Table of Contents

Internal Contacts

P2Rx Home

Administrative Documents

Austin meeting, February 19-21, 2003

Introductions and logistics

The meeting opened Wednesday afternoon with Sharon Johnson of Waste Reduction Resource Center (WRRC), covering Region 3 & 4, Deb Jacobson of Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable (GLRPPR) covering Region 5, Hilario Gamez and Chris Gonzalez of Southwest Pollution Prevention Center (SWP2C), covering Region 6, Rick Yoder of Pollution Prevention Regional Information Center (P2RIC) covering Region 7, Laura Estes and Mike Vogel of Peaks to Prairies Pollution Prevention Information Center (Peaks), covering Region 8, Kevin Dick and Ed Gonzalez of Western Regional Pollution Prevention Network (WRPPN), covering Region 9, Chris Wiley of Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center (PPRC), covering Region 10, and Jean Waters of Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx) were present.  Andy Bray of Northeast Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA) was not able to be in attendance on Wednesday, due to bad weather on the east coast blocking flights.  He joined the meeting Thursday morning and was in attendance for the remainder of the time.

According to the rules of governance, if two centers vote no on something, the decision dies.  Four centers must vote in favor of something in order for it to be adopted.  It’s proposed that for this meeting, we accept a rule of 100% consensus on all national projects that will go into our proposals.  This rule was passed with seven centers voting in favor.  NEWMOA was absent.

P2Rx Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

  • Represent diverse constituency
  • National communication and information platform with grassroots relationships (regional, state, and local)
  • Centers are diverse organizationally and diversely talented
  • Broad knowledge base
    • Programming
    • Content
    • Information dissemination – through varied avenues
  • Coming together as a group, getting “brand traction”
  • Standard setting process is in place, have standards
  • Increasing capacity through cooperative work
  • Quality products
    • Topic hubs
    • Programs directory
    • Rapid response
    • News
    • RFP
    • Homes Across America
    • Mercury Reduction Programs database
  • Flexible and responsive – multiple regional projects/initiatives
  • Bridge gap with technical assistance providers, policy makers and industry
  • Potential to leverage involvement of programs within regions – find collaborators, reduce development time, build on other’s resources – good networking
  • Collection of important P2 information – a resource that will continue to be maintained and grow
  • Well facilitated

Opportunities(what we need)

  • Marketing – process, strategy
  • More partnerships to enhance leveraging.  Open channels from policy makers
  • Become more efficient in project implementation
  • Have more focus, set priorities based on customer’s needs
  • Reassess customer needs

Items to discuss with John Cross

(1)   importance of P2Rx support to states with budget cuts
(2)   can we show there’s even greater need for P2Rx to provide support
(3)   how does P2Rx help John Cross do his job?

Partnership with EPA – conversation with John Cross

  • What is right way to configure information for the customers compared with what EPA or other partner would want to see?
  • Issue of redundancy vs. partnership, how do we make a better relationship happen?
  • Show linkages at least, even in absence of partnerships
  • EPA looks at P2Rx and says, what does P2Rx do for us?
    • OPEI
    • Sector Star
    • Performance Track
    • OECA
  • In some case, EPA doesn’t need to put high level in some resources, can use P2Rx if existing coverage is there
  • P2Rx has delivery vehicle to highlight diverse EPA P2 initiatives – P2Rx can pull together P2 information from several EPA program sites
  • EPA is trying to reorganize information, they’re trying not to be organized according to “EPA program.”
  • With state budgets being cut, need another way to get information out (people can’t travel).  Could the news project be a vehicle?
  • If we bring a proposal to John, he’ll help us get support with EPA programs.  May start with OPPT.  We need to configure things so it satisfies EPA, takes people to EPA sites or products
  • Resource issue – state P2 programs operate in parallel to the federal programs, they’re voluntary, there’s no fear of the feds coming in. 
  • We need to build connections with compliance assistance.  Think about how the information we provide can be used by inspectors.
  • P2 Ethic – can we tie P2 to homeland security and our patriotic duty?
  • Work with OECA (pilot project with NEWMOA and the Clearinghouse) is started, we need to keep up the contact, don’t let it fall through the cracks.
  • SBAP – are there connections there?
  • Sector star – Deb had conference call with OPEI, but no follow up.  John will contact Bob Benson to determine if there’s resistance on their part, or how we could forge a relationship
  • Connect with Beth to see where we go in having P2Rx distribute EPA information.  Connect with state and regional programs as P2 support disappears
  • John may look at P2Rx centers to partner with states to help alleviate budget problems.  Could provide:
    • Travel scholarships
    • Training opportunities (local)
  • John could encourage the regional coordinators to look at opportunities for Regional Centers to do projects that support the states

Conversation with Denise Rayborn

Denise works at  National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), 303-275-3779, her e-mail is denise_rayborn@nrel.gov

  • Potential for biofuels topic hub, Denise may be able to find technical reviewers
  • Weatherization connections
    • Newsletter
    • Articles for state energy office
  • Get connections between energy efficiency (E2) and pollution prevention (P2)
    • Lots of existing pathways
    • Jimmy Jones at NREL is interested in getting more energy Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
  • Denise is looking at environmental management systems
  • Denise or state energy office could provide technical reviewers and could help find links to populate topic hubs

NSDL– National Science Foundation Digital Library

Have an opportunity to get money to annotate the information we have so it can be shared better among centers and with a national library.  Rick proposes we make our topic hubs (add a couple of attributes, partially Dublin core compliant) plus a few more pieces of information part of the national collection.  Benefits, increased connectivity, status in being part of national library effort, more training for people doing coding, could hire partial to full FTE.  $1M over two years, no matching requirement, can charge full overhead. 

Centers that participate will set up attributes, train web folks to code resources, use software to become part of national library, learn what NSDL is doing and apply to what we have.  With the funding from the proposal, we’d have resources.

Rick has draft work plan that Kathy did.  We should send letter of intent by March 12.  Would like centers to get together next week and week after to flush out what Kathy has already drafted.  Answer questions like, do we bring in WIN or NPPR, and others.  We could use this money to get P2 thesaurus finalized.  Rick proposes we start with only topic hubs – that’s enough for now.

Deb says it’s difficult to get the project and it’s a complicated application procedure.  Rick says the formats are time intensive but not difficult.

We need to be sure and include all costs in the proposal.  Sharon and Kevin express nervousness with changing coding.  Rick surmises that we add fields to our databases without changing the topic hub look.  NSF can have access to everything but we don’t have to change coding.

Scope of the project is unclear so that’s why Sharon says no.  Rick sees this as an opportunity to turn to stronger resources.  Kevin doesn’t feel like the time is right, we need to focus on getting what we have working really working.

Chris points out that this could be done without P2Rx approval.  PPRC is interested in pursuing this with P2RIC.  Peaks is also interested.

Action item:  P2RIC, PPRC, and Peaks will pursue independently, offer to NEWMOA as well.  The centers will definitely be sensitive to not disrupting existing resources/coding.  Friday morning at 6:30 we’ll have breakfast and talk about it.

NPPR partnership potential

Ken Zarker of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and president of the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) and Thomas Vinson of  TCEQ visited the meeting to discuss potential partnership with P2Rx. 

  • Want to pursue joint administrative functions – NPPR no longer has funds for assistant director, will be limited to executive director and administrative assistant, P2Rx could provide $25K/yr to fund admin. assist. who could help find P2Rx info to include on NPPR’s web page
  • NPPR wants to create value for members, via training, work groups, and conferences
  • Want to integrate NPPR yellow pages with P2Rx program directory
  • Currently partnering some with list serves and News
  • Update the compendium of state P2 legislation
  • P2Rx needs to have liaisons with workgroups
  • Potential partnership with P2 Share, developed in conjunction with Iowa Waste Reduction Institute (IWRC)
  • P2 integration workgroup is working on developing P2 integration case studies, these may be publicized via P2Rx
  • Technology work group has P2Rx representation
  • Research work group offered to be expert reviewers for topic hubs
  • Work groups don’t have conference call capacity
  • EPA’s OPEI innovation will roll out eight new sectors including universities and ports.  Working through sector star (GETF) better avenue is through P2Rx or NPPR
  • Alliance of environmental service providers might be possible, perhaps a grant writing opportunity to get everyone to meet
  • NPPR may be hired to put on conferences, assistance providers are doing it informally right now but needs to continue
  • Kevin mentioned that P2Rx needs to be involved with the $5M from EPA in the bill they’re working on
  • Could build more national metrics system under states’ control, supporting EPA goal 5; EPA wants these metrics
  • Kevin says we need to cross market, we need to get more input from regional roundtable members about what their needs are, how NPPR can be a service provider to them.
  • April 1 Mexico City P2Win conference
  • Ken suggested we have regional meetings with NPPR attending, look at regional roundtables as local chapters, perhaps the regional roundtables provide an opportunity for revenue sharing
  • Concerning the possible NPPR Yellow pages/P2Rx programs database project, the NPPR Yellow pages contained information about people that are pretty engaged in P2, which is different that current P2Rx programs directory.  The resources should be integrated.  NPPR membership database will be available.  Maintenance is an issue.  Need is also a question.  When Ken wants to know who someone is, he just goes to the conference registration list.  Perhaps a happy medium.  Ken thinks the personal directory on EPA’s site is great.

Center updates:

P2RIC –
may do Biofuels Hub, cover ethanol plants and biodiesel plants.  Users of biodiesel include railroads, power plants, emergency generators, ag producers groups

Peaks to Prairies –
(1)   marketing ski hub/notebook
(2)   Parks and recreational lands
(3)   Template for state P2 programs to use when they work with parks.  Training on September 29 through October 2 at Jackson Hole, Wyoming
(4)   Focus for FY04, make current hubs more useful, focus on specific audiences, higher education, tech training (make hubs useful here)

GLRPPR –
(1)   homeland security hub (Chris Wiley and Mike Vogel helping)
(2)   Actively archive P2Tech list serve

SWP2C–
(1)   Preparation, completion, and enhancement of current projects
(2)   Greenhouse gas emissions topic hub, focused on industrial user
(3)   P2 Planner – current work, will keep improving
(4)   ISO connection to P2 topic hub

WRPPN–
(1)   Green business programs topic hub, cooperate with Environmental Finance Center in Region 9
(2)   Bromide fire retardants topic hub
(3)   Border P2 topic hub
(4)   Standard suite of regional activities

WRRC–
(1)   Meat processing topic hub is finished
(2)   EMS for government agencies (underway)
(3)   Looking at industry sectors (look at web trends to see what gets most hits, build topic hubs based on activity)  Added a storm water industry sector
(4)   QA/QC of Topic hubs
(5)   Work on keeping Clearinghouse updated
(6)   Manage state highlights page, monthly roundtable calls

PPRC–
(1)   Tools development – populate specification database, Boeing or military specifications, evaluate environmental impact of products that meet the specification to intelligent choices can be made about what products to use.  This project supports green procurement work.
(2)   Replicate local information networks in all states – how to get networks started, provide web support, facilitation, etc.
(3)   Sustainability executive order topic hub
(4)   P2 and energy efficiency at superfund sites topic hub – will be produced from existing, externally developed compendium
(5)   PBT elimination through government procurement – supports Environmentally Preferable Purchasing project.
(6)   Standard suite of regional services


Thursday – National Projects

Consensus agreement was reached to propose equal share, three-year collaborative narrative, with one-year budgets. Chris Wiley will write the strawman proposal. FY04 activities were actually voted on Friday morning but are included here for ease of reading.

Topic hubs –

Current issues:

  • Owners need to review all code to be sure it’s current according to the code posted on the CVS server, hosted by WRRC,
  • once modularization is complete, centers will have to update their topic hub code,
  • web group will continue to meet two times per year, there’s a desire to have some meeting overlap once every one to two years,
  •  priorities on creating new hubs should be determined by user input, WRRC looks at web trends data to see what documents are being viewed, and updated the most-viewed documents first
  • consider adding a “best of” links page, or could reorganize existing links page to sort by “best” and resource type – unresolved,
  • focus on performance of existing hubs before adding features.

FY04:

(1)   Prepare new hubs (number to be determined by each Center
(2)   Review existing hubs over two years using QA/QC standard
(3)   Implement modularized code
(4)   Promote hubs based on marketing plan
(5)   Evaluate products based on results of user feedback (marketing plan, usability, etc.) 
(6)   Implement changes based on need, priorities and resources


Programs Directory 

Current issues

  • Controlled vocabulary not working effectively
  • Existing search needs to be changed to only “search by state” since other categories are not complete or fully accurate
  • In the future, if a general text box search is used, the query would go to a page that directs the user to the rapid response service rather than just a “no results found” page
  • Centers are to explicitly associate their programs with topic hubs, for reference in the “where to go for help” section
  • National directory will be updated before the end of FY03

FY04
(1)   Update program directory using QA/QC, includes web and input people
(2)   Update regional directory at least annually
(3)   Provide programs directory to at least one partner

 

Rapid response service

Current issues

In FY03, do we want to coordinate the service?  Does each center want their own rapid response that they handle?  Share forms for now, have workgroup talk about how to coordinate sharing of the questions, internal list serve?  Does it go to each center initially or to the whole list? 

Jean will get a list from each center regarding their current rapid response service.

(1)   What information about the questioner do you capture?
(2)   How do you distribute the work? (who answers the question?  What resources do you use?)
(3)   How do you capture the event?  (what information do you currently record?  Do you record who gave the answer?  What the answer is?  When the answer was given, etc.?)
(4)   Other info on current procedure? (example, GLRPPR archives PrintTech rapid response, do others archive?  If so, how?

FY04
(1)   Have consistent description
(2)   Establish Rapid Response internal list serve to answer questions
(3)   Implement survey method
(4)   Revisit archive in FY05

News project

Current issues

  • review scope,
  • prioritize functionality,
  • move forward with draft standard
  • keep users needs in mind as we move forward
  • balance functionality with we want to do with the news verses how long it takes to catalog the stories

FY04
(1)   Develop solicitation/RFP to develop news software
(2)   Collaborate with contractor to construct news collection and distribution application
(3)   Train users, divide news collection tasks among centers choosing news
(4)   Collect and publish news

Homes Across America

Current issues

Effort to showcase homes across America that have “high performance, resource efficient” features.  Site design, energy efficiency, water protection, waste management, universal design, green products, indoor air quality and cutting edge technologies are being showcased.  Also looking at ultimate home, integrated design. 

  • centers need to provide two contacts per state, Peaks will do legwork to follow up with these people.
  • create interactive database so builders, architect, or consumer want to give info, they can.  Database is complete.  Should be fully launched in another month.
  • In the process of marketing.  Promotional pieces are finished.  Inserts for brochure, post cards, business cards.
  • Data collection mode.  Currently have 14 profiles of homes (need 50 overall).  Need 100 contacts overall.
  • Selection criteria.  What does it take to be included in the database.  Site and design and energy efficiency need to be included in order for the home to be featured.  Additionally looking for 15 features that can be a combination of any of the categories, plus need one innovation.

FY04
(1)   Market program in your region.  Could include inserts in the brochure, do a mailing if desired, link to web page on your center’s page.
(2)   Provide one new home per state to Peaks.
(3)   Identify new contacts and send information to Peaks.

RFP Clearinghouse

Current issues

Almost have met deliverables for this year.

FYO4
(1)   Centers advertise and link to database from their web sites
(2)   State-specific funding opportunities at each center’s web site through some sort of shared way
(3)   Enter more RFPs (would like to see people use the input form) want 50 total

Mercury Reduction Programs Database

Current issues

Keep sending contacts and project summaries to NEWMOA

FY04
(1)   Solicit programs from region, send to NEWMOA
(2)   NEWMOA will create marketing piece
(3)   Centers distribute promotional materials


Other Projects

Marketing

Current issues

Blimp will drop raffle tickets occasionally throughout the NPPR meeting (if we can purchase add-on feature to allow drops). A ticket number from each batch will be posted as the winning number for that drop.  People must come by the P2Rx booth to claim their prize. Prizes of a P2Rx mug or tee shirt (choice of the winner) will be awarded.

FY04
(1)   Commit to working with the marketing professionals to provide data and information.  Use this info to establish baseline measures.  Collect existing data (one center or PM) Should we poll focus groups (use standard set of questions?) This info might be helpful to the marketing professionals.  Rick comments that we need to contact our audience more frequently than just at meetings.  He recommends that we define the behaviors that we’re trying to achieve and let the marketing pros find out if we’re achieving what we want.  Laura recommends that we might want a few questions to ask at NPPR (focus groups).  Action items – point contact to collect all info.
(2)   Implement marketing plan based on need, priorities and resources
(3)   Report on marketing/promotional activities

Innovative Technologies

Innovative technologies are defined as “state of the market” but are underutilized.
(1)   Could submit for some centers to produce technology profiles
(2)    Could mine the web for innovative technologies and incorporate into the hubs as appropriate, try to highlight them more
(3)   Tech assistance – tech innovation Nexus project.  Part of SBIR funding.  P2Rx could act a mechanism to gather potential needs for new innovative tech projects. (find out what problems people are running into, suggest to EPA for funding via SBIR) These are state of the art projects.

P2 Thesaurus

Have thesaurus but has become outdated.  Need a way to manage it if we’re going to have it.  Would work with other groups who need it also.  We need this as we have multiple project and work with other centers/partners.

Proposing a “smart” thesaurus. 
(1)   develop the thesaurus as a stand alone product, or
(2)   develop stand alone product but integrate it into existing products
(3)   develop stand alone but some centers choose to integrate it with existing products

NPPR

Reach out to NPPR by having Deb fund Greg Geyer about $12K, Kevin will provide $2K to put P2Rx program directory/content sharing now, news later.  Get match. From NPPR

Other issues

Web Development and coding

  • Admin group needs better handle overall, better feedback mechanism between web and admin, including schedule, big picture stuff.
  • Resource issues, need to anticipate when bursts of work are needed.
  • Content sharing and debugging have consumed a lot of time. 
  • Modularization may help.  CVS and bugzilla should help.
  • Better information to admin group (understandable summaries, alerted to problem areas and proposed corrective action) Verbal report-out by Andy and Laura on admin calls should include
    • understandable summaries
    • alert to problem areas and possible solutions
    • clear reporting of status
    • planned time commitments
  • Currently too dependent on individuals, need more documentation/historical memory
  • Priority – get what we have working first (content sharing for topic hubs) then set other priorities.  Don’t lose sight of content by focusing on fancy stuff
  • Admin sets ceiling on how much time can be spent on stuff – alarm to let admin know what’s going on so can reprioritize
  • Occasional joint calls – no consensus for this

Topic hub QA/QC

Current proposed standard calls for specific sections including “reasons for change” and “P2 opportunities” for every hub.  For some hubs this does not make sense, but these kinds of items could be highlighted within existing sections, so the user can still easily find this information.

 Note that the list of optional fields and sections are just suggestions, centers are not limited to this list.

 Rate this link function and add this link function should be removed from the standard as they are no longer going to be used.

Extra money projects

These items were listed throughout the meeting.  At the end of the meeting, we prioritized them.

Web programming, documentation on special projects – include in Program Manager’s budget

Partner with NPPR on programs directory regionally FY04 – No source of funds identified

Priority for extra money:

  1. Develop a news service software (tied with P2Thesaurus)
  2. P2 Thesaurus (tied with news service)
  3. Utilize MEDS database
  4. Innovative technologies (develop new profiles)
  5. Facilitator to conduct joint meeting between NPPR and P2Rx

Other projects to consider

Roundtable

$5 million legislation – Kevin will work with Terri and Gary

NEIEN proposal

Environmental Assistance Providers alliance – would like to see all environmental assistance provider groups come together for a meeting or to have a common organization.


Back to P2Rx Administrative Information

^ Top