changes in state and federal laws to improve flexibility and performance