Guide to EMS--State Official's

State Official’s Guideto Environmental

Management Systemsby Yvette Hurt, J.D.

Research assistance provided by Dave MossArticles contributed by Shelley Metzenbaum, Jason Johnston,

Carolyn Orr and Sandra Vasenda

The Council of State Governments

Copyright 2003,The Council of State GovernmentsManufactured in the United States of America

ISBN #0-87292-808-x � Price: $25.00 printed version, $10.00 electronic version

All rights reserved.Inquiries for use of any material should be directed to:

The Council of State Governments, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910

CSG’s Publications Sales Department: 1-800-800-1910

CSG is the nation’s only organization serving every elected and appointed official in all three branches of eachstate and territorial government through its national office, as well as regional offices based in the East,

Midwest, South, and West. CSG champions excellence in state government by advocating multi-state sharedproblem solving and states’ rights, by tracking national conditions, trends, and innovations, and through non-

partisan groundbreaking leadership training and support.

Council Officers

President: Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ark.

Chair: Rep. Dan E. Bosley, Mass.

President-Elect: Gov. Frank Murkowski, Alaska

Chair-Elect: Sen. John Hottinger, Minn.

Vice President: Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, Del.

Vice Chair: Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Nev.

The Council of State GovernmentsPreparing states for tomorrow, today . . .

HeadquartersDaniel M. Sprague, Executive Director2760 Research Park DriveP.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910Phone: (859) 244-8000Fax: (859) 244-8001Internet: www.csg.org

Washington, D.C.Jim Brown, Director444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 401Washington, DC 20001Phone: (202) 624-5460Fax: (202) 624-5452

EasternAlan V. Sokolow, Director14 Wall Street, 20th FloorNew York, NY 10005Phone: (212) 912-0128Fax: (212) 912-0549

MidwesternMichael H. McCabe, Director614 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 401Lombard, IL 60148Phone:(630) 810-0210Fax: (630) 810-0145

SouthernColleen Cousineau, DirectorP.O. Box 98129Atlanta, Georgia 30359Phone: (404) 266-1271Fax: (404) 266-1273

WesternKent Briggs, Director1107 9th Street, Suite 650Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 553-4423Fax: (916) 446-5760

i

Environmental Management Systems

ForewordStates across the country are facing a fiscal crisis that has been called the worst since

World War II. More than ever, state leaders must find creative and innovative ways toimplement important programs in the absence of new funding and, in some cases, withreduced funding. Yet, state leaders are committed to environmental quality—to ensur-ing the health and vitality of their natural areas and the protection of their rivers, steamsand lakes. State environmental officials must ensure their citizens breathe clean air andlive and work upon land that is protected from pollution. States are on the front line ofenvironment protection, monitoring the many activities that impact our environmentand enforcing the laws and regulations that safeguard environmental quality. These crit-ical safeguards must continue in spite of current budget constraints.

Over the last several years, The Council of State Governments (CSG) has beenworking to educate state officials about new, innovative tools for managing and pro-tecting the environment. After cosponsoring a two-year pilot project to identify themost promising new tools for environmental management, CSG launched the Centerfor Environmental Innovation in January 2003. We are pleased to provide the StateOfficial’s Guide to Environmental Management Systems as the first product of ournew center. This guide will aid state policymakers in designing programs that spurenvironmental innovation and leadership in their states. By harnessing the resourcesand ingenuity of the private sector and the community-at-large, these programs canimprove environmental performance at a lower cost to government and business.

We want to extend special appreciation to the following members of the CSGCenter for Environmental Innovation national advisory board, whose guidance andrecommendations were invaluable in creating this guide:

� State Senator Tom Kean, Jr. of New Jersey

� State Representative Jackie Dingfelder of Oregon

� Jay Benforado, director of USEPA National Center for Environmental Innovation

� Darryl Banks, senior fellow at New America Foundation

� David Hess, former secretary of Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalProtection

� Mary Werner and John Vana of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Pollution Prevention Unit

� Jeff Lane, vice-president of State and Local Government Relations, Proctor &Gamble

� Dell Perelman, senior counsel of American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care

� Brian Borofka, principal strategist at Wisconsin Energy Corporation

� Steve Brown, executive director of Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)

� Andrew Gouldson, Ph.D., professor of environmental policy and management,London School of Economics

Dan SpragueExecutive DirectorThe Council of State Governments

ii

State Official’s Guide

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viPrivate Sector Collaborative Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Introduction to the State Official’s Guide to EMSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1A changing perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3A new approach to managing the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3What will this guide do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4CSG’s efforts to tackle environmental innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Why is it so important that states take the lead on innovation? . . . . . . . . . . . . .5How will this guide help state officials? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Chapter One:

What do you need to know about environmental management systems? . . . .7What is an environmental management system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9The evolution of the EMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Programs for certifying EMSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Trade groups encourage innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11EPA’s Performance Track and other innovation efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12States run with the innovation ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14What are the benefits of using an EMS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Benefits for the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Benefits for business and government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Trade-offs to think about . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15How is transparency achieved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Why do states need to be concerned about public involvement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

What are the potential applications for EMSs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16New applications like forestry, governmental operations and defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Watershed and community-based EMSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17EMSs and pollution prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Chapter Two:

What should you consider when designing

an Environmental Leadership Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21What initial policy needs to be put in place? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23What legislative and regulatory changes do you need to consider? . . . . . . . . .24What are states doing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Model State Policies and Programs—best practices you can use in your state 24Recognition and assistance models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

New Mexico’s Green Zia Pollution Prevention Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

A menu-based model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

iii


Chapter Two: Continued

Georgia’s Pollution Prevention Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Negotiation-based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Michigan Clean Corporate Citizen Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Maine STEP UP Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Tiered programs that combine different models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Clean Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Wisconsin Green Tier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Other ways states are encouraging the adoption of EMSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31California Innovation Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31The Kentucky EMS Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31New York EMS Guidance Document Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Some states have yet to develop an Environmental Leadership Program . . . .33Overcoming funding obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Recommendations for designing an environmental

leadership program that works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Chapter Three:Why should state and local governments implement EMSs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37What are states doing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

What about local governments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Gaithersburg, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Jefferson County, Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Portland, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44King County,Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Chapter FourEnvironmental Management Systems—a closer look . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Not all EMSs are created equal, by Shelley Metzenbaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47EMSs and the law, by Jason Johnston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57EMSs in agriculture, by Carolyn Orr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61EMSs in forestry, by Sandy Vasenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Appendices:Appendix A: U.S. map highlighting state programs

and table with authorizing legislation and related regulations . . . . . . . . . . . .73Appendix B: State program profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77Appendix C: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103Appendix D: Other Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

iv


Private sector profiles and highlights:Ford Motor Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10General Motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10American Chemistry Council Responsible Care© . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11American Textile Manufacturers

Institute Encouraging Environmental Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12American Forest & Paper Association Sustainable Forestry Initiative . . . . .12, 69Artistic Plating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Marathon-Ashland Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Mount Vernon Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27NorDx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31American Crystal Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61National Cattlemen’s Beef Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62Robert Richardson, hog and crop producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62Smithfield Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Premium Standard Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Rainbow Acres Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64United Egg Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64Potlach Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Weyerhaeuser Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

v


vi


AcknowledgementsFunding for the State Official’s Guide series is provided in part by The Council of

State Governments’ 21st Century Fund. The 21st Century fund is an internal foun-dation operating within the Council’s 501(c)(3) organization. The purpose of thefund is to strengthen the Council’s policy and research capacity by supporting inno-vative and entrepreneurial approaches to product development. Contributors include:

� American Express Company � Pharmacia Corporation

� BellSouth Corporation � Philip Morris Management Corporation

� BP America � PhRMA

� DuPont � The Procter & Gamble Company

� Eastman Kodak Company � R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

� GlaxoSmithKline � SBC Communications, Inc.

� Intuit � 3M

� Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey LLP � United Parcel Service

� Metabolife International, Inc. � USAA

� Pfizer, Inc. � Wyeth

vii


Private Sector Collaborative PrinciplesThe Council of State Governments (CSG) is the only national organization serv-

ing every elected and appointed official in all three branches of each state and territo-rial government. Since 1933, CSG has championed excellence in state government byadvocating multi-state problem solving and states’ rights, recognizing and trackingnational trends, identifying innovations, and providing nonpartisan groundbreakingleadership training and support. CSG performs this work through its national office,as well as regional offices based in the East, Midwest, South and West.

CSG’s activities are supported by state dues as well as federal government, founda-tion and private sector funding. Work performed and products produced by CSG aredesigned to benefit CSG members and to meet the most stringent standards of qual-ity and integrity without regard to funding source.

viii


Executive SummaryThe Environmental Management System (EMS) developed over the last decade as

a tool to improve environmental performance. Proponents believe EMSs can advanceenvironmental quality while increasing flexibility and reducing costs for the regulatedcommunity and the agencies charged with enforcing environmental regulations. Byencouraging internal, systematic control of an organization’s environmental impacts,EMSs offer a complementary system to government regulation, which imposesrequirements on an organization from the outside,

How will this guide help state officials?

This guide is for state officials in the legislative and executive branches who aresearching for promising new tools for managing the environment and who strugglewith the need to balance environmental protection with the cost and inflexibility ofregulations. The guide will help officials assess the usefulness of EMSs in a wide vari-ety of applications and develop programs to encourage their use. These initiatives,known as Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs), have been implemented in anumber of states and are being considered for development in others. States havedeveloped a variety of programs to spur these efforts at innovation.

The key benefits of ELPs are the willingness and engagement of voluntary partici-pants and the ability to harness facility managers’ knowledge about their own opera-tions and how improvements can be made. However, state officials should considercarefully the type of EMS they want to encourage through a state program. Not allEMSs are alike, and only some of them promise environmental or other public poli-cy benefits. To be useful as a public policy tool, an EMS should:

� establish environmental goals more protective than the regulatory minimum;

� require progress toward those goals to be regularly measured;

� require the goals and results of progress measurement to be publicly reported; and

� require public reporting to occur on a regular basis and in a form the public canunderstand and trust.

These elements are most important in a state program that offers substantiverewards like regulatory flexibility or financial incentives. The decision to adopt anEMS should be voluntary, but a state program that encourages EMS adoption shouldrequire substantive commitments before substantive rewards are offered. An EMSwithout these characteristics can serve as a valuable internal tool for the facilities thatuse them, but may not be useful as a public policy tool for states.

Why should states take the lead on environmental innovation?

It is important for states to take the lead in encouraging the adoption of more effi-cient, more protective environmental practices. State agencies are on the front line ofenvironment protection, monitoring the many environmental impacts of industrialand other activities and enforcing the laws and regulations that protect our waterways,the air we breathe, and the land on which we live and work. State officials know whatworks and what doesn’t in the current regulatory system. They know what needs to befixed and how best to fix it.

ix


Moreover, because states are facing a fiscal crisis that has been called the worst sinceWorld War II, finding creative and innovative ways to use state dollars has becomemore important than ever. States will be faced with the challenge of doing more withless on the environmental front over the next several years. By harnessing the energy,ingenuity and resources of the private sector and the community-at-large, state leaderscan help improve environmental performance in the absence of new funding.

Environmental Leadership Program models

There are three basic models—recognition and assistance, menu-based, and negoti-ation-based—on which ELPs are patterned.

Recognition and assistance programs often have the least stringent requirements of thethree types of programs and tend to attract the widest participation. These programsencourage companies to take their first steps toward implementing an EMS.

Menu-based programs allow agencies to implement proven programs and strate-gies on a wider scale by offering a standardized set of benefits for prescribed commitments. These programs often require more ambitious commitments than arecognition and assistance program, but reach a wider audience than negotiation-based programs.

Negotiation-based programs tend to attract the most sophisticated companies thatare leaders in the field and help inform the environmental innovation process.Through one-on-one negotiations with facility owners and managers, this kind of pro-gram offers incentives and rewards that are tailored to a particular facility, builds rela-tionships between regulators and facility managers, and is likely to require communi-ty involvement.

The State Official’s Guide to EMSs presents a sampling of state programs that arerepresentative of these models and provides a state-by-state profile of programs inAppendix B. The guide also makes recommendations for designing an ELP that avoidspotential pitfalls and encourages the adoption of sound, comprehensive EMSs. Statesare encouraging EMS adoption outside the framework of an ELP, including providingwritten guidance, offering technical assistance in EMS implementation and conduct-ing pilot projects, and the guide profiles some of these efforts as well.

Overcoming funding obstacles

Limited financial resources can be an impediment to ELP development. These stateprograms often rely on the volunteer efforts of participating facilities and state agencyemployees. ELPs also can be vulnerable to political and economic changes, which canlead to budget cuts, program redesign or even cancellation. Resource-intensive, nego-tiation-based programs have proven to be the most difficult to sustain. Observers haveseen a movement over the last several years toward menu-based programs and awayfrom negotiation-based programs, likely because of the lower cost per participant ofimplementing menu-based programs. No matter what the design, however, fundingwill be a critical factor in the success of an ELP.

Programs with dedicated funding tied to fees for hazardous waste generation orwaste reduction appear the most stable because the funding is less vulnerable to thepolitical and economic uncertainties of the state general fund. Another strategy that

x


helps ensure stable funding is a comprehensive and long-range funding plan that seeksdollars from a variety of sources, including dedicated state dollars, federal funding andprivate foundations.

States lead by example

In addition to developing programs that encourage businesses and other organiza-tions to adopt EMSs, state governments are adopting EMSs for their own operations.Many of the same problems—inefficiency, lack of coordination, and negative envi-ronmental impacts—that result from business activity exist in governmental agenciesand the facilities they operate. EMSs are particularly useful for agencies that operatelabs, manage wastewater treatment facilities, own fleets of cars, or manage lands. Byimplementing an EMS, a governmental agency not only reaps the rewards ofimproved environmental performance, but also serves as a powerful example for busi-nesses and other organizations.

Introduction

Introduction to the State Officials Guide to EMSs

Introduction to State Official’s Guide to EMSs

A changing perspective

The way we think about managing and protecting the environment has undergonea fundamental shift in this country. Over the last decade, a new movement hasemerged, one that emphasizes performance over compliance, information more thanregulation, and a holistic approach rather than the media-specific (i.e., air, water andwaste) focus prevalent now.

Our country’s current regulatory structure has accomplished a tremendous amountsince the 1970s in reducing point source pollution in our waterways, tracking andcontrolling the movement and disposal of hazardous waste and addressing somesources of air pollution. However, we have made little progress in areas like climatechange and non-point source pollution, and these problems represent major ongoingthreats to the health of our environment.

The traditional regulatory command-and-control approach, in the opinion of some,may be inadequate to address these non-discrete sources of pollution effectively.Moreover, the way we currently address point source pollution and other discreteimpacts sometimes leads merely to shifting the impact from one medium to anoth-er—from land to air, or from water to land.

At the same time, business and industry have continued to complain that the costof regulation sometimes outweighs the benefits to society. Some in the private sectorargue that they can do an effective, sometimes more effective, job of monitoring andcontrolling the environmental impacts of their operations while reducing the cost ofcompliance. They argue that current regulations encourage companies to aim for onlyminimal compliance and as a result discourage investment in new technologies thatcan bring about greater improvement in environmental performance.

A new approach to managing the environment

All these factors have contributed to a new way of thinking about environmentalmanagement, a perspective that zeros in on “management” in a new, holistic way.

Looking at a facility and its impacts as a whole, rather than in piecemeal fashion,represents a minor revolution in our thinking about how to achieve environmentalprotection.

The United States environmental regulatory structure has been built around theidea of addressing the impact to each medium—land, air, and water—through spe-cialized governmental agency divisions. Each of these agencies has specific statutoryand regulatory authority and each has developed specific monitoring and reportingrequirements unique to that division. There has been little coordination betweenthese regulatory schemes.

This sometimes has led to duplication and inconsistency in the demands govern-ment makes on the regulated community. Defenders of the command-and-controlsystem argue that these results are necessary side effects of an otherwise effective sys-tem that has made great strides in reducing pollution. Critics of the system argue itscosts to industry are high and that it fails to create the incentive to achieve perform-ance beyond the regulatory minimum. In other words, critics argue the regulatory sys-

3


Our country’s currentregulatory structure has accomplished atremendous amountsince the 1970s in

reducing point sourcepollution and other

environmental impacts.However, we have madelittle progress in areas

like climate change and non-point sourcepollution, and these

represent major ongoingthreats to the health of

our environment.

tem as it exists now fails to take advantage of the competitiveness and ingenuity thathas made America an economic leader in the world.

What both camps seem to agree about is the need to develop new approaches tothe most serious and intractable environmental problems our country faces—prob-lems such as climate change, non-point source water pollution and the cumulativeeffects of point source pollution on our waterways and watersheds—while keeping inplace a compliance-based system for the worst actors who will not, or cannot, respondto incentive-based programs that require them to be proactive.

One of the first tools developed in response to this new way of thinking is theEnvironmental Management System (EMS). EMSs provide a new systematicapproach to environmental management that has been instituted voluntarily by largeand small companies over the last decade. The EMS concept is now being applied toother types of organizations, including governmental agency operations at the stateand federal levels, municipal facilities, military bases—even watersheds.

The EMS is used as a complement to traditional regulation, which imposes require-ments on an organization from the outside, by encouraging the organization toassume systematic, internal control of its environmental impacts. While traditionalregulatory schemes have tended to take a one-size-fits-all approach to facilities that fallwithin defined categories, the EMS takes into account a particular facility and its spe-cific size, mode of operation, geographic location, waste streams and other uniqueenvironmental impacts on land, air and water.

What will this guide do?

This guide focuses on one specific tool—the EMS—that has received a lot of atten-tion by states and the EPA. EMSs are just one of many innovative environmental con-cepts that have developed over the last decade, concepts such as market-based mech-anisms that use the marketplace’s built-in economic incentives to drive environmentaland technological improvements.

This guide is for state officials in the legislative and executive branches who aresearching for a promising new tool to manage the environment and who struggle withthe need to balance environmental protection with the cost and inflexibility of regula-tions. This guide will help officials assess the usefulness of EMSs in a wide variety ofapplications and will help officials develop programs that encourage the use of EMSs.

The EMS has been identified as a tool that may be able to advance environmentalquality while increasing flexibility and reducing costs for the regulated communityand state agencies charged with enforcing the regulations. The point of view of thisguide is that, before adopting a program that encourages the use of EMSs or chang-ing their current program, states should do the following:

� Consider carefully all benefits and potential pitfalls of such a program.

� Choose carefully the incentives to be offered and the commitments that should berequired to be eligible for each incentive.

� Look carefully at what is being tested by other states to see what is working.

� Ensure that the program establishes quantitative goals for environmental improve-ment, requires participants to meet those goals, requires documentation that the

4


While traditional regu-latory schemes have

taken a one-size-fits-allapproach to facilities

that fall within definedcategories, the EMStakes into account aparticular facility.

Improved environmentalperformance that goesbeyond the regulatory

minimum is the ultimate goal of an

EMS program.

goals have been met and requires the results to be publicly reported, if substantiveincentives like regulatory flexibility or financial incentives are offered.

Not all EMSs are alike, and only some of them promise environmental or otherpublic policy benefits. To be useful as a public policy tool, an EMS should establishenvironmental goals more protective than the regulatory minimum, should requirethat progress toward those goals be regularly measured, and should require that thegoals and results of progress measurement be publicly reported on a regular basis andin a way the public can understand and trust.

The decision to adopt an EMS should be voluntary, but a state program thatencourages the use of EMSs should require these substantive commitments beforesubstantive rewards are offered. An EMS without these characteristics can serve as avaluable internal tool for the facilities that use them, but may not be useful as a pub-lic policy tool for states.

Improved environmental performance that goes beyond the regulatory minimumis the ultimate goal of an EMS program, but without adequate quantitative data thatis publicly reported, states cannot effectively assess whether this goal is being met.Moreover, by encouraging the generation of quality environmental data states canmake better decisions about where the problems are and how they should beaddressed. States receive this benefit even when specific participants don’t meet theirgoals for environmental improvement. As will be discussed in later chapters, the qual-ity and quantity of information is the key to an effective EMS and the effectivenessof programs and policies that encourage their use.

Why is it important that states take the lead on innovation?

State agencies are on the frontline of environment protection, monitoring themany environmental impacts of industrial and other activities and enforcing the lawsand regulations that protect our waterways, the air we breathe, and the land on whichwe live and work. State officials know what works and what doesn’t in the current reg-ulatory system. They know what needs to be fixed and how best to fix it.

Moreover, in developing new policy, officials on the state level know the stake-holders within their states that need to be invited to the table. By striving for con-sensus-based policy-making that solicits and considers all perspectives—from busi-ness and industry to citizens and environmental advocacy groups—state officialscan ensure the best policy is developed. Officials can increase the chances of a newprogram’s success by engaging the business leaders and environmental advocateswhose enthusiasm and support are so important for an initiative based on volun-tary action.

Because states are facing a fiscal crisis that has been called the worst since WorldWar II, finding creative and innovative ways to use state dollars has become moreimportant than ever. States will be faced with the challenge of doing more with lessover the next several years. By harnessing the energy, ingenuity and resources of theprivate sector and community at large, state leaders can improve environmental per-formance in the absence of new funding. The budget crisis might actually help statesmotivate their staff and the private sector to think more creatively about achievingenvironmental protection and may create a climate in which proposed changes aremore acceptable.

5


CSG’s efforts to tackle environ-mental innovation

Between 2000 and 2002, CSGcoordinated a program called thePolicy Academy on EnvironmentalManagement Tools, cosponsored bythe Multi-State Working Group onEnvironmental Management Syst-ems. The Policy Academy designedand held a series of national dia-logues that brought together repre-sentatives from state and federalgovernment, the business sector andthe environmental advocacy com-munity to identify and assess themost promising innovative approach-es to environmental management.

To build on the recommenda-tions that resulted from that effort, aswell as the work of its nationalEnvironmental Task Force, CSGlaunched the CSG Center forEnvironmental Innovation (CSG-CEI)in January 2003. The mission of thenew center will be to prepare stateleaders to use the next generation ofenvironmental management tools byfocusing on approaches and pro-grams that are performance-basedand information-driven. Innovationproponents believe that the environ-ment will benefit by creating incen-tives for the regulated community toclosely monitor environmental per-formance at their own facilities, todevelop systematic approaches forreducing environmental impacts andto establish goals for environmentalimprovement that go beyond theregulatory minimum.

The center’s ultimate goal is tohelp state officials implement innova-tive programs that improve environ-mental performance in their states.The innovative approaches promot-ed by CSG-CEI hold the promise ofproducing environmental improve-ments at a lower cost to business,industry and government.

Continued on page 6

How will this guide help state officials?

Much has been written about the theory behind EMSs and environmental innova-tion in general. However, very little basic, nuts-and-bolts guidance specifically aimedat state government officials has been produced. CSG has written this guide to helpstate officials navigate their way through the jargon of environmental innovation, andEMSs in particular, to set up a successful program that improves the environmentalbottom line in their states.

This volume also provides guidance about setting up an EMS for state agency orlocal government operations. Many of the same problems—inefficiency, lack of coor-dination, and negative environmental impacts—that result from business activity existin governmental agencies and the facilities they operate. EMSs are particularly usefulfor agencies that operate labs, manage wastewater treatment facilities, own fleets ofcars, or manage lands. By implementing an EMS, a governmental agency not onlyreaps the rewards of improved environmental performance, but also serves as a power-ful example for businesses and other organizations.

6


Continued from page 5

CSG created a national advisoryboard to guide the center’s activitiesand provide input for this guide. Theadvisory board, made up of repre-sentatives of states, the businesscommunity and non-governmentalassociations, ensure CSG-CEI has thediverse input and guidance neededto identify the most critical environ-mental policy needs of the states.The advisory board also providesreal-world experience that ensuresthis guide contains the informationstate officials need to implement suc-cessful environmental innovationprograms, such as those that encour-age the adoption of EMSs.

Chapter One

What do you need to know about EMSs?

PLAN

CHECK

ACT DO

What do you need to know about Environmental Management Systems?

What is an Environmental Management System?

How do we define an EMS? Experts in the field define the concept this way: AnEMS is a formal structure of rules and resources that an organization’s managers adoptto establish organizational routines that help achieve environmental goals.1 It is a kindof regulatory structure that arises from within an organization; a collection of inter-nal efforts at policy-making, planning and implementation that are intended to yieldbenefits for the organization and society.2

The EMS stands in contrast to traditional government regulation, which imposesrequirements on an organization from the outside. More importantly, traditional reg-ulatory schemes have tended to take a one-size-fits-all approach to facilities that fallwithin defined categories. An EMS, on the other hand, allows a self-regulating schemeto be developed that takes into account a particular facility and its specific size, modeof operation, geographic location, waste streams and other unique environmentalimpacts on land, air and water.

The most appealing element of an EMS is that, in theory, it represents a system ofcontinuous environmental improvement—a process that never ends and continuallystrives to meet new outcome-based goals. Most EMSs incorporate four basic elements:

� Plan – Identify environmental impacts, establish goals for improvement and designor revise processes to improve environmental results.

� Do – Implement the plan through training and operational controls.

� Check – Measure performance, assess results of changes in operation controls, andreport results to decision makers.

� Act – Review the assessment of data and decide on changes needed to improve theprocess, then feed that information, through a feedback loop, back to the employ-ees that need to implement the operational changes.3

These elements evolved from the plan—do—check—act cycle of Total QualityManagement, developed in the 1950s to improve performance in the manufact-uring sector.4

Based on this model, an EMS begins with the evaluation of a comprehensive set ofdata about a facility and its environmental impacts. After reviewing the data, per-formance standards and outcome-based goals that will lead to improvement of a facil-ity’s overall environmental performance are developed. A set of actions intended tomeet those standards and goals follows. As the actions are carried out, their effective-ness in meeting the standards and goals is monitored and the success or failure of eachelement determined. That information is carried by a feedback loop back to the indi-

9


1Cary Coglianese and Jennifer Nash, Regulating from the Inside: Can Environmental Management SystemsAchieve Policy Goals? (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2001).

2Ibid.3U.S. EPA’s About EMSs webpage, <http://www.epa.gov/ems/info/index.htm>; Coglianese and Nash, 10-11.4See ISO 9000 quality management standards, at <http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage>

Most EMSs incorporate fourbasic elements:

� Plan – Identify environmentalimpacts, establish goals forimprovement and design orrevise processes to improveenvironmental results.

� Do – Implement the planthrough training and opera-tional controls.

� Check – Measure performance,assess results of changes inoperation controls, and reportresults to decision makers.

� Act – Review the assessment ofdata and decide on changesneeded to improve the processand feed that information,through a feedback loop, backto the employees that need toimplement the operationalchanges

PLAN

CHECK

ACT DO

viduals within the organization whose job it is to establish the goals and the actions sothat they can make adjustments and improvements to the system. This cycle of activ-ities theoretically never ends.

In reality, the quality and comprehensiveness of the information developed about afacility’s environmental impacts, the design of the EMS itself and the willingness ofcorporate management and staff to follow through on every aspect of the EMS deter-mines how effective it will be and whether any improvement will be achieved.

The Evolution of the EMS

The EMS has its roots in Total Quality Management (TQM), a standard devel-oped by the International Organization for Standardization in the 1950s to helpensure product quality in the manufacturing sector. The organization’s ISO standardfor EMSs was published in 1996 and adopted many of the same elements for sys-tematic quality control as TQM.5 ISO-certified EMSs are developed around thesame four basic steps, plan–do–check–act, that form the TQM model for continu-ous improvement.

Programs for certifying EMSs

Several programs for certifying EMSs have been developed over the past decade andnew structures for their implementation, new applications for their use and furtherrefinements in existing programs are being developed all the time.

ISO 14001 is the most widely applied EMS standard today.6 The InternationalOrganization of Standardization, founded in 1946 to promote “standardization andrelated activities in order to facilitate international exchange of goods and services,”published the ISO 14001 in 1996. An international, voluntary standard designed tohelp businesses track and improve their environmental operations and performance,ISO 14001 has been adopted by large and small corporations around the world. Largeautomakers like Ford and GM have enacted policies requiring their suppliers tobecome ISO 14001-certified.

To become certified, or registered, under the ISO 14001 standard, a facility mustundergo third-party auditing to evaluate every aspect of the EMS implemented and deter-mine whether it conforms with the standards set forth in ISO 14001. There are basicrequirements a facility must fulfill to become ISO 14001-certified. The facility must:

� adopt a written environmental policy that acknowledges corporate commitment tocontinuous improvement;

� identify all environmental impacts of the facility’s activities, products and services;

� set objectives and targets for continuous improvement in environmental performance;

� develop a plan for implementation (the EMS);

� assign clear responsibilities for implementation, training, monitoring and correctiveactions;

10


5ISO 14001, Environmental Management Systems—Specification with Guidance for Use,<http://www.goau.com/goau/iso14001.html>

6ibid.

� implement the EMS; and

� evaluate and refine EMS over time to achieve continuous improvement in envi-ronmental objectives and targets.

ISO 14001 provides a framework for systematically managing a facility’s environ-mental impacts, but the standard lacks two elements that are important for deter-mining its usefulness as a public policy tool.

First, the ISO standard does not require that a facility actually achieve improve-ment in environmental performance. The system focuses on a more efficient, system-atic process for managing environmental impacts, including the establishment of per-formance goals, but does not require that those goals be met. Certification of an ISO14001 EMS likewise does not require documentation of environmental performanceimprovements, only that the facility has adhered to the standards.

Second, the ISO 14001 system does not require that the contents of the EMS planadopted and the facility’s performance in response to the EMS be publicly reported.The absence of these two elements make it difficult for policy makers and the publicto judge how effective the systems are in improving environmental performance at aparticular facility, as well as judge their effectiveness in improving environmentalquality on a local, state or regional level.

Another international standard, the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS),was adopted by the European Union in 1995.7 This standard, adopted by EU membercountries, incorporates both the performance and public reporting elements ISO 14001lacks. Under EMAS, the EMS must evaluate the facility’s environmental performanceand those results, along with the design of the EMS itself, must be publicly disclosed.

While the ISO standard has become the most widely applied standard for EMSs,a recently completed study found no significant advantage in ISO certification. Thefinal report of the National Database on Environmental Management Systems(NDEMS) study of 83 facilities over a two and half-year period was released inJanuary 2003. The report found there were “no statistical differences between the netquantified benefits observed at facilities that were registering their EMS to the ISOstandard and those without registration intentions.”8 However, many companies thathave implemented ISO certified EMSs likely would tout the system’s internal benefitsand the importance of certifying an EMS’s conformance to the ISO standards.

Trade groups encourage innovation

Trade associations have played a significant role in the development and application ofimproved environmental management practices. Trade groups began establishing indus-try guidelines in the late 1980s to improve the environmental performance of their mem-bers.9 The American Chemistry Council was the first trade association to adopt such

11


7Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) information available at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/index_en.htm.>

8Richard N.L. Andrews and Deborah Amaral, Environmental Management Systems: Do They ImprovePerformance?, National Database on Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS) Project Final Report,(Chapel Hill: January 30, 2003), available at <http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/final_report.htm>, ES-17.

9Jennifer Nash, “Keeping up to Code: Trade Associations are emerging as leaders of environmentalChange,” Chemistry Business, the Journal of the American Chemistry Council, Volume 28, No. 6(July/August 2000).

guidelines, in the form of codes of management practices, with the Responsible Care©

program.10 Launched in 1988, Responsible Care helped develop support among othertrade groups for the adoption of similar programs that set goals for environmental per-formance. In the 1990s, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (EncouragingEnvironmental ExcellenceSM)11 and American Forest & Paper Association (SustainableForestry Initiative)12, among others, developed their own codes.

All of these trade group programs include approaches to environmental manage-ment with EMS-like elements. In the case of Responsible Care, the AmericanChemistry Council adopted changes to the program in 2002 that now specificallyrequire each member to implement a management system that reflects the globally rec-ognized “plan-do-check-act” EMS model. The management system will be required toaddress all aspects of corporate operations relating to environmental, health, safety andsecurity performance. Beginning in 2004 and running through 2007 (and every threeyears thereafter), American Chemistry Council members will be required to have theircorporate headquarters and a sampling of their plant sites audited by accredited inde-pendent third-party auditors to certify that their management systems conform toResponsible Care guidelines. Members will also be required to track uniform, indus-try-wide performance metrics beginning in 2003 that will be publicly reported byAmerican Chemistry Council. Public reporting of these performance metrics by indi-vidual companies will begin, in most cases, in 2004.

EPA’s Performance Track and other innovation initiatives

In May 2002, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman announced the currentadministration’s official policy regarding EMSs.13 The policy declares EPA’s support forusing EMSs “in a wide range of organizations and settings, with particular emphasison the adoption of EMSs to achieve improved environmental performance and com-pliance, pollution prevention through source reduction, and continual improvement.”The policy emphasizes EPA’s support for obtaining stakeholder input in the develop-ment of EMSs, for the inclusion of measurable objectives and targets, and for publicreporting of performance results. Finally, the policy states that EPA will lead by exam-ple by implementing EMSs at appropriate EPA facilities.

EPA has developed a number of programs over the years to encourage the adoptionof EMSs and was the first to test such an initiative with the launch of Project XL in1995.14 A national pilot program, Project XL proposed allowing state and local gov-ernments, businesses and federal facilities to work with EPA to develop innovativestrategies for environmental protection that produced “beyond compliance” perform-ance, were more cost effective, and established methods that could be utilized at otherfacilities. In exchange, EPA offered regulatory, policy or program flexibilities thatallowed the new strategies to be tested.

12


10Responsible Care © information available at American Chemistry Council homepage, <http://www.americanchemistry.com>

11Encouraging Environmental Excellencesm information available at <http://www.atmi.org/programs/e3.asp>

12Sustainable Forestry Initiative information available at <http://www.aboutsfi.org/core.asp>13U.S. EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency Position Statement on Environmental

Management Systems, Available at <http://www.epa.gov/epaems01/policy/position.htm>14See Project XL website at < http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/>

Launched in 1988,Responsible Care helpeddevelop support amongother trade groups forthe adoption of similarprograms that set goals

for environmental performance. In the1990s, the AmericanTextile Manufacturers

Institute and, AmericanForest & Paper

Association, among others, developed their

own codes.

EPA’s most recent innovation program is the National Environmental PerformanceTrack program, launched in 2000.15 EPA coordinates with states on its PerformanceTrack efforts in a number of ways. First, EPA works closely with state officials to eval-uate Performance Track applications for facilities in a particular state, to ensure theapplicant is an appropriate candidate from the state’s perspective. Second, EPA hasworked to create joint incentives with states by entering Memoranda of Agreementthat allow formal coordination between the federal and state environmental agenciesand the incentives offered to a particular facility through Performance Track and astate-sponsored program. EPA currently has MOAs with Texas, Virginia, Colorado andMassachusetts.16 Finally, EPA has evaluated 13 established state programs that encour-age the adoption of EMSs, outlining the similarities and differences between those pro-grams and Performance Track.17 This allows facilities interested in participating inPerformance Track to determine whether there is overlap between the federal and stateprograms and whether participating in both programs is feasible.

EPA has helped states develop EMS programs on the state level by offering grantsfor program development. A number of state programs in existence today began withan EPA-sponsored pilot program.18 The most recent projects funded by the EPA stategrants program are the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, for develop-ment of a web-based, GIS-based system that will simplify and expedite storm waterpermitting; the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalControl, for development of an innovative permitting approach for a small businesssector—auto body repair—that is facing new air quality requirements; and theMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for development of a water-shed-based permitting system to integrate non-point-source control with point-sourcepermitting to achieve a nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). (As requiredby Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, TMDL is the total amount of pollution thata water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.)19

The EPA grant program is designed to support state innovation and address keyenvironmental priorities identified in EPA’s Innovation Strategy.20 Specifically, EPA hassolicited projects that test innovative permitting approaches by using incentives tomotivate “beyond-compliance” environmental performance or move whole sectorstoward improved environmental performance over a 2-to 3-year period.

13


15Visit the National Environmental Performance Track website at: <http://www.epa.gov/performance-track/>

16See <http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/benefits/statepar.htm>17See <http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/partners/linkage.htm>18To encourage greater cooperation between EPA and the states, and formally establish procedures

for EPA’s review of proposed state innovation programs, EPA entered into the Joint EPA/State Agreementto Pursue Regulatory Innovation with state environmental official members of the Environmental Councilof the States (ECOS) in 1998, available at <http://www.epa.gov/EPA-GENERAL/1998/May/Day-05/g11799.htm>

19See FY 2002 State Innovation Pilot Grant Competition at: <http://www.epa.gov/innovation/state-grants/>

20See U.S. EPA guide, Innovating for Better Environmental Results:A Strategy to Guide the Next Generationof Environmental Protection, at <http://www.epa.gov/innovation/strategy/index.htm>

EPA has helped statesdevelop EMS programson the state level byoffering grants for

program development.A number of state

programs in existencetoday began with an EPA-sponsored pilot program.

EPA’s National EnvironmentalPerformance Track

EPA’s National EnvironmentalPerformance Track is designed torecognize facilities that consistentlymeet their legal requirements andimplement high-quality EMSs. Theprogram is open to facilities of alltypes, sizes, and complexity, public orprivate, manufacturing or service-ori-ented. The program encourages par-ticipants to work closely with theiremployees and the community toachieve continuous improvement inenvironmental performance.

Performance Track applicantsmust have an:

� EMS in place;

� history of sustained compliance;

� commitment to continuous envi-ronmental improvement; and

� commitment to community out-reach.

In return, EPA offers incentivesthat include national, local and peerrecognition; low priority for routineinspections; streamlined reporting;regulatory flexibility; and network-ing opportunities with EPA officialsand environmental innovation lead-ers at EPA-sponsored events. EPAalso works with members to coor-dinate Performance Track incen-tives with those of applicable stateEMS programs.

States run with the innovation ball

As will be discussed in the next chapter, states responded to EPA’s efforts by devel-oping new policies and programs to encourage the voluntary adoption of EMSs bybusiness, industrial facilities and other organizations. These state efforts have becomeknown as Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs).21 There are many types of pro-grams and policies that fall under the general heading ELP and this guide will use theterm in its most inclusive sense. ELP is used here to refer to the entire spectrum of stateenvironmental innovation efforts, from the enactment of policies that merely assert thestate’s support for the voluntary adoption of EMSs to the most ambitious programsthat offer individually negotiated financial and regulatory rewards in exchange forindividually negotiated commitments by participants.

What are the benefits of using an EMS?

The systematic, information-driven approach of an EMS make it a useful tool forindustry and other organizations that want to get a better handle on the environmen-tal impacts of their operations. EMSs have the potential to help organizations achievebetter compliance and can motivate them to move beyond minimal regulatory require-ments by establishing higher environmental performance goals.

Benefits for the environment

Most EMSs or other environmental management schemes in use today incorporatethe basic steps of reviewing the organization’s environmental goals and analyzing itsimpacts; establishing objectives to ensure compliance with current legal requirementsand movement beyond minimal requirements; developing policies and operationalcontrols that attempt to meet those objectives; and monitoring the results. EMS pro-ponents believe this kind of systematic, internally driven approach to managing a facil-ity’s environmental impacts inevitably will bring about improvement in the facility’senvironmental performance.

Overriding themes in EMS theory that make the system compelling include the following:

� Holism: Taking a coordinated, holistic approach to a facility’s environmentalimpacts on all media (e.g., land, water, and air)

� Beyond compliance: Setting goals or performance standards for environmental per-formance that exceed the regulatory minimum required

� Activities follow goals: Planning activities designed to meet performance goalsestablished

� Feedback loop: Monitoring all environmental impacts of the facility or organizationand producing information that is fed back into the system so that goals and actionson the front end can be adjusted

� Continual Improvement: Overarching goal of continual improvement in environ-mental performance over time

14


21Michael Crow, “Beyond Experiments,” Environmental Forum, May/June (2000).

States responded toEPA’s efforts by devel-oping new policies andprograms to encouragethe voluntary adoptionof EMSs by business,

industrial facilities andother organizations.

These state efforts havebecome known as

EnvironmentalLeadership Programs.

� Transparency and stakeholder input: Public involvement in the design of the EMSand public disclosure of the final EMS design and the facility’s environmental per-formance in response to the EMS

While not all EMSs in use today contain all of these elements, the ones that do arethe most likely to offer substantive environmental benefits and bring about improve-ment in ambient environmental quality. Transparency and stakeholder input in par-ticular make the EMS more valuable as a public policy tool for achieving environ-mental protection.

Benefits for business and government

The use of EMSs can lead to direct savings in production costs and waste disposalfees for businesses and for governmental agencies that engage in business-like activi-ties (e.g., print shops, maintenance divisions, fleet operations). In addition, some stateprograms offer financial incentives to business or other organizations that implementan EMS, including a reduction in waste generation fees that must be paid to the state.However, state officials and the business sector also need to focus on the indirect eco-nomic benefits of using EMSs. A well-designed EMS should reduce a facility’s impactson the surrounding environment, helping prevent violations of environmental statutesand regulations that can lead to costly legal fees and the imposition of civil penalties. Inthe long run, EMSs can inform managers’ strategic decisions about product changes,operational changes, and development and implementation of new technologies.

A state program that encourages the widespread use of properly designed EMSsshould improve the state’s overall air and water quality, helping lower the cost ofenforcement actions, state-sponsored remedial work, emergency response operationsand litigation with aggrieved citizens, neighboring states and the federal government.

The recently released final report of the National Database on EnvironmentalManagement Systems (NDEMS) study of 83 facilities over a 2 1/2 year period foundthat 86 percent of those facilities reported benefits accruing from the adoption of anEMS, including increased management efficiency, increased operational efficiency,reduced liability, regulatory benefits, improved community relations and improvedcustomer/supplier relationships.22 Some of these benefits are purely internal to thefacilities, but some of them improve the facilities’ impact on the environment. Forinstance, the benefit of reduced liability reported by a majority of participants includ-ed improved environmental compliance, reduced fines and expedited permits. Theseare benefits that improve the environmental bottom line. The report also found thatwhether the EMS was ISO-certified did not make a significant difference. Forinstance, the report found that the non-registering facilities were no less likely to havereported at least one perceived or quantified benefit than were registering facilities.

Trade-offs to think about

Any regulatory approach, when applied in the real world, will involve some trade-offs. Allowing regulatory flexibility and more discretion in enforcement in exchange

15


22Richard N.L. Andrews and Deborah Amaral, Environmental Management Systems: Do They ImprovePerformance? National Database on Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS) Project Final Report,(Chapel Hill: January 30, 2003). Available at <http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/final_report.htm>. Note that thisstudy tracked a self-selected group of facilities that volunteered to participate in the study.

California company finds sig-nificant savings with an EMS

Artistic Plating is a medium-sized, 100 employee, metal finishingfacility in Anaheim, Calif. It was oneof several companies chosen toparticipate in an EPA-sponsoredpilot project, the Merit Partnership,designed to test a metal finishingEMS template. The Merit Partner-ship is conducting a series of pilotprojects to evaluate the environ-mental and economic impacts of anISO 14001-based EMS in variousindustries.

Artistic Plating began imple-menting the EPA-designed EMS inJune of 1999 and participated inmonthly workshops that providedtraining and guidance.

As a result of EMS implementa-tion, Artistic Plating staff gained amore comprehensive understandingof the environmental legal require-ments that apply to the company’soperations, reduced the hazardouschemical concentration of its dis-charges, began monitoring waste-water discharges and storm-waterrunoff more often than is legallyrequired, and generated environ-mental information that was notavailable previously.That informationincludes the company’s environmen-tal policy, a list of significant impacts,objectives and targets, and perform-ance indicators. The information isavailable to the public upon request.The company predicts it will save inexcess of one million dollars over aten-year period, as a result of EMSimplementation.

for voluntary actions by business and industry that are designed to improve environ-mental performance creates new risks not present under a command-and-control sys-tem. There is a risk, for example, that newly available regulatory flexibility andenforcement discretion could be used improperly by agency administrators or othersin the executive branch to reward politically influential companies.

Critics of regulatory innovation efforts caution that when states develop a programthat allows greater flexibility and discretion, they must also build in greater protectionsagainst abuse of this more flexible system. Greater transparency is the primary protec-tion advocated by many observers—transparency at every level, from agency adminis-tration of the program to a facility’s implementation of actions such as the design andadoption of an EMS.

How is transparency achieved?

Transparency is achieved through a multitude of actions by government and par-ticipating businesses that ensure the widest stakeholder involvement possible.Stakeholders include citizens who live in neighborhoods adjacent to the facility inquestion, citizen organizations whose mission it is to protect natural areas and water-sheds, public health organizations, and administrators of nearby schools or other insti-tutions where the health or comfort of citizens will be impacted. Building adequatepublic notice provisions into every level of a state program that encourages EMS’s willhelp ensure citizens and other stakeholders are made aware of decisions and actions bystate administrators and program participants that impact them.

Why do states need to be concerned about public involvement?

By giving citizens access to monitoring data collected by program participants, thefacility’s plans for improving environmental performance, and information evaluatinghow well the facility is meeting its goals for improvement, states can enlist an army ofvolunteers to help make this new system work effectively. As states struggle under theburden of budget deficits that have been called the worst since World War II, they willhave to find creative ways to maintain and improve environmental quality in theirstates. By enlisting the resources of the private sector and citizen volunteers, states canhelp make up for budget shortfalls in the near-term. More important for long-termenvironmental quality, however, is the state’s ability to build programmatic infrastruc-ture that encourages citizens and businesses to be actively involved in protecting theenvironment and to build trust between the public sector, the private sector and thecitizens and customers each sector serves.

What are the potential applications for EMSs?

EMSs started as a tool for businesses—mainly those in the manufacturing sector—but have been adapted over the last decade to address the environmental impacts of amultitude of other operations. For instance, EMSs are being used in agriculture toaddress the problems of runoff and other impacts of farming that historically havebeen hard to control. (See Carolyn Orr’s profile of agricultural EMSs in Chapter 4.)

16


New applications like forestry, governmental operations and defense

EMSs are being used by logging companies to manage their operations in ourforests. (See Sandra Vasenda’s profile of EMSs in forestry in Chapter 4.) EMSs areincreasingly being adopted for governmental operations at the federal, state and locallevel, including local subsidiaries like school and water districts. (See Chapter 3 pro-files of state and municipal EMSs.) Even military bases have begun adopting EMSs.

EMSs are also being incorporated into agreements that resolve civil and criminalenforcement proceedings as supplemental environmental projects. (See Jason Johnston’sanalysis of the intersection between EMSs and our legal system in Chapter 4.)

Watershed and community-based EMSs

In addition, the EMS approach is being tested on whole watersheds and entirecommunities. The Policy Academy on Environmental Management Tools, a pilot pro-gram administered by The Council of State Governments in conjunction with theMulti-State Working Group, is sponsoring the development of a community-basedEMS in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Co-sponsors of the project are the Delta Institute, anon-profit organization that engages in the policy and practice of improving environ-mental quality and promoting community and economic development in the GreatLakes region, and Sixteenth Street Community Health Center (SSCHC), a primaryhealth care provider in Milwaukee. The two groups have recruited We Energies ofWisconsin (formerly Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas) to design and implement anEMS for We Energies’ Menomonee Valley power plant. The Menomonee ValleyPower Plant is the country’s largest co-generation facility, supplying steam to approx-imately 480 steam customers in and around downtown Milwaukee, plus approxi-mately 280 megawatts of electricity.

The specific activities of the project are to:

� recruit participants for the model training course, including local and state envi-ronmental regulatory representatives, economic development groups, environmen-tal groups, neighborhood organizations and planning organizations;

� identify environmental and community issues of concern;

� create sample performance objectives, metrics, and reporting options that could beused to address issues of concern, including facility-based (e.g., discharge or emissionlevels, energy use, stormwater discharges) and valley-wide objectives and targets (e.g.,Menomonee River water quality, stormwater quality, groundwater quality, local airquality, transportation and public access, active and passive recreational opportunities,etc.); and

� provide training and mentoring to participants, including general training on thebasics of developing and implementing an EMS and the methods for addressingcommunity and environmental issues of concern, with We Energies providingtechnical leadership, and mentoring for up to four facilities that agree to developan EMS as outlined in the training course.

The ultimate goal of the project is to create a guidance document that can be usedas a training module for developing community-based EMSs around the country. The

17


training document will be based on the experience of developing practical EMSs thataddress real world community and environmental concerns in the Menomonee RiverValley in Milwaukee. The project, which began in June 2002 and will be completedby June 2003, serves as a valuable example of community planning that engages allsectors of the community in developing an EMS.

EMSs and Pollution Prevention

EMSs are becoming a more integral part of other innovative environmental man-agement programs like pollution prevention. States have made a concerted effort topromote pollution prevention activities during the last decade and most states nowhave an office devoted to pollution prevention activities.

Pollution Prevention was defined by Congress in The Pollution Prevention Act of1990 as “source reduction” and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creationof pollutants through 1) increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water,or other resources, or 2) protection of natural resources by conservation.23

Source reduction means any practice that reduces the amount of any hazardoussubstance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise releasedinto the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, ordisposal; and reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associatedwith the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

In passing the legislation, Congress declared pollution prevention a national policyof the United States. According to the act, pollution should be “prevented or reducedat the source whenever feasible; recycled in an environmentally safe manner when pre-vention is not feasible, treated in an environmentally safe manner when recycling isnot feasible; and disposed or otherwise released into the environment only as a lastresort and in an environmentally safe manner.”24

There is a great deal of overlap between activities that promote pollution prevention asdefined in the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act and those generally designed into an EMS.The EMS represents the alliance between the “green” ethic of pollution prevention andthe “quality” ethic of management systems.25 The systematic EMS approach to managingenvironmental impacts often involves pollution prevention and the benefits of pollutionprevention can be significantly enhanced through the EMS framework.26 Both incorpo-rate concepts such as long-range planning, innovation, continuous improvement, systemcontrol, avoidance of “crisis management,” and measurement of results.27

It is not surprising, then, that pollution prevention offices in many states have ini-tiated development of programs that encourage the voluntary adoption of EMSs. (See

18


23Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 133.24Ibid.25New York State Pollution Prevention Unit, Understanding and Implementing an EMS, a Step-by-Step

Guide for Small and Medium-Sized Organizations, available at <http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2ems.html>, 12.

26Ibid.27Ibid.

The EMS represents thealliance between the

“green” ethic of pollu-tion prevention and the“quality” ethic of man-

agement systems.

Chapter 2 for state program profiles.) Most of these programs, referred toEnvironmental Leadership Programs, specifically incorporate pollution preventionelements. As both program types evolve at the state level, there is likely to be evengreater coordination. By coordinating these efforts within state agencies, participationin voluntary environmental protection activities can be enhanced.

Conclusion

The EMS is an innovative tool that, when used as a complement to the tradition-al regulatory system, can bring about improved environmental performance. The con-cept of an EMS developed from the total quality management model for continualimprovement employed by manufacturers. The ISO 14001 model was the first EMSstandard developed and has been widely adopted by industry as a way of improvingenvironmental efficiency and performance. The use of EMSs can lead to direct sav-ings in production costs and waste disposal fees for businesses and for governmentalagencies that engage in business-like activities. More importantly, proponents believeEMSs can reduce the impact of industrial or other regulated activity on the environ-ment beyond that required for minimal regulatory compliance.

A program that encourages the wide-spread use of EMSs should help improve thestate’s overall air and water quality, helping the state lower the cost of enforcementactivity and many other costs associated with compromised natural resources.However, not all EMSs are alike and only some of them offer public policy benefits.Before state policy-makers offer substantive incentives like regulatory flexibility orfinancial incentives, they should carefully consider the design of the EMS participantswill be required to adopt.

While the ISO 14001 standard has proven to be a useful internal tool for businessesand other organizations, the system lacks two elements that should be part of an EMSendorsed by a state program, if that program is to offer substantive incentives. TheISO system requires only that the organization conform to the ISO standards of effi-ciency, not that it actually improve environmental performance and requires no pub-lic involvement in EMS development or public disclosure about performance. A stateleadership program that offers substantive incentives like regulatory flexibility,reduced environmental fees or reduced inspections should require that substantivecommitments be made, including the documentation of actual environmentalimprovements and public disclosure of the EMS plan and performance results.

EMSs are being used in a wide variety of applications, from industry to agriculture,forestry, governmental operations, and public lands management. There is a great dealof overlap between EMSs and pollution prevention activities and those efforts arebeing increasingly coordinated at the state level.

19


20


Chapter Two

What should you consider when designing an Environmental Leadership Program?

What should you consider when designing an Environmental Leadership Program?

What states must consider first and foremost during these lean budget times is thecost of developing a program to encourage EMS use and whether the benefits areworth the cost. Times of crisis often spur ingenuity and innovation. The current statebudget crisis might actually help states motivate their staff and the private sector tothink more creatively about achieving environmental protection and may create a cli-mate in which change is more acceptable.

The efforts by states to encourage environmental innovation have come to be knownas Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs). These efforts are defined more specifi-cally as voluntary programs in which a regulatory agency offers recognition, assistance, orfinancial and regulatory incentives, for organizations to engage in activities that areintended to meet legal requirements, improve environmental performance and, in somecases, achieve “beyond compliance” environmental performance.1 (See Appendix A for atable of state programs and Appendix B for a state by state profile of each program.) MostELPs incorporate EMSs or EMS-like activities. This is most likely because EMSs havebecome so prevalent and accepted in the corporate manufacturing world over the lastdecade. Consequently, the EMS concept has become widely recognized. As discussed inChapter I, most ELPs require pollution prevention activities and there is considerableoverlap between state pollution prevention programs and state programs that encouragethe voluntary adoption of EMSs.2

What initial policy needs to be put in place?

The importance of emphasizing leadership in an ELP policy cannot be overstated.By helping develop leadership skills in the regulated community, government officialscan create benefits far beyond the specific environmental improvements required aspart of a state program. Fostering the ethic of leadership can transform the culture oforganizations and entire business sectors. The leadership ethic is at the heart of envi-ronmental innovation because it creates the commitment to long-term sustainabilityand the incentive to reach for ever-higher goals in environmental performance. Whengovernment helps create that spark of creativity within a member of the regulatedcommunity, the effects may spread to the member’s trade group or competitors. Likeripples that extend outward from the impact of a pebble, the decision by one businessentity to adopt a policy of environmental leadership can have a real impact on othersin the private sector. This has proven true in the automotive industry, where most ofthe major automakers have implemented ISO 14001 EMSs and at least two requireall their suppliers to be ISO certified. Many individual businesses have shown com-mendable performance in implementing systematic approaches like EMSs, but onlysome of those efforts rise to the level of environmental leadership. While individualefforts by businesses are important and should always be encouraged, states may alsowant to set a goal of fostering this more ambitious leadership ethic that seeks to influ-ence and motivate an entire business sector.

23


1Michael Crow, “Beyond Experiments,” Environmental Forum, (May/June 2000)2Crow, page 20.

What legislative and regulatory changes need to be considered?

Many states have enacted legislation or revised regulations to allow development ofa program that encourages the adoption of EMSs. (See Appendix A for references tolegislation and regulations adopted by states.) Other states, such as Massachusetts,have launched an initiative by executive order. The need for new legislation or changesto a state’s current regulatory scheme will depend on the incentives to be offered bythe proposed program. If the incentives will involve flexibility in administrativerequirements like reporting or inspections, reductions in “polluter pays” fees such ashazardous waste generator fees, or limitations on the state’s right to pursue an enforce-ment action for violations, it is likely legislative and/or regulatory changes will berequired. If the state program will offer recognition and assistance only, it is veryunlikely legislative or regulatory changes will be needed.

What are states doing?

A number of states have developed ELPs to encourage the adoption of EMSs andother innovative practices. The key benefits of these programs are participants’ will-ingness and engagement and the ability to harness the knowledge of facility managersabout their own operations to target where and how improvements can be made.States have developed a variety of programs to spur efforts at innovation, from recog-nition and assistance to ambitious incentive programs, ISO 14001 training courses,and pilot projects that test the EMS concept in a variety of applications.

Model State Policies and Programs—Best Practices you can use in your state

This guide highlights seven model programs to help draw brighter distinctionsbetween different types of approaches tried by states. This will help state officialsdetermine which approach best suits their state’s particular environmental problems,political landscape, financial condition and other relevant factors. These models rep-resent “best practices” that can serve as a starting point for innovative action.

There are three basic frameworks in which most state programs fall—recognitionand assistance, menu-based, and negotiation-based.3 These models differ in severalgeneral ways:

Recognition and assistance programs often have the least stringent requirements forparticipation of the three types of programs and tend to attract the widest participation.These programs are generally aimed at helping businesses and other organizations taketheir first steps toward innovative environmental management by encouraging them toadopt an EMS, or begin the process of developing one, and establish a goal of continualimprovement.

Menu-based programs allow agencies to implement proven programs and strate-gies by offering a standardized set of benefits for prescribed commitments. These pro-grams often require more ambitious commitments than a recognition and assistance

24


3Crow, page 28.

program, but reach a wider audience than negotiation-based programs. These programstend to have a wider impact for two reasons. The requirements for qualifying are lessstringent and fewer state agency resources have to be committed to each participant somore organizations can become involved. This type of standardized program also allowsbusinesses to assess upfront the costs and benefits of participating in an ELP.

Negotiation-based programs tend to attract the most sophisticated companiesthat have become environmental leaders, as defined earlier in this chapter, and thathelp inform the environmental innovation process. These companies are the trend-setters that commit money and personnel to develop new, innovative strategies fordealing with the environmental impacts of their operations. Through one-on-onenegotiations with facility owners and managers, this kind of program offers incentivesand rewards that are tailored to a particular facility, builds relationships between reg-ulators and facility managers, and is likely to require community involvement.4

Recognition and assistance models

New Mexico’s Green Zia Pollution Prevention Partnership

The Green Zia program offers three levels of recognition and assistance to NewMexico businesses, organizations and communities. The program does not have stan-dardized, prescriptive requirements. Instead, it advocates the basic principle of con-tinuous improvement through an integrated EMS that incorporates business andenvironmental goals. Participants can qualify for one of the following three levels:

� Commitment Recognition is available to organizations that develop a frameworkfor an EMS containing significant pollution prevention elements.

� Achievement Recognition is available to organizations that implement a compre-hensive, prevention-based EMS and can show documented environmentalimprovements.

� Environmental Excellence is available to organizations that can demonstrate fullintegration of an effective, prevention-based EMS, substantial documentation ofresults related to continuous improvement, as well as internalization of theProgram’s core values.

Green Zia program managers say their program “raises the bar” for environmentalcommitments, saying the Environmental Excellence level requires greater commit-ments from participants than any other state ELP in the country. Green Zia does notoffer any regulatory rewards, but does offer assistance by providing training and writ-ten guidance.

Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program

Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program is anotherexample of the recognition and assistance model for encouraging the voluntary adop-tion of EMSs and pollution prevention activities. Louisiana facilities that join the pro-

25


4Ibid.

Louisiana oil refinery becomesfirst in nation to be ISO-certi-fied with encouragement ofstate ELP

Marathon-Ashland Oil (Marath-on) was one of eight facilities to winLouisiana’s Environmental LeadershipPollution Prevention Program(LaELP) award in 2001. The awardsrecognize companies that commit toimplementing a comprehensive pol-lution prevention program, includingan EMS.

According to Terry Persaud,environmental coordinator forMarathon’s Garyville, La. refinery,the company had begun imple-menting a pollution prevention ini-tiative several years before itenrolled in the LaELP program, butwanted to coordinate all its P2, per-formance enhancement, conserva-tion, and risk reduction effortsunder the comprehensive frame-work of an EMS.

Marathon developed and imple-mented a 14001-certified EMS in1999.As a result, Marathon was ableto reduce its production ofPotassium Hydroxide from 3,005tons to 1,239 tons annually, a reduc-tion in 1,766 tons of this toxic chem-ical. The company reduced theamount of wastewater it dischargedeach year from 3,672 tons to 1,636,a reduction of 2,036 tons of waste-water that otherwise would havebeen discharged into the Mississippi.On the conservation front,Marathon was able to reduce therefinery’s consumption of water byalmost 2.6 million gallons each year,from 2.75 million gallons of waterannually to only .15 million gallons.This reduction was achievedthrough the installation of new tech-nology in the refinery’s coolingtower that reduced water evapora-tion. Improvements to infrastructurearound the facility helped reduce the

Continued on page 26

gram are recognized as companies “committed to maintaining and improving the quali-ty of [Louisiana’s] environment” in a letter and certificate from the Department ofEnvironmental Quality.5 Technical assistance is provided through periodic meetings,conferences and seminars sponsored by the program that explore pollution prevention,EMSs, and other environmental management tools and issues. The program does notoffer on-site technical assistance, although small businesses can receive that kind of helpfrom the Small Business Assistance Program. Participants also are eligible to take part inthe annual Governor’s Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Pollution Prevention, ahighly publicized ceremony in which program participants are recognized.

Requirements for enrolling in the Louisiana program include committing to the fol-lowing guiding principles:

� Minimization of the facility’s impact on human health and the environmentbecomes a top priority in regulatory and business decisions.

� Using an internal EMS to encourage continuous improvement in environmentalperformance.

� Using the waste management hierarchy (source reduction, recycling, treatment, anddisposal) as guidance for managing environmental issues and for optimizing pro-duction processes.

� Being proactive in communicating with facility neighbors and the larger communi-ty about environmental matters.

Within two months of program enrollment, participants must submit a plan to theDepartment of Environmental Quality describing waste reduction goals. An annualupdate must be provided to enable DEQ to track the facility’s progress towards goalsoutlined in its plan.

This program is an example of an initiative that can be launched with little or no des-ignated funding. While the commitments required for inclusion in this program are notas stringent as some other state environmental leadership initiatives, there appears to bea trade off at work here—less stringency for greater participation. Louisiana’s programhas one of the highest participation rates of any program in the country.

It is important to note that this program does not offer regulatory or financialrewards and, yet, it exposes a significant number of Louisiana facilities to new ideasand training in environmental management. As a result, some degree of overall envi-ronmental improvement may be produced without the risks associated with changingthe minimum statutory and regulatory requirements those facilities must meet. Whatremains to be seen is whether this kind of program results in “beyond compliance” per-formance by facilities on a significant scale, or even produces greater complianceamong businesses with compliance problems.

A menu-based model

Georgia Pollution Prevention Partners

Georgia’s Pollution Prevention Partners (P3) program, administered by the statePollution Prevention Assistance Division, is a successful example of a menu-based ELP.

26


5See Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program website at <http://www.deq.state.la.us/assistance/elp>


risk of a major oil spill that woulddirectly impact the Mississippi River.

In November 2001, Marathonbecame the first oil refinery in theUnited States with a certified, ISO14001-equivalent EMS.

The three-tiered program is offered to Georgia industries that first document full com-pliance with applicable environmental statutes and regulations. Although the programdoes not explicitly require an EMS, industry-applicants must commit to continualimprovement, a central element of the EMS concept, and must adopt pollution pre-vention practices. Applicants receive increasing levels of incentives and rewards withincreasing commitments to improvement in environmental performance as follows:

� The Entry Level recognizes facilities that demonstrate a commitment to developinga successful pollution prevention program. Participants at this level are eligible fora free, non-regulatory, on-site pollution prevention assessment; assistance in quali-fying for the program from the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division staff; andrecognition in division publications.

� The Achievement Level recognizes facilities that have established a pollution preven-tion program and are making progress toward meeting reduction goals. Facilities thatapply for the Achievement Level are eligible for all the incentives and rewards avail-able to the entry level, plus up to a 10 percent reduction in Hazardous Waste TrustFund and Toxic Release Inventory fees paid to the Georgia Environmental ProtectionDivision for one year. Facilities that continue to show progress may receive up to a10 percent reduction for two additional years. The savings from these reduced feesmust be used for pollution prevention activities at the facility.

� The Model Level recognizes facilities judged to be industry leaders in pollution pre-vention on the basis of the facility’s substantial progress toward meeting pollutionprevention goals and its incorporation of pollution prevention into daily businessactivities. Facilities that apply for the Model Level are eligible for all the incentivesand rewards available to the entry level, plus up to a 25 percent reduction inHazardous Waste Trust Fund and Toxic Release Inventory fees paid to the GeorgiaEnvironmental Protection Division for one year. Facilities that continue to showprogress may receive up to a 25 percent reduction for two additional years. As withthe Achievement Level, the savings from these reduced fees must be used for pollu-tion prevention activities at the facility.

The Georgia program is distinctive for two reasons. First, it is one of the only stateELPs that offers a financial reward to participants. By offering participants a directfinancial benefit, but requiring the savings to be spent on pollution prevention activi-ties, the program provides Georgia industries a tangible economic incentive to becomegood environmental stewards. Money that would be used by state government toaddress the impacts of pollution after the fact is directed instead into efforts by the pri-vate sector to prevent pollution in the first place.

Second, Georgia’s program requires that quantifiable goals be established in partici-pants’ pollution prevention plans. This distinction is crucial because state decision-makers can judge the success of EMSs, pollution prevention and other activitiesencouraged by ELPs only if participants are required to document concrete environ-mental improvements, or “beyond compliance” performance, in exchange for therewards offered. By documenting this kind of improvement in the environmental per-formance of participating facilities, states can justify committing money and resourcesto a program that encourages environmental innovation.

27


Company finds that EMSsmake good business sense

Mount Vernon Mills has beenrecognized in Georgia as an envi-ronmental leader by institutingmeasures that have helped thecompany achieve environmentalperformance well beyond the regu-latory minimum. The textile manu-facturing company has earned aplace in the highest tier of Georgia’senvironmental recognition pro-gram, Pollution Prevention Partners(P3) by adopting a comprehensiveEMS for its operations. MountVernon’s efforts to improve itsenvironmental performance beganin the early 1990s, when theAmerican Textile ManufacturersInstitute (ATMI) adopted a set ofguidelines similar to the currentISO 14001 standards.

As a result of EMS implementa-tion, Mount Vernon has experi-enced a 26 percent reduction inwater usage, a 67 percent reduc-tion in regulated air emissions fromprocesses, and a 55% reduction insolid waste at its largest operationin Trion, Georgia. The company hasimplemented the same EMS stan-dards at all 18 of its facilities.

Ron Beegle, director of corpo-rate affairs for Mount Vernon, sayshis company implemented an EMSat its facilities because “it makesgood business sense” and is “anoth-er way of providing good customerservice.”

Negotiation-based models

Michigan Clean Corporate Citizen Program

Michigan’s Clean Corporate Citizen Program (C3) is an example of a successfulnegotiation-based program. This single-tiered program, authorized by changes to thestate’s administrative code, allows regulated establishments that have “demonstratedenvironmental stewardship and a strong environmental ethic through their operationsin Michigan” to be recognized as Clean Corporate Citizens.

To enroll, program participants must be in compliance with applicable statutes andregulations and must have an established EMS and pollution prevention programwith documented environmental performance improvements. In return, participantsreceive public recognition and are eligible to negotiate certain regulatory benefits,including expedited permits and reduced monitoring and reporting in the areas of airpermitting, underground storage tanks and wastewater discharges to surface orgroundwater.

Michigan Administrative Rules R324.1501-1511 set out minimum requirementsbusinesses must meet before they can enroll in the program and commitments thatmust be met to remain a member. For instance, a business that wishes to become aClean Corporate Citizen cannot have been convicted of a criminal violation of envi-ronmental laws in the previous ten years or assessed a civil penalty above a certain levelin the previous three years.

The administrative rules set out specific criteria that must be met in developing aqualified EMS and pollution prevention plan and requires those plans to be integrat-ed into the facility’s overall management structure. An ISO 14001-certified EMS mayqualify if approved by the director of the Department of Environmental Quality.

The administrative rules require a 30-day public review and comment periodbefore an application is submitted to the C3 program. The applicant must provide forpublic review by posting a notice in the local newspaper; making the application andall related documentation available at a local public library or other public building;and soliciting comments for at least 30 days. To remain a Clean Corporate Citizen,participants must request renewal and file an annual report documenting that the cri-teria set out in the program are being met.

The C3 program has 52 participants, more than any other program of this type inthe nation, and is actively recruiting new members. Another significant aspect of theMichigan program is its focus on small- to medium-sized businesses, a sector oftenunderrepresented in environmental innovation efforts. The C3 program focused itsrecruitment efforts on businesses of this size because many of its large corporate resi-dents, like the Detroit automakers, have adopted ISO 14001 EMSs and are seekingenvironmental improvements through that voluntary system of certification.

Another important feature of the C3 program is the source of its funding. The pro-gram is fully funded through a waste reduction fee paid to the state and it is not depend-ent on the allocation of state general funds. In a time when state budgets across the coun-try are being cut, this funding structure helps ensure the stability of the program.

Finally, C3 seeks to attract a diverse range of participants. The program is open toany regulated operation, including manufacturing, power generation, natural gas trans-missions, paper production, office management, research and development and others.

28


Maine STEP UP Program

Maine’s Smart Tracks for Exceptional Performers and Upward Performers (STEPUP), created in the spring of 2002, offers recognition and other incentives to busi-nesses that voluntarily adopt sustainable practices, including implementing a third,party-certified EMS. The program has three levels of participation, although MainesDepartment of Environmental Protection has chosen to start all participants at themiddle tier. Their goal is to have a group of businesses participating in the highest tierand ready to mentor other businesses within three years.

All three levels of the program offer public recognition, a negotiated relationship withMaine DEP, mentoring, free on-site technical assistance, and the ability to negotiatealternative record keeping and reporting procedures. The middle tier, the LeadershipTrack, involves a three-year commitment and requires implementation of a third-partycertified EMS, performance measurement, public involvement in setting goals and pub-licly reporting the resulting performance, and mentoring businesses that are just startingthe program. The highest tier, the Sustainability Track involves a five-year commitmentthat builds on progress achieved during the leadership tier. This track requires the com-pany to solicit greater public involvement by establishing a more formal community out-reach program that invites guidance about additional actions the company can take toachieve “beyond compliance” environmental performance.

Maine’s DEP hopes this program will help:

� establish a fundamental change in the relationship between DEP, the public andthe participating business;

� create a method to facilitate ever improving and ultimately sustainable, environ-mental practices and performances;

� establish entry requirements and benefits that progressively increase from track totrack;

� gain facility-wide commitments to continual environment performance improve-ments, from CEOs to line employees; and

� use written agreements to define relationships and environmental sustainabilitycommitments.

Tiered programs that combine different models

Clean Texas

The Clean Texas program has the country’s highest participation rate and offersthree tiers—Partner, Leader and Advocate. The program is located in the SmallBusiness and Environmental Assistance Division of the state’s environmental agency,the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).

The Partner level requires members to make commitments to measurable environ-mental improvement, internal environmental programs and community outreach.The Advocate level of the program is reserved for community groups, trade associa-tions, schools or university groups that support the Clean Texas program throughtheir activities, but do not operate from a physical entity that would allow commit-ment to an environmental improvement goal.

29


Innovative laboratory developsnew environmental standardsas part of Maine’s STEP-UPprogram

NorDx was established in 1976as Maine’s first licensed, independ-ent clinical laboratory. In 1997,NorDx joined with Maine MedicalCenter Research Institute to form asingle, not-for-profit laboratory, oneof the most sophisticated in NewEngland. As a participant in theLeadership Track of Maine’s STEP-UP program, NorDx has commit-ted to the following “beyond com-pliance” measures:

� Consolidate all stand-alone envi-ronmental practices into an ISO14001-equivalent EMS

� Maintain active employee educa-tion in P2, toxics use and reduction,mercury reduction and elimination,hazardous waste management, andEMS implementation

� Conduct annual communitymeetings to solicit input and providefeedback about environmental per-formance and progress toward goals

� Reduce the toxicity of wasteshipped offsite for disposal

� Reduce the amount of mercury-contaminated waste per total sam-ples taken on an annual basis

� Focus on overall mercury reduc-tion throughout its operation byusing suitable non-mercury substi-tutes and designing an inventoryprogram that favors the purchaseof mercury-free products

� Reduce solid waste generated by20 percent then recycle or reuse20 percent of the waste remaining

� Make regular progress reportsavailable to employees monthlynewsletters and meetings of themanagement team and sections


The Leader level, the heart of the program, requires a number of substantive com-mitments and actions. First, applicants must have a fully implemented EMS that hasbeen through one complete review cycle and has been certified by an independentthird-party. Senior management must commit to 100 percent compliance with cur-rent environmental legal requirements and continuous improvement. The applicantfacility must have a written plan to assess environmental impacts, to assure compli-ance, and to achieve measurable environmental improvements over a specified timeline. The plan must include a product stewardship plan and documentation that suf-ficient personnel and resources have been allocated to fully implement the plan.

The Leader level also requires substantial community participation. Members mustdevelop a communication plan that ensures two-way communication with communi-ty members, ensures community members are involved in goal setting, and ensurescommunity members have the opportunity to review progress toward goals. Leaderlevel members must report at least annually on activities, progress toward meetinggoals, and changes to the EMS. The Clean Texas staff may conduct a review of mem-bers’ EMSs, compliance records and inspections to verify their qualification for theprogram. Membership in the program must be renewed every three years.

Members of both the partner and leaders levels of the program receive the benefitsof public recognition and technical assistance in achieving the program goals. Leadermembers also are eligible to negotiate regulatory and administrative flexibility andcustomized technical and program support from TNRCC. Small businesses are eligi-ble for free EMS auditing from the TNRCC staff.

Wisconsin Green Tier

In 1997, the Wisconsin legislature authorized development of a pilot EMS program.The pilot program led to development of a full-fledged ELP called the EnvironmentalResults Program (known generally as “Green Tier”) in 2002. This two-tiered program,to be officially launched by the Department of Natural Resources after approval by thelegislature, is one of the few programs that uses legally binding contracts to evidence theparties agreement about environmental goals and regulatory incentives. Wisconsin’sprogram administrators say Green Tier is designed to promote reduction in overall lev-els of pollution through a more flexible approach that incorporates a commitment to“beyond compliance” environmental performance.

The entry-level tier encourages regulated entities to commit to adopting an EMSthat provides for public involvement, having the EMS audited and publicly reportingenvironmental performance. Participants are not asked to enter a binding contract atthis level. Incentives offered include recognition and technical assistance.Organizations that have had civil or criminal penalties imposed for environmental vio-lations are prohibited from joining the program for a specified time.

The upper tier, Green Star, requires participants to enter a binding contract thatincludes all the commitments of the entry level, along with a commitment that par-ticipants provide documentation, within a specified timeframe, that measurable“beyond compliance” environmental performance has been achieved. Incentives thatmay be negotiated into the contract include recognition, technical assistance, regula-tory permitting flexibility and civil enforcement flexibility. For instance, participantsmay negotiate the inclusion of a provision granting them 90 days to correct an envi-ronmental violation before WDNR initiates civil enforcement proceedings or, if the

30



� To mentor health care partnersin the laboratory or related indus-try by sharing experiences andchallenges of the process.

violation would take longer than 90 days to correct, the ability to enter a supplemen-tal corrective action agreement that allows up to one year to bring the facility intocompliance.

Once entered, the binding contract supercedes state administrative requirementsrelating to permitting. At minimum, parties to the contract are the regulated entityand regulatory agency, but in some cases more than one governmental entity may beinvolved for maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

Other ways states are encouraging the use of EMSs

California Innovative Initiative

In 1998, California adopted legislation authorizing a new program called theInnovation Initiative. The legislation authorized development of up to eight EMSpilot projects aimed at evaluating the benefits of using EMSs within the regulatorysystem and outside its framework. The criteria for designing the pilot projects empha-sized obtaining input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, collecting data to meas-ure environmental improvements, and analyzing the data and other information todetermine whether there were improvements in each of the following areas:

� Environmental awareness and commitment by those involved in designing andimplementing the EMS

� Public involvement in designing and implementing the EMS

� Systematic approach to managing the environmental impacts of the organization

� Performance for key environmental indicators

� Public access to information about the design of the EMS and the resulting datameasuring the organization’s environmental performance in response to the EMS

A number of recommendations resulted from the California Innovation Initiative,of which the most important for state officials who want to develop a successful pro-gram that encourages the adoption of EMSs, are:

� setting targets for environmental performance is crucial;

� providing valuable assistance in the form of EMS templates, implementationguides, and financial assistance through grants;

� encouraging the sharing of environmental information by developing protocols forthose activities and recognizing the efforts of organizations that make the effort toshare that information; and

� maintaining the current command-and-control system because successful EMSprograms need the foundation of enforceable environmental compliance standards.

The Kentucky EMS Alliance

The Kentucky EMS Alliance is a state-funded EMS initiative that has been takenout of the regulatory environment. Kentucky has the statutory authority to establisha full-fledged ELP that would offer regulatory and financial incentives in exchange forvoluntary environmental leadership efforts by regulated facilities. KRS 224.46.335,enacted in 1994, authorizes the promulgation of regulations that would allow facili-ties to become eligible for incentives like accelerated review of permit applications,

31


California pilot project allowsLockheed Martin to soar tonew environmental heights

The Lockheed Martin Aeronau-tics Company in Palmdale, Calif. hashad an operational EMS in placesince 1992. Their efforts to create aneffective environmental complianceprogram led to the Environmental,Safety and Health ManagementSystem (ESM-MS). The programcombines the elements of pollutionprevention, environmental compli-ance, and occupational health.Lockheed Martin performs randomaudits and annual reviews to self-declare conformance with the ISO14001 standard, although the systemhas not been independently certifiedunder ISO 14001.

Lockheed is participating in theCal/EPA Environmental Manage-ment System pilot project. The company’s mature ESM-MS will pro-vide development and performancedata for the project in a format con-sistent with the national researchprotocols developed by the MultiState Working Group on Environ-mental Management Systems(MSWG).The data will include envi-ronmental performance, EMS designand implementation, continual im-provement, regulatory compliance,pollution prevention, employeeawareness, stakeholder involvement,costs and benefits.

Results of the ESM-MS docu-mented so far include a 1,084,000pound reduction (42 percent) inhazardous waste generated since1996, elimination of VOC emissionsfrom organic degreasers, and a 50percent reduction in lost workdaysdue to injuries and other work-related incidents between 2000and 2001. The system has not beenas successful in reducing productionwaste (a special category of wastein California) and solid waste,


renewals and modifications; reduced frequency of monitoring or reporting; and reductionin fees paid to the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (NREPC)for permits, releases of toxic chemicals or generation of hazardous waste.

However, the NREPC has chosen not to establish a state agency-administered pro-gram through changes to its administrative regulations. Instead, a program called theKentucky EMS Alliance has been established in the Kentucky Pollution PreventionCenter (KPPC) at the University of Louisville. KPPC receives approximately 45 per-cent of its operating budget funds from the Kentucky General Assembly, through feespaid to the state by hazardous waste generators. The other approximate 55 percent ofits budget comes from EPA and private foundation grants.

The Kentucky EMS Alliance has provided ISO 14001 training to approximately 75companies since it was launched in 1998. While many states are doing general aware-ness training on ISO 14001, this program is unique in its interactive, case studyapproach. Mentors from businesses that have implemented an ISO 14001 system pro-vide real world examples of issues and obstacles faced in developing and implement-ing this type of EMS. The center also provides technical assistance as participatingfacilities go through the process of developing their EMSs and obtaining certification.

After KPPC’s initial success with industrial facilities, it began providing ISO 14001training to universities in 2000 and has trained Environmental, Health and Safety rep-resentatives from 31 universities around the country. Recently, KPPC began workingwith the Department of Defense, providing training in implementing ISO 14001EMSs at military bases in the Southeast.

KPPC’s success with industry appears to rely, in part, on its location outside theregulatory sphere. Some industry representatives may be more comfortable dealingwith a group they see as completely unbiased when making voluntary efforts at inno-vation, rather than dealing with the state environmental regulatory agency whose staffthey may have had combative dealings with in the past. KPPC is not offering, norcould it offer, any regulatory incentives in exchange for participants’ environmentalefforts. Kentucky EMS Alliance relies solely on the internal motivation of industryrepresentatives to improve their facilities’ environmental performance. And KPPCrepresentatives report that because businesses that enroll in their program are inter-nally motivated to improve, the development and implementation of an EMS oftenleads to wholesale culture change within the business. Its staff and managementbecome aware of the environmental implications of every activity that takes place atthe facility and respond by becoming environmentally proactive rather than reactive.

New York EMS Guidance Series

New York has developed a series of EMS guidance documents called Understandingand Implementing an Environmental Management System: A Step-by-Step Guide forSmall and Medium-sized Organizations, available free on the NYS Pollution PreventionUnit website (http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2ems.html).

The guides are organized in three stages:

� Step 1: The Basics is a 41-page introduction to the EMS concept and terminology,the system’s benefits, and its relationship to pollution prevention.

� Step 2: EMS Development and Implementation Guide is a detailed, 152-page docu-ment that takes the reader, step-by-step, through the process of planning, develop-

32



although attempts to reduce thelatter waste were affected by imple-mentation of another programdesigned to eliminate clutter andunneeded material in the plant.

Lockheed’s system integratesenvironment, health and safety con-cerns into the company’s designprocesses to minimize adverseimpacts throughout the production,use and disposal of products andintegrates those priorities into pro-curement, property renovation,rearrangement, acquisition, consoli-dation, divestiture and its partner-ships with regulatory agencies, cus-tomers, and suppliers. As part of itsparticipation in the Cal/EPA pilotproject, Lockheed is working withother groups to share ideas and hasformed the Community Stake-holder Environmental Roundtableto solicit input for continuing EMSdevelopment.

ing and implementing an EMS. The guide offers advice about developing a com-munication plan and about establishing objectives and targets, operational controlsand a system for documenting the results of monitoring environmental performance.

� Step 3: EMS Template presents a practical EMS model.

While consultants are readily available to provide advice on implementing ISO14001 EMSs, this kind of state-sponsored guidance is beneficial for two reasons. First,New York’s guidance is available free of charge while consultants who help organiza-tions develop and certify ISO systems can be costly. By tailoring its guidance to smalland medium-sized organizations, New York has targeted the audience least likely to beable to afford hired consultants or otherwise invest funds upfront to begin the EMSprocess. Second, the EMS elements outlined in New York’s guidance go beyond theinward-looking ISO requirements by recommending regular communication withinterested stakeholders in the community about the EMS and its impact on environ-mental performance.

Some states have yet to develop an Environmental Leadership Program

Although many states have taken action to encourage industry and others to adoptinnovative environmental practices, some states still have not enacted legislation, regula-tions or policy to encourage the use of EMSs and other innovative environmental tools.

As of 1999, only 17 states had adopted some kind of ELP.6 Of the programs devel-oped, participation remained low and some states never officially launched their pro-grams. In a Tellus Institute study of ELPs published in 2000, few programs attractedmore than ten participants and none had more than 30 participants.

By the end of 2002, 31 states had initiated some kind of ELP or had engaged indevelopment activity, with 19 of them considered active.7 According to a new draftEPA report entitled State Program Status and Trends, many states cite limited financialresources as an impediment to program development. States with programs reportedrelying heavily on the volunteer efforts of participating facilities and state agencyemployees.8 The report also concludes that the long-term stability of programs is oftenvulnerable to political and economic changes, which can lead to budget cuts, programre-design or even cancellation.

Overcoming funding obstacles

The effects of state budget restrictions on ELPs is already being felt with the sun-setting of programs like Oregon’s Green Permit program and Minnesota’s Project XL.(See profiles of these programs in Appendix B.) The latter program is no longer accept-ing new participants, although the terms of existing agreements will be completed.These resource-intensive, negotiation-based programs have proven to be more difficultto sustain. The time and resources devoted by program staff to hammer out an indi-

33


6Crow, page 20.7EPA’s draft report, State Program Status and Trends, was generated as a result of the National

Environmental Performance Track State and Regional Conference in Denver, Colo., held January 27-30, 2003.8Ibid.

vidual agreement with each participant can be substantial. Observers have seen a move-ment over the last several years toward menu-based programs and away from negotia-tion-based programs.9 This is likely due to the lower cost per participant of implement-ing a menu-based program that offers a predetermined set of commitments and incen-tives. Because of this lower investment of resources in each participant, menu-based pro-grams can reach more participants. If the premise of an ELP is that adopting EMSs andother innovative measures improves environmental performance, then it is desirable toreach as many businesses and organizations as possible.

However, funding will always be a critical factor in the success of an ELP, whetherit is an inclusive, menu-based program or an exclusive negotiation-based program.

Programs with dedicated funding that is tied to a hazardous waste generator fee,waste reduction fee or other “polluter pays” fees appear the most stable. First, this kindof funding is less vulnerable to the political and economic uncertainties of the stategeneral fund. Second, an ELP funded by this kind of fee can reasonably offer a reduc-tion in the fee as an incentive for businesses that commit to environmentally protec-tive measures that go beyond the regulatory minimum. Tying the funding for a program designed to reduce the environmental impacts of industry to fees paid by theindustries that have the greatest environmental impact makes sense. Michigan’s C3program, for example, gets 100 percent of its funding from a waste reduction fee paidto the state and has remained active, with 52 current members. Georgia’s P3 program,another successful initiative receives part of its funding from fees paid to theHazardous Waste Trust Fund and offers a reduction in those fees to participants in theprogram’s two higher tiers.

Another strategy that helps ensure stable funding for an ELP is a comprehensive andlong-range funding plan that seeks dollars from a variety of sources, including dedicatedstate dollars, funding from the EPA or other federal agencies, and private foundations.

Idaho, for example, has used a creative mix of grant funding, in-kind (donated)administrative and overhead support from three state universities and funds from civilpenalties imposed for environmental violations to fund the GEMStars program. (Seeprofile in Appendix B.)

Recommendations for designing an Environmental Leadership Program

Here are recommendations from Regulation from the Inside authors Cary Coglianeseand Jennifer Nash for designing a program that avoids potential pitfalls and encour-ages the adoption of sound, comprehensive EMSs:10

� Distinguish between effects caused by the EMS and effects caused by other factors.

� Ensure your policy encouraging the use of EMSs doesn’t detract from independentfactors important to environmental performance. Some policies adopted toencourage the use of certain EMS models might increase EMS use, but uninten-tionally weaken other key factors, such as management’s motivation to seek envi-ronmental improvement.

34


9Crow, page 28.10Cary Coglianese and Jennifer Nash, Regulating from the Inside: Can Environmental Management Systems

Achieve Policy Goals? (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2001), 18.

� Consider making any new incentives, like regulatory flexibility, contingent on aorganization exhibiting the key characteristics that affect performance, such asmanagement commitment or documentation of actual environmental improve-ment. Merely adopting an EMS may not be sufficient grounds for offering signif-icant incentives like regulatory flexibility.

� Consider an intermediate track, like that used for EPA’s National EnvironmentalPerformance Track, which requires a commitment to quantifiable goals for envi-ronmental performance improvement beyond regulatory requirements, over speci-fied time periods, manifested and implemented through an EMS.

� Consider developing approved tools for measuring, monitoring, and verifying thatsubstantive environmental performance targets have been met.

Conclusion

States have implemented a wide variety of initiatives to encourage the adoption ofEMSs, from recognition and assistance efforts to ambitious incentive programs, fromISO 14001 training courses to pilot projects that test the EMS concept in a variety ofapplications. One trend has become clear: states appear to be moving toward menu-based incentive programs and away from resource intensive negotiation-based pro-grams. Menu-based programs are designed to reach a wider audience at a lower costper participant while negotiation-based programs tend to be more exclusive.

Some states have not developed a program to encourage EMS adoption and officialsmay be hesitant to launch any new initiatives during the current fiscal crisis. However,times of crisis often spur greater innovation and creativity—and greater acceptance ofbold, new ways of operating. States may find these programs pay for themselves byreducing the regulatory and enforcement burden. In addition, by developing a fundingplan that draws from a variety of sources, including environmental “polluter pays” fees,states can avoid drawing from general funds. Programs that depend on state generalfunds have proven more vulnerable to economic and political changes.

Whatever design states choose, they should be careful to ensure that the commit-ments required line up with the incentives offered. States should take full advantageof the good will and self-motivation that go along with the voluntary adoption ofEMSs but should offer the reward of substantive incentives only to those who makesubstantive commitments to environmental improvement.

35


36


Chapter Three

Why should state and local governments implement EMSs?

Why should state and local governments implement EMSs?

Many of the same problems—inefficiency, lack of coordination, and negative envi-ronmental impacts—that result from business activity also exist in governmentalagencies and the facilities they operate. EMSs are especially useful for agencies thatoperate labs, manage stormwater, operate drinking water or waste water treatmentfacilities, own fleets of cars, manage lands, or for any other agency whose core missioninvolves environmental management.

Adopting EMSs for governmental agencies and facilities has become official policyon the federal level.1 Agencies like the EPA and the Department of Interior have takenthe lead in developing EMSs for their facilities. EPA Administrator ChristineWhitman’s position statement on EMSs, released May 15, 2002, specifically commit-ted the EPA to adopting EMSs for appropriate EPA facilities in an effort to lead byexample. DOI has developed its own, agency-wide EMS policy and is in the earlystages of designing EMSs for public lands, labs and other facilities it manages.

By implementing an EMS, a governmental agency not only reaps the rewards ofimproved efficiency and, possibly, improved environmental performance, but alsoserves as a powerful example for businesses and other organizations.

In an Executive Order issued on July 23, 2002, Massachusetts Governor Jane Swiftacknowledged the powerful example states can provide for environmentally responsi-ble, innovative action. The executive order established the State SustainabilityProgram requiring Massachusetts agencies to develop sustainable practices, includingthe implementation of EMSs by agencies with multiple facilities and multiple envi-ronmental impacts. “State agencies should lead by example and provide a model forbusiness and private citizens by promoting practices and policies that attempt to min-imize or eliminate negative environmental and health impacts and that seek to main-tain and improve the environmental, economic and community health…” Gov. Swiftdeclares in the order.2 By making changes in their daily operations, programs andlong-range planning, Gov. Swift continues, “state agencies…are able to simultane-ously have a significant positive impact on the environment, economic efficiency ofstate government, and the character of our communities.”3

What are states doing?

A number of states have adopted EMSs for their state agency operations, includingPennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Jersey and Oregon.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has adopted EMSs for two of its agencies, the Department ofTransportation (DOT) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).Pennsylvania DOT has implemented an EMS across department operations and has

39


1William Clinton, “Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management,”Executive Order 13148, 21 April 2000. Also see, United States Environmental Protection Agency Positionstatement on EMSs, available at <http://www.epa.gov/ems/policy/position.html> and Department ofInterior Release, Part 515 DM 4, Release No. 3534, prescribing department policy, responsibilities andfunctions on EMSs conducted on department lands, facilities, operations, and services.

2Jane Swift, “State Sustainability Program,” Massachusetts Executive Order 438, 23 July 2002.3Ibid.

Many of the same prob-lems—inefficiency, lackof coordination, and

negative environmentalimpacts—that resultfrom business activityalso exist in govern-mental agencies and

the facilities they oper-ate. EMSs are especiallyuseful for agencies thatoperate labs, managestormwater, operate

drinking water or wastewater treatment facili-ties, own fleets of cars,manage lands, or anyother agency whose

core mission is environ-mental management.

received ISO 14001 certification for one of its districts. DEP developed its own EMSframework, Environmental Futures, focusing on 17 environmental and behavioralindicators. Pennsylvania DEP has worked with colleges and universities within thestate to develop an EMS guide that specifically addresses those operations. The agencyis sponsoring pilot projects with eight municipalities that are implementing ISO14001 EMSs for a range of operations including wastewater treatment, parks and anursing home.

Oregon

Oregon adopted an EMS for its Department of Administration Services, Printingand Distribution Division. The division has reported significant improvements inthe environmental impacts of its operations by changing the method of disposing ofits hazardous waste; recycling waste ink rather than discarding it (resulting in a sav-ings of $2 per pound); and eliminating the use of 120 gallons of combustible liquidper year for a yearly savings of approximately $850. The EMS, which is less than ayear old, has not been ISO-certified due to budget constraints. Nevertheless, thedivision continues to seek new ways to improve its environmental performancethrough the EMS process by exploring the use of a natural gas-fired generator for itsoperations, considering the sale of hot water that is produced as a byproduct toneighboring manufacturers, and analyzing paper purchases to achieve a higher levelof post-consumer waste content.

Virginia

Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) adopted an EMS andincorporated its EMS philosophy into agency policy, encouraging EMS use by otherstate agencies and local governments. A unique feature of the EMS adopted byVirginia is that it makes business members of the state’s Environmental ExcellenceProgram eligible to become third-party auditors of the agency’s EMS. Agency officialsbelieve this arrangement builds trust and cooperation between the regulating agencyand the regulated community. The EMS is relatively new and no official documenta-tion of environmental improvements has been prepared, but DEQ staff report thatthey are already seeing significant savings in terms of energy efficiency.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed a policy thatcommits the agency and each of its employees to serving as leaders in reducingimpacts on the environment and working toward continuous improvement in envi-ronmental performance. The agency also developed a list of EMS design principles,available on its web site at <http://dnr-temp.state.wi.us/ems/>. Those principlesinclude conformance with the ISO 14001 standard, transferability to the regulatedcommunity, inclusion of health and safety elements, agency-wide education, stake-holder participation and transparency.

Wisconsin DNR has implemented an EMS in accordance with these principles atits Spooner campus, which employees 2,500 people in governmental agencies andother occupations such as forest products manufacturing, tourism and the serviceindustry. So far, EMS adoption at the Spooner campus has resulted in the completion

40


41


of environmental and safety inspections at all facilities, reduced water consumption,clean sweep activities, use of new energy saving equipment, reduced office waste andlower annual energy costs. The agency is seeking ISO 14001 certification for its EMS.

What about local governments?

Local governments have discovered the benefits of this systematic approach to moreefficient, environmentally sound operations as well. An EPA pilot project that testedthe application of EMSs to local government operations found the systems entirelyapplicable to those operations.4 EMSs were found to be a useful tool for local govern-ments because of the large number of separate facilities and operations cities and coun-ties must oversee and the broad spectrum of environmental, operational, financial,legal and social needs they must meet.

States can benefit by encouraging local governments to adopt EMSs because thoseactions help the environmental bottom line. EMSs can help reduce the impact of localgovernment operations on streams and landfills and can help states meet air qualitystandards. These improvements will help lessen the state’s regulatory burden and mayreduce the need for state-sponsored remedial action. Just as important, these local gov-ernments set an example of environmental stewardship for the businesses, industriesand other organizations located in their cities and counties.

Massachusetts has created a program called the Municipal EnvironmentalStewardship Program for local governments that want to implement an EMS or otherenvironmentally responsible practices.5

Through a grant from EPA, the program offers financial assistance to cities, coun-ties, school districts or other governmental entities. In 2002, the program granted$143,000 to eight municipalities and two regional organizations to help them developand implement EMSs, pay needed staffing costs, and measure environmental compli-ance both before and after the systems are put in place. The projects propose imple-menting EMSs for public works operations and an integrated pest management planfor a public school system, among other improvements.

A recent report by the National Database on Environmental Management Systems(NDEMS) found that government assistance programs played an important role ininfluencing the decision to implement EMSs at government facilities.6 According tothe report, government assistance programs, like the NDEMS pilot study, influenced88 percent of government participants’ decisions to introduce EMSs at publicly-oper-ated facilities.7

4See EPA Final Report, US EPA Environmental Management System Pilot Program for Local GovernmentEntities, January 28, 2000, available at <Http://www.epa.gov/owm/iso14001/emsrepor.pdf>, 10 This pro-gram grew out of the work of the EPA Innovations Task Force, whose recommendations were reportedin Aiming for Excellence, Actions to Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate Environmental Progress, EPA 100-R-99-006, July 1999.

5See <http://www.state.ma.us/dep/pao/news/munistw2.htm>6Richard N.L. Andrews and Deborah Amaral, Environmental Management Systems: Do They Improve

Performance? National Database on Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS) Project Final Report,(Chapel Hill: January 30, 2003), available at <http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/final_report.htm>

7Ibid. at 250.

States can benefit byencouraging local

governments to adoptEMSs because those

actions help the envi-ronmental bottom line.

EMSs can help reducethe impact of local

government operationson streams and landfills

and can help statesmeet air quality standards. These

improvements will helplessen the state’s regulatory burden.

Participant cities in an EPA-sponsored pilot program first tested the application ofEMSs to local government facilities and divisions in 1997.8 EPA invited local govern-ments to submit proposals for implementing an EMS at one or more government-operated facilities, and in exchange, offered training, coaching and technical assistancefrom the Global Environment & Technology Foundation (GETF).9 EPA sponsored asecond round of local government pilot projects beginning in April 2000, representingan even greater variety of governmental entities.10

Local officials cited the following factors as incentives for implementing an EMS fortheir operations:

� The need to address compliance issues at city-run facilities and avoid regulatorypenalties

� The desire to improve efficiency, worker health and safety, management strength,and employee morale

� The need to reduce costs

� The goal of improving the city’s relationship with neighboring landowners andhomeowners, and avoiding bad press

� The need to address smart growth and sprawl issues and attract the right kind ofindustry

� The need to stay competitive with the private sector or privatized operations

� The desire to serve as a leader for the private sector in environmental innovation11

Participating local governments invested money and resources in the EMS projectsand saw substantial cost savings in return. Just as important, nearly every participatinggovernment reported a substantial change in the culture of their agencies. Employeesbecame more aware and more concerned about the environmental impacts of everyaspect of agency operations. Employees became more engaged in identifying areas forimprovement and designing practices for achieving improved performance. Employeesin different sectors of the agency learned to work more cooperatively with one anoth-er and, overall, learned to approach environmental management in a more systematic,efficient way. Every governmental participant reported success with the EMS as a toolfor managing environmental issues, promoting pollution prevention, increasing envi-ronmental awareness and improving operational efficiency.

The participants also agreed on four keys to successfully implementing an EMS forlocal government:

� Management commitment and support is essential to the success of the EMSprocess.

� Organizations that build on existing organizational processes and procedures are

42


8EPA Final Report, US EPA Environmental Management System Pilot Program for Local GovernmentEntities, January 28, 2000, available at <Http://www.epa.gov/owm/iso14001/emsrepor.pdf.>

9GETF offers web-based assistance to local governments free of charge through its Public Entity EMSResource (PEER) Center. Visit their website at <http://www.peercenter.net/>

10EPA Final Report, Second EMS Initiative for Government Entities, October 2002, available at<http://www.peercenter.net/>

11EPA Final Report, Jan. 2000.

Incentives for implementingEMSs at local governmentfacilities:

� The need to address complianceissues at city-run facilities andavoid regulatory penalties

� The desire to improve efficiency,worker health and safety, man-agement strength, and employeemorale

� The need to reduce costs

� The goal of improving the city’srelationship with neighboringlandowners and homeowners,and avoiding bad press

� The need to address smartgrowth and sprawl issues andattract the right kind of industry

� The need to stay competitivewith the private sector or priva-tized operations

� The desire to serve as a leaderfor the private sector in environ-mental innovation

43


more successful than those who create new EMS elements.

� The implementation team is pivotal to the success of the EMS project.

� Employee awareness, understanding and involvement in the EMS should extendacross the entire organization and be recognized as an organizational priority.

Gaithersburg, Maryland

The city of Gaithersburg, Maryland, implemented an EMS for its public worksdepartment, the agency responsible for snow removal, street sweeping, storm water man-agement and infrastructure maintenance, curbside recycling, construction and capitalimprovements at city-owned facilities, and fleet and equipment maintenance.Gaithersburg reported direct cost savings by reducing solid and hazardous waste gener-ation and, therefore, disposal fees; reducing energy use; and avoiding regulatory viola-tions. The city also reported intangible benefits that resulted from its EMS activities,including increased employee awareness of environmental issues and empowerment ofemployees to raise environmental concerns that led to the identification of potentialproblem areas that had been overlooked previously.

Jefferson County, Alabama

Jefferson County, Alabama adopted an EMS for its General Services and FleetManagement Departments. Citing the broader goal of serving as an example for theentire community in responsibly managing its environmental impacts, the JeffersonCounty EMS team established the specific goals of voluntarily reducing the gener-ation of waste cardboard, shifting to soy inks in the print shop, reducing water andelectricity use by a defined percentage, and adopting sustainable approaches to thedelivery of government services. Jefferson County submitted itself for an externalaudit in February 2002 and became the first county in the country to become ISO14001 certified.

The Jefferson County EMS team reports the following benefits of EMS imple-mentation:

� Switched to soy-based ink in its print shop and eliminated use of more toxic ink

� Recycled 6,900 pounds of cardboard in 2002, or approximately 40 percent ofGeneral Services cardboard waste stream

� Reduced energy consumption by 701,525 KwH in 2002 through installation ofenergy saving technologies

� Installed water saving technologies that, based on current trends, will reduce waterusage by 101,000 gallons by 2005

� Recycled all mixed paper during pilot project in selected Jefferson County build-ings, removed 11.2 tons of paper from traditional waste stream in first month,reduced garbage disposal fees and earned county $20 per ton from its vendor

Mike Higginbotham, coordinator of the Jefferson County EMS, says that the mostdifficult part of the project has been establishing baseline data, but he adds that thisinformation is a critical aspect of the implementation process. He reports that the sav-ings to the county have far outweighed the time and resources committed. “We’remaking money off garbage we once paid others to haul away,” he says.

Jefferson County, Alabama reportedthe following benefits of EMS imple-mentation:

� Switched to soy-based ink andeliminated use of more toxic ink

� Recycled 6,900 pounds of card-board in 2002

� Reduced energy consumptionthrough installation of energy sav-ing technologies

� Installed water saving technologiesthat will reduce water usage by101,000 gallons by 2005

� Removed 11.2 tons of paper fromtraditional waste stream in firstmonth

“We’re making moneyoff garbage we oncepaid others to haulaway,” says Mike

Higginbotham, coordi-nator of the Jefferson

County EMS.

Portland, Oregon

Portland, Oregon chose to adopt an EMS for its Metropolitan TransportationDistrict (Tri-Met) focusing its efforts on five maintenance facilities that serve the dis-trict. Tri-Met reports that a number of benefits have resulted from EMS implementa-tion, including streamlined communication about environmental practices; cost sav-ings of $300,000 in operating expenses and energy conservation between June 2001and March 2002; and increased flexibility for employees in designing a system of envi-ronmental practices that fits the needs of district.

King County, Washington

King County, Washington adopted an EMS for its Solid Waste Division and estab-lished goals of reducing water use by 12 percent, energy use by 10 percent and fueluse by 5 percent over a target period; reducing air emissions through vehicle emissionstests, recycling and reduced consumption; minimizing the use of hazardous materials;and improving spill and leak detection. As of March 2002, the Solid Waste Divisionhad documented substantial reductions in water and energy use at its transfer stations.

The National Database on Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS) reportfound similar successful outcomes among the 22 public facilities that participated inits study. The benefits of using EMSs for government operations documented duringthe NDEMS study included:

� better operational control in areas that impact the environment; better under-standing of the root causes of non-compliance;

� improved operational efficiency and cost savings;

� improved communications within the organization and with outside stakeholdersand contractors/vendors; and

� better relationships with regulators and stakeholders.12

The NDEMS report recommends that government assistance programs makeEMS templates available for various facility types as a way of bringing down the costsof EMS development for individual local governments. By doing so, state govern-ments could help fill the parent-organization assistance role that has promoted the useof EMSs so effectively in the private sector.

Conclusion

EMSs have proven to be fully applicable to governmental operations, especiallythose whose core mission is environmental management. By implementing an EMS,governmental agencies reap the reward of improved efficiency, cost savings, and, pos-sibly, improved environmental performance. Just as important, those agencies serve asa powerful example for businesses and other organizations within the cities or statesthey serve. This is an area in which government truly can lead by example.

44


12Andrews and Amaral, Executive Summary, ES-22.

By making EMS templatesavailable to local

governments, state governments could help fill

the parent-organizationassistance role that has

promoted the use of EMSsso effectively in the

private sector.

Chapter Four

Environmental Management Systems—a closer look

Not all EMSs are created equalBy Shelley Metzenbaum

States have many policy objectives they seek to achieve with their environmentalprotection programs. Most seek to protect the environment to improve public health.They aim to reduce cancer and reproductive risks, lessen breathing problems associ-ated with poor air quality, avoid illnesses from exposure to contaminated water, andprevent accidents in the movement of toxic and hazardous materials. States also adoptprograms to preserve and restore the beauty of natural landscapes and the plants andanimals that live in them.

In recent years, many states and the EPA have been looking at a voluntary practice,the use of an environmental management system (EMS), as a possible policy tool toimprove environmental quality and raise the level of compliance with environmentallaws. The questions that concern state decision-makers are: Does the use of an EMS,in fact, increase environmental quality or compliance? If it does, should governmentsencourage or require the use of an EMS? Are there other possible benefits associatedwith EMS use? And are there any possible negative effects associated with its use?

To answer those questions, we first need to ask another. What is an EMS? Withthat knowledge, it is easier to consider the questions that most interest state decision-makers: Will increased use of an EMS actually raise environmental and compliancelevels or achieve other policy objectives? If so, how should government motivate theincreased use of an EMS?

How do EMSs differ?

An EMS generally involves a systematic assessment of a facility’s complianceresponsibilities – essentially a comprehensive checklist of its regulatory obligations –and its environmental impacts. In most cases, use of an EMS involves an organiza-tion-wide policy for dealing with compliance obligations and environmental effects,implementation of those policies, monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation,and revision of the policies when needed. A few companies have adopted sustainabil-ity-focused systems that consider other aspects of their effects on neighboring com-munities, including their impact on social equity and economic well-being.

The design of an EMS can vary dramatically from facility to facility, and companyto company. Some facilities set targets for environmental improvements as well ascompliance in their EMS; others just adopt compliance targets. Some facilities reportto the public on compliance levels or environmental impacts as part of their EMS;others keep it private. Some entail third-party verification of some aspect of the EMS,such as the accuracy of the measurements or the facility’s adherence to its own policygoals. Others manage the entire process in-house. And in some companies, the failureby a facility to meet its EMS targets can trigger consequences.

The most prominent set of standards for an EMS, those adopted by theInternational Organization for Standardization in its ISO 14000 series, do not requirea facility to measure its environmental impacts or report those impacts to the public.In fact, ISO does not require facilities to provide any sort of performance report tothe public, only requiring that each facility publicly announce its policy. Nor doesISO require a facility to be in compliance with local laws and regulations to earn ISO-certification; it just needs to commit to being in compliance and preventing pollution.

47


The design of an EMS can vary dramati-cally from facility tofacility, and company

to company.

In contrast, the European Union’s EMS policy, the Eco-Management and AuditScheme (EMAS), requires its member nations to promote EMSs that measure envi-ronmental impacts and release environmental impact statements to the public. EMASalso encourages each country to make compliance with local laws a pre-condition ofEMAS registration for each facility.

In sum, not all EMSs are created equal. The differences make it hard to describe orpredict the public benefits associated with the use of an EMS. And that difficultydirectly affects the attractiveness of the EMS as a policy tool. States need to exercisegreat caution before adopting policies that mandate, reward, or in some other way pro-mote the general use of an EMS. More precisely, states should not generally reward orrequire the use of any kind of EMS. They should only reward facilities that adopt thekind of EMS that is likely to increase societal benefits – an EMS that adopts goals moreenvironmentally protective than the facility would have pursued in the absence of theEMS and that regularly report compliance and environmental progress to the publicin a credible manner.

When the use of an EMS might not advance public policy objectives

If EMS use raises compliance levels and environmental quality, then governmentdecision-makers might want to encourage its adoption. Logic suggests that if facili-ties more systematically identify and plan responses to their compliance obligationsand environmental impacts, they will improve their level of compliance and mini-mize their negative effects on the environment.

The problem is, the world is not always logical. A handful of studies have tried tomeasure the public value associated with EMS use, but none of these studies found apositive effect on compliance levels, environmental impacts, environmental incidents,or even environmental complaints associated with EMS use. One of the most recentstudies found that facility operators changed their behavior after adopting an EMS,but did not find other effects resulting from the changes in operator activity.

Another recent study, by the National Database on Environmental ManagementSystems (NDEMS), found improved environmental effects in facilities adopting anEMS, but no change in compliance levels. Unfortunately, the NDEMS study is some-what limited by a methodological problem. Unlike all the other studies, which foundno favorable effects associated with EMS use, the NDEMS study looked at facilitiesusing an EMS without comparing them to facilities that did not.1 Without compari-son, it is impossible to say whether the environmental improvements the study detect-ed were caused by the use of an EMS or by other events, such as the introduction of anew regulation or the availability of affordable new pollution control technology. Insum, the currently available evidence finds no detectable effect on either compliance

48


1Richard N.L. Andrews and Deborah Amaral, Environmental Management Systems: Do They ImprovePerformance? National Database on Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS) Project Final Report,(Chapel Hill: January 30, 2003).Because its database does not include facilities that do not use an EMS tocompare to those that do, the study cannot answer the specific question,“Does the use of an EMS affectcompliance levels or environmental impact?” This methodological problem does not, however, compro-mise other study findings that document the characteristics of the EMSs facilities in the database are usingand look at how differences in those characteristics affect compliance and environmental performancelevels. These other aspects of the study contribute valuable new information to our understanding of thekinds of EMSs likely to generate public and private benefits.

Not all EMSs are created equal and thedifferences make ithard to describe orpredict the public

benefits associated withthe use of an EMS. Andthat difficulty directlyaffects the attractive-ness of the EMS as a

policy tool. States needto exercise great cau-tion before adopting

policies that mandate,reward, or in some

other way promote thegeneral use of an EMS.

or environmental quality associated with EMS use. Given that, policy makers shouldpause before deciding to encourage EMS use as a policy tool.

In some ways, these findings seem to defy common sense. Why wouldn’t facilitiesthat adopt a more systematic approach to their compliance responsibilities and envi-ronmental impacts do a better job managing them? What might explain the counter-intuitive results of these studies? Several explanations are plausible. First, severalresearch studies and surveys have found that many facilities adopt an EMS to enhancetheir reputations. A facility interested primarily in advertising its EMS credentialsmight simply do the minimum required to earn them, adopting an EMS with modestgoals or not actively implementing one with more ambitious objectives. If governmentdecides to reward the use of an EMS without requiring both environmental improve-ment and public reporting, it is likely to exacerbate this problem.

Another possible explanation is that the cost of running a new management systemmay exceed the benefits for facilities already in compliance. Or, the environmentalmanagement system may not be integrated with other management systems, such assystems for financial management, error reduction, or more comprehensive “balancedscorecards.” This kind of incompatibility could trivialize the EMS. Yet another possi-ble explanation for the lack of apparent public value associated with the use of an EMScould be the scarcity of the data available to assess the effect of its use. Researchers havehistorically found it difficult to obtain the data they need to conduct objective studiesof environmental effects associated with different practices at individual facilities. As aresult, past research findings may apply only to the specific types of facilities, EMSs,and environmental impacts studied. As additional data become available about othertypes of facilities and other types of EMSs, findings may change.

Our story could end here. Given the uncertainty about the benefits of EMS use, itis understandable that state decision makers might hesitate before initiating or main-taining a program that encourages EMSs. If they do, however, they sacrifice an oppor-tunity to reap public benefits from the increased use of EMS standards that address theshortcomings of ISO 14001 and other inward-looking EMSs. Government and thepublic are likely to benefit when facilities use an EMS that: (1) commits to environ-mental and compliance goals that are more ambitious than the facility had previouslyachieved or planned; (2) the EMS establishes and publicly announces time and place-specific targets relative to those goals; (3) the facility regularly and publicly reportsprogress toward those targets in an easy-to-find, easy-to-interpret, credible, when pos-sible, comparable manner.

How government can benefit from EMSs

The use of an EMS that sets more ambitious environmental goals and regularlyreports progress to the public is likely to create a number of benefits for the public,for the implementing facility, and for its parent organization. These public benefitsare likely to arise because of the way goals and performance measurement systemsaffect people and the organizations in which they work. First, organizational goals area simple and effective way of communicating organizational priorities to employees.When a facility or its parent operation adopts an environmental goal, rather than agoal that simply calls for the facility to be in compliance with the law, it sends animportant signal to the workforce. It lets managers and employees know that the envi-ronment is a matter of organizational concern. This signal is likely to encourage someemployees to think more about how their actions affect the environment, and encourage

49


Given the uncertaintyabout the benefits ofEMS use, it is under-standable that state

decision makers might hesitate beforeinitiating a program

that encourages EMSs.If they do, however,

they sacrifice an oppor-tunity to reap public

benefits from theincreased use of EMS

standards that addressthe shortcomings of ISO

14001 and otherinward-looking EMSs.

at least a few of them to devise more environmentally responsible ways to carry outtheir daily tasks.

Adoption of environmental goals under an EMS can also make it easier for employ-ees already personally committed to environmental protection to offer suggestions forchange. The process of implementing an environmentally focused EMS gives thoseemployees an organizational context, which had not previously existed, for offeringsuggestions for environmental improvements. In addition, when a company or facili-ty adopts an EMS that encourages attention to all of its environmental effects, it opensthe door to environmental progress even in non-regulated areas. One manufacturingplant in Oregon pursuing an environmentally focused EMS discovered, for example,that its greatest negative impact on the environment came from its employees’ com-muting activities. As a consequence of its EMS, the company now encouragesemployees to choose commuting options that are less harmful to the environment.

When facilities publicly announce their environmental targets, they also send impor-tant information to people outside the facility walls. Setting specific environmental tar-gets, in effect, invites vendors selling relevant products and services to come “a-calling.”This can make it easier for plant operators to find affordable new technologies that areless environmentally damaging. As with internal signaling, the signal that environmentalgoals send to suppliers can speed the rate of environmental improvements.

A facility’s neighbors can also gain when facilities reveal specific environmental tar-gets. This information helps community members figure out whether or not the plantin their vicinity intends to tackle the environmental issues of concern to them. If itdoes not, neighbors can contact facility operators to discuss possible changes. If thatdoesn’t work, they can bring their concerns to the attention of local elected officials toseek intervention. In this way, publicly announcing a goal contributes both to astronger democracy and a better environment because it gives citizens better informa-tion, a key ingredient in a healthy democracy. Information about a facility’s environ-mental objectives may also influence a few customers and investors, contributing to avibrant market economy. Just as important, the need to publicly report progresstoward a goal can have a motivational impact. Facility managers are more likely tostrive to meet their environmental targets if they know others are watching. They wantto avoid the embarrassment of not meeting them.

Goals do not improve the environment or strengthen democracy when they oper-ate on their own, however. On its own, a goal is at best a promise. To be relevant, goalsneed to be paired with performance measurement that tracks progress toward thegoals. This is true both for those in the organization as well as for those outside. Theroutine use of performance measurement information brings goals alive for thoseinside the facility. If an organization sets a goal but does not regularly measure progresstoward it and does not routinely use the measurement information in decision-mak-ing, it sends a message to the managers and workers of the organization that the goalis irrelevant, just words on a paper. If, in contrast, those at the top pay attention toprogress toward a goal, it tells everyone else that they need to pay attention as well.

When a facility establishes a performance measurement system that measuresprogress frequently and measures it for different locations, processes, organizationalunits, or other relevant category, the measurement also begins to assume a diagnosticvalue. It helps the facility operators pinpoint when and where pollution or non-com-pliance problems occur. Imagine, for example, a company that operates several differ-

50


A facility’s neighborsgain when facilities

reveal specific environmental targets.Publicly announcing agoal contributes both

to a stronger democracy and a better environment because it

gives citizens betterinformation, a key

ingredient in a healthydemocracy.

51


ent production facilities, and requires each of them to adopt an EMS using compara-ble performance measures. If one facility has a significantly higher accident rate orwater usage than the others, even when differences in production levels are taken intoaccount, it would inevitably trigger follow-up questions to understand why. Theanswers to those questions could make it easier to fix the problem and find similarones at other facilities. Conversely, if one facility dramatically out-performs others, itmight also trigger follow-up inquiries to determine if the strong-performing facilityhas identified some procedural practices other facilities should adopt.

Internal performance measures have little value to those outside the facility unlessthey are made public, not just by reporting them to a government agency but also bymaking the information readily available to the community. The Internet now makesthat both technically feasible and inexpensive. Governments interested in EMS as apolicy tool need to insist that facilities regularly share with the public measurement oftheir progress relative to the past and relative to their goals. Public reporting ofprogress provides accountability in the form of assurance that the goals have been metor at least that progress toward them has been made (assuming the measurements arecredible). Public reporting places reputational pressure on each facility to meet ormake significant progress toward its goals, or explain why the goals were not met anddescribe how the facility intends to meet the goals in the future. This is especiallyimportant if government intends to reward the use of EMS as an incentive to increaseits use, a policy option discussed further below.

Just as performance measurements can have a diagnostic value inside the organi-zation, publicly shared performance information can similarly serve as a means foridentifying and promoting the use of effective practices across organizations.Consider how the insurance industry studies the incidence and consequence ofmotor vehicle accidents to identify the vehicles that are safest and those that are themost dangerous, then shares that information with car manufacturers and buyers.By gathering performance information, then analyzing and broadly disseminatingits analysis, the insurance industry tries to influence the design decisions of car sell-ers and the purchasing decisions of car buyers. It can also influence those decisionsby offering lower rates for safer cars. Or consider how the U.S. Department ofTransportation studies variations in the frequency and costs of crashes associatedwith different highway construction designs. It studies the variations to find safer,more cost-effective practices and then promotes them with states and localities con-structing the roads.

Imagine if the frequency and costs of environmental incidents, or changes in envi-ronmental impacts, were similarly studied. It would help identify facilities with thebest performance or those with the greatest improvements. This information couldthen be further studied to find effective environmental protection practices otherscould adopt or want to avoid. For example, thanks to the cooperation of a group offacilities that voluntarily report their environmental performance to the NationalDatabase on Environmental Management Systems, researchers have found that nei-ther ISO certification nor the use of third-party auditors seem to affect the environ-mental performance of the 37 facilities that have reported results for this segment ofthe study. While this finding cannot be considered statistically significant because ofthe small number of facilities studied, it suggests government decision-makers shouldexercise caution before linking special privileges to or expecting public benefits fromISO certification.

Consider how the insurance industry

studies the incidenceand consequence of

motor vehicle accidentsto identify the vehiclesthat are safest, then

shares that informationwith car manufacturers and buyers. Imagine if

the frequency and costsof environmental

incidents, or changes inenvironmental impacts,were similarly studied.

In order to reap the full potential of using information in this way – to find prob-lem areas needing attention and high performers worthy of replication – credible andcomparable metrics are desirable. The insurance industry can identify the safest carsand the most dangerous ones because they generate and gather similar types of acci-dent data for all cars, just as the U.S Department of Transportation can share withstates and localities the safest and most dangerous road construction designs becauseit has established standard practices for reporting and gathering road safety statistics.

Public reporting using comparable performance metrics also adds to the motiva-tional value of goals and measures. Some facility managers like being national or localleaders; others prefer to stay with the gang. Few, however, can bear being at the backof the pack.

In sum, when facilities use an EMS that publicly announces specific environmen-tal targets and regularly reports progress toward them, it can deliver significant envi-ronmental gain. Goals have a signaling effect, that focuses an organization and invitesideas, energy, and technologies from the workforce as well as from those beyond thefacility walls who can help the organization accomplish its goals. Publicly announcedgoals also contribute to a healthy democracy and a vibrant market economy, becauseit provides citizens, consumers, and investors with valuable information. Publicreporting of environmental impacts has both a motivational and a diagnostic value,especially if facilities report to the public using comparable metrics.

Governmental options for encouraging EMS use

To realize these benefits, government can encourage EMS use in several distinctways – as a mandated obligation, as an allowable alternative to existing mandated obli-gations, by rewarding its use, or by supporting the analysis of EMS use to evaluate thebenefits of using EMSs and identify the characteristics of EMS use most likely to cre-ate those benefits. Circumstances should dictate the approach taken. The incentivesused, whether in the form of reward or punishment, should be calibrated to corre-spond to the facility’s past and promised performance.

A few states and the EPA have mandated the use of an EMS for specific caseswhere facilities have been found to be in violation of the law. In these cases, gov-ernment negotiators have compelled facilities to adopt an EMS as part of itsenforcement agreement. The EMS is in addition to, not a substitute for, the exist-ing regulatory obligations. At least one state has experimented with the use of EMSas a substitute for permits. This makes sense when the EMS provides as much infor-mation as does a permit, covers at least as broad a scope of potential pollutants asall of the facility’s permits would have, includes targets as protective as those thatwould have been in each individual permit, and is enforceable in the same way apermit can be. It implies that the EMS should include clear environmental targetsand public reporting about whether or not the targets have been met. Facilities thatalready use an environmentally focused EMS might find this appealing because itcould significantly reduce the cost of permit negotiations and would make it easierfor the facility to manage all of its environmental obligations comprehensively. Thisapproach might also appeal to facilities that want to shift the focus of their regula-tory obligations from the adoption of specific pollution control processes to theireffect on the environment.

52


Government canencourage EMS use inseveral distinct ways –as a mandated obliga-tion, as an allowable

alternative to existingmandated obligations,

by rewarding its use, orby supporting the

analysis of EMS use toevaluate the benefits

and identify the charac-teristics of EMS usemost likely to create

those benefits.

It should be noted that this sort of approach is likely to appeal only to a limitedgroup of facilities, those who want to experiment to find lower cost ways to controltheir pollution and can afford the costs of trying again if their innovation efforts failto deliver the expected environmental gains. Most facilities are not interested inassuming these kinds of risks. They prefer to be clearly told their regulatory obliga-tions so they can get them done and then focus on their primary business.

If government intends to offer substantial rewards like regulatory flexibility andfinancial incentives, it should not reward the adoption of just any kind of EMS.Rather, it should link the reward to the delivery of better environmental results andbetter public information about the facility’s environmental impact. There is somedebate about whether or not government should encourage the use of an EMS if theEMS adopts environmental goals that are only as ambitious as previous targets, notmore so. The resolution to that question depends on the cost of the government pro-gram. If a government program to encourage EMS use would cost the governmentadditional funds without resulting in increased environmental or other public bene-fits, why would the government want to do it? If it would save the government moneywith at least the same environmental benefit, then it would be a good idea, assumingequivalent benefits are realized and documented.

Government might also want to reward facilities that publicly report theirprogress using comparable environmental performance metrics and that make theperformance information easy to find, use, and interpret. Neither the public or gov-ernment, nor the private sector, can reap the diagnostic value of performance dataunless these data can somehow be compared. A new effort, the Facility ReportingProject (FRP), has just been launched to establish a generally accepted, standardizedreporting framework for facility-level environmental and sustainability performancemetrics. The FRP anticipates that the reporting framework will be updated as expe-rience is gained. Accordingly, the FRP includes the creation or identification of amulti-stakeholder institution for that purpose. When the FRP is fully operational,governments will want to incorporate the FRP reporting standards into their ownmandates and reward programs.

A few credible and comparable environmental performance metrics exist alreadythat facilities could immediately begin to report publicly as part of their EMS, beforeFRP standards are established. Utility bills track consumption for water and energy.Waste haulers and recyclers similarly track releases for solid and some hazardous waste.These data tend to be private, however, known only to the facility and the serviceprovider. Facilities need to make them public if they are to be available for analysis.

Many regulated facilities also generate comparable information about their regu-lated wastewater discharges, air emissions, and toxic releases. These data are public inthat they are filed with government agencies, comparable because government hasstandardized the regulatory reporting requirements, and credible when a state con-ducts sufficiently frequent inspections. Unfortunately, except for the toxic releaseinformation, they are seldom easy to find or retrieve so that researchers or consultantscan easily manipulate the data to track changes in pollution levels at specific facilitiesand identify likely contributors to those changes. Facilities could lessen this problemby publicly and prominently reporting their discharge, emissions, and toxic releasetrends on the Internet.

53


Neither the public orgovernment, nor the

private sector, can reapthe diagnostic value of

performance dataunless these data can

somehow be compared.A new effort, theFacility Reporting

Project (FRP), has justbeen launched to

establish a generallyaccepted, standardizedreporting framework

for facility-level environmental and

sustainability performance metrics.

Until the FRP standards are adopted, government might want to provide someform of reward, perhaps in the form of public commendation, to facilities willing toreport their performance to the public. Facilities currently working with states on the“performance track” experiments described elsewhere in this guide are beginning togenerate a treasure trove of experience that is helping governments and the FRP iden-tify and adopt useful performance metrics.

It is not very useful, however, if facilities report their performance information tothe public in a way that is hard to interpret or find. Facilities can improve the under-standability of their performance data by presenting it in tables and graphs that com-pare actual performance to EMS goals, permitted emissions or discharge levels, pastperformance, and the performance of peers. They can improve its accessibility by post-ing the performance information on-line and at the workplace. They could also makeit easier for researchers to find their performance data by submitting it to a centralrepository such as the NDEMS, and by linking it to a web-based gateway for facilityperformance information when one is set up, most likely through the FacilityReporting Project.

In situations where it is appropriate for government to reward some aspect of EMSuse, the reward obviously should correspond to the size of the public benefit.Government should take care not to reward facilities for the adoption of an EMSfocused on compliance. All facilities are already required to be in compliance with thelaw. They should not be rewarded for adopting and implementing a plan that simplyhelps them meet their legal obligation. Whether or not they use an EMS to meet thatobligation should be a decision the facility makes, without government influenceunless non-compliance problems have been found and an EMS is mandated as part ofa carefully structured enforcement agreement. This is not to suggest that facilitiesshould not adopt a compliance-oriented EMS. It may well be a good idea. The pointis that government should not reward facilities for such action.

Finally, in its search for effective ways government can improve environmentalquality, governments may want to support analysis of whether and how EMS useaffects environmental and compliance outcomes, as well as the characteristics of anEMS most likely to increase public benefit.

The bottom line

Governments are interested in ways to improve public health and the environment.In recent years, many states and the EPA have been looking at a voluntary practice,the use of an environmental management system, as a possible policy tool to improveenvironmental quality and raise the level of compliance with environmental laws.While there are numerous examples of individual EMS-using facilities achieving sig-nificant environmental improvements, as illustrated in Chapters Two and Three, thestudies that have tried to measure public value associated with EMS use in a statisti-cally valid manner have not found a correlation between EMS adoption and improvedcompliance levels, or reduced environmental impacts, incidents and complaints.Given the uncertainty about the benefits of EMS use, state decision-makers need tocarefully consider the rewards they offer and the commitments they require.Specifically, state officials should encourage the use of EMSs that: (1) commit to envi-ronmental and compliance goals that are more ambitious than the facility had previ-ously achieved or planned; (2) establish and publicly announce time-specific targets

54


State officials shouldencourage the use of

EMSs that: (1) committo environmental andcompliance goals thatare more ambitiousthan the facility had

previously achieved orplanned; (2) establishand publicly announcetime - specific targetsrelative to those goals;(3) regularly and pub-licly report progresstoward targets in an easy-to-find, easy-to-

interpret, credible and,when possible, compa-

rable manner.

relative to those goals; (3) regularly and publicly report progress toward targets in aneasy-to-find, easy-to-interpret, credible and, when possible, comparable manner.

When facilities use an EMS that publicly announces specific environmental targetsand regularly reports progress toward them, it can deliver significant environmentalgain. Goals have a signaling effect that focuses an organization and invites ideas, ener-gy, and technologies from the workforce as well as from those beyond the facility wallswho can help the organization accomplish its goals. Publicly announced goals alsocontribute to a healthy democracy and a vibrant market economy because it providescitizens, consumers, and investors with valuable information. Public reporting ofprogress toward the goals and other environmental impacts has both a motivationaland diagnostic value if facilities report to the public using comparable metrics.

To realize these benefits, government can encourage EMS use in several distinctways – as a mandated obligation, as an allowable alternative to existing mandated obli-gations, by rewarding its use, or by supporting analysis of EMS use to evaluate its ben-efits and identify characteristics of an EMS most likely to contribute to those benefits.Circumstances should dictate the policy approach taken and the incentives used,whether the incentives take the form of reward or punishment. The incentives shouldbe calibrated to correspond to the facility’s past and promised performance.

Finally, when thinking about EMS use, government decision-makers should keepin mind that their ultimate objective is less environmental damage, more relevantinformation that motivates environmental improvement, and identification of moreeffective, less costly ways to pursue that improvement. An environmentally focused,goal-setting EMS that reports its progress in a way that is credible, comparable, easyto find, and easy to analyze is one mechanism for accomplishing that. States mightalso want to consider other mechanisms for achieving the same objective, such asmandates and rewards for facilities that publicly report their environmental impactsaccording to certain standards along with rewards for facilities with strong environ-mental performance relative to their peers and regulatory expectations.

Shelley Metzenbaum directs the Public Sector Performance Management Project atHarvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and is also a visiting profes-sor at the University of Maryland, where she runs the Environmental ComplianceConsortium.

55


56


EMSs and the lawBy Jason Johnston

Regulators use EMSs in two primary ways:

Settling Lawsuits—regulators may require a company to implement an EMS whenthat company settles a lawsuit alleging environmental violations. Indeed, it is commonfor the EPA to require companies with compliance problems to implement an EMSas a condition for settling enforcement cases. In this scenario, an EMS serves as a toolto fix previous violations and lower the probability of future violations.

Voluntary adoption—more frequently companies and organizations voluntarilyadopt EMSs. In this scenario, EMSs are procedures that monitor and disclose envi-ronmental performance on an ongoing basis. The regulatory goal is to adopt policiesthat maximize the potential for voluntary EMSs to serve as a tool to facilitate compli-ance and to encourage environmental performance that is “beyond compliance”, orbeyond what is currently required by law.

Legal benefits of EMSs

� EMSs offer ways to avoid or reduce enforcement penalties for noncompliance.

� In implementing an EMS, a company will review production processes and prac-tices and potentially gain information necessary to avoid future noncompliance.

� Multi-media nature of EMSs has the potential to provide more and better envi-ronmental information for regulators and other stakeholders.

� EMSs provide a basis for an integrated and consolidated reporting system for reg-ulators.

� Implementation of an EMS and environmental audits may offer regulatory bene-fits including reducing the administrative burdens of filing for new permits.

� If undertaken voluntarily, regulatory agencies may view EMSs as mitigating factorsin civil and criminal enforcement actions to the extent permitted by statutes andpenalty policies.

� A new, cooperative relationship with regulators may replace the dynamic of conflict.

EMSs as tools to settle lawsuits and enforce environmental violations

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are becoming an important part of EPA’senforcement process. EPA has designated seven categories of projects that qualify as SEPs.One of those categories, assessment and audit, involves a subset of activities involved inthe development and implementation of an EMS. (The auditing provision applies tocompliance auditing.) EMSs in their entirety can be proposed as EMSs under the “othertypes of projects” category with prior EPA headquarters approval. EMSs can be used tomonitor both efficiency in the production process and compliance with environmentallaws and regulations. EPA defines SEPs as “environmentally beneficial projects which adefendant/respondent agrees to undertake in settlement of an enforcement action, butwhich the defendant/respondent is not otherwise legally required to perform.”1

57


1See SEP Policy, 60 Fed.Reg. at 24,857.

� “Environmentally beneficial projects” advance environmental and public healthimprovements and protections;

� “In settlement of an enforcement action” indicates that EPA has the opportunity tohelp shape the scope of the project before it is implemented; and that the projectis not commenced until after the agency has identified a violation; and

� “Not otherwise legally required to perform,” means the project must be voluntarilyundertaken and not required by applicable environmental statutes and regulation.

In addition to EPA endorsement, industry, community groups and environmentalorganizations strongly support the inclusion of SEPs in enforcement settlement agree-ments. Essentially, SEPs function as an alternative to enforcement penalties, in lieu ofwhich the violating company agrees to undertake “beyond compliance” environmen-tally beneficial expenditures. SEPs provide greater flexibility than EPA’s traditionalenforcement approach in designing strategies to improve environmental performance.

Voluntary Adoption of EMSs

Federal Initiatives

With limited government resources available to ensure maximum compliance, theEPA has begun relying on industries to assume some responsibility for self-policingtheir environmental performance. Adoption of an EMS encourages industries to mon-itor their own compliance and environmental performance thoroughly. Self-policingallows increased flexibility between industry and regulators.

Some federal agencies have adopted measures to enhance such incentives:

� Under the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines, entities convicted of environmen-tal criminal violations receive more lenient sentencing treatment if they haveadopted such systems, and harsher treatment if they have not.2

� The Department of Justice has issued non-binding guidelines providing that firmsthat have such systems will be treated more favorably by the Department’s prose-cutors both in exercising their discretion in deciding whether to bring a criminalprosecution for a regulatory violation, and in determining the level of violationthey will be charged with.3

� EPA provides that top performing members of the National EnvironmentalPerformance Track program are eligible for less frequent inspections and morelenient enforcement treatment if they commit violations. (The criteria for entryinto the National Environmental Performance Track program include sustainedcompliance, an EMS in place for one cycle, communication with the community,and beyond compliance performance in four environmental areas.)

EPA Standards

In 2000, EPA issued “Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correctionand Prevention of Violations.” The purpose of the policy is to “enhance protection of

58


2See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, 3E1.1 (Nov. 1991).3See U.S. Department of Justice, Factors in Decisions on Criminal Prosecutions for Environmental

Violations in the Context of Significant Voluntary Compliance of Disclosure Efforts by the Violator 24 (July1991).

human health and the environment by encouraging regulated entities to voluntarily dis-cover, disclose, correct and prevent violations of Federal environmental law.”4

The audit policy provides incentives for regulated entities to detect, promptly dis-close, and expeditiously correct violations of federal environmental requirements. Itcontains nine conditions, and entities that meet all of them are eligible for 100 percentmitigation of any gravity-based penalties that otherwise could be assessed. “Gravitybased” refers to that portion of the penalty over and above the portion that representsthe entity’s economic gain from noncompliance, known as the “economic benefit.’’

Regulated entities that do not meet the first condition, systematic discovery of vio-lations, but meet the other eight conditions are eligible for a 75 percent mitigation ofany gravity-based civil penalties.

The policy includes important safeguards to deter violations and protect publichealth and the environment. For example, it requires entities to act to prevent recur-rence of violations and to remedy any environmental harm. Repeat violations, thosethat result in actual harm to the environment, and those that may present an immi-nent and substantial endangerment are not eligible for relief under this policy.Companies will not be allowed to gain an economic advantage over their competitorsby delaying their investment in compliance.5

The EPA audit policy outlines the following conditions a regulated entity must meetto be eligible for reduced penalties under the policy:

� Systematic discovery of the violation through Environmental Audit or ComplianceManagement System (Document “due diligence” efforts in “preventing, detecting,and correcting violations)”

� Voluntary discovery (i.e. not mandated through statute)

� Prompt disclosure to EPA within 21 days

� Discovery and disclosure independent of government or third party plaintiff

� Correction and remediation

� Prevent recurrence

� No repeat violations

� Violations that result in serious or actual imminent harm to public health do notqualify.

� The company must fully cooperate with the EPA

Disclosure, Audits and the “Audit-Privilege” Debate

Given EPA’s policy, disclosure, documentation and reporting are crucial aspects ofa successful EMS. A company’s voluntary monitoring and provision of information toregulators, through regularly scheduled self-audits, fosters the goal of continued com-pliance and violation prevention.

59


4See U.S. EPA, Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations,Federal Register, April 11, 2000,Volume 65, Number 70. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2000/April/Day-11/g8954.htm>

5Ibid.

What is an audit? An audit is a systematic and documented review of a facility’s oper-ations and practices to confirm compliance with environmental laws. An audit may beused to review a facility’s legal compliance, to assess the effectiveness of the EMS, and toevaluate any risks posed by production processes and practices. A company that has anEMS in place will voluntarily conduct a management audit. Management auditing isoften an integral part of a facility’s overall EMS.

While an EMS focuses on operational procedures, it addresses environmentalperformance as well. An EMS audit may reveal not only procedural defects, butenvironmental performance problems, including non-compliance with existing reg-ulations as well.

The question arises whether companies should be permitted to protect or concealthis information as privileged or whether companies should be compelled to disclosethis information to appropriate enforcement authorities.

In crafting the legal standard for audits, it is important to set the correct balance. Twodrawbacks will result if the audit privilege is too protective of information: First and moreimportantly, the credibility of the EMS itself is compromised if too much information iswithheld from the public. and less seriously, state audit privilege laws cannot protectinformation that federal law requires to be disclosed in publicly available reports. On theother hand, without some limits on the extent to which audit information will be pub-licly disclosed, there will be little incentive for companies to participate by voluntarily dis-closing information which they are not otherwise required to disclose.

The bottom line

In drafting policies that encourage the voluntary adoption of EMSs, regulatorsshould ensure the following EMS elements are incorporated:

� An environmental policy is developed that commits the facility, its managementand employees to compliance and continual improvement, pollution preventionand resource conservation, and meaningful public involvement. The policy shouldbe written and known to all employees.

� A whole system assessment of environmental impacts is conducted, the most sig-nificant impacts identified, and objectives for reducing the impacts establishment.

� Environmental practices are monitored and performance measured to determinewhether the environmental policy and objectives are being met.

� Environmental performance results are publicly reported.

� Environmental performance is subjected to internal and third-party auditing, andpublic scrutiny, to boost credibility of the EMS above what is required by the ISO14001 standards.

� EMS is continually reviewed by management and adjustments made to assure con-tinual improvement in environmental performance.

Jason Johnston is a Robert G. Fuller, Jr. professor of public law and director of the Programon Law and the Environment (POLE) at the University of Pennsylvania College of Law.University of Pennsylvania College of Law student David Stier assisted in the preparation ofthis article.

60


EMSs in agricultureBy Carolyn Orr

Environmental Management Systems are not limited to industrial applications.Soybean producers in Iowa, pork producers in North Carolina and dairy farmers inCalifornia have more in common than farming—all are testing EMSs in their opera-tions. The importance of sound environmental management at poultry and livestockoperations in the U.S. has drawn increasing attention in recent years. The environ-mental challenges facing agriculture’s natural resource-based industries are huge andstill largely unrecognized. Agriculture is the largest U.S. industry and controls moreland than any other single industry, leaving farmers managing large areas of America’senvironment. Thus, environmental policy is tied directly to agriculture and the appli-cation of EMSs to agriculture is a natural extension of that policy.

Agricultural EMSs and environmental quality assurance programs are being usedincreasingly by producers that are serious about addressing concerns related to theenvironment and food quality. Many producers are already familiar with the processof external certification through their involvement in USDA Organic FarmingCertification or the production of certified wood products. Most producers alreadyhave plans and keep records of manure handling, chemical or fertilizer applicationsand worker training. An EMS provides a better way to organize these efforts and putsthe plans in writing to ensure environmental concerns are addressed. According to JimHorne of the U.S. EPA, “the small agricultural producer doesn’t need an EMS as elab-orate as IBM, but the same basic framework can be used, and it doesn’t need to takea whole lot of time”. Environmental management at livestock operations generallyfocuses on preventing contamination of surface or ground water, and reducing odorand pest impacts.

Why would farmers and ranchers participate in an EMS?

Farmers stand to gain greater benefits from EMS implementation than reducingnegative effects on the environment. An EMS integrates environmental considerationsinto day-to-day and long term farm planning. Thus, it can increase profitability as wellas advance the quality of life goals of the farmer, his family and employees. For exam-ple, American Crystal Sugar, a 2,500 member grower cooperative, pays incentives toproducers that implement best management practices. Practices include reducednitrogen use and Integrated Pest Management techniques. When surveyed, farmershave reported many reasons to implement an EMS:

� A desire to improve farm management

� To keep the farm operation in compliance with environmental laws and regulations

� To improve the profitability of an agricultural operation

� To help achieve the goal of passing a sustainable farm to the next generation

� To increase market access by satisfying increasing customer demands for productsproduced through environmentally sustainable methods. (Eco-labeling and claimsof environmentally friendly products are proliferating and an EMS provides a wayto substantiate the label. Increasing environmental standards in Europe will lead togreater requirements for exported products.)

61


Guidance manual for large hog producers

Pork production facilities haveincreased in size in recent years, andlarge operations now account for themajority of pigs raised in the UnitedStates.This 28-page manual providesplanning agencies, township supervi-sors, regulatory agencies, and hogfarmers with a tool to gauge plansfor developing a new swine farm orimproving an existing site.The manu-al is free and can be obtained athttp://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/ud007.html or Publications DistributionCenter, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 112 Agricultural Admin-istration Building, University Park, PA16802-2602, phone (814) 865-6713.

� To strengthen community support and goodwill by providing greater public confi-dence through a demonstration of environmental responsibility

� To increase operational efficiency by reducing spending on the correction of envi-ronmental problems

� To reduce legal liability by demonstrating due diligence

� To enhance property values through better resource management

Current agriculturally oriented programs run the gamut from state and commodi-ty awards recognizing environmental stewardship to voluntary self-evaluation andcomplete third-party ISO 14001 audits. The best-known environmental stewardshipaward recognition programs are administered by commodity organizations, includingthe National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). Established in 1991, the NCBA’sEnvironmental Stewardship Award Program provides an opportunity for the beefindustry to showcase the stewardship and business practices that work together onprogressive farms and ranches. While the program highlights industry stewardship, italso provides cattlemen with examples and ideas that may be useful on their own farmsand ranching operations. NCBA awards are given annually, in regions and at thenational level. Many states also recognize environmental excellence with annualawards, including Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, New York, and Florida.

What are states doing to encourage EMS use in agriculture?

Many states offer voluntary environmental assessment programs that can lead tothird-party certification. One such approach is the Livestock and PoultryEnvironmental Stewardship curriculum, developed by 15 land grant universities,USDA and EPA. This series of educational materials is targeted at livestock and poul-try industry advisors. The “train the trainers” approach can be used in any state to helpproducers acquire certification and achieve environmentally sustainable productionsystems. Producers also benefit directly from the information and assessment toolsthat the curriculum provides.

Michigan

Michigan’s Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) began in1998. Developed by agricultural producers and agencies, the voluntary, educationalenvironmental certification program is an industry and governmental partnership.MAEAP begins with training and information dissemination at meetings heldthroughout the state. Producers then evaluate their farms for environmental risk withon-farm assessments, develop a comprehensive nutrient management plan and even-tually achieve third-party certification. By using a systems-based approach, theMAEAP program assures that participating producers use effective land stewardshippractices and comply with environmental regulations. Kalamazoo hog and crop pro-ducer Robert Richardson was one of the first Michigan farmers to gain certification.He has employed several methods to prevent non-point source pollution in his oper-ation, including storing liquid manure in underground facilities to minimize odor,and injecting the manure as fertilizer into his cropping acreage.

62


National Cattlemen’s BeefAssociation9110 East Nichols Ave #300Centennial, CO 80112303-694-0305Fax: 303-694-2851

Michigan AgricultureEnvironmental AssuranceProgram517-241-4730http://www.maeap.org

California

The California Dairy Quality Assurance Program (CDQAP) helps California dairyproducers understand and meet federal, state, regional and local requirements forwater quality. This certification program is funded by a partnership of dairy industry,state, regional and federal money. Enrolled producers must first complete courses onwater regulations, manure management and storm water pollution prevention. This isfollowed by having each producer evaluate their specific farm conditions (self evalua-tion) and prepare their own facility EMS. Dairies completing the short courses andself evaluation are then eligible for an independent third party compliance evaluationto ensure that management is meeting all state and federal environmental laws. TheCDQAP focuses on specific areas of the farm facility:

� Lagoon capacity

� Permit documentation – National Pollution Discharge System Permit, county usepermits and waivers

� Runoff collection and storage capacity – facility must be able to collect and storethe water from a 25-year, 24-hour storm

� Clay content of the lagoon – state regulations require 10 percent clay content

� Corral management – to prevent standing water or water infiltration

� No discharge from dairy to surface waters

� Long-range planning for facility improvements

North Carolina

The Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance has providedfunding to assist farms in developing individualized EMS through a Water QualityCooperative Agreement. The Division is working on the project in cooperation withthe North Carolina Extension Service and the Department of Biological andAgricultural Engineering. According to the director of the program, Barbara Satler,the key point of the North Carolina program is that each producer is assigned twocoaches, one from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and onefrom the extension service. These coaches work with the producers through every stepof the development process of an EMS.

Utah and Iowa

Utah State University is currently developing an Agriculture EnvironmentalManagement System guide, based on the ISO 14001 standard. It will be a system ofmodules to guide producers through the development of an EMS. Also in the middleof development is a project by the Iowa Soybean Association, with funding from theIowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. The Iowa CertifiedEnvironmental Management System for Agriculture (CEMSA) will include a series ofgroup work sessions and individual on-farm visits. It is being developed to assist Iowafarmers interested in undergoing ISO 14001 certification.

63


North Carolina hog producersdevelop new waste manage-ment technology

North Carolina, through agree-ments with Smithfield and PremiumStandard Farms, is funding develop-ment of better technology to storeand treat hog wastes. BothSmithfield and Premium Standardsigned agreements with the state’sAttorney General to help developand implement new technology thatwill protect the environment andthe economy. The companies payinto a trust fund that is used todefray the costs of technologydevelopment by North CarolinaState University.The companies arealso required to provide assistanceto contract farms to implementnew technology.Together, Smithfieldand Premium Standard representover 75 percent of the hog farms inNorth Carolina. As part of theagreement the companies were toimplement ISO 14001-based EMSson all company owned farms.

Agriculture Environmental Management SystemsProgramAgricultural Systems Technology &Education DepartmentUtah State University1498 North 800 EastLogan, UT 84322-2300435-797-3396http://aems.aste.usu.edu/

Certified EnvironmentalManagement SystemIowa Soybean Association4554 114th StreetUrbandale, IA 50322-5410515-251-8640http://www.iasoybeans.com/isa/cemsa/aboutcemsa.html

Wisconsin and beyond

The Farm*A*Syst program, another collaborative public and private effort housedat the University of Wisconsin, is a voluntary, confidential, environmental assessmentprogram that depends on the producers completing worksheets to evaluate risks totheir health and the environment. Thirty-nine states and the Virgin Islands have usedFarm*A*Syst in some project. States have used innovative delivery programs to dis-seminate the Farm*A*Syst program, including Stream*A*Syst in Oregon,Cotton*A*Syst in Georgia, Forest*A*Syst in North Carolina and Coast*A*Syst inSouth Carolina. The Lodi-Woodbridge California Winegrape Commission used theprogram as a model in producing the “Lodi Winegrowers Workbook: A Self-Assessmentof Integrated Farming Practices”. In 2000, Farm*A*Syst launched a four year, multistate (Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia andWisconsin) initiative to expand the program for livestock producers. The pilot pro-grams in each of the states involve poultry, beef and dairy projects.

Other efforts that encourage that encourage the use of EMSs in agriculture

The Institute for Environmental Research and Education (IERE) is a nonprofitorganization that supports environmental decision-making based on factual informa-tion. It focuses on uncovering the best approaches to managing complex environ-mental programs and evaluating environmental impacts. IERE seeks to develop andcommunicate the unbiased information needed to support the improved decision-making. Most of their analysis uses life cycle assessment as a measurement tool forenvironmental performance. Examples of projects IERE has been involved in include:

� Community environmental management systems to support sustainability

� Cost-benefit analysis of regulatory reinvention projects

� Eco-labels based on life cycle assessments

� Verification of environmental performance

� Environmental Impact Research

The IERE web site walks a producer through the development of an EMS, fromwriting the policy statement to evaluating the environmental impact of a farmingactivity. They promote disclosure of the assessment process to the community, to helpcommunities better understand farming and farm sustainability.

The United Egg Producers, a farmer cooperative that represents egg producersnationwide, has an agreement with the EPA to administer a comprehensive programto help producers implement EMSs. The program, part of EPA’s Project XL initiative,helps egg producers comply with a general permit issued by the individual states orthe EPA that require participating farms to control environmental impacts. Project XLallows state and local governments, businesses and federal facilities to develop, withEPA, innovative strategies to achieve environmental protection in exchange for theregulatory flexibility needed to conduct the project.

Certification of agricultural EMSs

While all agricultural EMS programs need flexibility to respond to the specifics ofan agricultural operation, they must be able to promote continuous improvement in

64


Farm*a*Syst produces change

An evaluation of the Farm*a*Systprogram headquartered at theUniversity of Wisconsin showed thatmore than one-third of Indiana par-ticipants made at least one activitychange within 6 weeks of doing theirassessments. Actions included alter-ing chemical application around wellheads and building secondary con-tainment facilities for farm chemicals.In Georgia, Rainbow Acres Farmreceived the Governor’s PollutionPrevention Awards after using theFarm*a*Syst assessment program todevelop an environmental farm plan.In Neb-raska, a survey of 97 produc-ers found that 50 percent madechanges within 6 months, investingless than $1,000 to reduce theirfarm’s environmental impact.

Contact Farm*A*Syst at:

1545 Observatory Drive303 Hiram Smith HallMadison,WI 53706-1289608-262-0024www.uwex.edu/farmasystwww.uwex.edu/homeasyst

Institute for EnvironmentalResearch and Education17917 Vashon Hwy SWP.O. Box 2449Vashon,WA 98070-2449206-463-7430http://www.iere.org

environmental performance. Certified third-party audits offer producers the advan-tage being of aligned with a recognized system and establish credibility with the pub-lic and regulatory officials.

Arguably the most comprehensive agricultural EMS requiring third-party certifi-cation is overseen by America’s Clean Water Foundation (ACWF). ACWF, througha congressional appropriation, instituted a nationwide third-party environmentalassessment program, the On-Farm Assessment and Environmental Review(OFAER) program. This program is available at no cost to every livestock and poul-try production operation in the United States. Developed and refined by a team ofagricultural engineers and manure management specialists from private industry,the Cooperative Extension Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service,and livestock producers, the OFAER program provides producers with a confiden-tial, comprehensive and objective assessment of water quality, odor and pest risk fac-tors in their operations.

Participation in the OFAER project is purely voluntary and offered at no charge tothe poultry or livestock producer. Producer participation and farm specific informa-tion is kept strictly confidential. A producer is provided a written assessment reportfollowing completion of an assessment. The assessment report provides recommenda-tions to reduce an operation’s actual or potential impact on surface or ground waterquality, and ways to minimize the generation of odor and pests from an operation.The OFAER program is:

� Comprehensive – it assesses the entire operation, from structures, lots and pasturesto manure storage, transfer and land application. Assessments identify environ-mental and operational strengths as well as challenges.

� Voluntary - a producer simply completes and submits a request form. After theassessment, the producer is under no obligation to implement the recommenda-tions given.

� Confidential - all data gathered is treated as confidential business information, andthe producer receives the only copy of the final report. Aggregate data is collectedfor educational purposes only; names and locations are not released.

� Non-regulatory - OFAER is an independent third-party assessment program thatis not affiliated with other industry or regulatory efforts. OFAER focuses on man-agement practices rather than regulatory compliance issues.

� Available to all Livestock Producers - large or small, open lot or confined, privateor contractual, all livestock producers are eligible to receive an assessment throughthe OFAER program.

Once an OFAER Assessment has been requested by a livestock or poultry produc-er, ACWF appoints a two-person assessor team who contact the producer to schedulean on-site assessment. The producer must accompany the team on the assessment.

This enables assessors to discuss—one-on-one with the producer—the strengthsobserved and to highlight the individual challenges and to personally explain the rec-ommendations that will be put forth in the written report. Before they begin the eval-uation, the team encourages producers to point out any specific problem areas or chal-lenges of particular concern. With this in mind, the team can focus on these areas dur-ing the course of the assessment, and offer specific recommendations tailored to theproducer’s individual operation.

65


America’s Clean WaterFoundationChad Savage OFAER Program Manager202-898-0908Fax: [email protected]://www.acwf.org

OFAER assessors are trained, tested and certified on a species-specific basis andmust complete refresher courses annually. Over 400 agricultural and environmentalprofessionals voluntarily serve as assessors in the program nationwide. The broadrange of specialties represented includes university extension and NRCS staff, as wellas veterinarians, professional engineers and private consultants. Assessments look atfive key environmental risk management areas:

� Overall site management including proximity to neighbors and environmentalreceptors, run-on and runoff controls, and facility emergency management plans

� Building and lot management including ventilation and handling

� Manure storage and handling including formed and earthen storage structures andmanure handling equipment

� Mortality management including storage, transfer, disposal methods and diseaseprevention

� Nutrient management including management plans and land application practices

Data gathered from over three thousand assessments conducted by OAFER asses-sors to date indicate that most risk factors can be addressed through implementationof relatively low-cost and easy to implement better management practices that notonly improve environmental performance but, in many instances, the economic effi-ciency of operations as well.

The bottom line

Regardless of the program or method used, the implementation of an agriculturalEMS benefits the producer, the environment and the community through improvedenvironmental performance and regulatory compliance. An EMS helps establish envi-ronmental creditability for agricultural operations and is a proactive step that all pro-ducers should take.

Carolyn Orr, Ph.D. is lead agriculture policy analyst at The Council of State Governments

66


Other agencies and organizations to contact for information about agricultural EMSs

California Dairy Quality Assurance Program502 Mace Blvd. Suite 12Davis, CA 95616530-752-7507http://[email protected]

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship CurriculumMidwest Plan Service122 Davidson Hall Iowa State UniversityAmes, IA 50011-3080Phone: 800-562-3618Fax: 515-294-9589E-mail: [email protected]

Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission(Crush District 11, Local Commission)2545 W. Turner RoadLodi, CA 95242Phone: 209-367-4727Lodi Winegrowers Workbook: A Self Assessment of Integrated Farming Practiceshttp://www.lodiworkbook.com/

North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental AssistanceBarbara Satler1639 Mail Service CenterRaleigh NC [email protected]

Agriculture Environmental Management Systems ProgramAgricultural Systems Technology & Education DepartmentUtah State University1498 North 800 EastLogan, UT 84322-2300Phone: (435) 797-3396http://aems.aste.usu.edu/

67


68


How can sustainable forestry initiatives benefit from EMS principles?By Sandra Vasenda

Despite high rates of deforestation all over the world, progress in implementing sus-tainable forest initiatives has been steady and encouraging.1 The goal of these initia-tives is to meet present needs for forest goods and services while protecting the healthand growth of our forests for future generations. These initiatives take a broader, moreholistic approach to forest management than traditional practices by addressing thedynamic ecological and social network that makes up the forest.

Ten nations, including the United States, house two-thirds of the world’s forests.2

In the United States, 24.7 percent of land area is covered by forests. The abundanceof forests in our country supports a thriving forest products industry. In the lastdecade, this industry has expanded and broadened its focus to include initiatives thatencourage sustainable forestry practices.

How might sustainable forestry initiatives benefit from EMS principles? EMS useis being encouraged by government agencies, non-profit organizations, and privatecompanies that own forestland or work with forest resources. Interest in the EMS con-cept across these multiple sectors allows for more thorough integration of the conceptinto sustainable forestry initiatives.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed a voluntaryprogram that encourages the adoption of EMSs by companies whose operations havean impact on forests.3 Department staff provides technical assistance to the companiesas they design and implement the systems and help them create a plan that meets theirspecific needs. “Organizations that have implemented an EMS have a broader, moreaccurate view of the effects they have on the environment,” said Stephen Mahfood,director of the Missouri DNR.4

Companies that have well-developed EMSs may undertake better-defined efforts atsustainable management of the forestlands they own. In the United States, forestproducts companies have adopted EMSs not only to facilitate trade, but to increasetheir environmental performance as well. However, not all forest products companieshave fully engaged these new practices. A recent study found that larger forest prod-ucts firms had more developed EMSs while sawmill operations had the least developedindustrial forestland EMSs.5

Examples of large companies that have adopted EMSs for their operations includethe Potlach Corporation, a diversified forest products company with forest lands inIdaho, Minnesota and Arkansas, and Weyerhaeuser Company. Potlach has certified its

69


1FAO, Progress in Implementing Sustainable Forest Management, 10 March 2003, (release to announcethe publication of State of the World’s Forests 2003) <http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2003/15080-en.html>

2FAO, State of the World’s Forests, Table 2: “Forest Resources”, 2001, <http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/Y0900E/y0900e13.htm#TopOfPage>

3Missouri Department of Natural Resources, <http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/oac/pub2117.pdf>4Crane Communications, Inc., D-I-Y EMS, Mo launches voluntary environmental program, February 17,

2003.5Rene Germain, et al, “Environmental Management Systems: Assessing their Level of Use on Industrial

Forestlands,” Journal of Forestry, June 2002:12-18.

For further information

American Forest & PaperAssociation Sustainable For-estry Initiative Program,2002-2004 Edition

American Tree Farm Systemweb site (http://www.treefarmsys-tem.org /aboutfarming/standards.cfm)

Forest Stewardship Councilweb site (http://www.fscoax.org /principal.htm)

EMS under two standards, the international ISO 14001 standard and the SustainableForestry Initiative standards.6 Weyerhaeser has earned ISO certification for its HudsonBay oriented strand board mill.7

Sandra Vasenda is an environmental policy analyst at The Council of StateGovernments.

70


6Business Wire, Potlatch Announces that its Idaho and Minnesota Forestlands Have Met SFISM and ISOCertification Requirements, September 16, 2002.

7Business Wire, Weyerhaeuser’s Hudson Bay OSB Mill Recognized for Environmental Management,February 12, 2003.

Three examples of sustainable forestry initiatives that employ EMSs

Sustainable forest management is the goal of a multitude of national organizations with an interest in forestry issues. Three of theseorganizations--Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and American Tree Farm System (ATFS) have created stan-dards with EMS elements that are designed to promote good forest stewardship and viable, sustainable forests.

The Forest Stewardship Council’s principles and criteria for good management

The FSC, founded in 1993, promotes responsible forest management globally by certifying forest products that meet the most rigor-ous standards in the world. The FSC’s U.S. office works with FSC members throughout the country to help them meet the program’sstandards. Forest stewardship is defined in a set of global principles and criteria, which apply to all forests worldwide to ensure that FSC-endorsed forests are managed in an ecologically sound, socially responsible and economically viable manner. Region-specific standards trans-late these global principles into meaningful standards at a local level. A standards committee was formed in January 2000 in the UnitedStates to facilitate the completion of regional standards with nine regional working groups. (See <http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htm>)

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative of the American Forest & Paper Association

The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) was founded in 1993, evolving from predecessor groups dating as far back as themid-1800s. Described as “a leading example of a trade association with sanctions for members…[for] not adopting their standards…”, *the AF&PA has created a rigorous, widely applied set of standards for sustainable forestry in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.The initia-tive establishes measures by which the participant’s commitment to sustainable forestry can be monitored and evaluated by interestedparties. (AF&PA. 2002). Under the SFI standards, participants not only improve their operations but set new standards for the forest indus-try as a whole and extend those standards to other forest landowners (AF&PA. 2002). *Cary Coglianese and Jennifer Nash, Regulatingfrom the inside: can environmental management systems achieve policy goals? (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2001), 5-6.

The American Tree Farm System

This organization’s stated mission is “to promote the growing of renewable forest resources on private lands while protecting environ-mental benefits and increasing public understanding of all benefits of productive forestry.”The ATFS has established standards and guide-lines property owners must meet in order to become a certified tree farm. Under these standards and guidelines, private forest ownersmust develop a management plan that meet the program’s criteria and pass an certification inspection by an ATFS volunteer forester everyfive years. These criteria include performance measures to determine whether the plan maintains and/or enhance wood and fiber pro-duction, wildlife habitat, water quality and recreational opportunities. (See <http://www.treefarmsystem.org/aboutfarming/standards.cfm>)

Appendices

A: U.S. map highlighting state programs

and table with authorizing legislation

and related regulations

B: State program profiles

C: Glossary

D: Other resources

73


Appendix A:U.S. map highlighting state programs and table withauthorizing legislation and related regulations

States with active Environmental Leadership Programs or EMS-related activities.

States with dormant ELPs or past EMS-related activities.

States without an Environmental Leadership Program or other substantial EMS-related activities.

This map represents Environmental Leadership Programs and EMS-related stateactivities as defined by CSG and uncovered during research for this guide. The mapmay not reflect every EMS-related program or activity carried out by states.


See glossary for definitions of program terms

Key: R= Recognition

A= Assistance

F= Financial

Rg= Regulatory

N/A= Not applicable

NEPT= National Environmental

Performance Track

* Denotes regulation

State Program Name Statutory Authority / Regulations Program Type

Alaska Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) Training and assistance

Arkansas Performance Track Assistance Program Assistance in applying for NEPT

Arizona Arizona Strategic Environmental Alliance ARS §49-191 Public/private initiative

California Cal/EPA EMS Project A.B. 1102 Pilot project

Colorado Environmental Leadership Program CRS §25-6.7-102 Tiered, menu-based

Connecticut Connecticut Exemplary EMSs Public Act No. 99-226 State/federal relationship

Florida Partnership for Ecosystem Protection Negotiation-based

Georgia Georgia Pollution Prevention Program (P3) Tiered, menu-based

Idaho GemStars Tiered, menu-based

Illinois Regulatory Innovative Program 415 ILCS 52.3-1 Negotiation-based

Indiana 100% Club Patterned after NEPT

Kentucky KY EMS Alliance KRS §224 46-305 Assistance

Louisiana Environmental Leadership Pollution PreventionProgram (LaELP) Recognition and assistance

Maine Maine Smart Tracks for Exceptional Performers and Upward Performers Sec. 1. 38 MRSA §343-G Tiered and negotiation-based

Maryland EMS Pilot Project Assistance

Massachusetts Environmental Stewardship Program Executive Order 438- 2002 Tiered

Michigan Clean Corporate Citizen (C3) R324.1501 to R324.1511* Menu-based

Minnesota Project XL in Minnesota, Environmental Audit Program M.S. Section 114C.20 to 114C.33 Modeled on EPA Project XL program

New Hampshire Enhanced Environmental Performance Agreements Pilot Project NHRS §125-C:6-a Pilot project

New Jersey Silver and Gold Track Program for Environmental Performance Tiered, uses enforceable covenant agreements

New Mexico Green Zia Pollution Prevention Partnership Tiered, negotiation-based

North Carolina Environmental Stewardship Initiative Tiered

Oregon Green Permits Program (GEMS) ORS §468.501 et seq. Tiered, menu and negotiation-based

South Carolina Environmental Excellence Program (SCEEP) Negotiation-based

Tennessee Pollution Prevention Partnership Tiered

Texas Clean Texas & Texas EMS Program H.B. 2997 / 30 TAC Chpt 90, Subchapter C* Tiered

Utah Clean Utah Tiered

Virginia Virginia Environmental Excellence Program (VEEP) Section 10.1-1183 Tiered, menu and negotiation-based

Vermont Business Environmental Partnership Tiered

Washington State Environmental Excellence Program RCW §43.21K Negotiation-based

West Virginia Sustainable Business Pilot Program Pilot project

Wisconsin Environmental Results (Green Tier) Program Wis. Stat. §299.80 (pilot) Tiered and negotiation-based

74

75


This table represents Environmental Leadership Programs and EMS-related stateactivity as defined by CSG and uncovered during research for this guide. The tablemay not include every EMS-related program or activity carried out by states.

EMS P2 Public Involvement Incentives Start Date Status

Encouraged Encouraged Encouraged A Pilot began 1998 Under development

Required Required Required R,A,Rg 2000 Active

Encouraged Encouraged Encouraged A Coming soon Under development

Required Encouraged Required N/A 1999 Completed pilot

Required Required Not required R,A,Rg 1999 Active

Required Required Encouraged F, Rg 1997 No funding available-development stopped

EMS-like elements Required Encouraged R,A 1993 Under modification

Encouraged Required Not required R, A, F 1996 Under modification

EMS-like elements Required Not required R,A 1998 Active

Required Required Not required R,A,Rg 1996 Active

Encouraged Required Not required R,A 1999 Discontinued

Encouraged Encouraged Not required A 1998 Active

Required Required Not required R,A 1995 Active


Required Not Required Not required A 2001 Completed pilot project

Required Encouraged Required R,A 2002 Active


Required Encouraged Required R,A,Rg 1995 Not accepting new applications

NA NA NA NA No program developed

EMS or equivalent required Required Required R,A,Rg Inactive

Required Required Not required R,A 1999 Active


Required Required Required R,A,Rg 1997 To be discontinued

EMS or equivalent required Encouraged Required R,A,Rg 1997 Active

EMS-like elements required Required Required R,A,F,Rg 2000 Active

Required Encouraged Required R,A,Rg 1999 Active

Required Encouraged A Under development

Required Required Not Required R,A,Rg 2000 Active

Encouraged Encouraged Not Required R 1996 Inactive

Encouraged Encouraged Required R,F 1997 Active

Incorporated into MOAs Incorporated into MOAs Incorporated into MOAs N/A Program coming soon Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) in place

Required Required Not Required R,Rg Program coming soon Awaiting approval of legislature

76


77


California Innovative Initiative

In 1998, California adopted legislation authorizing a new program called theInnovation Initiative. The legislation authorized development of up to eight EMSpilot projects aimed at evaluating the benefits of using EMSs within the regulatorysystem and outside that framework.

The criteria for designing the pilot projects emphasized getting input from a broadspectrum of stakeholders, collecting data to measure environmental improvements,and analyzing the data and other information to determine whether there wereimprovements in each the following areas:

� Environmental awareness and commitment by those involved in designing andimplementing the EMS

� Public involvement in designing and implementing the EMS

� Systematically managing the environmental impacts of the organization

� Performance for key environmental indicators

� Public access to information about the design of the EMS and the resulting datameasuring the organization’s environmental performance in response to the EMS

A number of recommendations resulted from the California Innovation Initiative,of which the most important for state officials who want to develop a successful pro-gram that encourages the adoption of EMSs are:

� setting targets for environmental performance is crucial;

� providing valuable assistance in the form of EMS templates, implementationguides, and financial assistance through grants;

� encouraging the sharing of environmental information by developing protocols forthose activities and recognizing the efforts of organizations that make the effort toshare that information; and

� maintaining the current command and control system because successful EMS pro-grams need the foundation of enforceable environmental compliance standards.

Cal/EPA produced a final report on this project in January 2003. The final draftreport to the California legislature is currently available at <http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EMS/>.For more information about this program, contact:

Jennifer Smith Grubb2151 Berkeley Way, Rm. 515Berkeley, CA 94704510-540-3315510-540-2305 (Fax) [email protected]<http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EMS/>

California

Appendix B:State program profiles

78


Colorado Environmental Leadership Program

This leadership program, administered by the Colorado Department of Public Healthand Environment (CDPHE), was launched with legislative authorization in 1999.Program coordinators believe it fosters a one-on-one relationship between CDPHE andfacility managers that leads to better communication and more cooperation.

This two-tiered program offers recognition, technical assistance and regulatory flex-ibility such as reduced inspection frequency and reduced administrative requirements.It also offers program implementation assistance, including help in drafting pressreleases and handling other public and media communications.

� For the entry level—Silver—members must implement basic measures for envi-ronmental improvements in all media as well as pollution prevention measures. Inresponse, members receive an Environmental Achievement Award sponsored byCDPHE that can be used in company marketing and publicity efforts.

� The Gold level requires applicants to have an EMS system with ISO 14001-likeelements in place and to have completed one full, third-party certified, audit reviewcycle. A pollution prevention plan is required at this level as well. Participantsmust incorporate verifiable, quantifiable and qualitative measures or methods intothe EMS and pollution prevention plans that document compliance with per-formance goals established.

The Colorado Environmental Leadership Program has 21 members and is acceptingnew applications.

For more information about this program, contact:Phyllis Woodford, program coordinatorColorado Department of Public Health and Environment4300 Cherry Creek Drive SouthDenver, CO [email protected]<www.cdphe.state.co.us/el/elp/elphom.asp>

Colorado

79


Florida Partnership for Ecosystem Protection

Florida Partnership for Ecosystem Protection (PEP) is an incentive-based programthat offers recognition and regulatory flexibility to businesses that voluntarily enteragreements with the Department of Environmental Protection to initiate pollutionprevention activities. Participants are also eligible to negotiate for reduced civil penal-ties in the event of future violations, as long as they commit to investing those savingsin additional PEP activities. The PEP program does not require a company to havean EMS, but assists companies in implementing them.

The program is part of a larger Florida effort called the Ecosystem ManagementInitiative, begun in 1993. Although the initiative focuses mainly on pollution preven-tion activities, it emphasizes EMS concepts such a “systems” approach to environmen-tal management and the critical role of information. The initiative also emphasizes pub-lic involvement through the creation of Ecosystem Management Area Teams. The teamsare charged with identifying important environmental issues, and developing and imple-menting an action plan to protect ecological functions on a regional scale. The depart-ment has divided the state into 24 major ecosystems and has established a team ineach ecosystem. The teams are open to all citizens and governments of jurisdiction.

The PEP program is undergoing modification and more explicit EMS require-ments may be added. The program currently has ten participants.

For more information about the program, contact:Julie Abcarian or Michael Ohlsen, program coordinatorsDepartment of Environmental Protection3900 Commonwealth Blvd.Tallahassee, Florida [email protected]@dep.state.fl.us

Florida

80


Georgia Pollution Prevention Partners Program

Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources Pollution Prevention Assistance Divisionimplements the Pollution Prevention Partners (P3) program. This three-tiered programencourages the adoption of pollution prevention activities and continuous environmen-tal improvement through the voluntary implementation of EMSs.

The program is open to Georgia industries that first document full compliance withapplicable environmental statutes and regulations. Although the program does not explic-itly require an EMS, industry-applicants must commit to continual improvement, a cen-tral element of the EMS concept, and must adopt pollution prevention practices.Applicants receive increasing levels of incentives and rewards for increasing commitmentsto improvement in environmental performance as follows:

� The Entry Level recognizes facilities that demonstrate a commitment to developing asuccessful pollution prevention program. Incentives and rewards for this level are eli-gibility for a free, non-regulatory, on-site pollution prevention assessment, assistancein qualifying for the program from the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division staff,and recognition in division publications.

� The Achievement Level recognizes facilities that have established a pollution preven-tion program and are making progress toward meeting reduction goals. Facilities thatapply for the Achievement Level are eligible for all the incentives and rewards availableto the entry level, plus up to a ten percent reduction in Hazardous Waste Trust Fundand Toxic Release Inventory fees paid to the Georgia Environmental ProtectionDivision for one year. Facilities that continue to show progress may receive up to a tenpercent reduction for two additional years. The savings from these reduced fees mustbe used for pollution prevention activities at the facility.

� The Model Level recognizes facilities judged to be industry leaders in pollution pre-vention on the basis of the facility’s substantial progress toward meeting pollution pre-vention goals and its incorporation of pollution prevention into daily business activi-ties. These facilities are eligible for all the incentives and rewards available to the entrylevel, plus up to a 25 percent reduction in Hazardous Waste Trust Fund fees. As withthe Achievement Level, the savings from these reduced fees must be used for pollutionprevention activities at the facility.

This program is active and accepting new members. It is undergoing some modifica-tion to incorporate EMS elements at the lowest tier and to further streamline the appli-cation process.

For more information contact:Kim Ragozzino, P3 program coordinatorPollution Prevention Assistance Division7 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Suite 450Atlanta, GA 30334404-657-7449 or [email protected]<http://www.state.ga.us/dnr/p2ad/recog/p3.htm>

Georgia

81


Idaho GEMStars

This public/private partnership recognizes and assists in the implementation of bestpractices and pollution prevention at regulated operations such as businesses, agricul-tural operations, governmental agencies and school districts, as well as unregulatedentities. Although this program does not explicitly require that an EMS be imple-mented, it does require the pollution prevention plan or program to contain EMS-likeelements. A steering committee made up of representatives of businesses and businessgroups, government, Idaho’s three state universities, environmental groups and tribesoversees the program.

The program has three tiers that require increasing levels of commitments. The ini-tial tier requires the initiation of basic pollution prevention activities, while the mid-dle tier requires the implementation of an industrial sector-specific “Best P2 Practices”plan which includes Best Management Practices (BMP) and Best AvailableTechnology (BAT). Candidates for the highest tier must be nominated by sector-spe-cific peers and approved by the governor. These businesses are considered leaders inpromoting pollution prevention and must commit to mentoring others in the state.

The Idaho GEMStars program is housed at the University of Idaho and receives in-kind administrative support from all three state universities. The remainder of fund-ing needed to support the program comes from a combination of state funds, US EPAgrants and penalties paid as part of administrative enforcement settlement agreements.

For more information about this program, contact:Helen Rigg, DirectorIdaho GEMStars800 Park Blvd., Suite 200Boise, ID [email protected] or [email protected].<http://www.idahogemstars.org/>

Idaho

82


Illinois Regulatory Innovation Pilot Program

The Illinois Environmental Protection Act was amended in 1996 to give the IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to promulgate regulations forimplementing a voluntary regulatory pilot program. The goal of the IllinoisRegulatory Innovation Pilot Program is to encourage regulated entities to movebeyond minimal regulatory compliance through the voluntary negotiation of anagreement that sets out the specific environmental improvement measures.

Regulated entities can negotiate the following terms and incentives:

� Development and implementation of an EMS (ISO 14000-equivalent)

� Self-permitting for process and equipment modifications

� Custom reporting and/or record keeping

� Reductions in pollutants and/or wastes beyond applicable requirements

� Materials accounting and management

� Any good, sensible practice that improves environmental performance

To participate in the program, the applicant submits a letter of intent to the IllinoisEPA director, then enters negotiations with the agency to develop the terms of anEnvironmental Management System Agreement (EMSA). Once the EMSA is entered,the participant must implement the terms of the agreement and document the results.

The EMSA may be renewed every five years. An EMSA operates in lieu of all appli-cable requirements under Illinois law and regulations that are identified in the agree-ment, but does not have an effect on applicable federal requirements. An EMSA maybe voluntarily terminated by a participant, or terminated unilaterally by the IllinoisEPA if serious problems develop or in accordance with rules adopted by the PollutionControl Board.

The Illinois EPA believes this program is about laying the groundwork for the nextgeneration of environmental protection in Illinois. The agency has negotiated threeagreements so far and hopes to negotiate another 20 to 25 agreements over the nextseveral years.

For more information contact:Angela Tin, program coordinatorIllinois Environmental Protection Agency1021 North Grand Avenue EastSpringfield, Illinois [email protected]<http://www.epa.state.il.us/regulatory-innovation/index.html>

Illinois

83


The Kentucky EMS Alliance

The Kentucky EMS Alliance, located in the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Centerat the University of Louisville, has provided ISO 14001 training to approximately 75companies since its launch in 1998.

While many states are doing general awareness training on ISO 14001, theKentucky EMS Alliance is unique in its interactive, case-study approach. Mentorsfrom businesses that have implemented an ISO 14001 system provide real worldexamples of issues and obstacles faced in developing and implementing this type ofEMS. The center also provides technical assistance as participating facilities gothrough the process of developing their EMSs and obtaining certification.

In 2000, KPPC began providing ISO 14001 training to universities and has trainedenvironmental, health and safety representatives from 31 universities around thecountry. Recently, KPPC began working with the Department of Defense, providingtraining in implementing ISO 14001 EMSs at military bases in the Southeast.

The Kentucky EMS Alliance is unique in its location outside the regulatory sphere.As a non-governmental organization, KPPC cannot offer regulatory incentives inexchange for participants’ voluntary environmental efforts. Kentucky EMS Alliancerelies solely on the internal motivation of industry representatives to improve theirfacilities’ environmental performance. KPPC representatives report that because busi-nesses that enroll in their program are internally motivated to improve, the develop-ment and implementation of an EMS often leads to wholesale culture change withinthe business. Its staff and management become aware of the environmental implica-tions of every activity that takes place at the facility in question and respond bybecoming environmentally proactive rather than reactive.

KPPC receives approximately 45 percent of its operating budget from the KentuckyGeneral Assembly, through fees paid by hazardous waste generators. The other approx-imate 55 percent of its budget comes from EPA and private foundation grants.

For more information about this program, contact:

Tim PieroKentucky EMS Alliance CoordinatorUniversity of Louisville420 Lutz HallLouisville, KY [email protected]<http://www.kppc.org/>

Kentucky

or

Cam MetcalfKentucky Pollution Prevention CenterUniversity of Louisville420 Lutz HallLouisville, KY 40292502-852-0965

84


Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program

The Louisiana Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program (LaELP)is a recognition and assistance program that encourages the voluntary adoption ofEMSs and pollution prevention activities. Louisiana facilities that join the programare recognized as companies “committed to maintaining and improving the quality of[Louisiana’s] environment” in a letter and certificate from the secretary of the stateDepartment of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Technical assistance is provided through periodic meetings, conferences and semi-nars sponsored by the program that explore pollution prevention, EMSs, and otherenvironmental management tools and issues. The program does not offer on-sitetechnical assistance, although small businesses can receive this kind of help from theSmall Business Assistance Program. Participants also are eligible to take part in theannual Governor's Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Pollution Prevention, ahighly publicized ceremony in which program participants are recognized. The pro-gram does not offer regulatory or financial rewards.

Requirements for enrolling in the Louisiana program include committing to thefollowing guiding principles:

� Making minimization of the facility’s impact on human health and the environ-ment a top priority in regulatory and business decisions

� Using an internal EMS to encourage continuous improvement in environmentalperformance

� Using the waste management hierarchy (source reduction, recycling, treatment,and disposal) as guidance for managing environmental issues and for optimizingproduction processes

� Being proactive in communicating with facility neighbors and the larger commu-nity about environmental matters

Within two months of program enrollment, participants must submit a plan to theDepartment of Environmental Quality describing their waste reduction goals. Anannual update must be provided to enable DEQ to track the facility’s progress towardsgoals outlined in its plan.

The program is active and has one of highest enrollments in the country at 90members.

For more information about this program, contact:Hugh C. Finklea, LaELP DirectorDepartment of Environmental Quality, Special Projects SectionPO Box 82263Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2263225-765-0229225-765-0299 (fax)[email protected]\http://www.deq.state.la.us/assistance/elp

Louisiana

85


The Maine S.T.E.P. U.P. ProgramThe Maine Smart Tracks for Exceptional Performers and Upward Performers (STEP

UP) program, created in the spring of 2002, offers recognition and other incentives tobusinesses that voluntarily adopt sustainable practices, including implementing a third-party certified EMS. The program has three levels of participation, although MaineDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) administrators have chosen to start allparticipants at the middle level. Their goal is to have a group of businesses participat-ing in the highest tier and ready to mentor other businesses within three years.

All three levels of the program offer public recognition, a negotiated relationship withMaine DEP, mentoring, free on-site technical assistance, and the ability to negotiatealternative record keeping and reporting procedures.

The middle tier, the Leadership Track, involves a three-year commitment and requiresimplementation of a third-party certified EMS, performance measurement, publicinvolvement in setting goals and publicly reporting the resulting performance, and men-toring businesses that are just starting the program.

The highest tier, the Sustainability Track involves a five-year commitment that buildson progress achieved during the leadership tier. This track requires the company to solic-it greater public involvement by establishing a more formal community outreach pro-gram that invites guidance about additional actions the company can take to achieve“beyond compliance” environmental performance.

Maines DEP hopes this program will help:

� establish a fundamental change in the relationship between DEP, the public and theparticipating business;

� create a method to facilitate ever-improving and ultimately sustainable, environmen-tal practices and performances;

� establish entry requirements and benefits that progressively increase from track totrack;

� gain facility-wide commitments to continual environment performance improve-ments, from CEOs to line employees; and

� use written agreements to define relationships and environmental sustainability com-mitments.

Seven companies have signed the two- to five-year agreements. The program is fullyfunded and accepting new applications.

For more information about this program, contact:Ron Dyer, program coordinatorMaine DEP17 State House StationAugusta, Maine [email protected]<http://www.state.me.us/dep/oia/ems.htm>

Maine

86


Maryland Environmental Management Training for Maryland Manufacturers

In 2001, the Maryland Technology Extension Service, working with the MarylandDepartment of the Environment and supported by a US EPA grant, started a programto assist up to a twenty Maryland manufacturing organizations in the implementationof EMSs based on ISO 14001.

The Maryland program holds two-day workshop training sessions, spaced six weeksapart, followed by specific work assignments, support from a program help desk, andon-site assistance. The workshops allow participants to learn from one another’s expe-riences. Technical assistance in implementing cost-saving pollution prevention tech-nologies is provided as well. The program helps participants design an EMS that ismanageable from a practical standpoint while delivering measurable results.

The program, including instruction materials, implementation assistance, andtechnical guidance, is funded by EPA grants.

For more information contact:Laura Armstrong1800 Washington Blvd.Baltimore, Maryland [email protected]

Maryland

87


Massachusetts Environmental Stewardship Program

This tiered program, aimed at manufacturers and other regulated entities, encour-ages pollution prevention and resource conservation through the voluntary adoptionof EMSs. Administered by the Massachusetts Executive Office of EnvironmentalAffairs, the program is modeled on EPA’s National Environmental Performance Track.It is intended to build on the continuous improvement elements of the MassachusettsToxics Use Reduction Act (TURA), a program designed to reduce the use of toxicchemicals and the generation of hazardous wastes by industries through annual report-ing, bi-annual planning and state-sponsored technical assistance.

The Environmental Stewardship Program began with a middle level tier—Leader—that recognizes and rewards facilities that have achieved environmental per-formance levels beyond those required by the existing regulatory system. An entry-level tier—Partner—and higher tier—Champion—have since been added. Incentivesoffered include recognition and regulatory benefits such as reduced inspection priori-ty, expedited review of permit applications and single point of contact.

Massachusetts also has begun the Municipal Environmental Stewardship Program,which provides financial assistance to municipalities that would like to develop theirown EMSs.

For more information about these programs, contact:David Lutes, Director Toxics Use Reduction ProgramExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs251 Causeway St.Boston, MA [email protected]<http://www.state.ma.us/ota/SUPPORT/MESP.htm>

Massachusetts

88


Michigan Clean Corporate Citizen Program

Michigan’s Clean Corporate Citizen Program (C3) is a single-tiered program opento regulated entities that are in compliance with applicable statutes and regulationsand have an established EMS and pollution prevention program with documentedenvironmental performance improvements.

In return, participants receive public recognition and are eligible to negotiate cer-tain regulatory benefits, including expedited permits and reduced monitoring andreporting in the areas of air permitting, underground storage tanks and wastewaterdischarges to surface or groundwater.

Michigan’s administrative code sets out minimum requirements businesses mustmeet before they can enroll in the program and commitments that must be met toremain a member, including specific criteria for developing a qualified EMS and pol-lution prevention plan. An ISO 14001-certified EMS may qualify if approved by thedirector of the Department of Environmental Quality. The plans must be integratedinto the facility’s overall management structure. The administrative rules require a 30-day public review and comment period before an application is submitted to the C3program and the applicant must post notice of the application.

The C3 program is fully funded through a waste reduction fee paid to the state andis not dependent on the allocation of state general funds. The program is active andhas 52 participants.

For more information about this program, contact:Environmental Assistance DivisionTechnical Assistance SectionMichigan Department of Environmental QualityPO Box 30457Lansing, MI 48909-7957800-662-9278<http://www.michigan.gov/deq/>

Michigan

89


Minnesota Project XL

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was the first state to develop anEnvironmental Leadership Program in 1995 with a proposal to create a state counter-part to EPA’s Project XL. An agreement between the Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency and EPA was formalized on August 20, 1999.

Project XL is a voluntary state and federal pilot program that encourages regulatedentities to demonstrate excellence and leadership in protecting the environment byundertaking initiatives that go beyond the existing requirements of state and federal law.In exchange for their superior environmental performance, the program offers these enti-ties operational flexibility. A Project XL agreement takes the place of all individual per-mits the participating facility holds.

A Project XL pilot project can focus on a single facility, an industrial sector, or a regu-lated governmental unit of a community and must meet the following criteria:

� Commitment to superior environmental performance

� Project will result in cost savings and paperwork reductions

� Proposal provides for public participation and stakeholder support

� Proposal provides for innovative, multimedia and pollution-prevention approaches

� Project has a high likelihood of being transferable to other regulated parties or sectors

� Project is feasible and can be implemented

� Proposal provides for monitoring, reporting and evaluation, both to demonstrate com-pliance and to measure the success of the pilot

� Project does not shift the risk burden to a different environmental medium or a dif-ferent population

Project XL permits or agreements are placed on public notice for review and comment.In addition, an independent, multi-stakeholder group organized by the PollutionPrevention Dialogue of the University of Minnesota acts as advisors on Project XL. Themultistakeholder group consists of representatives from industry, government, publicinterest and academia and reviews and comments on the design, implementation andevaluation of each XL pilot project.

This program has been discontinued and is no longer accepting new applications. Theterms of agreements currently in effect will be carried out.

For more information about this program or other environmental innovation effortsin Minnesota, contact:Andy RonchakMinnesota Pollution Control Agency520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4194800-657-3864

Minnesota

90


New Mexico Green Zia Pollution Prevention Partnership

The Green Zia program offers three levels of recognition and assistance to NewMexico businesses, organizations and communities. The program does not have stan-dardized, prescriptive requirements. It instead allows participants to negotiate an individualized set of commitments designed to achieve the goal of continuous environ-mental improvement through an EMS that integrates business and environmental goals.

Participants can qualify for one of the following three levels:

� Commitment Recognition is available to organizations that develop a frameworkfor an EMS containing significant pollution prevention elements.

� Achievement Recognition is available to organizations that implement a compre-hensive, prevention-based EMS and can show documented environmentalimprovements.

� Environmental Excellence is available to organizations that can show full integrationof an effective, prevention-based EMS, substantial documentation of results relatedto continuous improvement, as well as internalization of the program’s core values.

Green Zia program managers say their program “raises the bar” for environmentalcommitments, its Environmental Excellence level requiring a greater level of commit-ment from participants than any other Environmental Leadership Program in thecountry. Green Zia does not offer regulatory rewards, but does offer assistance by pro-viding training and written guidance.

The Green Zia program is active and has 24 participants.

For more information about this program, contact:Dave Wunker, coordinatorGreen Zia Pollution Prevention PartnershipNew Mexico Environmental Department, Office of the SecretaryPO Box 26110Santa Fe, NM 87502505-827-0677505-827-2836 (fax)[email protected]://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/green_zia_website/

New Mexico

91


New Jersey Silver and Gold Track Program for Environmental Performance

The Silver and Gold Track was a three-tiered program that offered regulatory flex-ibility for facilities that demonstrated measurable commitment to improved environ-mental performance. Environmental commitments were embodied in enforceablecovenant agreements.

� The first tier, Silver Track, was designed to be open to the entire regulated com-munity. Eligibility requirements for Silver Track included a good environment his-tory and willingness to go beyond minimum regulatory requirements. Memberscommitted to compliance with all applicable regulations and to developing andimplementing an Operations and Environmental Compliance plan andCommunity Outreach plan. Members were eligible to receive recognition, a singlepoint-of-contact for permit reviews, expedited permit processing, consolidatedreporting, and “smart permits” that allow for operational flexibility.

� A second tier, Silver Track II, was planned to encourage businesses to make greaterenvironmental commitments, like reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasemissions over time, in exchange for greater incentives.

� The third tier, Gold Track, will be integrated into a statewide Project XL agreementwith US EPA. The incentives negotiated under Gold Track may require both fed-eral and state rule changes, which NJDEP plans to pursue through EPA's ProjectXL Program, and will be offered initially on a pilot basis only. Under Gold Track,NJDEP will offer increased multi-media regulatory and operational flexibility,while requiring enhanced multi-media commitments.

The Silver and Gold program is being phased out and is not accepting new appli-cations. There are currently 12 participants in the Silver Track tier of the program andthese participants will continue to receive incentives for meeting program require-ments until the next review period of the program. NJDEP is currently developing anew Environmental Leadership Program.

For more information about this program, contact:Michael DiGioreOffice of Pollution Prevention and Permit CoordinationNJDEPPO Box 423Trenton, NJ [email protected]<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/special/silver/index.html>

New Jersey

92


New York EMS Guide Series

New York has developed a series of EMS guidance documents called Understandingand Implementing an Environmental Management System: A Step-by-Step Guide forSmall and Medium-sized Organizations, available free of charge on the NYS PollutionPrevention Unit website.

The guides are organized in three stages:

� Step 1: The Basics is a 41-page introduction to the EMS concept and terminology,the system’s benefits, and its relationship to pollution prevention.

� Step 2: EMS Development and Implementation Guide is a detailed, 152-page docu-ment that takes the reader, step-by-step, through the process of planning, developingand implementing an EMS. The guide offers advice about developing a communi-cation plan and about establishing objectives and targets, operational controls and asystem for documenting the results of monitoring environmental performance.

� Step 3: EMS Template presents a practical EMS model.

While consultants are readily available to provide advice on implementing ISO14001 EMSs, this kind of state-sponsored guidance is beneficial for two reasons. First,New York’s guidance is available free of charge while consultants who help organiza-tions develop and certify ISO systems can be costly. By tailoring its guidance to small-and medium-sized organizations, New York has targeted the audience least likely to beable to afford hired consultants or otherwise invest funds upfront to begin the EMSprocess. Second, the EMS elements outlined in New York’s guidance go beyond theinward-looking ISO requirements by recommending regular communication withinterested stakeholders in the community about the EMS and its impact on environ-mental performance.

To access the guides, visit the New York State Pollution Prevention website at:<http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2ems.html>

Or contact:New York State Department of Environmental ConservationPollution Prevention Unit625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-8010(518) 402-9469 (518) 402-9470 (fax)[email protected]

New York

93


North Carolina Environmental Stewardship Initiative

The Environmental Stewardship Initiative in the North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental and Natural Resources (DENR) is a voluntary, tiered program that pro-motes and encourages superior environmental performance by North Carolina’s regulat-ed community. This voluntary program, launched in 2002, establishes incentives to stim-ulate the development and implementation of programs that use pollution preventionand innovative approaches to meet and exceed regulatory requirements. DENR will usea transparent process including a wide range of stakeholders in development and admin-istration of this program. The program seeks to reduce the impact on the environmentbeyond measures required by any permit or rule, producing a better environment, con-serving natural resources and resulting in long-term economic benefits.

� The first tier, Environmental Partner, is designed to appeal to a broad range of organ-izations that are interested in beginning the process of developing a systematicapproach to improving their environmental performance. Partners must set environ-mental performance goals that include pollution prevention and are appropriate to thenature, scale and environmental impact of the organization. They also must committo developing, implementing and maintaining an environmental management system(EMS) based on ISO 14001 standards or a functionally equivalent model.

� The second tier, Environmental Steward, is aimed at organizations that have shown acommitment to exemplary environmental performance beyond what is required bylaw and have demonstrated leadership. Second tier members are required to set aggres-sive environmental performance goals that include pollution prevention, a commit-ment to exceed compliance, and annual improvements to performance. A functioningEMS must be in place and participants must provide mentoring to organizations inthe Environmental Partner level. In addition, the organization cannot have had anysignificant violations in the preceding two years. Finally, the organization must com-mit to communicating with the local community about program activities andprogress towards performance goals. These goals are designed to produce a reductionin the organization’s environmental impacts and to promote sustainability.

Both Partners and Stewards must agree to report annually on progress toward envi-ronmental performance goals, net reductions of releases, emissions and disposal, reduc-tions in the use of energy and water, and any reportable non-compliance events.Incentives offered include recognition, technical assistance, inclusion in forums with pol-icy makers and single point of contact within agency. Stewards are eligible to negotiateadditional regulatory flexibility on a case-by-case basis.

This program is active and currently has 26 participants.

For more information about this program, contact:Beth GravesNorth Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance1639 Mall Service CenterRaleigh, North Carolina 27699-1639919-715-6500<http://www.p2pays.org/esi/>

North Carolina

94


Oregon Green Permits

This three-tiered program required facilities to adopt a comprehensive EMS, reporton their environmental performance, and discuss impacts, priorities, and programswith interested parties. The Participant tier was available to facilities just beginningthe EMS process, but the two upper tiers—Achiever and Leader—required facilitiesto have a fully implemented EMS in place that addressed non-regulatory and otherenvironmental impacts and had been subjected to third-party auditing.

In exchange, participants were eligible to negotiate individual permits designed fortheir specific operations, along with rewards such as technical assistance and regulato-ry flexibility. In the case of Achiever and Leader participants, regulatory waivers(including an MOA with EPA to address federal statutes and regulations) that wouldabrogate applicable regulatory requirements, could be negotiated.

This program has been discontinued and is no longer accepting new applications.The terms of three agreements already in place will be completed.

For more information about this program or other innovation efforts in Oregon, contact:Green Permits ProgramOregon Department of Environmental Quality811 SW 6th AvenuePortland, Oregon 97204503-229-5946<http://www.deq.state.or.us>

Oregon

95


Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has focused itsEMS efforts on the ISO 14001 model, having been actively involved in developmentof those standards on the international level. The agency endorses the effectiveness ofISO 14001 and encourages the adoption of this standard through workshops andinformation available on its website. Companies that implement EMSs are recognizedthrough special announcements by the governor and on a list of ISO 14001-certifiedcompanies on the DEP website. There are currently 104 ISO 14001-certified facili-ties in Pennsylvania.

Although Pennsylvania encourages adoption of the ISO 14001 model, it alsoencourages openness and transparency in EMS design and implementation. Theagency advocates public reporting by companies about environmental impacts identi-fied and plans for reducing those impacts, believing that the EMS process has greatercredibility when it is an open one. Two companies, Pfizer and Ford, have made theirEMS manuals available on the DEP website as practical guidance for other companiesbeginning the EMS design process.

Pennsylvania has established the goal of leading by example on the EMS front. TheGovernor’s Green Government Council was created in 1997 to implement sustainablepractices in state agencies by prioritizing agency environmental initiatives and strivingfor continuous improvement in managing the agencies’ environmental impacts. DEPhas initiated an EMS design process for its own agency operations, called theEnvironmental Futures Planning Process, to design and measure progress around 17key indicators.

Pennsylvania has a local government program that assists counties, cities, boroughsand school districts in implementing EMSs through one-on-one assistance and train-ing. DEP also worked with national non-profit organization Green Seal to develop agreen hotels initiative that has audited and certified numerous hotels around the state.

For more information about these programs, contact:Libby Dodson, ChiefDivision of Pollution Prevention and Energy EfficiencyOffice of Pollution Prevention and Compliance AssistanceP.O. Box 8772Harrisburg, PA 17105717-772-8907717-783-2703 (fax)[email protected]

Pennsylvania

96


The South Carolina Environmental Excellence Program

The South Carolina Environmental Excellence Program (SCEEP) is a voluntaryenvironmental leadership initiative designed to recognize and reward facilities thathave demonstrated superior environmental performance through pollution preven-tion, energy/resource conservation, and the adoption of an EMS.

To apply to the program a company must either document membership in a programrecognized by the SCEEP (e.g., ISO 14001, ATMI E3 Program, CMA ResponsibleCare Program or AF&PA EHS principles) or submit an Environmental Excellence Plandescribing measurable waste reduction goals, commitment to implementing an EMS,commitment by senior management to continuous environmental improvement, andan effective public communication plan for the surrounding community. Membershipis subject to renewal every two years.

The benefits for inclusion in the Environmental Excellence Program include use of theSCEEP logo, participation on the Environmental Excellence Council, regulatory flexibili-ty, opportunities to network with other industry leaders, and public recognition.

A SCEEP advisory committee reviews all applications quarterly. The advisorycommittee is comprised of governmental, environmental, academic and public inter-est representatives. A program coordinator from the University of South CarolinaInstitute for Public Service and Policy Research’s Center for Environmental Policystaffs the committee.

The Department of Health and Environmental Control and SCEEP have part-nered with US EPA to enroll any participating SCEEP company in the NationalEnvironmental Performance Track.

This program is active and currently has 59 participants.

For more information about this program, contact:Christine Steagall, coordinatorSCEEP ProgramCenter for Environmental Policy, Institute for Public Service and Policy ResearchUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia, SC 29208803-777-7463 [email protected]<http://www.iopa.sc.edu/sceep/>

South Carolina

97


Clean Texas

The Clean Texas program offers three tiers—Partner, Leader and Advocate—in a pro-gram that combines the cost efficiency of a menu-based program with the ambitiousnessof a negotiation-based program. The program is located in the Small Business andEnvironmental Assistance Division of state’s environmental agency, the Texas NaturalResource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).

� The Partner level requires members to make commitments to measurable environ-mental improvement, internal environmental programs and community outreach.

� The Leader level requires a number of substantive commitments and actions, includ-ing substantial community participation. Applicants must have a fully implementedEMS that has been through one complete review cycle and has been certified by anindependent third party. Senior management must commit to 100 percent compliancewith current environmental legal requirements and continuous improvement. Theapplicant facility must have a written plan to assess environmental impacts, to assurecompliance and to achieve measurable environmental improvements over a specifiedtime line. The plan must include a product stewardship plan and documentation thatsufficient personnel and resources have been allocated to fully implement the plan.

� The Advocate level is reserved for community groups, trade associations, schools oruniversity groups that support the Clean Texas program through their activities, butdo not operate from a physical entity that would allow commitment to an environ-mental improvement goal.

Leader members must report at least annually on activities, progress toward meetinggoals, and changes to the EMS. The Clean Texas staff may conduct a review of members’EMSs, compliance records and inspections to verify their qualification for the program.Membership in the program must be renewed every three years.

Members of both partner and leaders levels of the Clean Texas program receive thebenefits of public recognition and technical assistance in achieving the program goals.Leader members also are eligible to negotiate regulatory and administrative flexibility andcustomized technical and program support from TNRCC. Small businesses are eligiblefor free EMS auditing from the TNRCC staff.

Clean Texas has the country’s highest participation rate with a membership of 216members.

For more information about this program, contact:Rob Borowski, Clean Texas coordinatorMC 112Small Business and Environmental Assistance TCEQPO Box 13087Austin, TX [email protected]

Texas

orLarissa Peter, Clean Texas coordinatorMC 112Small Business and EnvironmentalAssistance TCEQPO Box 13087Austin, TX [email protected]

98


Clean Utah!

Utah’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently launched the CleanUtah! program. This voluntary, multi-tiered program is designed to recognize andreward facilities that take steps to move beyond minimal regulatory compliance,including adopting an EMS and instituting pollution prevention efforts. The programwas developed with a $20,000 grant from EPA’s National Performance Track Program.The program will consider the range of EMS models, including ISO 14001, but setsout basic elements—policy, planning, checking, corrective action, and managementreview—that an acceptable EMS must contain.

Any facility or entity subject to federal, state, or local environment regulations iseligible to participate in the program provided the facility has not been in significantcivil noncompliance, has not been the subject of criminal environmental violationsduring the past five years and is not currently the focus of an environmental criminalinvestigation, among other factors. Companies with multiple facilities are eligible toapply as a single entity.

� Tier one, the Entry Level, requires eligible facilities to develop an EMS and completeimplementation within two years after acceptance in the program. In return, the facil-ity managers receive technical assistance in developing and implementing the EMS.

� Tier two, the Partner Level, requires that the facility to have an EMS in place andin compliance for one calendar year. Participants may stay in this tier as long as theyare actively working on approved projects and submit an annual report.

� Tier three, the Leader Level, requires the applicant to document that the requirementsof tier two have been met for at least three years. Leaders are expected to provide men-toring to businesses in the Entry Level and to provide for public participation inongoing projects. Incentives for the Partner and Leaders Levels are individually nego-tiated, based on site-specific conditions and the ability of DEQ to provide them.

DEQ reviews Entry Level applications and selects the participants. A multi-interestreview panel reviews Partner and Leader applications and makes recommendations toDEQ on the basis of defined criteria. DEQ then formally admits or rejects the appli-cations on the basis of those recommendations and relevant input from EPA and thelocal health department

For more information about this program, contact:Renette Anderson, program coordinatorClean Utah!168 North 1950 WestSalt Lake City, Utah 84116800-458-0145<http://www.eq.state.ut.us/EQOAS/PerformanceTrack/index.htm>

Utah

99


Virginia Environmental Excellence Program

The Virginia Environmental Excellence Program (VEEP) program offers two typesof participation, Environmental Enterprise and Exemplary Environmental Enterprise.The Environmental Enterprise (E2) level of participation is for organizations interest-ed in beginning, or in the early stages of implementing, an EMS. The ExemplaryEnvironmental Enterprise (E3) level of participation is for organizations with a fullyimplemented EMS, pollution prevention program and demonstrated performance.

The program is based on principles established in an agreement between theEnvironmental Council of States (ECOS) and EPA on May 5, 1998 (Joint EPA/StateAgreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation). The Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality (VDEQ) says it is working with EPA headquarters office andRegion III to ensure that VEEP has support at the federal level, that it is comple-mentary to any similar initiatives that may come from EPA and is consistent with aMemorandum of Agreement entered into between VDEQ and EPA in 2000.

Any Virginia organization that impacts the environment through its operations,activities, processes or location is eligible to participate in VEEP, including manufac-turers, commercial establishments, federal/state/local government agencies, schools,non-governmental organizations, and small businesses. Each of the organization’sfacilities or locations must submit a separate application.

For more information about this program, contact:Sharon Baxter, coordinatorVirginia Environmental Excellence Program Virginia DEQ Office of Pollution PreventionPO Box 10009Richmond, Virginia [email protected]<http://www.deq.state.va.us/veep/member.html>

Virginia

100


Washington Environmental Excellence Program

The Environmental Excellence Program was authorized by the Washington state leg-islature during its 1997 session. This negotiation-based program allows businesses, indus-try associations, or local governments to explore innovative ways to protect human healthand the environment by improving operating efficiency. Both adoption of EMSs and pol-lution prevention are encouraged as a way of achieving improved environmental per-formance and operational efficiency.

To begin the process, an applicant creates a proposal to modify its current operationsor implement a new technology, then submits the proposal to the appropriate state orlocal regulatory agency. An agreement is shaped through negotiation with the agency andinput from interested stakeholders. The director of the regulatory agency has the finalauthority to accept or to reject the proposal. While the regulatory agency’s decision toreject a proposal cannot be appealed, the decision to accept a proposal can be challengedby any stakeholder.

The agreement negotiated between the regulatory agency and applicant createsenforceable environmental requirements that are based on the business’ specific opera-tions. These requirements may supersede existing general legal requirements. The negoti-ated requirements either must produce improved overall environmental results, as com-pared to current requirements or the participating facility’s performance history, or theproposed methods or technology must be more cost effective without decreasing the facil-ity’s overall environmental results.

Stakeholder involvement is required during negotiation of the agreement and duringdevelopment and implementation of the proposed project. The public participation planin the agreement must explain how the sponsor will:

� identify and contact stakeholders, inform them of the proposed project’s nature and itslegal implications, and request their participation in reviewing the proposal;

� invite participation by a broad and representative sector of the public providing anopportunity for discussion and comment at multiple stages of the process; and

� provide public access to all of the information submitted for use by the agency evalu-ating a proposed agreement.

Washington’s legislation also gives the regulating agency discretion to collect a fee fromthe applicant to pay the agency’s direct and indirect costs of processing an EnvironmentalExcellence Program agreement, to pay the agency’s cost of providing individualized mon-itoring, and to impose any additional fees established by terms of the agreement.

Currently, the Environmental Excellence Program has one participant.

For more information about this program, contact:John WilliamsDepartment of EcologyPO Box 47600Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Tel: (360-407-6968)[email protected]://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/eepa/

Washington

101


West Virginia Sustainable Business Program

West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection Executive Office ofInnovation launched a voluntary EMS pilot demonstration project that would assistbusinesses in implementing EMSs to improve environmental performance. WestVirginia has chosen to focus on tourism-related businesses because they have a signif-icant impact on an otherwise sparsely populated state with large natural and scenicareas.

The program promotes environmental stewardship by encouraging companies toestablish a formal environmental policy committing to:

� development and implementation of an EMS that helps maintain and exceed com-pliance with regulatory and other legal requirements;

� commitment from top management;

� pollution prevention;

� research and implementation of alternative innovative technologies; and

� training, workshops, outreach, and education.

Program administrators are considering adding incentives for participation in theSustainable Business Program in the future, including expedited permitting, less fre-quent inspections, economic incentives (e.g. tax incentives, interest rate reductions,reduced rates on insurance premiums) and other incentives that may be proposed bybusiness.

West Virginia currently has Memoranda of Agreement with Snowshoe Mountainand Winterplace Ski Resort for the implementation of EMSs at those operations.

For more information about this program, contact:Candice Shrewsbury, project managerWest Virginia DEP Office of [email protected]

Greg Adolfson, Deputy AdministratorWest Virginia DEP Office of [email protected]

West Virginia

102


Wisconsin Green Tier

The Wisconsin legislature authorized development of a pilot EMS program in 1997.The pilot program led to development of a full-fledged ELP called the EnvironmentalResults Program (known generally as “Green Tier”) in 2002. This two-tiered program, tobe officially launched by the Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) after approvalby the legislature, is one of few programs that uses legally binding contracts to evidencethe parties agreement about environmental goals and regulatory incentives. Wisconsin’sprogram administrators say Green Tier is designed to promote reduction in overall levelsof pollution through more a more flexible approach that incorporates: (1) a commitmentto “beyond compliance” environmental performance; (2) the adoption of an EMS thatestablishes “beyond compliance” goals and practices that will achieve those goals; and (3)a plan for public involvement and participation.

The Entry Level tier encourages regulated entities to commit to adopting an EMS thatprovides for public involvement, having the EMS audited and publicly reporting theresulting environmental performance. Participants are not asked to enter a binding con-tract at this level. Incentives offered include recognition and technical assistance.Organizations that have had civil or criminal penalties imposed on the basis of environ-mental violations are prohibited from joining the program for a specified period of time.

The upper tier, Green Star, requires participants to enter a binding contract thatincludes all the commitments of the entry level, along with a commitment that the par-ticipants provide documentation, within a specified timeframe, that measurable “beyondcompliance” environmental performance has been achieved. Incentives that may be nego-tiated into the contract include recognition, technical assistance, regulatory permittingflexibility and civil enforcement flexibility. For instance, participants may negotiate theinclusion of a provision granting them 90 days to correct an environmental violationbefore WDNR initiates civil enforcement proceedings or, if the violation would takelonger than 90 days to correct, the ability to enter a supplemental corrective action agree-ment that allows up to one year to bring the facility into compliance.

Once entered, the binding contract supercedes state administrative requirementsrelating to permitting. At minimum, parties to the contract are the regulated entityand regulatory agency, but in some cases more than one governmental entity may beinvolved for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Sample contract language is avail-able at the program’s website at <http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/green_tier>.

WDNR entered into seven contracts, each covering a five-year period, during thepilot phase.

For more information about this program, contact:Mark McDermid, DirectorBureau of Cooperative Environmental AssistanceWisconsin Department of Natural Resources101 S. Webster, Box 7921Madison, Wisconsin [email protected]<http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/green_tier/index/htm>

Wisconsin

Appendix C: GlossaryAudit Cycle: The period of time in which all the activities in a given site/facility

are audited.

Certification: The environmental management system of an organization is certi-fied for conformance with ISO 14001 after it has demonstrated such conformancethrough a formal audit process through a third party.

Conformance / Conformity: An affirmative indication or judgment that a prod-uct or service has met the requirements of the relevant specifications, contract, or reg-ulation. In terms of ISO, conformance to ISO 14001 certification requirements -comparable to Compliance.

Continual Improvement: The process of enhancing an organization’s environ-mental management system to achieve improvement in overall environmental per-formance in line with the organization’s environmental policy. This widely adoptedprinciple is intended to ensure that an organization does not simply adopt an envi-ronmental management system for cosmetic purposes and thereby remain static,without commitment to reduce its impact on the environment.

Eco-management and Audit Scheme (EMAS): EMS Standard adopted byEuropean Union in 1995. Unlike ISP 14001, requires documentation of environmen-tal performance improvement and public disclosure.

Emergency Response Plan: A formal, detailed plan that describes an organization’sspecific logistics and reporting requirements in the event an emergency, such as fires,erosion or spills. A fundamental element of an environmental management system.

Environment: Surroundings in which an organization or facility operates, includ-ing air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans and their interrelation.

Environmental Impact: Any change to the environment, whether adverse or benefi-cial, wholly or partially resulting from an organization’s activities, products or services.

Environmental Management System (EMS): A management approach whichenables an organization to identify, monitor and control its environmental aspects. Anenvironmental management system is part of the overall management system thatincludes organizational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, pro-cedures, processes and resources for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewingand maintaining the environmental policy.

Environmental Management System Audit: A systematic, documented verifica-tion process of objectively obtaining and evaluating an organization’s environmentalmanagement system to determine whether or not it conforms to the environmentalmanagement system audit criteria pre-defined by the organization, and for commu-nication of the results of this process to management.

Environmental Performance: Measurable results of the environmental manage-ment system related to an organization’s control of its environmental aspects, basedon its environmental policy, objectives and targets. Environmental Policy: An organiza-tion’s formal statement defining its intentions and principles in relation to its overall envi-ronmental performance, which provides a framework for action and for the setting of itsenvironmental objectives and targets.

ISO: The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a worldwide feder-ation of national standards bodies from some 140 countries, one from each country. ISOis responsible for the development of ISO 14001.

103


ISO 14001: An international voluntary standard for environmental management sys-tems. This is one standard in the ISO 14000 series of International Standards on envi-ronmental management.

Menu-based programs: Offers a standardized set of incentives for prescribed com-mitments by participants.

Negotiation-based programs: Offers one-on-one negotiations between facility own-ers and state agency to produce agreement with tailored incentives and commitments.

Pollution Prevention: The development, implementation, and evaluation ofefforts to avoid, eliminate, or reduce pollution at the source. Any activity that reducesor eliminates pollutants prior to recycling, treatment, control or disposal.

Stakeholders: Those groups and organizations having an interest or stake in a orga-nization’s environmental management system program (e.g., regulators, shareholders,customers, suppliers, special interest groups, residents, competitors, investors,bankers, media, lawyers, geologists, insurance companies, trade groups, unions,ecosystems and cultural heritage).

Trend: The course, tendency or direction of change, often determined by meas-urement.

Verification: The act of reviewing, inspecting, testing, checking, auditing, or oth-erwise establishing and documenting whether items, processes, services, or documentsconform to specified requirements.

Waste Minimization: The use of source reduction and/or environmentally soundmethods and practices that reduces the quantity and/or toxicity of pollutants enteringa waste stream prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal. Examples include: equipmentor technology modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution ofless toxic raw materials, improvements in work practices, maintenance, worker train-ing, and better inventory control.

104


Appendix D: Other ResourcesThe Multi-State Working Group on Environmental Management Systems

The Multi-State Working Group (MSWG), a coalition of state environmental offi-cials and representatives of the federal government, business, and universities, spon-sors national meetings and seminars that focus on EMSs and other innovative envi-ronmental management tools. MSWG has sponsored research into the ability ofEMSs to improve environment quality and their utility in public and private policy.MSWG also directs the National Academy on Environmental Management Tools andis a cosponsor of the National Database on Environmental Management Systems

For more information about MSWG, contact:David W. Ronald Esq.13912 W. Stardust Blvd. Suite 103Sun City West, AZ 85375623-975-4900623-214-2293 (fax)[email protected]<http://www.iwrc.org/mswg/>

National Database on Environmental Management SystemsRichard Andrews, Ph.D, Director University of North Carolina at Chapel [email protected]<http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/>

Program on Law and the Environment (POLE)Jason Johnston, DirectorUniversity of Pennsylvania College of Law3451 Walnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104215-898-5000<http://www.law.upen.edu/fac/jjohnsto/abstracts.html>

Environmental Compliance ConsortiumShelley Metzenbaum, Director1193 Van Munching HallCollege Park, MD 20742301-405-6354301-405-3737 (fax)

Environmental Council of the StatesR. Steven Brown, Director444 N Capital St. NW, Suite 445Washington, DC [email protected]<http://www.sso.org/ecos/>

105


National Center for Environmental InnovationJay Benforado, Director US EPA HeadquartersAriel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington D.C. [email protected]

Tellus Institute11 Arlington StreetBoston, Massachusetts 02116-3411617-266-5400<http://www.tellus.org>

Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and SecurityEconomic Globalization and the Environment ProgramJason Morrison, Director654 13th St., Suite 104Oakland, CA [email protected]<http://www.pacinst.org/>

Delta InstituteTim Brown, Co-Director53 W. Jackson Blvd.Suite 230Chicago, IL [email protected]

Sixteenth Street Community Health CenterPeter McAvoy, Director1337 S. Cesar E. Chavez Dr.Milwaukee, WI 53204414-672-6220<http://www.sschc.org/>

National Conference on Science and the Environment1707 H Street NW, Suite 200Washington D.C. [email protected]

106


New York EMS Guidance SeriesPollution Prevention Unit Department of Environmental Conservation625 BroadwayAlbany, NY 12233-8010518-402-9469<http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2ems.html>

Regulating from the Inside: Can Environmental Management Systems AchievePolicy Goals? Cary Coglianese and Jennifer Nash (Washington DC: Resources for theFuture, 2001) available at <http://www.rff.org/books/descriptions/regulating_from_the_inside. htm>

For local government information:

EMS Trouble shooter’s Guide for Local GovernmentsPublished by Global Environment & Technology Foundation (GETF). Available at<http://www.peercenter.net/troubleshooters.cfm>

PEER Center Serves as a central clearinghouse for information relating to EMSs for local govern-ments (http://www.peercenter.net)

� Provides training, technical assistance and mentoring

� Links users to national database of key resources such as service providers, sampledocumentation, state EMS programs, mentors, training materials and case studies.

� Established Local Resources Centers (LRCs) around the country to provide supportfor EMS implementation by local communities:

Georgia Institute of TechnologyThe Center for International Standards & Quality (CISO)Atlanta, GA 30342-0640404-894-0968<http://www.industry.gatech.edu/quality/default.htm>

Purdue UniversityIndiana Center for Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe Materials (CMTI)2655 Yeager Road, Suite 103West Lafayette, IN 47906765-463-4749<http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/CMTI/EMS/EMS>

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality12100 Park 35 CircleAustin, TX 78753512-239-1000<http://www.abouttexasems.org>

107


University of FloridaThe Center for Training, Research and Education for Environmental Occupations(TREEO)3900 SW 63rd Blvd.Gainesville, FL 32608352-392-9570<http://www.treeo.ufl.edu>

University of Massachusetts-LowellOne University AvenueLowell, MA 01854978-934-3900<http://www.wml.edu/ems>

University of Wisconsin-StoutMenomonie, WI 54751715-232-1122<http://www.uwstout.edu>

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State UniversityCenter for Organizational and Technological Advancement (COTA)110 Shenandoah AvenueRoanoke, VA 24016540-985-5900<http://www.cota.vt.edu>

The Zero Waste AllianceOne World Trade Center121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 210Portland, OR 97204503-279-9383<http://www.zerowaste.org>

108


Documents

Guide to EMS--State Official's