[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(Fwd) [eppnet] Fw: BEES and EPP Research Structure
- Subject: (Fwd) [eppnet] Fw: BEES and EPP Research Structure
- From: "Sherry Davis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:44:08 -0600
- List-Name: P2Tech
- Organization: K-State Research and Extension
- Reply-To: "Sherry Davis" <email@example.com>
The following email is from the EPP net. I thought it might
prove interesting to members of this listserve. It's a fairly
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------From:
"Nancy VandenBerg" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To:
"Environmentally-preferable products procurement"
<email@example.com> Subject: [eppnet] Fw: BEES and
EPP Research Structure Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:14:31 -0400
Reply-to: "Environmentally-preferable products procurement"
From: Nancy VandenBerg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: EPPNET <email@example.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
>- ceramic tile with recycled glass, linoleum, vinyl composition compared as
>- asphalt shingles, clay tiles and fiber-cement shingles compared as
>EBN evaluated the comparisons presented (many of which challenged logic)
>"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
>model. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
>For disclosure purposes, I'm on the EBN board, but I would pass along this
>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
>when a product/system/service is sought:
>1. Leave out building/construction for now because the subject is covered
>2. What env. impacts apply to the prod/syst/service?
>Logically eliminate those that don't apply before continuing research.
> 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
>3. Use what is available now to move EPP along even if all potential
>are not yet developed, e.g.:
>- Use solicitation criteria that affect ownership costs (acquisition
>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
>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
>specs and test methods that can be cited.
>7. State consensus definitions, test methods and criteria whenever they
>8. Prep the information system so that users can download selected
>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
>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: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to email@example.com
Sherry J. Davis
Industrial P2 Specialist
133 Ward Hall,KSU
Manhattan, KS 66506-2508
913-532-6501 Fax: 913-532-6952