United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Reinvention
(1801)
EPA100-R-98-011
December 1998
v>EPA The Common Sense Initiative
tSSQ KS
About Protecting the
Environment in
Common Sense,
Cost Effective Ways
'-£/ Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
Participating and communicating in an open, direct,
cooperative, and trusting spirit.
Addressing each member's views with respect, and
working to build common ground when divergent
perspectives are expressed.
Understanding the compromises necessary to reach
consensus, and taking care not to misrepresent the views
of other parties on any agreement reached or to mischar-
acterize as final those matters still under discussion.
Seeking to reach a consensus in good faith, asking for
clarification, offering alternative suggestions, and lis-
tening with an open mind to issues under discussion.
Building relationships with other members that go
beyond the tenure of the Council/Subcommittee.
Conducting ourselves and our organizations in
a manner consistent with the goals and spirit
of CSI, which each member has accepted by
agreeing to serve on the CSI Council.
-------
Carol M.Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
of the Environmental Protection
Agency, I am pleased to offer this special report highlighting lessons learned
from EPAs Common Sense Initiative (CSI).
CSI served as a vital part of the Clinton Administration's efforts to reinvent
government, led by Vice President Al Gore. As part of that reinvention initia-
tive, EPA is implementing a broad-based agenda to make environmental and
public health protection work smarter, more fairly and more cost-effectively for
all Americans. For example, under EPAs new commitment to improving the
public's right-to-know, more than 40 million people now visit our websites
each month. We've reduced unnecessary paperwork burden associated with
environmental regulation by nearly 25 million hours. And we've taken steps
like these and others without sacrificing any environmental or public health
protection. In 1997 alone, industries and other reinvention partners in EPAs
voluntary programs went beyond the requirements of the law and prevented
7.6 million tons of waste and 79 million tons of air pollution from reaching the
environment—while saving $1.6 billion.
CSI has been one of the most significant contributors to this innovation and
progress. We designed CSI to take environmental protection beyond the com-
mand-and-control, pollutant-by-pollutant approach that has marked it for the
past 25 years. The result was a novel industrial sector-by-sector approach
aimed at developing more integrated, comprehensive strategies for protecting
our air, our water and our land. CSI also promoted unprecedented levels of
cooperation among stakeholders—those most affected by environmental deci-
sions, including representatives from industry, environmentalists, and govern-
ment officials at all levels. In this manner, we avoided the old adversarial
approach that produced gridlock in the past.
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
Based on our experience with CSI, EPA now is expanding opportunities for stake-
holder involvement in environmental decision-making. And we are improving tradi-
tional EPA functions, such as regulation, permitting, and compliance assistance. By
applying the many lessons learned from this unique program, we will ensure that
these common sense, cost-effective approaches prevail in developing the next gener-
ation of environmental protection.
The success of an experiment like CSI depends greatly on the dedication and
hard work of the people who participate. In all, more than 300 people from indus-
try, all levels of government, and environmental and other public interest groups
have served in an official capacity on the CSI Council or subcommittees while many
more have served unofficially on project workgroups. Each individual has brought a
unique perspective and set of experiences that have affected the outcome in some
particular way. In the spirit of continued inclusiveness, several participants were
invited to offer their views here on what CSI has taught us and what it might mean
for the future. These views vary, but they all reveal a common thread that is encour-
aging and reassuring—a genuine willingness to work toward the cleaner, cheaper,
smarter solutions to environmental and public health protection that we all know
are possible.
On behalf of EPA, I would like to thank the many individuals that have partici-
pated in CSI. After five years of being personally involved in CSI's design, launch
and implementation, our work together leaves me confident about our ability to
innovate, to find more efficient, cost-effective solutions, and ultimately to build an
even stronger system of environmental protection for the 21st Century.
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
Our Bold Experiment
Understanding the Common Sense Initiative
Reflections on CSI [[[ «-ar» 12
Industry [[[ 13
State Government [[[ 18
Local Government [[[ 19
Environmental [[[ 20
Environmental Justice [[[ 22
Labor [[[ 23
-------
The Common bense Initiative
K SKe yeZ?Ta/ter coming to the
Environmental Protection Agency, as part of Vice-President Gore's
reinventing government initiative, Administrator Browner
announced that EPA would launch a bold new experiment Known
as the Common Sense Initiative (CSl), this experiment was
designed to test a "fundamentally different system" for environmen
tal and human health protection shaped by the needs of specific
industry sectors and other stakeholders.
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
The Goal
The goal of CSI was to develop cleaner, cheap-
er, smarter approaches for protecting our citizens
and the natural environment. This meant finding
ways to overcome the limitations of the current
system, in particular, the pollutant-by-pollutant,
media-by-media approach to regulation that has
evolved under the nation's environmental laws.
This approach, which has meant focusing on air,
land, and water issues separately, has enabled us
to successfully control pollution from large indus-
trial and municipal sources. But recent years have
shown its limitations.
We now understand that efforts to control pol-
lution into one medium, such as air, can actually
increase pollution into the water or land. A com-
partmentalized regulatory system has also made it
more challenging for facility managers to track,
understand, and comply with environmental
requirements. Likewise, regulatory staff working
within compartmentalized organizational struc-
tures have been hindered from seeing environ-
mental improvement opportunities lying outside
their traditional realm of responsibility.
A second major constraint has been exclusive-
ness. In the past, environmental management has
been dominated by two parties: regulatory agen-
cies and regulated facilities. As a result, other
interested stakeholders have not had access to
environmental information, much less an active,
meaningful role in decision-making.
Years of gridlock and frustration from dealing
with these scenarios have led many parties to ask
"isn't there a better way?" Common sense suggests
there is, and that is why the Common Sense
Initiative was launched. Through CSI, EPA invited
many diverse parties to put aside old perceptions
and to work together on problem-solving.
Participants were challenged to find new solutions
that would better address the special needs of
industry and concerned stakeholders.
A Unique Process
Six industry sectors were selected to test this
new tailored approach. At the time, these sectors
comprised 11 percent of the U.S. gross national
product; employed more than four million peo-
ple; and accounted for more than 12 percent of
the toxic releases reported by American industry.
They were strategically chosen to represent a
broad array of industrial challenges. Automobile
manufacturing, iron and steel, and petroleum
refining were three large, highly regulated indus-
tries with a long, and sometimes controversial,
relationship with EPA. The metal finishing and
printing sectors were chosen to represent small
business' interests. And the computers and elec-
tronics industry was selected because of its rela-
tive newness; many of its processes were not in
existence when environmental laws were written
and basic requirements set years ago.
From the beginning, CSI was set up as an
inclusive forum. Along with industry representa-
tives, environmental organizations, environmental
justice and community groups, labor unions, and
regulatory agencies were invited to explore innov-
ative reform opportunities. All of these interests
brought different perspectives and priorities to the
table for discussion. Many industry representa-
tives wanted less regulatory burden and more
operational flexibility; environmentalists sought
continued tough action against polluters; commu-
nities pressed for better information about indus-
tries in their neighborhoods; labor unions were
concerned about workplace environmental health
issues; and state, tribal, and local governments
rallied for more efficient regulatory processes. So
that all participants would have an equal voice,
CSI used a consensus-based decision-making
process. This meant that everyone had to agree on
a decision before action was taken, a feature that
has proven to be one of CSI's greatest strengths
and greatest challenges.
CSI was guided by a Council that included
senior leaders from all of the stakeholder groups.
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
Subcommittees were established to explore issues
facing each sector. The subcommittees then creat-
ed work groups to pursue various projects specific
to their interests. The results from these efforts
were then brought back to the Council for discus-
sion about how they might be used to affect pro-
gressive change and improvements. In some cases,
the results showed that the time had come to
change standard business practices, by industry
sectors or by regulatory agencies. Other results
pointed to the need for a change in the regulatory
framework; in these cases, formal recommenda-
tions were presented to EPA with the expectation
that regulatory action would be given serious con-
sideration.
Significant Outcomes
True to its experimental nature, CSI has pro-
duced expected and unexpected results. Some
results are tangible while others are intangible;
some have broad-based applicability while others
affect very specific interests. A comprehensive CSI
evaluation, expected to be completed by spring
1999, will present a more in-depth analysis of the
work that has evolved under CSI. However, as an
Agency at the center of the CSI process, we
already see some important benefits that have
emerged as a result of the sustained commitment
and determination shown by all participants.
First, CSI has significantly improved working
relationships among stakeholders, many of whom
had only interacted as adversaries in the past. For
more than four years, CSI stakeholders worked
together to achieve consensus on a variety of
issues. The process was slow, sometimes tedious,
and always challenging. But it forced participants
to listen to others' views and to consider others'
special needs and priorities. Even though com-
mon ground was not always reached, the experi-
ence has shown the benefits that can evolve from
a consensus-based process. These benefits include
environmental management strategies that are
more efficient and effective because those ulti-
CSFs Organization
Automobile
Manufacturing
Subcommittee
Computers &
Electronics
Subcommittee
Iron and Steel
Subcommittee
Metal
Finishing
Subcommittee
Petroleum
Refining
Subcommittee
Printing
Subcommittee
Project
Work
Groups
Project
Work
Groups
Project
Work
Groups
Project
Work
Groups
Project
Work
Groups
Project
Work
Groups
EPAs Administrator and Deputy Administrator co-chaired the CSI Council;
Assistant Administrators, Regional Administrators, and Deputy Regional Administrators chaired CSI subcommittees.
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
mately charged with implementation have a voice
in the development. By achieving buy-in up front
and avoiding gridlock, these strategies can also be
implemented more quickly.
Second, CSI has provided enormous learning
opportunities on a variety of environmental, eco-
nomic, and social issues. The effects of this learn-
ing are already being seen in some important
organizational decisions by EPA. For example, the
importance that all sectors placed on environmen-
tal information reforms was one of the key factors
that contributed to EPAfe decision to create a new
Office of Information. Announced this year, this
new office will consolidate a wide range of infor-
mation reforms, including: reducing the regulato-
ry burden associated with collecting and reporting
environmental data, filling significant data gaps,
and providing integrated environmental and
human health information to the public.
Recognizing the value that involving stakeholders
has added through the CSI process, EPA is carry-
ing out the CSI Council recommendations to
improve opportunities for stakeholders to become
involved in environmental issues. An Agency
action plan lays out specific steps that should
open the door for more frequent and more mean-
ingful stakeholder interactions.
Another distinctive legacy of CSI learning will
be the sector-based activities that evolve and grow
within the Agency as a result of a comprehensive
sector action plan. This action plan, also devel-
oped with the CSI Council's guidance, should not
only maintain, but intensify, the Agency's attention
to sectors that has been given through the CSI
process.
A final, broad set of benefits can also be seen
from the many pilot projects launched under CSI.
As the following examples show, all six sectors
can point to notable achievements that will affect
the way they do business in the future.
How CSI Has Worked
EPA selected CSI organized
industry m with diverse
sectors representation
Indentification
of key issues
for attention by U
Sector
Subcommittees
Innovations
tested by
project
work groups
Subcommittees/
work groups
jointly evaluated
m results & made 1
recommendations
for Council
consideration
Council reviewed
and forwarded
> appropriate
recommendations
to EPA for action
Action by CSI
participants
based upon new
realizations and
opportunities
Action by EPA
on new policy
or regulation
Evolution of
Cleaner, Cheaper, Smarter
Approaches
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
Metal Finishing
The metal finishing industry and its CSI stake-
holders reached agreement on far-reaching envi-
ronmental performance goals that go beyond what
is required by law. Through a new Strategic Goals
Program, the industry is pursuing pollution pre-
vention strategies to achieve even cleaner opera-
tions—these strategies could cut toxic emissions
to air and water by 70 percent (compared to 1992
levels). They have also committed to achieving
industry-wide compliance with all applicable
environmental requirements, in part by support-
ing swift enforcement action against firms that
routinely fail to comply.
The Strategic Goals program was launched in
January 1998. To date, more than 250 companies,
17 States, and 34 local waste water facilities are
participating. All of the stakeholders involved in
developing this program agreed to certain actions
to support the industry in reaching its goals. For
example, EPA, as well as states and local govern-
ments, are working with participating firms to
define meaningful incentives for companies to
continue to improve their environmental perfor-
mance. These incentives include reduced report-
ing and monitoring, rapid government response
on regulatory decisions, and enforcement discre-
tion for companies testing new pollution preven-
tion technology.
Computer and Electronics
The computer and elec-
tronics sector addressed a
major solid waste manage-
ment challenge for its
industry — how to handle
mounting volumes of out-
dated computer and elec-
tronics equipment. In the
past, recycling this equip-
ment has been difficult because the cathode ray
tubes (CRT) used in display monitors often con-
tain lead. Because of this content, EPAs hazardous
waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act require that the
glass be transported and processed as a hazardous
waste. The Computer and Electronics
Subcommittee developed a proposal to change
this rule so that the glass can be recovered and
reused as raw material in CRT glass manufactur-
ing. In addition to increasing recycling and reduc-
ing regulatory burden, this change will prevent
lead releases into the environment. EPA expects to
propose a rule change based on this recommenda-
tion in spring 1999.
Automobile
Manufacturing
The automobile sector
became the first indus-
try ever to make its
environmental perfor-
mance information
publicly available. In
1997, a database was
created based on envi-
ronmental data from automobile assembly plants
and census data for the surrounding communi-
ties. Now concerned citizens can go online to find
out about environmental performance at specific
plants. This new information resource can be
accessed from EPAs home page at
www.epa.gov/oar/opar.
10
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
Iron and
Steel
The Iron
and Steel
Subcommittee
recognized a
critical need for
better information exchange. In response, they
requested that EPA establish special liaisons to
answer stakeholder questions about EPAs interac-
tion with the iron and steel industry, to ensure the
industry's reform proposals receive prompt atten-
tion, to provide the industry with basic informa-
tion about regulatory requirements, and more
generally, to improve communications and under-
standing among stakeholders. Last year, EPA des-
ignated a national liaison at its headquarters in
Washington and, based on the large number of
mills concentrated around the Great Lakes region,
a regional liaison in its Chicago office. By provid-
ing direct access to EPA, the liaisons have proven
to be a simple but effective way of improving
communications and addressing information
needs.
For example, in the first year, liaisons facilitat-
ed discussions that resulted in one company
obtaining more operational flexibility in exchange
for more restrictive air permit limits. In another
instance, the liaisons quickly provided cost infor-
mation on cleanup of abandoned plants during
negotiations between plant officials and steel-
workers union representatives. In an action with
broader implications, the liaisons helped resolve
industry concerns about testing for dioxin, a
human carcinogen found in industrial effluent.
Printing
The Printing Subcommittee developed and is
now testing a simpler regulatory "framework" that
will ultimately benefit the environment, printers,
and the public. PrintSTEP (Printers' Simplified
Total Environmental Partnership) tests a variety of
new approaches for making the regulatory system
more effective, flexible, and transparent for inter-
ested parties. PrintSTEP does not change the
existing environmental standards for the printing
industry. Instead, it changes the process of imple-
menting those standards. Key elements of the new
approach include: providing a level of regulatory
oversight proportional to the level of waste or
emissions generated; enhanced opportunity for
public involvement;
plain language tools to
assist printers in
understanding regula-
tory requirements; and
a streamlined environ-
mental permitting
process.
Petroleum Refining
The petroleum refining industry developed a
way to significantly reduce the regulatory burden
associated with reporting on air emissions under
Clean Air Act requirements. Through a pilot pro-
ject, the industry and its stakeholders created
more flexible reporting schedules and formats. In
addition to reducing the regulatory burden, this
model reduced regulatory agency review time,
and improved community understanding and
access to environmental information about the
facility. Based on results, the stakeholders made
formal recommenda-
tions to EPA on ways to
improve reporting effi-
ciency and data accessi-
bility for the refining
industry and their
neighboring communi-
ties nationwide.
The Common Sense Initiative
11
-------
Jtctivnt
/^T^T
onCSI
K tt(£WUflWty{& tSSCOjS, individuals represent-
ing each of the major stakeholder groups—industry, state and local
governments, environmental, environmental justice, and labor—
share their views on CSl. They describe what they have learned
from this experimental effort and comment on how it might affect
environmental and public health protection in the future. Their con-
tributions, which are candid and insightful, represent the views of
the individuals; they do not necessarily represent the views of the
broader constituencies these individuals represent.
-------
Dan V Bartosh, Jr.
Facilities and Corporate
Environmental Affairs
Manager
Texas Instruments
CSI Council and Computer
and Electronics
Subcommittee
believe the Common Sense Initiative has benefitted all participants. It
brought together representatives from the different industries, environmental orga-
nizations, labor unions, academia, and state and federal regulators to work toward
the goal of cleaner, cheaper, smarter environmental solutions. The most important
outcome has been the non-threatening collaboration that allowed us to make rec-
ommendations and changes that were win-win for business, the environment, and
communities. The collaboration, teamwork, and better understanding of all repre-
sented groups' concerns, issues and perspectives have been invaluable and have
set the stage for long-lasting improvements.
Several key factors led to successful outcomes. The subcommittee's participants
showed an admirable willingness to be honest, open, and fair-minded about the
issues under discussion, even when they may have felt strongly about a particular
issue. Having a facilitator at the meetings definitely helped the discussion process.
So did the flexibility of EPAs participating representatives, who practiced "thinking
outside the box." The timely communications and updates that EPA provided were
also very helpful in keeping participants informed.
Over time, the diverse stakeholders represented on the Computers and Electronic
Subcommittee built strong relationships that I hope will last into the future.
Stakeholders seemed very cautious at first, but through the process, trust was
built, collaboration became easier, and minds were more objective. Maintaining
these relationships will be key if we are to make progress on future initiatives.
While CSI has not significantly affected our business practices, it has led to some changes. For example, work-
ing together we found a solution for recycling growing stockpiles of outdated computer and electronics equipment.
Recycling this equipment has been costly and burdensome in the past because of the lead content in cathode ray
tubes. Our subcommittee recommended changes to the regulations that would make recycling easier. This change,
which EPA is working to propose through a regulatory proposal, is an especially important one for our industry. As
a result of their involvement in this effort, I believe other stakeholders now have a better understanding of the
challenges we face in providing high-quality products for consumers. This understanding may help us collaborate
on pollution prevention opportunities in the future.
Based on the experience of the Computers and Electronic Subcommittee, I believe that CSI can serve as a
process model for how to move toward cleaner, cheaper, smarter environmental protection. It is a better approach
all around than the traditional regulations generated and directed by the EPA and States alone. The only disadvan-
tage to involvement is the time investment required, and the costs for stakeholders to participate.
CSI has been very effective in demonstrating that not all areas of industry can be handled with one size fits all
regulation. We have seen that sector-based approaches are a better way to proceed. They are more workable and
they can help us get equal or even better environmental results more efficiently. CSI has allowed us to explore
issues specific to our sector. I do not believe we would have made any progress had we been part of a larger group
focused on more general issues.
The cross-media, sector-based approach of CSI enabled our subcommittee to take a holistic view of industry and
stakeholder issues. This approach makes sense and is the way we should do business. A major barrier to using this
approach in the future will be getting all the different regulatory agencies working together in a coordinated manner.
As for future experimentation, the CSI process and approach should be used whenever appropriate. Someday, this
new model could become common practice for protecting the environment, workers in industry, and communities.
The Common Sense Initiative
13
-------
David S. Marsh
Chairman
Marsh Plating
Company
CSI Council and Metal
Finishing Subcommittee
hat exactly have we learned from CSI over the past four years? Has it
been a success? Is it a model for how the EPA should interact with the industry
segments it regulates? Will this type of multi-stakeholder effort work for all types
of industries?
In general I would submit that the answer to all of the above is an unqualified
yes. This statement however must be tempered by the following covenants.
1. All stakeholders who come to the table must be truly committed to allowing
changes to take place, if the changes meet the goals of "cleaner, cheaper and
smarter."
2. All participants at the table must have the ability to make decisions and bind
their respective organizations to the agreement reached.
3. The Agency, at both a national and regional level, must be willing to actively
participate and promote the suggestions of the Council.
4. The Agency must have the ability to make more efficient and timely decisions
with regard to regulatory flexibility.
I became involved with CSI because I saw an opportunity to raise and hopefully
address some major shortcomings in the environmental area. My experience in
running a business has shown me that "common sense" has often evaded the deci-
sion-making process when it comes to environmental regulations. We in industry
have had to live with decisions that were made with the best intentions, but with-
out sufficient science or a real understanding of the industries being regulated. Often, suggestions for innovative
changes that would on balance improve the environment and health of the country, have been viewed with pro-
found skepticism and as opportunities for backsliding. As a result, we have faced tighter regulations and more
stringent controls, without any logic driving their implementation, except the perception that they might be
achieved. The CSI process was intended to improve environmental management by reframing these issues and
building better relationships among stakeholders. It does advance these objectives, but the hurdles remain high.
I see the CSI process as the best avenue yet developed for bringing all of the various stakeholders together to
educate each other. Based on my CSI experience, I believe that this education process has given all the stakehold-
ers a better understanding of each others' individual goals and thought processes. This understanding cannot help
but lead to a better regulatory framework in the future.
I believe that for the CSI process to continue and to be successful, it is necessary for the Agency to become a
very proactive participant. The Agency should view the suggestions of the Council with a very open mind. It is cer-
tainly the charge of the Agency to protect and improve the environment and public health of our country, and
quite frankly, I felt that was the goal of ALL of the CSI Council members. However the Agency must also realize
that there are often better, cheaper ways to accomplish these goals than those originally conceived in Washington.
When these options surface through venues such as CSI, the Agency should aggressively pursue them. In this way,
EPA can meet its responsibilities to improve and protect our environment. But it can also help assure that, to the
extent possible, it's done in a manner that allows our industrial base to remain competitive worldwide.
As we view the relative success of the various CSI sectors, it would appear initially that the small industry sec-
tors accomplished more. However it is my view that this was true because these sectors complied more fully with
the first three covenants that I laid out earlier. I would encourage the Agency to continue its efforts to work with
specific industry sectors, but to focus on those sectors that are ready for and committed to the goal of constructive
change. I would also encourage the Agency to candidly evaluate what mechanisms and tools might be necessary to
advance innovation and to take reasonable risk through regulatory actions that deliver real common sense reforms.
14
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
So, what have we truly learned from CSI? We've learned that given the right mix of people the process does
work. We've learned that across all sectors there are common interests, (e.g., the need for improved consolidated
electronic reporting). We've learned that often there is nearly unanimous agreement among the industry, state and
local representatives about the need for change and the changes required. Too often, the true impediment to
change is the Agency itself. The leadership of the EPA is to be commended for its effort to modify the way the
Agency "does business". But for real progress to take place, this willingness to change must be embraced by the
entire organization.
\7oi
or four years, I have served on the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) printing subcommittee as well as the
Council. I want to thank Administrator Carol Browner for asking me to serve, and for always being willing to listen
to me and to others. I would also like to thank all the people who touched my life, many who were outside of
industry. EPA called the CSI participants "stakeholders". Now, I call them "friends."
In the beginning when I was asked to the first CSI meeting at EPA headquarters, many things came to mind.
The goal of "cleaner, cheaper, smarter" were words I could and have lived by at my company — Custom Print. But
CSI gave me and others an opportunity to take this idea to a higher level. Would the EPA really try to change
things and would our industry really have a chance to influence their thinking? If
so, that was an opportunity I did not want to miss!
As a result of CSI, EPA, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), environ-
mental justice (EJ) representatives, and other industries got a chance to see inside
the printing industry for the first time. Before, they were familiar with our prod-
ucts, but they didn't understand the process for creating them. We had an oppor-
tunity to show them a great deal about how we operate, including how we try to
prevent pollution and go beyond what EPA requires.
In meeting after meeting, I saw barriers between people come down. Trust
developed and partnerships formed. The idea of leaving the ego at the door and
coming in to work on projects made a big difference. So did having strong facili-
tators, such as Greg Bourne, Tom Fee, and Debra Nudelman, who kept us on
track and pushed us toward our goals.
Most important to me were the lessons learned from my fellow representatives. I
did not know what "EJ" stood for until I met Dr. Ely Dorsey and Dr. Bob Collins.
Now that I understand this issue, I have become a believer in and advocate for com-
munity involvement. After meeting Velma Smith from Friends of the Earth and Carol
Andress from the Environmental Defense Fund, I now have a better understanding of
issues that are important to environmental groups. Before meeting Jeff Adrian from
the John Roberts Company, I did not know other printers that thought as I did. Until
I met Marcia Kinter from the Screenprinting & Graphic Imaging Association,
International and Mark Nuzzaco from the National Association of Suppliers of
Printing and Publishing Technologies, I saw industry trade association professionals
as all the same. As for EPA, I saw it as a rule-making organization that did not truly
C. Stuart
McMichael
Executive Vice-
President
Custom Print, Inc.
CSI Council and
Printing Subcommittee
The Common Sense Initiative
15
-------
understand the printing process, until Mike Stahl and Steve Hermann •
toured my plant to see printing in action.
- two of its senior executives — came and
The experience of CSI has impacted me in many ways, some visible, some not. On a personal level, I learned that
when all parties join in on the dialogue, a better answer comes forth. It really is true that two (or more) heads are
better than one. From a business perspective, it was heartening to see other participants' engaging on issues that
those of us in business wrestle with everyday. The PrintSTEP project, for example, focused us on finding ways to do
away with paperwork requirements that burden printing companies, but do not add value for the environment.
I participated in CSI because I am a businessman who cares about people, the environment, and doing a good
job. I wanted to understand the issues that relate to and affect my industry. CSI gave me and others in the printing
sector an opportunity to take on tough issues, such as community involvement and cumulative exposure; to push
through tough decisions; and to come up with a better way of doing business.
We must keep reaching for a better way. If we can work together and learn from our experiences, including
the difficulties and mistakes, we can make progress. I am proud to have been there when some important steps
were taken.
experience with the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) was gained, primarily, from the time I spent with the
Iron and Steel Subcommittee, and only recently with the Council. Without doubt,
this has been one of the most significant adventures in my career: the opportunity
to work with high-level state and federal environmental professionals, with
national and local environmental activists, and peers in industry. The common
goal went beyond the "cleaner, cheaper, smarter" outline provided by Carol
Browner when she announced the CSI; rather, seeing the impact of our operations
through other eyes. Interestingly, all the stakeholders seemed to have similar
vision problems: myopia, presbyopia, and every other "opia" known to exist.
However, when we all sat down, and put our corrective lenses on, we were able to
bring several issues into focus.
The most important outcome was establishing methods for attacking "stupid,"
nonsensical rules, policies, and other prohibitions that limit environmental
progress in the United States. Whether improvements occur by setting up lines of
communication between industry and local activists, or by incorporating some of
the "lessons learned" into daily Agency practice, or any other manifestation, there
is a strong desire to achieve environmental progress.
16
Another important outcome was improving understanding among diverse
interests. I was heartened to see that through CSI, the environmental activists
understand the reality that industry people have hearts and souls, that they do
care for the environment and not just maintaining the status quo. My personal
views were expanded, too; before participating in CSI, I viewed a permit as a sim-
ple, bilateral agreement between the company and the Agency. I now see it as an
opportunity to involve local affected people so that they can be supportive of our
plans for improving the quality of life in the affected community.
The Common Sense Initiative
Michael S.
Peters
Manager
Environmental
Structural Metals, Inc.
CSI Council and Iron
and Steel Subcommittee
-------
Key factors that led to successes were (1) education, knowledge and information sharing, (2) trust, (3) a willing-
ness to make tough decisions, and (4) strong Agency support for innovation. Regardless of who raised an issue or
idea, the information transfer that was involved created a "no holds barred" atmosphere. Many times, lack of basic
information and understanding prevented progress. Once this obstacle was cleared away, progress was made.
The trust issue was the result of years of misinformation and old prejudices. It was not completely overcome,
but it was at least recognized as a major factor. The interpersonal relationships that were developed should help
build this trust on a larger scale.
Decision making skills were not always used in the early months and clearly jeopardized the outcome. When all
parties became willing to take a leap of faith and make a decision based on their best judgement, without needing
to have the unconditional support of their constituencies, progress was made.
The support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and all the participating state agencies was also cru-
cial to progress. By the end, even EPAs most traditional staff in enforcement seemed to support a more cooperative
rather than dictatorial, retributional, punitive approach seen at the beginning of the CSI discussions.
There will be several long-term implications from the CSI process. The personal relationship between stakehold-
ers will continue. We have already seen positive results from those relationships in on-going efforts of individuals,
facilities, and trade organizations. Business practices, especially of the participants, may not appear to change
much, unfortunately, to the unknowing eye. However, the "cleaner, cheaper, smarter" concept is imbedded into
environmental planning and thought process; business feels freer to critically evaluate old paradigms of both pollu-
tion prevention and regulatory compliance.
The agency's efforts to incorporate sector based approaches, when appropriate, is also worthwhile. The iron and
steel's liaisons within EPA, Ed Wojciechowski and Bill Sonntag, have been very beneficial to all stakeholders.
Regardless of the issue or stakeholder group, having these people to talk to, the benefit of their technical experi-
ence and contacts, and their ability to see beyond bureacratic gobbledygook, can only add to our progress over the
next years. Although I have some personal reservations as to the extent the Agency can apply sector based
approaches, whenever they can be implemented will be useful. Certainly, the sector based approaches will allow for
more information sharing and opportunities for productive dialogue among all stakeholders.
Multi-media approaches have long been sought by industry as business-friendly In the interest of complying
with congressional or court-ordered time limitations, EPA has promulgated single-media rules instead. As a result,
the instances where the Agency has forced cross-media impacts, without fully recognizing these impacts, are
numerous. Now, having learned much from this process, stakeholders can better understand these unintended
impacts and may be more willing to consider regulatory revisions.
Regardless of the approach we take in the future — single media or multi-media—the greatest opportunities for
environmental improvement may be behind us. We've come a long way in learning to prevent and control pollu-
tion from our operations. The next increments of improvement will be harder to obtain. Certainly, as science and
health research advises us of new impacts, the U.S. manufacturing sector will need to address the concerns. But, it
is time for society to realize its own - as in "each individual" - responsibility for causing many of today's problems,
and ultimately finding workable, effective solutions.
The Common Sense Initiative 17
-------
Rick Reibstein
Assistant Director
Massachusetts Office of
Technical Assistance for
Toxic Use Reduction
CSI Computer and
Electronics
Subcommittee
L-he. Common Sense Initiative was a breath of fresh air that gave me hope
about the ability of government to reform itself for the better, and the potential
for productive discussion about contentious issues by people with radically differ-
ent perspectives. Saying this is not to deny that CSI was a great deal of hard work
and at times was frustrating to the point of exasperation. But I have been with it
from the beginning, and when I place it in the context of the years I have spent in
government service or working with government from the outside, it shines as an
example of good faith, intelligent intent, and earnest effort. I am proud to have
been part of it.
I think CSI should be evaluated in two ways. One is to look at the specific,
tangible products that were produced. The other is to consider the ideas that were
raised, but which never achieved the status of completion as a proposal ratified by
the CSI Council.
I think that few could reasonably argue with the contention that many excel-
lent products have come out of CSI. From my experience with just one sector, I
know that the Electronics and Computer Subcommittee has helped EPA to
address the fact that for years, many of its policies and interpretations were simply
unknown to the public. The work of the subcommittee's Enhanced Public Access
Task Force promises to result not just in greater public knowledge, but in the rec-
onciliation of conflicting policies as well, and a more effective policy-making
process. Similarly, the subcommittee has produced examples of simplified, clari-
fied, and unified reporting mechanisms (CURE and BOLDER), which will reduce
costs for all. These show the public that reinvention is not the same as deregula-
tion: the idea of CURE is not just to make it easier for business to report, but also to provide for better access to
better information. The idea of BOLDER is to ensure that the information leads to more effective programs — in
this case the all important area of improved emergency response.
Personally, I am particularly proud to have been part of the work involving Electronic Product Recovery and
Recycling (EPR2). This term has, to a significant extent, now replaced the old terms "End of Life Electronic" prod-
ucts, or "Disposition" of electronic waste, signaling a shift in consciousness. And the various recovery and recycling
efforts either conducted, sponsored, or analyzed by CSI were tangible manifestations of that shift. We now have
evidence that people want to recycle old computers rather than have them landfilled or incinerated, and proof that
recycling is neither economically nor technically impractical. Most importantly, perhaps, the EPR2 round table —
set up, through a cooperative agreement between EPA and the National Safety Council, to serve as a continuing
forum on EPR2 matters — is a successful replication in the private sector of the multi-stakeholder, CSI approach to
problem-solving.
But it is also important to look at the lesser known and incomplete work of CSI. Our subcommittees work
group on alternative strategies proposed a description of a performance-based alternative to the current regulatory
system. This excellent summary of principles went virtually unnoticed, but when the Aspen Institute produced a
very similar product a full year later, it received wide national attention and praise. This tells me that our views
were on target, striking a common chord that resonates with many diverse interest beyond our own sector sub-
committee.
With regard to unrealized opportunities, many regulatory barriers to pollution prevention, recycling, and envi-
ronmentally beneficial activities were raised in the first few Electronics Subcommittee meetings. Only a limited
number of these barriers were addressed. To reach the point of constructive detailed recommendations — such as
was achieved in the recommendations that were made for streamlining rules that have hindered recycling of leaded
18
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
Cathode Ray Tube glass—more expertise and background studies were needed. Our proposal for reducing the bar-
riers that inhibit our industry from using zero wastewater discharge systems is an example of an issue where we
did make progress and will offer a recommendation for action. But, we know it still needs more specifics to realize
the full potential that exists.
There are at least two lessons to be learned from our subcommittee's list of outstanding issues. First, there is
much work that remains to be done, and the CSI approach—with some streamlining of process—is a way to get it
done right. The second lesson is even more fundamental. Everyone knows there are representatives of business
interests who seem to want to remove restraints to free enterprise without regard to environmental ramifications.
But not everyone seems to appreciate that there are business people who have legitimate points to make about how
regulations work and don't work. Every item on our list of outstanding issues, it seemed to me, was one that any
true-blue environmentalist would agree needs attention. I consider myself a die-hard environmentalist, and I was
glad to meet and come to know the business people in the group—and to work with them and the others toward
making environmental rules work better for all.
a member of the Common Sense Initiative Council and Metal Finishing Subcommittee since the "begin-
ning," I have had the unique honor and privilege of being the only local government representative on the Council
and the first Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) representative on the Metal
Finishing Subcommittee. My appointments were based, in part, on my affiliation
with the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) as Chair of the
Pretreatment and Hazardous Waste Committee. Although I was privileged to be
the only local government representative on the Council (until Doreen Gary went
to work for Gary, Indiana), this fact points out that stakeholder representation was
not sufficiently balanced. What was perceived to be preference given by EPA to
environmental group representation on the Council, created a sense of "stacking
the deck" among other stakeholder groups. This perception became one of the bar-
riers to building consensus and unfortunately slowed the process. The Agency
must be very careful to ensure that proper balance of membership is achieved in
similar reinvention forums, such as FACA committees, in the future. All stakehold-
ers should keep in mind that the "bulk" of daily environmental regulation and
compliance activities occurs at the local level, not at the state or national level. The
people "in the trenches" know best how to design and build them.
Local
Government
Guy M. Aydlett
Director of Water
Quality, Hampton
Roads Sanitation
District
CSI Council and
Metal Finishing
Subcommittee
I can say without hesitation, that having lived through the whole CSI experi-
ence at the Council and Subcommittee level has helped me grow professionally
and personally. Seeing people of totally divergent philosophies and beliefs change
from bitter enemies to respect each other professionally and even to develop per-
sonal friendships, has been worth the associated pain of that development. This
benefit has been much of CSI's true worth. These professional trusts and personal
friendships will go on long after CSI ends and must continue to be forged in
future reinvention efforts, if we are to find more effective ways to use limited
resources for environmental protection and enhancement.
The Common Sense Initiative
19
-------
Much of the credit for the successes of CSI is due to the hard work and dedication of EPA headquarters and
regional staff. I have truly been inspired by their dedication to purpose, constant effort at building consensus, and
desire to develop better environmental protection and enhancement tools. I have a tremendous respect for the job
that they do.
As we look toward the new millennium, we must continue our reinvention efforts. The excellent projects and
programs that have been instituted under CSI, including the Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Project; PrintSTEP;
numerous reporting and streamlining projects, such as RIITE; focused regional enforcement initiatives; burden
reduction efforts; and others too numerous to mention should be used as models for the future. Inventive
approaches to achieving environmental goals, such as Best Management Practices, and multi-media considerations
in rulemaking and problem solving, will be keys to future success. The proposed Sector Based Environmental
Protection (SBEP) plan appears to be a logical next step and I pledge my support. However, providing appropriate
statutory and regulatory changes to facilitate experimentation and implementation of new environmental protec-
tion and enhancement tools such as SBEP, must be given the highest priority by the Agency.
We look to EPA for leadership and must see the Agency as a cohesive unit. Unfortunately, some headquarters and
regional program offices still have not "bought in" to the reinvention effort and are perceived by some stakeholders as
obstructionists, rather than facilitators. Their reaction is, "we can't," rather than "how can we?" This perception, even if
somewhat misguided, must be addressed by EPA senior management. This effort is the real challenge for the future and
must have the support of stakeholders as well as EPA. Let those who would continue to "live in the past" be left there.
RDC joined the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) with a goal of exploring
new ways of improving environmental quality, while ensuring that our current
system of environmental protection was not weakened. Our motivations were
twofold. First, we supported Administrator Browner's efforts to explore alternative
ways of making environmental laws work better for everyone. Second, we were
interested in seeing whether the sector-specific work could result in significant
pollution prevention gains. As with all committees, we found progress in some
cases, less in others.
CSI underscored the value of in-depth sector work — of looking at how regu-
lation and economic realities affect the ability of a particular industry to prevent
pollution while staying competitive. Through NRDC's participation in the Metal
Finishing Subcommittee, we worked intensively, over a three year period, with
four metal finishing CEOs, two labor union representatives, four fellow environ-
mentalists, and four state and local government leaders. As a result, we got a
broad array of viewpoints on this industry's environmental progress and chal-
lenges.
In the area of cross-media policy, CSI gained ground. The CSI Council was a
"must-attend" event for EPAs top-ranking officials in each office to talk openly
about pollution prevention opportunities such as multi-media permits. It was
extremely valuable for the Assistant Administrators for Air, Water, and Pollution
Prevention to sit at the table and interact on issues of import to all of them. It was
also valuable for the other stakeholders to engage with these top-level decision
makers. In addition, as the dialogue became more open, relationships developed
The Common Sense Initiative
John H. Adams
President
National Resources
Defense Council
CSI Council and Metal
Finishing Subcommittee
-------
among the stakeholders that will be carried over to arenas beyond CSI. These relationships will provide continuing
opportunities to look for the best strategies to improve environmental protection.
CSI demonstrated the value of cross-cutting pollution prevention opportunities that could simultaneously bene-
fit multiple industries and businesses. For example, the "Access to Capital" seminar initiated by CSI, in which busi-
ness owners in the metal finishing and printing sectors engaged in dialogue with insurance brokers and bankers,
highlighted the barriers to pollution prevention investments for small businesses. As a result of this project, the
banking and insurance industries are forming new partnerships with these industries to improve access to financial
capital for pollution prevention investments.
Another example of cross-cutting policy and regulatory changes that can benefit U.S. industries are the stream-
lined reporting efforts engendered by CSI. If there were truly redundant reporting requirements that were burdening
industry while not creating any new information or any environmental gains, NRDC, through its membership on the
CSI Council, challenged industry to point them out and then supported their elimination. The metal finishing and
electronics sector CSI subcommittees initiated impressive paperwork streamlining pilots in Arizona and Texas. Such
streamlining frees up industrial managers to spend time and energy on real pollution prevention work. The pilots
have already borne fruit and changes are being made in those states.
NRDC, like all public interest non-profits, has limited staff who are spread very thin. This limitation meant that
we were not able to participate as extensively as we would have liked. We were represented on the CSI Council
and on one of the six sector subcommittees. In future initiatives we recommend that EPA create a much more nar-
rowly focused agenda and fewer individual sector groups — perhaps two or three targeted sectors, rather than six,
that would allow NRDC and other NGOs to be more fully engaged.
We were disappointed that regulatory strengthening was not championed by EPA during the early CSI discus-
sions as a crucial tool for pollution prevention. Anti-regulatory views set the tone at too many of the early CSI dis-
cussions. In this atmosphere we were forced to settle for attempts to wring the most environmental benefit possible
out of non-regulatory alternatives and various streamlining and reform proposals. Our point is not that these latter
proposals are meritless, but rather that the lack of support for regulatory approaches unduly constricted the avail-
able policy options. Regulatory tools need to be on the table for strengthening as well as for the occasional prun-
ing.
We embarked on the CSI experiment hoping that it would spark pollution prevention changes at EPA and in
U.S. industry. The experiment was partially successful and tangible results are starting to take shape. On the other
hand, CSI tended to have undefined goals and objectives, too many sector groups, and far too many projects with-
in some of the sectors. In future efforts, we will look for a narrower and more clearly defined mission, a pared-
down, focused effort. In this way, EPAs future experimental efforts can build on the lessons of CSI, and a growing
set of lessons learned can contribute positively to evolving environmental policy.
The Common Sense Initiative 21
-------
Robin Morris
Collin and
Robert W.
Collin
Professors
University of Oregon
CSI Council and
Printing Subcommittee
CSI experience has been a journey, rather than simply a destination; it
was about a process, not just a resulting product. CSI was a bold experiment in
inclusionary environmental decision making. It was like resetting a table that had
previously been set for two: namely government regulators and regulated indus-
tries. CSI achieved many outcomes, including new approaches, improved relation-
ships among various stakeholders, and increased capacity and will to change the
way we go about protecting the natural environment and the resources it provides
for this generation and the next.
Participating in CSI wasn't easy, and it wasn't always pleasant. Printing subcom-
mittee participants experienced the strength and creativity of a heterogeneous group,
but we also felt the difficulties of communicating across racial, cultural, and class
lines. We experienced a real sense of achievement from the careful choices made by
the subcommittee as a whole, but along the way we confronted the reality that there
are no easy answers to complex questions involving economics and pollution. And
while we came to the table as representatives of specific organizations, businesses,
and regulatory agencies, we all came to see how communities are the ultimate stake-
holders. Communities are, after all, where all of us live, work, and play.
Achieving and maintaining balance and diversity in stakeholder representation
is very difficult in forums like CSI. For us, this raises a larger issue of how difficult
it can be for grass roots community activists and working people to be players in
the same arena with industry and government. If working people take time away
from work to participate in a multi-stakeholder forum, they do not get paid when
they don't work. If travel is necessary to have a voice in such a forum, travel funds
are often a problem. The fundamental question for us is: How do we ensure the community's right to speak for
itself does not get lost when ordinary people don't have enough time and money to contribute?
We believe the PrintSTEP Program developed by the CSI Printing Sector Subcommittee will help safeguard the
ability of communities to speak for themselves, especially those who are disproportionately affected by environ-
mental impacts. PrintSTEP — which stands for "Simplified Total Environmental Partnership" — spells out a series
of steps for the printing industry to follow to both improve their performance and increase public involvement. In
addition to provisions such as siting pilot printing projects in areas already studying cumulative emissions and
impacts, the PrintSTEP Program sets out steps for appropriate public notices, meetings, and follow-up actions.
If communities do not have access to an open forum like CSI, they have limited means for raising concerns
about environmental decision making that affects the lives of community members — such as courts, streets, and
legislatures. These forums have extensive costs for stakeholders in the community, and they place ordinary citizens
at a disadvantage. These are advocacy-oriented and adversarial processes that do not encourage community
involvement in environmental decision making.
Today's environmental decisions set the stage for the next generation of environmental decision making. Having
served on the Printing Sector Subcommittee, we feel privileged to have been part of the decisions that resulted in
the PrintSTEP Program methodology. The program includes planning for environmental justice concerns and in
doing so contributes to long-term environmental sustainability
It will take time to realize the intangible benefits of CSI — breaking down barriers to communication, getting to
know other stakeholders and building mutual respect, and thinking past false choices such as jobs or the environ-
ment, profits or people, black or white. In a heterogeneous society like ours, these achievements may be the most
significant over time.
These achievements are difficult to measure. In general, as a society, we supposedly measure those things we
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
most value. Unfortunately, we do not have ways to measure things like the value of respecting complexities in our
ecosystems and communities or of building the capacity of a community for open, participatory decision making.
If we do value these things, we must search hard for a way to measure and express that value. We also need to
institutionalize respect for full community involvement in environmental decisions that affect the lives of all of us
and those of our children. We will then be able to make tangible progress toward protecting what we all treasure
most: clean, healthy places to work, live, grow, and enjoy.
Cs
was a learning experience and an arena for building trust. The Iron and Steel Subcommittee, of which I
was a member, brought together interest groups who previously encountered each other only in tense circum-
stances, such as a court of law. CSI gave us a chance to sit and listen to others' perspectives, without pressure to
defend our specific interests. In the long run, the iron and steel industry will benefit from the learning experience
that CSI provided. It seemed to me that different interests came to understand the problems and issues we face in
managing our operations. Likewise, we in industry came to understand others' concerns.
With the help of facilitators, the different parties were able to smooth over rough spots, gradually build a baseline
of trust, and work toward compromise. Early on, our subcommittee made good
progress. However, after a certain point, we got into tougher issues and found it
much harder to find a middle ground. Looking back, I think there may have been
some imbalance among the interest groups represented. There was a tendency for
some group members to stick together as a kind of united front, making it harder
to reach a compromise. In order for diverse forums to work, balanced stakeholder
representation is critical.
Our subcommittee did make progress, although it was slow and we ran into
difficulties along the way. I'd like to mention two of our successes. One was our
proposal that EPA designate liaisons — single points of contact for industry sec-
tors — to make it easier for industry and other stakeholders to get needed infor-
mation about environmental regulations and related matters. EPAs national iron
and steel liaison and his regional counterpart in Chicago have been very helpful in
this regard. Perhaps EPA could provide more liaisons for regions, such as the
northeast, where iron and steel companies are located.
Another success was our subcommittee's Community Advisory Project. In the fall
of 1996, we created a Community Involvement Task Force to look into ways of
promoting better dialogue between iron and steel mills, their employees, and the
communities where they are located. The task force established a set of principles
to guide this dialogue. These principles include open and honest communication
on issues of concern to stakeholders; respect for stakeholders' positions; long-term
commitments to build relationships, resolve issues, and implement agreements;
and equal treatment for all participants in stakeholder processes. As it turned out,
finding a company to initiate this type of dialogue was not easy. Ultimately,
Bethlehem Steel of Burns Harbor, Indiana, stepped forward, and a Community
The Common Sense Initiative
Frank P.
Grimes
United Steel Workers of
America
CSI Iron and Steel
Subcommittee
23
-------
Advisory Committee was formed. The dialogue that began nearly two years ago has proven helpful in many ways,
such as the decision to develop measures that would allow citizens and other interested parties to evaluate the
company's environnmental performance.
On a personal level, I gained a tremendous amount of knowledge about the iron and steel industry by partici-
pating in CSI. This knowledge helps me in my role at the United Steel Workers of America, where I deal mostly
with worker safety issues. I also learned a great deal about EPAs role in relation to the industry and the complexity
of environmental laws. And thanks to the technical assistance that was provided, I have improved my skills in
reading and understanding technical data. I'm more aware of elements and trends in the industry and understand
the options available for dealing with problems. In fact, CSI has been such a valuable learning experience that I
now highlight it on my resume.
On the topic of technical assistance, I am eager to see EPA follow through on a suggestion to develop a web
page devoted to specific industry sectors, like iron and steel. This type of web page could be an invaluable tool for
accessing information on environmental regulations and other related issues.
Thinking back on the CSI experience, I see the effort as the beginning of a movement toward more collabora-
tion on environmental matters. Over time, I believe this development will prove very worthwhile for all of us.
24 The Common Sense Initiative
-------
me People (fewolved
VT inaCVe- in and outside of government-
have contributed to CM since it began. In addition to the many individuals that have
worked on various work groups, more than 300 individuals were invited and have
served in an official capacity through participation on the CSl Council or one of the
six sector subcommittees. These official representatives are acknowledged on the
following pages. Together, they highlight the diverse membership and inclusive design
which have made CSl such a unique forum. They also underscore the significant con-
tributions of time and energy that so many people have been willing to offer to
advance "cleaner, cheaper, smarter" approaches to environmental and public health
protection.
Lw&hJ O
Carol M. Browner, Chair
U.S. EPA
Fred Hansen, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Peter Robertson, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Kathleen Bailey, DEO*
U.S. EPA
John H. Adams
Natural Resources Defense Council
Guy M. Aydlett
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Dan V Bartosh, Jr.
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Carolyn Bell
Community Health Resources, Inc.
Dorreen Carey
City of Gary
Charles Fox
U.S. EPA
Mary A. Gade
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
John Hamilton
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Steve A. Herman
U.S. EPA
Hazel Johnson
People for Community Recovery
Gene Karpinski
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
C. Stuart McMichael
Custom Print, Inc.
Dr. Franklin E. Mirer
United Automobile Workers
*DFO stands for Designated Federal Officer
Robin Morris Collin
University of Oregon
M. Dianne Nielson
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Jerry Pardilla
National Tribal Environmental
Council
Bob Perciasepe
U.S. EPA
Michael S. Peters
Environment Structural
Metals, Inc.
Velma M. Smith
Friends of the Earth
Larry Wallace
City of Atlanta
David Yetter
Texaco, Inc.
The Common Sense Initiative
25
-------
1398
26
Computers and
Electronics
Subcommittee
John DeVillars, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 1
Dr. Lynn Goldman, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Felicia Marcus, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 9
John Bowser , DEO
U.S. EPA
Dan V Bartosh, Jr.
Texas Instruments Inc.
Steven A. Bold
Continental Circuits Corporation
Steve Brittle
Don't Waste Arizona, Inc.
Ken Geiser
University of Massachusetts
JoLani Hironaka
Santa Clara Center for Occupational
Safety & Health
Frances H. Irwin
World Resources Institute
David Isaacs
Electronic Industries Association
Roger A. Kanerva
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Isao Kobashi
Santa Clara County
Pollution Prevention Program
David LeGrande
Communication Workers of
America
Jeffrey Lowry
Environmental Control and
Laboratory Techenglas
Timothy Mohin
Intel Corporation
The Common Sense Initiative
Andrew C. Neblett
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Rick Reibstein
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance for Toxic Use Reduction
Christopher Rhodes
The Institute for Interconnecting
and Packaging Electronic Circuits
Norman Riley
California Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Monica B. Roll
Digital Equipment Corporation
Ted Smith
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Michael Winka
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Douglas W Wolf
New Mexico Environmental Law
Center
Iron and Steel
Subcommittee
Bob Perciasepe, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Dave Ullrich, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Mahesh Podar, DFO
U.S. EPA
Dorreen Carey
City of Gary
Dr. Charles G. Carson, III
USX Corporation
Brock Evans
National Audubon Society
Raymond Feldmeier
United Steel Workers of America
Michael A. Gipko
J&L Speciality Steel, Inc.
Frank P. Grimes
United Steelworkers of America
Mark B. Hannun
Allegheny County Sanitary
Authority
Marie Kocoshis
Group Against Smog and Pollution
Glenn Landers
Sierra Club Great Lakes Program
Gary D. Miracle
AK Steel Corporation
Dr. Augustine E. Moffitt, Jr.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Kay L. Nelson
Northwest Indiana Forum
Michael S. Peters
Environment Structural Metals, Inc.
Dennis R. Poulsen
California Steel Industries, Inc.
Charlotte J. Read
Save the Dunes
John Rosenthal
Howard University
Steven Rowlan
NUCOR Steel
Velma M. Smith
Friends of the Earth
Gordon Wegwart
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
William L. West
LTV Steel Company, Inc.
Orrin Williams
AIDS Research Alliance
Eric W Wilson
City of Atlanta
Metal Finishing
Subcommittee
John DeVillars, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 1
David Gardiner, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Henry Longest, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
-------
199$
Bob Benson, DFO
U.S. EPA
Guy M. Aydlett
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Robert E. Chatel
The Robbins Company
Andrew Comai
United Auto Workers
John M. Craddock
Muncie Bureau of Water Quality
John M. Cullen
Masco Corporation
Stanley W Eller
Center for Technology Transfer
William M. Eyring
Center for Neighborhood
Technology
Dr. Karen J. Heidel
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
Mr. John E. lannotti
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
David Lawrence
Metal Polishers & Platers Union
Juan Mariscal
Narragansett Bay Commission
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
B. J. Mason
Mid-Atlantic Finishing, Inc.
Robert McBride
A. C. Plating
William J. Saas
Taskem, Inc.
Curt Spalding
Save the Bay
Frank Villalobos
Barrio Planners, Inc.
Thomas R. Wallin
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Guy O. Williams
National Wildlife Federation
Petroleum Refining
Subcommittee
Tim Fields, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Jerry Clifford, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 6
Craig Weeks, DFO
U.S. EPA Region 6
Robert Banks
Sun Company, Inc.
Dale Givens
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Randolph K. Lohoff
Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC
Beverly Hartsock
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Donald M. Moline
Toledo Department of Public
Utilities
Bowden Quinn
Grand Calumet Task Force
Margie Richard
Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice
Xavier University
Eric Schaeffer
U.S. EPA
Wilma Subra
Louisiana Environmental Action
Network
Patrick Tomlinson
Equilon Enterprises, LLC
Printing
Subcommittee
Jeanne M. Fox, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 2
Steve Herman, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Gina Bushong
US. EPA
DFO
Jeffrey R. Adrian
The John Roberts Company
Robert Collin
University of Oregon
George Frantz
Massachusetts Office of
Environmental Affairs
George R. Fuchs
National Association of Printing Ink
Manufacturers, Inc.
Eva Hanhardt
New York Department of
Environmental Protection
Robert E Hawkins
Bryce Corporation
Walter A. Jones
International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
Dr. Dale G. Kalina
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Marcia Y Kinter
SGIA International
C. Stuart McMichael
Custom Print, Inc.
Edward R. Meyer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Robin Morris Collin
University of Oregon
MarkJ. Nuzzaco
The Association for Suppliers
of Printing and Publishing
Technologies
Dr. Dorothy Wyatt
The Washington Post
The Common Sense Initiative
11
-------
1997
Council
Carol M. Browner, Chair
U.S. EPA
Fred Hansen, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Kathleen Bailey, DEO
U.S. EPA
John H. Adams
Natural Resources Defense Council
Guy M. Aydlett
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Carolyn Bell
Community Health Resources, Inc.
Dorreen Carey
City of Gary
Dr. Charles G. Carson, III
USX Corporation
Mary A. Gade
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
John Hamilton
Indiana Department of
Environmental
Management
Steve A. Herman
U.S. EPA
Stephen P. Jiang
Association of Asian Pacific
Community Health Organizations
Hazel Johnson
People for Community Recovery
Gene Karpinski
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Fred Krupp
Environmental Defense Fund
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
TerrenceJ. McManus
Intel Corporation
C. Stuart McMichael
Custom Print, Inc.
Dr. Franklin E. Mirer
United Automobile Workers
Dianne Nielson
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Timothy J. O'Brien
Ford Motor Company
Jerry Pardilla
National Tribal Environmental
Council
Bob Perciasepe
U.S. EPA
Carl Pope
Sierra Club
Harold E Reheis
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Linda Rimer
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural
Resources
JohnJ. Sheehan
United Steelworkers of America
Velma M. Smith
Friends of the Earth
Larry Wallace
City of Atlanta
David Yetter
Texaco, Inc.
Automobile
Manufacturing
Subcommittee
John Hankinson, Jr., Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 4
Alan Powell, DEO
U.S. EPA Region 4
David L. Carlson
Chrysler Corporation
Gary A. Davis
University of Tennessee
Lisa Doerr
Citizens for a Better Environment
Hank Graddy
Sierra Club
Charles Griffith
Ecology Center of Ann Arbor
Carolyn Hartmann
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Grace Heigel
Honda of America Manufacturing,
Inc.
James A. Janssen
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
G. Robert Kerr
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Kevin Mills
Environmental Defense Fund
Franklin E. Mirer
United Automobile Workers
Curtis A. Moore
American Lung Association
Timothy J. O'Brien
Ford Motor Company
Robert J. Phillips
General Motors Corporation
R. Lewis Shaw
South Carolina Department of
Heath and Environmental Control
Quincy N. Styke, III
Tennessee Air Pollution Control
Division
Mark L. Warner
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International,
Inc.
Gary N. Weinreich
BMW Manufacturing Corporation
28
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
1997
Computers and
Electronics
Subcommittee
John DeVillars, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 1
Dr. Lynn Goldman, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Felicia Marcus, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 9
John Bowser, DEO
U.S. EPA
Dan V Bartosh, Jr.
Texas Instruments Inc.
Steven A. Bold
Continental Circuits Corporation
Ken Geiser
University of Massachusetts
JoLani Hironaka
Santa Clara Center for Occupational
Safety & Health
Frances H. Irwin
World Resources Institute
David Isaacs
Electronic Industries Association
Roger A. Kanerva
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Isao Kobashi
Santa Clara County
David LeGrande
Communication Workers of
America
TerrenceJ. McManus
Intel Corporation
Raphael Metzger
National Coalition of Hispanic
Health and Human Services
Organizations
Andrew C. Neblett
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Rick Reibstein
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance for Toxic Use Reduction
Christopher Rhodes
The Institute for Interconnecting
and Packaging Electronic Circuits
Monica B. Roll
Digital Equipment Corporation
Val E Siebal
California Environmental Protection
Agency
Ted Smith
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Russell J. Tremblay
M/A-COM, Inc.
Michael Winka
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Douglas W Wolf
New Mexico Environmental Law
Center
Iron and Steel
Subcommittee
Bob Perciasepe, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Dave Ullrich, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 5
MaheshPodar, DEO
U.S. EPA
Dorreen Carey
City of Gary
Dr. Charles G. Carson, III
USX Corporation.
Brock Evans
National Audubon Society
Raymond Feldmeier
United Steel Workers of America
Michael A. Gipko
J&L Speciality Steel, Inc.
Frank P. Grimes
United Steelworkers of America
Mark B. Hannun
Allegheny County Sanitary
Authority
Lisa Kahn
Friends of the Earth
Marie Kocoshis
Group Against Smog and Pollution
Glenn Landers
Sierra Club Great Lakes Program
Peder A. Larson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Gary D. Miracle
AK Steel Corporation
Dr. Augustine E. Moffitt, Jr.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
John Hamilton
Indiana Department of
Environmental
Management
Michael S. Peters
Environment Structural Metals, Inc.
Dennis R. Poulsen
California Steel Industries, Inc.
Charlotte J. Read
Save the Dunes
John Rosenthal
Howard University
Steven Rowlan
NUCOR Steel
William L. West
LTV Steel Company, Inc.
The Common Sense Initiative
29
-------
1997
Orrin Williams
AIDS Research Alliance
Eric W. Wilson
City of Atlanta
Metal Finishing
Subcommittee
John DeVillars, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 1
David Gardiner, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Henry Longest, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Bob Benson, DEO
U.S. EPA
Guy M. Aydlett
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Diane M. Cameron
Natural Resources Defense Council
Robert E. Chatel
The Robbins Company
Andrew Comai
United Auto Workers
John M. Craddock
Muncie Bureau of Water Quality
John M. Cullen
Masco Corporation
Stanley W Eller
Center for Technology Transfer
William M. Eyring
Center for Neighborhood
Technology
Dr. Karen J. Heidel
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
John E. lannotti
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Juan Mariscal
Narragansett Bay Commission
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
B. J. Mason
Mid-Atlantic Finishing, Inc.
Robert McBride
A. C. Plating
William J. Saas
Taskem, Inc.
Curt Spalding
Save the Bay
Frank Villalobos
Barrio Planners, Inc.
Thomas R. Wallin
Illnois Environmental Protection
Agency
Cynthia Warrick
Guy O. Williams
National Wildlife Federation
Petroleum Refining
Subcommittee
Jerry Clifford, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 6
Tim Fields, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Craig Weeks, DFO
U.S. EPA Region 6
Maria Paz Artaza-Regan
General Board of Church and
Society of The United Methodist
Church
Donald R. Carson
International Union of Operating
Engineers
Lois N. Epstein
Environmental Defense Fund
Dale Givens
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Beverly Hartsock
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Donald M. Moline
Toledo Department of Public
Utilities
Bowden Quinn
Grand Calumet Task Force
Margie Richard
Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice
Xavier University
Eric Schaeffer
U.S. EPA
Rand N. Shulman
Shell Chemical Company/
Shell Oil Products Company
Raymond L. Skinner
U.S. Department of Labor
Wilma Subra
Louisiana Environmental Action
Network
Steven A. Thompson
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
David Yetter
Texaco, Inc
David Lawrence
Metal Polishers & Platers Union
D. Duane Gilliam
Ashland Petroleum Company
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
1997
Printing
Subcommittee
Steve Herman, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
W Michael McCabe, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 3
Frank Finamore, DFO
U.S. EPA
Jeffrey R. Adrian
The John Roberts Company
Carol Andress
Environmental Defense Fund
Robert Collin
University of Oregon
Robin Morris Collin
University of Oregon
Kerry Drake
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
George Frantz
Massachusetts Office of
Environmental Affairs
George R. Fuchs
National Association of Printing Ink
Manufacturers, Inc.
Eva Hanhardt
New York Department of
Environmental Protection
Robert E Hawkins
Bryce Corporation
Walter A. Jones
International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
Dr. Dale G. Kalina
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Marcia Y. Kinter
SGIA International
C. Stuart McMichael
Custom Print, Inc.
Edward R. Meyer
Minnesota Pollution Control
Joseph Otis Minott, ESQ.
Clean Air Council
Clercy Peter Moore
Concerned Citizens of South
Central Los Angeles
MarkJ. Nuzzaco
The Association for Suppliers
of Printing and Publishing
Technologies
Jonathan Rosen
New York State Public Employees
Federation
Dr. Dorothy Wyatt
The Washington Post
John A. Young
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
1996
Council
Carol M. Browner, Chair
U.S. EPA
Fred Hansen, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Mary D. Nichols
U.S. EPA
Bob Perciasepe
U.S. EPA
John H. Adams
Natural Resources Defense Council
Guy M. Aydlett
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Ronald R. Boltz
Chrysler Corporation
Dorreen Carey
Grand Calumet Task Force
Charles G. Carson, III
U.S. Steel Group
Jane L. Delgado
National Coalition of Hispanic
Health and Human Services
Organizations
Mary Gade
Illinois EPA
Hillel Gray
National Environmental Law Center
John Hall
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Russell J. Harding
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Dorothy Height
National Council of Negro Women
Stephen Jiang
Association of Asian Pacific
Community Health Organizations
Hazel Johnson
People for Community Recovery
The Common Sense Initiative
31
-------
1996
Gene Karpinsky
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Fred Krupp
Environmental Defense Fund
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
TerrenceJ. McManus
Intel Corporation
C. Stuart McMichael
Custom Print, Inc.
Franklin E. Mirer
United Automobile Workers
Margaret Morgan-Hubbard
Environmental Action
Jerry Pardilla
National Tribal Environmental
Council
Barbara J. Price
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Kathy Prosser
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Harold Reheis
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Dan W. Reicher
U.S. Department of Energy
Mary Riveland
Washington Department of Ecology
Jack Sheehan
United Steelworkers of America
Velma Smith
Friends of the Earth
Larry Wallace
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law
Charles Williams
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Kathleen Bailey DFO
U.S. EPA
Automobile
Manufacturing
Subcommittee
Mary Nichols, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
John Hankinson, Jr., Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 4
A. Sha-king Alston
University of Massachusetts Center
for Family, Work and Community
Kevin M. Butt
Toyota Motors Corporate Services,
Inc.
David L. Carlson
Chrysler Technology Center
Gary A. Davis
Center for Clean Products & Clean
Technologies
Lisa Doerr
Citizens for a Better Environment
Anthony Fisher
New United Motor Manufacturing,
Inc.
Hank Graddy
Sierra Club
Hillel Gray
National Environmental Law Center
Charles Griffin
Ecology Center of Ann Arbor,
Michigan
Russell J. Harding
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Carolyn Hartmann
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Pat Jackson
People for Community Recovery
James A. Janssen
Illinois EPA
G. Robert Kerr
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Richard L. Lahiere
Honda of America Manufacturing,
Inc.
Kenneth Machens
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International,
Inc.
Kevin Mills
Environmental Defense Fund
Franklin E. Mirer
United Automobile Workers
Curtis Moore
American Lung Association
Timothy J. O'Brien
Ford Motor Company
Robert J. Phillips
General Motors
R. Lewis Shaw
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Elizabeth Toomer
The Housing Coalition
Mark L. Warner
Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Inc.
Gary N. Weinreich
BMW Manufacturing Corporation
Paul D. Zugger
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Carol Kemker, DFO
U.S. EPA Region 4
Computers and
Electronics
Subcommittee
Lynn Goldman, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
1996
Felicia Marcus, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 9
John DeVillars, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 1
Dan V Bartosh, Jr.
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Steven A. Bold
Continental Circuits Corporation
John C. Borum
Global Environmental, Health and
Safety
Jack P. Broadbent
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
George Burris
Thomson Consumer Electronics,
Inc.
Victoria Cox
The Environmental Justice Working
Group
Ken Geiser
University of Massachusetts Toxics
Use Reduction Institute
Paula Gomez
Brownsville Community Health
Center
JoLani Hironaka
Santa Clara Center for Occupational
Health and Safety
Frances H. Irwin
World Resources Institute
David Issacs
Electronics Industry Association
Roger A. Kanerva
Illinois EPA
David LeGrande
Communication Workers of
America
TerrenceJ. McManus
Intel Corporation
Raphael Metzger
National Coalition of Hispanic
Health and Human Services
Organizations
David Monsma
Council on Economic Priorities
Andrew C. Neblett
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Ronald Nixon
Institute for Southern Studies
Harriet Pearson
IBM Corporation
Rick Reibstein
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance for Toxic Use Reduction
Christopher Rhodes
The Institute for Interconnecting
and Packaging Electronic Circuits
Barbara Ripley
Vermont Agency for Natural
Resources
Mary Riveland
Washington Department of Ecology
Monica B. Roll
Digital Equipment Corporation
Val E Siebal
California EPA
Ted Smith
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Russell J. Tremblay
M/A-COM, Inc.
Mike Winka
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Doug Wolf
New Mexico Environmental Law
Center
Gina Bushong, DEO
U.S. EPA
Iron and Steel
Subcommittee
Bob Perciasepe, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Dave Ullrich, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 5
Dorreen Carey
Grand Calumet Task Force
Charles G. Carson, III
U.S. Steel Group
Brock Evans
National Audubon Society
Michael A. Gipko
J & L Specialty Steel, Inc.
Frank R. Grimes
United Steelworkers of America
Lisa Kahn
Friends of the Earth
Joyce M. Kelly
Wildlife Habitat Council
Marie Kocoshis
Group Against Smog and Pollution
Glenn Landers
Sierra Club Great Lakes Program
Cecil Lue-Hing
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
Laidley E. McCoy
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Gary D. Miracle
A.K. Steel Corporation
Dr. Augustine E. Moffitt, Jr.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Michael O'Conner
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Michael S. Peters
Environment Structural Metals, Inc.
The Common Sense Initiative
33
-------
1996
Dennis R. Poulsen
California Steel Industries, Inc.
Steven Rowlan
NUCOR Steel
Jack Sheehan
United Steelworkers of America
Cynthia Warrick
Sustainable Solutions
William L. West
LTV Steel Company, Inc.
Charles Williams
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Orrin William
People for Community Recovery
Leonard D. Wisniewski
Republic Engineered Steels, Inc.
Michael Wright
United Steelworkers of America
Mahesh Podar, DFO
U.S. EPA
Metal Finishing
Subcommittee
David Gardiner, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Robert Huggett, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
John DeVillars
U.S. EPA Region 1
Guy M. Aydlett
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Diane M. Cameron
Natural Resources Defense Council
Robert E. Chatel
The Robbins Company
Andrew Comai
United Automobile Workers
John M. Craddock
Bureau of Water Quality, MSD
John M. Cullen
Masco Corporation
Stanley W Eller
Maine Metal Products Association
William M. Eyring
Center for Neighborhood
Technology
Michael Flynn
International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers
John E. lannotti
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
David Lawrence
Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers
Union
Juan Mariscal
Narragansett Bay Commission
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
B. J. Mason
Mid-Atlantic Finishing, Inc.
Russell E Rhoades
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
William J. Sass
Taskem, Inc.
William A. Sonntag, Jr.
National Association of Metal
Finishers
H. Curtis Spalding
Save the Bay
Frank Villalobos
Barris Planners, Inc.
Thomas R. Wallin
Illinois EPA
Guy O. Williams
National Wildlife Federation
Bob Benson, DFO
U.S. EPA
Petroleum Refining
Subcommittee
Elliot Laws, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Jane Saginaw, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 6
John Atcheson
U.S. Department of Energy
AlanJ. Cabodi
U.S. Oil and Refining Co.
Donald R. Carson
International Union of Operating
Engineers National Hazmat Program
Lois N. Epstein
Environmental Defense Fund
J. Dale Givens
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Beverly Hartsock
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Denny A. Larson
Citizens for a Better Environment
John H. Medley
Mobil Oil Corporation
Don Moline
Department of Public Utilities,
Ohio
Dennis R. Parker
Conoco, Inc.
Barbara Price
Phillips Petroleum
Bowden Quinn
Grand Calumet Task Force
James Randies
Northwest Air Pollution Authority
Margie Richard
Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
1996
Rand N. Shulman
Shell Oil Products, Inc.
Raymond L. Skinner
U.S. Department of Labor
William Subra
Louisiana Environmental Action
Network
Steven A. Thompson
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Larry Wallace
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law
Robert E. Yancey Jr.
Ashland Petroleum Company
Tom Burke
John Hopkins School of Public
Health
DeLane Garner
Clark Atlanta University
William Kucharski
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Michael A. Leedie
West County Toxics Coalition
Larry Stefflen
Petrochemical Worker
Dr. Beverly Wright
Deep South Center for
Environmental Progress
Meg Kelly DEO
U.S. EPA
Printing
Subcommittee
Steve Herman, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
W Michael McCabe, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 3
Jeffrey R. Adrian
The John Roberts Company
Carol Andress
Environmental Defense Fund
Robin Morris Collin
University of Oregon
Kerry Drake
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
George Frantz
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction
George R. Fuchs
National Association of Printing Ink
Manufacturers, Inc.
Eva Hanhardt
New York Department of
Environmental Protection
Robert Hawkins
Bryce Corporation
Meredith L. Hill
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Walter Jones
IBT
Dale G. Kalina
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Lori E. Kincaid
Center for Clean Products and
Clean Technologies
Marcia Y Kinter
Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging
Damitajo Marks
Arkansas
C. Stuart Michael
Custom Print, Inc.
Edward R. Meyer
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency-HWD
Clercy Peter Moore
Concerned Citizens of South
Central Los Angeles
MarkJ. Nuzzaco
Environmental Conservation Board
of the Graphic Communications
Industries
Jonathan Rosen
New York State Public Employees
Federation
Elizabeth M. Wessel
Citizens for a Better Environment
Dorothy Wyatt
The Washington Post
John A. Young
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Gerald H. Deneau
Graphic Communications
International Union
Ely A. Dorsey
Southern Organizing Committee for
Economic & Social Justice
Laura Hickey
National Wildlife Federation
Jane Houdek
New York City Department of
Environmental Protection
Thomas M. Purcell
Printing Industries of America
Patricia Deese Stanton
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Rex Tingle
AFL-CIO
Alissa Whiteman
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Frank Finamore, DFO
U.S. EPA
The Common Sense Initiative
35
-------
199S
Council
Carol M. Browner, Chair
U.S. EPA
Fred Hansen, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Mary D. Nichols, Deputy-chair
U.S. EPA
Bob Perciasepe, Deputy-chair
U.S. EPA
John Adams
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ronald R. Boltz
Chrysler Corporation
Dorreen Carey
Grand Calument Task Force
Dr. Charles G. Carson, III
U.S. Steel Group
Dr. Jane Delgado
National Coalition for Hispanic
Health and Human Services
Organizations
Edward Fox
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
Mary Gade
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Hillel Gray
National Environmental Law Center
John Hall
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
Roland Harmes
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Hazel Johnson
People for Community Recovery
Gene Karpinski
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Fred Krupp
Environmental Defense Fund
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
Terrence T McManus,
Intel Corporation
Charles S. McMichael
Custom Print, Inc.
Franklin E. Mirer, Ph.D.
United Auto Workers
Margaret Morgan-Hubbard
Environmental Action
Barbara Price
Phillips Petroleum
Kathy Prosser
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Harold Reheis
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Jack Sheehan
United Steelworkers of America
Susan Tierney
U.S. Department of Energy
Larry Wallace
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law
Charles Williams
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Prudence Goforth, Designated
Federal Official
U.S. EPA
Automobile
Manufacturing
Subcommittee
Mary Nichols, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
John Hankinson, Jr., Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 4
Kevin M. Butt
Toyota Motor Corporate Services of
North America, Inc.
David Carlson
Chrysler Technology Center
Gary Davis
Center for Clean Products and
Clean Technologies
Lisa Doer
Citizens for a Better Environment
Hank Graddy
Sierra Club
Charles Griffith
Ecology Center of Ann Arbor
Russell J. Harding
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Roland Harms
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Carolyn Hartmann
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
James Janssen
Illinois EPA
Patricia Jackson
People for Community Recovery
Hazel Johnson
People for Community Recovery
G. Robert Kerr
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Richard Lahiere
Honda of America Mfg., Inc.
Kenneth Machens
Mercedes-Benz
36
The Common Sense Initiative
-------
Kevin Mills
Environmental Defense Fund
Franklin E.Mirer, Ph.D.
United Auto Workers
Curtis Moore
American Lung Association
Timothy J. O'Brien
Ford Motor Company
Robert]. Phillips
General Motors Corporation
R. Lewis Shaw
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Elizabeth Toomer
Southeast Michigan Council on
Occupational Safety and Health
Gary N. Weinreich
BMW Mfg. Corporation
Donele Wilkins
WARM Training Program, Inc.
Carol Kemker, DFO
U.S. EPA Region 4
Computers and
Electronics
Subcommittee
Lynn Goldman, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
John DeVillars, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 1
Felicia Marcus, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 9
Dan Bartosh, Jr.
Texas Instruments
Paul Blais
California EPA
Steven Bold
Continental Circuits
John Borum
AT&T
Jack Broadbent
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
George Burris
Thomson Consumer Electronics,
Inc.
Melissa Carey
Electronic Industries Association
Victoria Cox
Environmental Justice Group
Patti Everitt
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Ken Geiser
Toxics Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts
Hillel Gray
National Environmental Law Center
JoLani Hironaka
Santa Clara Center for Occupational
Safety and Health
Frances H. Irwin
World Wildlife Fund
Roger A. Kanerva
Illinois EPA
Diane Lefevre
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
David LeGrande
Communication Workers of
America
TerrenceJ. McManus
Intel Corporation
Raphael Metzger
National Coalition of Hispanic
Health and Human Services
Organizations
David Monsma, Esq.
Environmental Action
Andrew C. Neblett
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Ronald Nixon
Institute for Southern Studies
Harriet Pearson
IBM Corporation
Rick Reibstein
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance for Toxic Use Reduction
Christopher Rhodes
Institute for Interconnecting and
Packaging Electronic Circuits
Barbara Ripley
Vermont Agency for Natural
Resources
Monica Roll
Digital Equipment Corporation
Val Siebal
California EPA
Ted Smith
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Russell J. Tremblay
M/A-COM Inc.
Doug Wolf
Mexican American Environmental
Law Society
Gina Bushong, DFO
U.S. EPA
Iron and Steel
Subcommittee
Bob Perciasepe, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Dave Ullrich
U.S. EPA Region 5
Dorreen Carey
Grand Calumet Task Force
Dr. Charles G. Carson, III
U.S. Steel Group
The Common Sense Initiative
37
-------
38
Michael A. Gipko
J&L Specialty Steel, Inc.
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
Lisa Kahn
Friends of the Earth
Joyce M. Kelly
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
Council
Marie Kocoshis
Group Against Smog and Pollution
Gary D. Miracle
A. K. Steel Corporation
Dr. Augustine E. Moffitt, Jr.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Michael O'Connor
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Michael S. Peters
Environment Structural Metals, Inc.
Dennis Poulsen
California Steel Industries, Inc.
Steven Rowlan
NUCOR Steel
Jack Sheehan
United Steelworkers of America
Cynthia A. Warrick
Sustainable Solutions
William West
LTV Steel Company
Charles Williams
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Orrin Williams
People for Community Recovery
Leonard Wisniewski
Republic Engineered Steels
Michael Wright
United Steelworkers of America
The Common Sense Initiative
Mahesh Podar, DEO
U.S. EPA
Metal Finishing
Subcommittee
David Gardiner, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Robert Huggett, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
John DeVillars, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 1
Guy Aydlett
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Charles Bradford
International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers
John Burkowski
Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and
Allied Workers International
Diane Cameron
Natural Resources Defense Council
Robert Chatel
The Robbins Company
Andrew Comai
Ecology Center of Ann Arbor
John M. Craddock
Bureau of Water Quality, MSD
John Cullen
MASCO Corporation
Stanley W Eller
Maine Metal Projects Association
William Eyring
Center for Neighborhood
Technology
Edward Fox
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
John lannotti
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Greg Karras
Citizens for a Better Environment
Timothy R.E. Keeney
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
David S. Marsh
Marsh Plating Corporation
B. J. Mason
Mid-Atlantic Finishing, Inc.
William J. Saas
Taskem, Inc.
William A. Sonntag, Jr.
National Association of Metal
Finishers
Curt Spalding
Save the Bay
Diane Takvorian
Environmental Health Coalition
Thomas Wallin
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Guy O. Williams
Great Lakes Natural Resource
Center
Bob Benson, DFO
U.S. EPA
Petroleum Refining
Subcommittee
Elliott Laws, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
Jane Saginaw, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
John Atcheson
U.S. Department of Energy
AlanJ. Cabodi
U.S. Oil & Refining Company
Don Carson
International Union of Operating
Engineers
Lois Epstein
Environmental Defense Fund
-------
Delane Garner
Environmental Justice Resource
Center
Beverly Hartsock
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
William Kucharski
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Denny Larson
Citizens for a Better Environment -
California
Michael A. Leedie
West County Toxics Coalition
John Medley
Mobil Oil Corporation
Donald M. Moline
Department of Public Utilities
Dennis R. Parker
Conoco, Inc.
Barbara Price
Phillips Petroleum
Bowden Quinn
Grand Calumet Task Force
James Randies
North West Air Pollution Authority
Rand N. Shulman
Shell Companies
Ray Skinner
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
Larry Stefflen
Petrochemical Worker
Wilma Subra
Louisiana Environmental Action
Network
Steve Thompson
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Larry Wallace
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law
Beverly Wright
Deep South Center for
Environmental Programs
Robert Yancey Jr.
Ashland Oil, Inc.
Meg Kelly, DEO
U.S. EPA
Printing
Subcommittee
Steve Hermann, Co-chair
U.S. EPA
W Michael McCabe, Co-chair
U.S. EPA Region 3
Carol Andress
Environmental Defense Fund
Gordon Brown
Lowen Corporation
Gerald H. Deneau
Graphic Communications
International Union
Ely A. Dorsey
Southern Organizing Committee for
Economic and Social Justice
Kerry Drake
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
George Fuchs
National Association of Printing Ink
Manufacturers, Inc.
Robert E Hawkins
Bryce Corporation
Laura Hickey
National Wildlife Federation
Meredith L. Hill
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Jane M. Houdek
New York City Department of
Environmental Protection
Frances H. Irwin
World Wildlife Fund
Dale G. Kalina, Ph.D.
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Lori Kincaid
Center for Clean Products and
Clean Technologies
Peter Kostmeyer
U.S. EPA Region 3
Charles S. McMichael
Custom Print, Inc.
Edward R. Meyer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Warren Muir
Hampshire Research Institute
MarkJ. Nuzzaco
Environmental Conservation Board
of the Graphics Communications
Industries
Thomas M. Purcell, Ph.D.
Printing Industries of America
Patricia Deese Stanton
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Rex Tingle
AFL-CIO
Cynthia A. Warrick
Sustainable Solutions
Elizabeth M. Wessel
Citizens for a Better Environment
Dorothy Wyatt
The Washington Post
John A. Young
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Ginger Gotliffe, DEO
U.S. EPA
The Common Sense Initiative
39
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (1801)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
FIRST CLASS
POSTAGE & FEES
PAID
EPA
Permit No. G-35
------- |