Cal/EPA Environmental Management System Project Report to the Legislature: Seventh Quarterly Update October through May 2001

Quality, Conclusions, and Recommendations

• Quality
• Conclusions
• Recommendations

Quality and Quantity Information

One of the questions the legislature asked is whether the Cal/EPA EMS Pilot Projects provided greater quality and quantity of information to the public than otherwise required by regulatory agencies. Data about the pilot projects' information sharing practices was gathered through the Cal/EPA Supplemental Protocols, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EMS, at the Cal/EPA Working Group meetings, and through information provided to Cal/EPA.

Findings

• Each of the pilot projects provides their EMS environmental policy statement to the public, as required by ISO 14001. Most of the pilot projects provide other information about their EMS, including environmental impacts, objectives and targets, compliance information, hazardous waste generation data, and solid waste generation data.
  
• All the pilots share EMS information with the Cal/EPA Working Groups. Some EMS information is also typically provided via the company's website.
  
• In addition to regulatory required information, the pilots share EMS related information with the public, as well as a variety of other environmentally related information.
  
• All of the pilots with completed EMSs agreed that the EMS has improved the way they communicate with the public or public agencies on environmental issues. 
  
• Several of the pilots reported that participation in Cal/EPA EMS Working Groups, and other community forums, improved their EMSs. They came to view stakeholder participation as beneficial to the environment and their organization.

Each of the pilot projects makes their EMS environmental policy statement available to the public. Most of the pilot projects provide other information about their EMS as well, including environmental impacts, objectives and targets, compliance information, hazardous waste generation data, and solid waste generation data. Several share air emission data, water discharge data, and resource consumption data (e.g., energy, water, and raw materials). Many of the pilots provide environmental aspects as well. Two of the pilots provide operations and procedures information. In addition, one company shares information about pollution prevention projects, community outreach programs, awards, and communication techniques, while another shares information about employee well being/safety in the workplace, remediation activities, and specific information provided in awards applications or as a result of a technical presentation.

All the pilots share EMS information with the Cal/EPA Working Groups. Some EMS information is also typically provided via the company's website. Some of the larger companies also share information through their public relations department and annual report, and others through their newsletter. Other mechanisms for sharing information include environmental health and safety report brochures, technical journals, annual community stakeholder meetings and upon request.

Pilots are required by regulation to provide a variety of information to regulatory agencies, including:

• hazardous waste generation and disposal,

• Toxic Release Inventory (TRI),

• emission factors report,

• Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 (SB 14) information on pollution prevention,

• hazardous materials disclosure,

• emergency response plan,

• wastewater sampling information, and

• volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.

Other information is required to be shared with the public, such as Proposition 65 postings, hazardous materials storage permit information, annual water quality reports, federal emergency response planning and Community Right to Know. For pilots who are public agencies, all records are public documents. 

In addition to regulatory required information, the pilots make available EMS related information to the public, as well as information about environmental partnerships, natural resource use, awards, stakeholder involvement, toxic chemical release and VOC emission data, solid waste data, pollution prevention projects, community outreach programs, environmental technology, and safety and health programs. 

The pilots agreed that the EMS has changed the way they communicate with the public or public agencies on environmental issues. Specifically,

• IBM: "(Our) EMS has lent additional credibility to the site and activities, strengthening working relationships with community and agency representatives, and supporting efforts to be viewed as an environmental leader." 
  

• A-BI: "(Having an EMS) helped move the company to more substantial reporting of information and data. Rarely communicated anything except public relations type information in early 1990s. Now communicate as much as possible and explain performance - both good and bad."
• San Diego: "(We're) now working in a proactive manner for external communication, sharing EMS successes and challenges with other agencies, companies and interested parties as well as upgrading the external website information to include EMS specifics."
• Artistic Plating: "(We are now) more comfortable in being more open with the public and public agencies. (Our) impression is that both the public and public agencies are more willing to acknowledge environmental deficiencies and work toward correcting them. In addition, the public and public agencies are interested in enhancing or expanding on the strengths identified in the EMS."
• LM Aero-Palmdale:"Prior to EMS (implementation), (we had) no external communication with interested parties other than required regulatory agency communication."
• Pentel: "As a result of the EMS, Pentel invites representatives of regulatory agencies to inspect facilities and help in improving environmental performance." 

Several of the pilots believed participation in Cal/EPA EMS Working Groups, and other community forums, affected their EMSs and the way they viewed stakeholder participation. Specifically, 

• IBM:"No changes."
• San Diego: "Participation in Working Groups has provided an outstanding opportunity for networking as well as sharing ideas and providing an opportunity to benchmark with other facilities as they continually improve (their) EMS."
  
• Artistic Plating:"(It's) encouraging to share information with stakeholders because EMSs are such a new concept. Sharing information with the public has influenced Artistic's management to want to be a leader or steward of the environment, to implement its EMS fully and to make the commitment to continue. Artistic has discovered that the more stakeholders are engaged, the better Artistic understands its own EMS program. Feedback, suggestions from Working Groups have been helpful. Also, visiting other facilities in the Cal/EPA EMS Project has helped understand what else could be done and enriches everyone."
  
• LM-Aero Palmdale:"Community stakeholder meetings have provided valuable insights into community environmental concerns."
  
• Pentel: "(The) Cal/EPA EMS Working Group has been beneficial, particularly as an information exchange vehicle, but has not really changed the way stakeholder participation is viewed since it was as a result of the existing view that participation in the Working Group was initiated in the first place."

In conclusion, it is clear that greater quality and quantity of information is available to the public through an EMS. All the pilots share EMS information with the Cal/EPA Working Groups. In addition to regulatory required information, the pilots generally share EMS related information with the public, as well as a variety of other environmentally related information. The pilots agreed that the EMS has changed the way they communicate with the public or public agencies on environmental issues. The pilots largely believed participation in Cal/EPA EMS Working Groups, and other community forums, affected their EMSs and the way they viewed stakeholder participation.

For more information, visit these pilot project websites:

IBM: www.ibm.com/ibm/environmental/annual/
ABI: www.abenvironment.com/docs/perform
SD: www.sannet.gov/mwwd/innovations/index.shtml 
AP: www.artisticplating.com
LM: www.lmaeronautics.com/palmdale/esh/index.html

Top of Page

Conclusions

Conclusions presented in this report focus primarily on those issues raised by AB 1102 (Public Resources Code, Section 71045 et seq.) As knowledge on additional issues was gained, either from the pilot projects or the extensive stakeholder discussions, some conclusions beyond the scope of AB 1102 are presented.

1. Where data was available, compliance with existing regulatory standards increased significantly for those organizations implementing an EMS.
2. All organizations with established EMSs demonstrated environmental performance significantly beyond that required by any "permit, requirement, authorization, standard, certification, or other approval issued by a federal, state, regional, or local agency" (legal requirement). Performance beyond legal requirements was demonstrated in several specific areas regulated by law. Such performance is attributable, at least in part, to the development and implementation of the EMS, and not to the applicable legal requirement.
3. Significant performance improvements were demonstrated in environmental areas for which there are no legal requirements. Such areas include energy consumption, solid waste generation, and fresh water use. These performance improvements represent significant potential for environmental benefit and they are not driven by legal requirements.
4. Compliance and general environmental performance improvements can be directly related to two principal factors:

a. Design and implementation of a comprehensive, integrated management system of policies, pollution prevention, training, assessment, and continual improvement.
b. The establishment of clear, measurable objectives to drive performance.

5. Information quantity and quality available to the public increased substantially both as a result of EMS development and implementation. This result can be attributed to existence of information about the broad range of environmental impacts and resource use, management strategies and performance measures that only existed because there was an EMS. This information, which is noted in the Information Results above, was not shared with the public as a result of any legal requirement. Community stakeholders have indicated that this supplemental information is of high value.
6. Management systems developed without external input from government, community representatives, and other stakeholders tend to be focused on compliance management and internal business needs. Management systems developed and deployed with participation of government and other external stakeholders have a much greater focus on general environmental performance in addition to compliance. Performance objectives can be significantly influenced by government and other external stakeholders. As a result, participation by government and external stakeholders results in an EMS with greater community and public value.
7. Working partnerships between government, communities, and business do not develop spontaneously, but must be promoted, nurtured, and supported with training, facilitation, and in some cases, financial support.
8. Companies enter into working partnerships with government and communities for a variety of reasons. Such reasons include:

• a. Business benefits which accrue from good, positive community relations.
• b. An avoidance of costly, often legal, confrontation with government and communities that result from either poor management or poor communication.
• c. Recognition by several companies in the pilot group of the importance of the business' social contract with the community to future economic success.
• d. A vision that at some future time, there will be refinements to the environmental regulatory system with the objective of making that system more efficient and effective in achieving desired environmental outcomes. Also, the recognition that building good relationships with communities and government will afford these companies with a better opportunity to influence such refinements, if or when they occur.

9. Reasons that did NOT motivate companies to join pilot projects.

• a. Expectation of regulatory concessions, either in standards of performance or quality of information reported.
• b. Expectation of reduced oversight by regulatory agencies.
• c. Expectation that regulatory agencies would not increase oversight of companies as a result of their participation in the pilot projects.

10. Larger, more technically sophisticated firms, with greater financial resources, can develop EMSs without government and/or community support, however as stated above, such internally developed EMSs have less focus on the broader environmental, public health, community, and regional issues. Firms with more limited technical and financial resources may require significant assistance in the form of training, consultation, and direction in the development and deployment of an EMS that benefits the public.
11. Government best functions as a convener, facilitator, and leader of communities and business in the promotion of environmental excellence goals and practice.

Top of Page

Recommendations

The learning from California projects, as well as from other states and countries, establishes the importance of setting specific and measurable goals and targets for environmental improvement. Statewide, regional or business sector goals and targets can help align the efforts of individual companies, regional partnerships and government agencies to achieve significant environmental improvements. As a result:

• It is recommended that further demonstration (pilot) projects be established with individual companies, in business sectors with substantial environmental impact, to develop EMSs which include specific, measurable targets for environmental performance which goes significantly beyond legal requirements and current performance.
  
• It is recommended that Cal/EPA identify business sectors or regions with significant environmental impact, with which partnerships can be formed to improve environmental performance through the integrated application of EMSs, pollution prevention, multi-media inspection, enforcement and recognition.
  
• It is recommended that a broad outreach and dialogue be initiated, to engage the opinion leaders and the public as to what California's long-term environmental sustainability and resource conservation goals should be.

If the regulatory system is to be optimized for performance and improved environmental outcomes, the permit system, as the central element of the system, must be evaluated for enhancement. If enhanced environmental outcomes are the primary objective of the regulatory system, and if integrated cross-media management of the environment produces better outcomes, then the permit system should reflect this. Such a system will require legislation, however work should be initiated to determine the basic characteristics of such a system, which would inform the legislative development process. This enhanced permit system would likely function within a supplemental regulatory track for entities which have demonstrated the willingness and ability to implement robust management systems which have achieved superior results.

• It is recommended that a project be initiated, with broad legislative, stakeholder and public input, to design and test a truly multi-media, systems based, outcome-focused permit system. 

Cal/EPA will have difficulty being seen as a leader in cross-media, systems management, and enhanced environmental performance, unless it implements such an approach internally.

• It is recommended that Cal/EPA set a goal to become a truly green government agency through the design and implementation of a Cal/EPA EMS, which sets aggressive performance targets in significant environmental and resource conservation areas. 

Recognition of environmental performance excellence is valued by businesses, as public recognition for green production can add value to product (e.g. wines produced from organically grown grapes).

• It is recommended that a systematic process to evaluate and recognize truly excellent environmental and resource conserving companies and government agencies be established.

Appendices | Table of Contents | Top of Page