EPE OF EMS ISO 14001

Environmental Indicators for EPE Alvaro H. Pescador EMS Text Contribution __________________________________________________________________________________

USING INDICATORS WISELY BEYOND COMPLAINCE: ENVIRONMENTAL

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT OF EMS ISO 14001

Introduction

The requirements for an Environmental Management Systems established in the International

Standard ISO 14001, are based upon the Deming Cycle of Continual Improvement. As such,

the Deming cycle shown in Figure 1, provides to the organization which has accredited an

EMS within the opportunity of using a powerful tool that can shift the processes of its chain

value beyond compliance.

Fig. 1 Deming Cycle to support Decision Making Process in EMS ISO 14001

After exploring 128 facilities in Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai researchers1 realized that

the main drivers for certification were:

1. Ensuring regulatory compliance

2. Enhancing the firm’s reputation

3. Improving Environmental Performance

The study concludes that companies are looking for certification elsewhere and that

subsequently ISO 14001 as currently being implemented in mainland China may have a

modesty useful role, given the fact that improving Environmental Performance was in third

place.

Beyond compliance, objectives and targets set for eco efficient processes can be established

in order to reduce materials use, the amount of water demanded, the energy necessary to

move equipment and fluids, as well as re-engineering processes to obtain byproducts instead

wastes and residues: that is the challenge and opportunity organizations are facing around

the world for responding to the complexity of Climate Change2.

To implement these eco efficient strategies, which decouple economic growth from

environmental pollution, it is necessary to build environmental indicators that can be able to

show organization’s achievement of objectives and goals, toward a more sustainable

1 Fryxell, G., Wing-Hung Lo, C. and Chung, S. (2004) “Influence of Motivations for Seeking ISO 14001: Certifications of

Perceptions of MES Effectiveness in China”1 Springer, Environmental Management, vol 33, no. 2 pp 239-25 Springer-Velag New York.

2 Smith, M, Hargroves, K. and Dhesa, C. (2010) “Cents and Sustainability, Making Sense on How to Grow Economies, Strengthen Communities and Revive the Environment in Our Lifetime”, Earthscan, London, p. 142.

PLAN

DO

CHECK

ACT


operation. In other words, a better environmental performance, that can be measured not only

in a technical and scientific supported way, but in a cost effective manner as well.

Barriers to EMS as a tool for Continual Improvement

Among the barriers that an EMS can face, identified and documented by TNEP are the

following3:

1. Reactionary rather than proactive

2. Avoiding more aggressive regulation

3. Resourcing aimed at just compliance

4. Lack of leveraging savings

5. Lack of budget for implementation and review

6. Increasing number of stages models, tools, techniques, schemes, standards, rather

than focusing on operations and opportunities for improvement4

7. Difficulty in measuring achievements

8. EMS Lock-in

Barriers 2, 3, 7 and 8, this is half of the barriers identified by TNEP are linked with the topic of

EPE (Environmental Performance Evaluation). Continual Improvement indeed, is the main

reason for which EMS ISO 14001 was structured based upon the Deming Cycle shown in

Figure 1.

But it is only possible to improve that which is being measured. This is the reason why

Environmental Indicators play a key role in the ISO 14001 scheme: they are necessary at the

PLANNING stage in order to set objectives and goals in a technical and reasonable way. They

are indispensable at the CHECKING stage to monitor the operations, processes and projects

being executed by the organization, and they are definitely a useful tool when the management

review is executed to support the decision making process (ACT).

The Role of EPE and ISO 14031 in Continual Improvement

ISO 14031 states that Environmental Performance Evaluation and the necessary

development of information must be integrated to the PDCA Deming cycle shown in Figure 1,

as appears in Figure 25.

This means that EPE is a process that requires Design, Construction and Information use,

which allows the organization to acquire and maintain a detailed knowledge of its own

operations and processes in order to quantify and measure environmental aspects,

environmental impacts6, the percentage of success in achieving objectives and goals, a record

3 Desha, C. (2009) “Can Environmental Management Systems Drive Factor 5?”, in von Weizsacker, E., Hargroves, K., Smith, M.,

Descha, C. and Stasinopoulos, P. (in Press) Factor 5: Transofrming the Global Economy trough 80% Increase in Resource Productivity Earthscan, London. (7 pages).

4 Orsato, R. (2006) “Competitive Environmental Strategies: When Does it Pay to be Green?”, California Management Review, vol 48, no.2, winter.

5 ISO 14031:2000 Environmental Management – Environmental Performance Evaluation – Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization

6 Environmental Impacts are harder to measure than environmental aspects, due to some of them have not only local but also regional and global implications as in the case of global warming (an environmental impact) derived from Green House Gas Emissions (an environmental aspect).


of environmental accidents and incidents, etc. In order to so, it is necessary to build different

kind of environmental indicators under a systemic approach.

Fig. 2 Environmental Performance Evaluation, ISO 14031

As it can be seen, in a first stage a selection or formulation of the environmental indicators

that are necessary the support the decision making process of the EMS is done. Once the

indicators have been formulated it is necessary to build them, collecting the data in a

systematical way for what most of the time it is very convenient to develop meta data, also

known as methodological sheets for each one of the indicators that the organization considers

desirable to build7. After a period of time and through the analysis of statistical series the

indicators will show tendencies or will call the attention to operations or processes that have

7 WINOGRAD M., PESCADOR A. and Others, “Indicators System for Environmental Planning and Evaluation”,

CIAT-UNEP-DNP, Bogota, 1997

PLAN 3.2 Planing Environmental Performance Evaluation

DO 3.3 Using data and information

3.2.2 Collecting Data

3.2.2 Analyzing and converting

DAtaDatos

3.2.3 Assessing Information

3.2.4 Reporting & Communicating

3.2.2 Selecting Indicators for EPE

Data

Information

Results

CHECK AND ACT 4.3 Environmental Performance Evaluation:

Review and Improvement


a more relevant impact over the environment, as also identified by the EIA (requirement 4.3.1

of ISO 14001).

Difficulties of applying ISO 14031 to develop Environmental Indicators for EPE

ISO 14031 defines the following kind of indicators for EPE8:

1. Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs), which can be:

1.1 Management Performance Indicators (MPIs), or

1.2 Operational Performance Indicators (OPIs)

2. Environmental Condition Indicators (ECIs)

The concepts given on the ISO 14031 Standard (Op. cit p. 5-10), and the figures used to

explain them are difficult to understand (e.g. the standard defines operational performance

indicator, OPI, as “environmental performance indicator that provides information about the

environmental performance of an organization’s operations”, so what does this mean?

The subdivision of Environmental Performance Indicators in two categories, the first one

Management Performance Indicators, and the second one Operational Performance

Indicators is opposed to a cause-effect or problem-solution approach.

There in not any kind of link between the Environmental Performance Indicators (both

Management and Operation) and the Environmental Condition Indicators, which are handle in

a second group or class, as if there were not a close relationship between them and those.

Condition indicators are used to trace the environmental quality of a resource, either air, water

or land, and are frequently expressed as a concentration allowed of a determined substance

as not to become a pollutant or exceed environmental compliance standards9 for the desirable

resource’s use.

Finally, the scheme provided by ISO 14031 does not allow organizing the information beyond

the structure shown in Figure 2, which has been taken from the Standard as appears in p. 4

and 13. But the provided framework does not show how to link different kind of indicators one

to the other or how Management Performance Indicators must focus on Environmental

Operational Indicators, so the organization achieves a better Environmental Performance.

Application of the OECD Model P-S-R to build Environmental Indicators inside the ISO

14000 scheme

There are various conceptual frameworks available that can be used to guide the selection,

development and use of indicators10,11, but the most accepted one at World level due to its

8 ISO 14031:2000, Op cit., p.4 9 www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/air/air_quality_monitoring/airpollutants/index.html 10 Adriaanse A.; 1993; Environmental Policy Performance Indicators, General of Environment of the Dutch Ministry of Housing,

VROM, The Hague, The Netherlands.

11 Bakkes J. A., van den Born G., Helder J., Swart R., Hope C., Parker J.; 1994; An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State

of the Art and Perspectives, Environment Assesment Technical Reports, RIVM in co-operation with The University of


simplicity, facility of use and the possibility of application to different levels, scales and human

activities is the one of the OECD, known as P-S-R show in Figure 312.

Fig. 3 OECD P-S-R Conceptual Framework

The model P-S-R is a simple framework which allows to organize the information in a causal

progression of the human actions that produce a pressure on the natural resources, and that

at the same time involve a change in the state of the environment. Then the Organizations

respond with measures or actions, to reduce or to prevent significant environmental impacts.

It gives the possibility to focus the environmental management in a cause/effect relationship

to the driven forces which produces the degradation of the natural resource conditions.

In agreement with the definitions provided in ISO 14031 Standard, the OECD model could be

adopted as shown in Figure 4.

Fig. 4 Model for Environmental Performance Evaluation

What put pressure over the environment is:

1. The demand of natural resources, eg:

1.1 Water used in m3/day, or

1.2 BPD, Barrels Per Day of fuel used.

2. Atmospheric Emissions, liquid effluents and solid wastes, e.g:

2.1 GHG –Green House Gases Emissions in Ton CO2-e per year,

2.2 Spent waters in (M3/day) or

2.3 Spent batteries in Ton/year

Cambridge and, UNEP-RIVM.

12 OECD; 1993; OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews, Environmental Monograph # 83, OECD,

Paris

Impacts OPIs ECIs MPIs

Management

Impacts PRESSURE STATE RESPONSE


In this way, the Operational Performance Indicators are linked to the Environmental Aspects

of the different processes and sites at the Organization. On the other hand, the spent waters,

for instance, may cause the concentration of a certain pollutant affect the quality of a river,

which is possible to be measured by the use of ECIs.

The environmental impacts are rather hard to measure. It is known that combustion processes

increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Condition) which is producing the global

warming: impact. But the impact chain is so complex. Thus, increasing atmosphere

temperature is increasing oceans temperature; coral reefs are dying, affecting the food chain

in the oceans. Glaciers are melting, affecting the availability of fresh water resources13, and

sickness as malaria are also increasing.

It would be unfeasible for an organization to try to establish what its contribution is towards

global warming14, instead there are significant and immediate opportunities for organizations

to implement EPE processes by using and an indicators system within their EMS, to drive

beyond compliance outcomes, including the topic of Green House Gases Emissions,

regardless the presence or absence of compulsory law, taxations schemes, or the use of any

other kind of economic instrument.

How to build Indicators for EPE in a Cost Effective way?

The Planning stage to build an Environmental information System that supports the EMS

implies a process of synthesis and aggregation in different phases. This process should be

done in agreement with the decisions making cycle (Figure 1), implies the development of a

specific framework (Figure 4) and a methodology to build the information (Figure 5, which will

be applied in the case of study for Green House Gases emissions management).

Obtaining data, statistical analysis and information production is an elaboration process that

requires an initial structure, in a matrix derived, for instance, from the Environmental

Management Programs that the organization has decide to establish and the different

categories of the Proposed Model (Figure 4).

The production of indicators requires both an aggregation and synthesis processes in different

steps, which can be visualized by means of the well known information pyramid (Hammond et

al., 1995). At the base of the process we find data obtained through monitoring and analytic

process; with which statistics and time series can be built, and these, in turn, contribute to the

creation of indicators and indices15.

13 Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds., 2008: Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp 14 The IPCC and the Convention of Climate Change of the UNEP has think up a way in which an organization can

address the problem of GHG emissions by the enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol (Response, in agreement to Figure 3). Nevertheless some developing countries such as United States and Australia have not ratified the Protocol yet.

15 In turn the Indicators and Index can be at the base of another pyramid, composed from the base to the top of

Sustainable Indicators (Social, Economic, Environmental), Systems, Innovations, Strategies, Agreements and Actions that shift organizations and the society as a whole toward sustainability. ATIKSON, Allan (2008), “The ISIS AGREEMENT How Sustainability Can Improve Organizational Performance and Transform the World”, London, 322 pp.


Fig. 5 The Information Pyramid

In this manner, the system will permit to improve and to do more efficient the process of

exchange, diffusion and communication of the information, structuring the different sources,

analyzing and synthesizing the environmental aspects that are common to different sites and

processes, as well as identifying interactions among variables. Of such form, the System will

be able to guide and to perfect the data harvesting process, as well as helping to identify

processes, sites and operations where the available information is inadequate or nonexistent,

to incorporate all these elements to the decision making cycle16.

On the other hand, to build information is always expensive. As it is shown in table 1, there is

a selection criteria that can be summarized in three basic groups to be kept in mind: 1)

Accuracy of the data; 2) Relation with the problems and driven forces, and 3) Utility for the

users.

16 PESCADOR, A, “Toward an ideal Assessment Scheme of the Environmental Indicators System to Monitor

Natural Resources and its Management in Australia”, NLWRA, Camberra, 2004.

Aggregated

Indicators

Index

Aggregation

1

10 Simple

Indicators

100 Analyzed Data

Primar Data 1,000

5


Board 1. Main Criteria Issues to be taken into account when selecting a core o

Environmental Indicators (EPA,1999; Rump,2003)

DATA Accuracy Relation with the problems Utility for the USERS

Scientific Support Measurement Techniques

Representatively Convenience of the Scales

Applicability Not Redundancy

Availability Geographic area involved Compressibility and Interpretability

Quality

Sensitivity to the changing conditions

Value of Reference

Cost-effective development

Specificity Retrospective-Predictive

Statistics Series Accessibility

Connectivity Comparability Opportunity

Afterwards there are some specific requests associated with each one of these three criteria

groups, which should be kept in mind for the selection, elaboration and use of the indicators17.

TERMS AND ABREVIATIONS

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

EMS: Environmental Management System

EPE: Environmental Performance Evaluation

ISO: International Standard Organization

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

UNEP: United Nations Environmental Program

17 Besides these, there is an operating series of criteria that allows for differentiation of information types. The

basic information, in general is presented in form of data and its unit (pluviosity in mm, vegetable cover in km2).

Nevertheless these basic data in the case of a reserve or resource can be an indicator (water demand in m3/seg,

surface of forests in Km2) particularly when series of time are presented and is observed then changes in the

reserve or resource. The indicators are in general information that relates a parameter with a variable and are

presented in form of data in function of the time, the space and/or the population (agricultural lands in hectares

per capita, density of population by km2). Finally, the indices are the result of the combination of two parameters

related to a variable (e.g. relation reforestation/deforestation).


Case of Study – EPE of the Oil Enterprise CHACO S.A.

In order to have a better Environmental Performance, the Oil Enterprise CHACO S.A. set the

goal of decreasing in 20% its Green House Gases Emissions by the end of 2002 year, respect

to those sent along 2001, which were estimated in 200,000 Ton of CO2-e (OPI). To achieve

the goal they established the following Programs and MPIs:

1. To implement a Total Management Program for the use of more energy efficient

processes that allowed 10.000 Ton of CO2 weren’t sent to the atmosphere along 2002.

MPITMP: % of CO2 reduced over the target = (10.000 / 40.000 ) * 100

Note: at the end of 2002 the value of this indicator was: 25 %

2. To implement a Program for Wastes Reduction at the Sweet Gas Treatment Plant

avoiding 12.000 Ton of CO2 be released to the atmosphere.

MPIWRSGTP: % of CO2 reduced over the target = (12.000 / 40.000) * 100

Note: at the end of 2002 the value of this indicator was: 30 %

3. Through the implementation of an Eco Efficiency concept stop sending 200 MCF

(200.000 Cubic Feet) of Gas per day (90% methane), and by the development of a

new Project to compress the gas, connect it to an existing pipe and sale it.

In agreement with the mass balance shown in Appendix 2, 200.000 Cubic Feet of Gas

per day (90% methane) are equal to 1.218 Ton of Methane py. By using the Global

Warming Potential factor (Appendix 1 Ton of CH4 = 21 Ton CO2) these are equivalent

to 25.581 Ton of CO2-e.

MPI: % of CO2 emissions py reduced due to sales of Methane

25.580 Ton of CO2-e

MPIEEC = ----------------------------- * 100 = 63,95 %

40.000 Ton of CO2-e

Note: at the end of 2002 the value of this indicator was: 63,95 %

4. At the end of 2002, a Management Performance Index Ton of CO2-e reduced vs

planed was:

MPIGHG Reduced PY = (25% + 30% + 63,95%) = 118,95 %

And the Proposed Goal was not only accomplished, but overcome:

40,000 Ton of CO2-e were the target,

(10,000 + 12,000 + 25.580) = 47.580 Ton of CO2-e were not released to the

atmosphere, so:

EPE Management index of GHG = 47.580 / 40.000 = 1.19 better than planed

The goal was exceeded by 19%.


Environmental Performance Evaluation and Eco efficiency

The Environmental Indicators may be used then, to follow up the achievement of objectives

and goals which normally are administered by the establishment of Environmental Programs

and Projects, and play a key role for monitoring activities not only for environmental

compliance (4.5.2) but also for the Evaluation of eco efficient processes as the one

schematized in Figure 6.

Fig. 6 EPE and how to measure Eco efficiency

Trough out the use of an environmental indicators core an organization may realize weather

its major environmental aspects are linked to the Atmospheric Emissions, Solid Waste

Generation or the kind and amount of liquid effluents. It maybe also convenient to work with

the chain of Raw Materials suppliers: which one of them consumes Renewable or non-

Renewable Natural Resources? What type and amount of energy is necessary to use in

agreement to the processes?

In the case of study, The Chaco Oil Enterprise found that avoiding GHG Emissions was key

to dramatically increase its Environmental Performance. Moreover, those emissions

specifically related to Methane, bearing in mind that in agreement to its GWP factor one Ton

of Methane is equivalent to 21 of CO2 (Appendix 1)..

Raw Materials

PRODUCTS / SERVICES

Atmosferic Emissions

RNR, RNnR

W

Q

Effluents

Solid Waste

= $ Products / (Raw Materials + Waste Disposal)

ecof = $ Products + $ Byproductos / (Raw Materials)


On the other hand, by the means of an eco-efficient project, what it was a pollutant became a

byproduct, which could be sold into the market. The Cost Benefit Analysis of the Project is

shown in the following page, using US dollars of 2002.

CBA - What is the value of the Recuperated Gas?

The value depended upon18:

1. The Heat capacity of the gas in MM BTU / MPC

2. The way in which the gas would be used, which might be;

2.1 In situ, it is valued in terms of the substituted fuel

2.2 Gas Natural Pipe, it is valued for the price in the market.

In the case of the Empresa Petrolera Chaco S.A. the Gas was compressed and sent to a pipe

line of Transredes S.A. to be sold (exported to Brazil) in agreement to its daily composition.

An average for 2002 with the Heat Capacity for the mixture, in agreement to its

chromatographic composition is shown in Table 219.

Composition and Heat Capacity of the Gas sold due to Eco Efficient Project in 2002

G A S Composition

% BTU / CF

MM BTU / MCF

Contribution in MM BTU / MCF

Methane 90,02 1012 1,01 0,911

Ethane 4,35 1773 1,77 0,077

Propane 2,78 2524 2,52 0,007

Butane 1,26 3271 3,27 0,041

Iso Butane 0,75 3261 3,26 0,024

Pentanes + 0,84 4380 4,38 0,036

TOTAL 1,096

The price for the exportation of Bolivian Gas in 2002 was of U$ 1,59 per MM BTU20, so:

200.000 CF 1,096 MM BTU U$ 1,59 365 days

---------------- * -------------------- * --------------- * ------------- = 127.212 U$ / year

1 day 1000 CF 1 MM BTU 1 year

18 PEMEX and USA-EPA (2006), Methane to Markets, “Methane Emisions Reduction by recuperation in stoing

tanks" (Reduccion de emisiones de metano mediante recuperación en tanques de almacenamiento), Mexico, 2006.

19 EMPRESA PETROLERA CHACO S.A. Information from the EMS ISO 14001, 2002. www.chaco.com.bo 20 GUMUCIO DEL VILAR, Ricardo, “El Gas en Bolivia, aspectos tecnicos”, http://www.univalle.edu-

/publicaciones/journal/journal11/pagina01.htm

http://www.chaco.com.bo/


CBA - Is it profitable de Recuperation?

Project’s cost can be computed by a scale factor, in agreement with Table 321

TABLE 3. SIZE AND COST OF GAS RECUPERATION UNITS

SCALE (MCF / day)

Capital Cost U$

Installation Cost U$

Operation & Maintenance

Cost U$ / year

TOTAL COST(1st year)

25 15000 7500 525 23025

50 19500 15000 600 35100

100 23500 19000 720 43220

200 31500 25000 840 57340

5000 44000 33000 1200 78200

Just during the first operational year the CBA Analysis for the Project gives the following

Revenues:

CBA1 = Benefits1 – Cost1

CBA1 = 127.212 – 57.340

CBA1 = 68.872 U$ (2002)

But it is internationally accepted to Estimate the CBA of Processing Projects along a life period

of 10 years. Therefore, after 10 years of operation (estimating the same price for the Gas):

CBA10 = Benefits10 – Cost10

CBA10 = 1.272.120 – 49.700 CBA10 = 1.222.420 U$ (2002)

Is a good business to be green?

Through this project Chaco Oil Enterprise is not only avoiding to send 25.580 Ton of CO2-e to

the atmosphere each operational year, is also obtaining more than a million dollars during 10

operational years. If in January of 2010 an enterprise would like to the same, we could add

the value of this revenue to the one that can be obtained through the application of Clean

Developing Mechanism, in agreement with the Kyoto Protocol22. By computing an average

value of U$ 16,5 / Ton CO2 eq23 during 3 years (2010 – 2012) which is the remaining time of

the Protocol, we have:

25580 Ton eq CO2 16,5 US

3 years * -------------------------- * ---------------- = 1.266.210 US

1 year Ton eq CO2

CBA KYOTO = 1.222.420 U$ + 1.266.210

CBAKYOTO = 2.488.630 US (2010)

21 PEMEX and USA-EPA (Op. cit., p. 21) 22 UNEP (1997), Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto. 23 http://www.ecolocap.com/site/index.php/fr_FR/press-room/industry-news/cer-prices-rise-as-carbon-

markets-jump.html


APPENDIX 1. META DATA. Methodological Sheet to Build GHG Emissions Indicator

Theme Variable Pressure (OPIs) State (CPIs) Response (MPIs)

ATMOSPHERE Global Warming

Green House Gases Emissions (Ton CO2 Eq / Year)

Name: Green Houses Gases Emissions. Descriptor: Measurement of Green House Gases Emitted, inducing Global Warming. Units: Ton of CO2-e / year. Geographical Denominator Basic: Georeferenced Definition and Concepts Green House Gases correspond to Dioxide and Monoxide of Carbon, Methane, CFCs

and Nitrogen Oxides24. Although CFCs are known as substances which induce depletion of the ozone layer, they also have a strong Global Warming Potential capacity, with degradation horizons between 20 and 100 years. On the other hand, Nitrogen Oxides causes acid rains, are ozone layer deplezores and induce global warming: one molecule of N2O has 310 times more power to catch heat, than a molecule of CO2.

Measurement Estimation of CO, CO2, CH4 and NOX emissions, is made upon fossil fuels production

and consumption (combustion of hydrocarbons), volatilization of its vapors, industrial processes (cement manufacture, mainly), land use changes such as deforestation and pasturing, inadequate agricultural practices and waste disposal. On the other hand, CFCs has its source in the refrigeration industry, rigid foam manufacturing and aerosol propellants, mainly.

The following parameters or relevant activities are internationally used to build this

indicator, bearing in mind the emissions of each kind of gas done by the activities25.

1. Energy (Generation and use) 2. Industrial Production (Cement Manufacturing) 3. Agriculture (Including Catering) 4. Land Use Change 5. Waste Disposal To avoid double counting, It is internationally accepted to build CFCs as separate indicator, bearing in mind its importance as Ozone Layer depletion substances (controlled under Montreal Protocol). The indicator is built then for each direct GHG not controlled under the Montreal Protocol, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of United Nations (IPCC). The Global Warming Potential, GWP, is used then as a standardization factor to compute the emissions as equivalents of CO2 for a degradation time of 100 years, as shown on Table A4.126.

24 United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, “Indicators of Sustainable Development,

Framework and Methodologies”, UNEP, New York, 428 p. 25 UNEP, WMO, OECD, 1995, “IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”, New York, 87 p. 26 LASHOF and AHUJA, quoted by Winograd, Manuel, “Environmental Indicators for Latin American and the

Caribbean: Toward the Sustainability in Land Use”, IICA; GTZ; OEA; WRI, San Jose of Costa Rica, 1995, 84 p.


Table A4.1 GWP Factors for Direct GHG

GAS GWP

Carbon Dioxide, CO2 1

Methane, CH4 21

Nitrous Oxide, N2O 310

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and NOX, are considered indirect GHG by the IPCC (Econormopoulus, 1993; UNEP, 1995). The IPCC has come to harmonize Data Comparability, and made an inventory taking 1990 as base year. The idea of the Kyoto Protocol ratified by 187 states (at November 2009) is to reduce 5% of the emissions measured in 1990 by the end of 2012.

Importance This indicator measures organization processes contribution to global warming. Although there are natural GHG emissions, human contribution is considered a climate change factor (IPCC, Second Assessment Report, 1995). It is also a world wide accepted instrument (Convention on Climate Change, UNEP) to record driving forces which may have intergenerational consequences.

The IPCC points that Earth’s temperature could increase from 2 up to 6°C around

2100, which means a bigger overheat than the one from 10.000 years ago27. This would cause ecosystem changes, sea level increment producing inundation of coastal areas due to poles melting, and snowy mountains reduction.

Interpretation CO2 emissions depend upon energy generation and consumption, production systems,

industrial structure, transport systems, agriculture and forest practices. CH4 or methane from agriculture, catering, waste disposal as well as hydrocarbons transportation and processing

If the indicator decreases in time it shows a better Environmental Performance for the

Organization. On the other hand, it is necessary to be extremely cautious with emissions

standardization to Ton of CO2-e, due to GWP factors may change as the international community increases its knowledge about absorption and degradation of the CO2 cycle, used as a reference substance (UNEP, Montreal Protocol, 1994, p.13.20-13.30). So, for standardized analysis, it is necessary to use the same GWP factors for all the statistical series.

Limitations CFCs and NOX causes global warming, but as they are controlled under the Montreal

protocol as Ozone Layer depletors are not taking into account in this indicator, as recommended by IPCC. This indicator is built just upon conventional direct GHG emissions, while undirected GHG emissions (CO, VOCs, and troposphere O3) are not being taking into account, neither unconventional emissions such as Hidroflorocarbons (HFC), Perflorocarbons (PFC) and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) also defined as GHG by the Kyoto Protocol.

Alternative Indicators Due to each substance causes different over heated levels, it is necessary to develop

simple or individual indicators for each kind of emission (as shown in Figures A4.1 and A4.2) before aggregation in Ton of CO2-e.

27 IPCC, 2007, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Valencia, 52 pp.

Environmental Indicators for EPE Alvaro H. Pescador EMS Text Contribution __________________________________________________________________________________ Relationship with other Indicators There are Global Warming synergism with other indicators such as CFC and NOX

emissions, which are also deplezores of the ozone layer. A better compression to the possible damage caused to ecosystems, local and global environment may be inferred by integrating analysis with state indicators (concentration of conventional atmosphere contaminants in big cities) and impact indicators (population exposed to contract Malaria due to global warming).

It will be also useful to establish correlations between emission levels and energy

consumption from fossil fuels sources, GNP and GHG emissions per capita, as well as land use changes.

International Conventions The convention on Climate Change of United Nations ratified by 152 countries points

at the article 4 that by 2000 CO2 emissions in Ton eq. as well as the one of direct and indirect GHG not controlled under Montreal Protocol, should stay at the same level of the base line (1990). The Kyoto Protocol in vigor since February 2005 (55% of Global Emission with the entrance of the Russia Federation), is an instrument that aims contribute to the reduction of GHG from 2008 to 2012 at a global scale, by having a 5 % target of World’s emissions28.

Available Information IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm Bibliography COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 1997 “Indicators of Sustainable Development,

Framework and Methodologies”, UNEP, New York, 428 p.

Ulrich Bartsch and Benito Müller, 2000, Fossil Fuels in a Changing Climate: Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol and Developing Country Participation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

IPCC, 2007, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Valencia, 52 pp. UNEP (1997), Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto.

UNEP, WMO, OECD, 2005, “IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”, New York

APPENDIX 2.

28 UNEP (1997), Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto


Calculations to convert 2 MMCF per day of gas with 90% of Methane to Ton of CO2-e per

year:

0,30483 m3

200.000 ft3 Gas x ----------------- = 5.663,3 m3 of Gas (PM of CH4= 16 gr/mol)

1 ft3

From Gay Lussac Ideal Gases Eq: PV = n R T, then: M = P*V* PM / R * T (A-1)

Ideal Conditions of T,P are assumed : (25ºC, 1 atm), so in the Gay Lussac ideal gases Eq (A-1):

1 atm* 5.663,3 m3*ºK* Kmol *0,9 16 Kg

M = -----------------------------------------*------- = 3.337.3 Kg of CH4 / day

0,082 atm * m3 * 298ºK * 1Kmol

3.337,3 Kg 1 Ton 365 days

In one year: ----- * ----------- * ------------- = 1.218 Ton of CH4 /year

Day 1000 Kg 1 year

When it is burn, the methane produces CO2 in agreement with the following equation:

CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H2O (A-2)

When is NOT burn and just released to the atmosphere, the GWP Factor (21) must be used as a

multiplying convertor factor, shown in the Meta Data for GHG Emissions as appears in Appendix 2.

Therefore:

1.218 Ton of CH4 * 21 Ton Eq CO2

--------------------- = 25.580,8 Ton eq. CO2

1 Ton CH4

Documents

EPE OF EMS ISO 14001