[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Targeting top TRI reporters for reductions
- Subject: Re: Targeting top TRI reporters for reductions
- From: "Ralph E. Cooper" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:35:23 -0500 (EST)
- List-Name: P2Tech
- Reply-To: email@example.com
1/8/98 Kirsten Rosselot wrote:
>My guess is that the best thing for the facilities might be
>roundtable/training sessions, with self-selected breakout sessions.
>Pollution prevention for the big guys doesn't follow cookie-cutter
>methods, which is another of the reasons regulators shy away. Plant
>personnel stand to learn a lot from each other (and so lawyers might have
>to attend for anti-trust reasons). The plant personnel are generally
>going to be the best experts on their processes that are available.
>These types of sessions have a special kind of magic.
As long as the plant personnel don't:
1. talk about their product prices or agree to set them and
2. talk about assigning products or bids among plants (restricting
there is little likelihood of an antitrust problem.
Talking about how one makes a product and how to reduce pollution, where to
get technology that works on controlling pollution, etc., have NO antitrust
ramifications!!!! Don't let that red herring stop good P2 cooperation.
Getting lawyers there may inhibit otherwise useful and productive
conversation about sharing P2 technology.
I say this not from the perspective of a lawyer (I am not one, yet) but from
the perspective of one who chaired a major conference for five years, taught
P2 courses and was doing effective P2 with clients, before most of your
organizations existed and before many of you were employed in this field.
Best of luck with MNs big plants. BTW, one of them has an excellent track
record as a standard-setter for the chemical industry in environmental
Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D.
J.D. Class of 1999
Shaker Heights, OH 44122