iso14000-digest Wednesday, November 19 1997 Volume 02 : Number 015
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 09:48:41 +0000
From: Richard Frey
Subject: Paint filters catching fire
Re: Paint Filters
It seems to me you have a number of problems here: stopping stored paint
filters catching fire is one, and disposing of the filters is the other.
I suppose avoiding this waste stream in the first place is a third. We
don't know what kind of paint you have, what the filters are made of, or
why you are filtering the paint in the first place, so it's a little
difficult.
The filters are presumably catching fire because of spontaneous
combustion of the solvent and organics in the paint. This is a notorious
problem with oil-soaked or solvent-soaked rags in vehicle repair and
paint shops.
The usual solution would be to store the filters in tightly-sealed metal
containers, the oxidation reaction then being choked-off by the lack of
oxygen supply.
A better long-term solution might be to use a filter medium which can be
cleaned, perhaps by closed-system solvent reflux, before disposal or
reuse, or to avoid filtering in the first place by preventing solids
ingress or by improving the quality of your starting materials.
Best wishes
Richard Frey
Frey Environmental Associates Limited
Specialists in the design and implementation of environmental management
systems.
http://www.frey.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:26:00 -0500
From: "Bursley, Juanita M"
Subject: RE: Non-member submission from [Fran Martin
Subject: '98 Monthly US Federal Register CD-ROMs
FYI, Here's a resource that can help us keep abreast of new
regulations,
plus save some $ and shelf-space.
Fran Martin
FM Research & Consulting
Richmond, Virginia
fmartin@ccsinc.com
>Return-Path: awemhoff@ccsinc.com
>X-Sender: awemhoff@ccsinc.com
>Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:45:54 -0500
>To: fmartin@ccsinc.com
>From: Anne Wemhoff
>Subject: '98 Monthly U.S. Federal Register CD-ROM Subscription
>
>Dear Fran,
>
>Monthly subscriptions to the 1998 U.S. Federal Register (Volume 63) on
>CD-ROM can now be reserved for $340.00. The CD-ROM subscription
contains
>complete text, tables, and graphics; features Adobe(R) Acrobat(R)
software
>for instant search/retrieval; and the Acrobat (PDF) format is
page-for-page
>with the daily Federal Register paper editions.
>
>See http://www.env-sol.com/solutions/FR-V63.HTML for details.
>
>Anne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:23:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Pauline Derbyshire ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
BTW, a "non-member submission" doesn't necessarily mean that the person
posting isn't subscribed to this list, just that they aren't subscribed to
the list at the email address FROM WHICH THEY ARE NOW POSTING. The list
management software we use (called "Majordomo") has no way to identify
"jsmith@thomas.com"--who is subscribed to this list--as the same person as
"jsmith@beware.net". It's a simple program that compares the character
string in the "From:" field with the lines in the subscriber file. If they
don't match EXACTLY, the submitted message from that poster is designated
as a "non-member submission".
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:38:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Pauline Derbyshire
To: iso14000@cyberq.quality.org
Subject: iso14000-digest V2 #14 -Reply
With regards to small cities and incentives, see State of Pennsylvania,
Department of environmental protection web-site for the programs they
are implementing with respect to EMS' and ISO 14001.
Regards,
Pauline Derbyshire,
Silicon Valley Group, Inc.
deatonp@svg.com
------------------------------
Date: 13 Nov 97 9:53:45
From: "eric.mugnier"
Subject: Re: Agricultural uses of ISO 14000
Reply to:
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:28:47 -0500 (EST)
From: genevieve.carruthers@smtpgwy.agric.nsw.gov.au
To:
Subject: Agricultural uses of ISO 14000
One of our Arthur Andersen office (in Sweden) has implemented "EcoAccounting"
in a swedish company that grows agricultural products for animal food
production.
EcoAccounting is a methodology we have developed to identify and manage
environmental costs and benefits.
If that raises your interest, contact me.
Eric Mugnier
Environmental Services
eric.mugnier@arthurandersen.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:36:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [willypete@juno.com (Willy Peterson)] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
BTW, a "non-member submission" doesn't necessarily mean that the person
posting isn't subscribed to this list, just that they aren't subscribed to
the list at the email address FROM WHICH THEY ARE NOW POSTING. The list
management software we use (called "Majordomo") has no way to identify
"jsmith@thomas.com"--who is subscribed to this list--as the same person as
"jsmith@beware.net". It's a simple program that compares the character
string in the "From:" field with the lines in the subscriber file. If they
don't match EXACTLY, the submitted message from that poster is designated
as a "non-member submission".
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:52:22 -0500 (EST)
To: iso14000@quality.org
From: willypete@juno.com (Willy Peterson)
Cc: richard@frey.demon.co.uk, maxwell@televar.com, Darpaint@aol.com
Subject: Re: Paint filters catching fire
I would like to offer a few comments on the message below.
1. Paint filters are used in spray booths to clean exhaust air prior to
emission from the facility. they often resemble simple home furnace air
filters and should be changed frequently to facilitate unrestricted flow.
The typical filter dries within an hour after the spray operation,
leaving dry paint residue which is usually non-hazardous waste. Barring
lead contamination, or some other rare additive in modern coatings, the
dirty filters can usually be disposed of in the trash. Being free of
organic solvent, the fire hazard is virtually eliminated.
2. Spontaneous combustion occurs under special conditions from the heat
build-up of the oxidation reaction of certain oil-based resins, namely
linseed oil, tongue oil and fish oils. Due to this hazard, the paint
industry has virtually abandoned these resins for alkyd soya oils, which
do not react entropically. In addition to alkyds, the other major
categories of modern paints and coatings, such as latex, epoxy, or
urethanes, do not exhibit this phenomenon, nor do the solvents used in
paint. Solvents which are generally highly flammable, would obviously
feed a fire once started and should therefore be handled with due
caution. If you do not use any of the old-fashioned oil-based paints,
consistent with this these particular oils, then even your dirty rags are
unlikely to exhibit spontaneous combustion. They would still exhibit a
serious fire hazard, given the right conditions, and should therefore be
handled appropriately.
3. I have never heard of the old oil-based paints or wood finishes being
used on auto bodies and am somewhat mystified by the statement
associating spontaneous combustion therewith. Perhaps the mineral oils
used in engine treatments and cleaners, have entropic oxidation
properties. I am not sure. But it is also possible that these accounts
amount to somebody's conflation of impressions drawn from stories
reported about mechanic shops.
Keeping a clean operation and reducing fire hazards is good all-around
approach.
Hope this helps.
Willy Peterson
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:02:45 -0800 (PST) melmax
writes:
>>Return-Path:
>>X-Authentication-Warning: cyberq.quality.org: majordom set sender to
>owner-iso14000@quality.org using -f
>>Subject: Paint filters catching fire
>>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 09:48:41 +0000
>>x-sender: frey@pop3.demon.co.uk
>>From: Richard Frey
>>To: ISO 14001 group ,
>> Christian
>>Sender: owner-iso14000@quality.org
>>
>>
>>Re: Paint Filters
>>
>>It seems to me you have a number of problems here: stopping stored
>paint
>>filters catching fire is one, and disposing of the filters is the
>other.
>>I suppose avoiding this waste stream in the first place is a third.
>We
>>don't know what kind of paint you have, what the filters are made of,
>or
>>why you are filtering the paint in the first place, so it's a little
>>difficult.
>>
>>The filters are presumably catching fire because of spontaneous
>>combustion of the solvent and organics in the paint. This is a
>notorious
>>problem with oil-soaked or solvent-soaked rags in vehicle repair and
>>paint shops.
>>
>>The usual solution would be to store the filters in tightly-sealed
>metal
>>containers, the oxidation reaction then being choked-off by the lack
>of
>>oxygen supply.
>>
>>A better long-term solution might be to use a filter medium which can
>be
>>cleaned, perhaps by closed-system solvent reflux, before disposal or
>>reuse, or to avoid filtering in the first place by preventing solids
>>ingress or by improving the quality of your starting materials.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>
>>Richard Frey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Frey Environmental Associates Limited
>>Specialists in the design and implementation of environmental
>management
>>systems.
>>
>>http://www.frey.demon.co.uk
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 11:52:32 +0000
From: Richard Frey
Subject: Spontaneous combustion
Dear Willy,
Regarding your comments about spontaneous combustion of lineseed oils,
tongue oils, etc., there is evidence to suggest the problem is wider than
this.
In the publication 'Essentials of Health and Safety at Work', this is
what the (UK) Health and Safety Executive has to say about the storage of
rags contaminated with mineral oil: "Some items, like oil-soaked rags,
may ignite spontaneously. Keep them in a metal container apart from
other flammable material".
The situation with solvent-soaked rags in analogious, although it could
be argued that the solvent will tend to be evaporated by heat from the
exothermic reaction. The document 'Secretary of State's Guidance -
Respraying of road vehicles' specifically requires: "Solvent-soaked
wiping clothes should be held in enclosed containers after use."
One of the aims of this document is to minimise the loss of solvents to
atmosphere, so this requirement probably has this objective in mind as
well. However, I have witnessed a rag soaked in paint thinner and left
on a window sill setting my neighbour's house on fire!
Croner's 'Dangerous Substances' references the ADR International Road
Haulage classification, and mentions "used rags, some charcoals, certain
impregnated papers and cardboards and empty bags having contained yeasts"
(sic) as presenting spontaneous combustion hazards. There are others.
Apart from oxygen, the main requirements for spontaneous combustion seem
to a dispersed, oxidisable material in a porous body large enough that
heat produced by oxidation is not lost too rapidly to the environment.
As the core temperature rises, so the reaction accelerates. If the
conditions are right, the flash-point of the solvent or gaseous pyrolysis
products will be reached and a flash-over may result. Otherwise, only
smouldering and internal charring occurs, as is sometimes seen in compost
heaps, etc.
Best wishes,
Richard Frey
.
Frey Environmental Associates Limited
Specialists in the design and implementation of environmental management
systems.
http://www.frey.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:46:28 -0500
From: teresa.iaquinta@usfla.mail.abb.com
Subject: .
We are currently in the pre-planning stage of ISO 14000. We do not have senior
management commitment. This is a reoccurring and rather inhibiting issue of
our EMS implementation plan. While I realize the importance of executive
management commitment in the EMS process, I would rather channel my focus to
gaining that commitment versus complaining about it. I am the ISO 14000
Coordinator at our facility and am trying to move us along so that we can be
certified 14001 by the end of 1998. We do have small pieces of an EMS,
nothing documented, in place. Has anyone had the luxury of gaining this
management commitment as the EMS process is being developed? In other words,
gained a reactive management to become proactive, as far as ISO 14000 is i
nvolved? Any words of wisdom especially for an EMS in the infancy stage?
lessons learned? Our facility is ISO 9001 certified and frankly I am tried of
hearing how similar the process is with regards to 14000, with no proof. I
realize that components such as document control and auditing may be similar ,
but people at least from my stand point are comparing Quality to the
Environment. I do not see any correlation Its apples to oranges as far as I
am concerned. Can anyone help widen my narrow view, if it is possible?? Any and
all help is greatly appreciated.
Teresa Iaquinta
ISO 14000/ Safety Coordinator
e- mail address is teresa.iaquinta@usfla.mail.abb.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 18:15:42 +0000
From: Richard Frey
Subject: Management support for ISO 14001
For me, the starting point for implementing ISO 14001 is always
management support. It is just NOT possible to implement the standard
without full management commitment.
Not only does the project itself have to be resourced, but there will be
an improvement program which will have to be agreed, and certain aspects
of the way the company does business will probably need to change. Only
management can approve policy or undertake the management review.
Management must want it to happen.
It is just not worth your while to go any further without clear
management support. The project will stall at some point or other, you
risk becoming disheartened, and the project will lose credibility. I
suggest there is little choice but to wait until you can start with a
bang, and be sure of maintaining your momentum through to completion.
It would be nice to understand a little about their objections. Some US
companies have expressed concerns about EMS auditors looking at their
system procedures, while others were unhappy about legal implications and
what was perceived as extra bureaucracy. This may be the reason a recent
ENDS article pointed up the US as having the lowest ISO 14001 penetration
of all the main industrialised countries, which is a shame. If it were
known what your management's objections were, it might be possible to
suggest some counter arguments or case studies to advance.
As regards similarities between implementing ISO 14001 and ISO 9001, I
haven't found many. There are modules in common which it pays to use if
they are 'suitable', and you have to treat any implementation as a
project but that's about it. Considering the dreadful way many companies
(in the UK, at least) implemented ISO 9001 in the eighties, the lesson is
NOT to do it the same way.
Best wishes
Richard Frey
Frey Environmental Associates Limited
Specialists in the design and implementation of environmental management
systems.
http://www.frey.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:08:07 -0300
From: peirano&brambilla
Subject: ISO 14000 ANSWERS
At 05:46 PM 14/11/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>We are currently in the pre-planning stage of ISO 14000. We do not have
senior
>management commitment. This is a reoccurring and rather inhibiting issue of
>our EMS implementation plan. While I realize the importance of executive
>management commitment in the EMS process, I would rather channel my focus to
>gaining that commitment versus complaining about it. I am the ISO 14000
>Coordinator at our facility and am trying to move us along so that we
can be
>certified 14001 by the end of 1998. We do have small pieces of an EMS,
>nothing documented, in place.
Our facility is ISO 9001 certified and frankly I am tried of
>hearing how similar the process is with regards to 14000, with no proof. I
>realize that components such as document control and auditing may be
similar ,
>but people at least from my stand point are comparing Quality to the
>Environment. I do not see any correlation Its apples to oranges as far as I
>am concerned. Can anyone help widen my narrow view, if it is possible??
Any and
>all help is greatly appreciated.
>
>Teresa Iaquinta
>ISO 14000/ Safety Coordinator
>e- mail address is teresa.iaquinta@usfla.mail.abb.com
>
>
Hi Teresa,
- -Why does your company need an ISO 14000 EMS?
It seems to me that that you haven't find any good answers to this
question since you don't have senior management commitment.
- -Why don't you try first with environmental reporting?
It allows more flexibility. It is better for environmental communication
with stackeholders. I think there are less environmental reporting
corporations than EMS certified companies. This way you can attrack more
support attention from the media to the activities of your company.
ISO 9000- to certify that your products and services meet and will meet in
the future the QUALITY requirements and that there will be a QUALITY
improvement of the products and services in the future.
ISO 14000- to certify that your products and services
meet and will meet in the future the ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY requirements and
that there will be an ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY improvement ( produce less
environmental impacts) of the products and services during their life cycle.
Feel free to contact me if you need any more help.
Regards
Eduardo
Online Environmental Courses:
Free Subscription Environmental Management Newsletter (in spanish):
Eduardo Peirano
emapey@adinet.com.uy
Montevideo
Uruguay
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:31:57 -0500
From: Bryan Gooch Redd
Subject: Wool: Life Cycle Analysis?
I am researching the environmental implications of wool production
(including sheep farming), wool processing and manufacturing of wool
products. Any contacts, links, or other info that might be helpful will
be most appreciated.
Thank you.
Bryan Gooch Redd
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:11:00 -0500
From: "Bursley, Juanita M"
Subject: SOIL CLEAN-UP STANDARDS
This topic is off the ISO-14000 track, but I believe the expertise I
need is available in this group.
I know an "international standard" does not exist, but I am trying to
get a feel for what residual soil contamination levels are acceptable
around the world for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) at an industrial site. I already have
information on the U.K., Netherlands, Canada and states in the U.S. There
is quite a bit of variability -- 10 (or background) to 10,000 ppm for TPH
(majority between 30 to 1,000 ppm) and 1 to 500 ppm for total PAH. Many
areas have ranges, where the actual accepted concentration is
site-specific and risk-based.
I'd appreciate it if anyone else could share with me their knowledge of
soil clean-up (or "below action") levels for TPH and PAH in any other
geographical locations. Thanks!
Juanita
(juanita.bursley@UCAR.com)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:45:29 -0800
From: "Bert P. Krages"
Subject: Re: Management Commitment
Teresa -
You are correct that ISO 9000 is different from ISO 14000. The major (and
most difference) is that ISO 9000 focus on quality issues and ISO 14000
focuses on environmental matters. The two areas have markedly different
legal aspects. Absent misrepresentations about products meeting
specifications (e.g., ASTM) which would possible involve crimes such as
mail fraud, most quality issues do not involve legal issues other than
contract and warranty issues. Environmental matters, however, are usually
intensely regulated by government agencies which often take a punitive
approach to enforcement of violations. In addition, companies that violate
environmental laws must deal with collateral issues other than enforcement.
For instance, environmental problems can impede transactions involving
business properties, lead to charges that securities laws have been
violated (along with shareholder lawsuits), be enforced by environmental
groups through citizen suits, and be used as leverage by labor organizations.
It may appear to some managers that environmental issues are a mere
sideshow and that extensive commitment is not necessary. However, the real
concern for managers should be that environmental problems cause a lack of
control over business operations. As noted above, labor and environmental
interests can seize upon any kind of violation and use litigation and
public comment (e.g., during the permitting process) to hamper, restrict,
and delay business operations. Also, the penalties associated with
environmental violations in the United States is often much larger than
many managers realize and legal fees add to the cost further still. Many
kinds of enforcement actions must be reported to the Securities and
Exchange Commission and there have been several lawsuits filed against
Boards of Directors after companies have settled with government agencies.
[Note: Managers may want to reflect on how unpleasant these Directors acted
toward the managers of their companies.] In addition, a reputation for
noncompliance can lead to permitting delays and cause more intense scrutiny
from environmental agencies and activist groups.
What an environmental management system can give even managers who are not
particularly enthralled by environmental issues is more control over the
destinies of their enterprises. Such systems are useful because they help
companies comply with complex and often ambiguous rules, ensure that
reports and permit applications are submitted timely, and improve
communication of environmental requirements throughout the company. The
presence of an environmental management system also helps companies protect
themselves against legal liabilities. Through a good system, management
can avoid situations where most of the major business decisions must be
approved by either the government, an activist group, or lawyers.
In short, I would advise that you not give up on the management commitment
issue. There are sound business reasons for developing environmental
management systems other than corporate citizenship. I would suggest that
any proposed system be developed in a manner that is sensitive to the
corporate culture. For instance, if management is not into warm and
flowery language, focus on drafting succinct and clear procedures for the
hourly employees rather than grandiose policy statements [Note: ISO 14000
requires such policies; but they do not have to be long and glorious.]
Also, be persistent and if necessary build on smaller steps if management
is initially unwilling to buy into full blown implementation.
At 05:46 PM 11/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>We are currently in the pre-planning stage of ISO 14000. We do not have
senior
>management commitment. This is a reoccurring and rather inhibiting issue of
>our EMS implementation plan. While I realize the importance of executive
>management commitment in the EMS process, I would rather channel my focus to
>gaining that commitment versus complaining about it. I am the ISO 14000
>Coordinator at our facility and am trying to move us along so that we
can be
>certified 14001 by the end of 1998. We do have small pieces of an EMS,
>nothing documented, in place. Has anyone had the luxury of gaining this
>management commitment as the EMS process is being developed? In other words,
>gained a reactive management to become proactive, as far as ISO 14000 is i
>nvolved? Any words of wisdom especially for an EMS in the infancy stage?
>lessons learned? Our facility is ISO 9001 certified and frankly I am tried of
>hearing how similar the process is with regards to 14000, with no proof. I
>realize that components such as document control and auditing may be
similar ,
>but people at least from my stand point are comparing Quality to the
>Environment. I do not see any correlation Its apples to oranges as far as I
>am concerned. Can anyone help widen my narrow view, if it is possible??
Any and
>all help is greatly appreciated.
>
>Teresa Iaquinta
>ISO 14000/ Safety Coordinator
>e- mail address is teresa.iaquinta@usfla.mail.abb.com
>
>
Bert P. Krages II
Environmental Law and Mediation
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97204
Law:
Mediation:
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:03:02 +0100
From: Mary Grace Apap
Subject: Need some info..
I'm a student doing a thesis on Quality Management in manufacturing
industry. I'm quite new to this standard, and would appreciate if anyone
would give me or refer to me where I can find some info on this standard
relating to manufacturing industry. Also, I have a query, can a company
which isn't ISO9000 certified comply to ISO 14000 only or is 9000 a
prerequisite ?
Thanks
Mary Grace
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:40:10 -0300
From: jer16274@bahiasul.com.br (Jorge E.R.Cajazeira)
Subject: SA 8000
I read an article about a new standard issued (SA 8000) in 8/10/97 by CEP
(Council of Economical Priorities) in USA. SGS ICS is the register of this
standard.
According the article this standard integrete QUALITY + ENV + SAFETY AND
HEALTH + SOCIAL QUESTIONS.
Does the list users has the copy of SA 8000 or know some contact in the
CEP ?
Jorge Cajazeira
Bahia Sul, Brazil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:31:28 -0500
From: Benchmark Environmental Consulting
Subject: new assessment of ISO 14001 for regulated entities
- --=====================_879978688==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Press Release November 1997
=20
Assessing the Value of ISO 14001 for Regulated Entities: =20
Case Studies from New Jersey s Chemical Industry
=20
A "MUST READ" FOR REGULATORS AND FIRMS CONSIDERING
HOW TO REACT TO ISO 14001 AND EMSs
=20
A new report available from Benchmark examines the value of
ISO 14001 certification for chemical facilities located in New Jersey.
There are lessons here for other sectors and other states. A gap analysis
is used to compare the current EMS at participating facilities to the ISO
14001 standard. To determine if there was a need for ISO 14001, the study
looked at how the current EMS affected the following areas: costs,
understanding of environmental impacts, hazardous emissions,
implementation of pollution prevention activities, regulatory compliance
record and relationships with community members. =20
The study found that ISO 14001 implementation would add little value to
the existing EMS at participating New Jersey chemical companies. Other
programs which= these companies have participated in, both regulatory and
voluntary, have accomplished the benefits of ISO 14001 and more.
Specifically, the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act (N.J. ST 13:1D-41,
1990) not only requires the same type of planning process as planning an
ISO-EMS requires, but has materials accounting and technical requirements=
for pollution prevention planning that go beyond that of the management
requirements of an ISO-EMS. Responsible Care=AE extends the scope of the
EMS beyond the= facility walls.
"Assessing the Value of ISO 14001 for Regulated Entities: Case Studies
from New Jersey s Chemical Industry" by Stefanie Gitter. 28 pages.
Available from Benchmark Environmental Consulting for $35.00. Payment by
checks only, in US dollars, payable at a US bank. Sorry, no credit card
orders accepted.
Benchmark Environmental Consulting
350 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
tel: 914-422-2655 fax: 914-422-2656
email: benchmark@mindspring.com
web site: www.mindspring.com/~benchmark
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #15
*****************************