Quality Environmental Management Subcommittee …infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/17/16905.pdf · Quality...
Transcript of Quality Environmental Management Subcommittee …infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/17/16905.pdf · Quality...
Quality Environmental Management Subcommittee
President’s Commission on Environmental Quality
Washington, DC January, 1993
@ Printed on recycled paper
Preface ............................................................................. v
.. Executive Summary ........................................................ vu
About the QEM Project ................................................... 1
Setting the Stage for QEM ............................................... 7
A Framework for Pollution Prevention ......................... 15
Findings and Lessons .................................................... 39
Appendix A: QEM Project Participants ......................... 44
Appendix B: Demonstration Project Profiles ................ 45
Appendix C: Metrics ...................................................... 94
Appendix D: Tools and Techniques .............................. 95
Appendix E: Bibliography ........................................... 103
... 111
P RE FA(: E
xperience tells us that it is
often extremely difficult to
change when we have been
doing something the same
way all of our lives. But whether we real-
ize it or not, changes in our lives and
work are occurring continuously and at
an ever increasing pace.
In the business world, changes in
consumer demands, shareholder expec-
tations, technology and competition are
forcing most companies to rethink their
strategies in order to ensure their sur-
vival as viable financial entities. As a
result, companies have had to learn,
often with much difficulty, new ways of
doing old things. Today, we find that
more managers are experimenting with
innovative management concepts in
running their businesses. Also, execu-
tives are increasingly attempting to posi-
tion their companies with an eye
towards long-term strength, rather than
just short-term profits. And most impor-
tantly, numerous companies are focus-
ing on the wisdom of listening more
effectively to their customers.
Collectively, this new approach is
most commonly referred to as Total
Quality Management (TQM). It is a con-
cept that has wide applicability and
services rendered. And more recently,
these same principles have also been
successfully applied by a growing num-
ber of companies in dealing with their
environmental responsibilities. In this
application it is often called Quality
Environmental Management (QEM) . The underlying belief behind the
Quality Environmental Management
Initiative of the President's Commission
on Environmental Quality was that
TQM and QEM are two sides of the
same coin. The TQM methodologies
used to root out and eliminate product
imperfections or service deficiencies are
the same systematic approaches and
tools needed to reduce environmental
emissions or to prevent pollution.
The goal of the demonstration projects
discussed on the ensuing pages was to
test this hypothesis. Whether or not the
objective was accomplished is a matter
for you, the reader, to decide.
However, each of the participating com-
panies firmly believes that the Total
Quality Management approach was a
worthwhile effort and an effective
framework for identifying pollution pre-
vention opportunities. The results cer-
tainly seem to support our conclusion.
acceptance. TQM encompasses manage-
ment systems, the work environment,
employee behavior, manufacturing Kenneth ?' Derr, Chaziman and CEO, Chmron Corporatzon Chairman, QEM Subrommzttee Preszdrnt's Commzssion on Environmental Qualzty
processes, and the goods produced or
V
he President’s Commission
on Environmental Quality
(PCEQ), composed of twen-
ty-five business, environmen-
tal, foundation, and academic leaders,
has worked over the past 18 months to
respond to President Bush’s call for the
private sector to undertake, in coopera-
tion with government, initiatives for
environmental improvement. The
intent has been to show that the private
sector has real incentives and capabili-
ties to make major environmental
improvements outside the scope of cur-
rent government regulations. This
is a goal for which there has been broad
and growing support across political
lines.
One of four Subcommittees formed
by PCEQ was the Quality Environmental
Management (QEM) Subcommittee. Its
aim was to demonstrate the viability of
Total Quality Management (TQM) as a
method for achieving pollution
prevention.
This report shows the significant pol-
lution prevention and economic savings
that have resulted from a dozen diverse
demonstration projects and articulates
the key Quality Management principles
that were vital to achieving them. These
successes are described and the princi-
ples explained with the aim of stimulat-
ing and aiding improved environmental
performance throughout the private
sector. In the aggregate, these projects
accomplished the following:
Eliminated millions of pounds of
pollutants from manufacturing
processes.
Saved substantial sums of money.
Increased the efficiency or effective-
ness of the production process.
Improved the quality of products and
services.
Enhanced public perception of the
company or its products.
Improved employee morale.
Individual Projects
Eleven corporations volunteered to
participate in the project by committing
a total of twelve facilities across the
country to the demonstration effort.
This diverse groups of projects (in
terms of scope, geographic location,
industry, size, culture, and so forth)
illustrates the applicability of TQM for
achieving pollution prevention:
AT&T Network Systems Columbus
Works, in Columbus, OH, utilized
quality principles to reduce toxic air
vii
emissions that will result in the elimi-
nation of a toxic chemical (l ,l ,l-
trichloroethane) from its manufactur-
ing processes by the end of 1993, with
estimated annual savings of nearly
$200,000.
Chevron’s Perth Amboy Refinery, in
Perth Amboy, NJ, developed a facility-
wide pollution prevention project to
reduce environmental operating costs
and improve competitiveness.
Dow Chemical’s Glycol I1 Plant, in
Plaquemine, LA, developed an inter-
nal benchmarking project which con-
tributed to a 29 percent reduction in
fugitive emissions of ethylene oxide
and is striving to be “leak free by ‘93.”
By using simple tools of Quality
Performance, Dow Chemical also
reduced its lab waste by 67 percent.
DuPont’s Acrylonitrile Operations, in
Beaumont, TX, made process modifi-
cations that reduced ammonium sul-
fate emissions from more than 100
million pounds/year to less than 40
million pounds/year and saved almost
$1 million a year in manufacturing
costs.
Ford’s Sheldon Road Plant, in
Plymouth, MI, successfully conducted
a pilot project to replace a toxic chem-
ical, trichloroethylene (TCE), with an
aqueous detergent in the manufactur-
ing of aluminum heat exchangers.
Other benefits of the project included
the creation of a model for incorpo-
rating QEM into product design and
manufacturing process, a superior
product, reduced costs and environ-
mental impacts, and improved health
and safety conditions.
GE Medical Systems, in Florence, SC,
challenged a self-directed workforce
to integrate environmental concerns
into its existing continuous improve-
ment processes, which resulted in a
variety of projects that have improved
both their environmental and
economic performance.
International Paper’s Androscoggin
Mill, in Jay, ME, worked with various
environmental and governmental
organizations to design and imple-
ment a quality environmental pro-
gram, resulting in improved stake-
holder relations and reduced
environmental impacts.
Merck’s Rahway Manufacturing
Facility, in Rahway, NJ, focused on the
reduction of SARA TRI emissions, and
achieved a 1.5 million pound reduc-
tion in these releases in 1992 and pro-
jects a 4.8 million pound reduction in
1993 as compared to 1990.
3M’s Medical Products Division
Facility, in Brookings, SD, integrated
pollution prevention throughout its
entire operation, engaging every
employee in pollution prevention
activities and resulting in a 10 percent
... Vlll
reduction in waste generated.
Procter & Gamble’s Manufacturing
Plant, in Lima, OH, utilized a quality
approach working with outside organi-
zations to identify and reduce waste-
water effluent with a continuous
improvement goal of “zero discharge.”
Procter & Gamble’s Paper Products
Plant, in Mehoopany, PA, identified
priority wastestreams within all media
using TQM techniques and developed
a comprehensive strategy to reduce
those wastes. Savings of $500,000 are
projected for the pollution prevention
projects identified during the work
with the PCEQ.
US Generating Company’s (A
Partnership of Bechtel Group, Inc.
and Pacific Gas & Electric)
Indiantown Cogeneration Facility, in
Martin County, FL, demonstrated the
impact of utilizing quality principles
to incorporate environmental consid-
erations into the siting, development,
construction, and operation of a
clean-coal facility. US Generating’s
proactive commitment to state-of-the-
art technologies resulted in a stream-
lined permitting process that expedit-
ed financing and allowed for a prompt construction start.
These projects are unique in two
important respects. First, several
demonstrations directly involved nation-
al and community environmental public
interest groups. Second, the participat-
ing companies successfully showed that
improvements in environmental quality
can be achieved by using the same TQM
principles that have been applied by
companies worldwide to give their cus-
tomers better products and services at
lower cost. It should be noted that the
demonstration project results are
indicative of the potential pollution
reduction that might be achieved
throughout industry.
Key Findings
Based on the experiences of these
twelve projects, the QEM Subcommittee
has drawn the following conclusions:
Total Quality Management (TQM)
and Pollution Prevention are comple-
mentary concepts.
Successful pollution prevention
efforts, while dependent on a system-
atic and rigorous analysis, rely heavily
on flexibility in actual application.
Pollution prevention can be achieved
without large capital investments in
some cases.
There is no universal metric for track-
ing performance, but there are a
number of valid, useful metrics which
can be tailored to a company’s specific
needs.
Consultation and collaboration with
stakeholders interested in emission or
waste reductions are critical in
ix
developing credible progress reports.
Understanding the barriers and incen-
tives to effectively implementing a pol-
lution prevention program is a key to
increasing corporate commitments
and success.
TQM offers an approach that all com-
panies can use to achieve environmen-
tal improvements. The QEM
Subcommittee recognizes that some
companies are questioning the value of
TQM, a phenomenon that the collective
experience of the demonstration pro-
ject participants suggests is due to mis-
application of TQM or “blaming” TQM
for shortcomings in other aspects of
business. However, participating com-
panies found that applying TQM was
successful in the twelve QEM demon-
stration projects and believe it is essen-
tial for achieving pollution prevention.
In summary, this report provides:
A Step-By-Step Approach: An eight-
step generic model based on TQM
and designed to serve as a guide for
exploring pollution prevention oppor-
tunities in any industrial setting.
Hints on Developing Credible
Measures of Performance: A discus-
sion of various, practical approaches
to metrics that will help any company
develop appropriate information for
communicating pollution prevention
efforts.
Incentives and Barriers Likely to be
Encountered: Insights into the motiva-
tion for, and resistance to, pollution
prevention efforts.
If these projects are any indication of
the power of TQM to reduce or prevent
pollution, then the QEM Subcommittee
is confident in stating that, with the
proper incentives and flexibility to inno-
vate, private-sector voluntary programs
are a cost-effective and expeditious
route to improving the quality of the
environment.
X
rr H E P R O J E C T
n July 23, 1991, President
Bush named twen ty-five
environmental, business,
academic, and foundation
leaders to serve as members of the
President’s Commission on
Environmental Quality (PCEQ). The
PCEQ agenda for action recognized
that one of the most promising trends
in business is the incorporation of envi-
ronmental issues into companies’ daily
management decisions.
The Quality Environmental
Management (QEM) Subcommittee of
the PCEQ was formed to examine the
application of Total Quality
Management (TQM) principles to pol-
lution prevention. To this end, it initiat-
ed a study to demonstrate how T Q M tools can be used to identify pollution
prevention opportunities. The QEM Subcommittee’s basic premise is that
pollution is a quality defect to be con-
tinuously reduced.
Pollution prevention is difficult to
define and attempts to do so often lead
to a broad disagreement of terms.
Therefore, the QEM Subcommittee
decided to allow each facility to estab-
lish the focus of its project without
defining pollution prevention.
The QEM Subcommittee believes that
the principles that underpin TQM can
be useful tools for achieving environ-
mental protection. Just as defect pre-
vention is better than the “find and fix”
approach to quality control, pollution
prevention is preferable to “end of
pipe” control. The application of TQM
methods is a powerful tool in eliminat-
ing environmental inefficiencies and
preventing pollution.
Total Quality Management Principles
were first espoused by Drs. Mi’. Edwards
Deming and Joseph Juran in the early
1950s. Finding an unenthusiastic recep-
tion with U.S. business, which was expe-
riencing a post-war boom in produc-
tion, Deming and Juran went to Japan,
where they were influential in leading
Japanese industry toward new principles
of management. These new manage-
ment principles are the basis for the rev-
olution in the quality and competitive-
ness of the products and services
offered by Japan. Although Total
Quality has its roots in manufacturing,
managers in Japanese industry expand-
ed the principles to fit all disciplines.
Today, TQM has gained acceptance by
many American business leaders as
foreign competitors have gained market
1
share in industries once dominated by
U.S. corporations.
The foundation of Total Quality
Management is a strong customer focus.
A Total Quality company seeks to pro-
vide products and services that meet or
exceed the customer’s expectation of
quality through a process of continuous
improvement. The theory of total qual-
ity encompasses all aspects of the indus-
trial process. It refers to the quality of
the management, the quality of the
workplace, the quality of employee
behavior and attitude, the quality of the
work being performed, and the quality
of the goods and services provided to
the consumer. The expected outcome
of implementing a TQM system is a
transformation within the company in
terms of customer satisfaction.
A growing number of companies are
applying TQM principles to the man-
agement of environmental issues. This
application increasingly is called Quality
Environmental Management (QEM) . The primary goals of TQM and QEM
are similar. The objective of TQM is to
provide an improved product or service
that is better tailored to customer
demand. QEM also responds to various
“customer” or stakeholder demands by
conserving resources or reducing emis-
sions through more efficient processes.
Many of the classic TQM tools, such
as fishbone diagrams, Pareto charts,
histograms, benchmarking, and life-
cycle analysis, are effective in environ-
mental applications. Although the tools
are the same, QEM applications often
require extending the fundamental
TQM principle of seeking alignment
between the customer and the provider
to a much broader public constituency.
New tools likely will be created and
existing tools modified to meet the
demands of QEM as the process gains
wider acceptance through work such as
this study.
To test the emerging theory of the
effectiveness of applying TQM princi-
ples to achieve pollution prevention,
the QEM Subcommittee initiated a
Quality Environmental Management
(QEM) Project. Its goals were to:
Gain real-world experience, through
voluntary, private-sector demonstra-
tion projects, about the efficacy of
using TQM to reduce or eliminate
“environmental inefficiencies;”
Demonstrate effective processes for
reducing pollution;
Develop and test innovative, practical,
and credible metrics for measuring
pollution prevention performance
with an emphasis on changes in pro-
duction processes and inputs prior to
recycling, treatment, and disposal;
and
Understand and document the ince.n-
tives and barriers to voluntary
2
pollution prevention initiatives.
Eleven companies each volunteered
to undertake a demonstration project at
one of its facilities. One company initi-
ated two projects. The intent of these
projects is to demonstrate processes for
reducing pollution through the applica-
tion of Total Quality principles.
AT&T Network Systems Columbus
Works, Columbus, OH
Chevron’s Perth Amboy Refinery,
Perth kmboy, NJ
Dow Chemical’s Glycol I1 Plant,
Plaquemine, LA
DuPont’s Acrylonitrile Plant,
Beaumont, T X Ford’s Sheldon Road Plant,
Plymouth, MI
GE Medical Systems, Florence, SC
International Paper’s Androscoggin
Mill, Jay, ME
Merck’s Rahway Manufacturing
Facility, Rahway, NJ 3M’s Medical Products Division
Facility, Brookings, SD
Procter & Gamble’s Manufacturing
Plant, Lima, OH
Procter & Gamble’s Paper Products
Plant, Mehoopany, PA
US Generating Company’s
(A Partnership of Bechtel Group, Inc.
and Pacific Gas & Electric)
Indiantown Cogeneration Facility,
Martin County, FL
Projects were initiated in March,
1992. Each participating company
assigned a project manager to the task
of facilitating and coordinating the indi-
vidual demonstration projects. A list of
QEM Subcommittee and Task Force
members and Project Managers appears
in Appendix A. Demonstration project
fact sheets appear in Appendix B. The initiative was officially launched
through a workshop designed to pro-
vide a clear and common understand-
ing of the overall project and to famil-
iarize participants with the key concepts
of TQM and pollution prevention.
Workshop participants included the
project managers, QEM task force mem-
bers, pollution prevention experts, state
regulators, EPA officials, and represen-
tatives of environmental organizations.
Project managers then returned to their
respective facilities to align their indi-
vidual efforts with the objectives of the
QEM project.
Throughout the summer and fall,
Project Managers and QEM Task Force
members met regularly to discuss each
facility’s experiences in three areas:
Process - The common elements of
activities such as management
approach e s, data c 011 e c tio n , systems
analysis, identification of improve-
ment opportunities, and decision
making.
Metmcs - Approaches used to docu-
ment environmental improvements
3
and communicate the results to
interested stakeholders.
Incentives and Barriers - Issues that
either facilitated or hindered the goal of pollution prevention.
Data, in the form of internal memo-
randa, survey data, personal interviews,
and progress reports, were collected
throughout the course of the project.
These data were made available to the
Environmental Policy Center (EPC),
Law Companies Environmental Group,
for analysis. QEM Subcommittee and
EPC findings are presented in
this report.
4
ntegrating Quality Environmental
Management (QEM) throughout
a company makes good business
sense,” according to Roger
Strelow, Executive Vice President of
Bechtel Environmental, Inc., who
worked on the QEM Subcommittee for
PCEQ Member Riley Bechtel, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Bechtel
Group, Inc. “Using QEM as a frame-
work for pollution prevention encour-
ages innovation and stimulates compa-
nies to excel in an effort to satisfy cus-
tomers’ environmental expectations.
Applying TQM principles to pollution
prevention can result in cost savings
as well.”
Establishing a QEM system presents
special challenges as well as opportuni-
ties. QEM is a process that requires a
visible reorientation in corporate think-
ing and culture at all levels within a
company. There needs to be a commit-
ment by the top management of the
company before the idea will be accept-
ed by other parts of the company. And
there must be training for the many
people whose participation is vital.
Several factors outside the control of
a company can contribute to the deci-
sion to implement a QEM system.
Domestic and international regulations
can create stakeholder demands for
process changes. Competitor practices,
such as new operating standards for an
industry, can drive change.
Stakeholders not involved in company
operations or management can encour-
age a company to change by calling
public attention to specific pollutants.
Treaties governing such things as CFC
phase-out and other environmental
issues of international concern also can
encourage the implementation of a
QEM system. Even acts of nature, such
as tornados or hurricanes, may encour-
age a company to change processes.
In addition to external factors, the
impetus for implementing a QEM sys-
tem can come from within the company.
System failures can encourage a compa-
ny to rethink the operating processes of
the company. The realization that the
company is losing revenues by generat-
ing wastes that have no consumer value
may encourage a change in process.
For example, when the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) was implemented,
many companies were shocked to see
how much pollution was being emitted
from their facilities. An operating
mishap frequently leads to process
7
changes to reduce the chance of recur-
rence. The importance of a good pub-
lic image also is an impetus. Finally, by
endorsing charters such as the
International Chamber of Commerce’s
Business Charter for Sustainable
Development or the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA)
Responsible Carea initiative, a company
pledges to make reforms and change
operating systems.
Incentives vary, of course, depending
on the type of company and its culture.
However, those identified by the
demonstration project participants
included:
Potential Cost Savings. The financial
incentives for applying TQM to pollu-
tion prevention can be significant.
Several of the companies involved in
the demonstration projects showed
cost savings after the implementation
of a QEM system. For example, suc-
cessful solid waste minimization
efforts at Procter & Gamble’s
Mehoopany plant are yielding a total
value of approximately $25,000,000
per year.
GE found that substituting floor wax
for a freon@-based mold release saved
approximately $15,000. By year end,
the company estimates that 1,1,1
trichloroethane use will be decreased
by 95 percent, saving approximately
$30,000. The introduction of a
closed-loop cooling system and three
process changes has reduced water
consumption by 300,000 gallons/week
with estimated annual savings on
water and sewage costs of approxi-
mately $30,000.
DuPont noted that when its project
first began, costs were seen as a barri-
er, yet the results are an incentive for
future programs. Initially, DuPont
believed that reducing excess ammo-
nia would cost them money; however,
the project has saved approximately
$1,000,000 a year in manufacturing
costs and reduced ammonium
sulfate generation by 60,000,000
pounds/year. The savings are a result
of decreased expenditures on raw
materials and decreased waste
disposal taxes.
Technolopcal Innovation. Some compa-
nies realized increased profits from
sales of technologies developed for
the implementation of a QEM pollu-
tion prevention system. For example,
in the implementation of its QEM pro-
ject, AT&T replaced a conventional
rosin base flux used in the wave sol-
dering of circuit packs with a “no
clean” low solids flux. This eliminated
the need for cleaning the residual flux
after soldering with solvents. The
company found that it could not accu-
rately and consistently apply the new
flux with traditional methods, so
8
AT&T’s Engineering Research Center
in Princeton, New Jersey developed a
spray fluxer which consistently applies
a controlled amount of flux to the cir-
cuit packs. This equipment is now
being marketed to other companies.
Increased Public Acceptance. Public
acceptance is important to many com-
panies. DuPont noted that probably
the single greatest motivating factor in
undertaking a QEM program was the
enhandement of its Beaumont, Texas,
facility’s public image. The Beaumont
site’s designation as the second high-
est source in Texas on EPA’s Toxic
Release Inventory ( TRI) propelled
the company to effect process
changes, even though it does not
believe that deep-well discharge of
ammonium sulfate is detrimental to
the environment. The facility has
received considerable public acclaim
for its reductions. This has increased
internal support for waste
minimization efforts.
US Generating’s Indiantown
Cogeneration Project applied QEM in
early design stages, working closely
with the local community and regula-
tors to incorporate solutions to envi-
ronmental concerns into the project
recorded at any stage.
Better Relations with Regulators.
Implementing QEM can foster
improved relations with regulators.
International Paper worked closely
with the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection.
Partnership with state teams has fos-
tered greater understanding on both
sides. Staff from various state agen-
cies now speak of Androscoggin Mill
in much more favorable terms.
These incentives - potential cost sav-
ings, technological innovation,
improved public acceptance, and better
relations with regulators - are particu-
larly appealing to management.
Participating companies were chal-
lenged to create incentives to motivate
employees at all levels. Certainly,
QEM’s focus on empowerment, cross-
functional team building, and problem
solving motivates employees at any com-
pany, large or small, to perform better,
take control of company environmental
performance, and help satisfy the needs
of their customers and stakeholders.
Among the primary incentives estab-
lished by the demonstration projects to
encourage employee buy-in to
integration of QEM were:
layout and design. As a result, all
votes before local and state boards
were unanimously in favor of the pro-
ject, and no public opposition was
Recognition for Individuals and Teams.
Recognition, in various forms, is effec-
tive in motivating workers to partici-
pate in QEM. People feel proud when
9
they can do a job that benefits both
their company and the environment.
At Ford, a number of quality awards
are available to recognize people or
teams that excelled in solving prob-
lems. The Total Quality Excellence
criteria includes pollution prevention
as part of the environmental efforts at
every facility. Additionally, pioneering
or unique quality efforts were publi-
cized on the internal television
network.
AT&T has a similar program. QEM
teams received recognition from
headquarters, and individuals and
teams received coverage in the
company magazine.
Rewards such as cash prizes or
bonuses were used by some compa-
nies. The AT&T Networks Systems
facility, for example, instituted a cash
awards program for individuals who
contributed significantly to the QEM
system implementation.
Safer Working Conditions. Conducting
pollution prevention projects can
lessen the need for personal protec-
tive equipment, industrial hygiene
monitoring, and engineering controls,
and has resulted in a healthier work
environment at several demonstration
project facilities. At GE Medical
Systems, all employee meetings are
held as a forum in which management
presents the “State of the Business” at
the facility. This includes information
about environment, health and safety
in additior? to issues such as financial
status and sales.
Providing incentives must be tied to a
clear understanding of obstacles and
barriers. As the participating compa-
nies worked through the process of
QEM, a number of obstacles were
encountered. Six barriers were com-
mon to most of the projects:
Limited Resources. Funds, time, and
personnel were in short supply at a
number of projects. This sparked the
development of innovative ways to
overcome such limitations. In dealing
with scarce resources, Dow Chemical
emphasized low-cost and no-cost pro-
jects and a can-do attitude toward the
process of finding and implementing
projects. These “small” projects
helped build support for QEM and
provided a basis for tackling larger
projects. This type of solution was typ-
ical of several other programs.
Inertia. Efforts were made to combat
the potentially debilitating effect of
the “business as usual” mentality
encountered in several facilities.
DuPont, Procter & Gamble,
International Paper, and GE have
made environmental performance a
measure of job performance. This
approach has helped to maintain
enthusiasm for QEM. For example,
10
Procter & Gamble’s Lima plant’s high
performance work system allows each
employee to use 15-20 percent of work
time on discretionary projects. Thus,
the system gives employees the discre-
tion to work on projects that are
important to them, including pollu-
tion prevention projects.
UninformPd Management or Emplojees.
GE found that when its project first
began, management overestimated
the kndwledge that each employee
had of environmental issues. Upon
realizing this was a barrier, several
suppliers and technical support staff
were brought in to explain the issues.
This increased employee understand-
ing of the project and related environ-
mental issues and helped empower
employees to take a lead on the pro-
ject. Demonstration project managers
believe that if the education had been
done up front, results would have
been seen faster.
Accounting Systems That Do Not Measure
Enuironmental Costs or Values. The
largest accounting barrier identified
was the failure of most corporate
accounting systems to measure the
economic and environmental costs of
alternatives to pollution prevention.
Ford justified QEM projects through
educated estimates and anecdotal
evidence.
Fear of Compromising Product Qualit) or
Production Efficiency. Facility workers
tend to worry that a process change or
material substitution will have an
adverse effect on production efficien-
cy or product quality. Procter 8c
Gamble’s Mehoopany plant addressed
the quality issue by working with the
changes up front and developing
alternatives. GE’s Magnet System
facility addressed this issue by initiat-
ing up-front testing and assessment.
Technology Limitations. In some cases,
pollution prevention improvements
were limited by the availability of
proven technology. In its search for
the best available technology, Dow
Chemical worked with a vendor to
develop a prototype in-process
sampling system.
Ford Motor Company used a slightly
different approach. To improve their
environmental performance, Ford
encouraged plants and divisions to
undertake pilot studies so that new
processes could be tested prior to
major capital investments. The Ford
staff provided technical and facilita-
tion support to organizations wanting
to undertake pollution prevention
initiatives.
Clearly, the creation of an effective
QEM system depends on many factors.
By recognizing possible barriers to the
implementation of QEM and creating
incentives to facilitate its acceptance,
11
companies can address and overcome
those barriers with a minimum of
disruption.
Once a QEM system is implemented,
a company can expect to see the great-
est impact in four areas:
Raw Matem'als and Feedstocks.
Implementation of a QEM system
encourages companies to become
more aware of the toxicity of the
materials used in operating processes
and the impacts of such materials on
waste streams. Pollution prevention as
a component of QEM evaluates raw
materials for purity, appropriateness
of use, and overall environmental
impact.
Manufacturing Processes. If raw materi-
als are used efficiently in a process, it
will not be necessary to manage them
as part of a waste stream from the
process. Waste minimization and the
recyclability of materials are key ele-
ments of QEM because reducing the
energy and raw materials required in
production processes reduces cost and
saves resources. Improved employee
health and safety also are benefits of
QEM.
Product Distribution and Use. Product
distribution and use also are affected.
Product handling receives a greater
emphasis as does the toxicity and recy-
clability of packaging. Safe use by
consumers of the products becomes
part of life-cycle analysis as does dis-
posal of products and packaging.
Product Design. Minimizing the poten-
tial environmental impact of a prod-
uct during its design phase reduces
wastes and emissions during the pro-
duction process and facilitates permit
negotiations that often result in cost
savings. Increasing a product's poten-
tial for reuse or recycling reduces
disposal requirements.
The QEM demonstration projects
focused on raw materials/feedstocks
and manufacturing processes.
Those involved in establishing QEM within their organizations must under-
stand that the key to QEM is rigorous
analysis of the process and continuous
improvement. The success of pollution
prevention efforts depends on the
process through which such projects are
implemented. The next section
describes common features of the QEM
process employed by participating
companies.
12
Raw Materials
and Feedstocks
uring ses
Product Distributions
WASTES WASTES EMMISSIONS EMMISSIONS
Product Use
he companies that partici-
pated in the QEM project
were committed to one goal
- determining whether
TQM principles could, in fact, achieve
reductions in pollution. The literature
abounds with discussion of the value of
such an approach - project partici-
pants tested the hypothesis and offer
compelling evidence that the theory
is sound.
The experiences of the demonstra-
tion projects were condensed into an
eight-step process that employs TQM
principles for improving environmental
performance - a process referred to by
project participants as Quality
Environmental Management (QEM).
As evidenced by the demonstration pro-
jects, QEM is equally effective for simple
process changes or complex engineer-
ing solutions that require capital invest-
ment, human resources coordination,
and interim milepost development.
Effective QEM is a continuous improve-
ment process. For example, the DuPont
Chemicals demonstration project is
designed to reduce the generation of
ammonium sulfate in one of its
processes. When DuPont meets this
specific project goal, its QEM effort will
not end; DuPont will continue to refine
the process to further reduce the gener-
ation of ammonium sulfate. AT&T also
has gone through several steps in its
efforts to continuously improve - in
1991, it eliminated ammonia and per-
chloroethylene; in 1992, it replaced
Freon' 113 with 1,1,1 trichloroethane
which, in turn, has been reduced by the
introduction of a low solids flux.
The projects that are highlighted in
this report are excellent examples of
everything from targeting one chemical
to integrated projects in which the
entire facility has implemented a QEM program to reduce the generation of
waste. The variability of the projects
allows readers to compare their own
QEM situation with the experiences of
other corporations.
Although each company employed a
slightly different approach to QEM, sim-
ilarities far outweighed differences.
This section addresses those similarities
and provides an approach for integrat-
ing QEM into any business function
or facility.
It is important to remember that this
is a framework for QEM, not a formula.
As occurred at the demonstration facili-
ties, each company must decide what is
15
Cynthia House, Senior Site Environmental EngznePr, Roy Vagelos, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dorothy Bowers, Vice President Environmental €9 Saftey Policy (left to right), discuss Merck ’s QEM Project.
appropriate from its perspective and
customize the framework to suit its
particular situation.
Key Issues & Tasks:
Involve stakeholders;
Define and allocate resources;
Empower employees.
Management commitment is crucial
to the success of a QEM system. For
example, at 3M, each Chief Executive
Officer has been personally involved in
the pollution prevention program since
its inception at 3M in 1975. They also
have been advocates of TQM. US
Generating’s environmental mission
statement reminds all employees that
each project’s goal should be to
contribute a net improvement to the
environment.
The QEM demonstration projects
could not have been implemented with-
out a strong and sincere commitment
by senior management. Even before
the QEM project began, many of the
participating companies demonstrated
their commitment to TQM and pollu-
tion prevention through the creation of
management teams and other focused
efforts to address pressing environmen-
tal issues. In fact, almost all participat-
ing companies have policy statements
that discuss pollution prevention
objectives and goals.
The most effective management
teams employ a matrix approach that
ensures participation from within every
functional business unit in the organiza-
tion. US Generating uses a matrix
approach that transfers information
throughout the organization because
people rotate through different
projects.
Involve Stakeholders
Participating companies faced the
challenge of responding to the environ-
mental concerns of stakeholders long
before the QEM demonstration projects
were initiated. Involving stakeholders
in environmental decisions helps a com-
pany prioritize projects based on the
concerns of various stakeholder groups
and develop relevant measurement
tools.
16
Measure eholders arecognize pel
metrics s necessary
S
rformance
i I
Ford Motor Company actively
involved representatives of the United
Auto Workers (UAW), Michigan Office
of Waste Reduction Services (OWRS) ,
and the Southeastern Michigan Council
of Governments (SEMCOG) on its
Quality Action Team. For example,
Patrick Brunett, Environmental
Program Manager at SEMCOG, offered
suggestions during the implementation
of the project that reflected the
concerns of the local community.
According to Mr. Brunett, his participa-
tion “increased my knowledge of what
business is doing in the area of pollu-
tion prevention. The project gave me
another resource to promote environ-
mental responsibility among local gov-
ernment and business.”
By including stakeholders from state
and local agencies, Ford ensured that
the goal of its QEM project was widely
17
E
communicated. Marcia Horan,
Automotive Program Manager at
OWRS, shared her perception about the
involvement of stakeholders: “You can
either manage your processes up front
or be regulated into doing something
later. Having the stakeholders involved
early on promotes understanding of
complex issues and the notion that
voluntary initiatives make valuable
contributions to environmental
improvement. ”
Empower Employees
Once senior management has estab-
lished company goals and defined
boundaries, it has to release the skills
and talents of employees through-
out the company to identify,
design, and implement appropriate
projects. Encouraging people to
recognize problem areas, identify
possible solutions and implement
pollution prevention projects at
their sites is key to helping any
company meet its environmental
objectives.
Barbara Cunningham, Lab
Technician at Procter & Gamble,
Mehoopany, PA, personifies
empowerment. Ms. Cunningham
came up with the idea to recycle
containers used at the facility for prod-
ucts such as Windex and WD-40. With
the help of others, she collected data on
the types and quantities of chemicals
used in pressurized and non-pressurized
containers. She then questioned suppli-
ers to ascertain which chemicals were
available in bulk gravity systems. Armed
with this information, she approached
the technicians who worked with the
chemicals to determine whether they
would be receptive to using refillable
containers in place of pressurized,
disposable containers. She also spoke
with supply room staff to gauge their
willingness to work with bulk gravity
containers.
Upon receiving agreement from
these parties, Ms. Cunningham briefed
management about the project. She got
their support and the funding to buy
necessary equipment. By going through
this process, she got all relevant parties
to buy in - thus, obtaining formal
approval was easily accomplished.
Procter & Gamble has benefitted by
reducing landfill waste. In addition, it
projects annual savings of $25,000 from
this project alone.
According to Roger Price, Center for
Hazardous Materials Research,
University of Pittsburgh, (involved in
the Procter & Gamble project in
Mehoopany, PA), “The exciting thing
about QEM is that it empowers individu-
als to achieve results. Having all the
knowledge and technology in the world
isn’t enough. You need to be
18
empowered to utilize those resources to
benefit your facility and the environ-
ment at large.”
Define and Allocate Resources
Implementing QEM will not succeed
without the allocation of financial and
human resources. Investments in QEM
are defined by the competing demands
facing a company. Senior management
at US Generating allocated resources
after considering factors such as:
Competition for scarce
resources;
Legal constraints;
Stakeholder concerns;
Public relations;
Short-term versus long-term
benefits;
Budgetary constraints;
Available capital;
Existing technology.
Similarly, senior management at Ford
Motor Company recognized pollution
prevention as its preferred environmen-
tal business practice. To ensure that its
environmental activities are successful,
Ford has provided its employees with
direction and training, conducted
research and development, and allocat-
ed capital when necessary to make
process changes.
The inability to secure necessary
resources can stall a pollution preven-
tion effort. “A lack of resources, both
human and financial, can thwart
the best intentions of middle man-
agement and plant employees,”
noted Thomas S. Davis, Director of
Environment & Safety Engineering
Affairs at AT&T. “The key to
obtaining resources is to increase
the awareness of senior manage-
ment of the need to eliminate haz-
ardous chemicals and other wastes
because of emerging regulations
and the public’s concern about the
materials we use.”
STEP TWO - DEVELOP A QUALITY ACTION TEAM (QAT)
Key Issues 8c Tasks:
Organize a cross-functional team;
Use existing resources and processes;
Establish two-way communication with
management.
Quality Action Teams (QATs)
Barbara Cunningham and Wayne Hussong demonstrate thP recently installed bulk gravity chemcial dispensing system at the Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Plant in Mehoopany, Pennsylvania.
19
transmit management commitment to
employees throughout the company.
Participating companies found that
forming one or more QATs at the plant
level was an effective way of translating
overall company goals into an imple-
mentation plan for pollution preven-
tion. The QAT is responsible for
designing and implementing pollution
prevention projects taking into account
the overall goals of the company.
Organize a Cross-functional Team
Formation of the QAT is an essential
element in initiating a pollution
prevention project. The QAT
should consist of representatives
from a variety of departments with-
in the company who are in a posi-
tion to influence the implementa-
tion and outcome of the project.
Depending on the nature of a par-
ticular business, team members
should be drawn from diverse func-
tions such as engineering, environ-
ment, accounting, purchasing,
maintenance, and operations.
It also should include people who
have a strong interest in improving
the environment and want to make
a difference.
New QATs do not necessarily need to
be created; QEM can be accomplished
with existing teams. Procter & Gamble
(Mehoopany, PA) used two QATs - one
was a newly-formed team that focused
on air and water issues; the other was a
standing team for solid and hazardous
waste issues.
Both teams utilized individuals with
expertise in TQM, environmental issues,
and plant operations. Procter &
Gamble selected QAT members based
on their knowledge of environmental
and operating systems and ability to
analyze data to identify pollution pre-
vention opportunities. Procter &
Gamble’s selection process underscores
an important point: Collectively, QAT
members should have insight into
potential pollution prevention activities
and the engineering, operational and
cost factors that may influence a specific
process or product change.
At several facilities, people external
to the company participated on the
QAT. For example, members of the
Michigan Office of Waste Reduction
Services (OWRS) were involved at Ford.
An OWRS staff member participated in
Ford’s QAT meetings. An OWRS intern
was placed at the Sheldon Road facility
for 10 weeks to measure and evaluate
the performance of new technology and
act as a liaison to OWRS. Marcia Horan, Automotive Program
Manager at OWRS, found that “the
knowledge I took away from the Ford
project allowed the OWRS to assist
others in their pursuit of pollution
20
prevention projects.” In addition, US
EPA funding of the intern’s time on the
project “was a big incentive in that it
gave an organized structure to what
otherwise would have been an ad hoc
re la tio n s h i p . ” The relationship between Ford and
the State of Michigan was good
throughout the project, a contrast to
more adversarial public-private relation-
ships occurring in regulatory settings.
According to Ms. Horan, one barrier
which often exists during the initial
phase of a voluntary project in which
industry is involved is “a lack of trust
between business and government.”
International Paper has used cross-
functional teams to generate significant
momentum with the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Challenged by tighter effluent permit
limits, the Androscoggin Mill agreed to
work with a three-person team from
DEP’s Water Bureau to evaluate and
upgrade the wastewater treatment plant.
This was the first industry/government
collaboration of its kind in the state and
proved to be a successful effort.
Regulators brought their considerable
experience to bear in a collaborative
problem-solving environment. They
also gained a better understanding of
the mill processes. Steve Groves,
Division Director at the Water Bureau,
describes the process as “getting techni-
cal people within government and
industry to talk to each other, trust one
another, and solve problems together.”
The Maine DEP and Androscoggin
Mill have built on this momentum by
establishing a joint agency/mill
Pollution Prevention team with a man-
date to identify opportunities for
improving environmental performance
throughout the manufacturing process.
This team has enabled regulators and
company engineers to work together
toward a common goal - reducing the
environmental “footprint” of the mill.
Use Existing Resources and Processes
Securing resources to undertake new
projects can be difficult even in
companies experiencing rapid growth.
Demonstration project participants
found it prudent to maximize their use
of existing business processes and
A Qualit) Action Team uses process mapping to identgy opportunities for waste reduction at GE Medical Systems in Florence, South Carolina.
21
functions. When Chevron initiated
its QEM project, it used its existing
waste water treatment team. Dow
Chemical did not invent new proce-
dures to begin its project either -
it used the “Waste Reduction
Always Pays” (WRAP) program as a
starting point. GE, too, has been
taking a TQM approach to its work
for several years and was able to use
existing teams in its QEM effort.
At these and other participating
companies, the use of existing
resources made initiating a QEM project less difficult.
Establish Two-way Communication with Management
Two-way communication is essential
to the implementation of a successful
QEM system. At appropriate intervals,
the QAT has to be able to share its per-
ceptions, experiences, and findings with
senior management. This is key in
assuring that there are no “surprises.”
It also communicates and reinforces the
view to management that dedicating
financial and human resources to pollu-
tion prevention is a wise business deci-
sion. Ongoing dialogue helps ensure
that pollution prevention projects will
engender positive business results.
TRAINING AT
AT&T J I I I Chevron J I I I Dow Chemical J I J I I Dupont J I I 7 Ford J l J l I J GE J J International Paper J J Merck J J J 3M ~ J J Procter & Gamble (OH) J Procter & Gamble (PA) J J J
STEP THREE - TRAINING
Key Issues 8c Tasks:
Perform timely and practical awareness
and process training.
The level of understanding about
QEM differs from company to company.
Training gives employees the general
background and specific skills to make
QEM successful. At Merck & Company,
employees have a high level of aware-
ness about the absolute requirements of
product quality. Dow Chemical
Company routinely offers training in
statistical quality control and quality
performance.
Training depends on the existing
capabilities of the QAT. Employees in
22
companies such as Merck and Dow
Chemical may not require more than a
review of one of the readily available
primers on TQM. In other companies,
however, more intensive training may be
necessary. At Procter & Gamble, both
corporate and plant quality improve-
ment personnel conduct on-going train-
ing to help their Quality Improvement
Process Team follow the quality
improvement process.
Compafiies new to the QEM process
are less likely to have the internal train-
ing capabilities or experiences of the
participating companies. This should
not be viewed as a major barrier to initi-
ating QEM efforts - it merely requires
additional emphasis.
Regardless of the nature of training,
it is important that it be timely and
practical. General awareness training
should be offered at the onset of the
QEM process, while more technical
training should occur at intervals
throughout the process. The closer the
training is to the point at which it will
be used, the more likely it is that team
members will apply the training to their
daily activities.
S‘fEP F Q U K - DETERMISE:
EXISTING OPERATIONS
Key Issues 8c Tasks:
Use QEM tools and methods as
E N ~ ~ J R O N ~ ~ ~ E N T A L r MPMT O F
appropria t e;
Identib and fill critical information gaps; Consider how to mearure
zmprovemen ts.
Identifying possible pollution preven-
tion projects should reflect three fac-
tors. First, projects should address the
concerns and interests of the company’s
stakeholders. Second, projects must
support articulated corporate goals.
Third, project implementation
must be realistic in terms of cost,
available resources, and existing
technology.
The ultimate question for any
company to answer when assessing
environmental impact is, “How can
we prevent pollution and eliminate
waste!”
According to William Bitters,
Packaging Technology Manager at
Procter & Gamble in Lima, Ohio,
“By gathering the proper information,
you can really eliminate problems.”
Understanding the impact of a compa-
ny’s production processes and attendant
wastes and emissions is an important
step in determining appropriate pro-
jects to undertake. Without data to
23
support specific process changes or
materials substitution, the elimination
of an environmental problem may unin-
tentionally create other problems. For
example, chemical substitution to
decrease air emissions might adversely
a ff e c t waste wa t e r.
The QAT members should possess
the technical skills to identify projects
with the greatest potential for pollution
prevention. In fact, if the QAT is truly
cross-functional, the team should
understand the operation of most pro-
duction processes at its facility. With
the knowledge and support of environ-
mental engineers, the team will be able
to pinpoint and understand the origin
of waste and emissions. In the words of
Dick Scott, Environmental Manager at
Procter & Gamble, Lima, Ohio, “You Chemical Operator Milton crier performs must dig into the problem to determine
its root cause. You do not always find
what you expect.” Collecting data on
a daily R C M inspection at Merrk’s Rahway facility.
waste streams and emissions enables the
QAT to determine the best pollution-
prevention project candidates.
The greatest opportunities for pollu-
tion prevention can be determined by
examining three pieces of information.
Sources of waste. Every raw material
brought into a manufacturing facility
becomes part of a product or waste.
All such materials should be identi-
fied. Examples include:
Cleaning agents
N7ater
Chemicals
Packaging materials
Process Scrap
Greases
Scrapped equipment
Oils
Debris
Quantztj of waste material. Although
data on waste quantities usually are
not readily available, baseline data
often can be derived from material
purchase and production informa-
tion. This information is most useful
when recorded in spreadsheet fashion
using standard weight units. Ford
Motor Company has found that
weight is a more accurate measure
than volume because it is not affected
by packaging or storage. In addition,
most regulatory reporting require-
ments specify weight measurements.
24
Raw Material Quantity of Unit of Units Produced Waste/ M'aste (lbs/yr) Production (number/vr) Unit (lbs)
Water 250,000,000 Engines 200,000 20
Oil 4,000,000 - - 10
Solvents 200,000 1 -
Because waste varies with changes in
production level, the waste generated
per production unit should be calcu-
lated.
Costs of waste practices. After waste
streams have been identified and mea-
sured, their true costs should be calcu-
lated. Examples of waste costs
include:
0 Wasted raw material, including the
cost of raw material to replace the
disposed material;
0 Waste handling, including all labor
costs involved in the removal, treat-
ment, and disposal of waste
materials;
0 Waste storage, including the cost to
store waste materials at the site of
generation, in holding tanks or sal-
vage areas within the plant, or in a
drum area;
c Waste transportation, including
the cost to haul materials from the
generation location within the plant
to a salvage area and the cost to ship
off site;
c Waste treatment, such as waste
water treatment chemicals;
0 Waste disposal, such as landfill
costs, POTW charges, or
incineration costs;
0 Intangibles, such as reduced
environmental effects, reduced
liability, and reduced exposure to
regulations.
The total costs of waste material can
run into millions of dollars annually.
These data provide opportunities for a
company to reduce waste and save
money.
25
Use Quality Tools and Methods
Participating companies used a vari-
ety of TQM tools (described in
Appendix C) to generate information
about the sources and quantity of their
wastes and emissions. The TQM tool
most commonly employed was the
Pareto Chart, which organizes data in
order of magnitude of impact and,
therefore, helps the QAT identify areas
in which a pollution prevention project
is likely to have the greatest environ-
mental improvement.
Identify and Fill Critical Information Gaps
After analyzing the data generated by
the application of QEM tools, the QAT
may find that results do not match
expectations. For instance, emissions
from one process ma): be lower than
previously estimated or effluent in
wastewater from a particular process
may be higher than expected. Given
such specific findings, the QAT must
ascertain if it has collected all of the
data necessary to its study. For exam-
ple, the QAT must decide if the cause-
and-effect chart showed all of the
sources of waste from the process or if
additional, more creative measures are
necessary.
1992 WASTE COSTS AT FACILITY x
Water Oil Solvents
cost of:
Raw material $75,000 $1,000,000 $100,000
Treatment - 100,000 25,000
Disposal 5,000
Transportation -
Storage -
Handling -
-
-
-
0,000
-
0,000
Total Cost $80,000 $1,150,000 $1 75,000
QAT Action TQM Tools Selecting an area for improvement Pareto Chart
Finding root causes Cause and Effect (Fishbone) Diagram
Finding the most significant causes
Describing characteristics Histogram
Flow Chart
Control Chart
Pareto Chart
Improving the operation Flow Chart
Measuring improvement Control Chart
Histogram
Pareto Chart
I
address the issue often was unavailable.
To overcome this barrier, Ford imple-
mented programs to encourage the res-
At Procter & Gamble’s Lima, Ohio,
plant, if a potential project appeared to
be feasible, QAT members conducted a
second, more in-depth assessment to
determine whether additional data or
resources were required. This two-
tiered approach uncovered some sur-
prises. Although Procter & Gamble
expected to find waste reduction oppor-
tunities in its processing, its packaging
processes were far greater generators of
waste. A key element in the QEM
framework is to determine whether the
company has all of the data it needs to
consider the most effective and prudent
pollution prevention projects.
A concern expressed by several par-
ticipating companies was that once their
data set was complete, technology to
olution of technology-related problems.
At Ford, plants and divisions were
encouraged to undertake pilot tests so
that major process changes could be
tried before large capital investments
were made. In addition, Ford’s
research laboratory provides technical
support to any organization willing to
initiate pollution prevention projects.
Dow Chemical worked with a vendor on
sampling technology. The vendor’s
product expertise coupled with
Dow’s process expertise resulted in a
prototype system that met Dow’s
requirements.
27
Key Issues & Tasks:
Consider How to Measure Camrlita ,Vacrohon i ollerts 1 n/orrna t i on on SARA 7’ltlr 111 rinissaons at Mrrck’s Ra h7uq /a cilz ty .
Improvements
Before the QAT actually selects a pro-
ject for implementation, it is important
to consider how best to measure the
success of proposed projects. By consid-
ering measurements early on, the QAT
will be able to predict whether the
proposed process or product
changes should actually deliver the
desired results. In addition, mea-
surements driven by stakeholder
considerations will help determine
if the QAT’S projects are meeting
the needs of its stakeholders.
Participating companies developed
a number of qualitative and quanti-
tative factors to aid them in
determining their success.
Develop project selectton criteria;
Collect only additional data nreded to
make decasions;
Establish mctmc bagdine.
Develop Project Selection Criteria
Pollution-prevention options should
be prioritized along two dimensions - quantitative factors that address what
the company should do and qualitative
factors that reveal what QAT members
think “feels” right. Data collected dur-
ing Stage Four and in the preceding
step support quantitative prioritization
of pollution problems. Many factors
can be considered in establishing
priorities for action, such as:
Waste volume
Raw material cost
Regulations Disposal methods
Handling time Potential liability
Disposal costs Cost/unit produced
Feasibility Treatment methods Treatment costs
Toxicity Environmental concern Health and safety
Product quality
28
.
Qualitative Factors Quantitative Factors
Integration of environmental Process/practice improvements. Reduction/elimination of releases. Appropriate use or elimination of chemicals and/or hazardous sub- stances in order to reduce process releases of these materials. Cost savings in raw materials, waste management, permit applications,
quality issues into management decisions.
@ Barriers to success are identified and addressed. Transfer of knowledge to others in
Effective internal and external the organization.
communications strategy. regulatory mandates. Stakeholder satisfaction. Change in corporate culture
Adoption of “best practices” by other parts of the organization. Participation of additional facilities in QEM process.
regarding environmental issues.
Qualitative priorities reflect QAT
members’ knowledge of stakeholder
concerns and general environmental
issues. Data to support qualitative prior-
ities tend to be anecdotal.
Both sets of priorities, however,
should consider the pollution preven-
tion hierarchy - source reduction,
recycling, treatment and, as a last
option, disposal. Source reduction
techniques include technology modifi-
cations, process and procedure modifi-
cations, reformation or redesign of
products, substitution of raw materials,
and improvements in housekeeping,
maintenance, training, and inventory
control.
AT&T’s Columbus, Ohio manufactur-
ing facility provides an example of the
factors the QAT considered in identify-
ing possible projects. AT&T’s overall
goal is zero emissions and its QAT want-
ed to address public concerns
about chemicals. Because many of
the chemicals listed on the EPAs
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) are
used extensively at AT&T, the QAT
developed a targeted approach to
eliminate or reduce use of TRI
chemicals.
The QAT first created a Pareto
Chart which displayed all of the
chemicals used at AT&T in order of
total releases as reported on the
29
Barbara Thompyon and C;?rzsh Purzkh of AT& T rleycizbe the operafaon oJn low Folzdsjluxer that reduces the use of Trz chloroethane (TCA) zn thew manf ufacturzng process to Bzll ikfullzgun of Chevron and Andrew Neblett of the Counczl on Envaronmental Qualaty.
TRI. The QAT then developed its pro-
ject selection criteria. It elected to
assess projects on the basis of elimina-
tion, non-toxic substitution, less-toxic
substitution, reduced usage. Because
AT&T’s products require the use of TRI chemicals for which substitutions are
not readily available, the QAT focused
on reduced usage and elimination.
AT&T consulted a number of
experts including industrial hygien-
ists and plant engineers to deter-
mine which chemicals to consider
first. In addition, an external team
of technical experts and suppliers
were consulted to determine if any
problems might occur in selecting
various options.
While the internal and external
experts were useful in keeping the
QAT abreast of potential problems
if a particular option was selected,
AT8cT found a lack of information
regarding chemical substitutes or
other options. Therefore, AT&T relied
largely on its own internal research to
develop options.
Collect Only Additional Data Needed to Make Decisions
Additional data may be required to
fill gaps posed by the prioritization
process. For each option under consid-
eration, it is important to fully under-
stand whether:
The cost of proposed projects will out-
weigh the benefits;
A lack of resources or technology limi-
tations poses barriers to success;
Stakeholders believe beneficial envi-
ronmental gains will result.
Establish Metric Baseline
One of the goals of the demonstra-
tion projects was to examine credible
metrics for tracking progress in environ-
mental performance. The projects used
two distinct classifications of waste-relat-
ed metrics:
Metrics indexed to production measure
pounds of waste per u n i t of output.
Indexed metrics convey information
on the rate of waste generation and so
are not directly influenced by
production increases or decreases.
This allo~is measurement of the
30
continuous improvements generated
by the QEM process.
Indexed metrics also are amenable
to the establishment of reduction
goals that are not related to produc-
tion. From a motivational perspective,
this assures that an action taken by a
QAT that reduces the rate of waste
generation will be reflected.
The disadvantage of indexing met-
rics is that they do not directly relate
to the adsolute amount of waste
released to the environment. If the
rate of waste generation per unit of
production goes down, but the pro-
duction level increases, the absolute
amount of waste may remain constant
or increase.
Metria of total mass measure the total
amount of waste per uni t of time (e.g.,
Zbs/year, kg/month). The total amount
of releases to the environment
appears to be of primary concern to
most communities.
Different stakeholders prefer differ-
ent metrics. Although a number of
environmental organizations and reg-
ulatory agencies prefer indexed met-
rics, the general public often focuses
on the total amount of waste released
into the air, water, and land.
The differing nature of these cate-
gories suggests that a facility should
develop more than one metric to mea-
sure and report on its environmental
progress. Indexed metrics should be
targeted toward internal motivation of
QATs as they pursue project goals and
objectives and communication with
environmental groups and regulatory
agencies. Total mass metrics will be
most effective when addressing
community concerns.
31
STEP SIX - IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Ford targpted i t s Cost-related metrics provide impor-
trichlorwthjlme tant information about environmental depms ing process far the ~ ~ ~ 1 2 1 Initiative. operating costs. Such metrics will vary
for different waste streams. In develop-
ing its measures, Chevron considered
the costs of disposal, permits, inspection
fees, operation and maintenance of
environmental equipment, lab
analyses, lost product, operations
downtime, avoided capital invest-
ment, environmental liability, and
public image.
In addition to developing met-
rics, appropriate timing for
achievement of goals should be
established. Some improvements
may be accomplished in only a few
months; others may require several
years. An important component of
metrics is knowing when to mea-
sure in addition to knowing what
and how to measure.
Key Issues 8c Tasks:
Inform all site employees of impending
improuemen t project;
Empower thP QAT to implemmt the project
or obtain the additional T - Q S O U ~ ( P S
necessary
Skepticism about technological inno-
vation, personal or professional priori-
ties that focus only on traditional busi-
ness values, or “business as usual” iner-
tia often pose barriers when a facility
moves beyond the planning stage.
When the QAT is ready to implement
its selected QEM project, management
should make employees aware of the
ramifications of the effort in order to
address employee concerns before they
become obstacles to implementation.
It may be necessary to retrain some
employees in QEM system process
changes.
For example, if a production line
worker must adapt or change a tradi-
tional process, the QAT should be pre-
pared to demonstrate the new process,
what is expected of employees who are
involved in the process, and why the
project was chosen. Participating com-
panies found that explaining the envi-
ronmental benefits of process changes
made employees more accepting.
A concern expressed at several
32 L
demonstration projects centered around
product quality constraints. All process-
es have a control range for quality and
each project manager was wary of the
potential to decrease product quality if
process changes were made improperly.
To overcome this problem, some compa-
nies initiated pilot tests where feasible to
ensure that the quality of the product
would be maintained before embarking
on large-scale change.
Participating companies implemented
their projects in a number of ways.
Dow Chemical’s charge to the project
team members was to gather appropri-
ate data and identify and implement
do-able projects. The team defined
and initiated several improvements.
Ford’s project implementation includ-
ed a mechanism to provide structured
feedback to the QAT and regularly
scheduled meetings during a gradual
scale-up of the project. In bringing
the new project on-line, Ford QAT
members started with bench-scale test-
ing to evaluate the feasibility of the
process or technology and then imple-
mented larger-scale testing followed by
a full production pilot. Once the pilot
proved successful, the project was
implemented full scale. According to
Ford personnel, the benefit of this
approach is that fundamental issues,
including capital costs, are addressed
early and production is not hindered.
International Paper emphasized
experimentation in implementing its
project. Employees were encouraged
to do pilot tests with the expectation
that some tests would not succeed.
Such outcomes were viewed as educa-
tional experiences rather than
failures.
The projects focused on two basic
types of manufacturing processes: those
that use a chemical in the process, but
the chemical does not become part of
the final product; and those that manu-
facture or process chemicals that do
become part of the final product.
Projects also differed in scope - five
targeted a specific project within the
participating facility; seven established
programs for the entire facility: AT&T, Ford, and Merck identified
specific chemical compounds used in
their manufacturing processes and
The new aqueous degreasing process, which was developed by Ford and tested at their Sheldon Road Plant, eliminated the need for trichloroethyl- ene (TCJ) in the degreasing process.
33
worked to identify substitute chemi-
cals to reduce the emissions of target
compounds.
Dow Chemical and DuPont used
process improvements, equipment
modifications, and improved
operating procedures to reduce
waste and releases. Because these
facilities manufacture/process
materials, source reduction
through materials substitution
was not a feasible alternative.
The remaining seven projects - Chevron, GE, International
Paper, 3M, both Procter &
Gamble plants, and US
Generating - were “holistic.”
They used a wide range of
pollution prevention techniques
to improve environmental
performance.
STEP SEVEN - MEASURE RESULTS
Key Issues 8c Tasks:
Measure results;
Adjust as necessary.
If Step Five has been properly
addressed, measuring results is mecha-
nistic - the QAT knows precisely what
is to be measured and what outcomes
reflect success. Measurable results are
important for several reasons:
They ensure that predicted pollution
or waste reductions and cost savings
are actually achieved.
They provide motivation to the QAT
and other workers by keeping goals
and progress continually visible to
those participating in the effort to
change.
They justify implementation of other
pollution prevention efforts.
They manifest a corporation’s commit-
ment to addressing environmental
concerns.
Total-mass metrics (discussed in Stage
Five) were the choice of most participat-
ing companies. AT&T, DuPont, and
Merck - utilized the SARA 313 data to
measure pollution prevention. (These
projects focused on reducing emissions
of SARA 313-listed chemicals.)
Use of SARA 313 data as a pollution
prevention measurement tool has been
questioned by various organizations. In
some cases, especially projects designed
to reduce waste streams that are
released directly to the atmosphere
(such as fugitive emissions), SARA 313
data are appropriate. These data are
public, indicate the amount of material
that is released to the environment, and
are comparable among industry sectors.
Dow Chemical, Ford, and
International Paper also used SARA 313
data, but combined this measure with
others to provide indexed metrics.
Chevron and 3M employed indexed
metrics as well. (A summary of metrics
appears in Appendix D.)
34
c
S T E P EIGHT - STANDARDIZE/
AND BEGIN NEW CYCLE INSTITUTIONALIZE IMPROVEMENT
Key Issues 8c Tasks:
Integrate improvements into other processes
and institutionalize such actions as a
companj “best practice;”
Communicate actions to stakeholders;
Recognize team and individual
performance achievements in w a y
consisteqt with company culture.
Continue the process.
Developing and implementing a pol-
lution prevention project and measur-
ing the results does not constitute com-
pletion of the cycle depicted by the
QEM framework. Rather, the successful
achievement of an articulated goal
should signal the beginning stage of a
new project or an effort to continue to
improve the project just completed.
Senior management should reflect
new issues and provide resources for
additional QEM efforts. These might
be in the form of completely new pro-
jects (e.g., elimination or reduction of
another compound of concern) or it
may be an effort to improve upon the
results of the initial effort. Before look-
ing at additional projects, three tasks
should be undertaken to ensure the suc-
cess of the project can be replicated.
Integrate Improvements Large rolorful displays Into Other Processes throughout 3M’s
Brookings plant help to remind employees of Participating companies plan to share the need for high quality i n all the successes and lessons of their
demonstration projects with other
departments, divisions and facilities
within their organizations to ensure that
others can replicate the QAT’S environ-
mental activities without starting from
scratch. It should be expected that
replication at other facilities may
require modification to account for
specific operating and production
activities.
production operations.
DuPont plans on sharing its success
in reducing ammonium sulfate emis-
sions with other acrylonitrile producers.
In addition, DuPont will use the QEM process with its Community Advisory
Panel to discuss the success of its origi-
nal project as well as its plans for future
projects.
35
Ford has communicated its experi-
ence with the QEM process and its suc-
cess in developing a process to elimi-
nate its TCE vapor degreaser to the rest
of Ford and its suppliers in conjunction
with its external team member from the
State of Michigan Office of Waste
Reduction Services.
US Generating’s project design fea-
tures for complex coal-fired plants,
including integration of zero wastewater
discharge and selective catalytic reduc-
tion, have been employed in subsequent
projects wherever feasible.
To foster replication, GE will rewrite
its procedures for specific production
areas and processes. In addition, it will
provide training in the new processes to
other sites as needed. This will ensure
that the results of the project are shared
with everyone.
Participating companies agree that it
is important to ensure that the
improvements developed by the
Quality Action Team and imple-
mented at one plant become stan-
dard operating procedures at other
plants with similar processes. The
efforts expended by a QAT should
be instructive throughout the
company.
In addition to ensuring that suc-
cessful process or product changes
become part and parcel of the opera-
tion of a company’s other departments,
divisions or plants, participating
companies also shared results with
stakeholders.
Communicate with Stakeholders
Results of pollution prevention
efforts should be communicated to
stakeholder groups. Such communica-
tion is valuable because it enhances the
credibility of the pollution prevention
effort and validates stakeholder partici-
pation in the process.
Stakeholders who are knowledgeable
about a company’s accomplishments
can convey information about company
pollution prevention efforts to other
interested parties. They also can serve
as a sounding board and offer sugges-
tions for additional improvements.
36
Recognize Team and Individual Performance
QAT members devote considerable
time to pollution prevention projects.
In many cases, they go beyond their
normal work assignments to accomplish
the goals of their projects. They com-
pete for limited resources and often
must address concerns about compro-
mising product quality. It is important
to recognize both the individual contri-
butions arid group accomplishments of
the QAT.
Most of the participating companies
have programs in place to recognize the
US Generating has instituted a
bonus program for team activi-
ties.
In these and other participating
companies, employees are acknowl-
edged for their extra efforts.
Continue the Process
QEM is a process of continual
assessment and improvement.
Once a pollution prevention effort
has been implemented, it should
be assessed periodically to ensure
that reduction efforts continue to
work. As one problem is solved, performance of QAT participants.
At the Dow Chemical location, individ-
ual and team recognition by manage-
merit and peers was provided through
recognition bulletin boards and
through awards such as the General
Manager’s Quality Performance
Award and the Atchafalaya Award (an
environmental recognition award).
At AT&T, employee participation in
another should take its place. The
entire QEM framework should be con-
tinuously repeated. QEM is neither
complete nor 100 percent successful
until all wastes have been eliminated
from a facility.
QEM provides an opportunity to lever-
age new skills to other challenging
assignments throughout the company.
AT&T also provides cash incentives
for outstanding individual perfor-
mance. Team accomplishments are
recognized through articles in the
company magazine.
37
ased on the real world expe-
riences of the twelve pollu-
tion-prevention demonstra-
tion projects, the QEM
Subcommittee has drawn the following
conclusions:
Total Quality Management (TQM)
and pollution prevention are comple-
mentary concepts. The heart of TQM
is the systematic analysis of processes
or services by empowered, cross-func-
tional, multi-disciplinary teams. The
same is true regarding pollution pre-
vention. Emission or waste reduction
opportunities are most successful
when groups of employees with
diverse skills and experiences are fully
empowered to identify sources of pol-
lution and to make innovative, cost-
effective recommendations for
addressing identified sources. TQM
tools are useful at every step in this
process.
Successful pollution prevention
efforts, while dependent on a system-
atic and rigorous analysis, rely heavily
on flexibility in actual application.
Experience gained through these pro-
jects has shown that a disciplined
approach is clearly a prerequisite for
success. Because each facility is
unique with regard to type of busi-
ness, employee familiarity with TQM,
and corporate culture, a flexible
approach (e.g., number of steps,
sequencing, tools utilized) must be
employed to encourage innovative
thinking.
Pollution prevention can be achieved
without large capital investments.
Small and large organizations alike
are equally able to benefit from the
skillful application of TQM in pursuit
of pollution prevention opportunities.
Success often depends as much on the
creativity and energy of the employees
involved as on the amount of capital
invested.
There is no universal metric for track-
ing performance, but there are a
number of valid, useful metrics that
provide necessary information and
clearly convey results to different
audiences. The diversity of industrial
processes, products, and services pre-
cludes the creation of a single, uni-
form standard by which all pollution
prevention efforts can be measured
and compared. However, metrics that
are credible (based on documentable
performance data) and practical (easi-
ly understood) are essential qualities
39
for effectively communicating pollu-
tion prevention progress to interested
stakeholders. Companies should use a
number of different metrics to track
progress.
Consultation and collaboration with
stakeholders interested in emission or
waste reductions are critical in devel-
oping credible progress reports. Early
involvement of interested parties in
pollution reduction and prevention
activities helps facilitate the communi-
cation process. An understanding of
the goals and objectives of the various
stakeholders is absolutely essential for
putting information into terms that
they can accept and endorse.
Secondly, time is not wasted on gath-
ering data and producing information
based on speculation of stakeholder
interest or concerns.
Currently, there are both barriers and
incentives to Pollution Prevention.
Reduced management costs, increased
public acceptance, and competitive
opportunities are a few of the tangible
benefits associated with the TQM
route to Pollution Prevention.
However, there also are real-world
obstacles that range from limited
resources to an end-of-pipe mindset.
Preventing pollution and saving
money were results of the companies’
demonstration projects. What partici-
pants found out along the way and what
they learned about the QEM process
itself, though, is equally important.
One of the objectives of the PCEQ is to
share with the business community at
large the results of its members’ efforts.
The lessons learned from the demon-
stration projects can be divided into
three major categories:
The impact of the QEM process on
project identification, design, and
implementation;
Environmental improvements; and
Cost savings.
Impact of the QEM Process
One of the most interesting results of
the PCEQ demonstration projects was
what employees at the participating
facilities learned about the QEM
process and its contribution to improve-
ment efforts. Information generated
from questionnaires and interviews sug-
gested commonalities among the
companies.
Several of the companies noted that
Total Quality Management (TQM) and
pollution prevention are, in fact, com-
plementary, with each building upon
the other. Because TQM emphasizes
cross-functional team building and the
importance of bringing qualified indi-
viduals together to solve problems, it
was noted by most participants that the
QEM process directly helped the com-
panies meet their environmental goals.
40
Additionally, participating companies
stressed that key TQM tools such as
affinity diagrams, Pareto charts and
cause-and-effect diagrams helped QAT
members focus on the causes of some
of their most vexing environmental
problems.
Several companies realized that data
supporting the economic implication of
process or product changes were not
fully understood by their QATs.
Because pi-oduction processes vary from
industry to industry, company to com-
pany, and even facility to facility within
the same company, measuring the true
cost of environmental protection activi-
ties is difficult. Calculating and commu-
nicating the savings in a manner readily
understood by the financial department
is often difficult. One company
thought it could have achieved greater
cost savings had its QAT looked more
closely at the underlying costs of waste
and pollution generated from various
production processes. If environmental
professionals want to garner support for
QEM from senior management, the full
cost of waste and emissions must be
understood if the return on investment
is to be properly determined.
Participating companies acknowl-
edged the need to communicate in lan-
guage that is familiar to intended audi-
ences. Couching implications in finan-
cial terms may be the best approach for
management, while explaining how a
pollution prevention project makes the
job safer is easier for production floor
personnel to grasp. Outside stakehold-
ers may find information about the total
volume of pollution most meaningful.
The projects demonstrated that TQM
principles are effective in achieving pol-
lution prevention. Iricreased communi-
cation and further integration with
facilities not involved in the QEM process were considered necessary to
ensure that the QEM ethic becomes the
predominant philosophy and business
approach for companies.
Environmental Improvements
Although many of the participating
companies are at the implementation
stage of the process, early results sug-
gest that application of TQM can result
in improved environmental quality:
Dow Chemical achieved a 29 percent
reduction in ethylene oxide fugitive
emissions and preliminary results on
their waste management project indi-
cate a 67 percent reduction in the
amount of material sent to waste
treatment facilities.
GE estimates that 1,1,1
trichloroethane use will be decreased
by 95 percent by year-end.
DuPont’s generation of ammonium
sulfate was reduced from more than
100 million pounds per year to less
41
than 40 million pounds per year.
lnternational Paper's Androscoggin
Mill reduced fiber lost to the paper
machine sewers from 60 tons to less
than 25 tons per day through a rigor-
ous self-audit and the development of
an innovative mobile recovery pump.
In addition to the cost savings from
the recovered fiber, loading to the
wastewater treatment system was
reduced which improved effluent
quality by more than 50 percent.
Ford is replacing, on a business plan
cycle basis, its trichloroethylene
(TCE) vapor degreasers with an
aqueous degreasing system that
demonstrated superior processing
quality and improved environmental
conditions for employees and the
community.
At the 3M plant, generation of waste
was reduced by 10 percent.
Procter & Gamble's Mehoopany,
Pennsylvania, paper and pulp manu-
facturing plant eliminated the use of
chlorine for converting broke bleach-
ing and improved pulp washing which
decreased sulfur dioxide, ammonia
and chloroform releases.
Cost Savings
Pollution prevention efforts do not
always result in cost savings. And those
that do may require several years to
achieve an adequate return on invest-
ment. Several participating companies
indicated that the decision to invest in a
pollution prevention project can be
difficult.
Although some of the participating
companies initiated QEM projects with
the assumption their efforts would
increase operating costs, they discov-
ered that their efforts actually reduced
such costs. Others initiated QEM pro-
jects expressly to reduce environmental
capital and/or operating costs.
At Procter & Gamble, Mehoopany,
Pennsylvania, more than $275,000 was
saved through lost production avoid-
ance and reduced chemical usage. In
addition, Procter & Gamble expects to
save nearly $500,000 from pollution
prevention projects currently under-
way. Finally, the company believes its
solid waste minimization efforts are
yielding a total value of $25,000,000
per year.
GE found that replacing floor wax for
a freon"-based mold release saved
about $15,000 and its decrease in
1 ,l ,l trichloroethane use will save
about $30,000.
42
A reduction in ammonium sulfate
generation will save DuPont almost
$1,000,000 per year in overall manu-
facturing costs. Capital investment
was not required.
AT&T estimates annual savings of
nearly $200,000 from reduced pur-
chases of supplies, less manufacturing
time and the elimination of costs asso-
ciated with the air permitting process.
The demonstrated effectiveness of
the QEM framework as a method for
preventing pollution provides compa-
nies of all sizes an important tool for
improving environmental performance.
43
QEM Subcommittee Kenneth T. Derr
Chairmnn, QEM Subcommittrr Chairman and @.‘(I, Chevron Corprution
Members: Riley P. Bechtel
Michael R. Deland
Paul Edward Gray
Presidmt, CEO and Darrctor, Brchtel Group, Inc.
Chairman, Council on Bnvironmental Quality
Chairman, Corporation for thr Mas.rarhusrtts Institutr of 7 ’ r c h n o l q ~
Rrtzrrd Chairman u r d CEO, iMinnrrota ,Wining & iMnnuj(icturing Company (3M)
Exrcutiiw Dirrrtor, P.’ni~ironmental I ) + w e l u l i d
Chairman and C l N , Ford Motor Company
Chairman, Prrsidrnt und LEO, Merck U Company, Inr
Chairman and CKO, Grnrral Elrctric Company
Allen F. Jacobson
Fred Krupp
Harold A. Poling
P. Roy Vagelos
John F. Welch,Jr .
QEM Task Force WilliamJ. Mulligan
Chairmnn, QEM Task Forcr Managpr, Environmmtal A ffazrs, Chrvron Corporation
Members: Donald Anthony
Vice Presidrnl and Managrr oj Technology, Bechtel Group, lnc.
Vice Prrsidrnt of Environmmtal and Safrty Poliry, MPrck Company, Inc.
Director, Environment and Sa& Enpnrrring Affairs, A T&T
Site Environmental Manager, Procter & Gamble Paprr Products Company
Director, Trchnolog, Business and Envzronment Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Coordinator, Waste Management, Environmental Affairs, Chevron Corporation
Principal Environmental Enpneer, Ford Motor Company
Waste Reduction Issue Managrr, The Dow Chemical Company
Coordinator oJEnvironmenta1 Regulations, Chevron Corporation
Vice President, Environmental and Sa fety Enpnem’ng, Ford Motor Company
Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
Pollution Prevention Specialist, Environmental Defense Fund
Project Manager, Corporate Environmental Programs, General Electric Company
Dorothy Bowers
Thomas S. Davis
William B. Eberhardt, Ph.D.
John Ehrenfeld
Mark Hopkins
Philip Lawrence
Joseph A. Lindsly
Mark Nordheim
Helen Petrauskas
Jackie Prince
Manik Roy
Jeff Sommer
Edward R. Spaulding, Coordinator, Environmental Policy Development, Chevron Corporation
Roger Strelow I:’.~ccuti71~ l ? r r Pwidpn t , Ur(l i tr1 l . ’ n 7 ~ i w 1 1 rrirn(u1. In( ., Hrrh trl Group, In r .
Robert (Robin) ‘Tollett M u n agrr, Polln / i o n l’rr71rn t i o n I’rogru m, l’rortrr U Gumblr (:ompuny
iMa n ager, Pollution Prrvr n t ion Pro<gra ms, Minnrsota Mining 2 Manufacturing Company (3M)
Tom Zosel
Demonstration Project Managers Alan Ahel
Environmmtal Enpneer, Chrvron Research and Trchnologi Company, Chevron Corporation
p a l i t j Assurancr Coordinator, I hr I h r u Chemical Compaiij
Managrr, Environ mrnt, Iritrrnational PaprI Compunj
Director, Environmrntal and K q p l a t o ~ df l~ir ,s , LIS Grnrrating Company
Srnior Site I:’nvironmrntal Enginerr, Merck & Company, Inc.
E H S S Sprcialist, GE Mrdical Systems, Grneral Electric Compang
Environmental Engznrrr, Procter U Gamble Papm Products Company
Environmental Associate, DuPont Company
Manager, Components Produrt/Procrss Department, Advancrd Enpneering, Climate Control Division, Ford Motor Companj
En viron m m t a 1 ,\la nugo-, Pr-octrr U Gamblr Manufacturing Company
Enuironmrntal Engznrer, AT&T
Manager, Pollution Prevrntion Programs, Minnesotu Mining S Manufacturing Companj (3iM)
Gregory W. Baldwin
David Critchfield
Kent L. Fickett
Cynthia M. House
David Noe
Charles B. O’Hara, P.E.
Stan Olson
Christopher S. Rockwell
Richard Scott
Barbara Thompson
Tom Zosel
QEM Staff Scott Farrow
Associate Directorfor Pollution Prevrntion, Council on Environmental Quality
Policy Analyst, Council on Environmental Quality
Staff Specialist, PCEQ Non-profit Caucus
Andrew C. Nehlett
Edward J. Quinn
Additional Participants Nancy Carroll
Senior Specialist, Publicity & Promotion Svruicrs, Public Aflairs, Cheziron Corporation
Environmrnt and Saftq Communications Managm, Ford Motor Company
Program Manager, Corporate Media Relalzons, Genrral Electric Company
Manager, Public Affairs, Merck & Company
Environmental Public Relations Specialist, Minnesota Mining &Manufacturing Compang (?iM)
Public Relations Manager, Procter S Gamble Company
Beryl Goldsweig
Jack Batty
John Bloomfield
Rick Renner
Elaine Matthews
44
his section presents a brief
description of each demon-
stration project facility and
its goals for the QEM pro-
ject. Profiles are presented in tabular
fashion to allow easy comparisons.
term “pollution prevention” is used to
mean different things. The QEM Subcommittee did not reach consensus
on the definition of pollution
prevention.
Participating companies appear in
Each entry was developed by the
project team members; therefore, the
alphabetical order.
45
B
Columbus, Ohio
T&T’s environmental policy - to prevent pollution at the ource - reflects the company’s quality policy of
preventing defects rather than correct- ing them. AT&T has established aggres- sive goals that go beyond laws, regula- tions and international guidelines in order to position the firm as an industry leader in environmental and safety pro- tection. These goals have become part of the company’s total quality effort of continuous improvement to business processes.
million square feet and approximately 6000 employees, manufactures three product lines: wireless telecommunica- tions systems, switching equipment, and computer based systems. For several years, Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques have been applied to pollution prevention and waste reduc- tion at this facility with very good results.
The Columbus Works, a facility of 1.5
The goals of the QEM demonstration project for the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality were to reduce TRI emissions 50 percent over 1991 values by year end 1993 over 1991 values and strive for total elimination by the year 2000. Using quality tools, such as Pareto analyses, 1991 TRI emission data were prioritized and 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA) was identified as the target chemical. A task team of engineers from the facility and repre- sentatives from the regulatory agency and community was formed. Process
flow diagrams were developed for each TCA use and each process was analyzed for alternatives with emphasis on source reduction. Measurements include chemical use, emissions to air, liquid waste generated and cost savings.
By December, 1992, alternatives to TCA were identified for more than 75 percent of the facility’s uses and these are being implemented. AT&T’s 1993 emission forecast indicates that reduc- tions in TCA use and emissions by mid- year will exceed previous forecasts by more than 30 percent. AT&T hopes to eliminate TCA from manufacturing operation by the end of 1993.
A significant benefit of TCA reduc- tion will be exemption from the May, 1993, Ozone Depleting Substance label- ing requirement. This is essential to customer satisfaction, a top priority for AT&T.
AT&T will continue to use quality management procedures to reduce and eliminate TRI emissions. Additionally, the procedures developed for this pro- ject will be applied to all AT&T environ- mental and safety goals.
46
Reduced liability. Improved public image. Future regulatory requirements.
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Lack of resources/finances. Possible new regulatory restrictions. Down time to implement. Product line has short life. No drop-in-place alternative.
Gap analysis - Pareto Chart. Process flow diagrams. Countermeasure Chart. Implementation timetable.
More up-front education of pollution prevention team. Involvement and input by outside representatives earlier in process. Top management commitment essential to success; commitment must be communicated to employees.
Current 1993 forecast indicates that we will have a 30% greater reduction in TCA emissions over previous forecasts due to implementation of countermeasures identified by the team. Our process stressed elimination of TCA use, not control measures.
Start over on next environmental goal.
Barbara Thompson Environmental Engineer AT&T 6200 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43213 Tel. 614-860-3739
49
J’ r
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
t is the policy of Chevron to con- duct its business in a socially responsible and ethical manner that protects safety, health, and
the environment. In pursuit of its goal to be an industry leader, Chevron emphasizes innovation and encourages creative solutions. To that end, each facility conserves company and natural resources by careful management of emissions and discharges and elimina- tion of unnecessary waste generation.
Chevron’s refinery in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, refines crude oil into asphalt cement and gasoline blending components and operates wharf and storage facilities for crude oil, asphalt, and light hydrocarbon products. Approximately 90 employees work on- site in operations, maintenance, techni- cal, and administration functions.
applied pollution prevention to several environmental issues at the plant. Initial targets included preventing wastewater toxicity from entering the effluent treatment plant and reducing solid waste quantities. Under the spot- light of the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality, Quality Environmental Management Initiative, the scope of pollution prevention efforts was expanded to encompass the broad goal of reducing environmental operating costs throughout the facility. This effort also increased employee feel- ings of responsibility for environmental issues throughout the workplace, similar to the way safety is considered the
The Perth Amboy refinery has
responsibility of every employee. Environmental costs for the entire
facility are estimated to exceed 10 per- cent of total facility operating expense, although current accounting does not yet recognize this full amount as an environmental cost and some environ- mental impacts have not been calculat- ed as a cost. Cross-functional teams in six plant areas identified more than 300 opportunities for improvement and nar- rowed the list to 10 streams for immedi- ate action. Changes to be implemented include:
Replacing an old boiler/power- house with a smaller unit with lower air emissions and higher steam system efficiency.
Redesigning a fuel gas scrubber process to generate a saleable product rather than a waste.
Changing chemical injected into the crude unit to improve oil / water separation, improve crude unit perfor- mance, and reduce oil in wastewater, for the same net operating cost.
The refinery will measure the results of these changes to assess economic impacts and environmental improve- ments. New opportunities and priori- ties for change also will be assessed.
50
I
Chevron USA Product Company, Perth Amboy Refinery, Perth Amboy, NJ
Background
Output/Employees:
Business /Products:
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Overview
0 bj ec tive :
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Metrics:
Incentives:
Approximately 90 employees operate an 80,000 bbl/day throughput refinery.
Facility refines crude oil to asphalt and unfinished light hydrocarbons, and stores and trades hydrocarbon products.
Corporate program began tracking waste disposal quantities and costs in 1987.
Most employees trained in Crosby TQM techniques during 1991.
Reduce environmental operating costs.
Air, water, and solid waste, with bias toward solid waste issues.
Identify cost and quantity of environmental emissions. Implement low (capital) cost emission reductions. Apply Quality training lessons.
Raise awareness of individual environmental responsibilities of facility personnel.
A new or existing Quality Improvement Team at each plant/unit, involving about 60 facility employees, plus corporate and contractor advisors.
7-Step Quality Improvement Process
Environmental Operating Costs vary for each stream, but may include disposal; permits; inspection fees; operation, preventive and unscheduled maintenance of environmental equipment; lab analyses; lost product; unit or facility downtime; avoided capital investment; environmental liability; public image.
Anticipation of significant economic benefit, as well as environmental improvement, generates enthusiasm. There is presently an opportunity to influence State Pollution Prevention regulations in advance of promulgation. Considering current corrective action initiated on-site increases the desire to avoid future remediation work.
52
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
The currently unmeasured data sources are intimidating. It is difficult to schedule time away from urgent tasks to search for and implement new Pollution Prevention opportunities.
Continuous improvement model used to identify and pursue Pollution Prevention opportunities.
There may be more opportunity for improvement than originally believed. The data for full under- standing has probably not been assembled yet. It is important and necessary to look deep enough at economic impacts of current operation to realize the opportunity for improvement.
Changes have not been measurable yet (9/92)
Implement and measure changes. Continue to apply the process for improvement.
Alan Abel Environmental Engineer - CRTC Chevron Research and Technology Company 1003 Cutting Boulevard PO Box 4054 Richmond, CA 94804 Tel. 510-242-5696
53
I
Plaquemine, Louisiana
ow Chemical is committed to continued excellence, lead- ership and stewardship in protecting the environment.
We are sensitive to the concerns of the public and accountable to them for our decisions and actions.
The Glycol I1 Plant in Dow’s Louisiana Division produces ethylene glycol and ethylene oxide which are used in the manufacture of products such as polyester resins, antifreeze and brake fluid. This plant is one of 23 oper- ating plants in the Louisiana Division and has been active in implementing Dow’s Quality Performance objectives since the mid-eighties. The plant has received several awards for their quality and waste reduction initiatives.
As a participant in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality (PCEQ) Quality Environment Management initiative, two projects were identified in order to illustrate the use of quality tools in reducing waste and emissions. The first is an internal benchmark study on fugitive emissions and the second is a laboratory waste management project.
The benchmark study compared Glycol 11’s current ethylene oxide fugi- tive emission reduction program to the highly successful program at the Dow plant in LaPorte, Texas that produces phosgene. Glycol I1 will attempt to be “leak free by ’93” by implementing some of the terms identified during the benchmarking process.
The lab waste management project focuses on wastes generated by the Glycol I1 analytical lab which is used for process and quality control analysis. A continuous improvement team evaluat- ed analytical schedules, recycling of samples and existing lab waste disposal methods identifying many areas for improvement by using the simple tools of Quality Performance.
The plant has achieved a 29% reduc- tion in ethylene oxide fugitive emissions due in part to methods identified in the benchmarking process. Preliminary results on the lab waste management projects indicates a 67% reduction in the amount of material sent to waste treatment.
54
I
The Dow Chemical Company, Louisiana Division, Glycol I1 Plant, Plaquemine, Louisiana
Background
Output/Employees:
Business/Products:
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Overview
Objective :
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Metrics:
Incentives:
Barriers:
46 employees (2400 in division).
Ethylene glycol and ethylene oxide.
Formalized WRAP (Waste Reduction Always Pays) initiative in 1986. It was the first Louisiana Division recipient of the WRAP Outstanding Achievement Award in 1986.
Implemented Dow’s Quality Performance program in 1985. The plant won the General Managers Quality Performance Award in 1989 and 1991, the first plant in the division to win the award twice. All employees have been exposed to several training classes on total quality management techniques.
To identify ways to improve the plant’s fugitive emission program and to identify cost effective ways to reduce laboratory waste streams.
Air, water, and solid waste.
Leak free by ‘93 and continuous improvement in the reduction of laboratory waste streams.
Plant management, quality & environmental coordinators and laboratory 8c production operators.
Formal benchmarking process and the use of the simple quality management tools (i.e., brainstorming, fishbone charts, flow charting, etc.).
SARA 313 emission inventory, number of leakers, number of lab samples, and pounds of waste material discharged to waste water treatment.
Division waste and release reduction plans (i.e., 33/50 plan), WRAP, Responsible Care, management/peer recognition and job performance criteria.
Resources and, in some cases, available technology.
56
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Benchmarking, brainstorming, flowcharting, fishbone charts, prioritization, fix the obvious and resource allocation.
The benchmarking process, the importance of practicing the simple tools of quality performance, identifying “doable” vs. “wish” projects and team empowerment to get the projects done.
Achieved a 29% reduction in ethylene oxide fugitive emissions due in part to methods identified in the benchmarking process. Preliminary results on the lab waste management project indicate a 67% reduction in the amount of material sent to waste treatment.
Install a demonstration ethylene oxide sampling system to verify performance, continue flanged connection reduction efforts and maintain “leak free” mentality within the plant.
Christine Baldridge Senior Environmental Specialist The Dow Chemical Company Building 3502 E PO Box 150 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Tel. 504-389-6252
57
Beaumont , Texas
he DuPont site at Beaumont, Texas, is a manufacturing facility that produces a variety of products for the Polymers
and Chemicals “sectors” within DuPont. Acrylonitrile monomer is one of those products.
The focus of this project was to reduce the generation of ammonium sulfate waste that was injected into deepwells. Ammonium sulfate is gener- ated when excess ammonia from the acrylonitrile reaction is neutralized with sulfuric acid.
Ammonium sulfate was on the initial SARA 313 list. When the 1987 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) was released in mid-1988, the Beaumont site had the largest TRI within DuPont and one of the largest in Texas. The emissions were so large, the organization agreed that process conditions would have to be modified to reduce the generation of ammonium sulfate, even if overall manufacturing costs increased.
The project was successful - ammo- nium sulfate generation was reduced from more than 100 million pounds per year to less than 40 million pounds. The facility has received considerable public acclaim for its reductions. In addition, overall manufacturing costs were reduced almost $1,000,000 per year without any capital investment being required.
58
I
DuPont Company, DuPont Chemicals, Beaumont, Texas, Acrylonitrile Operations
Background
Output/Employees:
Business/Produc ts:
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Over view
0 bj ec tive :
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Me trics:
Incentives:
Barriers:
Approximately 1100 Employees. (Total Site)
Approximately 150 Employees (Acrylonitrile Operations)
Polymers and Chemicals
Minimal “formal” activities at the time.
Quality “programs” were being implemented throughout DuPont, but little connection to “pollution prevention” at the time.
Reduce generation of ammonium sulfate in the process reactor.
Underground injection of “solid waste” and SARA 31 3 constituent.
“Significant” reduction (>20%) in ammonium sulfate with only a “nominal” (not completely defined) increase in overall operating costs.
“Ad hoc” technical team consisting primarily of 1) Process Engineer 2) Process Chemist 3) Analytical Chemist, and 4) Operating Supervisor
Brainstorming, technical evaluations, and process experiment design, followed by controlled testing under an EOD (Experimental Operating Direction).
Overall cost to manufacture.
Acrylonitrile product quality.
Total pounds SARA 313.
Community/Public perception
”In e r tia ”
Expected cost penalty
More work for chemical operators
60
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Brainstorming
Designed experiments
Customer “qualification” of acrylonitrile from new process conditions.
Sometimes you can “teach an old dog new tricks.”
Ammonium sulfate generation was reduced from more than 100 Million lb/yr to less than 40 Million lb/yr. In addition, overall manufacturing costs were reduced almost $1 Million per year without any capital investment being required.
Research and development effort to revise process to completely eliminate ammonium sulfate.
Stan Olson Environmental Associate DuPont Company B-17301 1007 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19898 Tel. 302-774-7250
61
Plymouth, Michigan
t is Ford Motor Company policy that all operations, products and services accomplish their func- tions in a manner that provides
responsibly for protection of health and the environment. To this end, Ford includes pollution prevention in its business planning practices. Ford believes quality excellence can best be achieved by preventing problems rather than by detecting and correcting them after they occur. In seeking appropriate ways to protect health or the environment, priorities are based on achieving the greatest anticipated practical benefit.
The Sheldon Road Plant manufac- tures aluminum radiators and heater cores for the automotive industry. In addition, heating and cooling units for vehicles are assembled at this plant. The goal of the project was to develop the feasibility and overall requirements for manufacturing aluminum heat exchangers without the use of trichloroethylene (TCE) and, thereby, improve environmental quality and product and process quality at Climate Control Division (CCD) operations worldwide. This goal includes the development of a management model for Ford’s internal pollution prevention initiatives utilizing Total Quality Management.
The project team included represen- tatives from the plant management, the hourly employees, the division’s Advanced Engineering Staff and Manufacturing Engineering Staff, the
corporate Environmental and Safety Engineering and Research Laboratory staffs, the State of Michigan, the local community and the suppliers. This pro- ject utilized a pilot process study involv- ing the testing of an aqueous degreas- ing system to replace a TCE degreasing system for aluminum heat exchangers. The project serves as a model for inte- grating environmental quality with the design of a manufacturing process.
The aqueous degreasing pilot project has been completed successfully. The unit demonstrated that a superior man- ufacturing process is attainable together with reduced costs and a much improved environment. The project also demonstrated that pollution pre- vention is achieved by Total Quality Management.
been shipped to CCD’s Connersville, Indiana facility to supply additional manufacturing capacity at the plant. Improvements are also planned for the system, CCD facilities worldwide are preparing specifications for future aque- ous degreasing equipment. The lessons learned from this project will be shared within the company through internal communication networks and externally through conferences and professional and management associations. The aqueous system has been recommended for all future installations either when TCE degreasers require replacement or a new brazing system is planned.
The aqueous degreasing system has
62
Ford Motor Company, Climate Control Division, Sheldon Road Plant, Plymouth, Michigan Background
Output/Employees: The facility produces approximately 22,000 heat exchangers per day with three shifts and the pilot process produces 600 heat exchangers per shift. There are approximately 1,530 employees.
Business/Products: Manufacture of aluminum heat exchangers: radiators, air conditioner components, automotive heater cores, etc.
Pollution Prevention Experience:
The Climate Control Division (CCD) and the Sheldon Road Plant have had an active waste prevention program for several years. A four- year program to eliminate a cyanide compound from a coating process was completed in 1990. A similar multi-year program to eliminate chromium from coating processes has been completed for several product lines.
Total Quality: This facility has a continuous improvement quality program that was initiated in the early 1980s with the (2-1 program and has expanded to the Ford Total Quality Excellence (TQE) initiative.
Over view
Objective:
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
To pilot an aqueous degreasing system to replace the current Trichloroethylene (TCE) vapor degreasing system. To integrate environmental quality with the manufacturing process.
Air and water.
Use TQM principles to develop a management model that integrates pollution prevention into the design criteria for products, manufacturing processes and routine business cycle. Establish manufacturing requirements that improve product and process quality, environmental quality and program efficiency at CCD operations world-wide. Reduce floor space requirements. Increase part cleanliness. Incorporate with a controlled atmosphere brazing process to provide a more robust process, improve flux coverage, reduce capital investment, and reduce waste disposal volume and costs.
Division/plant product, process, environmental, health and safety engineering. Plant hourly personnel. Corporate staff from Technical Affairs. Suppliers. The State of Michigan Office of Waste Reduction Services. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Resource Group - Purchasing Agents. Division, plant and staff representatives (Environmental Quality, Employee Relations, Office of General Counsel).
Mechanisms
64
Process:
Me trics:
Incentives :
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Utilize Quality Action Team, Collect and review data, Develop criteria based on data, Prioritize (narrow list), Brainstorm needs, Screen options, Do the obvious, Perform economic evaluation, Make recommendations, Implement improvements, Measure results and Communicate performance
Quantity of TCE eliminated; quantity of aqueous cleaner required; type and quantity of waste generated by aqueous system; operating cost savings; indirect cost savings associated with elimination of TCE; improvement in part quality.
Improved plant environments. Elimination of a hazardous material. Improvement in part quality. More robust/manageable process. Reduction in costs. Support from throughout the Company. Assistance from the State of Michigan.
Employee awareness. Measuring external benefits. Accounting for intangible costs. Investment requirements for full implementation. Lack of pollution credits.
Brainstorming, Drivers Matrices, Failure Mode Effects Analysis, Product/Manufacturing Development Feasibility charts, Pareto charts, histograms, process flow charts, rainbow charts.
For projects with high capital requirements or those where impact on production or part quality is unknown, company buy-in beyond the plant level is required. TQM and pollution prevention are complementary principles. Cross-functional teams represent the most efficient means of achieving a goal.
The aqueous degreasing pilot resulted in a superior process, lower costs, improved plant environment and reduced environmental impact. The project is demonstrating how to use TQM to prevent pollution.
The aqueous degreasing system has been shipped to CCD’s Connersville, Indiana facility to add additional capacity. CCD facilities world-wide are preparing specifications for aqueous degreasing equipment. The results of this project will be shared with the entire Company. The aqueous system is being recommended for all installations when TCE degreasers require replacement or a new brazing system is added.
Philip R. Lawrence, Principal Engineer PO Box 1899 Room 640, Ford WHQ Building ESES - Plant Engineering Office Dearborn, MI 48121-18991 Tel. 313-322-3753
65
a
T
Florence, South Carolina
ince beginning production at the Florence, South Carolina, facility in 1984, GE Magnet Systems has become the world’s
largest manufacturer of superconduct- ing magnets for whole-body diagnostic imaging. Operations include research & development, design, manufacturing and field support. This award-winning work force comprises 280 hourly and 152 exempt and non-exempt employees. Employees of GE Magnet Systems fully support our operation’s “Vision: Excellence in Products through Partnerships with People and the Environment. ”
Adapting the principles of Total Quality Management and tapping into the creativity and efficiency of our employee empowerment programs, we have established goals of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 313 listed chemicals. The continuous environmental management process is helping GE meet its commitment to the EPAs 33/50 program. GE fully expects the results of this project will have far- reaching implications. Jack Welch, CEO, characterized the support of top management for ongoing environmen- tal efforts when he said “Every person at GE has to be an environmentalist.” Long term objectives include improved employee education and training that will bring an environmental mindset to all job activities.
This process is a cooperative effort involving Technical Support Engineering staff, our High Involvement Work Teams, our suppliers and the plant Environmental Engineer. External resources included the support of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. This cross- functional team is working to alter processes, identify chemical substitu- tions, reduce solid and hazardous waste, develop a heightened sense of environ- mental responsibility in conducting business, and drive down associated costs to the business.
To date, GE is encouraged by its many successful efforts. Projects vary in size and scope from changes affecting the entire facility to process improve- ments involving a single work team. Other success stories include elimina- tion of hazardous materials, chemical substitution, process changes, and ener- gy and natural resource conservation. Equally important is the increased level of employee awareness and involve- ment. GE continues to integrate con- tinuous environmental improvement into product life cycle through the principles of TQEM.
66
a
General Electric Company, Medical System Business Group, GE Magnet Systems, Florence, SC
Background
Output/Employees: 450 full-time employees
Business/Products: Super-conducting magnets
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Corporate program-POWER, POllution, Waste & Emissions Reduction (a Best Practice since 1990).
Self-direct workforce, Continuous improvement teams, use of TQM Tools, i.e., Process Mapping, 6-Step Problem Solving, Brainstorming, etc. began in 1986.
Overview
0 bjec tive:
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Me trics:
To make environmental quality as intrinsic as product quality in every employees day to day activities.
Air; Solid and hazardous waste.
Long term and soft, (see objective). In our work environment, employees have to buy into a solution not be dictated one. Along the way, reduce or eliminate waste streams, improve working environment and reduce operating costs.
Outside involvement included South Carolina Wildlife Federation and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Center for Waste Minimization.
Creating an awareness through education and partnerships with customers, suppliers and employees. Primarily focusing on solid and hazardous waste. Awareness created by presentations to all employees at monthly state of the business meeting as well as one-on-one discussions with continuous improvement team. Process included involvement of South Carolina Wildlife Federation and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Center for Waste Minimization.
Amount of target chemicals used, solid and hazardous waste generated and the associated costs to the business.
68
Incentives:
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Healthier and safer work place, reduced environmental liability, reduced costs and a more enlightened workforce.
Misjudged level of employee awareness of the issues. Concerns over compromising product quality. Allocation of people resources.
Process Mapping, 6 Step Problem Solving, Brainstorming.
Through these efforts, we have had several success stories. The replacement of floor wax for Freon-based mold release will save $15,00O/year, elimination of 35,000 lbs of 1,1,1 Trichloroethane annually through process change and substitution and complete elimination of Xylene and Methanol. Employee awareness and involvement have increased and we have stepped up involvement with the Florence County Environmental Services recycling efforts.
A “Workout” session is scheduled with our Technical Support Engineers and the SC Waste Minimization Group to further develop our waste minimization efforts. Also will continue to integrate Continuous Environmental Management into product life cycle through TQEM.
David Noe EH&S Specialist GE Medical Systen 3001 Radio Drive Florence, SC 2950 Tel. 803-664-1 633
S
69
Jay, Maine
nternational Paper, one of the largest paper companies in the world, manufactures pulp, paper, packaging, and specialty products
in 23 countries. The Androscoggin Mill is part of the pulp and paper division, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. Built in 1965, Androscoggin has been modified twice to increase production capacity and improve product quality. Today, five paper machines produce 1,400 tons per day of coated and uncoated paper from kraft pulp and groundwood. The mill operates two continuous digesters and two bleaching plants to manufacture pulp for its paper machines and other customers. Androscoggin employs 1,400 people and contributes approximately $150 million annually to the local economy.
quality concepts in 1985, when the entire corporation adopted a quality improvement process. The mill employed TQM concepts and team- building to achieve notable solid waste reductions in 1989 and 1990, but did not expand this effort to other media.
The quality environmental manage- ment project builds on the quality prin- ciples originally embraced. At Androscoggin, quality environmental management means focusing employee attention on all environmental impacts of the mill - air, water, solid and haz- ardous wastes, and chemical use. It involves the development of accurate, representative metrics on a unit-of-pro- duction basis to identify the best
Androscoggin was first introduced to
li I t
opportunities for improving mill environmental performance.
The Androscoggin initiative empha- sizes total employee involvement in pol- lution prevention; improved communi- cation and coordination with regulatory agencies at all levels; and public out- reach to enhance understanding of environmental issues.
During the summer and fall of 1992, all Androscoggin employees were exposed to the mill’s pollution preven- tion initiative through formal and infor- mal sessions. Six TQM pollution pre- vention teams were targeted as critical to the mill process - effluent biochemi- cal oxygen demand (BOD) reduction, fiber loss, water use, chemical use, solid waste, and hazardous waste. The in-mill teams have achieved some noteworthy gains. BOD to the Androscoggin River has been reduced by more than 65 per- cent and fiber loss in mill sewers has been reduced by nearly 50 percent.
A joint TQM team of Androscoggin Mill and state regulatory personnel also was chartered to identify areas where agency and company experts could improve mill environmental perfor- mance beyond permit requirements.
70
I a
International Paper, Jay, Maine
Background
Output/Employees:
Business/Products:
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Overview
0 bj ec tive :
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Metrics:
Incentives:
Barriers:
1400 employees. 500,000 tons/year.
Pulp and paper. Coated and uncoated papers.
Solid Waste Minimization Program (1989).
Total Quality Management Programs in place since 1985.
Apply TQM process to environmental compliance programs.
Wastewater, chemical use, solid and hazardous wastes, air emissions.
Reduce waste on a “Unit of Production” basis. Recognize employee excellence in achieving environmental improvements. Reduce operating costs. Encourage employee involvement in environmental issues of the mill. Measure waste reduction progress.
Existing waste management teams, new task teams, joint agency/mill pollution prevention teams, public advisory committee.
Managing Process Improvement (MPI) Methodologies to integrate quality concepts and techniques into environmental compliance.
Raw material usage, normalized waste generation rates, compliance efficiency measures (spending on capital projects and others), chemical usage in regulated categories (TRI, ITP).
Regulators - - at state level, forge a collaborative relationship to identify waste reduction opportunities.
Implementors - employees are very interested in mill waste metr ia / pollution output and how they can impact levels.
Regulators - - continued difficulty working with local officials, particularly in establishing the difference between pollution prevention objectives and traditional enforcement techniques.
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Cause and Effect Diagrams. Brainstorming and Pareto Methods. Control Charts. Process Flowcharts. Benchmarking.
Pollution prevention must be understood, and championed by mill lead team to be effective. Corporate mandate and “canned” programs get a cool reception by mill employees.
Pollution prevention is a valuable tool for making teams look at production processes in a different light; improved quality through waste reduction. Threat of tough government enforcement creates an atmosphere of fear and distrust of regulators, and any gover nmen t initiatives .
Fiber loss to sewers reduced by 50 percent.
Chemical use and substitution plans are making slow, but steady progress.
Extraordinary change in relationship between mill and state regulators; improvements here are difficult to quantify but show up in day-to-day interactions between groups.
Rencwed interest by mill employees in how pollution impacts local environment. Employees are re-chartering old quality teams that had fallen idle. Pollution prevention workshop held for environmental repre sentatives from Maine pulp and paper companies.
Mill-wide “challenge” program to put pollution prevention teams on a competitive footing.
Overhaul nietrics; a number of weaknesses were identified. Employees want to understand quantitative dimension of pollution impacts.
David Cri tc h fi e 1 d Manager, Environment International Paper Androscoggin Mill Riley Road, PO Box 20 Jay, ME 04239
73
1
Rahway, New Jersey
erck is an innovative, research-in tensive company that focuses on the discovery, develop-
ment, manufacture, and distribution of human and animal health products and specialty chemicals. Merck considers its responsibility for environmental protec- tion to be of the same importance as employee safety and product quality. To this end, the company conducts its busi- ness worldwide in a manner that pro- tects the environment and the health and safety of its employees and the pub- lic. In 1990, Merck publicized aggres- sive corporate environmental goals, including a worldwide 90 percent reduc- tion of all SARA 313-listed chemical releases and off-site transfers for dispos- al by the end of 1995 (from a 1987 basis).
The Rahway-Linden site is one of Merck’s major producers of bulk inter- mediate and active ingredients for phar- maceutical and veterinary/agricultural products. The site manufactures a con- siderable number of different interme- diates, primarily by batch operation,with diverse production schedules which vary from round-the- clock for some products to every few years of others. Because solvents often are required during manufacture, purification, and equipment cleaning, most of the wastes are solvents. There is no on-site waste treatment, so all waste- water is discharged to public treatment plants and bulk waste is transferred off- site for treatment and disposal.
Consequently, pollution prevention pro- grams are crucial to successfully achiev- ing Merck’s goals.
The project selected for the Quality Environmental Management demon- stration was the Rahway-Linden site 1992 SARA Reduction Project, which is one of a number of environmental ini- tiatives within the company. This pro- ject specifies an aggressive reduction in multi-media SARA emissions of 1.5 mil- lion pounds in 1992 and 4.8 million pounds in 1993 (from a 1990 basis), which accelerates site progress toward the 1995 corporate goal.
Many people in different organiza- tions throughout Merck are involved in the project. Independent task teams were established to evaluate distinct pri- ority processes/areas and implement reduction measures. Two key teams’ projects/measures are in place and another major project scheduled in the first quarter of 1993. Work is continu- ing on the evaluation of reduction options for the next tier of priority areas.
Based on first-half 1992 analyses and projections, the site will achieve its 1992 and 1993 SARA reduction goals. The Rahway-Linden site will continue in its attainment of site and corporate goals, along with other comprehensive, long- term environmental objectives estab- lished by Merck.
74
I
Merck 8c Company, Inc., Merck Manufacturing Division, Rahway-Linden Site, Rahway, NJ Background
Output/Employees:
Business/Products:
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Overview
0 bj ec tive :
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Metrics:
Incentives:
Approximately 1000 employees in manufacturing (out of about 4100 total at the site.)
Bulk pharmaceutical and veterinary/agricultural active ingredients.
Merck has practiced pollution prevention for years. Process optimization has always been emphasized - product yield increases, in-process recycling, inventory and production scheduling, solvent substitutions, and other practices have been in existence for a long time.
Stringent and uncompromising quality standards are promoted through Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) - rules established by the FDA to govern all aspects of manufacture and distribution. Extensive GMP training and internal GMP audits are conducted regularly to maintain awareness and ensure compliance.
To accelerate progress towards the corporate environmental goal of a worldwide 90% SARA reduction by end-1995.
Air, water, and solid waste.
Reduce SARA TRI releases and offsite transfers for disposal by 1.5 MM lbs. in 1992 and 4.8 MM lbs. in 1993 (1990 baseline).
Representatives from Manufacturing, Technical Operations, Engineering, Site Services, Environmental, and other departments are involved based on relevant knowledge and expertise. The teams are separate, working on different projects in different areas.
Overall objectives were assigned by management. Target areas were readily defined and task teams formed to independently pursue projects in key areas. TQM flowchart steps generally apply.
SARA TRI releases and offsite transfers for disposal (1990 reporting rules) measure pollution prevention progress. Since there is no on-site waste treatment, all releases and transfers are reported.
Internal: corporate and site environmental goals; management commitment; personal objectives (which impact performance/ merit) ; capital allocated for projects; funding grants to evaluate new
76
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
technology. External: enhance corporate reputation for environmental leadership; gain experience to share with state environmental regulators (through comments, site visit) during the pollution prevention rulemaking process.
Internal: product quality constraints; employee time limitations and conflicts with existing workloads/priorities; limited technology; and required demonstration/approval period.
External: regulatory constraints and approvals required by the FDA; time and cost associated with FDA demonstrations; environmental permit modifications; state environmental agency opinion of what constitutes “pollution prevention” and resulting impact on the permit approval process.
Technical and engineering expertise; no formal quality tools.
Pollution prevention efforts would benefit from increased communication and integration with departments not presently involved. Awareness and “stakeholding” need to be expanded in all departments beyond the immediate project goals into a predominant philosophy and business approach. High-level management commitment and middle management support are critical for success. Pollution prevention does not always translate into dollar savings. For already-efficient processes, the capital investment required for additional reductions can exceed the acceptable payback period or there may be no payback.
Based on first half 1992 analyses and projections for all reduction projects, the site will achieve its 1992 and 1993 SARA goals.
After promulgation of New Jersey’s final pollution prevention rule (2/1/93), educate site employees and solicit participants in process area initiatives. Improve compilation of and access to information that will enhance SARA reporting, pollution prevention progress tracking, and prediction capabilities. As appropriate, monitor progress, keep abreast of future business developments, and promote communication, interaction, and “stakeholding.”
Cynthia M. House Senior Site Environmental Engineer Merck Manufacturing Division - Rahway RY7-30 PO Box 2000 Rahway, NJ 07065 Tel. 908-594-1 142
77
Brookings, South Dakota
he health care products plant in Brookings, South Dakota, is part of 3M, a multi-product, multi-technology corporation
with 89,000 employees in 57 countries. Since 1975, 3M has sponsored a pro- gram called 3P - Pollution Prevention Pays. Over the past 17 years, more than 3,000 3P projects have saved the corpo- ration more than $500 million and elim- inated more than 600,000 tons of pollutants.
vision of the Brookings plant - to be the recognized global leader in manu- facturing health care products by: understanding and exceeding the expectations of both internal partners and external customers, focusing on continuous improvement, and operat- ing its business in an ethical and envi- ronmentally responsible manner.
The Brookings plant has grown over the past 21 years to become one of 3M’s larger facilities. Employing 740 staff and production workers, the plant man- ufactures hundreds of products for the health care field. The largest product lines are medical and surgical tapes, sur- gical drapes, surgical masks, film dress- ings and sterilization indicator tapes. Manufacturing processes and product performance are monitored by the fed- eral government. Consequently, in addition to pollution prevention, quali- ty has always been a primary concern for the plant’s management team and its employees.
3M’s commitment is reflected in the
Through extensive employee involve- ment, the Brookings plant has been able to integrate pollution prevention through the use of Total Quality Management. The key forces behind this have been: (1) an understanding of the connection between good business practices and environmental responsi- bility; (2) the recognition that quality must be institutionalized through an evolutionary process; (3) the involve- ment of workers at all levels; (4) corpo- rate, supervisory and production work- er flexibility; and (5) a willingness to make significant capital investments.
efforts, the plant has reduced waste by 10 percent. By 1995, the plant expects to accomplish a 35 percent reduction in waste. By the year 2000, 3M Brookings aims to attain a 90 percent reduction of all releases to the environment. Beyond that, the goal is to approach zero emissions.
As a result of its pollution prevention
78
3M Company, Medical Products Division Plant, Brookings, S.D. Background
Output/Employees:
Business/Products:
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Overview
0 bj ec tive :
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Metrics:
740 employees.
Extensive line of products including adhesive tapes, surgical drapes, surgical masks, and dressings for health care area.
The Brookings plant has been an active participant in 3M’s 3P Program (Pollution Prevention Pays) which has formally existed since 1975.
TQM has been an integral part of this plant’s operational philosophy since the plant began operations in 1971.
The objective of the PP/TQM effort is to reinforce the long standing concept that part of each employee’s job responsibilities is the reduction of environmental waste.
Waste reduction efforts apply to all waste that would be potentially released in any media - air, water, land. Waste is defined as the residual from the operations before it is subjected to treatment or pollution control.
A waste reduction goal of 35 percent over the next five years has been established for this and each of 3M’s operating divisions.
The plant is organized into numerous teams that have responsibilities in the various functional areas. Each of these teams is to analyze the wastes that their function generates and implement systems or method ologies to reduce, reuse, or recycle materials so as to accomplish waste reductions.
There is no set process that is utilized throughout the plant. Each team creates its own action plan based on its needs, function, and experience.
The actual Metric which is used is the waste ratio which is
Waste Waste - ___- - ~- -
Waste + Byproduct + Product Total Output
80
Incentives:
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
All waste, byproducts and products are measured in pounds. The metric is reported to top management on a quarterly basis.
The incentives are the financial gains through reduced disposal and/or treatment costs, revenue from recycled materials, and raw material savings. There is also the increase in productivity and employee moral that is gained through responding to employee’s environmental concerns.
A challenge rather than an actual barrier, is keeping a 17 year pollution prevention program fresh and active, and keeping the equally long running commitment to TQM growing and expanding.
A wide variety of management and TQM tools are utilized throughout the process. The metric which is used is one important tool that allows each employee and/or team to measure their contribution to waste reduction. There are also a significant number of incentive generating tools used at the plant and throughout the corporation; most of these are aimed at recognizing teams and employees for their achievements and accomplishments.
The two most important attributes of a successful pollution prevention program are to have management support from the CEO on down and to have the involvement of each and every employee. The overall objective is to accomplish a change in corporate culture, to have everyone in the corporation accept pollution prevention as a part of their daily job. The attainment of this objective takes time and an attitude of continuous improvement. But the end result will be a facility or a corporation whose operations are much more environmentally efficient and cost effective.
In 1991, the Brookings plant employees reduced the generation of waste by 10.1 percent.
The plans are to continue down the path of continuous improvement in both TQM and pollution prevention. As zero defects is the goal of any TQM Program, 3M’s pollution prevention efforts have, as an ultimate goal, zero waste. While on a short term basis that may be impractical for an entire facility, it may well be possible and achievable for many individual operations.
Tom Zosel Manager, Pollution Prevention Programs Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company 3M Center St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel. 612-778-4805
81
Lima, Ohio
rocter & Gamble is committed to providing products of supe- rior quality and value that best fill the needs of the world’s
consumers. As a part of this commit- ment, Procter & Gamble continually strives to improve the environmental quality of its products, packaging and operations around the world. The Lima Plant has a history of commitment to environmental quality. Its position as an environmental leader of the commu- nity and corporation is demonstrated by full integration of environmental aware- ness into its businesses, a proactive posi- tion with all regulatory agencies, and efforts to reduce all of its waste streams.
The plant manufactures Downy fabric conditioners, Biz powdered bleach, and liquid laundry detergents such as Era, Tide, and Cheer. This plant has experi- enced continued steady growth and has emerged as the corporations leading liquids plant. The work system that was originally piloted at the facility has played a tremendous part in the facili- ty’s success. This “high performance” or technician system, as i t is sometimes called, has few job classification restric- tions and strives to push decision mak- ing into the core work, promoting own- ership for virtually every aspect of the business. Today, with over 300 employ- ees, the facility remains one of the most productive sites in Procter and Gamble.
As a participant in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality’s (PCEQ) Quality Environmental Management Initiative,
the goal of the project was to reduce the amount of wastewater effluent by 50% in 12 months from levels existing at the start of the plant’s involvement in the PCEQ. Pollution prevention has been a focal point for several years and some notable improvements have been made with procedural and equipment changes. In light of increasing regula- tion and environmental concerns cou- pled with public trust and sheer eco- nomic interests,the plant has estab- lished a continuous improvement goal with a target of “zero” discharge.
A number of benefits have resulted from the project. Total quality teams have been successful in identifying and implementing specific steps to reduce wastewater effluent. As a result, a 38% reduction in wastewater effluent dis- charges has been achieved in the last 6 months as compared to the previous six- month period. The addition of an ultrafiltration unit will continue to reduce wastewater effluent discharges toward an ultimate goal of “zero” discharge.
82
Procter 8c Gamble, Procter 8c Gamble Manufacturing Company, Lima, Ohio
Background
Output/Employees:
Business/Products:
Pollution Prevention Experience:
Total Quality:
Overview
0 bj ec tive :
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Metrics:
Approximately 360 employees.
Liquid laundry detergents, fabric softeners and a powdered laundry additive.
Prevention and reduction have been pursued at this site for many years. This activity was primarily driven by our rapid growth, regulatory requirements and our desire to be a good environmental neighbor in our community.
This site has employed Total Quality since the early 1980’s. A more structured process has been utilized for the past one to two years with significant improvement in results.
Our objective has been to implement programs and procedures to make changes to our systems that would provide a 50% wastewater effluent reduction from what existed when we became involved in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality (PCEQ) in March of 1991.
Water: plant effluent water going to the local POTW (Public Owned Treatment Works).
A 50% reduction in equivalent pounds of our product in our wastewater stream going to the POTW.
The initial work was started by a soap recovery team dealing only with the liquid detergents entering our wastewater stream from the soap processing area. Data gathering by this group led to the establishment of a packing quality improvement process (QIP) group which happened to be the key contributor to the pollution from the module. The third group that has recently been activated is now working to reduce the pollution from the fabric softener module.
An 8-step Quality Improvement Process (QIP)
Processes were previously established to determine the pounds of our products in our effluent wastewater. We are, however, in the process of verifying the accuracy of these analytical methods based on the start-up of our ultra-filtration unit which is a new technology for our site.
84
I
Incentives:
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Incentives for accomplishing our objective have been to provide for added capacity at our location and save money on product previously lost to the sewer. We also feel that we are staying way ahead of the regulatory game with more stringent requirements on our wastewater stream projected for the future.
Fortunately, we ran into a limited number of barriers during the establishment and roll out of our project activities. There were some technological barriers after we had basically completed all the operational changes to our systems to reduce products in our wastewater stream. There were considerable studies done to finally come up with the ultra-filtration unit to remove the surfactants and to redesign our packaging equipment to reduce its effluent producing characteristics. There also were technology issues related to product quality because we were reclaiming product that was previously lost.
8-step Quality Improvement Process (QIP) which is a P&G corporate standard.
Total Quality really works and provides an organized approach for making improvements and gaining acceptance of changes by our employees.
We are now starting to see results in our effluent reduction. Although we have not yet realized our goal, we are confident that as we complete the work that currently is in progress, we will achieve it and will re- apply the processes that we have learned to continuously improve toward our ultimate goal.
Continue to follow up on other items that could reduce effluent that have been identified by the QIP teams and put them through the PDCA cycle (Plan, Do, Check, and Act).
Richard Scott Environmental Manager The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company Reservoir and Mumaugh Roads Lima, OH 45802 Tel. 419-226-5522
85
Mehoopany, Pennsylvania
he Procter & Gamble Paper Division is committed to bringing products of superior quality and value to con-
sumers worldwide. The products manu- factured at Mehoopany include: Pampers and Luvs disposable diapers, Charmin and White Cloud bathroom tissues, and Bounty paper towels. This commitment to quality and value in our products includes environmental per- formance of our manufacturing opera- tions. For over 25 years P&G - Mehoopany has cared about environ- mental performance by “Treating Nature as a Customer.” The Mehoopany plant conducts operations in a manner that protects the environ- ment for the use and enjoyment of everyone, and protects the health and safety of employees, neighbors, and con- sumers. Mehoopany employees have been recognized by several organiza- tions for excellence in environmental efforts. Such efforts most recently were recognized by the State of Pennsylvania - the Mehoopany plant received the Governor’s Award for Waste Minimization.
As a participant in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality, P&G - Mehoopany focused on mini- mizing waste from all of its operations, with emphasis on source reduction. Two strategies were implemented to achieve this goal: (1) reducing existing wastes; and (2) avoiding the introduc- tion of new wastes. Company employees charged with addressing source
reduction opportunities were assisted by an advisory team of state and federal regulatory agencies, academia, and pub- lic action groups. This team approach provided a “customer” perspective on proposed source reduction efforts.
The project identified new source reduction opportunities for existing wastes. This pollution prevention/source reduction effort has been made an integral part of the finan- cial game plan for the site. Successful solid waste minimization efforts are yielding savings of $25,000,000 year. This result could not have been achieved without the empowerment of employees and the integration and insti- tutionalization of pollution prevention into the business framework.
I
Procter 8c Gamble, Procter 8c Gamble Paper Products, Mehoopany, PA.
Background
Output/Employees: Approximately 3,000 employees.
Business/Products: Pulp and paper manufacturing (tissue, towels and diapers)
Pollution Prevention The current initiative is an extension of previous Experience: waste minimization work involving solid and hazardous wastes and a
change management system aimed at waste prevention through scope and design review of new projects.
Total Quality: This site has been employing and growing in the area of TQM. Many employees have participated in SMQI (Statistical Methods for Quality Improvement) and almost all in Deming TQM training. Current emphasis is on improving process reliability and on application of a quality improvement process (QIP) .
Over view
0 bj ec tive :
Media:
Goals:
Accomplish a breakthrough improvement in pollution prevention performance. Specifically increase emphasis and successes with Source Reduction and broaden the base of pollution prevention (P2) emphasis from environmental specialists and teams to all site personnel. Accomplish this by integrating and institutionalizing related TQM thinking and action into the current best approaches (CBAs) for managing all site business.
Air, water and solid waste.
Put in place and institutionalize a system that documents the bottom line costs associated with the production, handling and disposal of wastes. Make continuous improvement in the reduction of both these costs and releases of waste to the environment. Accomplish this largely by source reduction through a cultural intervention which xklresses the “root causes” of waste generation. Demonstrate t o 0111 extci r i d
customers that TQM driven pollution prevention is a key contribiitor to environmental cxce llence .
Participants: Existing waste management teams, environmental staff, and ultimately all employees. Also, an external advisory conimittec consisting of regulatory agencies, academia, and public action groiips.
Mechanisms
Process: A customized quality improvement process and integration of‘ learning into site-wide system owner reliability concept.
88
Metrics:
Incentives:
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Raw materials lost, production losses through scrap product, waste handling and treatment costs, amount of waste produced and that released to the environment, number of chemicals used and capital avoided.
Cost savings, public recognition, regulatory influence, and employee satisfaction through environmental excellence.
Competition with other site efforts to gain attention, alignment, and resource allocations.
TQM techniques including QIP, Rational Process, System Owner, ...
To gain alignment, tie P2 to the business bottom line; to gain long-term continuity, integrate related procedures with base business systems.
Successful solid waste minimization efforts are yielding a total value of approximately $25,000,000 a year and have earned the Governor’s Waste Minimization Award. Notable water and air successes include elimination of the use of chlorine for converting broke bleaching and pulp washing improvements which decreased sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and chloroform releases and saved more than $275,000 through lost production avoidance and reduced chemical usage. Savings of $500,000 are projected from the P2 projects currently underway. Site-wide interest and appreciation of the value of Pollution Prevention is building.
Implement a recently designed metrics accounting and reporting system. Begin formal recognition of P2 successes. Complete and act on the analysis of “root causes’’ for waste generation. Institutionalize key learnings.
Charles B. O’Hara, P.E. Environmental Engineer The Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company Route 87 South Mehoopany, PA 18629 Tel: 71 7-833-3478
89
S Generating Company (USGen) , a partnership formed by subsidiaries of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company and Bechtel Group, Inc., develops, builds and operates non-utility electricity and cogeneration facilities. Its management philosophy commits it to developing energy sources that bene- fit society and contribute to a net improvement in the environment.
is a 330-megawatt, $825 million pulver- ized coal facility being built in south Florida, an area with a sensitive and valuable ecosystem. Project design was, and is, refined through an iterative process conducted by a multi-discipli- nary team (engineering, permitting, compliance, legal, public affairs, finance) working closely with the local community, regulators and other inter- ested parties to identify and resolve issues. This process was implemented to develop a project that earned consistent public acceptance.
USGen is developing its compliance monitoring system to optimize opportu- nities for ongoing improvement. Is it identifying real examples of refine- ments to facilities, site layout and con- struction schedule that will result in an environmental benefit, such as moving the discharge structure out of a pre- serve area, where it is currently permit- ted. USGen will meet with agencies to review these proposals and agree on a procedure for quick approval so that procedural delays do not become a
The Indiantown cogeneration project
disincentive to change. On-going design reviews by QAT members ensure that permit obligations and continuing environmental improvement can be accommodated by the evolving facility design.
mented an environmental awareness training program for all construction workers to integrate each worker into the QAT. Indiantown’s labor force will peak at 800 workers, with a total of about 1,100 people ultimately being employed during construction. The training describes sensitive resources on the site (air, water, wetlands, wildlife) and explains the workers’ responsibili- ties. Feedback will be collected from workers in order to refine the program. More detailed training will be provided to all supervisory personnel, both to allow them to respond to questions about environmental resources posed by the workers, and to empower them to identify and resolve potential issues.
USGen is using Indiantown as the pilot program to formalize procedures for compliance monitoring during con- struction and is expanding the QAT to include the prime construction contrac- tor. Reporting responsibilities, frequen- cy of audits, and audits checklists will be developed as part of this effort.
USGen also has developed and imple-
90
/’
U.S. Generating Company (A Partnership of Bechtel Group, Inc. and Pacific Gas 8c Electric), ’ . Indiantown Cogeneration Project, Martin County, Florida
Background
Output/Employees: More than 500 during construction; about 80 in operation.
Business/Products: Generation of electricity and steam.
Pollution Prevention Experience:
The experience gained in permitting activities in four other states, as well as designing other cogeneration plants, was applied here and greatly expedited the process.
To tal Quality: Air emission levels will be substantially cleaner than Florida requires; a stream of water now polluting Lake Okeechobee will be used as a productive source of cooling water, without offsite discharge; and the onsite wetlands, an important state and national resource, will be preserved.
Overview
Objective:
Media:
Goals:
Participants:
Mechanisms
Process:
Metrics:
Develop a proposal so superior to what is required or expected that local, state, and federal approvals are readily granted.
Air, water, wetlands, land use, sensitive biological species and communities, cultural resources, soils and geophysical hazards.
Construct and operate an energy facility that will ultimately allow older facilities to be retired, thus providing a net improvement in environmental quality.
Company personnel representing design, development, construction, operation, permitting and compliance; regulatory officials; local residents.
A custom-designed facility fashioned from prior experience and tailored for the site.
Federal and state regulatory standards; local zoning requirements.
92
In ce n tive s :
Barriers:
Tools:
Lessons Learned
Results
Plans
Contact
Cost savings through expedited process; enhancement of reputation with regulatory and zoning boards; employee satisfaction at doing some - thing very positive for environment.
Public perception of coal as a “dirty” fuel; public resistance to major infrastructure improvement; shortage of fresh water; critical nature of Florida’s wetland ecosystem.
QAT-USGen’s project development teams gather data and implement activities. Use of local legal and community relations counsel as well as top-flight environmental expertise, reinforces QAT’S in-house strength.
Involve key stakeholders early in the process; be prepared to continually refine project design in response to management. This is especially true with community residents and regulatory officials. Being open with the community can avoid, or minimize, local opposition. Demonstrating to permitting authorities that USGen will be building a facility that substantially exceeds requirements leads to an expeditious permitting process.
The issuance of all permits without any controversy expedited financing and allowed for a prompt construction start.
The lessons learned with the Indiantown project will be used in future development projects. Similarly, construction and operations experience will he assessed and correlated with all USGen facilities.
Kent L. Fickett Director, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs US Generating Company 7475 Wisconsin Avenue 10th Floor Bethesda, MD 2081 4-3422 Tel. 301-718-6860
93
Demonstration Project Metrics Used Results
AT&T SARA 3 13 TCA (lbs/yr) Elimination of TCA forecast for end of 1993; estimated annual savings of $200,000
Environmental operating costs Chevron
Dow Chemical Waste in effluent (lbs/yr) Fugitive emissions (Ibs/yr and lbs/component)
Reduced fugitive emissions of ethylene oxide by 29%; Reduced lab waste by 67%
DuPont Ammonium sulfate (lbs/yr) Reduced by more than 60 million lbs/yr; saved $1 million/yr in manufacturing costs
Trichloroethylene (lbs/part cleaned)
Replaced TCE with an aqueous detergent
Ford
GE Chemicals use (lbs/yr); water consumption (gal/wk)
Reduced 1,1,1 trichloroethane by 95%; reduced water consumption by 300,000 gallons/week
Reduced fiber lost to sewage by 50% International Paper
Merck
Raw material usage
SARA 313 releases and off-site transfers for disposal (lbs/yr)
Reduced by 1.5 million lbs in 1992 and estimated to reduce by 4.8 million lbs in 1993 (using 1990 baseline)
3M Total waste reduced by 10% M'aste Waste - -
M'astetByproducttProduct Total Output
Procter & Gamble (OH) Product in wastewater stream (lbs/yr)
Reduced wastewater effluent discharges by 38% in second half 1992
Procter & Gamble (PA) Total waste management (raw materials lost, production losses, treatment costs, etc.)
Elimination of chlorine, reduction in sulfur dioxide, ammonia, chloroform releases; solid waste minimization efforts are saving $25 million/year
All permits obtained on time and without controversy.
US Generating Federal and state regulatory standards; local zoning requirements
94
he Global Environmental Management
Initiative (GEMI) is generally credited
as being the first organization to
approach environmental management
through Total Quality Management (TQM) princi-
ples. In 1992, GEMI published a primer that
describes five tools that can be used to discover
opportunities for pollution prevention:
Cause and Effect (or Fishbone) Diagram
.Control Chart
.Histogram
.Pareto Chart
.Flow Chart.
The primer evolved out of the high level of
interest generated by numerous presentations on
“tools that work” at GEMI’s first conference in
1991 and the theme of measurements and commu-
nications at its second annual conference in 1992.
The tools and techniques described in this section
build upon GEMI’s work and are used with GEMI’s
permission.
Cause and Effect (or Fishbone) Diagram
The cause and effect diagram is a method for
identifying possible causes of a problem. Seven
steps are involved in creating a cause and effect
diagram:
State the problem. In the example illustrated
below, environmental managers complained that
soil contamination analyses were taking too long
to complete. The problem was stated as “delays ,
in turnaround time.”
Identify possible causes. This is best accom-
plished as a brainstorming exercise in which
there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The
Quality Action Team (described on pages x-y of
this report) should generate a list of all possible
contributing factors to delayed turnaround time.
Causes identified in the example include “rain
water in sample,” “soil disturbed,” and “heavy
travel. ”
Define categories of causes. Causes should be
grouped into generic categories, such as person-
nel or materials. In the example, causes are
grouped into four categories: bad samples, plant
delay, customer communication, and lab rework.
Draw the diagram. Draw a box on the right side
of a piece of paper and a horizontal line from
the left edge of the paper to the box. The prob-
lem (stated in the first step) should be written in
the box. Categories of causes should be drawn as
diagonal lines toward the horizontal line. Causes
should be drawn as short horizontal lines off of
the diagonal category lines.
Ask “why?” four or five times. For each cause, ask
why the condition exists. Then ask why again
(and again and again and again!). For example:
0 analysis error occurs because staff are
poorly trained;
95
3 staff are poorly trained because they never
participate in technical training courses
offered by the human resources
department;
0 they never participated because technical
training is offered only during the standard
work day (9:OO AM to 5:OO PM); 0 staff can’t participate between 9:00 and
5:OO because they have to meet a quota.
Walk through the logic backwards. Start with the
fifth “why” to see whether it actually causes the
fourth “why” and so forth back to the original
cause. This process surfaces any illogic. In the
preceding step, quota requirements do not cause
training to occur between 9 and 5 and so is
illogical.
Verify root causes. Root causes of problems
should be verified by data obtained through mea-
surement, surveys, or observation and analysis.
When the QAT is satisfied that it truly under-
stands the reasons underlying its stated problem,
it can implement corrective actions.
Control Chart
The control chart is a statistical tool to deter-
mine how much variability in a process is inherent
(that is, the result of common causes) and how
much is due to special causes such as fires. A con-
trol chart defines the expected performance range
of a process and identifies abnormalities.
Establish control lines. The first step establishes
the standard for evaluation, or “limits.” The con-
trol chart is a line graph with limit lines, also
called control lines.
The upper control limit (UCL) defines the max-
imum acceptable level of performance. An efflu-
ent monitoring control chart, for example, might
track pounds per day of product lost to sewer. The
Bad Samples Plant Delav
- . nain vvarer -+ \ f Flaw Found
Response to Que-"- - -
in Sample
Delays in Turnaround
Time
Customer Communication
Lab Rework
96
UCL would be the maximum number of pounds
allowable by permit limits.
The lower control limit (LCL) defines the lowest
level of performance exhibited during normal
plant operations.
The average (mean) line is mathematically
derived from the UCL and LCL.
Define the X and Y axes. The horizontal (Y) axis
reflects time. Most process control charts use
either weekly or monthly increments. The
process that is being monitored should deter-
mine the length of time between measures.
For this example, measures would be taken on
a daily basis.
The vertical (X) axis represents the unit defined
by control limits. For this example, the X axis
reflects pounds because the issue of concern is lost
pounds of product.
Collect data. Data should be collected to
determine whether performance falls within the
control lines. Variations within control limits are
known as common causes and reflect elements
inherent to the process such as choice of
equipment, materials, or personnel.
A control chart with data points outside the con-
trol limits is said to be out of control. Such abnor-
malities reflect unique, one-time events that are
not part of the normal process.
Monitor process changes. To eliminate common
causes, the QAT may institute fundamental
process changes. The time at which a change
occurs should be noted on the control chart. In
this example, installation of a new filtering sys-
tem would be tracked to see whether pounds per
day of product lost to sewer was reduced.
Define new control limits. As system changes
prove effective, new control limits should
be calculated.
2000
1500
1000
NEW FILTER SYSTEM INSTALLED
I
500 1 LCL
NOV 88 APR 89 SEP 89 FEE 90 JUL 90
Sources: Total Quulity Enuironmrntal1Management: A Primer, GEMI, 1992; Proceedings, (.‘or$omtc Quulily/~nuirc~nmc.wtal ~ ~ f U ~ l ~ g ~ l I i ~ 7 ~ l : The First Con ferenre, GEMI, 1991. Used with permission.
97
The histogram, a graphic technique that displays
the distribution of data, is simply a version of the
familiar “bar graph.” In a histogram, the horizon-
tal (Y) axis represents classes or class intervals of
interest. For example, a histogram of economic
status might depict three intervals along the Y axis
- “poor,” “middle-class,” and “wealthy.”
The vertical (X) axis reflects the number of
cases for which data have been collected. The size
of each interval depends on the size of the sample.
If the economic status of 1000 American families is
displayed as a histogram, the vertical axis might be
marked in intervals of 50. If only 50 families are
surveyed, the X axis might be marked in
increments of 5.
When data are collected, a rectangle equal in
height to the number (or frequency) for each class
interval is constructed to provide a “picture” of the
results. Histograms provide two key pieces of
information about a data set: average (mean) and
variation (dispersion).
Collect data. Creating a histogram requires col-
lecting measurable data, such as number of days
required to complete a soil contamination
analvsis.
Count the number of data points. The number of
measures must be counted in addition to collect-
ing the measure of interest. The measure of
interest in this example is the number of days
required to complete the analysis. The number
of measures is the number of soil contamination
analyses that were examined to determine
required number of days.
Calculate the range for the data set. The range
depicts the smallest and largest values in the data
set and is derived by subtracting the smallest
value from the largest. In this example, the
smallest number of days is 20 and the largest,
180.
Define class intervals. Class intervals depend on
the issue of concern. In this example, class inter-
vals designate number of days. A histogram of
toxic releases might assign class intervals on the
basis of toxic material (e.g., toluene) or type of
release (e.g., air, water).
Determine width of class intervals. In some
instances, definition of class intervals is absolute
and width is not an issue. If toxic releases from
different processes is of interest, each opera-
tional process is a class interval without width.
Some class intervals are less clear-cut. In this
example, because number of days is the critical fac-
tor, it is necessary to determine whether each class
interval encompasses 5 days, 15 days, or more.
Sometimes there is a logical basis for establishing
the width - a histogram of economic status could
use government definitions for poverty through
wealth, for example. If such distinctions are not
apparent, the number of classes (and, therefore,
their width) can be derived from the number of
data points. The following table provides general
guidelines for establishing class interval width.
Number of Number of
Data Points Class Intervals
50 or fewer 5-7
51-100 6-10
101-250 7-1 2 251 or greater 10-20
To determine width, divide the range by the
number of class intervals. For this soil contamina-
tion analysis example, the range is 100 days -
from 20 days to 120 days. Sixty-four soil sample
analyses were initiated and completed in that
98
Analyses Cumulative Cumulative Class Intervals Completed Total Percent
0-1 5 days
16-30
31-45
46-60
61-75
76-90
91-105
106-120
0
13
17 13
5
3
0
3
0
13
30
43
48
51
51
54
0%
24
56
78 89
94
94
100
period (54 data points) so the range should be
broken into 6 to 10 intervals. Six intervals encom-
pass 20 days while 10 intervals encompass 12 days
- 15-day intervals probably make the most sense.
Construct a frequency table. A frequency table con-
tains the raw data from which the histogram will
be constructed.
Construct the Histogram. The histogram is a graph-
ic representation of raw data. It is intended to
show the distribution of the data relative to com-
pany targets. In this example, if ideal turn-
around time is defined as 30 days, 76 percent of
analyses fall outside the desired target.
USL Upper Specification
0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m 0-1 5 16-30
0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0
n
Limit=30 Days (Ideal Turnaround Time) Percent Out of Specification=37%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I 1 1 1 31 -45 46-60 61 -75 76-90 91 -1 05 106-1 20
Source: Total Quality Envirnnmrntal Management: A Primer, GEMI, 1 W2. Utrd with permission.
99
Pareto Chart
A Pareto chart rank orders the causes of a partic-
ular problem. Based on the “80-20” rule - 80 per-
cent of the problem results from 20 percent of the
causes - the Pareto chart often is described as
depicting the vital few versus the trivial many.
The Pareto chart is, simply, percentage calcula-
tions of data arranged in descending order from
left to right, where the left axis depicts actual data
and the right axis presents percent of total. It is
critical, however, that the classifications across the
horizontal axis are carefully defined.
Identify problem to be analyzed. This generally has
occurred prior to construction of a Pareto chart.
It might be reducing the number of environmen-
tal violations or reducing delay in soil contamina-
tion analyses.
Selpct classijktions. Classifications should be
mutually exclusive. If the problem if interest is
reducing the number of environmental ~7iola-
tions, data might be classified by type of violation
- for example, hazardous waste, air, asbestos.
In the soil contamination example, the four cate-
gories developed with the cause and effect (fish-
bone) diagram provide mutually exclusive classi-
fications.
Determine number of occurrences. For each classifi-
cation, total the number of incidents within the
time frame of interest (e.g., one month)
Create Pareto chart. The horizontal axis should
depict classifications. The left vertical axis
should be marked in intervals based on actual
data. The classification with the largest actual
value should be drawn against the far left vertical
axis. The next vertical bar represents the second
largest actual value and should touch the first
bar. All remaining bars should be placed in
descending order.
The right vertical axis should depict the percent-
age values of the actual data. The 100-percent
mark should be at the same height as the total
number of occurrences designated on the left axis.
Finally, a line should be plotted from the O-per-
cent point on the left axis to the 100-percent point
on the right axis. Plot points along this line are
the cumulative percentages.
In the soil contamination example, the QAT dis-
covered that 80 percent of the turnaround delay
was attributable to two factors: poor communica-
tion (45 percent) and lack of a standard analytic
format for lab technicians (35 percent).
If the Pareto chart is “flat,” selected classifica-
tions are not discriminating between the vital few
and the trivial many. A different set of classifica-
tions should be tried.
Flow Chart
Percent of Incidents
N = (Total) 4 1
100%
80
60
40
20
0 Customer Lab
Communication Rework Plant Bad Other
Delays Samples
100
Solving a problem sometimes involves finding
where in the process the problem occurs. A flow
chart is a schematic that illustrates the relationship
between process steps. It often follows a pareto
analysis.
Chart actual process. The QAT should work with
all process participants to chart a step-by-step
sequence of the process of interest. In the soil
contamination example, the QAT discovered that
turnaround time was delayed because analyses
often had to be reworked.
Chart ideal process. The same group that charted
the actual process should chart the ideal process.
Often, individuals most closely involved with a
particular operation are best able to pinpoint
process flaws. In this example, soil contamina-
tion analysts may have a clear understanding of
why turnaround time is slow and can suggest
process changes to eliminate identified impedi-
ments.
Analyze differences. The differences between the
actual and ideal flow charts generally signify
problem areas.
I Soil Contamination Analysis Request I I I
Data Gathering I
I Initial Analysis
Detailed Lab Analysis I
- YES - 0 N O - ADDITIONAL WORK?
Sourtu: 7 h f n l Qunlitj Bnvironmrntcil 'Mniingrmmt: A Primrr, GBMI, 1992. iuzth pel-misszon.
101
I Soil Contamination Analysis Request I
I J Follow Plant Check List
- - * I Data Gathering I I I ;$. I I
I
I
I I I J Follow Lab Check List I
I L
I I
I I I I
I I I Initial Analysis I I I
I I
I I 1
1
I I I I I
Detailed Lab Analysis
I
ISSUE REPORT
I @'.\ @ . I @
YES ---- I,,,, ADDITIONAL. .- NO + 4\. %WORK?& @ @
Sourrr Total Quulztj Enuz~onmrntal Management A Przmer, GEiW, 1992 C'ted wlth permzssion
102
Brassard, Michael. The Memory Jogger Plus+. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1989.
Crosby, Philip B. Quality i s Free. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1979.
Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1982.
Deming, W. Edwards. Quality, Productivity and Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982.
Global Environmental Management Initiative. Corporate Quality/Environmental Management: The First Conference. Proceedings. Washington, DC: Global Environmental Management Initiative, 1991,
Goal/QPC. Cross-Functional Management. Sustaining Members' Research Committee. Methuen, MA: Goal/QPC, 1990.
Goal/QPC. The Memory Jogger: A Pocket Guide to Tools for Continuous Improvement. 1991 Conference Edition. Second Edition. Methuen, MA: Goal/QPC, 1985, 1988.
Harrington, H. James. The Improvement Process: How Amem'ca 's h a d i n g Companies Improue Quality, Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1987.
Jablonski, Joseph R. Implementing Total Quality Management: Competing in the 1990s, Second Edition. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1992.
Kleiner, Art. What Does it Mean to be Green? Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review, August 1991.
Marguglio, B.W. The Laboratory Quality Assurance System: A Manual of Quality Procedures with Related Forms. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1990.
Moran, John, et. al. Facilitating and Training in Quality Function Deployment. Methuen, MA: Goal/QPC, 1991.
Walton, Mary. The Deming Management Method. New York, NY Putnam, 1986.
Walton, Mary. Deming Management at Work. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1990.
Weaver, Charles N. TQM: A Step-by Step Guide to Implementation. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1991.
Wilson, Paul F., et. al. Root Cause Analysis: A Toolfor Total Quality Management. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1992.
Wilson, Paul F., et. al. Workbook to Accompany Root Cause Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality Managemenl. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1992.
103
cc r.
Points of view expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the President’s Commission on
Environmental Quality (PCEQ), its member companies, or demonstration project participants. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement.
Permission granted to reprint with credit to the PCEQ.
Environmental Policy Center Law Companies Environmental Group
Washington, DC.
This report was prepared for the PCEQ by the
Copies of this report are available from the PCEQ.
Please contact: President’s Commission on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President 722 Jackson Place, NW Washington, DC 20503
Tel: [202] 395-5750 Fax: [202] 395-3745
Art direction and drsign by Mark Nardini, Severnu Park, 1Mmyland. Production b j Jim Funzone & J q Harrison, De~ignConcepl, Baltimnre, Ma?ylurid.
Computer illuslrations by J im Funzonr. Printing by Colorcraft, Strrling, Virginart
104