iso14000-digest Friday, April 9 1999 Volume 02 : Number 050
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:22:09 -0500
From: "L. Wilk"
Subject: Re: Eco-citations
I don't know of the particular posting you refer to, but you might want to
check the archives for this discussion group. It is located at
http://www.quality.org/ISO14000/digest-archives/14digest.html
You may find it here.
At 07:44 PM 3/12/99 +0100, Pedro Gonçalves wrote:
>Dear ISO 14K's,
>
>A looooong time ago someone posted on this list a file called
>"eco-quotations", environmental citations from many different (known)
>people. As anyone kept it? Is the ISO 14k-person who first posted it still
>on the list? Can he/she post it again or send it directly to me?
>
>I'm doing a brochure on the necessity of Environmental Management and some
>quotations from several "personalities" would be interesting.
>
>Thanks a lot.
>
>Pedro Gonçalves
>catarinos@mail.telepac.pt
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:49:33 -0300
From: "Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques"
Subject: Re: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
Mr. Gehrke,
I'm so sorry for delay this replay but I believe that you commited a
mistake in your last statement.
If an Aspect has a regulatory law, it is automaticlly included in ISO
14001.
The environmental policy of a company must have an clause over
environmental law complience, so the system must set a control for this
Aspect as an evidence of complience with company's environmental policy
In my point of view, if a company control some aspect, the company
alredy made an environmental analisys and saw that point as significant.
I am waiting for your reactions...
Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques
ventilii@nutecnet.com.br
- -----Mensagem original-----
De: Gehrke, Rick
Para: 'Beth Graves' ; iso14000@quality.org
Data: Segunda-feira, 1 de Março de 1999 16:43
Assunto: RE: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
>
>Trouble can arise when an organization decides that, because it is already
>controlling some aspect to satisfy a regulatory requirement that sets an
>emission limit, the aspect can not have a significant environmental impact.
>You could systematically exclude every environmental aspect at a facility
>from the EMS with that approach.
>
>Rick Gehrke
>Compliance Manager
>Synair Corporation
>www.synair.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:49:40 -0300
From: "Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques"
Subject: Re: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
Mr. Pojasek,
I have another opinion about Control and influence.
You must have CONTROL about your process - ALL PROCESS. Influence you
must use with suppliers and with costumers.
Pollution control equipments must have opperational procedures and when
they are running out of specification, you have an non conformancy, that
must be checked. Why me concentration of Dly ash was above de upper limit?
Maintenence problem? Problem with fuel, burners etc.
Thanks.
Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques
ventilii@nutecnet.com.br
- -----Mensagem original-----
De: Robert B. Pojasek
Para: Gehrke, Rick ; ISO14000@quality.org
Data: Segunda-feira, 1 de Março de 1999 18:20
Assunto: RE: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
>Doesn't the company have CONTROL and be expected to have an influence over
>the process BEFORE the pollution control device? If this is so, is the
>pollution control device just another unit operation up stream of the
>process itself?
>
>At 02:11 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Forwarded from one of my co-workers. The question arose as to
>>whether to
>>score for significance before or after taking into consideration control
>>devices. Thanks for your help.
>>
>>The best aspect identification and rating procedures I've seen were those
>>where the aspects were evaluated for potential significant environmental
>>impact before application of control devices. The control devices were
used
>>as a factor in determining which aspects the organization "can control and
>>over which it can be expected to have an influence", but not for
determining
>>which aspects have or can have significant impacts on the environment.
>>
>>Naturally, the control devices should be examined for potential
>>environmental impact, following the same procedures used to evaluate other
>>aspects of the organization. Pollution control devices ARE mitigating
>>measures on other discharges. Take an electrostatic precipitator on a
coal
>>fired electric power plant, for example. Basically, you're taking an air
>>emission (fly ash) and turning it into a solid waste, using some
electricity
>>in the process. While it does create another waste stream, it's less
>>harmful than the original one.
>>
>>To answer that forwarded question, I'd go back to the standard and look at
>>element 4.3.1. The organization is required to identify the environmental
>>aspects of its activities, products or services that 1) it can control and
>>over which it can be expected to have an influence (these are really both
>>the same thing) and 2) determine those which have or can have significant
>>impacts on the environment. Items 1 and 2 are two entirely different
>>things, and need to be looked at separately.
>>
>>Watch out for that word "significance", too. The procedures set up to
>>satisfy the requirements of element 4.3.1 can generate a scoring of
relative
>>"significance" of environmental aspects for management prioritization, but
>>sometimes this causes confusion on what aspects have or can have
significant
>>environmental impact. For example, an organization decides that an aspect
>>has or can have a significant environmental impact based on some algorithm
>>which incorporates frequency, severity, and distance. However, because
>>adding control technology is beyond the organization's financial
capability,
>>it determines, by some other algorithm, that it cannot control or be
>>expected to influence that aspect. The two scores are fed into yet
another
>>algorithm used to prioritize the aspects, say for development of
objectives
>>and targets, and out pops a relatively low "significance" score.
>>
>>Trouble can arise when an organization decides that, because it is already
>>controlling some aspect to satisfy a regulatory requirement that sets an
>>emission limit, the aspect can not have a significant environmental
impact.
>>You could systematically exclude every environmental aspect at a facility
>>from the EMS with that approach.
>>
>>Rick Gehrke
>>Compliance Manager
>>Synair Corporation
>>www.synair.com
>>
>Bob
>
>Dr. Robert B. Pojasek
>Pojasek & Associates
>P.O. Box 1333
>E. Arlington, MA 02474-0071
>(781) 641-2422
>(617) 788-0288 (FAX)
>
>http://www.PollutionPrevention.com
>rpojasek@PollutionPrevention.com
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:32:28 -0500
From: HY BRAVERMAN
Subject: Re: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
People, what do you want to see as the end result?
No matter what controls are in place, they need, they must have and
information component and an information agent and an information
transport medium. You have a repository of data, much of it may be
going stale if you don't send it to someone who will decide if limits,
amounts or sizes are in compliance. Then that person or
instument/mackine/computer controlled valve must make adjustments to
being pollution processes, to bring them into compliance. or eliminate
the pollution producing process with one that does not pollute.
The information processing aspects need close examination and
organizational team work to acheive succesful outcomes. An information
achitecture is a key component to any environmental management process,
only if its done right.
hy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:39:53 -0800
From: "Robert B. Pojasek"
Subject: Fwd: Re: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:37:11 -0800
>To: "Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques"
>From: "Robert B. Pojasek"
>Subject: Re: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
>
>My point is that a company should try to CHANGE the process in such a way
that pollution control equipment is not needed. This is done when you have
an objective to eliminate aspects as a goal of the program. Of course the
environmental manager cannot do this. Only if the ISO 14001 effort is
fully integrated into the core business practice of the firm can this be
accomplished. Many ISO 14001 programs are prepared in isolation from
production except for the policy statement. Most environmental managers
just accept pollution control equipment as a fact of life. This equipment
is inefficient and expensive to maintain and control. If a competitor
finds a process that makes the same product that does NOT require pollution
control equipment, they will drive the other firm out of business - even if
they have an ISO 14001 program. The environmental manager must learn more
about the production processses. What causes them to require regulation
and control from an ISO 14001 point of view? Then the question is asked,
how can I change the process in such a way that it does NOT require
regulation and does not pose an environmental aspect. This is what "The
Prevention of Pollution" should try to do. Most ISO 14001 programs only
mention "The Prevention of Pollution" in the policy statement and do not
have objectives that address it as an integral part of the program. This
needs to be changed. On my web site is a paper on ZERO WASTE
(Reprints-Practical Pollution Prevention) and on Environment Excellence
Program (Integrating P2 into your Business). You may wish to read these
articles to get a clearer picture of the point that I am trying to make.
>
>At 10:49 PM 3/15/99 -0300, you wrote:
>>Mr. Pojasek,
>>
>> I have another opinion about Control and influence.
>> You must have CONTROL about your process - ALL PROCESS. Influence you
>>must use with suppliers and with costumers.
>> Pollution control equipments must have opperational procedures and when
>>they are running out of specification, you have an non conformancy, that
>>must be checked. Why me concentration of Dly ash was above de upper limit?
>>Maintenence problem? Problem with fuel, burners etc.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques
>>ventilii@nutecnet.com.br
>>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:45:37 -0500
From: "Gehrke, Rick"
Subject: RE: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
Dear Carlos,
Compliance with environmental laws merely requires an organization to meet
minimum requirements. ISO 14001 drives an organization toward prevention of
pollution and continual improvement. Here's an example. Say I'm making
paint, using a variety of volatile organic solvents. All other solvents
(e.g. water) have proven to be miserable failures, they just don't work with
our materials, period. I have a commitment to comply with environmental
laws, so I go to the relevant legal authority to obtain a permit for my
equipment. I run calculations on how much solvent I'm going to lose to the
atmosphere with my processes and the environmental legal authorities issue
me, for a small fee, a permit to emit those compounds at a given hourly
rate. I comply with the permit restrictions. I have now met my commitment
to comply with environmental legal and other requirements, but I'm still
emitting VOC's to the atmosphere.
To create an effective EMS, I need a procedure for evaluating my paint
operations, and other operations, to see what the impacts are and whether or
not I can control them. Simply relying on the law to tell me I need to
control them to some fixed point does not satisfy the spirit and intent of
ISO 14001.
Rick Gehrke
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques
> Mr. Gehrke,
>
> I'm so sorry for delay this replay but I believe that you
> commited a
> mistake in your last statement.
> If an Aspect has a regulatory law, it is automaticlly
> included in ISO
> 14001.
> The environmental policy of a company must have an clause over
> environmental law complience, so the system must set a
> control for this
> Aspect as an evidence of complience with company's
> environmental policy
>
> In my point of view, if a company control some aspect, the company
> alredy made an environmental analisys and saw that point as
> significant.
>
> I am waiting for your reactions...
>
> Antonio Carlos Ventilii Marques
> ventilii@nutecnet.com.br
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: Gehrke, Rick
> Para: 'Beth Graves' ; iso14000@quality.org
>
> Data: Segunda-feira, 1 de Março de 1999 16:43
> Assunto: RE: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:01:48 -0500
From: HY BRAVERMAN
Subject: Re: Aspect / Impacts and Controls
An EMS, Information Architecture or any changes to the status quo
requires that the leadership of the organization have their hearts in
it, and the entities open wallet. None of this is easy, thats why
competitive and ongoing companies are committing and spending to be
allowed to stay in business. It's not the information that matters, it's
the insight and knowledge used for the organizations benefit. More
often, concerns have data and don't know what it means. Those firms are
dying a slow death of increasing cost of doing business. In many firms,
there are no strategic knowledge resources within organizations that
know to convert data into knowledge. Firms like yours may be able to do
that. Good luck.
hy braverman, msit
Robert B. Pojasek wrote:
>
> You are quite correct. However the information must be on the production
> process itself.......................................... How do you
> encourage this over "making adjustments to bring polluting processes into
> compliance?" I find environmental managers are more interested in this
> (reactionary behavior) than in eliminating aspects (prevention behavior).
>
> Bob
>
> Dr. Robert B. Pojasek
> Pojasek & Associates
> P.O. Box 1333
> E. Arlington, MA 02474-0071
> (781) 641-2422
> (617) 788-0288 (FAX)
>
> http://www.PollutionPrevention.com
> rpojasek@PollutionPrevention.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:20:54 +0200
From: "Ross Campbell"
Subject: Management of contractors
Dear list members
While ISO 14001:1996 does not specifically require an organization to have
a formal method of managing contractors, it seems to me that anyone working
on the organization's premises, whether contractors or employees, could
fall within the group defined in section 4.4.2 "...all personnel whose work
may create a significant impact on the environment...", and should thus
receive appropriate training.
How do the list members manage this issue in their systems? Are there other
concerns with regard to contractors that should be addressed? Would it be
possible for any of you to send me a copy of ISO 14001 system documentation
for managing contractors?
Thank you.
Ross Campbell
Consultant, Environmental Management
ISCOR Steel
South Africa
rossc@hq.iscorltd.co.za
+27 (12) 307 7273 / (82) 651 02 35
Required Legal Disclaimer:
The views expressed above are not necessarily those of Iscor Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:07:18 -0600
From: Neil Silins
Subject: aspects, impacts and experience
By way of introducing myself to the group, I'd like to add my comments
to the discussion re impacts and controls. If the goal is an objective
evaluation of aspects and impacts, it seems almost inarguable to me that
impacts must be considered with no controls in place. And yes, there
could be significant advantages for considering an already-controlled
impact.
As was explained to me, one of the advantages of ISO 14000 is in the
second and third "iterations", when regulatory compliance is already
accomplished and program evaluations can focus on source pollution
prevention, resulting in a financial advantage to the company. This
advantage would be lost if impacts were evaluated already-controlled.
A question/comment of a more mundane nature. As an independent
environmental/IH consultant, ISO 14000 seemed a logical next step, the
wave of the future. I took the Lead Auditor course and have my ANSI-RAB
accreditation. I have been trying to get audit/consulting experience
for 1 1/2 years. Any ideas? No reasonable offers refused.
Neil Silins
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:52:29 -0700
From: Faye Bres
Subject: Aspects and Impacts evaluation
Hello everyone,
As a small, independent consultant, I am always seeking information sources
for my own 'continual improvement'. I am currently researching the results
of various organizations' Aspect and Impact evaluation and significance
rating. I find even looking at the results from very different types of
organizations in different industries, there are often common Aspects. It
is also interesting to see how different organizations assign significance
ratings to similar Aspects. Having a "catalog" of Aspects and Impacts from
a variety of different organizations would be a great tool during the
initial phase of Aspects and Impacts evaluation, especially for clients who
wish to conduct the evaluation internally but lack experience in the
process.
So, the call is out. Is there anyone out there who will share with us the
results of their Aspects and Impacts evaluation and significance rating?
Does anyone know of any websites or other information sources that can
help me on my quest?
I do recognize that many organizations may be concerned about making the
results of their Aspects and Impacts evaluations public. There is a
potential for release of proprietary information, plus there may be
concerns that information about the potentially significant environmental
impacts associated with an organization's activities may fall into hostile
hands. If you wish, you may remove any headings or content which would
help identify your organization, cut out sections which contain proprietary
information, or send the information to the list from an external e-mail
address.
I see this kind of information exchange as one of the greatest potential
benefits of this list, and feel we have all under utilized this potential.
As an incentive to get our shy members to get involved, I would be happy
to share whatever information I dig up from other sources with
contributors. If you do not wish to send the information to the list, you
could also send it directly to my e-mail address below.
Thanking you in advance,
Faye Bres
fbres@biophilia.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:49:59 -0400
From: Beth Graves
Subject: ISO tax deduction
In the Jan. 4, 1999 issue of Plastic News, there is an article about the
National Tooling and Machining Association trying to convince the IRS that
manufacturers should be allowed to deduct as an ordinary business expense
the cost of implementing ISO 9000.
The article references an IRS white paper that took the position that ISO
9000 systems result in long-term benefit and must be amoritized over three
years.
The trade association is asking that its members be able to deduct the
expense of implementing ISO 9000 standards in a single year, a step to
improve a company's cash flow. The article states that the association
views ISO 9000 as a necessary and ordinary expense as companies are under
pressure from customers to certify or lose business.
Apparently IRS is reviewing the issue.
Does anyone know more about this issue or know of the white paper cited? Is
anyone aware of this same argument being made for ISO 14001?
Beth Graves
NC DPPEA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:43:09 -0400
From: "Lynda M. Wiseman"
Subject: Documentation software
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01BE806E.14B7CBA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This question may have been asked earlier in a different format, but I'd =
appreciate your current opinions and comments on whether you are using =
specific software packages (& if so, which ones) to assemble, manage, =
and "publish" (paper, PDF, Intranet?) your procedures & practices for =
ISO14000. Also, have you had the software in place long enough that you =
now have revised or updated the documents, procedures and practices? If =
so, how easy was that from a software/systems perspective?
Thanks for your assistance!
Lynda Wiseman
The Carpenter Group =20
info@carpentergrp.com
215-752-2084
215-752-1494 fax
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:55:20 +0800
From: cacems@public.bta.net.cn
Subject: If ISO14001 affect the corporation's market value?
Dear all:
I am an old member of this group. I always pay close attention to
our topics. But I find there is one topic has not been raised. That
is if a corporation's market value will be affected once it has been
certified by ISO14001. And if it will attract more investers? If yes,
please give me some examples. Thank you a lot...
Best regards
Stella Dong
China Center for Environmental Management System
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:31:56 +0200
From: "Vianna, Sidney"
Subject: ANNOUN: Joint News Release by the consortium of parties partipating in the deveopment of the OHSAS documents
OHSAS 18001
Occupational health and safety management systems: - Specification
For some time there has been urgent customer demand for a recognisable
occupational health and safety management system specification, for
the assessment and certification of OH&S management systems. However,
there has been insufficient agreement within the formal standards
development processes for the development of a UK national standard, a
European standard, or an international standard, in this area
(although agreement was eventually reached over the development of BS
8800: 1996 Guide to occupational health and safety management
systems).
This has led to the development of a number of OH&S management systems
specifications, both by national standards bodies and by independent
groups.
DNV, in association with other national standards bodies,
certification bodies, and specialist consultancies, has since decided
to try and meet this increasingly urgent customer demand, and to try
and harmonize the work in this field. This has resulted in the
development of this Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
(OHSAS) Specification, OHSAS 18001. This standard will be offically
released in the UK in April 99.
It is stressed that OHSAS 18001 is not a UK national nor International
standard and certification can still only be done on a non-accredited
bases.
OHSAS 18001 has not been developed through the formal standards
development process. Instead, it has been developed by a process that
is open to other sponsors wishing to produce similar types of
documents in association with BSI, provided that those sponsors are
willing to comply with BSI's conditions for such documents. Most of
BSI's conditions only apply to the UK.
An accompanying publication, OHSAS 18002 Guidelines for the
implementation of OHSAS 18001, is also under development and will be
published shortly (June 99).
OHSAS 18001 has been developed to be compatible with the IS0 9001:
1994 (Quality) and IS0 14001: 1996 (Environmental) management systems
standards, in order to facilitate the integration of quality,
environmental and occupational health and safety management systems by
organizations, should they wish to do so.
It is hoped that the application of OHSAS 18001 may provide useful
data for the future development of either a UK national OH&S
management systems specification standard, or for an international
standard.
Participating Parties in Writing of OHSAS 18001
OHSAS 18001 has been developed with the assistance of the following
co-operating organizations:
National Standards Authority of Ireland
Standards Australia
South African Bureau of Standards
British Standards Institution
Bureau Veritas Quality International
Det Norske Veritas
Lloyds Register Quality Assurance
National Quality Assurance
SFS Certification
SGS Yarsley International Certification Services
Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación
International Safety Management Organisation Ltd
Standards and Industry Research Institute of Malaysia-Quality
Assurance Services
International Certification Services
Documents referenced during the development of this OHSAS
specification:
BS 8800:1996 Guide to occupational health and safety management
systems
Technical Report NPR 5001: 1997 Guide to an occupational health and
safety management system
SGS & ISMOL ISA 2000:1997 Requirements for Safety and Health
Management Systems
BVQI SafetyCert: Occupational Safety and Health Management Standard
DNV Standard for Certification of Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems (OHSMS):1997
Draft NSAI SR 320 Recommendation for an Occupational Health and Safety
(OH and S) Management System
Draft AS/NZ 4801 Occupational health and safety management systems -
Specification with guidance for use
Draft BS I PAS 088 Occupational health and safety management systems
UNE 81900 series of pre-standards on the Prevention of occupational
risks
Draft LRQA SMS 8800 Health & safety management systems assessment
criteria
OHSAS 18001 will supersede some of these referenced documents.
OHSAS 18001 maintains a high level of compatibility with, and
technical equivalence to:
AS/NZ 4801
UNE 81900
Thanks and Regards,
Sidney Vianna
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:23:26 -0500
From: rleben@rheem.com (Robert Leben)
Subject: Question
Could a well appointed master list showing that each ISO14001 clause
is addressed by a procedure and, when appropriate supporting operational
instructions, be used to satisfy the 4.4.4 EMS documentation requirement?
R. Leben, Administrator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 11:25:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti (System Admin)"
Subject: test 1
testing. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:51:31 -0400
From: Hy Braverman
Subject: Re: If ISO14001 affect the corporation's market value?
Stella Dong
You may be of interest in the following site:
http://web3.asia1.com.sg/timesnet/data/ab/docs/ab1033.html
Please take it at face value and perform the necessary research to obtain
valid information. It may be a starting point.
Good luck ...hy...
cacems@public.bta.net.cn wrote:
> Dear all:
> I am an old member of this group. I always pay close attention to
> our topics. But I find there is one topic has not been raised. That
> is if a corporation's market value will be affected once it has been
> certified by ISO14001. And if it will attract more investers? If yes,
> please give me some examples. Thank you a lot...
>
> Best regards
>
> Stella Dong
> China Center for Environmental Management System
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:33:54 +0800
From: cacems@public.bta.net.cn
Subject: Re: Re: If ISO14001 affect the corporation's market value?
Dear Mr. Braverman:
Thank you very much for your quickly response and valuable information.
I am looking for some obvious evidence of which ISO14001 could make
stock value changed. I will very appreciate if you could give me some
information about it.
Thanks and Regards
Stella Dong
CCEMS
At 99-4-7 13:51:00, you wrote:
>Stella Dong
>
>You may be of interest in the following site:
>
>http://web3.asia1.com.sg/timesnet/data/ab/docs/ab1033.html
>
>Please take it at face value and perform the necessary research to obtain
>valid information. It may be a starting point.
>
>Good luck ...hy...
>
>
>cacems@public.bta.net.cn wrote:
>
>> Dear all:
>> I am an old member of this group. I always pay close attention to
>> our topics. But I find there is one topic has not been raised. That
>> is if a corporation's market value will be affected once it has been
>> certified by ISO14001. And if it will attract more investers? If yes,
>> please give me some examples. Thank you a lot...
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Stella Dong
>> China Center for Environmental Management System
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:58:07 -0400
From: "Malkin, Melissa"
Subject: Indicators of EMS performance
Burt Hammer recently posted a nice set of "five basic indicators" of
pollution prevention progress to the P2Tech listserver (re-pasted below).
I'd like to expand that discussion to the include "indicators of EMS
progress".
EPA asked Research Triangle Institute to develop a web-based tool for
evaluating environmental progress resulting from an EMS. We considered
trying to come up with a very quantitative tool, but instead chose something
very much like the "basic indicators" approach. We assumed that the
following qualities of an EMS are most likely to result in environmental
protection improvements:
- -- EMS thoroughly identifies all potential environmental aspects (e.g., VOC
emissions from manufacturing process)
- -- EMS thoroughly identifies all impacts related to the aspects (ground
level ozone, worker health, air toxics, etc)
- -- EMS contains aggressive targets to reduce a large percent of the impact,
and reduce it fast.
- -- EMS meets the targets using tools that are high up on the P2 hierarchy,
and use tools that address aspects and impacts that are beyond the facility
gates (e.g., product stewardship, environmentally preferable purchasing).
- -- EMS implements practices that are associated with good environmental
management (environmental accounting, design for the environment, TQEM, etc
etc... pretty much any practice that helps a company get at Burt's "5 basic
indicators" would come in here).
I'd welcome feedback & discussion on this tool: you can review it at
http://ems.rti.org (its a public tool, so there's no
charge, and its also confidential)
Regards,
Melissa Malkin
Research Triangle Institute, Pollution Prevention Program
POB 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
voice: (919) 541-6154 fax (919) 541 7155
http://www.rti.org/units/ese/p2/ppb.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burton Hamner [ mailto:bhamner@mindspring.com
]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 2:35 PM
...
some thoughts on the progression topic. They are related
> to the "five
> basic indicators" of sustainable business discussion that I
> initiated on
> P2TECH a while ago. At the end of it all (about 10 people
> got involved) I
> concluded that nobody disagreed with these five basic indicators:
>
> Cost: Company knows true cost of its waste and pollution.
> Toxics: Company has done some toxics use reduction.
> TQM: Company workers use basic TQM-type process analysis
> tools to analyze
> what they are doing.
> EMS: Company has an organized management system to identify
> and respond to
> environmental concerns
> Networking: Company participates in pollution prevention
> knowledge networks.
>
> The idea being that if a company is doing all these things,
> their BEHAVIOR
> is as much as anyone could expect to be sustainable. Maybe
> they actually
> pollute more next year because they increased production
> dramatically, but
> their behavior demonstrates both capacity and intent to do
> something about it.
>
> Now if you took these and ranked them as natural steps towards
> sustainability, I think they would go in order of progression:
>
> 1 Networking
> 2 TQEM
> 3 Cost
> 4 Toxics
> 5 EMS
>
> 1. Networking creates motivation, which is needed to start the whole
> progression. By networking I mean the act of raising your
> head above the
> company chaos and looking around the horizon for help. Once
> in the network
> companies can keep receiving info about P2 and new money savers. Any
> business that is bad at networking in the 21 Century is dead
> meat in any case.
>
> 2. TQEM at the process level is usually the first thing that happens
> following motivation. Someone picks a problem, they analyze
> it, apply P2
> philosophy, and get some results. This stimulates other
> projects, and so
> on. TQEM activities simply enable the workers to analyze
> their processes
> and identify where and why waste and pollution are being
> created. There
> are really only 3 or 4 basic diagrams needed to do this.
> TQEM provides the
> baseline process information from which all subsequent
> decisions must be
> made. Needless to say most people don't call their process
> improvement
> projects "TQEM" but that is sort of what they are doing.
>
> 3. Cost comes once you have the right process data from TQEM
> analyses.
> Once a manager knows the potential range of savings available
> from reducing
> waste they can see why they are in it for the money.
>
> 4. When managers decide they are ready to start really
> making decisions
> (as opposed to the staff fooling around with small TQEM
> projects), they
> need to start on toxics reduction first. That shows they get
> the point
> about P2.
>
> 5. EMS or something similar happens after managers have had a few
> successes and they decide they want to keep trying. Then
> they start really
> "managing" ie delegation, evaluating, controlling, etc. But
> it doesn't
> have to be ISO 14001, it can be five minutes of discussion at
> every monday
> mgmt meeting. The point is that most employees could tell
> you directly and
> specifically how they go about trying to be sustainable. If
> they all tell
> the same story then they have an EMS!
>
> Here is the test to see whether you agree. Could any of these five be
> eliminated in a sustainable business? If not then the list
> is a minimal
> list. And if a company is doing all of these, do you think
> it is got the
> basic ingredients needed for sustainability? If not then
> what would you
> add? If so then this list is sufficient. So I believe these five
> indicators are both necessary and sufficient to evaluate a
> firm's progress.
>
> The order of evolution is not a given of course but it is a
> logical way to
> build sustainable capacity for P2 in an organization. A firm
> might start
> do a little toxics reduction as its first project (like
> switching to safer
> solvents or cleaners, etc). But systematic attention to P2
> only happens
> after top mgmt has looked at the costs and issues and make it
> a policy.
>
> If I was designing a P2 outreach or techn assistance program,
> I would think
> about using these five steps as the basic development steps.
> Get firms
> into the P2 network so you can show them success stories and hit that
> motivation button. Then teach them basic process analysis
> tools and help
> their employee teams practice them on something relatively simple (and
> network them with other techn assistance programs that are about basic
> productivity). Then help staff figure out what the real
> savings are and
> what the "savings envelope" could be (more motivation). Then help
> management get serious about toxics reduction, especially
> through supplier
> partnerships (more networking) so they have something that
> they have to
> actually manage (not delegate to some flunky). Then show managers how
> various EMS models can help them develop and maintain their
> own systematic
> approach to P2. Each of these five stages requires a different set of
> outreach and assistance activities. Might take five years to
> get most of
> the target firms through the five stages, but it's like bricklaying...
>
> Note that compliance is NOT on my own list of indicators of
> sustainability.
> That's because it is a given. Anyone not in compliance is
> not sustainable
> by definition. I mean really out of compliance (no pollution
> controls, no
> clue etc), not breaking EPA paperwork rules. I REALLY object to some
> business award programs that include compliance as something
> to reward.
> That implies that some legal requirements aren't as expected
> as others.
>
> That's my editorial. Now about leadership projects, you
> might consider
> some roundtables with business leaders to ask THEM to
> consider and rank or
> reorder these indicators. Even if they disagree with them,
> they are a good
> straw man to whack at. Maybe they will all agree that the
> indicators should
> be changed, or maybe they will all like them. Anyway it is a
> good way to
> keep the goal of measuring progress focused on sustainable
> BEHAVIOR, not
> counting cooties.
>
>
> *******************************************************
> Burton Hamner
> - Adjunct Professor, Asian Institute of Management, Manila,
> Philippines
> - President, Hamner Associates, LLC
> 4343 4th Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington, 98107
> tel/fax: 206-789-5499
> email: bhamner@mindspring.com
> VISIT the SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS WEBSPACE and my home pages at:
> web: http://www.mindspring.com/~bhamner
>
>
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #50
*****************************