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

Comparing State EPRs using ECOS CPMs



3/20/00

Is the P2Tech list serve aware there are comparable state environmental
compliance indicators in the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) Core
Performance Measures (CPMs) to measure environmental performance?
Please see: http://www.sso.org/projects/cpms/cpm.htm

Cann't states' environmental compliance performance be evaluated under ECOS
CPMs if all state environmental agencies have adopted them?

Cheers,
Donald Sutherland
Member of the Society of Environmental Journalists
donaldsutherland-iso14000@worldnet.att.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Cooper <cooperre@flash.net>
To: Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot <rosselot@ix.netcom.com>; Jenna Latt
<LATTJ@state.mi.us>; p2tech@great-lakes.net <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics


>My concern is that all of the discussion has assumed the product.  Real
>pollution prevention may involve changing the product mix -- that is,
>choosing to make a different product.  Borden did this in the early
1980s --
>eliminating heavy metals from their flexographic inks -- providing a
>functionally equivalent product that polluted less in their manufacturing
of
>it and in their customers use of it.
>
>Sometimes, however, changing the product may require more lead time and
more
>effort in working with the clients to find alternatives.  Most of the
>examples of product change have occurred for reasons other than the
>pollution prevention value of the change.  Examples include electronic
>cameras -- no development chemicals to manage -- most important in the
>medical industry, and the disappearance of most of the auto industry
>chrome -- for design and weight reasons, rather than to not have to use the
>chrome plating process.
>
>As one who has studied measurement as a research methodologist and
>epistemologist [earlier career :-)], I cannot conceive of a means of
>measuring such changes across different industries.  Yet, that is where the
>ultimate in pollution prevention must be achieved -- changing what we buy
>and consume so that we cause the creation of less pollution.
>
>Ralph
>
>Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D., J.D.
>14139 Woodstream
>San Antonio, TX 78231
>210-479-5490
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot" <rosselot@ix.netcom.com>
>To: "Jenna Latt" <LATTJ@state.mi.us>; <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:33 PM
>Subject: Re: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics
>
>
>> There's a big difference between measuring environmental performance and
>> measuring environmental progress.
>>
>> I've compared the environmental performance of chemical plants that have
>> similar product slates by looking at potency-weighted releases on a per
>unit
>> of production basis.  What we saw was that there are vast differences
from
>> one facility to the next not only in how much waste was generated on a
>> per-unit-of-production basis but in how the wastes were managed.  Some
>> facilities were clearly ahead of others on the pollution prevention
curve.
>> This is very useful and interesting information, and comparing a facility
>to
>> other like facilities in this manner is an excellent way to evaluate
>> environmental *performance*.  As time goes on, it's becoming clear that
>> environmental performance is linked to shareholder value and I expect
more
>> of these types of studies to be done.  However, this is a really
>complicated
>> and expensive type of analysis, requiring a knowledge of what compounds
>are
>> emitted during the production of each product, what production quantities
>> are, etc.
>>
>> Even within the chemical industry, it would be misleading to adopt any
one
>> indicator of production (sales, man-hours, cost-of-production,
>> pounds-of-production, etc.) across the board and measure environmental
>> performance using that single metric.  Using a single metric across many
>> industries would be even less meaningful.
>>
>> Evaluating environmental *progress* for a facility is simpler.  For
>example,
>> potency-weighted releases, summed by facility over time and adjusted for
>> production, give a quantitative measure of environmental progress and are
>> fairly easy to develop.  However, a facility can make a tremendous amount
>of
>> environmental progress and still not have good environmental performance,
>> and that distinction must be made.
>>
>> ===============================
>> Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot, P.E.
>> Process Profiles
>> P.O. Box 8264
>> Calabasas, CA 91372-8264
>>
>> rosselot@ix.netcom.com
>> http://home.netcom.com/~rosselot
>>
>> (818) 878-0454
>> ===============================
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jenna Latt <LATTJ@state.mi.us>
>> To: <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:35 AM
>> Subject: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics
>>
>>
>> > I was wondering whether anyone have information on corporate or state
>> programs that are measuring pollution prevention progress or performance.
>> Usually this is referred to as environmental performance indicators or
>> metrics and goes beyond the traditional SARA TRI data reporting, "pounds
>> released" or emissions reporting. For example, measurements used can be
>> "amount of constituent reduced per amount of product produced," or some
>> other similar metrics. I am particularly interested in what state
programs
>> are doing in this area.
>> >
>> > Are there any websites or reports (specifically report names) I can be
>> referred to? I have already checked www.epa.gov and the EPA P2 site but I
>> may have missed a particular report.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Jenna Latt
>> > Pollution Prevention Section
>> > Environmental Assistance Division
>> > Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
>> >
>>
>>
>