[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(Fwd) [eppnet] Fw: BEES and EPP Research Structure



P2Techs:
The following email is from the EPP net.  I thought it might 
prove interesting to members of this listserve.  It's a fairly 
long letter.
Sherry Davis

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------From:       
   "Nancy VandenBerg" <lessismore@sprintmail.com> To:            
"Environmentally-preferable products procurement" 
<eppnet@aladdin.webrover.com> Subject:       [eppnet] Fw: BEES and 
EPP Research Structure Date:          Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:14:31 -0400 
Reply-to:      "Environmentally-preferable products procurement" 
<eppnet@aladdin.webrover.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy VandenBerg <lessismore@sprintmail.com>
To: EPPNET <lyris@aladdin.webrover.com>
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 3:08 PM
Subject: BEES and EPP Research Structure


>Here are replies to two subjects:
>
>BEES - from Manomaitis
>Environmental Building News reviewed the BEES progam in great detail in the
>May 1998 issue. For those who don't know, EBN is a well-balanced journal
>with a lot of experience. Unfortunately, the review can't be pulled down
>from the www.ebn.com site but sample copies of the newsletter are available
>and can be ordered from the site. The current BEES covers:
>-concrete with varying %s of fly ash compared for  various applications
>-oriented strand board compared with plywood as roof and wall sheathing
>-bricks and mortar compared with stucco as exterior cladding
>-cellulose, fiberglass and mineral wool compared as wall and ceiling
>insulation
>- ceramic tile with recycled glass, linoleum, vinyl composition compared as
>floor coverings
>- asphalt shingles, clay tiles and fiber-cement shingles compared as
roofing
>materials
>EBN evaluated the comparisons presented (many of which challenged logic)
and
>concluded:
>"given the gaps in the data and lack of documentation as to its sources, we
>wouldn't suggest anyone try to make material selection choices based on
this
>model. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
>For disclosure purposes, I'm on the EBN board, but I would pass along this
>info regardless.
>
>Specs/Solicitations/Criteria - Noble/Bailey
>You have a great start on this idea. Since it will probably grow fast, I
>think we need some sort of structure to organize information so that people
>can use it effectively, now and in the future. This reminds me of the early
>days before catalogues for recycled products existed.
>
>Anyone want to work on structure and find a place to lodge the information
>as it's gathered? Is there a "host" for this information? What can NERC
>offer? Are any sites like NASPO willing?
>
>Suggestions off the top of my head, based on a buyer/specifier's
perspective
>when a product/system/service is sought:
>
>1. Leave out building/construction for now because the subject is covered
>elsewhere.
>
>2. What env. impacts apply to the prod/syst/service?
>Logically eliminate those that don't apply before continuing research.
>Roughly:
>    Ecosystem damage
>    Water demand
>    Energy demand
>    Resource demand
>    Solid waste generated
>    Liquid waste generated
>    Global air emissions
>    Indoor air emissions
>    Toxic/Hazardous constituent use and waste gen.
>    Other pollutant use and waste generated
>    Others???
>
>3. Use what is available now to move EPP along even if all potential
factors
>are not yet developed, e.g.:
>
>- Use solicitation criteria that affect ownership costs (acquisition
through
>disposal) if cradle-to-grave data are not available.
>
>- Date and document source of data/criteria etc.
>
>- Organize information collected according to a reasonable outline of
>product/system/service so potential users can find help for specific items.
>
>- State the objective of the soliciation/criteria and the environmental
>attributes/impacts covered by the criteria.
>
>- Cross reference whenever appropriate.
>
>4. Develop an index of web sites that can help during market research: e.g.
>the GSA and DLA catalogues if they can be used by more than federal
>agencies.
>
>5. Develop an outline of EPP attributes and criteria.
>The list above is a start at broad impacts. More detailed impacts and
>criteria can be added. Very detailed impacts can be inserted and cross
>referenced as they are gathered. This will help those who are trying to
>develop solicitations for specific items. DATE and DOCUMENT all criteria so
>they can be updated as the field evolves.
>
>6. Determine what is acceptable to back up manufacturers' claims or
identify
>specs and test methods that can be cited.
>
>7. State consensus definitions, test methods and criteria  whenever they
>exist.
>
>8. Prep the information system so that users can download selected
>information.
>
>9. Design the info system so that individuals can load in information as
>they get it as long as it is properly dated, documented and indexed for
>impacts/attributes.
>
>10. Develop acceptability criteria for information to be uploaded.
>
>What does EPPNET think of this approach? For those who don't know me, I've
>worked with environmental procurement issues as a consultant since 1985 and
>remember the pleasures/pains of establishing buy-recycled policies.
>
>
>


---
You are currently subscribed to eppnet as: [sdavis@oz.oznet.ksu.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-eppnet@aladdin.webrover.com

Sherry J. Davis
Industrial P2 Specialist
sdavis@oz.oznet.ksu.edu
133 Ward Hall,KSU
Manhattan, KS  66506-2508
913-532-6501   Fax: 913-532-6952