This is a HTML version of the original PDF document. The HTML version is being provided for reading purposes only and is not the official version of the document.
Research Paper #1
Environmental Compliance Assurance: A Review of International Best Practices
Executive Resource Group
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE:
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES
Executive Resource Group
December 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose
Background
Research perspective and methodology
Scope
2 INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
Introduction
Integrated compliance: an emerging trend
Enforcement and abatement
Cooperative agreements
Compliance assistance
European Union
United States
Canada
Project XL US Environmental Protection Agency 1995
Declaration on the Implementation of Environmental Policy in the Chemical
IndustryThe Netherlands 1993
Green Permits Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 1997
Environmental Results Program Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection 1997
Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET) Canada 1994
APPENDIX A: NEW DIRECTIONS GROUP
APPENDIX B: EMERGING BEST PRACTICES IN ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
I. Abatement - Approvals
1) Project XL Comprehensive Approvals - US EPA
2) Tiered Approvals System for Emissions - Alberta
3) Environmental Results Program - Massachusetts
4) Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
II. Abatement - Performance Measures and Reporting
1) Secretary's Quarterly Performance Report
2) Critical Trends Assessment Program
III. Abatement and Enforcement
1) Computer Assisted Inspections
2) Training - Commission for Environmental Cooperation
3) Guides - GAO Enforcement Guide
4) Priority-Setting - Regional Office of US EPA
5) Colorado Compliance Study - Colorado
APPENDIX C: EMERGING BEST PRACTICES IN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Introduction
I. Unilateral Industry Commitments
1) Responsible Care - 42 Countries
2) ISO 14001/ EMS - Worldwide
II. Public Disclosure and Recognition Schemes
1) ARET - Canada
2) 33/50 - US EPA
3) P4 - Ontario
4) National Environmental Performance Track - US EPA
5) Governor's Awards - New York
6) Keidanren - Japan
III. Negotiated Agreements and Covenants
1) Environ Policy in the Chemical Industry - Netherlands
2) Project XL - US EPA
3) Sustainable Industry Program - US EPA
4) Green Permits - Oregon
5) Silver and Gold Track Program - New Jersey
6) Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program - Wisconsin
7) Performance Plus+ Program - Ontario
8) Hamilton Autobody Repair Partnerships - Ontario
9) Innovative Regulatory Approaches - Alberta
APPENDIX D: EMERGING BEST PRACTICES IN COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
Introduction
1) United States Environmental Protection Agency
2) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
3) Australia Department of Environ and Heritage/EPA
4) California Environ Protection Agency
5) Florida Department of Environmental Protection
6) New York Department of Environmental Conservation
7) Environment Canada
8) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was researched, written and edited by:
- Bob Breeze, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Planning and Standards Division, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (on Secondment to Executive Resource Group);
- Morris Ilyniak, Principal Consultant, Lambda Communications and Public Affairs; and
- John Haffner, Executive Resource Group.
1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to help identify examples of best practices and emerging best practices in environmental compliance assurance from jurisdictions that may have some relevance to Ontario.
Background
Like many jurisdictions, Ontario is looking at more effective means of improving rates of environmental compliance as well as encouraging "going beyond compliance" efforts. Ontario's Ministry of the Environment addressed the question formally in 1996 with a consultation paper on responsive environmental protection - an analysis of various regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to approvals and compliance (OMOE 1996). In 1997, it issued a policy paper outlining intentions for approvals and regulatory reform (OMOE 1997). Since then, a number of the reform initiatives have been initiated; and, at the operational level, compliance and enforcement guidelines have been developed for use by the ministry's environmental officers.
Ontario's efforts must be seen within the context of a worldwide trend towards "going beyond compliance" initiatives. This global trend is partly a response to the changing role of government particularly in highly industrialized countries. This trend also recognizes that a reliance on enforcement-based compliance alone cannot adequately deal with new and emerging environmental challenges, global business practices, and innovative technology.
Research perspective and methodology
The results of this study come from an on-line and print literature review. It has been supplemented by discussions with individuals inside government jurisdictions, the private sector and non-governmental organizations with experience or expertise in compliance assurance reform.
The purpose of Chapter 2 is to clarify the concept of "integrated compliance assurance," an emerging environmental strategy that fosters a culture of continuous improvement or going beyond compliance.
Chapter 3 gives a broad-stroke overview of emerging trends towards integrated compliance in three jurisdictions: United States, Canada, and the European Union.
From these jurisdictions, we have chosen a handful of compliance initiatives that are innovative and relevant. These are described with some detail in Chapter 4. Additional short profiles are in B, C and D. A summary of our key learnings is provided in Chapter 5.
Scope
The focus of our research is on leading jurisdictions and innovative compliance techniques that may apply to the Ontario context. An evaluation of Ontario's Ministry of the Environment is not within the scope of this paper, although we make reference to several key MOE initiatives that can be considered as best practices.
We have not looked in this paper at economic instruments such as emissions trading, green taxes, corporate tax credits, capital funds, loan support, full-cost accounting, etc. These instruments were part of a separate research paper.
Environmental Policy: The Next GenerationA strong reliance on enforcement is often referred to as a "command-and-control" approach to compliance. In simple terms, this approach proscribes certain activities that may harm the environment, prescribes other activities that prevent or mitigate the harm, and assigns sanctions to punish and deter non-compliance. Enforcement or command-and-control is characterized by Donald Kettl as "first generation" environmental strategies dealing with end-of-pipe pollution problems from mostly stationary, large point sources. While this approach has largely helped to improve environmental quality, Kettl contends that the economic and political costs of this approach are untenable. First-generation strategies are inadequate to deal with non-point sources of pollution, such as runoff from farmlands and city storm sewers, household application of pesticides and hazardous products, release of ozone-depleting substances, and smog-causing exhaust from millions of cars. Such widely dispersed sources of pollution create a new type of what Kettl calls, "complex collective-action" problems, requiring new technologies, broad participation, behavioral change, and inter-jurisdictional co-operation. In contrast, traditional enforcement is media-focussed and often facility-specific. Enforcement can be very costly for industry and unsustainable for governments struggling to reshape themselves to become more customer-oriented, and less of a burden on taxpayers. Second-generation environmental strategies, says Kettl, will be more performance-based. The government's role will be to set goals and standards, and let the participants determine how best to meet them. Compliance by enforcement will be streamlined and rationalized, allowing multi-media permits for facilities, and one inspector to oversee compliance. There will be greater use of the competitive market to trade pollution credits, although Kettl acknowledges that this approach has limitations. Overall, he forsees more performance-based partnerships of government, business, and communities working together to resolve pollution problems, rather than government commanding industry to take specific actions. These partnerships are sectoral or local, involving good-faith initiative and co-operation, with a strong bias towards so-called voluntary compliance. Summarized from: Kettl, Donald "Environmental Policy: The Next Generation" Policy Brief No. 37 The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC 1998. |
2 INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
Introduction
A consensus is emerging among industry, environmental agencies and other stakeholders in Ontario and other jurisdictions that, on its own, a "command-and-control" compliance strategy cannot effectively deal with today's complex environmental problems. Nor is it even an efficient way to increase the rates of compliance with regulatory requirements.
Kettl (1998) makes the forceful argument that enforcement or command-and-control is a "first generation" environmental strategy that is effective, although at great cost, at controlling end-of-pipe pollutants from mostly stationary, large point sources. The emerging second-generation strategies, according to Kettl, go beyond compliance: they are performance-based, focussed on continuous improvement, and engage a cooperative model of industry, government and communities to solve pollution problems. Second-generation strategies are more suitable for dealing with the wide array of non-point and small pollution sources.
Integrated compliance assurance is a new approach that brings together both first and second-generation strategies into a more coherent and comprehensive strategy. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify some of the current thinking and experience behind this new approach. The starting point is the idea of a "compliance tool kit" - the set of instruments that in the proper combination will create an integrated compliance strategy.
In developing an improved understanding of integrated compliance, we also examine the relevance of positioning "voluntary versus regulatory" instruments at opposite ends of a compliance policy continuum. The latest research suggests that in order to go beyond compliance, policy makers and stakeholders have to go beyond adopting such dichotomous policy positions. Compliance behavior of target enterprises is much more complex: it is shaped by responses to a mix of incentive-based cooperative initiatives and regulatory enforcement measures.
Integrated compliance: an emerging trend
In many leading industrialized countries (see Chapter 3), there is a pronounced trend towards an integrated approach to environmental compliance. Much of this trend, however, is at an early stage of development.
In very broad terms, compliance assurance has been defined as both public and private mechanisms designed to compel firms (and individuals) to conform to formal environmental regulations and informal rules of conduct or social norms (Cohen 1998).
From a government perspective, this definition can be refined somewhat further. "Compliance" implies that a government agency has an environmental policy in place, and that this policy has a measure of authority, including, but not necessarily, the force of law. It also implies that someone or some enterprise affected by the policy has an obligation (not necessarily legal) to take certain actions in certain circumstances.
The metaphor that is most commonly used to describe the 'how' of compliance is the "tool kit" containing a variety of compliance instruments that are employed to achieve certain policy outcomes. What are these instruments? From the literature, there is no commonly accepted typology. This makes it difficult to compare and empirically validate the effectiveness of different compliance instruments.
Following on the work of Crow et al (2000), we have built upon a version of the "compliance assurance tool kit," modified and broadened to make it more applicable to other jurisdictions - Ontario in particular. It is summarized in Table 2-1. These are the major categories of compliance instruments:
- Enforcement - defined as, "any actions taken by governments to gather evidence associated with potential violations, to undertake preparatory work for court actions and all sanctions and follow-up associated with responses to violations of the law" (Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization Draft Sub-Agreement on Inspections and Enforcement June, 2000).
- Abatement - a broader approach to compliance assurance, where an environmental regulator negotiates (and sometimes imposes) the contents of an abatement strategy for particular facilities with their operators, rather than vigorously prosecuting violations. Failure to follow the abatement strategy could still result in enforcement action.
- Cooperative Agreement - an agreement that requires parties to meet binding information disclosure and performance outcomes in return for government incentives. Often it includes "backdrop" legislation that may detail the rules and consequences for opting-in or opting-out (also known as creating a "level playing field" or dealing with "free riders") and penalties for breaches.
- Compliance Assistance - information and incentives to affected parties for them to build the "capacity of regulated entities to comply with environmental laws" (Crow et al 2000:14). This is often, but not always, complemented by techniques to reduce or eliminate pollutants and waste at source.
Integrated compliance is characterized by the view that compliance instruments are a complementary mix of education, validation (e.g. joint monitoring or research), recognition (positive and negative), negotiation and compulsion.
TABLE 2-1: THE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE TOOL KIT
A. ENFORCEMENT
Mandatory disclosure
Investigations and prosecution
Civil liability
Criminal, administrative and civil sanctions
B. ABATEMENT
Approvals, permitting, licensing
Monitoring, inspections
Negotiations / remediation
Warnings, occurence reports
Control, stop, remediation orders
C. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Unilateral industry commitments
Public disclosure schemes
Recognition programs
Negotiated agreements and covenants
D. COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
Education and training
Technical advice
Information: plain language legislation and regulations
Compliance assistance centres (hot lines, web sites, etc)
Community and business partnerships
Codes of practice and guidelines
In some cases, the responsibilities to implement can be delegated to other levels of government, to the regulated community or to a third party; or, they can be shared. A successful compliance strategy would include elements of each.
An integrated compliance strategy would draw an instrument from this tool kit, or combination of instruments, to achieve a policy end. The justifications for how the choice was made could be evaluated according to a comprehensive matrix of technical criteria. While the goal is to maximize compliance flexibility for all parties, the basic premise is that the end determines the appropriate means. Thus, one-way of thinking about integrated compliance is that it is like "finding the right tool to do the right job". This view characterizes the "optimal policy" mix approach (Conference Board of Canada 2000).
But as we found in reviewing some case examples of compliance instruments (Chapter 4), the process of arriving at an appropriate compliance strategy is not linear. The reality is much more complex. The attendant risks of choosing one instrument over another are not easily quantifiable. Responding to the values of equity, inclusiveness, and full disclosure complicates the situation. That is why it has taken a decade or more for certain non-enforcement tools to become accepted and implemented.
Yet, as will be seen in Chapter 3, in most leading jurisdictions the commitment to change and innovation is very strong and that the adoption of integrated compliance is rapidly accelerating.
"We know that a wide variety of environmental strategies - both regulatory and non-regulatory - are possible. The greatest challenge in the future will be to select among all the options available to design the most effective response to existing and emerging environmental problems" (US EPA 2000a).
Enforcement and abatement
Generally speaking, government policy-makers at all levels, environmental managers, academics, environmental advocates, and business leaders in many jurisdictions have begun to recognize that there has to be a new way of looking at environmental problems; and, that this new approach must emphasize "ends over means" (Conference Board 2000) and include voluntary or cooperative initiatives.
At the same time, another observation we make from the literature is that regulatory enforcement can never be excised from an integrated compliance strategy. A credible threat to use enforcement is part of the government's bargaining power to make voluntary initiatives work. "Absent the plausible threat of enforcement, cooperative approaches to achieving compliance seem to have only limited effect on regulated entities" (Crow et al 2000).
Both Cohen (1998) and the US EPA's Compliance Information Project (1999) provide a useful summary of the literature on compliance and the relationship to enforcement and incentive-based approaches. Overall, however, the literature strongly supports the view that broader compliance initiatives are cost-effective if they are backed up by the threat of credible enforcement action.
Cohen (ibid.) poses a fundamental question: why do firms comply with environmental laws at all? Following a comprehensive review of 148 studies, he concludes that, "We know the least about the most important and fundamental topic in enforcement - why firms comply with the law." His research points to a need for more rigorous empirical studies to measure the deterrence effect of economic penalties, market forces, and the impact of social norms and firm reputation. Cohen's view is shared by Crow et al (2000), who write: "While compliance levels are difficult to measure, indications are that compliance in the United States is substantially in excess of that suggested by the economic model. While adjustments can be made to the model to account for at least some of the 'excess compliance,' indications are that social norms do play a role in firm behavior."
Nevertheless, there is an inherent logic to the effectiveness of enforcement / abatement as compliance tools. For example, a 1996 survey of corporate environmental managers, conducted independently by KPMG, assessed the reasons why companies implement best environmental management practices. The most important reason, by far, was the legal duty to comply with regulations, followed by the potential for Board of Directors liability (Canadian Environmental Management Survey, 1996, KPMG, Environmental Services Inc., Toronto).
Front-line US environmental inspectors offer a different view. In a recent study many said that corporate culture was the most important factor in identifying which companies were more likely to be in compliance. Such companies go 'beyond compliance', "because they believe it to be in their economic best interest, are anticipating future regulations, or are responding to community pressure," was one of the conclusions of the study (Compliance Information Project 2000:4). Furthermore, "a strong management commitment to environmental compliance, backed up by the necessary resources for equipment and staff, is a key characteristic of firms that are likely to be in compliance" (ibid: 1).
There is also a strong correlation between financial performance and environmental performance, according to another study of 243 US facilities. The authors suggest that companies that exceed compliance expectations gain a competitive advantage through more effective resource utilization. This in itself creates an incentive for a "prevention mode of environmental management". (Russo and Fouts 1997)
A study of environmental compliance by companies in British Columbia concluded that deterrence actions, combined with an incentive to avoid a bad public reputation go together to enhance compliance. "The presence of clear and strong standards accompanied with [sic] a significant and credible penalty system does send appropriate signals to the regulated community which then responds with a lowering of pollution emissions. Secondly, the public disclosure of environmental performance does create additional and strong incentives for pollution control. These results do suggest that both regulations and information [belong to] the regulator's arsenal" (Foulon et al 1999).
Another empirical study compared compliance rates for voluntary adoption of best practices against enforcement action over a 15-year period in three forest products sectors in British Columbia, including 154 of that province's largest industrial facilities. On the basis of the three case studies and a review of reduction levels achieved by facilities in an additional 16 industrial sectors, the author concludes that the fundamental factor inducing compliance with best management practices or standards is strong enforcement (Krahn 1998).
Notwithstanding the importance of abatement and enforcement in achieving compliance, there has been limited work in improving the effectiveness of this tool. Most efforts have focused on additional training for inspectors, investigators and facilitators such as the use of hand held computers with program driven inspections. See Appendix C for a brief description of some innovative abatement and enforcement techniques.
Cooperative agreements
The study on environmental compliance by the Conference Board of Canada (2000) is typical of most analytical approaches found in the literature that place "voluntary initiatives" on the opposite end of a policy continuum from "regulatory enforcement." This implies a tradeoff of benefits as one moves from one end of the continuum to the other. But how useful is it to place public policy development within this voluntary-regulatory context? Indeed, it is very difficult to even conceptually separate out today's voluntary initiatives from regulatory enforcement.
Pollution Probe defines a voluntary initiative as, "a non-legislatively required commitment, agreed to by one or more entities, designed to influence, shape, control or benchmark behaviour and performance, and applied in a consistent and publicly acceptable manner to reach a defined outcome" (Pollution Probe 1999: 6). The emphasized words indicate the changes made by Pollution Probe to a definition developed for Industry Canada (1998).
In practice, however, the distinction between voluntary and enforced compliance is arbitrary, if at all even relevant. Is there such a thing as "somewhat voluntary" or "somewhat regulatory?" A report prepared for the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation defines a "voluntary compliance measure" as "any initiative undertaken by the regulated community that is designed to improve environmental performance that is not required by law, but which may be influenced by or may influence legal requirements" (Saxe and Moffet 1998). This perspective sets voluntary compliance within a legal framework.
Another aspect of using the term "voluntary" is that it tends to fuel public and environmentalist mistrust about the intentions of industry. Indeed, often the success of compliance assurance is still measured by the number of polluters caught and the size of fines levied. This limited measure of success is based on a deeper assumption that compliance behavior is fundamentally motivated by economic self-interest rather than conformity with social norms (more about this later). Voluntary initiatives may be perceived as "weakening" environmental protection even though their effectiveness may be superior in specific circumstances.
To avoid these pitfalls we have followed the European Research Network on Market-Based Instruments for Sustainable Development, as reported by Lyon and Maxwell (1999), and have adopted the term "cooperative agreement" in place of a voluntary initiative. This terminology more accurately describes how parties usually enter compliance programs voluntarily and, that, once committed, are obligated to meet performance targets in return for government incentives.
Table 2-2 provides a summary of the arguments "for and against" voluntary compliance (cooperative agreements). It comes from a study by Pollution Probe (1999), which screened 39 Canadian voluntary initiatives in environmental protection and resource conservation against 25 policy variables. The Probe report went on to provide a framework for considering these agreements. They conclude that:
The ideal voluntary initiative [cooperative agreement in our terms] has clearly stated and publicly supported goals, targets and timelines. Progress is measured and reported at regular intervals, with problems addressed openly and expeditiously. The initiative is evaluated and adjusted, as necessary, with the full partcipation of stakeholders. Independant verification of results demonstrates that the goals and targets are being achieved in a cost effective way, and the company or sector is publicly recognized for exemplary environmental performance. The process used and the results of the voluntary initiative are shared with other companies and sectors and serve to stimulate similar appoaches and initiatives (Pollution Probe 1999: 63).
There have been other promising attempts by various stakeholder groups to come to terms with the role of cooperative agreements in a compliance strategy. An ad hoc group calling itself the New Directions Group (NDG), for example, developed a useful set of criteria and principles for the design and utilization of such initiatives. They address the need for cooperative agreements to be participatory, transparent and performance based (see Appendix A). The NDG included both environmental advocacy and industry group representatives.
TABLE 2-2 : ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST "VOLUNTARY INITIATIVES"
| Arguments for voluntary initiatives | Arguments against voluntary initiatives |
|---|---|
|
Offer more flexibility and lead to greater innnovation and enhanced performance |
Performance usually not independently audited or verified |
| More cost-effective than regulations | Increase government's administrative burden and divert scarce resources from needed regulatory measures |
| Employ positive motivators, such as self-initiative and pride, rather than negative motivators, such as regulatory coercion | Most lack accountability mechanisms for both "process" and performance |
| May provide a defence of due diligence when environmental problems occur, thus reducing legal liability | Allow governments to avoid making "hard" decisions |
| Deal better with multi-jurisdictional issues (ie. Easier to get federal- provincial and international cooperation) | Negotiated in processes that are neither open nor transparent to the public |
| Better suited to rapidly changing technologies and to pollution prevention strategies | The public understands and supports the regulation of industry, not voluntary initiatives |
| More environmentally conscious consumers are creating a demand for cleaner products and cleaner production processes, thus increasing industry interest in such things as voluntary eco-labelling | Create an "unlevel playing field" for industry and offer regulatory concessions not available to all industries, thus violating principles of fairness and equity |
Source: Pollution Probe Towards Credible and Effective Environmental Initiatives: Lessons Learned Pollution Probe Foundation: Toronto, 1999:42
One of the most important lessons, according to Crowe et al, is that public trust and accountability is paramount to the success of a cooperative compliance initiative. To earn this trust a company must demonstrate, in return for regulatory flexibility, a strong and clear commitment to accountability through complete and verifiable disclosure of information. Furthermore, the authors stress the importance of the early involvement of stakeholders in the development of a cooperative initiative.
Another area that needs critical attention, according to Crow et al is the development of comprehensive and integrated performance "metrics" for integrated compliance programs. Table 2-3 lists some of the metrics now being developed by the US EPA that not only apply to cooperative agreements but to integrated compliance assurance as well.
In summary, Crow et al and other researchers are saying that a cooperative compliance initiative is credible and acceptable only insofar as it can unequivocally demonstrate that it exceeds the regulatory status quo; that it has built-in incentives for going beyond compliance and for implementing environmental best practices and innovations that would otherwise not have happened.
Cooperative agreements are dealt with in more detail in Chapter 3 with several examples. Appendix D provides a broader range of cooperative agreements in use around the world.
Compliance assistance
Crow et al (2000) advocate an "ecumenical" explanation of compliance behavior. From their perspective, an integrated compliance strategy must address both the economic and the institutional or organizational reasons for non-compliance.
In the economic model, which underlies a command-and-control compliance strategy, sanction-based deterrence works only if the penalty - in the form of an economic loss - is greater than the cost of compliance. The individual or enterprise is said to make an economically rational decision to comply or not to comply.
The alternative model is based on a premise that, "firms will tend to comply with regulations because environmental compliance is a social norm.... Failure to comply arises from four key sources: ignorance of regulatory requirements; inadequate knowledge of the firm's own operations; poor internal environmental management systems; and inadequate capability to comply" (ibid: 28).
To address this lack of capacity, many jurisdictions including the US, Australia and Canada have introduced substantial compliance assistance programs aimed at informing, training and providing technical support for small establishments. Chapter 4 provides a case profile of the US EPA's Compliance Assistance Centers. Appendix D describes some of the more innovative initiatives in compliance assistance from a range of international jurisdictions.
TABLE 2-3: OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Phase 1 (FY 1999)
- Average duration for significant violators to return to compliance
- Pecentage of signficant violators with recurrent violations
- Number of investigations conducted
- Responses to citizen complaints
- Number of violations issued by media program
- Capacity-building efforts provided to state, local, tribal programs
Phase 2 (FY 2000)
- Statistically-valid compliance rates for selected regulated populations
- Facilities/entities reached through compliance assistance
- Environmental and human health improvements from compliance assistance
- Environmental and human health improvements from enforcement
- Environmental and human health improvements from integrated initiatives
- Self-policing efforts by using compliance incentive policies
- Self-policing settlements concluded
Source: Crow, Michael, Jeanne Herb, Mark Stoughton, Jennifer Sullivan Towards Integrated Approaches to Compliance Assurance Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 16, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington DC, June 2000:25
3 JURISDICTIONAL OVERVIEW
To provide a context for the case studies in Chapter 4, this chapter provides a "high level" overview of integrated compliance initiatives in three major jurisdictions: European Union, United States, and Canada. All three are federal structures with a large diversity of sub-jurisdictions and approaches.
European Union
Environmental action by the European Community began in 1972 with four successive action programs. Since then, the Community and its successor organization, the 15-nation European Union (EU), adopted some 200 pieces of environmental legislation, chiefly to do with end-of-pipe pollution control, including minimum standards for waste management, water pollution and air pollution. A European Environmental Agency has been set up to gather and disseminate comparable environmental data. Its role is purely advisory but its work has become more and more crucial for the adoption of new measures and for assessing the impact of decisions already adopted. (Sources for this section: European Union and European Environment Agency web sites.)
A further step was taken with the Treaty of Amsterdam, which enshrines the principle of sustainable development as one of the European Community's aims. To achieve this as effectively as possible, the Fifth Environmental Action Program "Towards Sustainability " was adopted in 1992 and formed the environmental agenda for the Community for the next decade.
The program rests on a foundation of two key principles:
- Integration of the environmental considerations in all major policy areas and across key economic sectors.
- Replacing the command-and-control approach with one of shared responsibility between the various parties, e.g. governments, industry and the public.
One result has been an expansion of the range of compliance instruments to implement environmental policy.
The Eco-label for clean products is a program to promote the design, production, marketing and use of products that have a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle; and to provide consumers with better information on the environmental impact of products. It is awarded to product groups that have been selected in a procedure involving major interest groups, the European Commission and a technical advisory committee.
The Eco-management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) is designed to reward and promote better environmental performance of industrial activities. The scheme requires companies to establish and implement policies, programs and management systems, perform audits, and provide environmental performance reports to the public. Member states are required to set up independent bodies for the registration of facilities. Each country must have a system of accredited environmental verifiers. Currently EMAS applies to manufacturing, energy and recycling industry sites, and to the transportation sector. Information on the uptake of EMAS policies at the national and sectoral level is not consistently available.
Currently, emphasis is being placed on diversifying environmental instruments, in particular, on introducing environmental or green taxes, environmental accounting and voluntary environmental agreements.
The application of green taxes (an economic instrument outside the scope of this paper) is becoming fairly common in Europe, particularly in Germany and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, for example, green taxes were introduced in 1995. Taxes are charged for the use of groundwater, fuel use, waste, uranium-235, and energy (Netherlands Land Use Planning, Housing and Environmental Protection web site).
Environmental agreements, also referred to as "covenants" have been around since the late 1980s. However, they have grown in use since the Fifth Environmental Action Program was adopted in 1992, reflecting a trend toward more emphasis on shared responsibilities and the integration of environmental considerations into company management systems. An environmental agreement is defined as a commitment by a firm or industry sector to a public authority, and does not include unilateral codes of conduct.
A recent study (European Environmental Agency 1997) estimates that there are more than 300 agreements in place, two-thirds of which are in Germany and the Netherlands. The Netherlands leads the way in the development of environmental agreements with more than 100 in place. The agreements are made binding through operating licences. The country has agreements in several manufacturing sectors, notably chemicals, and for packaging and waste management. The study noted that, in Japan, some 2,000 environmental agreements are registered every year.
United States
Under the Clinton-Gore Administration's Reinventing Government initiative, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has made a strong commitment towards integrated compliance assurance. The goals are to make enforcement smarter, to leverage public and private investments, to introduce flexibility and market-based policy instruments. For example, market-based approaches are being built in to virtually all US EPA rules for motor vehicles and engines. Emissions trading under the Clean Air Act is another market-based approach to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions (US EPA 2000a).
Since the early 1990s, the agency has begun to gradually replace its reliance on end-of-pipe pollutant control with watershed management strategies that focus on the overall health of a watershed and not just water quality. This holistic approach has changed how permits are issued to industry and to municipalities and has brought in new requirements for monitoring, reporting, and shared database management. Almost every state and 80 tribal governments have now completed watershed assessments (ibid: 14-15).
The changes at the US EPA are largely a result of a government commitment to reducing regulatory costs both for government and the regulated community, while maintaining a high level of environmental protection. The other pressure point comes from an effort to build more cooperative working relationships between US EPA and state environmental agencies. As Donald Kettl (1998) describes it: "Over the last 25 years, the states have become the EPA's front-line managers for many regulatory programs. The process has often proven just as burdensome to the states as the regulations have been for private companies. The states, not surprisingly, have proven just as fed up as the private sector with the high costs of the current system and have led the charge for performance-based partnerships."
One example of federal-state co-operation is the National Environmental Performance Partnership System. Established in 1995, the program gives the US EPA and the states more flexibility for the effective use of taxpayer dollars to establish priorities and initiatives. To participate, a state signs a performance partnership agreement, which obligates it to assess environmental problems, propose environmental and health objectives and develop a plan to meet them. So far, 35 states have signed on. In 1997, the US EPA and the states also reached an agreement on how the states can pursue innovations while maintaining the nationwide protection provided by federal environmental standards. The Oregon Green Permits system and Massachusetts Environmental Results Program are two examples of innovations being implemented as a result of this agreement (see Chapter 4).
Nevertheless, there is still an acknowledged need to eliminate duplication between the federal government and the states, and to work more collaboratively. Often, facilities still have to obtain both state-approvals and federal approvals for separate requirements for air quality, water quality and waste management. The benefits of a compliance assistance approach at the state level can sometimes be cancelled by an enforcement-oriented program at the federal level.
Under the National Environmental Performance Partnership System, the US EPA has more than 20 national, voluntary partnership programs with business. Many EPA regional administrations also have their own programs. Today, more than 7,000 organizations participate in one or more of EPA's voluntary partnership programs.
Project XL (eXcellence and Leadership) is a national initiative to test innovative ways of achieving better and more cost-effective public health and environmental protection (US EPA 1999; 2000b). The information and lessons learned from Project XL are being used to assist EPA in redesigning its current regulatory and policy-setting approaches. Twenty projects are currently underway and 30 more are in the development stage.
Based on these and other partnership experiences, industry representatives are now working with EPA on a new National Environmental Performance Track (US EPA 2000c) to encourage, recognize and reward environmental stewardship.
Companies that take advantage of the EPA's self-audit policy can get enforcement relief if they identify and fix their own problems. "During the past four years, 675 companies have identified potential environmental violations at more than 2,700 facilities - voluntarily - based on EPA's offer to reduce or eliminate penalties for facilities that routinely audit their operations, disclose results, and quickly correct problems" (US EPA 2000a).
One of the most innovative developments has been the implementation of compliance assistance centres that provide on-line and help-line information and advice to environmental managers, busineses, and agencies on pollution prevention and regulatory requirements. Currently there are ten compliance assistance centres, eight of which serve industry sectors (e.g. agriculture, chemical manufacturing, printed wiring board, etc.).
A few other examples of initiatives to improve the effectiveness of environmental compliance being undertaken by the US EPA:
- Cross-media and cross-agency integration of health and environmental standards;
- New contaminant standards based on children's exposure and health impact rather than adults.
- Targeted sectoral compliance programs (e.g. electroplating and dry cleaners in Georgia and Florida) using a variety of compliance information techniques such as a mentoring program of dry cleaners to help less knowledgeable dry cleaners to comply with environmental regulations.
- The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) - although it has been in place since 1987, continuous improvements to this program have increased its effectiveness in public information disclosure.
A review of the federal integrated compliance approach (Crow et al 2000) concludes that it is becoming more widely accepted, although it is still difficult to evaluate its cost-effectiveness in comparison to traditional enforcement. Integrated compliance has gone beyond the 'pilot' stage in many US jurisdictions even though most of the work by EPA compliance managers is still focused on traditional enforcement.
Kettl (1998), while enthusiastic about alternatives to command-and-control, nevertheless concedes that, "While many states have eagerly seized the flexibility that environmental partnerships offer, many of them so far have used the tool primarily to smooth the paperwork processes. Preventing pollution, improving environmental performance, and integrating approaches across media have lagged behind. The performance-based process, therefore, is more an embryonic idea than a proven practice."
Canada
For the past decade or more there has been a great deal of interest at all levels of government in Canada to promote alternatives to command-and-control compliance programs. The study by Pollution Probe (1999) is perhaps the largest review of so-called voluntary initiatives. It characterizes environmental regulation in Ontario and Canada as "less comprehensive and rigorous than that south of the border" though still regarded by industry as burdensome (ibid Appendix B: 68).
Nevertheless, it is difficult to generalize at a national level, because of the patchwork of roles and responsibilities involving the federal and provincial levels of government. The main national commitments are made at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), and by the federal Environment Canada in environmental matters with a federal jurisdiction. Otherwise, each province implements compliance policies in its own jurisdiction. Some degree of inter-governmental coordination will take place under the Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization Draft Sub-Agreement on Inspections and Enforcement (June 2000).
The following are some highlights of initiatives that are changing the face of environmental compliance in Canada (some are described in more detail in Chapter 4 and Appendix D):
- Numerous national codes of environmental practice are developed and promoted through CCME.
- The National Packaging Protocol was a 1990 CCME initiative involving all levels of government and significant industrial sectors to reduce packaging waste by 50 per cent by 2004. The target has been reportedly achieved and verified by 2000.
- The Responsible Care program, launched by the Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPA) in 1985, is generally acknowledged as the leading industry voluntary environmental code of practice in the world (Pollution Probe, 1999, Appendix B: 3). The program, which consists of six codes of practice and 152 specific requirements, has been adopted in 42 countries and has received a UN award. The CCPA's membership accounts for 90 per cent of chemicals manufactured in Canada. A commitment to Responsible Care is a condition for membership in CCPA. It is going through a second round of verification of compliance to codes of practice.
- The Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET) program is a cooperative government-industry initiative that targets reductions in 117 priority pollutants in a number of industry sectors. While some of the pollutants have regulated emission standards, the majority does not. This program is described in more detail in Chapter 4.
- The Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR Inc.) began in 1994 as a national program to promote voluntary industry initiatives to achieve Canada's greenhouse gas reductions commitment at Kyoto, Japan. In 1997, it became a stand-alone private-public partnership. More than 850 organizations from all sectors have joined VCR, including the federal government and all provincial governments. Action plans have been submitted by 350 participants; however, the levels of verifiable emission reduction are not yet available. The program has been criticized by many environmental organizations as a poor response to Canada's international commitment on reducing greenhouse gases.
- As in the United States, a number of large firms such as the Ontario Power Generation Co. are now participating in carbon dioxide emission trading.
- Since the early 1990s, most provinces and the federal government have made pollution prevention a major component of their environmental protection programs. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999), for example, states that its primary purpose is "to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention." Under the Act, the Minister has the authority to enter into agreements with the provinces or industrial sectors. It includes provisions for compliance assistance and the promotion of environmental audits. There are a number of pollution prevention recognition programs in Canada, including ones run by CCME, Environment Canada, and Ontario's "Pollution Prevention Pledge Program (P4)".
- Ontario, together with the federal government, has developed and implemented several memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to promote pollution prevention beyond compliance. The MOUs are with key industry sectors (automotive, chemical, printing, metal finishing, etc.), and in at least one case with a single steelmaking firm (Dofasco). The MOUs are similar to cooperative environmental performance agreements but with no legal status. In August 2000, Environment Canada published a discussion paper on environmental agreements that laid out the conditions under which the government would enter into an agreement with an enterprise or industry sector. It also proposed a "regulatory backstop" for each of the environmental agreements (Environment Canada 2000).
- Ontario initiated a major consultation program (Responsive Environmental Protection) in 1996 to reform its environmental regulations and approvals processes. In 1997, the province announced 38 major regulatory reforms. This was followed by legislation to streamline the approvals process. Abatement has been traditionally an important instrument for environmental protection especially in Ontario. Alberta has also completed a major overhaul of its environmental laws. In 1999, the province's environment ministry launched the Alternate/Innovative Regulatory Strategies (AIRS) program to look at alternatives to enforcement types of approvals for facilities. In June 2000, it published a study and proposal for an incentive-based approvals process that would be compatible with the present regulatory system (Alberta Environment 2000).
The intent of this chapter was to provide a context to help understand some of the cooperative initiatives that are described in the following chapter and in the appendices. We do not draw conclusions as to which jurisdiction is the furthest ahead in implementing an integrated compliance strategy. What is evident, however, is that all jurisdictions are moving in the same direction although they may be acting from different political and legislative frameworks. In the United States, for example, the commitment to integrated compliance has been more top-down than in Canada, reflecting a more centralized federal legislative authority for environmental protection that has often resulted in an adversarial relationship with state agencies.
The European Union has a much different and more recent federal structure of national governments. As with agreements on trade, labour and other matters, environmental agreements are between equals and the enforcement ability of the European parliament is rather weak.
In Canada, the constitutional framework for environmental protection is probably closer to that of the European model. In such circumstances, achieving inter-provincial and federal agreement on compliance initiatives can be a challenge when it affects enterprises competing and operating in national markets, though it is not unlike the challenges of dealing with transboundary pollution in a global marketplace. On the other hand, the flexibility of the Canadian federal framework means that Ontario can self-initiate innovative compliance strategies while still working towards harmonized inter-provincial standards and approaches. Moreover, this flexibility has the potential to enhance the competitive development of best practices in environmental protection not just in Ontario, but across Canada.
4 CASE PROFILES
The following profiles, in our opinion are leading examples of innovative 'beyond compliance' initiatives within an integrated compliance strategy, and which merit further study.
Cooperative Agreement:
Project XL
US Environmental Protection Agency
1995
Description: Project XL, which stands for "eXcellence and Leadership" is a national initiative that tests innovative ways of achieving better and more cost-effective public health and environmental protection that goes beyond compliance with existing requirements ("compliance-plus") in conjunction with greater accountability to stakeholders. The information and lessons learned from Project XL are used to assist EPA in redesigning its current regulatory and policy-setting approaches.
Participation: The program is open to business, local and state governments, and communities with a good compliance history with EPA regulations. To be accepted, Project XL proposals must develop alternative environmental management strategies that satisfy eight very stringent requirements, and two additional ones if the proponent is a community. Most important are that the projects must satisfy a test of superior environmental (SEP) results using quantitative and qualitative performance measures; demonstrate the potential to reduce costs, improve operating efficiency, including innovations that promote regulatory flexibility, and strong support from stakeholder groups, who are to be involved in the day-to-day aspects of project negotiations. The proponent should also provide stakeholders with the necessary technical training. Following a public comment period and approval, the proponent, EPA and other co-regulators, and direct participant stakeholders sign a final project agreement. It now takes about six months for approval. There are currently 46 approved projects (see Table 4-1). Project XL's target is to have 50 approved projects. (See Appendix C for more detailed examples of such projects).
Benefits: Participants are offered reduced administrative burdens or increased regulatory flexibility; however, they are not exempt from environmental laws. Some of the other reported benefits to participants, besides the obvious environmental ones, are: streamlined administrative processes, improved relationships with stakeholders and regulators, cost savings from improved efficiencies and regulatory avoidance. The US EPA will benefit by identifying cost-effective innovations in compliance and environmental management that can be used by EPA and state agencies.
Challenges: The US EPA had to create new ways to allow companies to experiment, but still hold them accountable for performance and results. It had to be satisfied that no one was at risk, and that communities and stakeholders were involved at all stages of the process. The approvals process itself was significantly re-engineered to speed up approvals from 24 months down to 6 months. EPA also had to be certain that prospective environmental improvements were realistic and attainable.
Results: Project XL published a complete evaluation report in August 1999. One of its main goals at the time was to ramp-up into the next phase of taking the site-specific experiments and applying them more broadly. US EPA is also developing a "second generation" XL program that provide even stronger incentives for high performance and compliance-plus.
US EPA has so far identified at least 25 major innovations, and 10 more that are emerging, that can be applied to the agency's core functions: rules and regulations, permit reform, information management, enforcement and compliance assurance, and environmental stewardship.
References:
Project XL: From Pilot to Practice, A Journey to System Change (Summary) US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, September 1999.
Project XL web site: www.epa.gov/ProjectXL
Innovation at the Environmental Protection Agency: A Decade of Progress. US EPA Office of the Administrator. April 2000.
TABLE 4-1: PROJECTS APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION UNDER PROJECT
XL
(NOVEMBER 2000)
|
|
Cooperative Agreement:
Declaration on the Implementation of Environmental Policy in the Chemical
Industry
The Netherlands
1993
Description: Each company in the environmental agreement produces a company environmental plan (CEP) every four years, covering an 8-year period. The plan is approved by the local licencing authority and used as the basis for the operating licence. The plan must achieve targets set out in the Integrated Environmental Target Plan (IETP) for the chemical industry sector, which, in turn, complement the targets set in the National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP), NEPP-Plus, and other action plans (CFC action plan, Hydrocarbons 2000, etc.) There are 61 quantitative emission reductions for 2000 and 2010, with 40 in1995, for pollutants related to: climate change, acidification, air, water, and eutrophication.
Participation: There are 108 signatories to the agreement, including three government ministries, Association of Provincial Authorities, Union of Netherlands Municipalities, Association of Water Control Boards, Association of the Dutch Chemical Industry, and 103 individual companies. The agreement is legally binding; however, there is no sanction against the companies if they fail to meet the targets other than losing the benefit of a simplified approvals procedure.
Benefits: The chemical industry as a whole benefited by being involved in the development of pollution reduction targets. Companies in the agreement benefit from a simplified, more flexible licensing process for operational licenses issued by water boards and municipal and provincial authorities. This multi-media approach leads to better prioritization of environmental initiatives. It also requires co-operation between two licencing authorities, thereby reducing the cost of obtaining an operating licence. More companies are encouraged to adopt environmental management systems.
Challenges: Available information is not very specific, although one may speculate that it was a challenge to have such a large number of signatory parties agree to so many targets at once. There is no information about the involvement of stakeholder groups. However, the low level of stakeholder participation and weak information disclosure has been a general criticism of environmental agreements in the European Community (see Table 4-2 for a general description of environmental agreements). It was also a challenge to collect and verify quantitative data to compare the effectiveness of this environmental agreement to a status quo situation. While there have been significant pollution reductions, it is difficult to tell if these are due to the environmental agreement or other policy instruments.
Results: It is estimated that the environmental agreement has contributed to emission reduction for 33 of 61 priority pollutants. Government and industry participants agree that these improvements are being achieved at a lower cost to industry than would have been the case under the traditional approvals process. Dialogue has begun within the chemical industry on how to achieve the more demanding targets for 2010.
References:
Environmental Agreements: Environmental Effectiveness European Environment Agency: Copehagen 1997: 69-73
European Environmental Agency web site: www.eea.eu.int
TABLE 4-2: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPROVED USE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (EAs) - EUROPEAN UNION
EAs are most suitable for:
|
Implementation is most effective when:
|
Source: Environmental Agreements: Environmental Effectiveness European Environment Agency: Copenhagen 1997
Compliance Assistance, Abatement:
Green Permits
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
1997
Description: Still in its infancy, the green permit system "tests the use of regulatory incentives to encourage higher levels of environmental performance and the adoption of environmental management systems (EMS)" (Memorandum of Agreement 2000). It is intended to be an innovative alternative to standard facility permits using a "tiered approach" and focussing on performance requirements that are facility or site-specific, multi-media, and non-prescriptive. The rules also favour strong stakeholder-involvement at the facility level. "[The] objective is to obtain environmental outcomes significantly better than otherwise required by law from applicant facilities demonstrating better overall environmental performance (MOA 2000 emphasis added).
There are two kinds of green permits: green environmental management systems (GEMS) and custom waiver permits.
A custom waiver permit allows some flexibility in compliance with regulatory requirements - often prescriptive ones related to specific technologies or industrial processes - to help a facility perform significantly better than required. While a facility does not need to have an EMS in place to obtain a custom waiver, it must meet stringent requirements for public reporting and stakeholder involvement.
A GEMS permit requires the facility to have an EMS (such as ISO 14001), demonstrate superior environmental performance, and publish annual performance reports and commit to ongoing communications with interested stakeholders. There are three tiers of GEMS permits. Tier 1 (Participant) is for facilities beginning to implement an EMS to meet and exceed regulatory requirements. Tier 2 (Achiever) is for facilities with a comprehensive EMS that addresses many environmental issues, including those not even regulated. Tier 3 (Leader) is for facilities with a formal EMS that "address environmental issues beyond the facility, demonstrate industry leadership, and consider impacts over the entire life of its products and services" (The Oregon Green Permits Program 1999 emphasis added).
Participation: This program is open to all enterprises that require state environmental permits, and are within the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. A deposit of $5,000 is required with a green permit application to cover administrative costs (Permits Handbook 2000).
There are currently three approved Tier One green permit facilities: LSI Logic (semiconductor manufacturer), Louisiana Pacific Corporation (engineered wood products), and PacifiCorp (power company). PacifiCorp is currently attempting to move up to a Tier Two permit. These three companies originally participated in the environmental management systems incentives project (EMSIP), a pilot precursor to the green permits process. (A fourth company ceased operating in Oregon.) There are three other companies currently in the application stage.
Benefits: For facilities that meet the GEMS permit requirements, some of the benefits include:
- Single point of contact: one agency person who co-ordinates and navigates the regulatory channels among numerous approval agencies on behalf of the company;
- Recognition through plaques, newspaper advertisements and case studies;
- Enforcement discretion, a problem-solving approach to compliance issues focusing on system-wide improvements;
- Changes to regulatory requirements such as streamlined reporting;
- Expedited or flexible permitting to speed up the review process, extend renewal periods, or combine multiple permits; and
- Other regulatory incentives specific to the needs of the facility.
For the state, the main benefits are reduced regulatory cost, improved environmental outcomes, identification of innovative improvements to existing regulatory and approval requirements, and strengthened relations with a company and its stakeholders.
Challenges: The law to allow green permits was passed by the Oregon legislature in 1997. The program was originally to sunset in 2000, but has been extended to December 31, 2003. This is a very short time frame to achieve the objectives. Along with the small amount of resources dedicated to the green permits, it brings into question the state's level of commitment to the program.
It also appears that the green permits program sits on a fault line of US EPA-state relations. It appears that the green permits met some significant institutional resistance within the compliance areas of the regional EPA (see Speirs 2000:31-39). Indeed, it raised complex questions about the state's authority to innovate against the backdrop of national laws, even though the US EPA had made a commitment in 1997 to encourage state-level innovation in compliance.
Environmental non-governmental organizations have also questioned if the public is being misled by rewarding companies with regulatory flexibility for only "token" improvements (ibid:47). The concept of "compliance plus" (significantly improved outcomes beyond regulatory requirements) needs to be better defined. Another concern is that the entry bar for the program is set too high. In theory, at least, the stakeholder requirements are very demanding. The program clearly favours companies that have already made a commitment to EMS.
Results: It is still much too early to tell if the program will have a significant impact on improving environmental quality in Oregon. The level of stakeholder involvement has been low (ibid: 48), and the program has not quite achieved the vision of a compliance process that would "engage industrial sectors or reach outside the traditionally regulated realm to largely unregulated activities like agriculture" (ibid: 54). Nevertheless, it appears that the success of Oregon's green permits program is being keenly watched by many state environmental agencies.
References:
Memorandum of Agreement between the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Lane Regional Air Quality Authority, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Regulatory Innovation and the Oregon Green Permits Program, May 15, 2000.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality website: www.deq.state.or.us
Permits Handbook Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Portland, November 2000: 86-87.
Speir, Jerry Green Permits and Cooperative Environmental Agreements: A Report on Regulatory Innovation Programs in Oregon and Wisconsin Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 4, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington DC, June 2000.
The Oregon Green Permits Program (brochure) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Portland, October 1999.
Abatement:
Environmental Results
Program
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
1997
Description: Massachusett's Environmental Results Program (ERP) is the first regulatory compliance system of its kind in the United States. The program was started as a pilot in 1996, and launched by the Governor in 1997. ERP requires a firm to submit an annual self-certification of compliance to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The senior-most coporate official at each facility is required to sign and file an annual environmental compliance certificate. If a facility is not in full compliance with all requirements, the company must identify the violations and prepare a "return to compliance" (RTC) plan describing how and when compliance will be achieved (April, Greiner 2000:16). The self-certification process is facilitated by a compliance assistance program provided through sector-specific workbooks written in plain language and workshops, along with practical information on pollution prevention. In the case of ERP for the dry cleaning sector, for example, the compliance materials are also written in Korean. Failure to certify will result in a US $1,000 per day fine.
Instead of facility-specific permits or requirements, ERP applies performance-based standards common to all facilities in a specific industry sector or that use the same industrial process. All firms participating in ERP are subject to inspections by the environmental department according to its enforcement procedures. The information from the inspections and the certification goes into a central database. To ensure that the firms are aware of their responsibilities, the environmental department maintains a comprehensive and regularly updated database of all firms within each ERP sector. The performance of each ERP sector is tracked by using business practice indicators, inspection findings and data from the certification forms.
Participation: The program has been applied to three small-business sectors: dry cleaning, photo processing and printing. In September 2000, a draft regulation was posted to include firms installing or modifying boilers. The other priority industry sectors incude industrial waste dischargers, chip fabricators, wire board fabricators, and autobody shops (Status of ERP 1998). The Department of Environmental Protection expects ERP will grow to include about 25,000 facilities in Massachusetts (April, Greiner 2000:15) currently requiring "state-only" permits. The program is currently pursuing federal regulatory flexibility for the dry-cleaning sector. The intention is to convert almost all state permits to certification.
Benefits: The promise of ERP is that it will reduce the cost of approvals for the Department of Environmental Protection, and the cost of compliance for the targeted industry sectors, while improving compliance by offering companies flexibility in achieving pollution reductioin targets (Project XL 1998).
Challenges: Support by environmental advocacy groups has been weak. They have concentrated on other issues. April and Greiner also report that the development of performance-based standards has been slow, and that many small-business sectors actually prefer technology or process-based standards to measure environmental performance (April, Greiner 2000:10). Indeed, developing "purely" performance-based standards has been a big challenge. While permits have been replaced by certification in the printing industry, the process has encountered many barriers, including compliance with federal requirements. To undertake enforcement actions, the Department of Environmental Protection uses "environmental business practice indicators" (EBPIs) to establish a baseline for an industry sector (see Table 4-3), and then compare facility certification data against the sector baseline data to determine targeted audits. It also does random audits of the participating firms. The issue of "free riders" - those who avoid compliance with the certification requirements, but continue to do business - may become a growing concern, especially in the dry cleaning and minilab photoprocessing businesses, since it is difficult to compile a comprehensive "universe" of these establishments.
Results: Two quantitative studies, both in the printing sector, showed significant improvements in compliance practices, pollution prevention, and emission reduction, especially in VOCs. The evaluation by April and Greiner confirmed these findings. They believe that there has been a measurable reduction in the discharge of perchleroethylene from dry cleaners. However, they are not so confident that the ERP has had the same results in the photoprocessing industry. One beneficial across-the-board result was that many firms for the first time took deliberate steps to prevent pollution. Many of them were not aware until then that they were even required to apply for environmental permits. Part of the success is due to the compliance assistance initiatives, as well as the effort by the department to establish the "universe" of all firms within the three sectors. Public interest in the development of the regulations, and tracking of certification reporting has been low. The state has apparently postponed plans to post certification data on the ERP web site, ostensibly because of industry pressure; and web-enabled certification is not yet available. The department has also taken a few high profile enforcement actions, including action in March 2000 against 146 printers who failed to certify in the first two years of the program.
References:
April, Susan and Tim Greiner Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 1, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington, DC, June 2000
Project XL: Massachusetts Environmental Results Program (ERP) fact sheet; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, October 1998.
The Promise of Performance: The Environmental Results Program fact sheet; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: Boston, 1999.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection "DEP Enforces
Environmental Standards for Commercial Printers" news release March 9, 2000.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection web site: www.state.ma.us/dep/erp.htm
TABLE 4-3: SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS PRACTICE INDICATORS (EBPIs) FOR ERP SECTORS
| CATEGORY | PRINTER EBPI | DRY CLEANER EBPI | PHOTO PROCESSING EBPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazardous waste requirements |
|
|
|
| Industrial wastewater requirements (IWW) |
|
|
|
| Air quality requirements |
|
|
|
| Additional pollution prevention practices |
|
|
Source: April, Susan and Tim Greiner Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 1, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington, DC, June 2000: 32.
Cooperative Agreement:
Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET)
Canada
1994
Description: ARET started out in 1992 as a cooperative initiative of environmental and labour organizations, government and industry. In 1993, however, the environmental and labour organizations pulled out because of a disagreement over whether the targets should be to reduce or eliminate certain toxic substances. The remaining stakeholders launched ARET in its present form in 1994 with resource support from Environment Canada that is to sunset at the end of 2000.
The long-term ARET "vision" is the "virtual elimination of emissions of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances; [and the] reduction of other toxic emissions to levels insufficient to cause harm to human health and the environment" (ARET Secretariat 2000).
By the end of the year 2000, ARET participants aimed to reduce persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substance emissions by 90 per cent (using any year after 1987 as the base year); and, all other toxic substance emissions by 50 per cent from base-year levels.
There are four key components of the ARET process:
- The development of the ARET substances list using science-based criteria and multi-stakeholder agreement;
(Currently the list has 117 toxic substances, 30 of which are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, based on a scientific assessment of 2,000 substances of concern by a panel of toxicology experts from government, industry, health and environmental organizations. The ARET list consists of five categories of substances.);
- The "ARET Challenge" issued by a multi-stakeholder committee (see Table 4-4) to potential program participants;
- A public comittment by the participating organization to the ARET Challenge in the form of an action plan, which contains specific reduction or elimination goals by a specific date;
- A progress report by the ARET participant and annual publication of results.
Participation: The most recently available information indicates that 316 facilities from 169 companies and government organizations are currently participating in ARET. These facilities emit one or more of the substances on the ARET list. In addition, 142 companies have filed "declarations of support" in which they state that they have no or negligible emissions of ARET substances. Nine industry sectors are represented on the ARET multi-stakeholder committee.
Benefits: According to Pollution Probe (1999: B50): "ARET does not currently provide explicit incentives to improve performance. The most important factor having motivated many companies so far may have been the opportunity to preempt regulations by demonstrating the merits of a voluntary approach."
Environment Canada and the participating provincial environment ministries have benefited in terms of avoided environmental costs. "The federal government would not have been able to achieve the reductions realized under ARET by relying on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which regulates less than 10 per cent of ARET's 117 substances. Environment Canada has neither the procedural tools to quickly assess the toxicity of so many substances, nor the necessary enforcement capacity to apply a purely regulatory approach" (ibid). Note: Currently there are 22 toxic substances common to the ARET and CEPA lists (ARET Secretariat 2000).
Challenges: As noted above, the absence of strong industry incentives (or "backdrop" sanctions), is an impediment to improving industry participation. Moreover, as discussed by Pollution Probe and others (see references below), the program needs to develop a more consistent methodology for measuring emission reductions and for verifying results. The recent addition of the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada to the ARET stakeholders committee brings representation of 2,500 companies, mostly small-medium employers (SMEs). Although this sector is estimated to contribute eight per cent of all emissions, the involvement of the Alliance is a very significant step toward broadening the base of cooperative compliance. However, at this point only 45 members of the Alliance have submitted action plans, although they are responsible for the majority of AMEC emissions (ARET Secretariat 2000). The suggestion by Pollution Probe (1999) to increase the number of target substances (eg. smog-causing pollutants) could help make ARET more relevant and applicable to SMEs.
Results: There was a 67 per cent reduction in emissions of ARET substances in 1998 (latest year for which information is available) from base-year emission levels. When combined with previous reported reductions, nearly 26,400 tonnes of ARET toxic substances are no longer being emitted into the environment each year. As of 1998, the emission of substances with a Year 2000 target of 90 per cent (List A-1 substances) has been reduced by 54 per cent; and those with a >50 per cent Year 2000 reduction target have achieved a 67 per cent reduction.
The ARET list contains 49 of the same substances that companies are required to report under the 176-substance National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). Reporting to NPRI is mandatory for operations that meet certain minimum production and release thresholds. Comparing the data for the same 49 substances shows that emissions from ARET participants declined by nearly 40 per cent overall between 1993 and 1997, whereas non-ARET companies reported a 31 per cent increase in total emissions.
ARET is currently undergoing a program review and evaluation by Environment Canada. In late 2001, the final report of the current ARET program will be released, describing achievements made from the base year to 2000.
"The ARET program has been integrated into and represents an important component of Dofasco's Environmental Management System" says Andrew D. Connor, General Manager, Environment at Dofasco. ARET has formalized our ability to track progress, set priorities and establish action programs for attaining reductions of these parameters."
References:
ARET Secretariat Program Environmental Leaders 3 Report: Voluntary Action on Toxic Substances: Ottawa, May 2000.
ARET web site: www.ec.gc.ca/aret
Pollution Probe Towards Credible and Effective Environmental Voluntary Initiatives: Lessons Learned Pollution Probe Foundation: Toronto June 1999 (Appendix B:47-52)
5 SUMMARY
In many leading industrialized countries there is a pronounced trend towards an integrated approach to environmental compliance assurance (see Chapter 3).
Skeptics and opponents, however, are concerned that the changes signal a trend toward weakened environmental protection. Supporters, on the other hand, describe it as innovative and an opportunity to go beyond minimum standards.
Amidst this debate, there appears to be a refreshing convergence of thought from leading government, industry and environmental organizations toward a "balance", an "optimal mix", an "integration" of compliance tools. The challenge is that this new perspective is still being shaped and defined, sometimes in conceptual terms, while the need for a concrete and measurable compliance policy is more immediate.
The nature of this challenge is best summed up in the words of senior US EPA official Jon Silberman, "The issue for government is not compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, incentives or enforcement, but rather how to employ all the tools in the compliance and enforcement tool kit selectively, effectively and holistically."
Source: Silberman, Jon D. "Does Environmental Deterrence Work? Evidence and Experience Say Yes, But We Need to Understand How and Why," The Environmental Law Reporter, Washington, DC, July 2000.
In summary, our review of the literature on compliance assurance in leading jurisdictions has provided the following key learnings:
- Leading jurisdictions in North America and Europe recognize the limitations of command-and-control compliance strategies and the need to take an integrated approach to environmental compliance assurance.
- To be effective, an integrative compliance strategy must maintain a strong abatement and enforcement presence.
- Compliance assistance is being used as an effective way to reach out to small and medium establishments that have not developed the technical capacity and management systems to achieve compliance with environmental goals. Leading jurisdictions are using web sites and toll free numbers to offer plain English regulations, guidelines, best practices manuals and technical staff support aimed at specific sectors.
- Leading jurisdictions have begun to use cooperative agreements with key industry sectors and enterprises to promote going beyond compliance with minimum standards. Cooperative agreements provide a measure of flexibility to the private sector in return for a binding commitment to continuous improvement, clear multi-media targets and public transparency and accountability. We expect that these agreements will grow in number and importance in the future.
- Criteria are emerging to define successful cooperative agreements. Appendix A lists criteria and principles prepared by the New Directions Group for the application of cooperative agreements.
- There is a shift from government watching over industry to self- and third-party auditing with clear real-time reporting and public oversight. Environmental management systems including ISO 14001 have been developed as effective and credible processes aimed at improving performance and supporting these initiatives.
- Leading jurisdictions are taking a more strategic approach to environmental approvals. Tiered approvals systems and annual self-certification offer an opportunity to shift responsibility back to the private sector and to focus limited government resources on environmental priorities.
- Administrative penalties are being used for clear contraventions that have minimal environmental impacts and that can be set out in an implementation framework. Administrative penalties allow abatement and enforcement staff to focus on environmental priorities while demonstrating a broader interest in compliance with standards. Appeal provisions are being provided.
- There has been limited "best practice" work aimed at helping inspectors do their jobs. The work that has been done focuses on ongoing training, resource manuals and computer-assisted inspections.
- Leading jurisdictions are starting to bring together ambient and source monitoring information with broad measures of performance to identify trends, evaluate how they are doing and re-allocate resources to address risks.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: NEW DIRECTIONS GROUP
Criteria and principles for the use of voluntary or non-regulatory initiatives (VNRIs) to achieve environmental policy objectives. *
Criteria for the utilization of VNRIs to achieve environmental policy objectives:
- VNRIs should be positioned within a supportive public policy framework that includes appropriate legislative and regulatory tools.
- Interested and affected parties should agree that a VNRI is an appropriate, credible and effective method of achieving the desired environmental protection objective.
- There should be a reasonable expectation of sufficient participation in the VNRI over the long term to ensure its success in meeting its environmental protection objectives.
- All participants in the design and implementation of the VNRI must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
- Mechanisms should exist to provide all those involved in the development, implementation and monitoring of a VNRI with the capacity to fulfill their respective roles and responsibilities.
Principles governing the design of VNRIs:
Credible and effective VNRIs...
- ...are developed and implemented in a participatory manner that enables the interested and affected parties to contribute equitably;
- ...are transparent in their design and operation;
- ...are performance-based with specified goals, measurable objectives and milestones;
- ...clearly specify the rewards for good performance and the consequences of not meeting performance objectives;
- ...encourage flexibility and innovation in meeting specified goals and objectives;
- ...have prescribed monitoring and reporting requirements, including timetables;
- ...include mechanisms for verifying the performance of all participants; and
- ...encourage continual improvement of both participants and the programs themselves.
* Adopted November 4, 1997 by the following organizations:
Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.
Canadian Global Change Program
Canadian Nature Federation
Clemmer Technologies Inc.
Dofasco Ltd.
DOW Chemical Canada Inc.
Friends of the Earth
INCO Ltd.
Inter-Church Committee on Ecology
International Institute for Sustainable Development
Noranda Inc.
NOVA Corporation
Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development
Pollution Probe
Resource Futures International
TransAlta Corporation
Union pour le developpement durable
Wetlands International
World Wildlife Fund Canada
Source: Towards Credible and Effective Environmental Voluntary Initiatives: Lessons Learned Pollution Probe June 1999
APPENDIX B: EMERGING BEST PRACTICES IN ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
Introduction
It is worth recalling the definitions of abatement and enforcement from the main body of the paper (page 6):
Enforcement
"Any actions taken by governments to gather evidence associated with potential violations, to undertake preparatory work for court actions and all sanctions and follow-up associated with responses to violations of the law" (CCME Harmonization Accord Draft Sub-Agreement on Inspections and Enforcement June, 2000).
Abatement
"A 'broader' approach to compliance assurance, where an environmental regulator negotiates (and sometimes imposes) the contents of an abatement strategy for particular facilities with their operators, rather than vigorously prosecuting violations. However, failure to follow the abatement strategy could result in enforcement action."
As elaborated in the main body of the paper, most of the recent innovative work in compliance has been in cooperative agreements and compliance assistance. In the areas of abatement and enforcement, the field of emerging best practices is much smaller, and very little evaluative or academic work has taken place.
This appendix on abatement and enforcement represents a compendium of the small field of emerging best practices. Recognizing the need for this field of inquiry to develop, all our promising findings have been included. Within Abatement, emerging best practices have been identified under innovative approaches to approvals, and performance reporting. Within Abatement and Enforcement, emerging best practices have been identified in computer-assisted inspections, training, guides, priority setting, and a Colorado study addressing best practices.
I. Approvals
1) Project XL Comprehensive Approvals - US EPA
The Project XL information summary is derived from the Project XL Comprehensive Report - October 1999 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy and Reinvention. Also see http://www.epa.gov/Project XL.
Project XL is looking for ways to improve our environmental regulatory system, including the way EPA operates. It is based on a simple idea: project sponsors can try new approaches if they can promise better environmental results than would be expected under the current regulatory regime. Project sponsors must involve States, tribes, local government, citizens, and others with a stake in the 'experiment' being tested.
Permits are EPA's primary tools for translating environmental statutes and regulations into the requirements a facility must follow. Opportunities to improve on their limitations through comprehensive approvals are being examined in four of the initial seven XL projects: Jack M. Berry, Intel, Weyerhaeuser and Merck. The Jack M. Berry project, which was closed in 1999, is briefly summarized; the other three are outlined in greater detail.
Jack M. Berry, Inc. (signed August 8, 1996; project closed June 2, 1999)
Summary. This project was designed to produce a comprehensive operating permit to better integrate operation and compliance procedures at the company's citrus juice-processing facility in Labelle, Florida. A 1997 change in operational management at the facility led to termination of the agreement. The new permit would have relieved Berry of multiple permit renewal applications. Although the permit was not completed, Berry did meet commitments to reuse wastewater, reduce air pollution emissions, and reduce solid waste disposal.
Intel Corporation (signed November 19, 1996)
Summary. Intel is testing a facility-wide pollution cap that ensures its Chandler, AZ site will remain a minor source of air pollutants. The EPA, Arizona, and Maricopa County agreed to allow Intel to change equipment and processes and build new facilities without air permit reviews, as long as emissions stay below the plant-wide limits. The project also consolidates Intel's reporting and publishes environmental results on the Internet.
Benefits for the Environment
- Air emissions for criteria and hazardous air pollutants are being maintained at levels that ensure that the current site, including any future semiconductor manufacturing plants built there, remains a minor air emissions source, as defined by the Clean Air Act.
- Intel's recycling activities for hazardous wastes, solid waste, and water are successful. In particular, water conservation is a priority environmental goal in this arid Arizona region, and Intel's activities in this area are well regarded by the city of Chandler.
Benefits for the Stakeholders and the Local Community
- The community has better access to information through Internet reporting and a stakeholder-developed, easy-to-understand format for the consolidated reports.
- Intel has established a Stakeholder Team to ensure the involvement of national, regional, and local regulatory authorities and private citizens as full partners in the project's implementation. This team meets once a quarter to review the project's progress reports.
Benefits for the Project Sponsor
- Intel has avoided millions of dollars worth of production delays in the competitive, quick-to-market semiconductor industry by eliminating 30 to 50 reviews per year.
- Intel can minimize delays in the expansion of the facility.
- Intel has found the innovations being tested at the Arizona facility to be so beneficial that the company is implementing performance-based concepts for air emissions at two other company facilities.
Lessons Learned
- Final Project Agreement could have occurred faster if public stakeholders had received education and training earlier on environmental terminology and issues, and on the technical and business characteristics of the semiconductor industry.
- Public stakeholders report high costs in terms of their personal time, since they are volunteers.
- Without ongoing technical assistance, the ability of the general public to understand the impacts of the project's changes on human health and the environment is limited.
Weyerhaeuser Flint River Operations (signed January 17, 1997)
Summary. Weyerhaeuser is testing a facility-wide permit that requires its pulp manufacturing facility in Oglethorpe, Georgia, to reduce wastewater discharges, air emissions and solid waste generation. In exchange, EPA and Georgia allowed process modifications without prior approval, streamlined the wastewater permit renewal process, eliminated unnecessary sampling, and allowed annual certification to replace monthly reporting. The agreement also reduces allowable air emissions by 60 percent using two emission caps: one for the plant's four major air pollution sources and another for the remaining sources.
Benefits for the Environment
- By 1998, the amounts of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and total suspended solids per ton of finished product have been reduced to 50 percent and 39 percent respectively from the baseline.
- The amount of solid waste generated has been reduced by 34 percent.
- Over the course of the project, actual air emissions of particulate matter, total reduced sulfur, NOx, Co and VOCs have been reduced, with decreases ranging from 20 percent for particulate matter to 12 percent for VOCs.
Benefits for Stakeholders
- Stakeholders have better access to more information directly from the facility in a simplified, consolidated report.
- Stakeholders have a better understanding of facility operations.
Benefits for the Project Sponsor
- Weyerhaeuser achieved an estimated savings of $176,000 in reporting burden costs during the first year of operation as a result of the successful revision and reissue of the facility's air quality and wastewater discharge permits.
- Solid waste recycling saved the facility $200,000 in 1998 because the recycling of lime mud requires the company to purchase less of it. (The company did incur a one-time cost of $150,000 in 1998 for related sampling and analysis costs.)
- Weyerhaeuser foresees avoiding $10 million in future capital spending; while it expects to spend $10 million on new water equipment, it will also save $20 million that it would otherwise would have had to spend on air pollution equipment.
Lessons Learned
- Site visits early in Final Project Agreement negotiations helped to build trust and educate regulators about facility operations.
- Stakeholders want more education (i.e. technical assistance) early in the Final Project Agreement negotiation process.
- Including permit language in Final Project Agreement appendices was very important for smooth implementation of the project commitments by Weyerhaeuser, EPA, and the State.
Merck Stonewall Plant (signed December 15, 1997)
Summary. Merck & Co, Inc will reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions at its Elkton, Virginia pharmaceutical plant to protect visibility and reduce acid rain in nearby Shenandoah National Park. EPA and Virginia agreed to a facility-wide air pollution cap that will ensure that Merck's emissions remain at least 20 percent below 1992 and 1993 levels, and eliminate the need for permit reviews for every process change. Merck is converting its coal-fired powerhouse to cleaner-burning natural gas, a $10 million capital investment not required by regulations.
Benefits for the Environment
- The facility-wide cap limits total emissions of criteria air pollutants to levels 20 percent below baseline levels, SO2 emissions to levels 25 percent below baseline levels, NOx emissions to levels 10 percent below baseline levels, and particulate matter to levels approximately equal to baseline levels.
- The conversion to natural gas will reduce total criteria air pollutant emissions for the powerhouse by 900 tons per year, will virtually eliminate lead emissions, and will reduce the combined emissions of the hazardous air pollutants, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, by 65 percent. The conversion to natural gas is anticipated to cost Merck approximately $10 million, but is not required by regulations or as a result of operational problems.
- A comprehensive monitoring, record keeping, and reporting program will increase in stringency as actual criteria pollutant emissions approach the cap. This provides an incentive for Merck to minimize air emissions.
Benefits for Stakeholders
- Stakeholders will have better access to environmental information through Merck's comprehensive monitoring, record keeping, and reporting program.
- Stakeholders will be involved in 5-year permit reviews to a greater degree than with the typical permit process.
- Stakeholders will regularly be provided information on Merck's performance under the facility-wide caps and the impact of incentives to minimize facility air emissions.
Benefits for the Project Sponsor
- Merck expects to avoid millions of dollars worth of production delays in the competitive first-to-market pharmaceutical industry by eliminating repetitive permit reviews.
- Merck is given flexibility to make production changes without first obtaining permitting approval, as long as emissions remain below capped levels.
- The permit streamlines content requirements of the application for Merck's Title V operating permit and compliance certification.
Lessons Learned
- Technical support for community stakeholders is needed early in the process.
- EPA needs to communicate clear goals at the beginning of project development negotiations.
- Transaction costs for community stakeholders were particularly high.
- An incentive-based permit provided Merck with the motivation to purchase the lowest emission technology available.
2) Tiered Approvals System for Emissions - Alberta
The following is a summary of selected Statutes and Regulations (Province of Alberta and associated Codes of Practice)
Alberta consolidated its legislation in 1993 under the new Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act to, among other things, simplify the province's approval requirements. Like Ontario, the earlier Alberta legislation was all-inclusive and required virtually all activities to have an approval. As such, the legislation did not distinguish between environmentally significant activities such as hazardous waste management facilities and less significant vegetable processing plants.
The "new" Alberta approach uses three tiers to identify the level of government pre-approval required - 1) approval, 2) registration or 3) notification.
- A formal application and approval is required under Regulation 211/96. The Director under the legislation can approve, refuse to approve or approve with conditions. Applications for approval are not required for maintenance activities or temporary modifications. An opportunity for public input is provided unless the Director waives this provision. A notice of objection can be filed by any person directly affected by the activity after the Director issues a Notice of Decision. An Environmental Appeal Board has been established to hear any appeals. The regulation lists, by Schedule, the activities that require a full approval. These range from large landfills to rendering plants.
- Registration is required for the next tier of activities. The legislation requires that operators of these activities submit a registration form, follow an Alberta Code of Practice specifically designed for that activity and receive a signed return from the Director. Applicants must acknowledge in the registration form that they have reviewed the Code of Practice for their activity and that they are bound by the Code. Registration applies to activities that range from fuel reformulation to small landfills.
- Notification is restricted to those activities that have less significant, known impacts. The regulation has restricted registration to small compost facilities and storage sites.
The legislation requires that Alberta identify and classify all activities in the province by regulation. The current regulation has 35 pages of scheduled listings with definitions and triggers. There are also over 20 Codes of Practice that address standards of design and operation, responsibilities, analytical methods, reporting, record keeping and availability of records.
3) Environmental Results Program - Massachusetts DEP
The following description is repeated from the case study on pages 31-34 of the main body of the paper.
Description
Massachusetts' Environmental Results Program (ERP) is the first regulatory compliance system of its kind in the United States. The program was started as a pilot in 1996, and launched by the Governor in 1997. ERP requires a firm to submit an annual self-certification of compliance to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The senior-most corporate official at each facility is required to sign and file an annual environmental compliance certificate. If a facility is not in full compliance with all requirements, the company must identify the violations and prepare a "return to compliance" (RTC) plan describing how and when compliance will be achieved (April, Greiner 2000:16). The self-certification process is facilitated by a compliance assistance program provided through sector-specific workbooks written in plain language and workshops, along with practical information on pollution prevention. In the case of ERP for the dry cleaning sector, for example, the compliance materials are also written in Korean. Failure to certify will result in a US $1,000 per day fine.
Instead of facility-specific permits or requirements, ERP applies performance-based standards common to all facilities in a specific industry sector or that use the same industrial process. All firms participating in ERP are subject to inspections by the environmental department according to its enforcement procedures. The information from the inspections and the certification goes into a central database. To ensure that the firms are aware of their responsibilities, the environmental department maintains a comprehensive and regularly updated database of all firms within each ERP sector. The performance of each ERP sector is tracked by using business practice indicators, inspection findings and data from the certification forms.
Participation
The program has been applied to three small-business sectors: dry cleaning, photo processing and printing. In September 2000, a draft regulation was posted to include firms installing or modifying boilers. The other priority industry sectors include industrial waste dischargers, chip fabricators, wire board fabricators, and auto body shops (Status of ERP 1998). The Department of Environmental Protection expects ERP will grow to include about 25,000 facilities in Massachusetts (April, Greiner 2000:15) currently requiring "state-only" permits. The program is currently pursuing federal regulatory flexibility for the dry-cleaning sector. The intention is to convert almost all state permits to certification.
Benefits
The promise of ERP is that it will reduce the cost of approvals for the Department of Environmental Protection, and the cost of compliance for the targeted industry sectors, while improving compliance by offering companies flexibility in achieving pollution reduction targets(Project XL 1998).
Challenges
Support by environmental advocacy groups has been weak. They have concentrated on other issues. April and Greiner also report that the development of performance-based standards has been slow, and that many small-business sectors actually prefer technology or process-based standards to measure environmental performance (April, Greiner 2000:10). Indeed, developing "purely" performance-based standards has been a big challenge. While permits have been replaced by certification in the printing industry, the process has encountered many barriers, including compliance with federal requirements. To undertake enforcement actions, the Department of Environmental Protection uses "environmental business practice indicators" (EBPIs) to establish a baseline for an industry sector (see Table 4-3), and then compare facility certification data against the sector baseline data to determine targeted audits. It also does random audits of the participating firms. The issue of "free riders" - those who avoid compliance with the certification requirements, but continue to do business - may become a growing issue, especially in the dry cleaning and mini-lab photoprocessing businesses, since it is difficult to compile a comprehensive 'universe' of these establishments.
Results
Two quantitative studies, both in the printing sector, showed significant improvements in compliance practices, pollution prevention, and emission reduction, especially in VOCs. The evaluation by April and Greiner confirmed these findings. They believe that there has been a measurable reduction in the discharge of perchleroethylene from dry cleaners. However, they are not so confident that the ERP has had the same results in the photoprocessing industry. One beneficial across-the-board result was that many firms for the first time took deliberate steps to prevent pollution. Many of them were not aware until then that they were even required to apply for environmental permits. Part of the success is due to the compliance assistance initiatives, as well as the effort of the department to establish the "universe" of all firms within the three sectors. Public interest in the development of the regulations, and tracking of certification reporting has been low. The state has apparently postponed plans to post certification data on the ERP web site, ostensibly because of industry pressure; and, web-enabled certification is not yet available. The department has also taken a few high profile enforcement actions, including action in March 2000 against 146 printers who failed to certify both in the first two years of the program.
References
April, Susan and Tim Greiner Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 1, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington, DC, June 2000
Project XL: Massachusetts Environmental Results Program (ERP) fact sheet; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, October 1998.
The Promise of Performance: The Environmental Results Program fact sheet; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: Boston 1999.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection "DEP Enforces
Environmental Standards for Commercial Printers" news release March 9, 2000.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection web site:www.state.ma.us/dep/erp.htm
4) Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
The following has been extracted directly from a fact sheet from Alberta dated March 2000.
Administrative Penalties
Introduction
Administrative penalties are one of the enforcement tools that Alberta Environment administers as part of its Enforcement Program. In the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (the "Act"), sections 223 and 225 provide the department with the statutory authority to establish administrative penalties for specified contraventions of the Act and its regulations. Administrative penalties are used in accordance with, and to uphold, the department's philosophy to provide firm but fair enforcement of the environmental legislation in a timely and consistent manner.
What Kind of Contraventions are Subject to an Administrative Penalty?
The Administrative Penalty Regulation sets out over 200 contraventions for which an administrative penalty is available. This broad range of contraventions includes:
- Operating an activity without a required approval;
- Failing to report a release of a substance that may cause an adverse effect;
- Releasing a substance into the environment in an amount exceeding that required under a regulation or an approval;
- Operating an activity in violation of process requirements specified in a regulation or an approval (e.g., exceeding allowable stack temperature);
- Failing to report the contravention of an approval condition or limit; and/or
- Submitting a required report late (e.g., annual emissions report, stack survey report, monthly emissions report, groundwater report).
An administrative penalty is assessed only if the acts conclusively show that the contravention had occurred.
What is an Administrative Penalty?
An administrative penalty is a monetary penalty assessed by the Director of Enforcement and Monitoring when a party has contravened certain provisions of the Act or its regulations. Administrative penalties are used for minor contraventions that have minimal environmental impact, yet are important. Administrative penalties are most appropriate for contraventions which are more serious than those for warning letters, but less serious than prosecution. Administrative penalties may be used in combination with a remedial enforcement order. The Director may choose to impose an administrative penalty instead of a prosecution against a party. The maximum penalty is $5,000 per day for each contravention.
How is an Administrative Penalty Assessed?
The penalty assessment consists of the following two steps: 1) determining the base penalty; then 2) determining and calculating the adjustment of the base penalty, based on the particular facts of the case.
1. Determining the Base Penalty
This step, based on the grid below, is designed to provide an objective bases for calculating the penalty. The variation of the contravention from the regulatory requirements (columns) and the potential for adverse effect of the contravention (rows) are each classified as either minor, moderate or major. The base penalty is then determined by matching up these factors in the grid. The base penalty must fall within one of the nine boxes in the grid. There are no categories between the boxes in the grid.
Potential for Adverse Effect
The potential for adverse effect accounts for not only the actual environmental effect that occurred, but also for the potential effect that could reasonably result from the contravention. The potential effects range from minor through to major. A minor potential adverse effect includes paper offences where there is no potential impact to the environment. A major potential adverse effect may not cause a major or significant actual adverse effect. If the actual effect is serious, an administrative penalty will not be the enforcement tool chosen.
Variation from Regulatory Requirement
This factor is meant to be an indicator of the importance of the contravention. It is not meant to be an indicator of the degree of contravention (i.e., how far above the limit the contravention was). Minor contraventions include violating an administrative limit, such as submitting a required report late. Moderate contraventions include failing to perform a specific task such as conducting a stack survey. Major offences include exceeding an environmental limit such as the amount of substance that can be released into the environment, as specified in an approval or regulation.
|
Variation from Regulatory Requirement |
||||
|
Potential for Adverse Effect |
Major | Moderate | Minor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major | $5000 | $3500 | $2500 | |
| Moderate | 3500 | 2500 | 1500 | |
| Minor | 2500 | 1500 | 1000 | |
2. Adjustment of the Base Penalty
This step provides the discretion and flexibility to ensure the penalty is fair and reasonable. It also ensures that any factors that are relevant to the specific case are considered.
The following six factors are considered in the context of the particular facts of the case:
- The importance of compliance with the particular provision.
- The degree of willfulness or negligence in the contravention.
- Any mitigation of the contravention.
- Any enforcement history.
- Any economic benefit derived from the contravention.
- Any other factors the Director considers relevant.
Generally, each factor may influence the penalty by increasing or decreasing the base penalty by $500. Some factors may be neutral, and thus not change the base penalty while other factors may be so important that the penalty is adjusted by more than $500. These factors are tallied together to reach an overall increase or decrease to the base penalty. If there is more than one contravention, the adjustment is applied once to the total based penalty, not to each individual contravention.
The penalty resulting at the end of these two steps is the preliminary penalty assessment. The penalty assessment cannot exceed $5,000 per contravention per day, including the above adjustment factors. For some types of contravention, each day, or even a portion of a day, that the contravention continues may be a new contravention, such as exceeding an hourly substance release limit on an ongoing basis.
What is the Procedure after the Preliminary Penalty Assessment?
The Director will notify the party, by telephone, of the preliminary penalty assessment. During this time, the Director will also arrange a meeting with the party to review the assessment and the facts on which it is based. The Director will then send the part a preliminary penalty assessment letter that will describe the facts of the contravention and the calculation of the penalty.
The party may present relevant information relating to the incident or assessment of the administrative penalty. The Director will send a Notice of Administrative Penalty, which must be paid within 30 days.
Can an Administrative Penalty Be Appealed?
The party receiving the Notice of Administrative Penalty may initiate an appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board. The Board will make the final decision regarding the administrative penalty. Any questions about appeals should be directed to the Environmental Appeal Board.
II. Performance Measures and Reporting
1) Secretary's Quarterly Performance Report - Florida
The description below is an edited version of information provided at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ospp/report/intro.htm.
The Secretary's Quarterly Performance Report is composed of a four-tiered measurement system used to evaluate the agency's performance in meeting its mission. This tiered system provides policy makers with an understanding of the relative health of natural resources while providing the necessary context within which to evaluate the changing conditions of those resources.
Tier 1: Environmental and Public Health Outcome Indicators
Track long-term trends in the condition of Florida's natural resources, public
health and general environmental quality.
Tier 2: Behavioral and Cultural Measures
Track compliance rates, best management practices, volunteerism and other
behaviors that impact environmental quality.
Tier 3: Department Outputs and Activities
Track the traditional measures of program performance, such as numbers of
inspections, numbers of compliance assistance activities, or numbers of
violations.
Tier 4: Resource Efficiency Measures
Track the agency's budget, the cost of services, and the cost effectiveness of
interventions used to solve environmental problems.
The tiered format of the Secretary's Report provides the framework for problem identification and solution. Changes in a given issue at the Tier 1 level can be better understood in light of the information provided by the other tiers. The second tier relates measurements of behavior to the changes in the quality of the resource, such as the state of compliance for all regulated facilities. The third tier details the specific activities of the agency, while the fourth tier provides an assessment of the costs associated with conducting those activities. This 'tiering' of performance data allows one to understand the underlying causes of problems and to design appropriate interventions.
Within each edition of the Secretary's Report, an executive summary is provided in which interested readers are able to see how the Secretary has read the document. The summation of each major program segment contains the most important aspect of the Secretary's Report: the use of 'Good', 'Watch', and 'Focus' designations by the Secretary.
'Good' areas are those in which outcomes are being achieved and the associated programs are performing well. 'Watch' areas are those in which the data show a moderate cause for concern. Such situations suggest the presence of an emerging trend or pattern and require further investigation prior to taking specific action. 'Focus' areas are those that require immediate attention. Upon nomination as a Focus area, the responsible program provides the Secretary with further details and an action plan to address the issue.
The Report does not yet have targeted performance measures in place, but the Secretary is committed in print to developing performance measures that are "grounded in the public policy outcomes expected of the agency and tied to a responsive, results-oriented management culture."
2) Critical Trends Assessment Program (CTAP II) - Illinois
The description below represents an edited version of information provided at http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/inrin/ctap/ctaphome.htm.
The Critical Trends Assessment Program (CTAP) is an ongoing process to evaluate the state of the Illinois environment. It also provides scientific support for the Ecosystems Program under Conservation 2000, a multi-year initiative to preserve and restore Illinois ecosystems.
The primary goal of CTAP is to conduct statewide and regional assessments of environmental conditions. But when CTAP's first statewide assessment was completed in 1994, scientists reported that there was not enough data available to adequately assess ecosystem health. To rectify this situation, CTAP have developed methods such as land cover mapping and volunteer monitoring to systematically collect data and monitor ecosystems throughout the state. These methods together represent CTAP II.
Land Cover Mapping. Using Landsat imagery, DNR scientists have compiled a comprehensive database of the state's surface cover. CTAP staff have analyzed this data and published it in Illinois Land Cover, An Atlas. The report inventories land cover on both the state and county level. The companion CD-ROM allows users to view the land cover data and maps on a geographic basis, or if their computer has at least 16 MB of RAM, to display and manipulate the data. The landcover data will be updated every three to five years.
EcoWatch Network. a statewide network of volunteers monitoring programs coordinated through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Through programs such as RiverWatch, ForestWatch, PrairieWatch, WetlandWatch and UrbanWatch, adult volunteers and high school science teachers and students monitor rivers, forests, prairies, wetlands and more. Programs focus on high quality data collection, increased public awareness, and environmental stewardship.
Compliance Linkage. The State is developing and testing measures designed to tie compliance information with environmental impacts. For example, in a water measure that is now being used, Illinois calculates the amount of pollutants discharged to surface water that are in excess of each NPDES facility's permit limits. Illinois then calculates the percentage of non-compliance loadings by facility and watershed, and targets its compliance efforts to eliminate the most significant excess loads from its most highly stressed watersheds.
III. Abatement and Enforcement
1) Computer Assisted Inspections
The US EPA Region IV and several states - Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania among them - are experimenting with computer-assisted inspections. These initiatives are briefly described below. There are also handheld device projects underway in Texas and Colorado. Before examining specific initiatives, it is useful to examine the currently available technology for the devices.
The summary below is an edited version of information provided by Everett Bishop from the US EPA.
There are two major systems currently available on the open market: 1) the Palm Operating System, with roughly 75% of the hand-held market, and 2) Windows CE (older) and Pocket PC (newer) with roughly 20% of the market (some minor systems, presumably, make up the remaining 5%).
Palm Operating System
Palm is the leader in terms of the number of units available and ready-made software programs. Other companies that use the Palm OS system in their handheld models are Handspring (www.handspring.com) or Sony Corporation. These units generally have 4 to 8 MB of RAM available within the unit, with memory split between the operating system, program software, and memory to hold information (electronic checklists, books, etc.). Battery power has been an issue; the new Sony comes with rechargeable batteries.
Windows CE and Pocket PC
While the Windows operating system has more of a 'computer-like' capability than the Palm OS, it is also more complex to operate. Casio, Compaq and Hewlett-Packard are major players here. Memory ranges from 4 MB for the oldest Palm-like units to 16 or 32 MB for the clam-shell and clipboard size units. Most of these units are rechargeable; however, they consume more power than the Palm OS units.
The newer PocketPC operating system is simpler and easier to operate than the Windows CE, and has capability similar to a desktop computer. Standard memory for these units is 16 MB RAM and 16 MB ROM. The ROM provides a place for standard programs allowing the RAM to improve speed and be used for storage of additional programs and information.
Potential Uses of Hand-Held Units to Inspectors
Clearly handheld devices have a number of promising applications. One significant limit to current technology is that handwriting recognition is still another generation or two away from being useful and not a hindrance to the inspector. Current uses include the following:
Checklists. Today's technology allows for the effective use of checklists - including pull down screens, check-off boxes, and yes/no responses.
Information Storage and Retrieval. Given the storage capability of add-on storage cards, an inspector should be able to carry quite a lot of paper information in a hand-held for field usage. Anything that is printed on paper - for instance current regulations, special notes for certain pieces of equipment, testing protocols - can be input into the unit.
Software called Primer PDF Viewer converts documents intact - with all the graphics, fonts and formatting - as a PDF file on a handheld device; it is described at http://www.ansyr.com.
A company called Mobipocket has software that reformats and uploads paper for the handheld; it is opened with Mobipocket software (http://www.mobipocket.com/en/HomePage/default.asp).
Photography. There are now adapters that can be attached to hand held units enabling an inspector to take a decent, but not excellent, photograph (320 x 240 pixels).
Global Positioning System (GPS). Attachments can enable an agency to verify the location of the facility by latitude and longitude read-outs. In addition, if the inspector is in an area that is quite unfamiliar, there is map software that works in conjunction with the GPS unit to help direct the inspector to the site.
Print Information. In conjunction with the portable printers now on the market, an inspector can leave information with the facility without having to carry reams of paper into the field. By using Infra Red technology, an inspector can 'beam' the information from the handheld and print it through the portable printer.
Advance Communication. The most discussed issue with hand-held devices is the prospect of going wireless - the ability of the user to connect to the Internet without a landline. With wireless technology, the Inspector would be able to download information from an inspection directly into the agency's database. The inspector would also be able to retrieve messages, instructions for the next day's inspection, or even speak directly to someone in the office - i.e. a mobile phone in real time rather than through e-mail messages.
Apart from handheld devices, two other technologies might offer solutions for inspectors: e-Books and voice recorders.
e-Books. Nuvo Media has developed a two-pound device about the size of a paperback book that can hold four to twelve 200 page books. It is similar to the handheld units, but with a screen a little larger than a paperback. It is not useful for inputting data, but it has a very readable gray scale screen and is a good device for read-only types of information. Software is provided that allows the user to transform his/her documents into an e-Book. For further information see www.rocket-ebook.com.
Voice Recording. There are several small tape recorders, no bigger than 1.5'' wide by 6'' long and I'' thick that can run for about eight hours. Such devices would enable the inspector to describe the object, problem and emission that is being observed. A microphone is also provided that can be attached to the shirt pocket or collar, thereby keeping the inspector's hands free for other activities such as sketching, taking pictures or taking notes. In addition, many of these units have voice recognition software with about 90% accuracy in their translation, saving the inspector valuable time. The Olympus company has one such product.
Florida - Department of Environmental Protection
Within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Bureau of Information Systems was formerly housed in the Division of Resource Assessment and Management, until the Governor of Florida created a virtual agency for information issues. Ed Irby, the Assistant Director of Resource Assessment and Management, provided the information below. He can be contacted at (850) 922-6407, or Edwin.Irby@dep.state.fl.us.
All the regulatory divisions within the Florida DEP are looking at laptops or durable notebooks in the field. In particular the following are noteworthy:
- The Division of Waste is making an assessment as to whether palm hand-held devices could be used in a pilot project - the inspection of leaking tanks, within its Tank Program. In Florida, tank leaks constitute a multibillion-dollar problem; the issue is whether palm pilots have enough capacity for such a pilot. Mike Sole, the Deputy Division Director, is a source of further information: (850) 921-0788.
- The Division of Air is using durable notebooks - smaller than a laptop, bigger than a handheld - for downloading permit requirements and inspection sheets, and for producing reports. Howard Rhodes has further information at (850) 921-9540.
Pennsylvania - Department of Environmental Protection
The information below was provided by Zeke Brehm, Acting Electronic Commerce Coordinator, Office of Information Technology: zbrehm@state.pa.us (717) 705-3869. In particular, Mr. Brehm provided a study: "Concept of Operations for Using Mobile Devices to Improve Lab-Sample Information -Third Draft," by Bob Walter, Research Engineer, Penn State Applied Research Laboratory, November 3, 2000 (Bob Walter: rlw9@psu.edu; 814-863-8876).
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection is in the process of implementing a project to use mobile devices to improve lab sample information.
Background: Weaknesses of Current Lab-Sampling Process
- Process is paper intensive
- Handwriting on paper submission forms deteriorates in shipping process
- Handwriting on sample forms is sometimes illegible
- Sample information forms sometimes do not match the sample containers
- Laboratory personnel must re-enter sample header information into LIMS from sample information forms
- Sample header information in SIS and LIMS sometimes cannot be correlated due to data entry errors
How it Works: Sample Process Revisions through Mobile Devices
Field
- Query information about sample sites or upcoming inspections and download them to a mobile device
- Use pick-lists of options for entering sample information in mobile devices wherever possible
- Print completed sample information forms with intelligent bar-coding for inclusion with sample containers
Labs
- Scan barcodes on sample information forms or sample containers to automatically populate sample header information (instead of reading handwritten information on the sample)
Desired Benefits from Sample Process Revisions
Field
- Provides consistent client site information
- Reduces paperwork
- Allows more time to be spent on value-added tasks
- Improves accuracy
Labs
- Eliminates data entry
- Eliminates illegible Sample Submission Sheets
- Reduces effects of water damage to Sample Submission Sheets
- Provides consistent information
Direction and Status of Pilot
The following represents the next steps for the pilot:
- Define the requirements for the mobile device
- Synchronize the mobile device with eFACTS (Environment, Facility, Application, Compliance Tracking System).
- Design the system
- Develop and unit test system components
- Perform two-month field tests in Williamsport and evaluate strengths and weaknesses
- Demonstrate system to management and write recommendations
- Use the fielded system.
A successful interface with eFACTS will allow for a direct upload of information to data screens that document inventory items and process inspection, enforcement, and compliance records.
EPA - Region IV (Atlanta)
Information below was provided in a conversation with Bruce Miller, Deputy Director, Environmental Accountability Division: (404) 562-9655.
The Environmental Accountability Division (EAD) reflects Region IV's hybrid governance model with respect to inspection and enforcement: some enforcement functions are divided by media, while others remain with the EAD in an attempt to develop a big picture, multimedia approach to enforcement. The EAD attempts to negotiate priorities with head office and the media programs; but some employees have a dual chain of command which creates accountability and authority issues.
Working with EPA head office, the EAD arranged a pilot project to have Palm handheld devices used by the 40-odd field inspectors in the Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD). The SESD does the science work that inspectors use to build cases - especially with respect to groundwater contamination.
The purpose of the pilot project has been to determine whether the handheld devices can provide useful forms of information retrieval - for instance unusual standard protocols, or instantaneous information on a specific location. One of the drivers was the desire to improve communication between field inspectors and head office, and to improve inspection efficiency. It is too soon to make an assessment as to which information retrieval functions are most useful for the inspectors, and whether the devices will be rolled out to other parts of the organization. The devices have shown "some merit."
Dave Abbott, Technical Authority for Multimedia in Region IV, can provide further information at (404) 562-9631.
New York State - Department of Environmental Conservation
Information below is from a conversation with Eugene Pezdek, Director of information Services at (518) 457-6367; his e-mail is gwpezdek@gw.dec.state.ny.us.
For the last few months the Department of Environmental Conservation's Metro Resources Division - Mining and Land Use Areas has been using palm pilots (Palm 3). The palm pilots have been used to inspect mines and natural gas wells.
The driver for the project was simply that engineers used laptops before, but found them cumbersome and could not take them to the site easily. Training was relatively quick, since a shareware program had already been developed for another government agency (he could not recall which one) and New York made use of this program.
The challenge is to interface the information easily into a network environment, currently the data transfer takes a while, so that data can be uploaded and downloaded easily. The Department is looking at advanced technologies that will allow for data to be uploaded and downloaded easily.
It is too soon for the Department to provide an evaluation of the project.
Ontario Ministry of Labour - Handheld Computer Aggregate Pilot Project
The Inspection, Investigation and Enforcement (II&E) Secretariat was established to create strategies to enhance service quality, encourage consistency of compliance and better coordination of compliance activities, and to improve the use of existing resources through technological innovation.
An I&IT working group has been established by the II&E Secretariat that includes representatives of key II&E ministries (MOF, MOL, MOE, MNR, OMAFRA, MCCR and MTO). This group is developing opportunities to integrate information systems and investigate new technology in support of the Secretariat's mandate. Four ministries (MOL, MNR, MTO, MOE) have the mandate to ensure compliance in the Aggregates sector.
The Interministry Aggregates Inspection (IAI) pilot is testing the usefulness of sharing observations from separate inspections in order to prompt needed follow-up by participating ministries.
In addition to their regular inspection procedure, inspectors use a common checklist consisting of simple observational questions that can be answered regardless of an inspector's specific expertise (copy attached). The questions have been developed to highlight potential inspection opportunities for the other partner ministries. The report is then shared with the partner ministries and is used to assist in planning inspections and to target potential non-compliant sites. Current sharing is by fax and email, but the hand held wireless technology has the potential for electronic sharing.
The II&E Secretariat has also learned of an advanced technology application for mining inspections which has potential to greatly assist the IAI pilot and demonstrate how palm wireless, computer technology can be used to enhance service quality, consistency, coordination and deployment of scarce resources.
The Northern Centre for Advanced Technology (NORCAT) has developed an application for mineshaft inspections that uses a handheld device to identify workplace trends and high-risk situations. This device is used to compile mineshaft information by having the inspector enter the results of questions electronically. Data can then be used to print reports at that location, and is then transferred electronically to a central database. With the data stored centrally it can be used for all types of analysis and reporting. The application of NORCAT's palm computer system to the IAI pilot should also produce a more efficient data tracking and sharing system for the II&E community.
Purpose and Scope:
The purpose of this pilot is to integrate the business functions of the Aggregate pilot with the automation of the existing NORCAT handheld technology. The longer term vision is to "beam" compliance information through this wireless hand held technology between partner ministries to allow for increased coverage of the aggregates sector, to provide information which will assist in defining and prioritizing pits and quarries.
This system and technology will be applied similarly to other IIE compliance areas / sectors where several ministries share compliance responsibility.
Methodology & Timing:
The project includes three computers and seven handheld units (palms). The computers will be located in Sudbury (MOL), North Bay (MTO) and Timmins (MOL or MOE). The handheld units will be located in MOL (2 - Sudbury and Timmins), MTO (2 - North Bay), MNR (2 - Sudbury and North Bay) and MOE (1 - Timmins). The PC's will be linked to a main PC at NORCAT.
On each Palm there will be an area for tombstone data (refer to bottom of current checklist) as page 1, page 2 will be the Interministry Aggregate Checklist and page 3 will be an individual ministry checklist consisting of up to 20 questions.
The handheld units will be used by the ministry representatives and uploaded to their respective PC's, which will then be consolidated at the Norcat office.
| Projected Timeframe: | |
| Project Definition and Launch | Aug - Sept 2000 |
| Purchase, Configure and Install Technology | Sept - Oct 2000 |
| Project Kickoff Meeting | Sept 28, 2000 |
| Start Pilot | October 2, 2000 |
| Evaluation of Pilot | Jan - Feb 2000 |
| Partners: | ||
| II&E Secretariat | ||
| Denis Gertler | Manager. Business Model Integration | (416) 314-7192 |
| Michael Argue | Systems Business Analyst | (416) 314-7190 |
| NORCAT | ||
| Dennis Shannon | Manager/Contractor Orientation | (705) 521-8324, ext 227 |
| Interministry Aggregates Inspection Team | ||
| Gord Clark (lead) Sudbury |
MOL - District Manager | (705) 564-7401 |
| Tim Ruthenberg Sudbury |
MNR - Aggregates Technical Specialist | (705)-564-7855 |
| Dave Villard North Bay |
MTO - Aggregate Supervisor | (705) 497-6862 |
| Jim Deem | MOE - District Manager | (705) 235-1505 |
| Rick Guillemette Timmins |
MOL - Occ Health and Safety Inspector | (705) 235-1900 |
2) Enforcement Training - Commission for Environmental Cooperation Catalogue of North American Enforcement Training Courses
The information below is derived from the CEC website at http://www.inece.org/Projects/CATALOGUne1.html.
The catalogue was developed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), which derives its mandate from the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which in turn grew out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The catalogue was compiled and published in December 1996.
The catalogue was prepared by a consultant working under the direction of CEC and with assistance from the North American Working Group on Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Cooperation. Federal, state, local and regional government agencies and organizations in Canada, Mexico and the United States (29 in total) were contacted for contributions.
The catalogue is a compendium of 164 environmental enforcement-training programs offered by government for government officials in the area of pollution control. The purpose of this catalogue is to share information about environmental enforcement training programs, to enhance cooperation in the development and delivery of future training courses in Canada, Mexico and the United States, and potentially save the costs of creating training curricula and materials that have already been developed.
The catalogue is intended as a static reference book and does not provide course scheduling or a calendar of events. It provides brief information on environmental enforcement training programs currently or previously offered by North American enforcement agencies. Each entry includes:
- Course Title
- Course Length
- Target Audience
- Format (e.g., lectures, exercises, case studies, group discussions, problem- solving sessions, hands on workshops, and self-study)
- Course Description
- Contact
The catalogue is divided into the following major topics:
- Environmental Regulations, Statues and Laws
- Inspections and Investigations
- Enforcement
- Media-Specific
- Safety and Sampling
- Technical Skills
- Legal Issues Litigation and Prosecution
- Compliance and Enforcement Strategies
- Settlement Tools and Skills
To facilitate use, the courses are listed by type of course and by country and agency. A list of contacts is provided at the back of the catalogue for more detailed information on the training courses or programs of each country.
For further information contact:
Linda F. Duncan
Head, Law & Enforcement Cooperation Commission for Environmental Cooperation
E-mail: lduncan@ccemtl.org
Home Page: http://www.cec.org
3) Guides - General Accounting Office Enforcement Guide
The information below is taken from Chapter 17 of the Compliance Information Project Literature Summaries report - see http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oppa/litsummary.pdf.
The US General Accounting Office's 1997 'Investigators' Guide to Sources of Information is an investigative tool for identifying sources of information about people, property, business and finance. The Guide contains four chapters on information sources and a fifth on how to use the Internet for investigative purposes:
Chapter 1. Local and State Governments
-
Local Government
-
State Government
Chapter 2: Federal Agencies
-
Cabinet-Level Departments and Associated Agencies
-
Financial Institutions and Related Administrations and Corporations
-
Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
-
Legislative Branch Agencies
-
Judicial Branch
-
Inspectors General
Chapter 3: Directories, Reference Works, and Other Sources
-
Directory about Directories
-
Directories Focusing on Businesses
-
Directories Focusing on Individuals
-
Directories of Associations
-
Directories of Banks and Financial Institutions
-
Law Firm and Law Enforcement Directories
-
Lloyd's Directories About the Shipping Industry
-
Other Directories, Indexes, and Reference Works
-
Other Sources
Chapter 4: Electronic Databases
-
Government Investigative and Law Enforcement Databases
-
Other Databases
Chapter 5: Investigators' Guide to the Internet
-
Internet: the Storehouse of Government Information
-
Accessing the Internet
-
Examples of Internet Functions and Tools
-
Searching the Net
-
Internet Sites Provide Valuable Information
-
Security on the Internet
The Guide's descriptions of information found in specific electronic databases were furnished by the organizations that administer the databases and have not been validated by GAO. Depending on their specific needs, users of the Guide may want to independently validate the currency and accuracy of information in the databases. Tables in Chapters 1 and 2 provide details on topics discussed in the chapters.
For further information, the publication number is GAO/OSI-97-2, and the complete report may be obtained at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/soi.htm.
4) Priority-Setting - Regional Office of US EPA
The information below is taken from pages 161-162 of the 1995 NAPA study, Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA. Dewitt John - the Project Director of the study - was unable to say which EPA regional office is being described. Without identification of the regional office the information has not been verified, and therefore should be taken as provisional.
According to the 1995 US National Academy of Public Administration study - Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA - the enforcement division in one EPA regional office uses a "state of the art, risk-driven targeting" system to set priorities for multi-media investigations and cases. The effort is a sharp and deliberate departure from the region's previous practice.
The director of this unit claims that EPA traditionally rewarded its enforcement divisions for filing high numbers of cases each year and collecting large amounts of fines, not for preventing pollution or reducing risks. To shift attention to the environment rather than the tally sheet, the enforcers worked with the risk specialists in their Environmental Services Division to build a risk-based scoring system. The approach uses computerized data in the region's geographic information system to identify facilities whose possible permit violations might pose significant risks.
How it Works. The system starts by using a facility's TRI reports and a toxicity estimate for each pollutant the facility emits to estimate the toxicity of emissions from the facility. Then the system looks at the facility's 'environmental setting': the number of people, groundwater wells, and surface waters nearby. Toxicity plus exposure potential yields up to 30 points in the 100-point scoring system. The census data in the mapping system can also identify the demographic characteristics of potentially exposed populations, targeting areas where environmental justice may be an issue. The scoring system adds more points for facilities with a history of violations, for those with high community concern, and for several other considerations. The result is a score for each facility in the area; the higher the score, the more reason to consider inspecting a facility.
Although the scores for the facilities are confidential, the criteria are not. The office hopes its system will deter significant pollution simply by virtue of its explicit nature and its emphasis on multi-media impacts.
Challenges. The office director believes that multi-media enforcement and management are critical but impeded by EPA's single-media statutes. The director added that Congress ought to understand that the rigid deadlines and 'hammers' they have built into the statutes have not been truly effective. They have driven agency actions, but they have not necessarily produced the best results. More important agency activities have not been completed.
This office director acknowledges the difficulty of maintaining accountability in a system based on maximizing compliance or risk reduction, because these things are harder to count than case numbers, convictions, or fines. Administrator Browner made a similar point when she announced the reorganization of the agency's enforcement division: "Enforcement success should be measured more by reference to improvements in compliance rates and environmental quality, not just by reference to the number of cases brought forward or other activity counts."
5) Colorado Compliance Study - Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
The information below is taken from Chapter 17 of the Compliance Information Project Literature Summaries report - see http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oppa/litsummary.pdf. The information has not been verified and should be taken as provisional.
The 'Colorado Compliance Study' is a compendium of innovative approaches to Clean Air Act inspections, enforcement and compliance assistance. Prepared by an independent contractor for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the report includes information provided by Federal regulators and state and local air quality boards. Topics include template permit language, source-specific inspections forms, self-certifications of CEM equipment, inspector on-site assistance, improved inspector-permit writer interaction, facility compliance plans, and other tools. The contractor conducted interviews with Colorado air compliance program staff, followed by questionnaires and interviews with air program personnel in numerous states, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Here are some highlights of the study's findings regarding tools likely to increase compliance rates:
- The study cites template permit language, source-specific inspection forms, and increased reliance on self-certifications, coupled with enhanced monitoring and record-keeping, as useful tools for cutting inspection times and streamlining permit approvals.
- Indiana's survey responses cited 'inspector onsite assistance at the time a permit is issued' as the single factor most likely to increase compliance rates.
- Louisiana cited perceived compliance rate improvements over the past few years as due to, among other factors, better and more detailed permits, improved interaction between the inspectors and permits sections during permit review, utilizing the same inspectors over time, and stable inspector management.
- SCAQMD described three VOC control regulations that rely on self-auditing as the primary means of determining compliance. SCAQMD compared noncompliance before and after the rules became self-implementing by conducting field audits. It determined that compliance rose from approximately 70% to more than 90%. At the same time, the staff responsible for compliance with these rules was cut from five to three. Credible government verification audits were cited as a critical factor in the program's success.
The predominant view of the compliance officers interviewed for the study was that field inspections remain the most effective and reliable tool for determining compliance with most types of air requirements. Additional activities that enhance compliance include facility self-certifications, and audits and incentives for voluntary disclosure.
The table below provides additional examples of compliance strategies described in the study:
| State | Compliance Strategies |
|---|---|
| Kansas | Requires source-specific inspection forms, which provide guidance to inspectors as to applicable requirements and permit limits. Multiple facilities owned by the same company can receive reduced inspections if the first few facilities inspected are in full compliance. |
| Minnesota | Targets inspections using referrals from its Records Review Unit based on CEM and continuous opacity monitoring data. |
| Indiana | Uses 'new permit' inspections to instruct facilities on how to self-certify. |
| Minnesota & SCAQMD | Require sources to self-certify their CEM equipment, reducing labor-intensive inspector time. |
The Contractor found no objective data to permit quantitative comparisons among innovative and conventional compliance strategies, and that efforts to determine the most effective mix of compliance assistance and enforcement were prohibitively difficult.
To obtain copies of the report contact Christopher Dann, Public Information Officer, Colorado Department of Health and the Environment (303) 692-3281.
APPENDIX C: EMERGING BEST PRACTICES IN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Introduction
It is worth recalling the definition of cooperative agreements from the main body of the paper:
Cooperative Agreement - an agreement that requires parties to meet binding information disclosure and performance outcomes in return for government incentives. Often includes 'backdrop' legislation that may detail the rules and consequences for opting-in or opting-out (also known as creating a "level playing field" or dealing with "free riders") and penalties for breaches.
The scope of the above definition includes: 1) unilateral industry commitments, 2) public disclosure schemes, 3) recognition programs, and 4) negotiated agreements and covenants.
This appendix is a sampling from the broad literature on cooperative agreements. The Pollution Probe study Towards Credible and Effective Environmental Voluntary Initiatives: Lessons Learned (June 1999), and the OECD study Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy: An Assessment (1999), helped provide the overall framework. The sampling also follows from interviews with officials at MOE, EPA and elsewhere; information was compiled by drawing on relevant paper and Internet sources as specified in each case.
The sampling is not exhaustive - it is only a snapshot of some of the most promising emerging best practices. No detailed evaluations have yet taken place as to how cooperative agreements can be most effective in achieving their environmental and management objectives. Nevertheless, the New Directions Group has developed criteria that need to be considered for the design and evaluation of new cooperative agreements (see Appendix A).
Further information on the scope of the literature can be obtained from the project team.
I. Unilateral Industry Commitments
1) Responsible Care -- 42 Countries
The description below is derived from Towards Credible and Effective Voluntary Initiatives: Lessons Learned (June 1999) by Pollution Probe and http://www.ccpa.ca/english/library/RepDocsEN/RC99EN.pdf.
The Responsible Care® Programme is the best example of a purely industry-driven voluntary code. The programme is based on a system of principles and rules designed to improve the safe and environmentally sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycles. The purpose of the Responsible Care® Programme is to demonstrate that the chemical industry can voluntarily implement effective measures for managing chemicals, products and processes. The programme involves a new ethic that is captured in a set of six codes of practice, containing more than 150 requirements.
Community Awareness and Emergency Response. Each member company must have ongoing processes to identify and respond to community concerns, inform the community of risks associated with company operations, and have its own emergency plan integrated with the community's emergency response plan.
Research and Development. The R&D code challenges companies to fully understand and minimize the risks arising from new chemical products, processes, equipment and new uses for existing products. This code covers each stage of development from initial research to the product's arrival in the marketplace.
Manufacturing. This code requires systems to be in place to protect employees, the community and the environment from any harmful effects stemming from manufacturing operations. It covers new and existing manufacturing sites, and deals with all aspects of their operation.
Transportation. The transportation code requires that each member-company transport chemicals and chemical products in a manner that minimizes environmental damage and risk of injury to people living along transportation routes.
Distribution. The distribution code covers members' activities related to the sale and use of chemicals, chemical products and services. It calls for standards, procedures and training for the storage and handling of chemical products.
Hazardous Waste Management. This code challenges companies to avoid the production of wastes in the first place. For unavoidable wastes that cannot be reused, recycled, or recovered, it calls for the sound management of all aspects of waste, including storage, treatment, disposal, destruction, and the care and closure of hazardous waste sites.
How it Works in Canada. In Canada, more than seventy chemical companies participate in the programme, which is a condition of CCPA membership: each member-company must commit to implement the ethic and codes of practice within three years of joining CCPA.
The most senior executives of each member-company meet quarterly in leadership groups to share problems and successes and to exert peer pressure. These groups can request the removal of any company failing to live up to their Responsible Care® commitments (this has happened once in Canada).
Companies participating in the programme must submit to regular compliance verification through a process that involves industry experts and public and community representatives. The CCPA makes monitoring results public, and the programme is subject to regular reviews and revisions. Adherence to Responsible Care® codes requires companies to be in compliance with all statutory requirements; however, membership is not a guarantee by the CCPA that companies are in compliance with environmental regulations and other government requirements.
Among the benefits of Responsible Care® that the CCPA has noted are reductions in legal claims and reduced delays in regulatory application proceedings.
In 1999, the Responsible Care Programme implemented a second round of the verification process. This second round focused more on performance measures and on ensuring that the Responsible Care® ethic is in place and that there is no slippage since the first round of verification.
2) Worldwide - ISO 14001/ Environmental Management Systems
The following description is an edited version of the EMS discussion of the World Bank's Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998: Toward Cleaner Production, along with specified passages from Pollution Probe (1999).
A detailed case study of ISO 14001 is provided in the main body of this paper.
Background
The best-known common framework for Environmental Management Systems is the ISO 14000 series. This series is based on the overall approach and broad success of the quality management standards prepared and issued as the ISO 9000 series. ISO 14000 consists of a series of standards covering eco-labeling and life cycle assessment (LCA), as well as EMS. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines an EMS as "that part of the overall management system which includes organizational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining the environmental policy."
In 1996, the documents covering EMS - ISO 14001 and ISO 14004 - were formally adopted as international standards. There are two other major EMS standards: the British BS 7750, which was one of the first broadly accepted systems and has been adopted by a number of other countries, and EMS, the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. A process of harmonization has been under way to ensure reciprocal acceptability of these systems with ISO 14001. BS 7750 and EMAS are, however, broader in their requirements than ISO 14000. In particular, EMAS includes requirements for continued improvement of performance and for communication with the public, requirements that are not part of ISO 14001.
How it Works
An EMS can be described as a program of continuous environmental improvement that follows a defined sequence of steps drawn from established project management practice and routinely applied in business management. In simple terms these steps are as follows:
- Review the environmental consequences of the operations.
- Define a set of policies and objectives for environmental performance.
- Establish an action plan to achieve the objectives.
- Report the results appropriately.
- Review the system and the outcomes and strive for continuous improvement.
Not every system will present these steps in exactly the same way, but the basic principles are clear and easily understandable.
The ISO 14000 series is a series of standards for different aspects of environmental management. ISO 14001 sets out the basic structure for an EMS, while ISO 14004 provides guidance. The crucial feature of the ISO 14001 standard is that it identifies the elements of a system that can be independently audited and certified.
Compliance with ISO 14001 does not by itself automatically ensure that an enterprise will actually achieve improved environmental performance. The standard requires that there be an environmental policy that "includes a commitment to environmental improvement and pollution prevention" and "a commitment to comply with relevant environmental legislation and regulations." It also requires that the enterprise establish procedures for taking corrective and preventive action in cases of nonconformance. The issue becomes one of following the spirit and not just the letter of the standard. The desirable approach would be for management to make a commitment to specific environment performance improvements within a defined period and then use ISO 14000 as the mechanism for demonstrating that it is complying with that commitment.
Legal reasons that have been offered for why a company should adopt an EMS include: reduced liability and associated costs; reduced legal costs for permitting and compliance management; fewer fines and penalties; and the ability to demonstrate reasonable care or due diligence.
An EMS, as normally envisaged, builds on existing production and quality management systems. Where such systems are weak or ineffective, as is often the case in enterprises that have poor environmental performance, a better management framework has to be established before focusing on the details of the EMS.
A full EMS can be complex and can require an appreciable commitment of operational resources. However, the final system can be reached reasonably through a series of discrete steps, starting from a basic, simple procedure and becoming more comprehensive and sophisticated as capabilities and resources allow. In this way, even a small enterprise can begin to put in place the basic elements of an ISO 14001 system and can develop them at an appropriate pace. Once the basic EMS is in place, it is possible to carry out a gap analysis and to make a balanced judgment on the costs and benefits of seeking certification.
II. Public Disclosure and Recognition Schemes
1) Canada - Accelerated Reduction/ Elimination of Toxics (ARET)
The following description is an edited, slightly amended version of passages from the Environmental Leaders 3 Update: ARET published by Environment Canada (2000) and Pollution Probe (1999).
Background
The Accelerated Reduction/ Elimination of Toxics (ARET) Programme was initiated in the early 1990s as a multi-stakeholder committee composed of government, industry, environmental, labour, health and other sector representatives. Environmental and labour groups eventually withdrew from ARET for a variety of reasons, including the need to agree to phase out the production and use of persistent toxic substances, rather than simply reduce emissions of substances (Pollution Probe 1999).
How it Works
Environment Canada's overview states: "ARET is a multi-stakeholder pollution prevention and abatement initiative involving industry, health and professional organizations, as well as governments across Canada. Its purpose is to decrease the adverse effects of toxic substances on human health and the environment by accelerating the reduction or elimination of toxic substance emissions, including those that persist in the environment and may bioaccumulate in living organisms. The ARET initiative promotes cooperation among industry, governments and other stakeholders, and provides participants the opportunity to gain credibility, public trust and support while improving their environmental performance. ARET participants voluntarily set emission reduction targets, thereby creating an open and non-prescriptive approach to the prevention of toxic pollution. Participants report publicly on their progress toward achieving toxic reduction targets."
The four key components of the ARET process are
- The development of the ARET Substances List using science-based criteria and multi-stakeholder agreement;
- The ARET Challenge to potential program participants;
- The response to the ARET Challenge in the form of an ARET Action Plan where program participants make a public commitment to achieve specific reduction or elimination goals by a specific date; and
- The ARET participants' report of progress achieved and the annual publication of results.
Participation. As of Environment Canada's 2000 update, 316 facilities from 169 companies and government organizations have submitted action plans to the ARET program. An additional 142 companies and government organizations have filed Declarations of Support for ARET in which they state they have negligible or no emissions of ARET substances. Nine industry sector associations are on the ARET Stakeholders Committee. Fifty-eight per cent of the overall membership of these sectoral associations participate in the program with action plans to reduce emissions of ARET substances. An additional 33 per cent of the associations' members have declared their support for ARET and that they have no or negligible emissions of ARET substances. The Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada is not included in these calculations; the rationale provided is that most of its more than 2,500 members are small companies for which participation may not be practical due to the limited amount of ARET substances they emit (Environment Canada).
In September 1999, the ARET Secretariat released a discussion paper on the future of the ARET program. It presented options, and key issues and principles to be considered when designing a successor program to ARET. The issues presented included increasing participation in ARET, evaluating the current ARET substances list with the objective of adding/deleting certain substances based on scientific data, and verifying the data reported by ARET participants.
Environmental groups have pointed to problems in the verification of industry data reported to ARET. The dispute over the 'virtual elimination' of persistent toxic substances versus the 'reduction' in use of these substances remains unresolved, even though ARET is generally regarded as a success due to the results achieved to date. Public comment on the ARET discussion paper is available on the ARET website at http://www.ec.gc.ca/aret/consult/consul_e.html.
Workshops in Ottawa and Calgary were planned for 2000 to discuss significant issues, including design of a renewed ARET program. In late 2001, the final report of the current ARET program will be released.
2) 33/50 - US EPA
The summary below is from the US EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/3350/33fin01.htm.
Background
The 33/50 Program targeted 17 priority chemicals and set as its goal a 33% reduction in releases and transfers of these chemicals by 1992 and a 50% reduction by 1995, measured against a 1988 baseline. The first of EPA's series of voluntary programs, its primary purpose was to demonstrate whether voluntary partnerships could augment the Agency's traditional command-and-control approach by bringing about targeted reductions more quickly than would regulations alone.
The program also sought to foster a pollution prevention ethic, encouraging companies to consider and apply pollution prevention approaches to reducing their environmental releases rather than traditional end-of-the-pipe methods for treating and disposing of chemicals in waste.
How it Worked
- The 33/50 Program achieved its goal in 1994, one year ahead of schedule, primarily through program participants' efforts.
- Although the largest reductions in 33/50 Program chemicals reflected US action to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals under the Montreal Protocol, facilities also reduced releases and transfers of the other 33/50 chemicals by 50% from 1988 to 1995.
- Facilities reported more source reduction activity (pollution prevention) for 33/50 chemicals than for other TRI chemicals and this activity covered a greater percentage of production-related waste for 33/50 chemicals than for other TRI chemicals.
- Reductions continued at a higher rate for 33/50 chemicals than for other TRI chemicals in the year after the 33/50 Program ended.
The program has been completed. A report entitled 33/50: The Final Record, is available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/3350/index.html.
3) Prevention Pledge Program (P4) - Ontario Ministry of Environment
The information below is derived from the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (C2p2) website, at http://c2p2.sarnia.com/recognition/p4/p4.html.
Background
The Pollution Prevention Pledge Program (P4) of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is an incentive and recognition program that acknowledges the environmental achievements of industrial, commercial, institutional, community and government organizations. Achievements include reduction or planned reduction in releases of chemicals to the environment, lowering the use of toxic chemicals, and in diminishing the generation of disposal of hazardous or liquid industrial wastes. The Program encourages adoption of pollution prevention and pollution prevention planning.
Two hundred and twenty-six (226) facility sites have enrolled in the program to date. Five facilities are currently registered at the P1level, and 142 facilities are registered beyond the P1level. Total reductions achieved and reported through this program (P3 and P4 levels only) account for 52,500 tonnes per year beyond legal requirements.
How it Works
Recognition is given to facilities that have achieved reductions (or have planned reductions) in: release of chemicals in the environment, the use of toxic chemicals, and/or the generation or disposal of hazardous and liquid industrial wastes.
Companies and other organizations can participate in the Pollution Prevention Pledge Program at one of four progressive levels, according to their progress in implementing a pollution prevention strategy:
P1Registration and Planning, for facilities intending to make a commitment;
P2 Reduction Commitment Pledge, for facilities that are ready to make a targeted, public commitment;
P3 Reduction Achievement, for facilities that have achieved release reductions beyond legal requirement;
P4 Pollution Prevention Achievement, for facilities that have achieved reductions in the use or generation of toxic substances and hazardous wastes using pollution prevention methods.
The ministry has two ways of recognizing companies that are committed to
pollution prevention. It gives out certificates and decals and holds an annual
awards program for outstanding participants.
Certificates. Each facility or company enrolled at the P2, P3, or P4
level receives a certificate, signed by the Minister of the Environment,
acknowledging its level of participation in the program. Participants that have
reached the P4 level also receive a decal, bearing Ontario's pollution
prevention symbol, which they can display on the company premises and
stationary.
Awards. For outstanding participants, the Ministry of the Environment hosts the prestigious annual Pollution Prevention Pledge Awards. These awards are presented in two categories: The Pollution Prevention Achievement Award and the Pollution Prevention Leadership Award.
The Pollution Prevention Achievement Award recognizes outstanding reductions in emissions and discharges to the environment through improvements in process design and plant operation and maintenance, redesign of products or elimination and substitution of toxic materials. This award is divided into three categories - small, medium and large facilities.
The Pollution Prevention Leadership award is given to the environmental group, workplace association or company with a number of sites in Ontario that has made the most significant contribution to pollution prevention during the past year through education and outreach.
The following P4 Award Winners were recognized November 16, 1999. For more information, contact Mike Giannotti, Ministry of the Environment at 416-314-3899.
Large Facility Achievement Award
Marconi Communications Canada Incorporated (St. Thomas) for eliminating Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from its operation by switching from liquid-based to powder-based paint, and retrofitting a wave solder machine to accommodate the use of VOC-free, aqueous-based fluid.
Medium Facility Achievement Award
Xerox Canada Limited (Oakville Colour Toner Plant) for achieving 47% reduction in disposal by implementing a Toner Fines Reclamation Process.
Small Facility Achievement Award
Hawley Pontiac Buick Cadillac Limited (Mississauga) for the company's decision to undertake projects that allow them to operate more efficiently and have less of an environmental impact. Specifically, the company replaced paint spray guns, installed an automatic spray gun washer which saves on solvent purchases, and switched to primer paints with low Volatile Organic Compound content.
Leadership Award
Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (Sarnia) for promoting pollution prevention as the strategy of choice for protecting the environment through active involvement in developing and facilitating P2 workshops and conferences and establishing information resources on behalf of local, provincial and national organizations.
4) National Environmental Performance Track Program - US EPA
The following description is derived from two publications: 1)'National Environmental Performance Track - Achievement Track Facts'; at http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/; 9/3/00; and 2) 'National Environmental Achievement Track Program Description;' at http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/about/descriptionjune2000.pdf.
Background
Over the last several years, EPA has joined states, businesses and community and environmental groups in experimenting with new approaches that achieve high levels of environmental protection with greater efficiency; EPA examples include its Common Sense Initiative, Project XL, the Environmental Leadership Program and Region I's Star Track program. Likewise, many states have developed innovative programs for improving environmental performance.
The National Environmental Performance Track program builds upon the lessons EPA has learned from several state leadership programs and from its own efforts. It has been designed so that criteria for participation are proportional to the benefits. It is meant to recognize innovation, motivate others to improve, and complement existing regulatory activities. It will encourage participation by small, medium and large facilities. It also emphasizes the importance of effective state/EPA partnerships and the need to inform and involve citizens and communities.
How it Works
The program defines what it means to be a top environmental performer and provides incentives to motivate further improvements. It defines performance at two levels: The National Environmental Achievement Track and the National Environmental Stewardship Track (coming May 2001).
Achievement Track. To qualify for the Achievement Track, a facility must demonstrate that it:
- Has adopted and implemented an environmental management system that includes certain specified elements;
- Is able to demonstrate specific environmental achievements and commit to continued improvement;
- Commits to public outreach and performance reporting; and
- Has a record of sustained compliance with environmental requirements.
EPA intends to offer several incentives that will be available to participants. These include:
- An Achievement Track facility will be a low priority for inspection targeting purposes (does not require revision of existing guidance documents or rulemaking).
- More direct access to the reduced reporting and monitoring available under the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) provisions of the Clean Water Act (possible through an administrative action or by issuing or amending guidance documents).
- Reducing the frequency of reports required under the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) provisions of the Clean Air Act (requires rulemaking changes to its current regulatory programs).
- The opportunity for expedited review for companies that submit Premanufacturing Notifications (PMNs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act, if the substance is manufactured in an Achievement Track facility and the applicant uses EPA's Pollution Prevention Framework in preparing the PMN submission (requires rulemaking).
StewardshipTrack. The National Environmental Stewardship Track is still under development. It is being designed to recognize and encourage broader and higher levels of voluntary environmental performance than those expected under the Achievement Track. These may include improvements in several categories of environmental performance; a focus on environmental management and performance with regard to customers, suppliers and transporters; attention to product stewardship; and enhanced community engagement and public outreach.
In developing the Stewardship Track, EPA intends to follow these steps:
- Hold focus group discussions with stakeholders to discuss design elements, including appropriate incentives.
- Assess existing sector initiatives focused on improving environmental performance among sectors to determine their applicability.
- Hold public meetings to present and discuss the preliminary program design.
- Release a draft document for public comment.
- Make a formal announcement of the Stewardship Track program.
- Solicit the initial round of applications.
EPA Administrator's Environmental Awards Program. EPA is also establishing an Administrator's Environmental Awards Program to recognize the highest level of environmental performance and leadership in the business sector. The awards will be given once a year to a select number of organizations with exemplary environmental accomplishments. Building on the tenets of the Performance Track, the Administrator's Environmental Awards will spotlight companies whose innovations, technological advancements, or integrated management systems achieve significant breakthroughs in environmental performance and management. The criteria for determining winners and the selection process will be announced in the spring of 2001, with the first award presented approximately six months later.
5) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Governor's Awards for Pollution Prevention
The information below is derived from http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2gov.html.
Background
In 1993, the Deputy Commissioner for the DEC Office of Environmental Quality recommended to the DEC Commissioner that a New York State Governor's Award Program be established to recognize and encourage pollution prevention efforts by both large and small industries. The DEC Commissioner concurred and subsequently sent the recommendation to the Governor's Office for approval. Early in 1994, the Governor directed the Pollution Prevention Unit to proceed with the award selection process.
In developing the criteria and program for the award ,the Pollution Prevention Unit obtained input from the states of Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Alaska, which have similar programs in place. A draft of the criteria/program was sent to our Multimedia Pollution Prevention (M2P2) Advisory Group after review from our staff. An application package containing an application form, brochure and the Governor's letter was sent to approximately 2500 applicants, including industrial facilities, trade associations, local governments and not-for-profit organizations in New York State.
New York then decided to establish an outside committee to evaluate and rank the applications. The committee, consisting of members from the business community, environmental groups, and State agencies, has also provided input in the development of a ranking scheme for the applicants. It was made clear by the DEC Executive office and the external committee that all applicants must be in good standing with NYS Environmental Conservation Law.
How it Works
Each year, after a preliminary review by Pollution Prevention staff and DEC Compliance Counsel, the applications are divided into three groups. Two committee members are assigned to evaluate the applications for each group. Each application is also reviewed for technical merit by a DEC technical group consisting of representatives from the Environmental Quality Divisions and a member of our staff. The regional staff familiar with the applicants will also provide input. Each committee member will receive comments from the DEC's legal, program and regional staff. The committee then meets to discuss and rank the applications.
Each application is evaluated against the following criteria:
- Description of Pollution Prevention Project, Program or Technology
- Waste Volume/Toxicity Reduction
- Environmental, Economic and Other Benefits
- Commitment and Leadership
- Relevance to Others
- Community Involvement
Each criterion has a relative weight that is used to calculate a final score for each application. The committee submits a list of candidates to the DEC Commissioner, who in turn submits the list of finalists to the Governor for his/her approval. The awards are presented by the Governor during the Annual Pollution Prevention Conference.
6) Japan - Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment
The information below is amalgamated from several pages on the Keidanren website at http://www.keidanren.or.jp/index.html.
Background
In 1991, Keidanren announced the "Keidanren Global Environmental Charter" and declared its intentions to pursue voluntary and active efforts to preserve the environment. In 1996 it prepared the "Keidanren Appeal on the Environment," which specified concrete policies aimed at a number of goals: dealing with global warming, building a society based on a recycling economy, establishing environmental management and auditing systems, and incorporating environmental concerns in overseas building activities. Consistent with such actions, it announced the "Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment" in 1997, through which it created an ongoing framework designed for the steady implementation of environmental measures at all levels of Japanese industry.
How it Works
The Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan is an effort in which each of the 41 participating industries and 142 industrial organizations has used its own discretion to improve the environment, without pressure from any government or regulatory framework. Underlying the plan is the assumption that industry accountability had to be increased through declaring specific objectives and conducting follow-up surveys each year, allowing 'incentives in the form of public promises' to work, and bringing to bear the maximum amount of voluntary effort. By making environmental efforts industry-wide, Keidanren hopes that it will mobilize action among all of Japan's citizens. Similar voluntary efforts are also underway in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia, and are becoming a major current among the advanced nations.
In relation to global warming, Keidanren announced at the time it adopted the 1997 action plan that its goal would be "to endeavour to reduce CO2 emissions from the industrial and energy-conversion sectors to below the levels of 1990 by 2010." To provide transparency, a mechanism has been established by which each industry's action plan, and findings of the follow-up surveys, are reported to the Industrial Structure Council and other bodies for third-party reviews. In addition, the Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan is identified as a major component of global warming measures developed and adopted by the Japanese government in June 1998.
With regard to waste disposal measures, Keidanren has investigated and made public the status of efforts engaged in by major industries since 1990. As a way of furthering such activities, Keidanren integrated waste disposal measures into its voluntary action plan in 1997. Many industries have now declared targets related to recycling rates, final disposal volumes, etc. and have spelled out policies for achieving them.
Keidanren has a pro-market, anti-regulation agenda, as evident in its October, 2000 policy statement, "Keidanren demands resolute promotion of regulatory reforms and the establishment of a new system for the twenty-first century." See http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2000/052.html.
A follow-up to the 1997 action plan took place one year later. It is available at www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/pol097/outline.hmtl.
III. Negotiated Agreements and Covenants
1) Netherlands - Environmental Policy in the Chemical Industry
The information below is taken from pages 27-28 of the main body of this paper.
Declaration on the Implementation of Environmental Policy in the Chemical
Industry
The Netherlands
1993
Description
Each company in the environmental agreement produces a company environmental plan (CEP) every four years, covering an 8-year period. The plan is approved by the local licensing authority and used as the basis for the operating licence. The plan must achieve targets set out in the Integrated Environmental Target Plan (IETP) for the chemical industry sector, which, in turn, complement the targets set in the National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP), NEPP-Plus, and other action plans (CFC action plan, Hydrocarbons 2000, etc.) There are 61 quantitative emission reductions for 2000 and 2010, with 40 in 1995, for pollutants related to: climate change, acidification, air, water, and eutrophication.
Participation
There are 108 signatories to the agreement, including three government ministries, Association of Provincial Authorities, Union of Netherlands Municipalities, Association of Water Control Boards, Association of the Dutch Chemical Industry, and 103 individual companies. The agreement is legally binding; however, there is no sanction against the companies if they fail to meet the targets other than losing the benefit of a simplified approvals procedure.
Benefits
The chemical industry as a whole benefited by being involved in the development of pollution reduction targets. Companies in the agreement benefit from a simplified, more flexible licensing process for operational licenses issued by water boards and municipal and provincial authorities. This multi-media approach leads to better prioritization of environmental initiatives. It also requires co-operation between two licensing authorities, thereby reducing the cost of obtaining an operating licence. More companies are encouraged to adopt environmental management systems.
Challenges
Available information is not very specific, although one may speculate that it was a challenge to have such a large number of signatory parties agree to so many targets at once. There is no information about the involvement of stakeholder groups. However, the low level of stakeholder participation and weak information disclosure has been a general criticism of environmental agreements in the European Community (see Table 4-2 for a general description of environmental agreements). It was also a challenge to collect and verify quantitative data to compare the effectiveness of this environmental agreement to a status quo situation. While there have been significant pollution reductions, it is difficult to tell if these are due to the environmental agreement or other policy instruments.
Results
It is estimated that the environmental agreement has contributed to emission reduction for 33 of 61 priority pollutants. Government and industry participants agree that these improvements are being achieved at a lower cost to industry than would have been the case under the traditional approvals process. Dialogue has begun within the chemical industry on how to achieve the more demanding targets for 2010.
References
Environmental Agreements: Environmental Effectiveness. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen 1997: 69-73.
European Environmental Agency web site: www.eea.eu.int
2) United States EPA - Project XL
The information below is from pages 24-26 of the main body of this paper.
Project XL
US Environmental Protection Agency
1995
Description
Project XL, which stands for "eXcellence and Leadership" is a national initiative that tests innovative ways of achieving better and more cost-effective public health and environmental protection that goes beyond compliance with existing requirements ("compliance-plus") in conjunction with greater accountability to stakeholders. The information and lessons learned from Project XL are used to assist EPA in redesigning its current regulatory and policy-setting approaches.
Participation
The program is open to business, local and state governments, and communities with a good compliance history with EPA regulations. To be accepted, Project XL proposals must develop alternative environmental management strategies that satisfy eight very stringent requirements, and two additional ones if the proponent is a community. Most important are that the projects must satisfy a test of superior environmental (SEP) results using quantitative and qualitative performance measures; demonstrate the potential to reduce costs, improve operating efficiency, including innovations that promote regulatory flexibility, and strong support from stakeholder groups, who are to be involved in the day-to-day aspects of project negotiations. The proponent should also provide stakeholders with the necessary technical training. Following a public comment period and approval, the proponent, EPA and other co-regulators, and direct participant stakeholders sign a final project agreement. It now takes about six months for approval. There are currently 46 approved projects (see Table 4-1). Project XL's target is to have 50 approved projects. (See Appendix B for a detailed example of one such project).
Benefits
Participants are offered reduced administrative burdens or increased regulatory flexibility; however, they are not exempt from environmental laws. Some of the other reported benefits to participants, besides the obvious environmental ones, are: streamlined administrative processes, improved relationships with stakeholders and regulators, cost savings from improved efficiencies and regulatory avoidance. The US EPA will benefit by identifying cost-effective innovations in compliance and environmental management that can be used by EPA and state agencies.
Challenges
The US EPA had to create new ways to allow companies to experiment, but still hold them accountable for performance and results. It had to be satisfied that no one was at risk, and that communities and stakeholders were involved at all stages of the process. The approvals process itself was significantly re-engineered to speed up approvals from 24 months down to 6 months. EPA also had to be certain that prospective environmental improvements were realistic and attainable.
Results
Project XL published a complete evaluation report in August 1999. One of its main goals at the time was to ramp-up into the next phase of taking the site-specific experiments and applying them more broadly. US EPA is also developing a "second generation" XL program that provide even stronger incentives for high performance and compliance-plus.
US EPA has so far identified at least 25 major innovations, and 10 more that are emerging, that can be applied to the agency's core functions: rules and regulations, permit reform, information management, enforcement and compliance assurance, and environmental stewardship.
References
Project XL: From Pilot to Practice, A Journey to System Change (Summary ) US Environmental Protection Agency , Office of the Administrator September 1999.
Innovation at the Environmental Protection Agency: A Decade of Progress. US EPA Office of the Administrator. April 2000.
www.epa.gov/ProjectXL
3) Sustainable Industry Program - US EPA
The passage below is derived from http://www.epa.gov/sustainableindustry/index.htm.
Background
The Industry Sector Policy Division (ISPD) is located in the Office of Policy Development, within EPA's Office of Policy. It works with selected industries to devise new and better ways to reduce pollution and conserve resources. Its mission is to help provide incentives and remove barriers for companies to continuously improve their environmental performance, while easing the costs and burdens of regulation. Most of ISPD's work with industry sectors is done through its Sustainable Industry Program.
How it Works
The Sustainable Industry Program (see http://www.epa.gov/sustainableindustry/aboutus.htm) is an incubator of industry sector programs. As of January 1999, it was working with six different industries: metal finishing, specialty/batch chemical manufacturing, meat processing, metal foundries and die-casting, travel and tourism (focused on mountain resorts), and photo-processing. Other sectors are being added to the program.
Issues are addressed across all environmental media, involving all levels of government, by drawing on tools like shared knowledge, strong analysis, open communication, stakeholder dialogue, facilitated consensus, innovative experimentation, and, ultimately, institutional change. These tools are applied on a sector-specific basis, working in partnership with stakeholders from industry, government, and many other groups.
Several Sustainable Industry Program sectors have achieved significant results, including:
- The National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program, a voluntary, industry-wide environmental stewardship program. The SGP is a model for a performance-based stewardship with industry that is an alternative to traditional command-and-control (reinvention innovation). It represents the furthest an industry sector has gone to date to promote "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" environmental performance.
- The New Jersey Chemical Industry Project, which is testing innovative approaches in four priority issue areas.
- A partnership with the photo-imaging industry to study the impacts of the industry's Code of Management Practice for Silver Dischargers in several metropolitan areas.
ISPD is a 'reinvention' office, looking for new ways for EPA and others to achieve cleaner, cheaper, and smarter outcomes. Both the Sustainable Industry Program and the Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program are important elements in the Agency's long-term plan for sector-based environmental protection.
For further information, contact Bob Benson
Director, Industry Sector Policy Division
benson.robert@epa.gov
(202) 260-8668
4) Green Permits - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
The information below is from pages 29-31 of the main body of this paper.
Description
Still in its infancy, the green permit system "tests the use of regulatory incentives to encourage higher levels of environmental performance and the adoption of environmental management systems (EMS)" (Memorandum of Agreement 2000). It is intended to be an innovative alternative to standard facility permits using a "tiered approach" and focusing on performance requirements that are facility or site-specific, multi-media, and non-prescriptive. The rules also favor strong stakeholder involvement at the facility level. "[The] objective is to obtain environmental outcomes significantly better than otherwise required by law from applicant facilities demonstrating better overall environmental performance (MOA 2000; emphasis added). There are two kinds of green permits: green environmental management systems (GEMS) and custom waiver permits.
A custom waiver permit allows some flexibility in compliance with regulatory requirements - often prescriptive ones related to specific technologies or industrial processes - to help a facility perform significantly better than required. While a facility does not need to have an EMS in place to obtain a custom waiver, it must meet stringent requirements for public reporting and stakeholder involvement.
A GEMS permit requires the facility to have an EMS (such as ISO 14001), demonstrate superior environmental performance, and publish annual performance reports and commit to ongoing communications with interested stakeholders. There are three tiers of GEMS permits. Tier 1 (Participant) is for facilities beginning to implement an EMS to meet and exceed regulatory requirements. Tier 2 (Achiever) is for facilities with a comprehensive EMS that addresses many environmental issues, including those not even regulated. Tier 3 (Leader) is for facilities with a formal EMS that, "address environmental issues beyond the facility, demonstrate industry leadership, and consider impacts over the entire life of its products and services" (The Oregon Green Permits Program 1999; emphasis added).
Participation
This program is open to all enterprises that require state environmental permits, and are within the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. A deposit of $5,000 is required with a green permit application to cover administrative costs (Permits Handbook 2000).
There are currently three approved Tier 1 green permit facilities: LSI Logic (semiconductor manufacturer), Louisiana Pacific Corporation (engineered wood products), and PacifiCorp (power company). PacifiCorp is currently seeking to move up to a Tier 2 permit. These three companies originally participated in the environmental management systems incentives project (EMSIP), a pilot precursor to the green permits process. A fourth company ceased operating in Oregon. There are three other companies currently in the application stage.
Benefits
For facilities that meet the GEMS permit requirements, some of the benefits include:
- Single point of contact: one agency person who coordinates and navigates the regulatory channels among numerous approval agencies on behalf of the company;
- Recognition through plaques, newspaper advertisements and case studies;
- Enforcement discretion, a problem-solving approach to compliance issues focusing on system-wide improvements;
- Changes to regulatory requirements such as streamlined reporting;
- Expedited or flexible permitting to speed up the review process, extend renewal periods, or combine multiple permits; and
- Other regulatory incentives specific to the needs of the facility.
For the state, the main benefits are reduced regulatory cost, improved environmental outcomes, identification of innovative improvements to existing regulatory and approval requirements, and strengthened relations with a company and its stakeholders.
Challenges
The law to allow green permits was passed by the Oregon legislature in 1997. The program was originally to sunset in 2000, but has been extended to December 31, 2003. This is a very short time frame to achieve the objectives. Along with the small amount of resources dedicated to the green permits, it brings into question the state's level of commitment to the program.
It also appears that the green permits program sits on a fault line of US EPA-state relations. It appears that the green permits met some significant institutional resistance within the compliance areas of the regional EPA (see Speirs 2000:31-39). Indeed, it raised complex questions about the state's authority to innovate against the backdrop of national laws, even though the US EPA had made a commitment in 1997 to encourage state-level innovation in compliance.
Environmental non-governmental organizations have also questioned if the public is being misled by rewarding companies with regulatory flexibility for only 'token' improvements (ibid: 47). The concept of compliance plus (significantly improved outcomes beyond regulatory requirements) needs to be better defined. Another concern is that the entry bar for the program is set too high. In theory, at least, the stakeholder requirements are very demanding. The program clearly favors companies that have already made a commitment to EMS.
Results
It is still much too early to tell if the program will have a significant impact on improving environmental quality in Oregon. The level of stakeholder involvement has been low (ibid: 48), and the program has not quite achieved the vision of a compliance process that would, "engage industrial sectors or reach outside the traditionally regulated realm to largely unregulated activities like agriculture" (ibid.: 54). Nevertheless, it appears that the success of Oregon's green permits program is being keenly watched by many state environmental agencies.
References
Memorandum of Agreement between the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Lane Regional Air Quality Authority, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Regulatory Innovation and the Oregon Green Permits Program, May 15, 2000.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality website: www.deq.state.or.us
Permits Handbook Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Portland November 2000: 86-87.
Speir, Jerry Green Permits and Cooperative Environmental Agreements: A Report on Regulatory Innovation Programs in Oregon and Wisconsin Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 4, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington DC, June 2000.
The Oregon Green Permits Program (brochure) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Portland, October 1999.
5) Silver and Gold Track Program - New Jersey
The text below is taken from the website of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/opppc/silver.htm.
Background
The Silver and Gold Track Program offers different degrees of regulatory flexibility and oversight for qualifying entities. Acceptance into the program signifies demonstrable and measurable commitment to improved environmental performance, coupled with an appropriate level of monitoring, reporting and oversight by the Department. The Silver and Gold Track Program comprises three levels: Silver Track, Silver Track II, and Gold Track.
How it Works
Silver Track represents the Department's first broad step toward implementing a regulatory structure that requires accountability, measures environmental performance, provides operational flexibility and produces environmental results. Silver Track offers incentives and public recognition and is open to the entire regulated community. Eligibility requirements for Silver Track include a good environmental history for the past five years; no record of criminal violation; and having all required plans, permits, registrations, approvals, etc. current and up-to-date. Silver Track was implemented in September 1999.
Silver Track II has the same basic eligibility requirements established in Silver Track, but requires greater environmental commitments from the applicants coupled with additional incentives. Silver Track II participants will not need certain pre-construction permits from the Air Quality Permitting program. Monitoring and a covenant between the entity and the Department stipulating agreement to a declining CO2 (or equivalents) cap over time will be required. Silver Track II participants must commit to reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) and/or green house gas (GHG) emissions over time. In exchange for achieving the emission reductions, participants will not need to obtain certain pre-construction permit approvals from the NJDEP's Air Quality Permitting Program. Silver Track II was implemented in May 2000.
Current Issues
Gold Track, representing the highest tier level of environmental performance, is in the process of being developed. Gold Track offers the greatest, multi-media flexibility to participants. In turn, participants in Gold Track will commit to going beyond existing, regulatory requirements, which will result in greater environmental benefits. The program will be initially offered as a pilot program to test the design concepts. Following an evaluation of the pilot activities, the Department will seek to institutionalize a Gold Track Program through the proposal and adoption of rules. Gold Track promises increased multi-media regulatory and operational flexibility, while requiring enhanced multi-media commitments. Gold Track is to be implemented on a pilot basis in the fall of 2000.
The Department is developing rules while concurrently implementing Silver Track II and Gold Track.
In all three tiers, incentives and commitments between the entity participants and the Department will be embodied in enforceable agreements called covenants, signed by the Commissioner of the NJDEP and the highest ranking official of a facility with decision making authority to implement and commitments contained in the covenant.
6) Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program - Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources
The text below is derived from http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/ecpp/index.htm.
Background
The Environmental Cooperation Program is a pilot program designed to evaluate innovative environmental regulatory methods including whole-facility regulation. It was introduced by Governor Thompson and passed by the State Legislature as part of the 1997-1999 Biennial Budget. The program provides DNR with the authority to enter into up to ten cooperative environmental agreements over five years with persons who own or operate facilities that are covered by licenses or permits under current law.
How it Works
The following elements are included in the cooperative environmental agreement:
- Plans to implement an environmental management system.
- A commitment to superior environmental performance. Specified waste reduction goals in measurable and verifiable terms.
- Pollution limits that are at least as stringent as those prescribed in current law.
- Any approvals that are replaced by the agreement.
- Any operational flexibility and variances granted.
- All applicable rules and regulations covering a company are eligible for inclusion.
- A commitment to release periodic performance evaluations and report any violations discovered.
- A plan for public involvement and participation.
Draft Agreements constitute the first round of the cooperative agreement negotiation process. These are proposals submitted by participating companies that lay out their commitments to superior environmental performance as well as their initial requests for regulatory flexibility.
Some sections may be completed as part of the negotiation process. The next stages in the process are as follows: The WDNR, in consultation with EPA will draft a 'counter-proposal' responding to the requests proposed in the Draft Agreement. Once the pilot company receives the counter-proposal, a round of negotiations involving the company and WDNR will take place. Should a consensus on a final cooperative agreement be reached as a result of these negotiations, the cooperative agreements will be made available to the public and to the designated 'Interested Persons Group' for a thirty-day comment period.
If the comments received during the public comment period demonstrate considerable public interest in the proposed action, the WDNR will hold a public information meeting on the proposed action. This procedure will be followed for any proposed issuance, amendment, or revocation of a cooperative agreement.
7) Performance Plus+ Program - Ontario Ministry of Environment
The information below is from two documents provided by MOE officials: 1) Proposed Performance Plus+ Demonstration Program - Draft Generic Pilot Site Agreement (authorship unknown), and 2) Proposal to Establish "Performance Plus+": A Program to Recognize and Encourage Voluntary Acton (Prepared by the Program Steering Committee for the Memorandum of Understanding on Pollution Prevention and Reduction; CCPA and MOE, June 1999).
Background
The MOE Performance Plus+ Program to Recognize and Encourage Voluntary Action is a draft proposal from 1999 that has not yet been implemented. It builds on conceptual work undertaken by the Program Steering Committee for the Memorandum of Understanding on Pollution Prevention and Reduction between the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association (CCPA) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The earlier conceptual work was summarized in a document entitled "Recognizing and Encouraging Voluntary Actions - REVA: A Report on Potential New Policy Directions for Voluntary Pollution Prevention and Reduction in Ontario" (October 1998).
It would have required participating companies to prepare three-year environmental improvement plans, institute environmental management systems, monitor and report (including a baseline inventory and third party auditing) and involve the public. In return, MOE would recognize performance, set priorities for the sector, develop 'bubble approvals', streamline approvals, reduce approval fees and participate in public consultations.
How it Works
The concept underlying the proposed program is that "industrial facilities that voluntarily and consistently adhere to high standards of environmental planning, performance and accountability in excess of regulatory requirements and, in accordance with ministry environmental objectives and priorities, would be accorded greater operational flexibility and administrative efficiency in their relations with the ministry."
The proposal has four underlying objectives:
- Continuous environmental improvement
- Greater public accountability and credibility
- Enhanced competitiveness of industry
- More efficient and predictable government processes.
The program would first undergo a three-year demonstration phase, in order to evaluate the practicality, costs, and benefits of this new approach to environmental management. The demonstration phase will determine if both industry and government can benefit in terms of more efficient and effective use of resources, while improving environmental protection and assuring public accountability. It will also permit examination of the operational, human resource and legal implications for the ministry and industry. Decisions on whether to continue and/or expand the program will be based on the results of the demonstration as it proceeds.
The ministry and participating facilities will develop measures of success at the outset of the program. For example, the success of the program might be measured in terms of: more efficient use of government resources for approvals, monitoring and inspections; increased operational flexibility and resource efficiencies for industry; more accessible information on facility environmental performance; expanded voluntary action by industry and improved environmental performance. Appropriate qualitative and quantitative information will be collected to evaluate the success of the demonstration phase.
In undertaking the demonstration phase, industry and government would commence implementation of key concepts developed under the REVA policy framework (see above). The demonstration phase will build a basis of ministry and industry experience in evolving mechanisms such as environmental management systems, whole facility permits, industry data protocols and third-party auditing.
The success of the demonstration program in the chemical sector would be expected to lead to broader application and increased industry participation in ministry voluntary pollution prevention initiatives. This increased participation would contribute to enhanced public recognition for exemplary corporate environmental performance.
A two-part demonstration program is proposed, incorporating the following parallel joint actions:
1) Facility pilot projects. The purpose of the facility pilot projects is to demonstrate the practicality and benefits of a new relationship between selected industrial facilities and the ministry. The pilot projects will implement new practices that show promise for short-term implementation.
2) Research and assessment of other voluntary action incentives. As part of broader corporate policy development, the ministry will continue to undertake research into other policy mechanisms to recognize and encourage voluntary action (REVA). The ministry will consult with Memorandum of Understanding and Performance Plus+ participants and others on these differentiation mechanisms and incorporate them in Performance Plus+ as appropriate and agreed upon.
8) Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association Partnerships (HARA, CIAG, ARRIV, CISCO) - Ontario Ministry of Environment
The text below is a substantially edited version of a fact sheet of the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association entitled "Hamilton District Autobody Repair Partnerships."
Background
The Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association (HARA) is the largest local collision repair trade association in North America. Since its establishment in 1981, HARA has been active in a number of projects locally, nationally and internationally as well as completing projects for other associations. In recent years, it has entered into cooperative partnerships with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment to help develop and promote environmentally sound business practices and operating procedures within the auto body repair sector. The collision repair and auto refinishing sector in Ontario uses up to eight million litres of solvents and coatings annually, which makes it the second largest contributor of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in the surface coating sector. VOCs are a major smog component and contribute to low-level ozone smog.
How it Works
In March 1995, HARA and MOE signed a partnership agreement to develop and disseminate information on environmentally sound business procedures and good operating practices. HARA delivered a workshop, a workbook for auto body repair shops and a video for autobody repair businesses. More recently, with the financial support of MOE and Environment Canada, HARA has held over a dozen 'Industry Profitability Workshops' across Ontario, from Oshawa to Sarnia. Among other things, these workshops have provided information on national VOC emission standards, efficient paint application techniques, good environmental practices, and industry self-management and accreditation.
In an effort to overcome the perception that it was merely a local association operating out of Hamilton, HARA formed the Collision Industry Action Group (CIAG), an organization supporting environmental best practices, and now the delivery agent for the workshops. CIAG and HARA then proposed the Auto Body Repair, Registration, Inspection and Verification (ARRIV) Programme to request self-management for auto refinishing facilities. Ultimately the ARRIV proposal led to the establishment of the Collision Industry Standards Council of Ontario (CISCO). CISCO's mandate is broader than HARA and CIAG, which were only concerned with environmental health and safety. CISCO has three areas of concentration - compliance, business practices and equipment - and it is responsible for accreditation standards, inspections and enforcement, a complaints process, and education and training.
CISCO is proposing that only shops meeting accreditation standards in all three areas of concentration should be licensed to operate in Ontario. Industry accreditation of repair shops is supported by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Canadian Insurance Claims Managers Association, MOE, Environment Canada, Pollution Probe, the Lung Association, and others.
The HARA/ARRIV initiative and the subsequent development of CISCO is a good example of self-management by small businesses that have traditionally been very difficult to monitor and control using the regulatory approach.
For more information on HARA, CIAG, ARRIV and CISCO call John Norris, Executive Director at (905) 526-9925.
9) Innovative Regulatory Approaches - Alberta Ministry of Environment
The description below is a slightly amended summary of passages from An Evaluation of Alternative & Innovative Regulatory Approaches for Environmental Management in Alberta, prepared by Kemper & Associates for the Alberta Environment, Environmental Sciences Division (June 2000).
Background/Overview
The Alberta approach to innovative regulations remains at the proposal stage; formal agreement with stakeholders and program design is expected following a workshop held in late November 2000. (Alberta will provide an update early in 2001.)
The system is facility-based, that is it deals only with the performance of a single facility. Permit trading is prohibited, as is the transfer of benefits from one facility to another.
The system is based on company or facility environmental management systems, such as ISO 14001, being implemented by industry. As part of their EMS, industry will establish beyond-regulatory performance measures, and be prepared to have their measures evaluated with stakeholder participation. Achievement time frames, verification and audits are included to ensure public and government confidence.
How it Works
The current proposal, to be confirmed by stakeholders, is as follows:
Entry into the AIA system is voluntary, but once in, companies will be required by their new license conditions to meet established performance measures within defined time frames. The process will be fully transparent, and is meant to constitute a renewed partnership among government, industry and the public. All participants will commit to performing better than existing regulatory compliance, by using continuous improvement pollution prevention principles and defining targets for performance measures.
The tier system addresses the learning and experience required to develop and implement an EMS, and the need to adjust a company's status if goals are not met.
Tier 1 is essentially an entry level into the program, and is available for one renewal period only. Tier 2 and 3 require progressively greater levels of commitment in EMS development and auditing of emissions, as well as improved delivery of desired outcomes. The scope of Tier 2 and 3 benefits to the environment is also broader. Tier 3 will be reserved for only the few highest performing companies, those that are outstanding leaders in their sector with comprehensive management of wastes, processes and by-products from cradle to grave.
Once established, companies will be invited to evaluate the program's entry requirements and if interested, to approach government to request a meeting. At the meeting, their facilities' past and future performance will be discussed; other interested parties, such as NGOs, will have the option of joining the discussions.
The scope of the planned performance targets will be determined by the facility's operations and by local issues that are pertinent to the facility's use of resources and its emissions. Planning horizons for the agreements are meant to be sufficiently long to allow corporate planning for capital expenditures and to properly evaluate the attainment of performance measures - it is proposed that agreements will be for periods of five, ten and fifteen years. Despite these intended time frames some government stakeholders are concerned that the program's emphasis on continuous improvement could lead to regular revision of the agreements and therefore greater inefficiencies than the status quo.
These and other concerns will need to be addressed during a pilot phase, which is meant to take place across several industrial sectors.
APPENDIX D: EMERGING BEST PRACTICES IN COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
Introduction
Environmental compliance assistance includes information and incentives to affected parties for them to build the "capacity of regulated entities to comply with environmental laws" (Crowe et al 2000:14). Often, but not always, this is complemented by techniques to reduce or eliminate pollutants and waste at source).
This appendix follows from a search for compliance assistance initiatives across jurisdictions that have been cited as overall environmental leaders by contacts in the Ontario MOE, the United States EPA, and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), an American non-profit, non-partisan association of state and territorial environmental commissioners. The search was conducted across specific Internet sites and through the targeting capabilities of the US EPA Clearinghouse.
It is clear that virtually every jurisdiction is moving towards forms of compliance assistance. It is too soon, however, to assess many new compliance assistance programs activities as no jurisdiction has yet undertaken a detailed evaluation of its initiatives. Nevertheless, it is possible to highlight some emerging best practices in compliance assistance across leading jurisdictions. In particular, the appendix will highlight emerging best practices from the following eight jurisdictions:
-
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
-
Australia Dept of Environment and Heritage/ Environ Protection Authority
-
California Environmental Protection Agency
-
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
-
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
-
Environment Canada
-
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
While most of the above jurisdictions show promise in specific areas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection seem to have strong overall programs of compliance assistance.
Our much broader search also included an examination of New Zealand, Sweden, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Further information on the scope of the search and the preliminary evaluative findings can be obtained from the project team.
1) United States Environmental Protection Agency
The information below is taken from http://es.epa.gov/oeca/99activity.html and from related EPA links as indicated.
Overview
The US EPA appears to be a global leader alongside Pennsylvania. We have outlined below some of the ways in which it provides leadership in compliance assistance:
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), working in partnership with EPA Regional Offices, State Governments, Tribal Governments and other Federal agencies, ensures compliance with the nation's environmental laws. Employing an integrated approach of compliance assistance, compliance incentives and innovative civil and criminal enforcement, OECA and its partners seek to maximize compliance and reduce threats to public health and the environment.
Major compliance assistance accomplishments for the OECA in 1999 include:
- Compliance assistance activities and tools - seminars, on-site assistance, mailings and handouts, etc. - reached about 330,000 entities.
- Four new "on line" National Compliance Assistance Centers were opened for the paints and coatings, transportation, and small and medium sized chemical manufacturing sectors, and local governments. A total of nine centers were in operation by the end of FY 1999. New survey statistics from the auto services and repair compliance assistance center (GreenLink) indicate that sector compliance increased from less than 25% to approximately 51% since the center went on-line.
- EPA added three new sector notebooks, which provides information on the regulatory requirements and pollution prevention approaches needed to maintain and enhance compliance. There are now a total of 30 notebooks available.
Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse
The purpose of the Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse is to aid the day-to-day function of those who help the industry comply with EPA or State environmental regulations.
The Clearinghouse provides links to compliance assistance resources from around the Internet. This includes links to the US Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies, State and local governments, Tribal agencies, and other sources of compliance assistance information available online. The Clearinghouse also provides a discussion forum to promote collaboration and information exchange.
Tools provided on the Clearinghouse site include Guidance Materials, Training Materials, Policy Documents, Quick Reference, Fact sheets, Web sites, Case Studies, Checklists, and Environmental Management Systems. There is also a Compliance Assistance 'Provide Directory' that offers links by EPA Region, by State, by Program, by Industry Sector, and Other Contacts.
Compliance Assistance Centres
The EPA has partnered with industry associations, environmental
organizations, universities, and other government agencies, to launch 10
compliance assistance centers accessible through Internet sites. Some also offer
toll-free hotlines. Each center serves a specific audience by explaining, in
plain language, the federal government regulations that apply to them. Eight of
the ten centers serve sectors that include many small businesses. The ninth
center serves local governments, and the tenth serves federal agencies.
Each center provides a range of information services: compliance guidelines, pollution prevention information, summaries of EPA regulations and policies, access to e-mail discussion groups, vendor directories, links to other assistance providers, and environmental management software that can be downloaded from the Internet. Some also provide online access to relevant state regulations.
For more information see www.assistancecenters.net.
Targeting Specific Industry Sectors
The EPA is identifying specific industry sectors as priorities for special
compliance assistance. For example, in 1997, Virginia, Maryland, the District of
Columbia and the Korean Dry Cleaners Association of Greater Washington formed a
partnership to reduce emissions of perchloroethylene from area dry cleaners. The
partners set up a mentoring program in which experienced dry cleaners, trained
by EPA and state environmental offices, help less knowledgeable dry cleaners
better understand - and comply with - environmental requirements. The compliance
rate of participants is estimated to be 20 percent higher than other dry
cleaners in the area.
OECA Action Plan for Innovation
The Action Plan for Innovation, issued September 1999, is the result of extensive outreach to stakeholders in four major areas: (1) compliance assistance; (2) compliance incentives; (3) information and accountability; and (4) innovative approaches to enforcement. EPA sought input on how these areas can be integrated to maximize compliance and reduce the risk to human health and the environment.
In the future EPA will consider the ideas of interested stakeholders in identifying EPA's priorities for its compliance assurance and enforcement program. EPA will also seek the ideas of interested stakeholders on a compliance assistance plan that will focus Agency resources on environmental and compliance problems that need federally supported compliance assistance.
In particular, the action plan calls for: 1) the delivery of compliance assistance information and tools with economically significant rules (meaning that compliance assistance efforts should be focused on regulations that have an economic impact of $100 million or more), 2) fostering a network of compliance assistance providers, 3) ensuring the viability of compliance assistance centers, and 4) developing an annual compliance assistance plan. For further information see http://es.epa.gov/oeca/innovative/approaches.html.
2) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
The information below is derived from EPA Clearinghouse search information on Pennsylvania, at http://www.seattle.battelle.org/clearinghouse/index.asp?frmTab=Location&frmTop icID=C:10:800:150:PA:, and from the Pennsylvania DEP website as indicated.
Overview.
Pennsylvania is a leader both in the breadth and depth of the compliance assistance tools it provides. Tools include assistance programs, contact information, environmental management services, free scientific and technological assistance, confidential assistance in understanding environmental compliance requirements, preliminary environmental evaluations for small and mid-sized firms, monitoring manuals, policy documents, self-audit checklists, a fact sheet, a guide, a newsletter, and a workbook. Here are the tools described in greater detail:
Pennsylvania Environmental Assistance Program
Contact information is provided to help Pennsylvania businesses identify and implement cost savings through pollution prevention. In addition, other environmental management services are made available from network organizations listed on the website.
The Pennsylvania Environmental Assistance Network (PEAN, aka the Network) is a consortium of public and private organizations designated to assist small and medium-sized businesses with the identification and implementation of cost saving pollution prevention/energy efficiency and other environmental management techniques.
The Network is a partnership consisting of experienced technical service providers including private sector consultants. The Network includes Industrial Resource Centers, Small Business Development Centers, other economic development organizations, and the Pennsylvania Departments of Environmental Protection and Community and Economic Development.
The entry page to PEAN emphasizes potential savings on a business bottom line alongside solutions to environmental and energy-related problems. See http://www.pean.state.pa.us/.
Network services include:
- Technical advice on specific environmental and energy problems
- Preliminary and in-depth assessments of waste reduction and savings opportunities
- Design and implementation of pollution prevention and energy savings projects
- Help in accessing financing for pollution prevention and energy efficiency projects
- Management tools to improve operating efficiency
- Information-seminars, workshops and publications
The Network provides a single point of contact, Network Administrator Dana Stuller, including her telephone number and e-mail. Alternatively the user can click on the Network contact list to reach a PEAN member.
Pennsylvania also has several other compliance assistance tools outside the scope of PEAN:
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP)
PENNTAP is a program of Penn State University, and is a federal-state-university partnership for economic development. Instituted in 1965, it helps Pennsylvania businesses improve their competitiveness by providing free technical assistance and information to help resolve specific technical questions or needs that can be addressed within a limited amount of time.
The program focuses on helping smaller businesses that normally do not have the in-house expertise or time to resolve specific technical questions or needs. PENNTAP technical specialists assist small businesses with technical information, short-term technical counseling and referrals to other expertise, resources or programs.
PENNTAP services the entire state of Pennsylvania with a technical librarian and a network of technical specialists who have specific areas of technical expertise and are located throughout the state. The service of PENNTAP staff is confidential.
In connection with the environment, PENNTAP provides assistance with regard to environmental regulations, compliance and pollution prevention assessments and assistance, pollution control system performance evaluation, and connections to other resources. One past program user commented that "PENNTAP's assistance provided us with the ability to satisfy regulatory requirements. Our financial exposure from fines or closure of facility was eliminated. " A second user believes large non-compliance fines were averted through PENNTAP advice. http://www.penntap.psu.edu/
Pennsylvania SBDC Environmental Management Assistance Program
Pennsylvania Small Business Development Centres (SBDCs) provide confidential assistance to help small businesses understand their environmental compliance requirements. The SBDCs provide a "strategic environmental management approach" which attempts to integrate compliance and broader environmental concerns into a firm's day-to-day management and long-term strategic planning.
- This program provides phone numbers of contacts that can provide direct, confidential assistance. Specific services include:
- Confidential assistance for understanding environmental permit and compliance requirements
- Confidential assistance for incorporating environmental considerations within strategic business management and planning activities
- Environmental training seminars
- On-Site pollution prevention and energy efficiency opportunity assessments
- Links to sources of technical and financial assistance
- Quarterly newsletter
- Fact sheets and guidance materials http://pasbdc.org/Pages/serviceindex.html
Pennsylvania Environmental Assessment Program
Through the Environmental Assessment Program, preliminary environmental evaluations are made of small and mid-sized firms. These evaluations involve site visits so that first-hand knowledge can be provided to companies for items such as permits, compliance monitoring, record keeping and reporting procedures. http://www.tecnet.org/dvirc/environm.html
Continuous Source Monitoring Manual
The manual contains engineering methods, procedures and reporting formats. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/All_Final_Technical_guidance/baq/274_0 300_001.pdf
Policy Documents
Here is one example (there are many others):
Air Quality Operating Permit: Best Available Technology and Other Permitting Criteria. This document guides the public on BAT applicability and provides general guidance. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/All_Final_Technical_guidance/baq/275_2 101_008.pdf.
Self-Audit Checklist for Dry Cleaners
A self-audit checklist for dry cleaners designed to help them operate more efficiently. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/pdf/fact_sheets/FS2158.pdf
Pollution Prevention Opportunities for Painting and Coating Operations. A fact sheet on pollution prevention opportunities for painting and coating operations. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/pdf/paintops.pdf/
Mercury: Managing, Recycling, Disposing; A Business Guide to Conducting a Mercury Audit
This guide is designed to encourage businesses and organizations to prevent mercury from contaminating our environment. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/p3ERIE/mercbroch.pdf.
Pennsylvania Environmental Assistance Network Newsletter
A bimonthly compliance assistance newsletter produced by the Pennsylvania Environmental Assistance Network, a consortium of Pennsylvania's public and private sector service providers. http://www.pean.state.pa.us/letters.htm
Printers Protecting the Environment
This workbook is designed to highlight those environmental regulations that are applicable to all lithographic printers. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/information/PrinterWorkbook/toc .html
3) Australia Department of Environment and Heritage/ Environmental Protection Authority
The information below is taken from several Australian government websites related to the environment, as specified in each case.
Overview.
Australia's website provides a wide range of tools related to environment, and compliance assistance tools must be found within these broader resources. Here are some of the broad umbrella categories under which compliance assistance appears:
Australian Government's Business Entry Point
This site has been developed to provide an easy to use interface to government services for businesses in Australia. It aims to make it easier for business to find government information, to complete compliance processes and to identify suitable support or assistance programs.
The site covers resources from Commonwealth, State and Territory government agencies and a number of local governments and industry associations.
Under the Topic Index there is a listing for Environment with four sub-headings:
- Hazardous Waste, with no links recorded for this business topic. The theme of Hazardous Waste also appears under category 4) below, the page for Hazardous Materials, with links provided.
- Waste Management: minimizing the hazards and costs of waste disposal. Four links are provided, including B) Environmental guidelines, a document providing advice to waste managers, environmental consultants and contractors about appropriate disposal routes for solid wastes, and C) Industry Waste Database, a database to help businesses locate waste treaters, disposers, and permitted transporters.
- nvironmental Impact (of a development or change in a business). Five links are provided, including
- Environmental reviews [guidelines for proponents]. Offers suggestions on how environmental review documents might look, though their preparation and structure depends on the projects proposed.
- Guide to environmental impact assessment in Western Australia. Describes how new development proposals are assessed.
- Online databases [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act]. Explains key features of the National Act and includes an online system to assist in assessing whether a matter comes under the control of the Act.
- Profiting from environmental improvement in business. Explains how businesses can improve productivity and save money by cutting waste and reducing environmental impacts.
1) Hazardous Materials (materials which can pose a threat to the environment or to workers), provides helpful links including the following:
- Guidelines for disposal of hazardous wastes. These guidelines ensure environmentally responsible disposal of hazardous wastes.
- Hazardous substances. Provides information about licenses, storage and safety standards relating to hazardous substances.
- Registering agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Explains the registration procedure and fees and provides downloadable forms that are required before these chemicals can be sold, supplied, distributed or used in Australia.
http://www.business.gov.au/home/default.asp?flash=1
EnviroEd (including Networks and Service Directories)
EnviroEd establishes a national network of environmental education and
information programs, materials and publications in the interests of education
for sustainability. The site provides relevant information for student, teacher,
university, community, government, industry and technical stakeholders.
The industry page is one-stop shopping for useful environmental links, including many forms of compliance assistance:
- Stakeholders such as the Australia/New Zealand Food Authority, the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association, and the Water Services Association of Australia.
- Federal (in Australia, Commonwealth) Government Initiatives such as the National Packaging Covenant, the WasteWise Construction Program, designed to reduce the amount of construction waste going to landfill, and Eco-efficiency and Cleaner Production, a page providing tools, resources, links and case studies to help companies implement eco-efficiency and cleaner production practices.
- Companies and Industry Associations involved in Environmental Management, including Australia's Environment Industry Directory and Greenhouse Challengers, a listing of 209 companies that have signed agreements to reduce greenhouse emissions.
- Environmental Technologies, including the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy and the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (NSW).
- National Legislation, including the Hazardous Waste Act and the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) on Used Packaging Materials.
- Networks and Service Directories, including the Australian Best Practice Environmental Management in Mining Program, the Australian Environmental Impact Assessment Network (EIA), the Australian Waste Database and EnviroNet Australia - Solutions to Australian Industry's Environment Protection Challenges.
http://www.environment.gov.au/education/aeen/industry.html
BizLink - Codes of Practice
Federal, State, Territory and local governments in Australia are
increasingly using Codes of Practice in legislation to prescribe Australian
standards, technical requirements and other specifications that business must
use. This database refers to Codes of Practice in legislation, and is meant to
help the user obtain information about and contact details for Codes as
appropriate. There is a commitment to add copies of the codes in the future.
The information is organized so the user can browse by industry, subject, business activity, Act and Regulation, or search the database. The user is warned that he/she may also be required to obtain licenses and/or permits to undertake a business activity, and is provided a link to the Business License Information Service in this connection.
BizLink's capacity to provide Codes of Practice information looks like a useful compliance assistance tool. http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/search97cgi/s97_cgi
Environment Protection Act Tools
In June 1998, Australia passed a new Environment Protection Act. To support
the act the Environment Management Authority has prepared a users guide to help
users of the act and its regulations to understand and apply the relevant
provisions.
Users of the Guide who would like further information, or who would like to provide feedback on the User Guide, are invited to call the Environment ACT helpline (a number is provided). http://www.act.gov.au/environ/epa/fore.html.
Summary Comment
There are numerous overlapping entry points in Australia to obtain environmental information, and the range of information is daunting at first. Since people surf the Internet in unpredictable ways, however, it is useful that channels crisscross; in this way the information is accessible from a variety of starting points. In the context of compliance assistance, however, it would be even more useful for Australia to provide a single entry-point compliance assistance page.
4) California Environmental Protection Agency
The information below summarizes the web page at http://www.calgold.ca.gov/pac.asp.
Overview.
California EPA has one tool that appears to be an emerging best practice in compliance assistance:
California EPA Permit Assistance Centers
The California EPA website lists Business Permit Assistance Centers for various districts of California along with comprehensive contact lists, including address, phone, fax and e-mail. The site also includes a search capability that allows an individual to enter information on business type and city, and obtain immediate information on all required permits and appropriate Assistance Center contacts.
The page for each Assistance Center outlines the scope of the Center, the director's name, opening hours, directions to the center (both a map and written instructions), and a listing of services provided, as follows:
- Permitting and licensing information (counter, telephone, or Internet).
- Permit applications including: Business License (Tax Certificate) Business Name filing, Seller's Permit (State Board of Equalization) and Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit.
- Air Quality Management District representatives.
- Regional Water Quality Control Board representatives.
- Information on recycling, waste minimization and pollution prevention (general and designed for specific industries).
- Information on State Brownfields Redevelopment, Prospective Purchaser Agreements and voluntary Site Cleanup programs.
- The center will supply speakers for business seminars, trade shows and panels upon request from Chambers of Commerce, local groups or trade organizations.
5) Florida Department of Environmental Protection
The information below was obtained through the EPA Clearinghouse at http://www.seattle.battelle.org/clearinghouse/index.asp?frmTab=Location&frmTop icID=C:10:800:150:FL:.
Overview.
Florida's DEP has a range of compliance assistance tools, including guides related to hazardous waste management, workbooks, fact-sheets, a library listing and even a calendar. Here are some of its tools:
Guides
Here is one example (there are numerous industry-specific guides related to hazardous waste management):
A Guide on Hazardous Waste Management for Florida's Paint and Body Shops.
This well-written guide offers helpful tips
on complying with federal and state hazardous waste regulations, avoiding
penalties by properly managing hazardous wastes, and by saving money on disposal
costs by reducing hazardous wastes. It addresses such issues as why businesses
should care about hazardous waste, definitions, examples, management of
hazardous waste, reduction strategies, notification requirements, provides a
checklist to help businesses avoid the most common hazardous waste violations,
and outlines sources of further information. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/dwm/programs/hazardous/business/paintbdy.pdf
Printer Workshop Workbook
A workbook designed to: 1) outline the key regulatory agencies and requirements that affect business practices, 2) provide enough basic knowledge to reach a compliance level that will be protective of human health and the environment, and 3) provide guidance for seeking additional information and assistance. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/outreach/sbap/PrintWorkshop.pdf
Fact Sheets
Here is one example (there are also fact sheets for dry cleaners and wood refinishers):
Fact Sheet on Publication, Product, Packaging Rotogravure and Wide-Web
Flexography.
A five-page fact sheet summarizing compliance requirements for industries
involved in publication, product, packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexography. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/outreach/sbap/printer.pdf
Florida Small Business Assistance Program Library Listing
A list of the compliance assistance resources available through Florida's DEP Small Business Assistance Program. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/outreach/sbap/library.pdf
Year 2000 Drycleaner Calendar
This calendar is designed to help drycleaners keep records associated with air program compliance requirements.
The calendar seems complicated and difficult to understand. The one-page instructions for use at the front assume some prior technical knowledge; this assumption is mitigated somewhat by a contacts page for information at the back of the calendar. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/outreach/sbap/drycal.pdf
6) New York Department of Environmental Conservation
The information below is derived from the EPA Clearinghouse at http://www.seattle.battelle.org/clearinghouse/index.asp?frmTab=Location&frmTop icID=C:10:800:150:NY:, and the Department of Environmental Conservation website as indicated.
Overview
Most of New York's compliance assistance tools are in print. On a page entitled Doing it Right, the department indicates that traditionally, DEC compliance information has been issued in print form. If the compliance publication needed is not yet on the website, the user is encouraged to use the Guide to DEC to identify the DEC program that covers the area of environmental compliance in question and "get the phone number to reach the program."
Links to the following publications are provided at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dpae/pubs/compubs.html:
| Help for Complying with Regulations |
|---|
| DEC Rules and
Regulations - text of regulations currently available on DEC's website
Environmental Notice Bulletin - carries notifications of regulatory change NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act - grant application information Mineral Resources Guidance Documents - guidance on how to comply with rules governing mining and oil and gas extraction Informational Material Order Form - order by mail single copies of printed documents, including regulations, about reducing waste and recycling SEQR - guidance for local governments and boards about when environmental projects require approval and review Stormwater Permits - information about permits for projects with water discharge implications Small Business Technical Support - help for businesses in complying with the Clean Air Act Technical and Administrative Guidance Memoranda - guidance to help you comply with regulations that deal with solid and hazardous materials Pollution Prevention Unit Publications - information to help you prevent pollution at home and at work |
Other New York compliance assistance tools are as follows:
New York State Small Business Assistance Program
According to the US EPA Clearinghouse, the SBAP is a component of the New York State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program (the PROGRAM). The PROGRAM was mandated by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and provides free and confidential assistance to New York's small businesses to help them comply with state and federal air emission requirements.
New York Small Business Environmental Ombudsman
According to the US EPA Clearinghouse, the SBEO, part of the PROGRAM described above, is meant to support New York State's commitment to the environment and the small business community by providing general information on complying with environmental regulations and assisting businesses through the compliance process.
Who to Contact for Pollution Prevention Information
This site is maintained by the Pollution Prevention Unit. It provides a staff directory of the P2 Unit as well as other contacts in New York that provide P2 assistance. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2con.html
Guidance for Regulated Medical Waste Treatment, Storage, Containment, Transport and Disposal
These guidelines are intended to help generators of regulated medical waste (RMW), commercially-operated RMW storage, treatment and destruction facilities, and the RMW transporters comply with the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR, Part 360 and 49 CFR 172 and 173. The guidelines are very technical and for the most part are written in a Q&A format. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/sldwaste/guidemw.htm
Clean Air News
Technical information for small businesses seeking to comply with the federal Clean Air Act and associated New York State regulations. http://www.nysefc.org/tas/sbap/NL.htm
The Environmental Self-Audit for Small Business: a Quick and Easy Guide to Environmental Compliance
A document intended to help small businesses in New York State comply with local, state and federal environmental regulations. http://www.empire.state.ny.us/sbeo/sbeoselfaudit.pdf
Fact Sheets
Here is one example (there are numerous others):
Offset Lithographic Printing Processes; Using Complying Fountain Solutions. A one-page fact-sheet for offset lithographic printers that addresses how to use complying fountain solutions to comply with New York State's 6 NYCRR Part 234, Graphic Arts. http://www.nysefc.org/tas/SBAP/fact%20sheets/offset.htm
7) Environment Canada
The information below is derived from the Environment Canada website as indicated.
Two tools from Environment Canada appear to be emerging best practices:
The Canadian Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
The Clearinghouse includes an effective search capability allowing for generic search (free text) or sector search; the search engine is quick and industry-specific.
The Clearinghouse also has a page entitled 'About Pollution Prevention,' which includes 1) general pollution prevention information, 2) policy/legislation, 3) success stories and 4) what's new in P2. http://www3.ec.gc.ca/cppic/index_e.htm
Federal Programs Division - Compliance Promotion Program
The Federal Programs Division Compliance Promotion Program (CPP) advises Ontario-based federal clients with respect to federal and Ontario provincial environmental law and good environmental practices in order to foster compliance and environmental stewardship. No explanation is provided as to why the federal Compliance Promotion Program restricts its mandate to "Ontario-based federal clients."
Emphasis is placed on three primary pieces of federal legislation and their associated regulations: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and the provisions for handling hazardous wastes under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The CPP also encourages federal facilities to meet the intent and in some cases, the letter of the law under Ontario provincial legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Water Resources Act and the Gasoline Handling Act and Code. The program recognizes that "good environmental practices go beyond meeting legislated requirements and encompasses various guidelines, codes of practice, standards, objectives and other criteria."
- Under the auspices of the Compliance Promotion Program numerous bulletins are provided. Here are some examples:
- The Environmental Legislative Framework in Ontario
- Storage of PCB Material Regulations
- Ontario Regulations for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) Based Solvents
In short, the federal Compliance Promotion Program is focused on serving federal clients who need to better understand federal and Ontario provincial environmental law, and it provides concrete assistance in the form of publications to the customer. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/epb/fpd/en/compliance/
8) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
The description below is from the Michigan DEQ website at www.deq.state.mi.us/ead/retap/.
Overview. There is one practice worth highlighting from Michigan - the Michigan Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program (RETAP). No evaluation of the program has taken place. Case studies on the Michigan DEQ website, however, point to thousands of dollars in savings for individual companies.
Michigan Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program (RETAP)
The RETAP provides confidential, non-regulatory, free pollution prevention (P2) assistance to Michigan businesses and institutions. RETAP engineers are retired engineers, scientists and other professionals who have been employed in Michigan industry and have 30 to 40 years of experience. Their varied education and experience offer a wide range of knowledge about processes for the diverse industries in the state. Any professional with a serious interest in P2 and a background in processes may apply to be a RETAP assessor.
The assessors prepare written reports identifying options and recommendations, and there is no obligation for companies to implement the options or recommendations.
"Michigan businesses with fewer than 500 employees, and Michigan institutions of any size" are eligible.
There are five steps to a RETAP assessment:
1) Request. A business or institution submits a request for assistance
to the RETAP technical assistance contractor.
2) Pre-Assessment. A RETAP assessor meets on-site with facility
representatives to gather information about waste streams and provide
information about the service. This visit lasts approximately two to three hours
and includes a quick walk-through.
3) Assessment. A team of RETAP assessors conducts a thorough walk-through
of the facility to look for P2 opportunities. Upon completion, the assessors
meet with facility representatives and discuss their initial observations. The
assessment lasts between a half-day to a few days, depending on facility size.
4) RETAP Report. The RETAP assessors and technical assistance contractor
prepare a report with P2 and cost-saving recommendations. Reports are sent to
the company approximately four to six weeks after the assessment is completed.
Reports are confidential. Only two copies exist; one is sent to the facility,
and the technical assistance contractor keeps the other copy. The Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality does not get a copy or see the report.
5) Follow-up. The RETAP assessors contact the facility at regular
intervals after the report is sent to evaluate the assistance provided, seek
opportunities for case studies, and provide additional information if requested.
REFERENCES
Alberta Department of Environment, An Evaluation of Alternative & Innovative Regulatory Approaches for Environmental Management in Alberta, prepared by Kemper & Associates for the Alberta Environment, Environmental Sciences Division, June 2000.
April, Susan and Tim Greiner Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 1, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington, DC, June 2000.
ARET Secretariat Program Environmental Leaders 3 Report: Voluntary Action on Toxic Substances: Ottawa, May 2000.
Canadian Environmental Management Survey, 1996, KPMG, Environmental Services Inc., Toronto
Cohen, Mark A. Monitoring and Enforcement of Environmental Policy Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University: August 1998 (found on World Bank "New Ideas in Pollution Regulation" web site; see below).
Compliance Information Project Views from the Field: Inspector Perspectives on Environmental Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, US EPA: Washington, DC, April 2000.
Compliance Information Project The US General Accounting Office's 1997 Investigators Guide to Sources of Information. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, US EPA: Washington, DC, April 2000.
Compliance Information Project. Colorado Compliance Study, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, US EPA: Washington, DC, April 2000.
Crow, Michael; Jeanne Herb, Mark Stoughton, Jennifer Sullivan. Towards Integrated Approaches to Compliance Assurance Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 16, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington, DC, June 2000.
Environment Canada Policy Framework on Environmental Performance Agreements August 2000.
Estrin, David and John Swaigen Environment on Trial: A Guide to Ontario Environmental Law and Policy (3rd Edition) Emond Montgomery Publications: Toronto, 1993
European Environment Agency Environmental Agreements: Environmental Effectiveness Copenhagen,1997.
Foulon, Jerome; Paul Lanoie, Benoit Laplante "Incentives for Pollution Control" Policy Research Working Paper Series World Bank NIPR October 1999.
Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association fact sheet, "Hamilton District Autobody Repair Partnerships".
Kettl, Donald "Environmental Policy: The Next Generation" Policy Brief No. 37 The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, 1998.
KPMG Environmental Services Inc. Canadian Environmental Management Survey, 1996.
Lyon, T.P. and J. W. Maxwell. (1999). Voluntary Approaches to Environmental Regulation: A Survey In Environmental Economics: Past, Present and Future, M. Franzini and A. Nicita, eds. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection The Promise of Performance: The Environmental Results Program fact sheet: Boston, 1999.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection "DEP Enforces
Environmental Standards for Commercial Printers" news release March 9, 2000.
Memorandum of Agreement between the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Lane Regional Air Quality Authority and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Regulatory Innovation and the Oregon Green Permits Program, May 15, 2000.
OECD study Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy: An Assessment 1999.
Ontario Ministry of Environment Proposed Performance Plus+ Demonstration Program - Draft Generic Pilot Site Agreement (authorship unknown).
Ontario Ministry of Environment Proposal to Establish "Performance Plus+": A Program to Recognize and Encourage Voluntary Acton. Prepared by the Program Steering Committee for the Memorandum of Understanding on Pollution Prevention and Reduction; CCPA and MOE, June 1999.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Permits Handbook: Portland November 2000: 86-87.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality The Oregon Green Permits Program (brochure): Portland, October 1999.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Concept of Operations for Using Mobile Devices to Improve Lab-Sample Information - Third Draft, an unpublished presentation by Bob Walter, Research Engineer, Penn State Applied Research Laboratory, November 3, 2000.
Pollution Probe Towards Credible and Effective Environmental Voluntary Initiatives: Lessons Learned Pollution Probe Foundation: Toronto, June 1999
Project XL: Massachusetts Environmental Results Program (ERP) fact sheet; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, October 1998.
Russo, Michael V. and Paul A. Fouts "A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability" Academy of Management Journal , June 1997.
Silberman, Jon D. "Does Environmental Deterrence Work? Evidence and Experience Say Yes, But We Need to Understand How and Why," The Environmental Law Reporter, Washington, DC, July 2000.
Sparrow, Malcolm K. The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems and Managing Compliance. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2000.
Speir, Jerry. Green Permits and Cooperative Environmental Agreements: A Report on Regulatory Innovation Programs in Oregon and Wisconsin Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Research Paper No. 4, National Academy of Public Administration: Washington, DC, June 2000.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Project XL: From Pilot to Practice, A Journey to System Change Office of the Administrator: Washington, DC, September 1999.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Project XL Comprehensive Report. Office of Policy and Reinvention, Washington, DC, October 1999.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft Action Plan for Promoting the Use of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Washington, DC, December 1999.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Environmental Performance Track Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation: Washington DC, June 2000c.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Innovation at the Environmental Protection Agency: A Decade of Progress. Office of the Administrator:
Washington, DC, April 2000a.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) What is Project XL? Excellence and Leadership in Environmental Protection Office of the Administrator: Washington, DC, May 2000b.
US National Academy of Public Administration study, Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for the Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC, 1995: 161-162.
World Bank Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998: Toward Cleaner Production.
Internet Links
Alberta Department of Environment, http://www.gov.ab.ca/env/index.html
ARET www.ec.gc.ca/aret; public comment on the ARET discussion paper is found at http://www.ec.gc.ca/aret/consult/consul_e.html
Australian Government's Business Entry Point - http://www.business.gov.au/home/default.asp?flash=1
Australia's EnviroEd, including Networks and Service Directories, http://www.environment.gov.au/education/aeen/industry.html
Australia's Environmental Protection Act tools, http://www.act.gov.au/environ/epa/fore.html.
Australia's BizLink, including Codes of Practice, http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/search97cgi/s97_cgi
California EPA Permit Assistance Centers, http://www.calgold.ca.gov/pac.asp.
Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention http://c2p2.sarnia.com
Canadian Chemical Producers Association Report on Responsible Care http://www.ccpa.ca/english/library/RepDocsEN/RC99EN.pdf.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment www.ccme.ca
Commission for Environmental Cooperation - Catalogue of North American Enforcement Training Courses http://www.inece.org/Projects/CATALOGUne1.html
Compliance Information Project (US EPA) Literature Summaries report http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oppa/litsummary.pdf
Conference Board of Canada www.conferenceboard.ca
Environment Canada www.ec.gc; Canadian Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, http://www3.ec.gc.ca/cppic/index_e.htm, and Compliance Promotion Program http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/epb/fpd/en/compliance/
European Environment Agency www.eea.eu.int
Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Secretary's Quarterly Performance Report http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ospp/report/intro.htm
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Compliance Assistance Tools, http://www.seattle.battelle.org/clearinghouse/index.asp?frmTab=Location&frmTop icID=C:10:800:150:FL:
Handspring Palm Pilot OS system models www.handspring.com
Illinois Department of Natural Resources - Critical Trends Assessment Program (CTAP II) - http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/inrin/ctap/ctaphome.htm
Japan - Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment http://www.keidanren.or.jp/index.html. Its October 2000 policy statement on regulatory reform is at http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2000/052.html and a follow-up to its 1997 action plan is at www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/pol097/outline.hmtl.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection www.state.ma.us/dep/erp.htm
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program, www.deq.state.mi.us/ead/retap/.
Ministry of Housing, Land-use Planning and the Environment (Netherlands) www.minvrom.nl
Mobipocket (software for handheld pilots) http://www.mobipocket.com/en/HomePage/default.asp
National Academy of Public Administration (Innovations in Environmental Protection) www.napawash.org/napa/index.html
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Silver and Gold Track Program, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/opppc/silver.htm
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Governor's Awards for Pollution Prevention http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2gov.html
New York Department of Environmental Conservation Compliance Assistance Tools - http://www.seattle.battelle.org/clearinghouse/index.asp?frmTab=Location&frmTop icID=C:10:800:150:NY; also Guide to DEC, and http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dpae/pubs/compubs.html:
Nuvo Media e-Books www.rocket-ebook.com
Ontario Ministry of the Environment www.ene.gov.on.ca
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality www.deq.state.or.us
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection - Compliance Assistance Tools http://www.seattle.battelle.org/clearinghouse/index.asp?frmTab=Location&frmTop icID=C:10:800:150:PA.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection - Environmental Assistance Network (PEAN, aka the Network) http://www.pean.state.pa.us/.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection - Technical Assistance Program http://www.penntap.psu.edu/
Primer PDF Viewer - software for handheld devices http://www.ansyr.com
US EPA - Clearinghouse, including Guidance Materials, Training Materials, Policy Documents, Quick Reference, Fact sheets, Web sites, Case Studies, Checklists, and Environmental Management Systems. There is also a Compliance Assistance 'Provide Directory' that offers links by EPA Region, by State, by Program, by Industry Sector, and Other Contacts.
US EPA - Compliance Assistance Centers, www.assistancecenters.net.
US EPA - National Environmental Performance Track - 'Achievement Track Facts;' http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/ and Program Description: http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/about/descriptionjune2000.pdf.
US EPA - Office of Environment and Compliance Assurance http://es.epa.gov/oeca/99activity.html, and http://es.epa.gov/oeca/innovative/approaches.html.
US EPA - Project XL www.epa.gov./ProjectXL
US EPA - Sustainable Industry Program, Industry Sector Policy Division, Office of Policy Development http://www.epa.gov/sustainableindustry/index.htm, and http://www.epa.gov/sustainableindustry/aboutus.htm.
US EPA - 33/50 http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/3350/33fin01.htm; the report 33/50: The Final Record is available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/3350/index.html
US General Accounting Office 1997 'Investigators' Guide to Sources of Information' (GAO/OSI-97-2) http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/soi.htm
Voluntary Challenge and Registry Inc. www.vcr-mur.ca
Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources - Environmental Cooperation Pilot Program, http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/ecpp/index.htm.
World Bank "New Ideas in Pollution Regulation" www.worldbank.org/nipr www.state.ma.us/dep/erp.htm
Individual Contacts
Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Edwin Irby, Assistant Director of Resource Assessment and Management, Tel: (850) 922-6407; e-mail Edwin.Irby@dep.state.fl.us
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Eugene Pezdek, Director of information Services. Tel: (518) 457-6367; e-mail gwpezdek@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Pennsylvania - Zeke Brehm, Acting Electronic Commerce Coordinator, Office of Information Technology, Tel: (717) 705-3869; e-mail zbrehm@state.pa.us.
US EPA Region IV (Atlanta) - Bruce Miller, Deputy Director, Environmental Accountability Division, Tel: (404) 562-9655.
This site is maintained by the Government of Ontario
Privacy |
Important Notices
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2007
Last modified: Tuesday October 21 2008