Quality Environmental Management Subcommittee

President’s Commission on Environmental Quality

Washington, DC January, 1993

@ Printed on recycled paper

Preface ............................................................................. v

.. Executive Summary ........................................................ vu

About the QEM Project ................................................... 1

Setting the Stage for QEM ............................................... 7

A Framework for Pollution Prevention ......................... 15

Findings and Lessons .................................................... 39

Appendix A: QEM Project Participants ......................... 44

Appendix B: Demonstration Project Profiles ................ 45

Appendix C: Metrics ...................................................... 94

Appendix D: Tools and Techniques .............................. 95

Appendix E: Bibliography ........................................... 103

... 111

P RE FA(: E

xperience tells us that it is

often extremely difficult to

change when we have been

doing something the same

way all of our lives. But whether we real-

ize it or not, changes in our lives and

work are occurring continuously and at

an ever increasing pace.

In the business world, changes in

consumer demands, shareholder expec-

tations, technology and competition are

forcing most companies to rethink their

strategies in order to ensure their sur-

vival as viable financial entities. As a

result, companies have had to learn,

often with much difficulty, new ways of

doing old things. Today, we find that

more managers are experimenting with

innovative management concepts in

running their businesses. Also, execu-

tives are increasingly attempting to posi-

tion their companies with an eye

towards long-term strength, rather than

just short-term profits. And most impor-

tantly, numerous companies are focus-

ing on the wisdom of listening more

effectively to their customers.

Collectively, this new approach is

most commonly referred to as Total

Quality Management (TQM). It is a con-

cept that has wide applicability and

services rendered. And more recently,

these same principles have also been

successfully applied by a growing num-

ber of companies in dealing with their

environmental responsibilities. In this

application it is often called Quality

Environmental Management (QEM) . The underlying belief behind the

Quality Environmental Management

Initiative of the President's Commission

on Environmental Quality was that

TQM and QEM are two sides of the

same coin. The TQM methodologies

used to root out and eliminate product

imperfections or service deficiencies are

the same systematic approaches and

tools needed to reduce environmental

emissions or to prevent pollution.

The goal of the demonstration projects

discussed on the ensuing pages was to

test this hypothesis. Whether or not the

objective was accomplished is a matter

for you, the reader, to decide.

However, each of the participating com-

panies firmly believes that the Total

Quality Management approach was a

worthwhile effort and an effective

framework for identifying pollution pre-

vention opportunities. The results cer-

tainly seem to support our conclusion.

acceptance. TQM encompasses manage-

ment systems, the work environment,

employee behavior, manufacturing Kenneth ?' Derr, Chaziman and CEO, Chmron Corporatzon Chairman, QEM Subrommzttee Preszdrnt's Commzssion on Environmental Qualzty

processes, and the goods produced or

V

he President’s Commission

on Environmental Quality

(PCEQ), composed of twen-

ty-five business, environmen-

tal, foundation, and academic leaders,

has worked over the past 18 months to

respond to President Bush’s call for the

private sector to undertake, in coopera-

tion with government, initiatives for

environmental improvement. The

intent has been to show that the private

sector has real incentives and capabili-

ties to make major environmental

improvements outside the scope of cur-

rent government regulations. This

is a goal for which there has been broad

and growing support across political

lines.

One of four Subcommittees formed

by PCEQ was the Quality Environmental

Management (QEM) Subcommittee. Its

aim was to demonstrate the viability of

Total Quality Management (TQM) as a

method for achieving pollution

prevention.

This report shows the significant pol-

lution prevention and economic savings

that have resulted from a dozen diverse

demonstration projects and articulates

the key Quality Management principles

that were vital to achieving them. These

successes are described and the princi-

ples explained with the aim of stimulat-

ing and aiding improved environmental

performance throughout the private

sector. In the aggregate, these projects

accomplished the following:

Eliminated millions of pounds of

pollutants from manufacturing

processes.

Saved substantial sums of money.

Increased the efficiency or effective-

ness of the production process.

Improved the quality of products and

services.

Enhanced public perception of the

company or its products.

Improved employee morale.

Individual Projects

Eleven corporations volunteered to

participate in the project by committing

a total of twelve facilities across the

country to the demonstration effort.

This diverse groups of projects (in

terms of scope, geographic location,

industry, size, culture, and so forth)

illustrates the applicability of TQM for

achieving pollution prevention:

AT&T Network Systems Columbus

Works, in Columbus, OH, utilized

quality principles to reduce toxic air

vii

emissions that will result in the elimi-

nation of a toxic chemical (l ,l ,l-

trichloroethane) from its manufactur-

ing processes by the end of 1993, with

estimated annual savings of nearly

$200,000.

Chevron’s Perth Amboy Refinery, in

Perth Amboy, NJ, developed a facility-

wide pollution prevention project to

reduce environmental operating costs

and improve competitiveness.

Dow Chemical’s Glycol I1 Plant, in

Plaquemine, LA, developed an inter-

nal benchmarking project which con-

tributed to a 29 percent reduction in

fugitive emissions of ethylene oxide

and is striving to be “leak free by ‘93.”

By using simple tools of Quality

Performance, Dow Chemical also

reduced its lab waste by 67 percent.

DuPont’s Acrylonitrile Operations, in

Beaumont, TX, made process modifi-

cations that reduced ammonium sul-

fate emissions from more than 100

million pounds/year to less than 40

million pounds/year and saved almost

$1 million a year in manufacturing

costs.

Ford’s Sheldon Road Plant, in

Plymouth, MI, successfully conducted

a pilot project to replace a toxic chem-

ical, trichloroethylene (TCE), with an

aqueous detergent in the manufactur-

ing of aluminum heat exchangers.

Other benefits of the project included

the creation of a model for incorpo-

rating QEM into product design and

manufacturing process, a superior

product, reduced costs and environ-

mental impacts, and improved health

and safety conditions.

GE Medical Systems, in Florence, SC,

challenged a self-directed workforce

to integrate environmental concerns

into its existing continuous improve-

ment processes, which resulted in a

variety of projects that have improved

both their environmental and

economic performance.

International Paper’s Androscoggin

Mill, in Jay, ME, worked with various

environmental and governmental

organizations to design and imple-

ment a quality environmental pro-

gram, resulting in improved stake-

holder relations and reduced

environmental impacts.

Merck’s Rahway Manufacturing

Facility, in Rahway, NJ, focused on the

reduction of SARA TRI emissions, and

achieved a 1.5 million pound reduc-

tion in these releases in 1992 and pro-

jects a 4.8 million pound reduction in

1993 as compared to 1990.

3M’s Medical Products Division

Facility, in Brookings, SD, integrated

pollution prevention throughout its

entire operation, engaging every

employee in pollution prevention

activities and resulting in a 10 percent

... Vlll

reduction in waste generated.

Procter & Gamble’s Manufacturing

Plant, in Lima, OH, utilized a quality

approach working with outside organi-

zations to identify and reduce waste-

water effluent with a continuous

improvement goal of “zero discharge.”

Procter & Gamble’s Paper Products

Plant, in Mehoopany, PA, identified

priority wastestreams within all media

using TQM techniques and developed

a comprehensive strategy to reduce

those wastes. Savings of $500,000 are

projected for the pollution prevention

projects identified during the work

with the PCEQ.

US Generating Company’s (A

Partnership of Bechtel Group, Inc.

and Pacific Gas & Electric)

Indiantown Cogeneration Facility, in

Martin County, FL, demonstrated the

impact of utilizing quality principles

to incorporate environmental consid-

erations into the siting, development,

construction, and operation of a

clean-coal facility. US Generating’s

proactive commitment to state-of-the-

art technologies resulted in a stream-

lined permitting process that expedit-

ed financing and allowed for a prompt construction start.

These projects are unique in two

important respects. First, several

demonstrations directly involved nation-

al and community environmental public

interest groups. Second, the participat-

ing companies successfully showed that

improvements in environmental quality

can be achieved by using the same TQM

principles that have been applied by

companies worldwide to give their cus-

tomers better products and services at

lower cost. It should be noted that the

demonstration project results are

indicative of the potential pollution

reduction that might be achieved

throughout industry.

Key Findings

Based on the experiences of these

twelve projects, the QEM Subcommittee

has drawn the following conclusions:

Total Quality Management (TQM)

and Pollution Prevention are comple-

mentary concepts.

Successful pollution prevention

efforts, while dependent on a system-

atic and rigorous analysis, rely heavily

on flexibility in actual application.

Pollution prevention can be achieved

without large capital investments in

some cases.

There is no universal metric for track-

ing performance, but there are a

number of valid, useful metrics which

can be tailored to a company’s specific

needs.

Consultation and collaboration with

stakeholders interested in emission or

waste reductions are critical in

ix

developing credible progress reports.

Understanding the barriers and incen-

tives to effectively implementing a pol-

lution prevention program is a key to

increasing corporate commitments

and success.

TQM offers an approach that all com-

panies can use to achieve environmen-

tal improvements. The QEM

Subcommittee recognizes that some

companies are questioning the value of

TQM, a phenomenon that the collective

experience of the demonstration pro-

ject participants suggests is due to mis-

application of TQM or “blaming” TQM

for shortcomings in other aspects of

business. However, participating com-

panies found that applying TQM was

successful in the twelve QEM demon-

stration projects and believe it is essen-

tial for achieving pollution prevention.

In summary, this report provides:

A Step-By-Step Approach: An eight-

step generic model based on TQM

and designed to serve as a guide for

exploring pollution prevention oppor-

tunities in any industrial setting.

Hints on Developing Credible

Measures of Performance: A discus-

sion of various, practical approaches

to metrics that will help any company

develop appropriate information for

communicating pollution prevention

efforts.

Incentives and Barriers Likely to be

Encountered: Insights into the motiva-

tion for, and resistance to, pollution

prevention efforts.

If these projects are any indication of

the power of TQM to reduce or prevent

pollution, then the QEM Subcommittee

is confident in stating that, with the

proper incentives and flexibility to inno-

vate, private-sector voluntary programs

are a cost-effective and expeditious

route to improving the quality of the

environment.

X

rr H E P R O J E C T

n July 23, 1991, President

Bush named twen ty-five

environmental, business,

academic, and foundation

leaders to serve as members of the

President’s Commission on

Environmental Quality (PCEQ). The

PCEQ agenda for action recognized

that one of the most promising trends

in business is the incorporation of envi-

ronmental issues into companies’ daily

management decisions.

The Quality Environmental

Management (QEM) Subcommittee of

the PCEQ was formed to examine the

application of Total Quality

Management (TQM) principles to pol-

lution prevention. To this end, it initiat-

ed a study to demonstrate how T Q M tools can be used to identify pollution

prevention opportunities. The QEM Subcommittee’s basic premise is that

pollution is a quality defect to be con-

tinuously reduced.

Pollution prevention is difficult to

define and attempts to do so often lead

to a broad disagreement of terms.

Therefore, the QEM Subcommittee

decided to allow each facility to estab-

lish the focus of its project without

defining pollution prevention.

The QEM Subcommittee believes that

the principles that underpin TQM can

be useful tools for achieving environ-

mental protection. Just as defect pre-

vention is better than the “find and fix”

approach to quality control, pollution

prevention is preferable to “end of

pipe” control. The application of TQM

methods is a powerful tool in eliminat-

ing environmental inefficiencies and

preventing pollution.

Total Quality Management Principles

were first espoused by Drs. Mi’. Edwards

Deming and Joseph Juran in the early

1950s. Finding an unenthusiastic recep-

tion with U.S. business, which was expe-

riencing a post-war boom in produc-

tion, Deming and Juran went to Japan,

where they were influential in leading

Japanese industry toward new principles

of management. These new manage-

ment principles are the basis for the rev-

olution in the quality and competitive-

ness of the products and services

offered by Japan. Although Total

Quality has its roots in manufacturing,

managers in Japanese industry expand-

ed the principles to fit all disciplines.

Today, TQM has gained acceptance by

many American business leaders as

foreign competitors have gained market

1

share in industries once dominated by

U.S. corporations.

The foundation of Total Quality

Management is a strong customer focus.

A Total Quality company seeks to pro-

vide products and services that meet or

exceed the customer’s expectation of

quality through a process of continuous

improvement. The theory of total qual-

ity encompasses all aspects of the indus-

trial process. It refers to the quality of

the management, the quality of the

workplace, the quality of employee

behavior and attitude, the quality of the

work being performed, and the quality

of the goods and services provided to

the consumer. The expected outcome

of implementing a TQM system is a

transformation within the company in

terms of customer satisfaction.

A growing number of companies are

applying TQM principles to the man-

agement of environmental issues. This

application increasingly is called Quality

Environmental Management (QEM) . The primary goals of TQM and QEM

are similar. The objective of TQM is to

provide an improved product or service

that is better tailored to customer

demand. QEM also responds to various

“customer” or stakeholder demands by

conserving resources or reducing emis-

sions through more efficient processes.

Many of the classic TQM tools, such

as fishbone diagrams, Pareto charts,

histograms, benchmarking, and life-

cycle analysis, are effective in environ-

mental applications. Although the tools

are the same, QEM applications often

require extending the fundamental

TQM principle of seeking alignment

between the customer and the provider

to a much broader public constituency.

New tools likely will be created and

existing tools modified to meet the

demands of QEM as the process gains

wider acceptance through work such as

this study.

To test the emerging theory of the

effectiveness of applying TQM princi-

ples to achieve pollution prevention,

the QEM Subcommittee initiated a

Quality Environmental Management

(QEM) Project. Its goals were to:

Gain real-world experience, through

voluntary, private-sector demonstra-

tion projects, about the efficacy of

using TQM to reduce or eliminate

“environmental inefficiencies;”

Demonstrate effective processes for

reducing pollution;

Develop and test innovative, practical,

and credible metrics for measuring

pollution prevention performance

with an emphasis on changes in pro-

duction processes and inputs prior to

recycling, treatment, and disposal;

and

Understand and document the ince.n-

tives and barriers to voluntary

2

pollution prevention initiatives.

Eleven companies each volunteered

to undertake a demonstration project at

one of its facilities. One company initi-

ated two projects. The intent of these

projects is to demonstrate processes for

reducing pollution through the applica-

tion of Total Quality principles.

AT&T Network Systems Columbus

Works, Columbus, OH

Chevron’s Perth Amboy Refinery,

Perth kmboy, NJ

Dow Chemical’s Glycol I1 Plant,

Plaquemine, LA

DuPont’s Acrylonitrile Plant,

Beaumont, T X Ford’s Sheldon Road Plant,

Plymouth, MI

GE Medical Systems, Florence, SC

International Paper’s Androscoggin

Mill, Jay, ME

Merck’s Rahway Manufacturing

Facility, Rahway, NJ 3M’s Medical Products Division

Facility, Brookings, SD

Procter & Gamble’s Manufacturing

Plant, Lima, OH

Procter & Gamble’s Paper Products

Plant, Mehoopany, PA

US Generating Company’s

(A Partnership of Bechtel Group, Inc.

and Pacific Gas & Electric)

Indiantown Cogeneration Facility,

Martin County, FL

Projects were initiated in March,

1992. Each participating company

assigned a project manager to the task

of facilitating and coordinating the indi-

vidual demonstration projects. A list of

QEM Subcommittee and Task Force

members and Project Managers appears

in Appendix A. Demonstration project

fact sheets appear in Appendix B. The initiative was officially launched

through a workshop designed to pro-

vide a clear and common understand-

ing of the overall project and to famil-

iarize participants with the key concepts

of TQM and pollution prevention.

Workshop participants included the

project managers, QEM task force mem-

bers, pollution prevention experts, state

regulators, EPA officials, and represen-

tatives of environmental organizations.

Project managers then returned to their

respective facilities to align their indi-

vidual efforts with the objectives of the

QEM project.

Throughout the summer and fall,

Project Managers and QEM Task Force

members met regularly to discuss each

facility’s experiences in three areas:

Process - The common elements of

activities such as management

approach e s, data c 011 e c tio n , systems

analysis, identification of improve-

ment opportunities, and decision

making.

Metmcs - Approaches used to docu-

ment environmental improvements

3

and communicate the results to

interested stakeholders.

Incentives and Barriers - Issues that

either facilitated or hindered the goal of pollution prevention.

Data, in the form of internal memo-

randa, survey data, personal interviews,

and progress reports, were collected

throughout the course of the project.

These data were made available to the

Environmental Policy Center (EPC),

Law Companies Environmental Group,

for analysis. QEM Subcommittee and

EPC findings are presented in

this report.

4

ntegrating Quality Environmental

Management (QEM) throughout

a company makes good business

sense,” according to Roger

Strelow, Executive Vice President of

Bechtel Environmental, Inc., who

worked on the QEM Subcommittee for

PCEQ Member Riley Bechtel, President

and Chief Executive Officer of Bechtel

Group, Inc. “Using QEM as a frame-

work for pollution prevention encour-

ages innovation and stimulates compa-

nies to excel in an effort to satisfy cus-

tomers’ environmental expectations.

Applying TQM principles to pollution

prevention can result in cost savings

as well.”

Establishing a QEM system presents

special challenges as well as opportuni-

ties. QEM is a process that requires a

visible reorientation in corporate think-

ing and culture at all levels within a

company. There needs to be a commit-

ment by the top management of the

company before the idea will be accept-

ed by other parts of the company. And

there must be training for the many

people whose participation is vital.

Several factors outside the control of

a company can contribute to the deci-

sion to implement a QEM system.

Domestic and international regulations

can create stakeholder demands for

process changes. Competitor practices,

such as new operating standards for an

industry, can drive change.

Stakeholders not involved in company

operations or management can encour-

age a company to change by calling

public attention to specific pollutants.

Treaties governing such things as CFC

phase-out and other environmental

issues of international concern also can

encourage the implementation of a

QEM system. Even acts of nature, such

as tornados or hurricanes, may encour-

age a company to change processes.

In addition to external factors, the

impetus for implementing a QEM sys-

tem can come from within the company.

System failures can encourage a compa-

ny to rethink the operating processes of

the company. The realization that the

company is losing revenues by generat-

ing wastes that have no consumer value

may encourage a change in process.

For example, when the Toxic Release

Inventory (TRI) was implemented,

many companies were shocked to see

how much pollution was being emitted

from their facilities. An operating

mishap frequently leads to process

7

changes to reduce the chance of recur-

rence. The importance of a good pub-

lic image also is an impetus. Finally, by

endorsing charters such as the

International Chamber of Commerce’s

Business Charter for Sustainable

Development or the Chemical

Manufacturers Association (CMA)

Responsible Carea initiative, a company

pledges to make reforms and change

operating systems.

Incentives vary, of course, depending

on the type of company and its culture.

However, those identified by the

demonstration project participants

included:

Potential Cost Savings. The financial

incentives for applying TQM to pollu-

tion prevention can be significant.

Several of the companies involved in

the demonstration projects showed

cost savings after the implementation

of a QEM system. For example, suc-

cessful solid waste minimization

efforts at Procter & Gamble’s

Mehoopany plant are yielding a total

value of approximately $25,000,000

per year.

GE found that substituting floor wax

for a freon@-based mold release saved

approximately $15,000. By year end,

the company estimates that 1,1,1

trichloroethane use will be decreased

by 95 percent, saving approximately

$30,000. The introduction of a

closed-loop cooling system and three

process changes has reduced water

consumption by 300,000 gallons/week

with estimated annual savings on

water and sewage costs of approxi-

mately $30,000.

DuPont noted that when its project

first began, costs were seen as a barri-

er, yet the results are an incentive for

future programs. Initially, DuPont

believed that reducing excess ammo-

nia would cost them money; however,

the project has saved approximately

$1,000,000 a year in manufacturing

costs and reduced ammonium

sulfate generation by 60,000,000

pounds/year. The savings are a result

of decreased expenditures on raw

materials and decreased waste

disposal taxes.

Technolopcal Innovation. Some compa-

nies realized increased profits from

sales of technologies developed for

the implementation of a QEM pollu-

tion prevention system. For example,

in the implementation of its QEM pro-

ject, AT&T replaced a conventional

rosin base flux used in the wave sol-

dering of circuit packs with a “no

clean” low solids flux. This eliminated

the need for cleaning the residual flux

after soldering with solvents. The

company found that it could not accu-

rately and consistently apply the new

flux with traditional methods, so

8

AT&T’s Engineering Research Center

in Princeton, New Jersey developed a

spray fluxer which consistently applies

a controlled amount of flux to the cir-

cuit packs. This equipment is now

being marketed to other companies.

Increased Public Acceptance. Public

acceptance is important to many com-

panies. DuPont noted that probably

the single greatest motivating factor in

undertaking a QEM program was the

enhandement of its Beaumont, Texas,

facility’s public image. The Beaumont

site’s designation as the second high-

est source in Texas on EPA’s Toxic

Release Inventory ( TRI) propelled

the company to effect process

changes, even though it does not

believe that deep-well discharge of

ammonium sulfate is detrimental to

the environment. The facility has

received considerable public acclaim

for its reductions. This has increased

internal support for waste

minimization efforts.

US Generating’s Indiantown

Cogeneration Project applied QEM in

early design stages, working closely

with the local community and regula-

tors to incorporate solutions to envi-

ronmental concerns into the project

recorded at any stage.

Better Relations with Regulators.

Implementing QEM can foster

improved relations with regulators.

International Paper worked closely

with the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection.

Partnership with state teams has fos-

tered greater understanding on both

sides. Staff from various state agen-

cies now speak of Androscoggin Mill

in much more favorable terms.

These incentives - potential cost sav-

ings, technological innovation,

improved public acceptance, and better

relations with regulators - are particu-

larly appealing to management.

Participating companies were chal-

lenged to create incentives to motivate

employees at all levels. Certainly,

QEM’s focus on empowerment, cross-

functional team building, and problem

solving motivates employees at any com-

pany, large or small, to perform better,

take control of company environmental

performance, and help satisfy the needs

of their customers and stakeholders.

Among the primary incentives estab-

lished by the demonstration projects to

encourage employee buy-in to

integration of QEM were:

layout and design. As a result, all

votes before local and state boards

were unanimously in favor of the pro-

ject, and no public opposition was

Recognition for Individuals and Teams.

Recognition, in various forms, is effec-

tive in motivating workers to partici-

pate in QEM. People feel proud when

9

they can do a job that benefits both

their company and the environment.

At Ford, a number of quality awards

are available to recognize people or

teams that excelled in solving prob-

lems. The Total Quality Excellence

criteria includes pollution prevention

as part of the environmental efforts at

every facility. Additionally, pioneering

or unique quality efforts were publi-

cized on the internal television

network.

AT&T has a similar program. QEM

teams received recognition from

headquarters, and individuals and

teams received coverage in the

company magazine.

Rewards such as cash prizes or

bonuses were used by some compa-

nies. The AT&T Networks Systems

facility, for example, instituted a cash

awards program for individuals who

contributed significantly to the QEM

system implementation.

Safer Working Conditions. Conducting

pollution prevention projects can

lessen the need for personal protec-

tive equipment, industrial hygiene

monitoring, and engineering controls,

and has resulted in a healthier work

environment at several demonstration

project facilities. At GE Medical

Systems, all employee meetings are

held as a forum in which management

presents the “State of the Business” at

the facility. This includes information

about environment, health and safety

in additior? to issues such as financial

status and sales.

Providing incentives must be tied to a

clear understanding of obstacles and

barriers. As the participating compa-

nies worked through the process of

QEM, a number of obstacles were

encountered. Six barriers were com-

mon to most of the projects:

Limited Resources. Funds, time, and

personnel were in short supply at a

number of projects. This sparked the

development of innovative ways to

overcome such limitations. In dealing

with scarce resources, Dow Chemical

emphasized low-cost and no-cost pro-

jects and a can-do attitude toward the

process of finding and implementing

projects. These “small” projects

helped build support for QEM and

provided a basis for tackling larger

projects. This type of solution was typ-

ical of several other programs.

Inertia. Efforts were made to combat

the potentially debilitating effect of

the “business as usual” mentality

encountered in several facilities.

DuPont, Procter & Gamble,

International Paper, and GE have

made environmental performance a

measure of job performance. This

approach has helped to maintain

enthusiasm for QEM. For example,

10

Procter & Gamble’s Lima plant’s high

performance work system allows each

employee to use 15-20 percent of work

time on discretionary projects. Thus,

the system gives employees the discre-

tion to work on projects that are

important to them, including pollu-

tion prevention projects.

UninformPd Management or Emplojees.

GE found that when its project first

began, management overestimated

the kndwledge that each employee

had of environmental issues. Upon

realizing this was a barrier, several

suppliers and technical support staff

were brought in to explain the issues.

This increased employee understand-

ing of the project and related environ-

mental issues and helped empower

employees to take a lead on the pro-

ject. Demonstration project managers

believe that if the education had been

done up front, results would have

been seen faster.

Accounting Systems That Do Not Measure

Enuironmental Costs or Values. The

largest accounting barrier identified

was the failure of most corporate

accounting systems to measure the

economic and environmental costs of

alternatives to pollution prevention.

Ford justified QEM projects through

educated estimates and anecdotal

evidence.

Fear of Compromising Product Qualit) or

Production Efficiency. Facility workers

tend to worry that a process change or

material substitution will have an

adverse effect on production efficien-

cy or product quality. Procter 8c

Gamble’s Mehoopany plant addressed

the quality issue by working with the

changes up front and developing

alternatives. GE’s Magnet System

facility addressed this issue by initiat-

ing up-front testing and assessment.

Technology Limitations. In some cases,

pollution prevention improvements

were limited by the availability of

proven technology. In its search for

the best available technology, Dow

Chemical worked with a vendor to

develop a prototype in-process

sampling system.

Ford Motor Company used a slightly

different approach. To improve their

environmental performance, Ford

encouraged plants and divisions to

undertake pilot studies so that new

processes could be tested prior to

major capital investments. The Ford

staff provided technical and facilita-

tion support to organizations wanting

to undertake pollution prevention

initiatives.

Clearly, the creation of an effective

QEM system depends on many factors.

By recognizing possible barriers to the

implementation of QEM and creating

incentives to facilitate its acceptance,

11

companies can address and overcome

those barriers with a minimum of

disruption.

Once a QEM system is implemented,

a company can expect to see the great-

est impact in four areas:

Raw Matem'als and Feedstocks.

Implementation of a QEM system

encourages companies to become

more aware of the toxicity of the

materials used in operating processes

and the impacts of such materials on

waste streams. Pollution prevention as

a component of QEM evaluates raw

materials for purity, appropriateness

of use, and overall environmental

impact.

Manufacturing Processes. If raw materi-

als are used efficiently in a process, it

will not be necessary to manage them

as part of a waste stream from the

process. Waste minimization and the

recyclability of materials are key ele-

ments of QEM because reducing the

energy and raw materials required in

production processes reduces cost and

saves resources. Improved employee

health and safety also are benefits of

QEM.

Product Distribution and Use. Product

distribution and use also are affected.

Product handling receives a greater

emphasis as does the toxicity and recy-

clability of packaging. Safe use by

consumers of the products becomes

part of life-cycle analysis as does dis-

posal of products and packaging.

Product Design. Minimizing the poten-

tial environmental impact of a prod-

uct during its design phase reduces

wastes and emissions during the pro-

duction process and facilitates permit

negotiations that often result in cost

savings. Increasing a product's poten-

tial for reuse or recycling reduces

disposal requirements.

The QEM demonstration projects

focused on raw materials/feedstocks

and manufacturing processes.

Those involved in establishing QEM within their organizations must under-

stand that the key to QEM is rigorous

analysis of the process and continuous

improvement. The success of pollution

prevention efforts depends on the

process through which such projects are

implemented. The next section

describes common features of the QEM

process employed by participating

companies.

12

Raw Materials

and Feedstocks

uring ses

Product Distributions

WASTES WASTES EMMISSIONS EMMISSIONS

Product Use

he companies that partici-

pated in the QEM project

were committed to one goal

- determining whether

TQM principles could, in fact, achieve

reductions in pollution. The literature

abounds with discussion of the value of

such an approach - project partici-

pants tested the hypothesis and offer

compelling evidence that the theory

is sound.

The experiences of the demonstra-

tion projects were condensed into an

eight-step process that employs TQM

principles for improving environmental

performance - a process referred to by

project participants as Quality

Environmental Management (QEM).

As evidenced by the demonstration pro-

jects, QEM is equally effective for simple

process changes or complex engineer-

ing solutions that require capital invest-

ment, human resources coordination,

and interim milepost development.

Effective QEM is a continuous improve-

ment process. For example, the DuPont

Chemicals demonstration project is

designed to reduce the generation of

ammonium sulfate in one of its

processes. When DuPont meets this

specific project goal, its QEM effort will

not end; DuPont will continue to refine

the process to further reduce the gener-

ation of ammonium sulfate. AT&T also

has gone through several steps in its

efforts to continuously improve - in

1991, it eliminated ammonia and per-

chloroethylene; in 1992, it replaced

Freon' 113 with 1,1,1 trichloroethane

which, in turn, has been reduced by the

introduction of a low solids flux.

The projects that are highlighted in

this report are excellent examples of

everything from targeting one chemical

to integrated projects in which the

entire facility has implemented a QEM program to reduce the generation of

waste. The variability of the projects

allows readers to compare their own

QEM situation with the experiences of

other corporations.

Although each company employed a

slightly different approach to QEM, sim-

ilarities far outweighed differences.

This section addresses those similarities

and provides an approach for integrat-

ing QEM into any business function

or facility.

It is important to remember that this

is a framework for QEM, not a formula.

As occurred at the demonstration facili-

ties, each company must decide what is

15

Cynthia House, Senior Site Environmental EngznePr, Roy Vagelos, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dorothy Bowers, Vice President Environmental €9 Saftey Policy (left to right), discuss Merck ’s QEM Project.

appropriate from its perspective and

customize the framework to suit its

particular situation.

Key Issues & Tasks:

Involve stakeholders;

Define and allocate resources;

Empower employees.

Management commitment is crucial

to the success of a QEM system. For

example, at 3M, each Chief Executive

Officer has been personally involved in

the pollution prevention program since

its inception at 3M in 1975. They also

have been advocates of TQM. US

Generating’s environmental mission

statement reminds all employees that

each project’s goal should be to

contribute a net improvement to the

environment.

The QEM demonstration projects

could not have been implemented with-

out a strong and sincere commitment

by senior management. Even before

the QEM project began, many of the

participating companies demonstrated

their commitment to TQM and pollu-

tion prevention through the creation of

management teams and other focused

efforts to address pressing environmen-

tal issues. In fact, almost all participat-

ing companies have policy statements

that discuss pollution prevention

objectives and goals.

The most effective management

teams employ a matrix approach that

ensures participation from within every

functional business unit in the organiza-

tion. US Generating uses a matrix

approach that transfers information

throughout the organization because

people rotate through different

projects.

Involve Stakeholders

Participating companies faced the

challenge of responding to the environ-

mental concerns of stakeholders long

before the QEM demonstration projects

were initiated. Involving stakeholders

in environmental decisions helps a com-

pany prioritize projects based on the

concerns of various stakeholder groups

and develop relevant measurement

tools.

16

Measure eholders arecognize pel

metrics s necessary

S

rformance

i I

Ford Motor Company actively

involved representatives of the United

Auto Workers (UAW), Michigan Office

of Waste Reduction Services (OWRS) ,

and the Southeastern Michigan Council

of Governments (SEMCOG) on its

Quality Action Team. For example,

Patrick Brunett, Environmental

Program Manager at SEMCOG, offered

suggestions during the implementation

of the project that reflected the

concerns of the local community.

According to Mr. Brunett, his participa-

tion “increased my knowledge of what

business is doing in the area of pollu-

tion prevention. The project gave me

another resource to promote environ-

mental responsibility among local gov-

ernment and business.”

By including stakeholders from state

and local agencies, Ford ensured that

the goal of its QEM project was widely

17

E

communicated. Marcia Horan,

Automotive Program Manager at

OWRS, shared her perception about the

involvement of stakeholders: “You can

either manage your processes up front

or be regulated into doing something

later. Having the stakeholders involved

early on promotes understanding of

complex issues and the notion that

voluntary initiatives make valuable

contributions to environmental

improvement. ”

Empower Employees

Once senior management has estab-

lished company goals and defined

boundaries, it has to release the skills

and talents of employees through-

out the company to identify,

design, and implement appropriate

projects. Encouraging people to

recognize problem areas, identify

possible solutions and implement

pollution prevention projects at

their sites is key to helping any

company meet its environmental

objectives.

Barbara Cunningham, Lab

Technician at Procter & Gamble,

Mehoopany, PA, personifies

empowerment. Ms. Cunningham

came up with the idea to recycle

containers used at the facility for prod-

ucts such as Windex and WD-40. With

the help of others, she collected data on

the types and quantities of chemicals

used in pressurized and non-pressurized

containers. She then questioned suppli-

ers to ascertain which chemicals were

available in bulk gravity systems. Armed

with this information, she approached

the technicians who worked with the

chemicals to determine whether they

would be receptive to using refillable

containers in place of pressurized,

disposable containers. She also spoke

with supply room staff to gauge their

willingness to work with bulk gravity

containers.

Upon receiving agreement from

these parties, Ms. Cunningham briefed

management about the project. She got

their support and the funding to buy

necessary equipment. By going through

this process, she got all relevant parties

to buy in - thus, obtaining formal

approval was easily accomplished.

Procter & Gamble has benefitted by

reducing landfill waste. In addition, it

projects annual savings of $25,000 from

this project alone.

According to Roger Price, Center for

Hazardous Materials Research,

University of Pittsburgh, (involved in

the Procter & Gamble project in

Mehoopany, PA), “The exciting thing

about QEM is that it empowers individu-

als to achieve results. Having all the

knowledge and technology in the world

isn’t enough. You need to be

18

empowered to utilize those resources to

benefit your facility and the environ-

ment at large.”

Define and Allocate Resources

Implementing QEM will not succeed

without the allocation of financial and

human resources. Investments in QEM

are defined by the competing demands

facing a company. Senior management

at US Generating allocated resources

after considering factors such as:

Competition for scarce

resources;

Legal constraints;

Stakeholder concerns;

Public relations;

Short-term versus long-term

benefits;

Budgetary constraints;

Available capital;

Existing technology.

Similarly, senior management at Ford

Motor Company recognized pollution

prevention as its preferred environmen-

tal business practice. To ensure that its

environmental activities are successful,

Ford has provided its employees with

direction and training, conducted

research and development, and allocat-

ed capital when necessary to make

process changes.

The inability to secure necessary

resources can stall a pollution preven-

tion effort. “A lack of resources, both

human and financial, can thwart

the best intentions of middle man-

agement and plant employees,”

noted Thomas S. Davis, Director of

Environment & Safety Engineering

Affairs at AT&T. “The key to

obtaining resources is to increase

the awareness of senior manage-

ment of the need to eliminate haz-

ardous chemicals and other wastes

because of emerging regulations

and the public’s concern about the

materials we use.”

STEP TWO - DEVELOP A QUALITY ACTION TEAM (QAT)

Key Issues 8c Tasks:

Organize a cross-functional team;

Use existing resources and processes;

Establish two-way communication with

management.

Quality Action Teams (QATs)

Barbara Cunningham and Wayne Hussong demonstrate thP recently installed bulk gravity chemcial dispensing system at the Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Plant in Mehoopany, Pennsylvania.

19

transmit management commitment to

employees throughout the company.

Participating companies found that

forming one or more QATs at the plant

level was an effective way of translating

overall company goals into an imple-

mentation plan for pollution preven-

tion. The QAT is responsible for

designing and implementing pollution

prevention projects taking into account

the overall goals of the company.

Organize a Cross-functional Team

Formation of the QAT is an essential

element in initiating a pollution

prevention project. The QAT

should consist of representatives

from a variety of departments with-

in the company who are in a posi-

tion to influence the implementa-

tion and outcome of the project.

Depending on the nature of a par-

ticular business, team members

should be drawn from diverse func-

tions such as engineering, environ-

ment, accounting, purchasing,

maintenance, and operations.

It also should include people who

have a strong interest in improving

the environment and want to make

a difference.

New QATs do not necessarily need to

be created; QEM can be accomplished

with existing teams. Procter & Gamble

(Mehoopany, PA) used two QATs - one

was a newly-formed team that focused

on air and water issues; the other was a

standing team for solid and hazardous

waste issues.

Both teams utilized individuals with

expertise in TQM, environmental issues,

and plant operations. Procter &

Gamble selected QAT members based

on their knowledge of environmental

and operating systems and ability to

analyze data to identify pollution pre-

vention opportunities. Procter &

Gamble’s selection process underscores

an important point: Collectively, QAT

members should have insight into

potential pollution prevention activities

and the engineering, operational and

cost factors that may influence a specific

process or product change.

At several facilities, people external

to the company participated on the

QAT. For example, members of the

Michigan Office of Waste Reduction

Services (OWRS) were involved at Ford.

An OWRS staff member participated in

Ford’s QAT meetings. An OWRS intern

was placed at the Sheldon Road facility

for 10 weeks to measure and evaluate

the performance of new technology and

act as a liaison to OWRS. Marcia Horan, Automotive Program

Manager at OWRS, found that “the

knowledge I took away from the Ford

project allowed the OWRS to assist

others in their pursuit of pollution

20

prevention projects.” In addition, US

EPA funding of the intern’s time on the

project “was a big incentive in that it

gave an organized structure to what

otherwise would have been an ad hoc

re la tio n s h i p . ” The relationship between Ford and

the State of Michigan was good

throughout the project, a contrast to

more adversarial public-private relation-

ships occurring in regulatory settings.

According to Ms. Horan, one barrier

which often exists during the initial

phase of a voluntary project in which

industry is involved is “a lack of trust

between business and government.”

International Paper has used cross-

functional teams to generate significant

momentum with the Maine Department

of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Challenged by tighter effluent permit

limits, the Androscoggin Mill agreed to

work with a three-person team from

DEP’s Water Bureau to evaluate and

upgrade the wastewater treatment plant.

This was the first industry/government

collaboration of its kind in the state and

proved to be a successful effort.

Regulators brought their considerable

experience to bear in a collaborative

problem-solving environment. They

also gained a better understanding of

the mill processes. Steve Groves,

Division Director at the Water Bureau,

describes the process as “getting techni-

cal people within government and

industry to talk to each other, trust one

another, and solve problems together.”

The Maine DEP and Androscoggin

Mill have built on this momentum by

establishing a joint agency/mill

Pollution Prevention team with a man-

date to identify opportunities for

improving environmental performance

throughout the manufacturing process.

This team has enabled regulators and

company engineers to work together

toward a common goal - reducing the

environmental “footprint” of the mill.

Use Existing Resources and Processes

Securing resources to undertake new

projects can be difficult even in

companies experiencing rapid growth.

Demonstration project participants

found it prudent to maximize their use

of existing business processes and

A Qualit) Action Team uses process mapping to identgy opportunities for waste reduction at GE Medical Systems in Florence, South Carolina.

21

functions. When Chevron initiated

its QEM project, it used its existing

waste water treatment team. Dow

Chemical did not invent new proce-

dures to begin its project either -

it used the “Waste Reduction

Always Pays” (WRAP) program as a

starting point. GE, too, has been

taking a TQM approach to its work

for several years and was able to use

existing teams in its QEM effort.

At these and other participating

companies, the use of existing

resources made initiating a QEM project less difficult.

Establish Two-way Communication with Management

Two-way communication is essential

to the implementation of a successful

QEM system. At appropriate intervals,

the QAT has to be able to share its per-

ceptions, experiences, and findings with

senior management. This is key in

assuring that there are no “surprises.”

It also communicates and reinforces the

view to management that dedicating

financial and human resources to pollu-

tion prevention is a wise business deci-

sion. Ongoing dialogue helps ensure

that pollution prevention projects will

engender positive business results.

TRAINING AT

AT&T J I I I Chevron J I I I Dow Chemical J I J I I Dupont J I I 7 Ford J l J l I J GE J J International Paper J J Merck J J J 3M ~ J J Procter & Gamble (OH) J Procter & Gamble (PA) J J J

STEP THREE - TRAINING

Key Issues 8c Tasks:

Perform timely and practical awareness

and process training.

The level of understanding about

QEM differs from company to company.

Training gives employees the general

background and specific skills to make

QEM successful. At Merck & Company,

employees have a high level of aware-

ness about the absolute requirements of

product quality. Dow Chemical

Company routinely offers training in

statistical quality control and quality

performance.

Training depends on the existing

capabilities of the QAT. Employees in

22

companies such as Merck and Dow

Chemical may not require more than a

review of one of the readily available

primers on TQM. In other companies,

however, more intensive training may be

necessary. At Procter & Gamble, both

corporate and plant quality improve-

ment personnel conduct on-going train-

ing to help their Quality Improvement

Process Team follow the quality

improvement process.

Compafiies new to the QEM process

are less likely to have the internal train-

ing capabilities or experiences of the

participating companies. This should

not be viewed as a major barrier to initi-

ating QEM efforts - it merely requires

additional emphasis.

Regardless of the nature of training,

it is important that it be timely and

practical. General awareness training

should be offered at the onset of the

QEM process, while more technical

training should occur at intervals

throughout the process. The closer the

training is to the point at which it will

be used, the more likely it is that team

members will apply the training to their

daily activities.

S‘fEP F Q U K - DETERMISE:

EXISTING OPERATIONS

Key Issues 8c Tasks:

Use QEM tools and methods as

E N ~ ~ J R O N ~ ~ ~ E N T A L r MPMT O F

appropria t e;

Identib and fill critical information gaps; Consider how to mearure

zmprovemen ts.

Identifying possible pollution preven-

tion projects should reflect three fac-

tors. First, projects should address the

concerns and interests of the company’s

stakeholders. Second, projects must

support articulated corporate goals.

Third, project implementation

must be realistic in terms of cost,

available resources, and existing

technology.

The ultimate question for any

company to answer when assessing

environmental impact is, “How can

we prevent pollution and eliminate

waste!”

According to William Bitters,

Packaging Technology Manager at

Procter & Gamble in Lima, Ohio,

“By gathering the proper information,

you can really eliminate problems.”

Understanding the impact of a compa-

ny’s production processes and attendant

wastes and emissions is an important

step in determining appropriate pro-

jects to undertake. Without data to

23

support specific process changes or

materials substitution, the elimination

of an environmental problem may unin-

tentionally create other problems. For

example, chemical substitution to

decrease air emissions might adversely

a ff e c t waste wa t e r.

The QAT members should possess

the technical skills to identify projects

with the greatest potential for pollution

prevention. In fact, if the QAT is truly

cross-functional, the team should

understand the operation of most pro-

duction processes at its facility. With

the knowledge and support of environ-

mental engineers, the team will be able

to pinpoint and understand the origin

of waste and emissions. In the words of

Dick Scott, Environmental Manager at

Procter & Gamble, Lima, Ohio, “You Chemical Operator Milton crier performs must dig into the problem to determine

its root cause. You do not always find

what you expect.” Collecting data on

a daily R C M inspection at Merrk’s Rahway facility.

waste streams and emissions enables the

QAT to determine the best pollution-

prevention project candidates.

The greatest opportunities for pollu-

tion prevention can be determined by

examining three pieces of information.

Sources of waste. Every raw material

brought into a manufacturing facility

becomes part of a product or waste.

All such materials should be identi-

fied. Examples include:

Cleaning agents

N7ater

Chemicals

Packaging materials

Process Scrap

Greases

Scrapped equipment

Oils

Debris

Quantztj of waste material. Although

data on waste quantities usually are

not readily available, baseline data

often can be derived from material

purchase and production informa-

tion. This information is most useful

when recorded in spreadsheet fashion

using standard weight units. Ford

Motor Company has found that

weight is a more accurate measure

than volume because it is not affected

by packaging or storage. In addition,

most regulatory reporting require-

ments specify weight measurements.

24

Raw Material Quantity of Unit of Units Produced Waste/ M'aste (lbs/yr) Production (number/vr) Unit (lbs)

Water 250,000,000 Engines 200,000 20

Oil 4,000,000 - - 10

Solvents 200,000 1 -

Because waste varies with changes in

production level, the waste generated

per production unit should be calcu-

lated.

Costs of waste practices. After waste

streams have been identified and mea-

sured, their true costs should be calcu-

lated. Examples of waste costs

include:

0 Wasted raw material, including the

cost of raw material to replace the

disposed material;

0 Waste handling, including all labor

costs involved in the removal, treat-

ment, and disposal of waste

materials;

0 Waste storage, including the cost to

store waste materials at the site of

generation, in holding tanks or sal-

vage areas within the plant, or in a

drum area;

c Waste transportation, including

the cost to haul materials from the

generation location within the plant

to a salvage area and the cost to ship

off site;

c Waste treatment, such as waste

water treatment chemicals;

0 Waste disposal, such as landfill

costs, POTW charges, or

incineration costs;

0 Intangibles, such as reduced

environmental effects, reduced

liability, and reduced exposure to

regulations.

The total costs of waste material can

run into millions of dollars annually.

These data provide opportunities for a

company to reduce waste and save

money.

25

Use Quality Tools and Methods

Participating companies used a vari-

ety of TQM tools (described in

Appendix C) to generate information

about the sources and quantity of their

wastes and emissions. The TQM tool

most commonly employed was the

Pareto Chart, which organizes data in

order of magnitude of impact and,

therefore, helps the QAT identify areas

in which a pollution prevention project

is likely to have the greatest environ-

mental improvement.

Identify and Fill Critical Information Gaps

After analyzing the data generated by

the application of QEM tools, the QAT

may find that results do not match

expectations. For instance, emissions

from one process ma): be lower than

previously estimated or effluent in

wastewater from a particular process

may be higher than expected. Given

such specific findings, the QAT must

ascertain if it has collected all of the

data necessary to its study. For exam-

ple, the QAT must decide if the cause-

and-effect chart showed all of the

sources of waste from the process or if

additional, more creative measures are

necessary.

1992 WASTE COSTS AT FACILITY x

Water Oil Solvents

cost of:

Raw material $75,000 $1,000,000 $100,000

Treatment - 100,000 25,000

Disposal 5,000

Transportation -

Storage -

Handling -

-

-

-

0,000

-

0,000

Total Cost $80,000 $1,150,000 $1 75,000

QAT Action TQM Tools Selecting an area for improvement Pareto Chart

Finding root causes Cause and Effect (Fishbone) Diagram

Finding the most significant causes

Describing characteristics Histogram

Flow Chart

Control Chart

Pareto Chart

Improving the operation Flow Chart

Measuring improvement Control Chart

Histogram

Pareto Chart

I

address the issue often was unavailable.

To overcome this barrier, Ford imple-

mented programs to encourage the res-

At Procter & Gamble’s Lima, Ohio,

plant, if a potential project appeared to

be feasible, QAT members conducted a

second, more in-depth assessment to

determine whether additional data or

resources were required. This two-

tiered approach uncovered some sur-

prises. Although Procter & Gamble

expected to find waste reduction oppor-

tunities in its processing, its packaging

processes were far greater generators of

waste. A key element in the QEM

framework is to determine whether the

company has all of the data it needs to

consider the most effective and prudent

pollution prevention projects.

A concern expressed by several par-

ticipating companies was that once their

data set was complete, technology to

olution of technology-related problems.

At Ford, plants and divisions were

encouraged to undertake pilot tests so

that major process changes could be

tried before large capital investments

were made. In addition, Ford’s

research laboratory provides technical

support to any organization willing to

initiate pollution prevention projects.

Dow Chemical worked with a vendor on

sampling technology. The vendor’s

product expertise coupled with

Dow’s process expertise resulted in a

prototype system that met Dow’s

requirements.

27

Key Issues & Tasks:

Consider How to Measure Camrlita ,Vacrohon i ollerts 1 n/orrna t i on on SARA 7’ltlr 111 rinissaons at Mrrck’s Ra h7uq /a cilz ty .

Improvements

Before the QAT actually selects a pro-

ject for implementation, it is important

to consider how best to measure the

success of proposed projects. By consid-

ering measurements early on, the QAT

will be able to predict whether the

proposed process or product

changes should actually deliver the

desired results. In addition, mea-

surements driven by stakeholder

considerations will help determine

if the QAT’S projects are meeting

the needs of its stakeholders.

Participating companies developed

a number of qualitative and quanti-

tative factors to aid them in

determining their success.

Develop project selectton criteria;

Collect only additional data nreded to

make decasions;

Establish mctmc bagdine.

Develop Project Selection Criteria

Pollution-prevention options should

be prioritized along two dimensions - quantitative factors that address what

the company should do and qualitative

factors that reveal what QAT members

think “feels” right. Data collected dur-

ing Stage Four and in the preceding

step support quantitative prioritization

of pollution problems. Many factors

can be considered in establishing

priorities for action, such as:

Waste volume

Raw material cost

Regulations Disposal methods

Handling time Potential liability

Disposal costs Cost/unit produced

Feasibility Treatment methods Treatment costs

Toxicity Environmental concern Health and safety

Product quality

28

.

Qualitative Factors Quantitative Factors

Integration of environmental Process/practice improvements. Reduction/elimination of releases. Appropriate use or elimination of chemicals and/or hazardous sub- stances in order to reduce process releases of these materials. Cost savings in raw materials, waste management, permit applications,

quality issues into management decisions.

@ Barriers to success are identified and addressed. Transfer of knowledge to others in

Effective internal and external the organization.

communications strategy. regulatory mandates. Stakeholder satisfaction. Change in corporate culture

Adoption of “best practices” by other parts of the organization. Participation of additional facilities in QEM process.

regarding environmental issues.

Qualitative priorities reflect QAT

members’ knowledge of stakeholder

concerns and general environmental

issues. Data to support qualitative prior-

ities tend to be anecdotal.

Both sets of priorities, however,

should consider the pollution preven-

tion hierarchy - source reduction,

recycling, treatment and, as a last

option, disposal. Source reduction

techniques include technology modifi-

cations, process and procedure modifi-

cations, reformation or redesign of

products, substitution of raw materials,

and improvements in housekeeping,

maintenance, training, and inventory

control.

AT&T’s Columbus, Ohio manufactur-

ing facility provides an example of the

factors the QAT considered in identify-

ing possible projects. AT&T’s overall

goal is zero emissions and its QAT want-

ed to address public concerns

about chemicals. Because many of

the chemicals listed on the EPAs

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) are

used extensively at AT&T, the QAT

developed a targeted approach to

eliminate or reduce use of TRI

chemicals.

The QAT first created a Pareto

Chart which displayed all of the

chemicals used at AT&T in order of

total releases as reported on the

29

Barbara Thompyon and C;?rzsh Purzkh of AT& T rleycizbe the operafaon oJn low Folzdsjluxer that reduces the use of Trz chloroethane (TCA) zn thew manf ufacturzng process to Bzll ikfullzgun of Chevron and Andrew Neblett of the Counczl on Envaronmental Qualaty.

TRI. The QAT then developed its pro-

ject selection criteria. It elected to

assess projects on the basis of elimina-

tion, non-toxic substitution, less-toxic

substitution, reduced usage. Because

AT&T’s products require the use of TRI chemicals for which substitutions are

not readily available, the QAT focused

on reduced usage and elimination.

AT&T consulted a number of

experts including industrial hygien-

ists and plant engineers to deter-

mine which chemicals to consider

first. In addition, an external team

of technical experts and suppliers

were consulted to determine if any

problems might occur in selecting

various options.

While the internal and external

experts were useful in keeping the

QAT abreast of potential problems

if a particular option was selected,

AT8cT found a lack of information

regarding chemical substitutes or

other options. Therefore, AT&T relied

largely on its own internal research to

develop options.

Collect Only Additional Data Needed to Make Decisions

Additional data may be required to

fill gaps posed by the prioritization

process. For each option under consid-

eration, it is important to fully under-

stand whether:

The cost of proposed projects will out-

weigh the benefits;

A lack of resources or technology limi-

tations poses barriers to success;

Stakeholders believe beneficial envi-

ronmental gains will result.

Establish Metric Baseline

One of the goals of the demonstra-

tion projects was to examine credible

metrics for tracking progress in environ-

mental performance. The projects used

two distinct classifications of waste-relat-

ed metrics:

Metrics indexed to production measure

pounds of waste per u n i t of output.

Indexed metrics convey information

on the rate of waste generation and so

are not directly influenced by

production increases or decreases.

This allo~is measurement of the

30

continuous improvements generated

by the QEM process.

Indexed metrics also are amenable

to the establishment of reduction

goals that are not related to produc-

tion. From a motivational perspective,

this assures that an action taken by a

QAT that reduces the rate of waste

generation will be reflected.

The disadvantage of indexing met-

rics is that they do not directly relate

to the adsolute amount of waste

released to the environment. If the

rate of waste generation per unit of

production goes down, but the pro-

duction level increases, the absolute

amount of waste may remain constant

or increase.

Metria of total mass measure the total

amount of waste per uni t of time (e.g.,

Zbs/year, kg/month). The total amount

of releases to the environment

appears to be of primary concern to

most communities.

Different stakeholders prefer differ-

ent metrics. Although a number of

environmental organizations and reg-

ulatory agencies prefer indexed met-

rics, the general public often focuses

on the total amount of waste released

into the air, water, and land.

The differing nature of these cate-

gories suggests that a facility should

develop more than one metric to mea-

sure and report on its environmental

progress. Indexed metrics should be

targeted toward internal motivation of

QATs as they pursue project goals and

objectives and communication with

environmental groups and regulatory

agencies. Total mass metrics will be

most effective when addressing

community concerns.

31

STEP SIX - IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

Ford targpted i t s Cost-related metrics provide impor-

trichlorwthjlme tant information about environmental depms ing process far the ~ ~ ~ 1 2 1 Initiative. operating costs. Such metrics will vary

for different waste streams. In develop-

ing its measures, Chevron considered

the costs of disposal, permits, inspection

fees, operation and maintenance of

environmental equipment, lab

analyses, lost product, operations

downtime, avoided capital invest-

ment, environmental liability, and

public image.

In addition to developing met-

rics, appropriate timing for

achievement of goals should be

established. Some improvements

may be accomplished in only a few

months; others may require several

years. An important component of

metrics is knowing when to mea-

sure in addition to knowing what

and how to measure.

Key Issues 8c Tasks:

Inform all site employees of impending

improuemen t project;

Empower thP QAT to implemmt the project

or obtain the additional T - Q S O U ~ ( P S

necessary

Skepticism about technological inno-

vation, personal or professional priori-

ties that focus only on traditional busi-

ness values, or “business as usual” iner-

tia often pose barriers when a facility

moves beyond the planning stage.

When the QAT is ready to implement

its selected QEM project, management

should make employees aware of the

ramifications of the effort in order to

address employee concerns before they

become obstacles to implementation.

It may be necessary to retrain some

employees in QEM system process

changes.

For example, if a production line

worker must adapt or change a tradi-

tional process, the QAT should be pre-

pared to demonstrate the new process,

what is expected of employees who are

involved in the process, and why the

project was chosen. Participating com-

panies found that explaining the envi-

ronmental benefits of process changes

made employees more accepting.

A concern expressed at several

32 L

demonstration projects centered around

product quality constraints. All process-

es have a control range for quality and

each project manager was wary of the

potential to decrease product quality if

process changes were made improperly.

To overcome this problem, some compa-

nies initiated pilot tests where feasible to

ensure that the quality of the product

would be maintained before embarking

on large-scale change.

Participating companies implemented

their projects in a number of ways.

Dow Chemical’s charge to the project

team members was to gather appropri-

ate data and identify and implement

do-able projects. The team defined

and initiated several improvements.

Ford’s project implementation includ-

ed a mechanism to provide structured

feedback to the QAT and regularly

scheduled meetings during a gradual

scale-up of the project. In bringing

the new project on-line, Ford QAT

members started with bench-scale test-

ing to evaluate the feasibility of the

process or technology and then imple-

mented larger-scale testing followed by

a full production pilot. Once the pilot

proved successful, the project was

implemented full scale. According to

Ford personnel, the benefit of this

approach is that fundamental issues,

including capital costs, are addressed

early and production is not hindered.

International Paper emphasized

experimentation in implementing its

project. Employees were encouraged

to do pilot tests with the expectation

that some tests would not succeed.

Such outcomes were viewed as educa-

tional experiences rather than

failures.

The projects focused on two basic

types of manufacturing processes: those

that use a chemical in the process, but

the chemical does not become part of

the final product; and those that manu-

facture or process chemicals that do

become part of the final product.

Projects also differed in scope - five

targeted a specific project within the

participating facility; seven established

programs for the entire facility: AT&T, Ford, and Merck identified

specific chemical compounds used in

their manufacturing processes and

The new aqueous degreasing process, which was developed by Ford and tested at their Sheldon Road Plant, eliminated the need for trichloroethyl- ene (TCJ) in the degreasing process.

33

worked to identify substitute chemi-

cals to reduce the emissions of target

compounds.

Dow Chemical and DuPont used

process improvements, equipment

modifications, and improved

operating procedures to reduce

waste and releases. Because these

facilities manufacture/process

materials, source reduction

through materials substitution

was not a feasible alternative.

The remaining seven projects - Chevron, GE, International

Paper, 3M, both Procter &

Gamble plants, and US

Generating - were “holistic.”

They used a wide range of

pollution prevention techniques

to improve environmental

performance.

STEP SEVEN - MEASURE RESULTS

Key Issues 8c Tasks:

Measure results;

Adjust as necessary.

If Step Five has been properly

addressed, measuring results is mecha-

nistic - the QAT knows precisely what

is to be measured and what outcomes

reflect success. Measurable results are

important for several reasons:

They ensure that predicted pollution

or waste reductions and cost savings

are actually achieved.

They provide motivation to the QAT

and other workers by keeping goals

and progress continually visible to

those participating in the effort to

change.

They justify implementation of other

pollution prevention efforts.

They manifest a corporation’s commit-

ment to addressing environmental

concerns.

Total-mass metrics (discussed in Stage

Five) were the choice of most participat-

ing companies. AT&T, DuPont, and

Merck - utilized the SARA 313 data to

measure pollution prevention. (These

projects focused on reducing emissions

of SARA 313-listed chemicals.)

Use of SARA 313 data as a pollution

prevention measurement tool has been

questioned by various organizations. In

some cases, especially projects designed

to reduce waste streams that are

released directly to the atmosphere

(such as fugitive emissions), SARA 313

data are appropriate. These data are

public, indicate the amount of material

that is released to the environment, and

are comparable among industry sectors.

Dow Chemical, Ford, and

International Paper also used SARA 313

data, but combined this measure with

others to provide indexed metrics.

Chevron and 3M employed indexed

metrics as well. (A summary of metrics

appears in Appendix D.)

34

c

S T E P EIGHT - STANDARDIZE/

AND BEGIN NEW CYCLE INSTITUTIONALIZE IMPROVEMENT

Key Issues 8c Tasks:

Integrate improvements into other processes

and institutionalize such actions as a

companj “best practice;”

Communicate actions to stakeholders;

Recognize team and individual

performance achievements in w a y

consisteqt with company culture.

Continue the process.

Developing and implementing a pol-

lution prevention project and measur-

ing the results does not constitute com-

pletion of the cycle depicted by the

QEM framework. Rather, the successful

achievement of an articulated goal

should signal the beginning stage of a

new project or an effort to continue to

improve the project just completed.

Senior management should reflect

new issues and provide resources for

additional QEM efforts. These might

be in the form of completely new pro-

jects (e.g., elimination or reduction of

another compound of concern) or it

may be an effort to improve upon the

results of the initial effort. Before look-

ing at additional projects, three tasks

should be undertaken to ensure the suc-

cess of the project can be replicated.

Integrate Improvements Large rolorful displays Into Other Processes throughout 3M’s

Brookings plant help to remind employees of Participating companies plan to share the need for high quality i n all the successes and lessons of their

demonstration projects with other

departments, divisions and facilities

within their organizations to ensure that

others can replicate the QAT’S environ-

mental activities without starting from

scratch. It should be expected that

replication at other facilities may

require modification to account for

specific operating and production

activities.

production operations.

DuPont plans on sharing its success

in reducing ammonium sulfate emis-

sions with other acrylonitrile producers.

In addition, DuPont will use the QEM process with its Community Advisory

Panel to discuss the success of its origi-

nal project as well as its plans for future

projects.

35

Ford has communicated its experi-

ence with the QEM process and its suc-

cess in developing a process to elimi-

nate its TCE vapor degreaser to the rest

of Ford and its suppliers in conjunction

with its external team member from the

State of Michigan Office of Waste

Reduction Services.

US Generating’s project design fea-

tures for complex coal-fired plants,

including integration of zero wastewater

discharge and selective catalytic reduc-

tion, have been employed in subsequent

projects wherever feasible.

To foster replication, GE will rewrite

its procedures for specific production

areas and processes. In addition, it will

provide training in the new processes to

other sites as needed. This will ensure

that the results of the project are shared

with everyone.

Participating companies agree that it

is important to ensure that the

improvements developed by the

Quality Action Team and imple-

mented at one plant become stan-

dard operating procedures at other

plants with similar processes. The

efforts expended by a QAT should

be instructive throughout the

company.

In addition to ensuring that suc-

cessful process or product changes

become part and parcel of the opera-

tion of a company’s other departments,

divisions or plants, participating

companies also shared results with

stakeholders.

Communicate with Stakeholders

Results of pollution prevention

efforts should be communicated to

stakeholder groups. Such communica-

tion is valuable because it enhances the

credibility of the pollution prevention

effort and validates stakeholder partici-

pation in the process.

Stakeholders who are knowledgeable

about a company’s accomplishments

can convey information about company

pollution prevention efforts to other

interested parties. They also can serve

as a sounding board and offer sugges-

tions for additional improvements.

36

Recognize Team and Individual Performance

QAT members devote considerable

time to pollution prevention projects.

In many cases, they go beyond their

normal work assignments to accomplish

the goals of their projects. They com-

pete for limited resources and often

must address concerns about compro-

mising product quality. It is important

to recognize both the individual contri-

butions arid group accomplishments of

the QAT.

Most of the participating companies

have programs in place to recognize the

US Generating has instituted a

bonus program for team activi-

ties.

In these and other participating

companies, employees are acknowl-

edged for their extra efforts.

Continue the Process

QEM is a process of continual

assessment and improvement.

Once a pollution prevention effort

has been implemented, it should

be assessed periodically to ensure

that reduction efforts continue to

work. As one problem is solved, performance of QAT participants.

At the Dow Chemical location, individ-

ual and team recognition by manage-

merit and peers was provided through

recognition bulletin boards and

through awards such as the General

Manager’s Quality Performance

Award and the Atchafalaya Award (an

environmental recognition award).

At AT&T, employee participation in

another should take its place. The

entire QEM framework should be con-

tinuously repeated. QEM is neither

complete nor 100 percent successful

until all wastes have been eliminated

from a facility.

QEM provides an opportunity to lever-

age new skills to other challenging

assignments throughout the company.

AT&T also provides cash incentives

for outstanding individual perfor-

mance. Team accomplishments are

recognized through articles in the

company magazine.

37

ased on the real world expe-

riences of the twelve pollu-

tion-prevention demonstra-

tion projects, the QEM

Subcommittee has drawn the following

conclusions:

Total Quality Management (TQM)

and pollution prevention are comple-

mentary concepts. The heart of TQM

is the systematic analysis of processes

or services by empowered, cross-func-

tional, multi-disciplinary teams. The

same is true regarding pollution pre-

vention. Emission or waste reduction

opportunities are most successful

when groups of employees with

diverse skills and experiences are fully

empowered to identify sources of pol-

lution and to make innovative, cost-

effective recommendations for

addressing identified sources. TQM

tools are useful at every step in this

process.

Successful pollution prevention

efforts, while dependent on a system-

atic and rigorous analysis, rely heavily

on flexibility in actual application.

Experience gained through these pro-

jects has shown that a disciplined

approach is clearly a prerequisite for

success. Because each facility is

unique with regard to type of busi-

ness, employee familiarity with TQM,

and corporate culture, a flexible

approach (e.g., number of steps,

sequencing, tools utilized) must be

employed to encourage innovative

thinking.

Pollution prevention can be achieved

without large capital investments.

Small and large organizations alike

are equally able to benefit from the

skillful application of TQM in pursuit

of pollution prevention opportunities.

Success often depends as much on the

creativity and energy of the employees

involved as on the amount of capital

invested.

There is no universal metric for track-

ing performance, but there are a

number of valid, useful metrics that

provide necessary information and

clearly convey results to different

audiences. The diversity of industrial

processes, products, and services pre-

cludes the creation of a single, uni-

form standard by which all pollution

prevention efforts can be measured

and compared. However, metrics that

are credible (based on documentable

performance data) and practical (easi-

ly understood) are essential qualities

39

for effectively communicating pollu-

tion prevention progress to interested

stakeholders. Companies should use a

number of different metrics to track

progress.

Consultation and collaboration with

stakeholders interested in emission or

waste reductions are critical in devel-

oping credible progress reports. Early

involvement of interested parties in

pollution reduction and prevention

activities helps facilitate the communi-

cation process. An understanding of

the goals and objectives of the various

stakeholders is absolutely essential for

putting information into terms that

they can accept and endorse.

Secondly, time is not wasted on gath-

ering data and producing information

based on speculation of stakeholder

interest or concerns.

Currently, there are both barriers and

incentives to Pollution Prevention.

Reduced management costs, increased

public acceptance, and competitive

opportunities are a few of the tangible

benefits associated with the TQM

route to Pollution Prevention.

However, there also are real-world

obstacles that range from limited

resources to an end-of-pipe mindset.

Preventing pollution and saving

money were results of the companies’

demonstration projects. What partici-

pants found out along the way and what

they learned about the QEM process

itself, though, is equally important.

One of the objectives of the PCEQ is to

share with the business community at

large the results of its members’ efforts.

The lessons learned from the demon-

stration projects can be divided into

three major categories:

The impact of the QEM process on

project identification, design, and

implementation;

Environmental improvements; and

Cost savings.

Impact of the QEM Process

One of the most interesting results of

the PCEQ demonstration projects was

what employees at the participating

facilities learned about the QEM

process and its contribution to improve-

ment efforts. Information generated

from questionnaires and interviews sug-

gested commonalities among the

companies.

Several of the companies noted that

Total Quality Management (TQM) and

pollution prevention are, in fact, com-

plementary, with each building upon

the other. Because TQM emphasizes

cross-functional team building and the

importance of bringing qualified indi-

viduals together to solve problems, it

was noted by most participants that the

QEM process directly helped the com-

panies meet their environmental goals.

40

Additionally, participating companies

stressed that key TQM tools such as

affinity diagrams, Pareto charts and

cause-and-effect diagrams helped QAT

members focus on the causes of some

of their most vexing environmental

problems.

Several companies realized that data

supporting the economic implication of

process or product changes were not

fully understood by their QATs.

Because pi-oduction processes vary from

industry to industry, company to com-

pany, and even facility to facility within

the same company, measuring the true

cost of environmental protection activi-

ties is difficult. Calculating and commu-

nicating the savings in a manner readily

understood by the financial department

is often difficult. One company

thought it could have achieved greater

cost savings had its QAT looked more

closely at the underlying costs of waste

and pollution generated from various

production processes. If environmental

professionals want to garner support for

QEM from senior management, the full

cost of waste and emissions must be

understood if the return on investment

is to be properly determined.

Participating companies acknowl-

edged the need to communicate in lan-

guage that is familiar to intended audi-

ences. Couching implications in finan-

cial terms may be the best approach for

management, while explaining how a

pollution prevention project makes the

job safer is easier for production floor

personnel to grasp. Outside stakehold-

ers may find information about the total

volume of pollution most meaningful.

The projects demonstrated that TQM

principles are effective in achieving pol-

lution prevention. Iricreased communi-

cation and further integration with

facilities not involved in the QEM process were considered necessary to

ensure that the QEM ethic becomes the

predominant philosophy and business

approach for companies.

Environmental Improvements

Although many of the participating

companies are at the implementation

stage of the process, early results sug-

gest that application of TQM can result

in improved environmental quality:

Dow Chemical achieved a 29 percent

reduction in ethylene oxide fugitive

emissions and preliminary results on

their waste management project indi-

cate a 67 percent reduction in the

amount of material sent to waste

treatment facilities.

GE estimates that 1,1,1

trichloroethane use will be decreased

by 95 percent by year-end.

DuPont’s generation of ammonium

sulfate was reduced from more than

100 million pounds per year to less

41

than 40 million pounds per year.

lnternational Paper's Androscoggin

Mill reduced fiber lost to the paper

machine sewers from 60 tons to less

than 25 tons per day through a rigor-

ous self-audit and the development of

an innovative mobile recovery pump.

In addition to the cost savings from

the recovered fiber, loading to the

wastewater treatment system was

reduced which improved effluent

quality by more than 50 percent.

Ford is replacing, on a business plan

cycle basis, its trichloroethylene

(TCE) vapor degreasers with an

aqueous degreasing system that

demonstrated superior processing

quality and improved environmental

conditions for employees and the

community.

At the 3M plant, generation of waste

was reduced by 10 percent.

Procter & Gamble's Mehoopany,

Pennsylvania, paper and pulp manu-

facturing plant eliminated the use of

chlorine for converting broke bleach-

ing and improved pulp washing which

decreased sulfur dioxide, ammonia

and chloroform releases.

Cost Savings

Pollution prevention efforts do not

always result in cost savings. And those

that do may require several years to

achieve an adequate return on invest-

ment. Several participating companies

indicated that the decision to invest in a

pollution prevention project can be

difficult.

Although some of the participating

companies initiated QEM projects with

the assumption their efforts would

increase operating costs, they discov-

ered that their efforts actually reduced

such costs. Others initiated QEM pro-

jects expressly to reduce environmental

capital and/or operating costs.

At Procter & Gamble, Mehoopany,

Pennsylvania, more than $275,000 was

saved through lost production avoid-

ance and reduced chemical usage. In

addition, Procter & Gamble expects to

save nearly $500,000 from pollution

prevention projects currently under-

way. Finally, the company believes its

solid waste minimization efforts are

yielding a total value of $25,000,000

per year.

GE found that replacing floor wax for

a freon"-based mold release saved

about $15,000 and its decrease in

1 ,l ,l trichloroethane use will save

about $30,000.

42

A reduction in ammonium sulfate

generation will save DuPont almost

$1,000,000 per year in overall manu-

facturing costs. Capital investment

was not required.

AT&T estimates annual savings of

nearly $200,000 from reduced pur-

chases of supplies, less manufacturing

time and the elimination of costs asso-

ciated with the air permitting process.

The demonstrated effectiveness of

the QEM framework as a method for

preventing pollution provides compa-

nies of all sizes an important tool for

improving environmental performance.

43

QEM Subcommittee Kenneth T. Derr

Chairmnn, QEM Subcommittrr Chairman and @.‘(I, Chevron Corprution

Members: Riley P. Bechtel

Michael R. Deland

Paul Edward Gray

Presidmt, CEO and Darrctor, Brchtel Group, Inc.

Chairman, Council on Bnvironmental Quality

Chairman, Corporation for thr Mas.rarhusrtts Institutr of 7 ’ r c h n o l q ~

Rrtzrrd Chairman u r d CEO, iMinnrrota ,Wining & iMnnuj(icturing Company (3M)

Exrcutiiw Dirrrtor, P.’ni~ironmental I ) + w e l u l i d

Chairman and C l N , Ford Motor Company

Chairman, Prrsidrnt und LEO, Merck U Company, Inr

Chairman and CKO, Grnrral Elrctric Company

Allen F. Jacobson

Fred Krupp

Harold A. Poling

P. Roy Vagelos

John F. Welch,Jr .

QEM Task Force WilliamJ. Mulligan

Chairmnn, QEM Task Forcr Managpr, Environmmtal A ffazrs, Chrvron Corporation

Members: Donald Anthony

Vice Presidrnl and Managrr oj Technology, Bechtel Group, lnc.

Vice Prrsidrnt of Environmmtal and Safrty Poliry, MPrck Company, Inc.

Director, Environment and Sa& Enpnrrring Affairs, A T&T

Site Environmental Manager, Procter & Gamble Paprr Products Company

Director, Trchnolog, Business and Envzronment Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Coordinator, Waste Management, Environmental Affairs, Chevron Corporation

Principal Environmental Enpneer, Ford Motor Company

Waste Reduction Issue Managrr, The Dow Chemical Company

Coordinator oJEnvironmenta1 Regulations, Chevron Corporation

Vice President, Environmental and Sa fety Enpnem’ng, Ford Motor Company

Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund

Pollution Prevention Specialist, Environmental Defense Fund

Project Manager, Corporate Environmental Programs, General Electric Company

Dorothy Bowers

Thomas S. Davis

William B. Eberhardt, Ph.D.

John Ehrenfeld

Mark Hopkins

Philip Lawrence

Joseph A. Lindsly

Mark Nordheim

Helen Petrauskas

Jackie Prince

Manik Roy

Jeff Sommer

Edward R. Spaulding, Coordinator, Environmental Policy Development, Chevron Corporation

Roger Strelow I:’.~ccuti71~ l ? r r Pwidpn t , Ur(l i tr1 l . ’ n 7 ~ i w 1 1 rrirn(u1. In( ., Hrrh trl Group, In r .

Robert (Robin) ‘Tollett M u n agrr, Polln / i o n l’rr71rn t i o n I’rogru m, l’rortrr U Gumblr (:ompuny

iMa n ager, Pollution Prrvr n t ion Pro<gra ms, Minnrsota Mining 2 Manufacturing Company (3M)

Tom Zosel

Demonstration Project Managers Alan Ahel

Environmmtal Enpneer, Chrvron Research and Trchnologi Company, Chevron Corporation

p a l i t j Assurancr Coordinator, I hr I h r u Chemical Compaiij

Managrr, Environ mrnt, Iritrrnational PaprI Compunj

Director, Environmrntal and K q p l a t o ~ df l~ir ,s , LIS Grnrrating Company

Srnior Site I:’nvironmrntal Enginerr, Merck & Company, Inc.

E H S S Sprcialist, GE Mrdical Systems, Grneral Electric Compang

Environmental Engznrrr, Procter U Gamble Papm Products Company

Environmental Associate, DuPont Company

Manager, Components Produrt/Procrss Department, Advancrd Enpneering, Climate Control Division, Ford Motor Companj

En viron m m t a 1 ,\la nugo-, Pr-octrr U Gamblr Manufacturing Company

Enuironmrntal Engznrer, AT&T

Manager, Pollution Prevrntion Programs, Minnesotu Mining S Manufacturing Companj (3iM)

Gregory W. Baldwin

David Critchfield

Kent L. Fickett

Cynthia M. House

David Noe

Charles B. O’Hara, P.E.

Stan Olson

Christopher S. Rockwell

Richard Scott

Barbara Thompson

Tom Zosel

QEM Staff Scott Farrow

Associate Directorfor Pollution Prevrntion, Council on Environmental Quality

Policy Analyst, Council on Environmental Quality

Staff Specialist, PCEQ Non-profit Caucus

Andrew C. Nehlett

Edward J. Quinn

Additional Participants Nancy Carroll

Senior Specialist, Publicity & Promotion Svruicrs, Public Aflairs, Cheziron Corporation

Environmrnt and Saftq Communications Managm, Ford Motor Company

Program Manager, Corporate Media Relalzons, Genrral Electric Company

Manager, Public Affairs, Merck & Company

Environmental Public Relations Specialist, Minnesota Mining &Manufacturing Compang (?iM)

Public Relations Manager, Procter S Gamble Company

Beryl Goldsweig

Jack Batty

John Bloomfield

Rick Renner

Elaine Matthews

44

his section presents a brief

description of each demon-

stration project facility and

its goals for the QEM pro-

ject. Profiles are presented in tabular

fashion to allow easy comparisons.

term “pollution prevention” is used to

mean different things. The QEM Subcommittee did not reach consensus

on the definition of pollution

prevention.

Participating companies appear in

Each entry was developed by the

project team members; therefore, the

alphabetical order.

45

B

Columbus, Ohio

T&T’s environmental policy - to prevent pollution at the ource - reflects the company’s quality policy of

preventing defects rather than correct- ing them. AT&T has established aggres- sive goals that go beyond laws, regula- tions and international guidelines in order to position the firm as an industry leader in environmental and safety pro- tection. These goals have become part of the company’s total quality effort of continuous improvement to business processes.

million square feet and approximately 6000 employees, manufactures three product lines: wireless telecommunica- tions systems, switching equipment, and computer based systems. For several years, Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques have been applied to pollution prevention and waste reduc- tion at this facility with very good results.

The Columbus Works, a facility of 1.5

The goals of the QEM demonstration project for the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality were to reduce TRI emissions 50 percent over 1991 values by year end 1993 over 1991 values and strive for total elimination by the year 2000. Using quality tools, such as Pareto analyses, 1991 TRI emission data were prioritized and 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA) was identified as the target chemical. A task team of engineers from the facility and repre- sentatives from the regulatory agency and community was formed. Process

flow diagrams were developed for each TCA use and each process was analyzed for alternatives with emphasis on source reduction. Measurements include chemical use, emissions to air, liquid waste generated and cost savings.

By December, 1992, alternatives to TCA were identified for more than 75 percent of the facility’s uses and these are being implemented. AT&T’s 1993 emission forecast indicates that reduc- tions in TCA use and emissions by mid- year will exceed previous forecasts by more than 30 percent. AT&T hopes to eliminate TCA from manufacturing operation by the end of 1993.

A significant benefit of TCA reduc- tion will be exemption from the May, 1993, Ozone Depleting Substance label- ing requirement. This is essential to customer satisfaction, a top priority for AT&T.

AT&T will continue to use quality management procedures to reduce and eliminate TRI emissions. Additionally, the procedures developed for this pro- ject will be applied to all AT&T environ- mental and safety goals.

46

Reduced liability. Improved public image. Future regulatory requirements.

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Lack of resources/finances. Possible new regulatory restrictions. Down time to implement. Product line has short life. No drop-in-place alternative.

Gap analysis - Pareto Chart. Process flow diagrams. Countermeasure Chart. Implementation timetable.

More up-front education of pollution prevention team. Involvement and input by outside representatives earlier in process. Top management commitment essential to success; commitment must be communicated to employees.

Current 1993 forecast indicates that we will have a 30% greater reduction in TCA emissions over previous forecasts due to implementation of countermeasures identified by the team. Our process stressed elimination of TCA use, not control measures.

Start over on next environmental goal.

Barbara Thompson Environmental Engineer AT&T 6200 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43213 Tel. 614-860-3739

49

J’ r

Perth Amboy, New Jersey

t is the policy of Chevron to con- duct its business in a socially responsible and ethical manner that protects safety, health, and

the environment. In pursuit of its goal to be an industry leader, Chevron emphasizes innovation and encourages creative solutions. To that end, each facility conserves company and natural resources by careful management of emissions and discharges and elimina- tion of unnecessary waste generation.

Chevron’s refinery in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, refines crude oil into asphalt cement and gasoline blending components and operates wharf and storage facilities for crude oil, asphalt, and light hydrocarbon products. Approximately 90 employees work on- site in operations, maintenance, techni- cal, and administration functions.

applied pollution prevention to several environmental issues at the plant. Initial targets included preventing wastewater toxicity from entering the effluent treatment plant and reducing solid waste quantities. Under the spot- light of the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality, Quality Environmental Management Initiative, the scope of pollution prevention efforts was expanded to encompass the broad goal of reducing environmental operating costs throughout the facility. This effort also increased employee feel- ings of responsibility for environmental issues throughout the workplace, similar to the way safety is considered the

The Perth Amboy refinery has

responsibility of every employee. Environmental costs for the entire

facility are estimated to exceed 10 per- cent of total facility operating expense, although current accounting does not yet recognize this full amount as an environmental cost and some environ- mental impacts have not been calculat- ed as a cost. Cross-functional teams in six plant areas identified more than 300 opportunities for improvement and nar- rowed the list to 10 streams for immedi- ate action. Changes to be implemented include:

Replacing an old boiler/power- house with a smaller unit with lower air emissions and higher steam system efficiency.

Redesigning a fuel gas scrubber process to generate a saleable product rather than a waste.

Changing chemical injected into the crude unit to improve oil / water separation, improve crude unit perfor- mance, and reduce oil in wastewater, for the same net operating cost.

The refinery will measure the results of these changes to assess economic impacts and environmental improve- ments. New opportunities and priori- ties for change also will be assessed.

50

I

Chevron USA Product Company, Perth Amboy Refinery, Perth Amboy, NJ

Background

Output/Employees:

Business /Products:

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Overview

0 bj ec tive :

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Metrics:

Incentives:

Approximately 90 employees operate an 80,000 bbl/day throughput refinery.

Facility refines crude oil to asphalt and unfinished light hydrocarbons, and stores and trades hydrocarbon products.

Corporate program began tracking waste disposal quantities and costs in 1987.

Most employees trained in Crosby TQM techniques during 1991.

Reduce environmental operating costs.

Air, water, and solid waste, with bias toward solid waste issues.

Identify cost and quantity of environmental emissions. Implement low (capital) cost emission reductions. Apply Quality training lessons.

Raise awareness of individual environmental responsibilities of facility personnel.

A new or existing Quality Improvement Team at each plant/unit, involving about 60 facility employees, plus corporate and contractor advisors.

7-Step Quality Improvement Process

Environmental Operating Costs vary for each stream, but may include disposal; permits; inspection fees; operation, preventive and unscheduled maintenance of environmental equipment; lab analyses; lost product; unit or facility downtime; avoided capital investment; environmental liability; public image.

Anticipation of significant economic benefit, as well as environmental improvement, generates enthusiasm. There is presently an opportunity to influence State Pollution Prevention regulations in advance of promulgation. Considering current corrective action initiated on-site increases the desire to avoid future remediation work.

52

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

The currently unmeasured data sources are intimidating. It is difficult to schedule time away from urgent tasks to search for and implement new Pollution Prevention opportunities.

Continuous improvement model used to identify and pursue Pollution Prevention opportunities.

There may be more opportunity for improvement than originally believed. The data for full under- standing has probably not been assembled yet. It is important and necessary to look deep enough at economic impacts of current operation to realize the opportunity for improvement.

Changes have not been measurable yet (9/92)

Implement and measure changes. Continue to apply the process for improvement.

Alan Abel Environmental Engineer - CRTC Chevron Research and Technology Company 1003 Cutting Boulevard PO Box 4054 Richmond, CA 94804 Tel. 510-242-5696

53

I

Plaquemine, Louisiana

ow Chemical is committed to continued excellence, lead- ership and stewardship in protecting the environment.

We are sensitive to the concerns of the public and accountable to them for our decisions and actions.

The Glycol I1 Plant in Dow’s Louisiana Division produces ethylene glycol and ethylene oxide which are used in the manufacture of products such as polyester resins, antifreeze and brake fluid. This plant is one of 23 oper- ating plants in the Louisiana Division and has been active in implementing Dow’s Quality Performance objectives since the mid-eighties. The plant has received several awards for their quality and waste reduction initiatives.

As a participant in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality (PCEQ) Quality Environment Management initiative, two projects were identified in order to illustrate the use of quality tools in reducing waste and emissions. The first is an internal benchmark study on fugitive emissions and the second is a laboratory waste management project.

The benchmark study compared Glycol 11’s current ethylene oxide fugi- tive emission reduction program to the highly successful program at the Dow plant in LaPorte, Texas that produces phosgene. Glycol I1 will attempt to be “leak free by ’93” by implementing some of the terms identified during the benchmarking process.

The lab waste management project focuses on wastes generated by the Glycol I1 analytical lab which is used for process and quality control analysis. A continuous improvement team evaluat- ed analytical schedules, recycling of samples and existing lab waste disposal methods identifying many areas for improvement by using the simple tools of Quality Performance.

The plant has achieved a 29% reduc- tion in ethylene oxide fugitive emissions due in part to methods identified in the benchmarking process. Preliminary results on the lab waste management projects indicates a 67% reduction in the amount of material sent to waste treatment.

54

I

The Dow Chemical Company, Louisiana Division, Glycol I1 Plant, Plaquemine, Louisiana

Background

Output/Employees:

Business/Products:

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Overview

Objective :

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Metrics:

Incentives:

Barriers:

46 employees (2400 in division).

Ethylene glycol and ethylene oxide.

Formalized WRAP (Waste Reduction Always Pays) initiative in 1986. It was the first Louisiana Division recipient of the WRAP Outstanding Achievement Award in 1986.

Implemented Dow’s Quality Performance program in 1985. The plant won the General Managers Quality Performance Award in 1989 and 1991, the first plant in the division to win the award twice. All employees have been exposed to several training classes on total quality management techniques.

To identify ways to improve the plant’s fugitive emission program and to identify cost effective ways to reduce laboratory waste streams.

Air, water, and solid waste.

Leak free by ‘93 and continuous improvement in the reduction of laboratory waste streams.

Plant management, quality & environmental coordinators and laboratory 8c production operators.

Formal benchmarking process and the use of the simple quality management tools (i.e., brainstorming, fishbone charts, flow charting, etc.).

SARA 313 emission inventory, number of leakers, number of lab samples, and pounds of waste material discharged to waste water treatment.

Division waste and release reduction plans (i.e., 33/50 plan), WRAP, Responsible Care, management/peer recognition and job performance criteria.

Resources and, in some cases, available technology.

56

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Benchmarking, brainstorming, flowcharting, fishbone charts, prioritization, fix the obvious and resource allocation.

The benchmarking process, the importance of practicing the simple tools of quality performance, identifying “doable” vs. “wish” projects and team empowerment to get the projects done.

Achieved a 29% reduction in ethylene oxide fugitive emissions due in part to methods identified in the benchmarking process. Preliminary results on the lab waste management project indicate a 67% reduction in the amount of material sent to waste treatment.

Install a demonstration ethylene oxide sampling system to verify performance, continue flanged connection reduction efforts and maintain “leak free” mentality within the plant.

Christine Baldridge Senior Environmental Specialist The Dow Chemical Company Building 3502 E PO Box 150 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Tel. 504-389-6252

57

Beaumont , Texas

he DuPont site at Beaumont, Texas, is a manufacturing facility that produces a variety of products for the Polymers

and Chemicals “sectors” within DuPont. Acrylonitrile monomer is one of those products.

The focus of this project was to reduce the generation of ammonium sulfate waste that was injected into deepwells. Ammonium sulfate is gener- ated when excess ammonia from the acrylonitrile reaction is neutralized with sulfuric acid.

Ammonium sulfate was on the initial SARA 313 list. When the 1987 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) was released in mid-1988, the Beaumont site had the largest TRI within DuPont and one of the largest in Texas. The emissions were so large, the organization agreed that process conditions would have to be modified to reduce the generation of ammonium sulfate, even if overall manufacturing costs increased.

The project was successful - ammo- nium sulfate generation was reduced from more than 100 million pounds per year to less than 40 million pounds. The facility has received considerable public acclaim for its reductions. In addition, overall manufacturing costs were reduced almost $1,000,000 per year without any capital investment being required.

58

I

DuPont Company, DuPont Chemicals, Beaumont, Texas, Acrylonitrile Operations

Background

Output/Employees:

Business/Produc ts:

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Over view

0 bj ec tive :

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Me trics:

Incentives:

Barriers:

Approximately 1100 Employees. (Total Site)

Approximately 150 Employees (Acrylonitrile Operations)

Polymers and Chemicals

Minimal “formal” activities at the time.

Quality “programs” were being implemented throughout DuPont, but little connection to “pollution prevention” at the time.

Reduce generation of ammonium sulfate in the process reactor.

Underground injection of “solid waste” and SARA 31 3 constituent.

“Significant” reduction (>20%) in ammonium sulfate with only a “nominal” (not completely defined) increase in overall operating costs.

“Ad hoc” technical team consisting primarily of 1) Process Engineer 2) Process Chemist 3) Analytical Chemist, and 4) Operating Supervisor

Brainstorming, technical evaluations, and process experiment design, followed by controlled testing under an EOD (Experimental Operating Direction).

Overall cost to manufacture.

Acrylonitrile product quality.

Total pounds SARA 313.

Community/Public perception

”In e r tia ”

Expected cost penalty

More work for chemical operators

60

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Brainstorming

Designed experiments

Customer “qualification” of acrylonitrile from new process conditions.

Sometimes you can “teach an old dog new tricks.”

Ammonium sulfate generation was reduced from more than 100 Million lb/yr to less than 40 Million lb/yr. In addition, overall manufacturing costs were reduced almost $1 Million per year without any capital investment being required.

Research and development effort to revise process to completely eliminate ammonium sulfate.

Stan Olson Environmental Associate DuPont Company B-17301 1007 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19898 Tel. 302-774-7250

61

Plymouth, Michigan

t is Ford Motor Company policy that all operations, products and services accomplish their func- tions in a manner that provides

responsibly for protection of health and the environment. To this end, Ford includes pollution prevention in its business planning practices. Ford believes quality excellence can best be achieved by preventing problems rather than by detecting and correcting them after they occur. In seeking appropriate ways to protect health or the environment, priorities are based on achieving the greatest anticipated practical benefit.

The Sheldon Road Plant manufac- tures aluminum radiators and heater cores for the automotive industry. In addition, heating and cooling units for vehicles are assembled at this plant. The goal of the project was to develop the feasibility and overall requirements for manufacturing aluminum heat exchangers without the use of trichloroethylene (TCE) and, thereby, improve environmental quality and product and process quality at Climate Control Division (CCD) operations worldwide. This goal includes the development of a management model for Ford’s internal pollution prevention initiatives utilizing Total Quality Management.

The project team included represen- tatives from the plant management, the hourly employees, the division’s Advanced Engineering Staff and Manufacturing Engineering Staff, the

corporate Environmental and Safety Engineering and Research Laboratory staffs, the State of Michigan, the local community and the suppliers. This pro- ject utilized a pilot process study involv- ing the testing of an aqueous degreas- ing system to replace a TCE degreasing system for aluminum heat exchangers. The project serves as a model for inte- grating environmental quality with the design of a manufacturing process.

The aqueous degreasing pilot project has been completed successfully. The unit demonstrated that a superior man- ufacturing process is attainable together with reduced costs and a much improved environment. The project also demonstrated that pollution pre- vention is achieved by Total Quality Management.

been shipped to CCD’s Connersville, Indiana facility to supply additional manufacturing capacity at the plant. Improvements are also planned for the system, CCD facilities worldwide are preparing specifications for future aque- ous degreasing equipment. The lessons learned from this project will be shared within the company through internal communication networks and externally through conferences and professional and management associations. The aqueous system has been recommended for all future installations either when TCE degreasers require replacement or a new brazing system is planned.

The aqueous degreasing system has

62

Ford Motor Company, Climate Control Division, Sheldon Road Plant, Plymouth, Michigan Background

Output/Employees: The facility produces approximately 22,000 heat exchangers per day with three shifts and the pilot process produces 600 heat exchangers per shift. There are approximately 1,530 employees.

Business/Products: Manufacture of aluminum heat exchangers: radiators, air conditioner components, automotive heater cores, etc.

Pollution Prevention Experience:

The Climate Control Division (CCD) and the Sheldon Road Plant have had an active waste prevention program for several years. A four- year program to eliminate a cyanide compound from a coating process was completed in 1990. A similar multi-year program to eliminate chromium from coating processes has been completed for several product lines.

Total Quality: This facility has a continuous improvement quality program that was initiated in the early 1980s with the (2-1 program and has expanded to the Ford Total Quality Excellence (TQE) initiative.

Over view

Objective:

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

To pilot an aqueous degreasing system to replace the current Trichloroethylene (TCE) vapor degreasing system. To integrate environmental quality with the manufacturing process.

Air and water.

Use TQM principles to develop a management model that integrates pollution prevention into the design criteria for products, manufacturing processes and routine business cycle. Establish manufacturing requirements that improve product and process quality, environmental quality and program efficiency at CCD operations world-wide. Reduce floor space requirements. Increase part cleanliness. Incorporate with a controlled atmosphere brazing process to provide a more robust process, improve flux coverage, reduce capital investment, and reduce waste disposal volume and costs.

Division/plant product, process, environmental, health and safety engineering. Plant hourly personnel. Corporate staff from Technical Affairs. Suppliers. The State of Michigan Office of Waste Reduction Services. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Resource Group - Purchasing Agents. Division, plant and staff representatives (Environmental Quality, Employee Relations, Office of General Counsel).

Mechanisms

64

Process:

Me trics:

Incentives :

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Utilize Quality Action Team, Collect and review data, Develop criteria based on data, Prioritize (narrow list), Brainstorm needs, Screen options, Do the obvious, Perform economic evaluation, Make recommendations, Implement improvements, Measure results and Communicate performance

Quantity of TCE eliminated; quantity of aqueous cleaner required; type and quantity of waste generated by aqueous system; operating cost savings; indirect cost savings associated with elimination of TCE; improvement in part quality.

Improved plant environments. Elimination of a hazardous material. Improvement in part quality. More robust/manageable process. Reduction in costs. Support from throughout the Company. Assistance from the State of Michigan.

Employee awareness. Measuring external benefits. Accounting for intangible costs. Investment requirements for full implementation. Lack of pollution credits.

Brainstorming, Drivers Matrices, Failure Mode Effects Analysis, Product/Manufacturing Development Feasibility charts, Pareto charts, histograms, process flow charts, rainbow charts.

For projects with high capital requirements or those where impact on production or part quality is unknown, company buy-in beyond the plant level is required. TQM and pollution prevention are complementary principles. Cross-functional teams represent the most efficient means of achieving a goal.

The aqueous degreasing pilot resulted in a superior process, lower costs, improved plant environment and reduced environmental impact. The project is demonstrating how to use TQM to prevent pollution.

The aqueous degreasing system has been shipped to CCD’s Connersville, Indiana facility to add additional capacity. CCD facilities world-wide are preparing specifications for aqueous degreasing equipment. The results of this project will be shared with the entire Company. The aqueous system is being recommended for all installations when TCE degreasers require replacement or a new brazing system is added.

Philip R. Lawrence, Principal Engineer PO Box 1899 Room 640, Ford WHQ Building ESES - Plant Engineering Office Dearborn, MI 48121-18991 Tel. 313-322-3753

65

a

T

Florence, South Carolina

ince beginning production at the Florence, South Carolina, facility in 1984, GE Magnet Systems has become the world’s

largest manufacturer of superconduct- ing magnets for whole-body diagnostic imaging. Operations include research & development, design, manufacturing and field support. This award-winning work force comprises 280 hourly and 152 exempt and non-exempt employees. Employees of GE Magnet Systems fully support our operation’s “Vision: Excellence in Products through Partnerships with People and the Environment. ”

Adapting the principles of Total Quality Management and tapping into the creativity and efficiency of our employee empowerment programs, we have established goals of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 313 listed chemicals. The continuous environmental management process is helping GE meet its commitment to the EPAs 33/50 program. GE fully expects the results of this project will have far- reaching implications. Jack Welch, CEO, characterized the support of top management for ongoing environmen- tal efforts when he said “Every person at GE has to be an environmentalist.” Long term objectives include improved employee education and training that will bring an environmental mindset to all job activities.

This process is a cooperative effort involving Technical Support Engineering staff, our High Involvement Work Teams, our suppliers and the plant Environmental Engineer. External resources included the support of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. This cross- functional team is working to alter processes, identify chemical substitu- tions, reduce solid and hazardous waste, develop a heightened sense of environ- mental responsibility in conducting business, and drive down associated costs to the business.

To date, GE is encouraged by its many successful efforts. Projects vary in size and scope from changes affecting the entire facility to process improve- ments involving a single work team. Other success stories include elimina- tion of hazardous materials, chemical substitution, process changes, and ener- gy and natural resource conservation. Equally important is the increased level of employee awareness and involve- ment. GE continues to integrate con- tinuous environmental improvement into product life cycle through the principles of TQEM.

66

a

General Electric Company, Medical System Business Group, GE Magnet Systems, Florence, SC

Background

Output/Employees: 450 full-time employees

Business/Products: Super-conducting magnets

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Corporate program-POWER, POllution, Waste & Emissions Reduction (a Best Practice since 1990).

Self-direct workforce, Continuous improvement teams, use of TQM Tools, i.e., Process Mapping, 6-Step Problem Solving, Brainstorming, etc. began in 1986.

Overview

0 bjec tive:

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Me trics:

To make environmental quality as intrinsic as product quality in every employees day to day activities.

Air; Solid and hazardous waste.

Long term and soft, (see objective). In our work environment, employees have to buy into a solution not be dictated one. Along the way, reduce or eliminate waste streams, improve working environment and reduce operating costs.

Outside involvement included South Carolina Wildlife Federation and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Center for Waste Minimization.

Creating an awareness through education and partnerships with customers, suppliers and employees. Primarily focusing on solid and hazardous waste. Awareness created by presentations to all employees at monthly state of the business meeting as well as one-on-one discussions with continuous improvement team. Process included involvement of South Carolina Wildlife Federation and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Center for Waste Minimization.

Amount of target chemicals used, solid and hazardous waste generated and the associated costs to the business.

68

Incentives:

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Healthier and safer work place, reduced environmental liability, reduced costs and a more enlightened workforce.

Misjudged level of employee awareness of the issues. Concerns over compromising product quality. Allocation of people resources.

Process Mapping, 6 Step Problem Solving, Brainstorming.

Through these efforts, we have had several success stories. The replacement of floor wax for Freon-based mold release will save $15,00O/year, elimination of 35,000 lbs of 1,1,1 Trichloroethane annually through process change and substitution and complete elimination of Xylene and Methanol. Employee awareness and involvement have increased and we have stepped up involvement with the Florence County Environmental Services recycling efforts.

A “Workout” session is scheduled with our Technical Support Engineers and the SC Waste Minimization Group to further develop our waste minimization efforts. Also will continue to integrate Continuous Environmental Management into product life cycle through TQEM.

David Noe EH&S Specialist GE Medical Systen 3001 Radio Drive Florence, SC 2950 Tel. 803-664-1 633

S

69

Jay, Maine

nternational Paper, one of the largest paper companies in the world, manufactures pulp, paper, packaging, and specialty products

in 23 countries. The Androscoggin Mill is part of the pulp and paper division, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. Built in 1965, Androscoggin has been modified twice to increase production capacity and improve product quality. Today, five paper machines produce 1,400 tons per day of coated and uncoated paper from kraft pulp and groundwood. The mill operates two continuous digesters and two bleaching plants to manufacture pulp for its paper machines and other customers. Androscoggin employs 1,400 people and contributes approximately $150 million annually to the local economy.

quality concepts in 1985, when the entire corporation adopted a quality improvement process. The mill employed TQM concepts and team- building to achieve notable solid waste reductions in 1989 and 1990, but did not expand this effort to other media.

The quality environmental manage- ment project builds on the quality prin- ciples originally embraced. At Androscoggin, quality environmental management means focusing employee attention on all environmental impacts of the mill - air, water, solid and haz- ardous wastes, and chemical use. It involves the development of accurate, representative metrics on a unit-of-pro- duction basis to identify the best

Androscoggin was first introduced to

li I t

opportunities for improving mill environmental performance.

The Androscoggin initiative empha- sizes total employee involvement in pol- lution prevention; improved communi- cation and coordination with regulatory agencies at all levels; and public out- reach to enhance understanding of environmental issues.

During the summer and fall of 1992, all Androscoggin employees were exposed to the mill’s pollution preven- tion initiative through formal and infor- mal sessions. Six TQM pollution pre- vention teams were targeted as critical to the mill process - effluent biochemi- cal oxygen demand (BOD) reduction, fiber loss, water use, chemical use, solid waste, and hazardous waste. The in-mill teams have achieved some noteworthy gains. BOD to the Androscoggin River has been reduced by more than 65 per- cent and fiber loss in mill sewers has been reduced by nearly 50 percent.

A joint TQM team of Androscoggin Mill and state regulatory personnel also was chartered to identify areas where agency and company experts could improve mill environmental perfor- mance beyond permit requirements.

70

I a

International Paper, Jay, Maine

Background

Output/Employees:

Business/Products:

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Overview

0 bj ec tive :

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Metrics:

Incentives:

Barriers:

1400 employees. 500,000 tons/year.

Pulp and paper. Coated and uncoated papers.

Solid Waste Minimization Program (1989).

Total Quality Management Programs in place since 1985.

Apply TQM process to environmental compliance programs.

Wastewater, chemical use, solid and hazardous wastes, air emissions.

Reduce waste on a “Unit of Production” basis. Recognize employee excellence in achieving environmental improvements. Reduce operating costs. Encourage employee involvement in environmental issues of the mill. Measure waste reduction progress.

Existing waste management teams, new task teams, joint agency/mill pollution prevention teams, public advisory committee.

Managing Process Improvement (MPI) Methodologies to integrate quality concepts and techniques into environmental compliance.

Raw material usage, normalized waste generation rates, compliance efficiency measures (spending on capital projects and others), chemical usage in regulated categories (TRI, ITP).

Regulators - - at state level, forge a collaborative relationship to identify waste reduction opportunities.

Implementors - employees are very interested in mill waste metr ia / pollution output and how they can impact levels.

Regulators - - continued difficulty working with local officials, particularly in establishing the difference between pollution prevention objectives and traditional enforcement techniques.

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Cause and Effect Diagrams. Brainstorming and Pareto Methods. Control Charts. Process Flowcharts. Benchmarking.

Pollution prevention must be understood, and championed by mill lead team to be effective. Corporate mandate and “canned” programs get a cool reception by mill employees.

Pollution prevention is a valuable tool for making teams look at production processes in a different light; improved quality through waste reduction. Threat of tough government enforcement creates an atmosphere of fear and distrust of regulators, and any gover nmen t initiatives .

Fiber loss to sewers reduced by 50 percent.

Chemical use and substitution plans are making slow, but steady progress.

Extraordinary change in relationship between mill and state regulators; improvements here are difficult to quantify but show up in day-to-day interactions between groups.

Rencwed interest by mill employees in how pollution impacts local environment. Employees are re-chartering old quality teams that had fallen idle. Pollution prevention workshop held for environmental repre sentatives from Maine pulp and paper companies.

Mill-wide “challenge” program to put pollution prevention teams on a competitive footing.

Overhaul nietrics; a number of weaknesses were identified. Employees want to understand quantitative dimension of pollution impacts.

David Cri tc h fi e 1 d Manager, Environment International Paper Androscoggin Mill Riley Road, PO Box 20 Jay, ME 04239

73

1

Rahway, New Jersey

erck is an innovative, research-in tensive company that focuses on the discovery, develop-

ment, manufacture, and distribution of human and animal health products and specialty chemicals. Merck considers its responsibility for environmental protec- tion to be of the same importance as employee safety and product quality. To this end, the company conducts its busi- ness worldwide in a manner that pro- tects the environment and the health and safety of its employees and the pub- lic. In 1990, Merck publicized aggres- sive corporate environmental goals, including a worldwide 90 percent reduc- tion of all SARA 313-listed chemical releases and off-site transfers for dispos- al by the end of 1995 (from a 1987 basis).

The Rahway-Linden site is one of Merck’s major producers of bulk inter- mediate and active ingredients for phar- maceutical and veterinary/agricultural products. The site manufactures a con- siderable number of different interme- diates, primarily by batch operation,with diverse production schedules which vary from round-the- clock for some products to every few years of others. Because solvents often are required during manufacture, purification, and equipment cleaning, most of the wastes are solvents. There is no on-site waste treatment, so all waste- water is discharged to public treatment plants and bulk waste is transferred off- site for treatment and disposal.

Consequently, pollution prevention pro- grams are crucial to successfully achiev- ing Merck’s goals.

The project selected for the Quality Environmental Management demon- stration was the Rahway-Linden site 1992 SARA Reduction Project, which is one of a number of environmental ini- tiatives within the company. This pro- ject specifies an aggressive reduction in multi-media SARA emissions of 1.5 mil- lion pounds in 1992 and 4.8 million pounds in 1993 (from a 1990 basis), which accelerates site progress toward the 1995 corporate goal.

Many people in different organiza- tions throughout Merck are involved in the project. Independent task teams were established to evaluate distinct pri- ority processes/areas and implement reduction measures. Two key teams’ projects/measures are in place and another major project scheduled in the first quarter of 1993. Work is continu- ing on the evaluation of reduction options for the next tier of priority areas.

Based on first-half 1992 analyses and projections, the site will achieve its 1992 and 1993 SARA reduction goals. The Rahway-Linden site will continue in its attainment of site and corporate goals, along with other comprehensive, long- term environmental objectives estab- lished by Merck.

74

I

Merck 8c Company, Inc., Merck Manufacturing Division, Rahway-Linden Site, Rahway, NJ Background

Output/Employees:

Business/Products:

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Overview

0 bj ec tive :

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Metrics:

Incentives:

Approximately 1000 employees in manufacturing (out of about 4100 total at the site.)

Bulk pharmaceutical and veterinary/agricultural active ingredients.

Merck has practiced pollution prevention for years. Process optimization has always been emphasized - product yield increases, in-process recycling, inventory and production scheduling, solvent substitutions, and other practices have been in existence for a long time.

Stringent and uncompromising quality standards are promoted through Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) - rules established by the FDA to govern all aspects of manufacture and distribution. Extensive GMP training and internal GMP audits are conducted regularly to maintain awareness and ensure compliance.

To accelerate progress towards the corporate environmental goal of a worldwide 90% SARA reduction by end-1995.

Air, water, and solid waste.

Reduce SARA TRI releases and offsite transfers for disposal by 1.5 MM lbs. in 1992 and 4.8 MM lbs. in 1993 (1990 baseline).

Representatives from Manufacturing, Technical Operations, Engineering, Site Services, Environmental, and other departments are involved based on relevant knowledge and expertise. The teams are separate, working on different projects in different areas.

Overall objectives were assigned by management. Target areas were readily defined and task teams formed to independently pursue projects in key areas. TQM flowchart steps generally apply.

SARA TRI releases and offsite transfers for disposal (1990 reporting rules) measure pollution prevention progress. Since there is no on-site waste treatment, all releases and transfers are reported.

Internal: corporate and site environmental goals; management commitment; personal objectives (which impact performance/ merit) ; capital allocated for projects; funding grants to evaluate new

76

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

technology. External: enhance corporate reputation for environmental leadership; gain experience to share with state environmental regulators (through comments, site visit) during the pollution prevention rulemaking process.

Internal: product quality constraints; employee time limitations and conflicts with existing workloads/priorities; limited technology; and required demonstration/approval period.

External: regulatory constraints and approvals required by the FDA; time and cost associated with FDA demonstrations; environmental permit modifications; state environmental agency opinion of what constitutes “pollution prevention” and resulting impact on the permit approval process.

Technical and engineering expertise; no formal quality tools.

Pollution prevention efforts would benefit from increased communication and integration with departments not presently involved. Awareness and “stakeholding” need to be expanded in all departments beyond the immediate project goals into a predominant philosophy and business approach. High-level management commitment and middle management support are critical for success. Pollution prevention does not always translate into dollar savings. For already-efficient processes, the capital investment required for additional reductions can exceed the acceptable payback period or there may be no payback.

Based on first half 1992 analyses and projections for all reduction projects, the site will achieve its 1992 and 1993 SARA goals.

After promulgation of New Jersey’s final pollution prevention rule (2/1/93), educate site employees and solicit participants in process area initiatives. Improve compilation of and access to information that will enhance SARA reporting, pollution prevention progress tracking, and prediction capabilities. As appropriate, monitor progress, keep abreast of future business developments, and promote communication, interaction, and “stakeholding.”

Cynthia M. House Senior Site Environmental Engineer Merck Manufacturing Division - Rahway RY7-30 PO Box 2000 Rahway, NJ 07065 Tel. 908-594-1 142

77

Brookings, South Dakota

he health care products plant in Brookings, South Dakota, is part of 3M, a multi-product, multi-technology corporation

with 89,000 employees in 57 countries. Since 1975, 3M has sponsored a pro- gram called 3P - Pollution Prevention Pays. Over the past 17 years, more than 3,000 3P projects have saved the corpo- ration more than $500 million and elim- inated more than 600,000 tons of pollutants.

vision of the Brookings plant - to be the recognized global leader in manu- facturing health care products by: understanding and exceeding the expectations of both internal partners and external customers, focusing on continuous improvement, and operat- ing its business in an ethical and envi- ronmentally responsible manner.

The Brookings plant has grown over the past 21 years to become one of 3M’s larger facilities. Employing 740 staff and production workers, the plant man- ufactures hundreds of products for the health care field. The largest product lines are medical and surgical tapes, sur- gical drapes, surgical masks, film dress- ings and sterilization indicator tapes. Manufacturing processes and product performance are monitored by the fed- eral government. Consequently, in addition to pollution prevention, quali- ty has always been a primary concern for the plant’s management team and its employees.

3M’s commitment is reflected in the

Through extensive employee involve- ment, the Brookings plant has been able to integrate pollution prevention through the use of Total Quality Management. The key forces behind this have been: (1) an understanding of the connection between good business practices and environmental responsi- bility; (2) the recognition that quality must be institutionalized through an evolutionary process; (3) the involve- ment of workers at all levels; (4) corpo- rate, supervisory and production work- er flexibility; and (5) a willingness to make significant capital investments.

efforts, the plant has reduced waste by 10 percent. By 1995, the plant expects to accomplish a 35 percent reduction in waste. By the year 2000, 3M Brookings aims to attain a 90 percent reduction of all releases to the environment. Beyond that, the goal is to approach zero emissions.

As a result of its pollution prevention

78

3M Company, Medical Products Division Plant, Brookings, S.D. Background

Output/Employees:

Business/Products:

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Overview

0 bj ec tive :

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Metrics:

740 employees.

Extensive line of products including adhesive tapes, surgical drapes, surgical masks, and dressings for health care area.

The Brookings plant has been an active participant in 3M’s 3P Program (Pollution Prevention Pays) which has formally existed since 1975.

TQM has been an integral part of this plant’s operational philosophy since the plant began operations in 1971.

The objective of the PP/TQM effort is to reinforce the long standing concept that part of each employee’s job responsibilities is the reduction of environmental waste.

Waste reduction efforts apply to all waste that would be potentially released in any media - air, water, land. Waste is defined as the residual from the operations before it is subjected to treatment or pollution control.

A waste reduction goal of 35 percent over the next five years has been established for this and each of 3M’s operating divisions.

The plant is organized into numerous teams that have responsibilities in the various functional areas. Each of these teams is to analyze the wastes that their function generates and implement systems or method ologies to reduce, reuse, or recycle materials so as to accomplish waste reductions.

There is no set process that is utilized throughout the plant. Each team creates its own action plan based on its needs, function, and experience.

The actual Metric which is used is the waste ratio which is

Waste Waste - ___- - ~- -

Waste + Byproduct + Product Total Output

80

Incentives:

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

All waste, byproducts and products are measured in pounds. The metric is reported to top management on a quarterly basis.

The incentives are the financial gains through reduced disposal and/or treatment costs, revenue from recycled materials, and raw material savings. There is also the increase in productivity and employee moral that is gained through responding to employee’s environmental concerns.

A challenge rather than an actual barrier, is keeping a 17 year pollution prevention program fresh and active, and keeping the equally long running commitment to TQM growing and expanding.

A wide variety of management and TQM tools are utilized throughout the process. The metric which is used is one important tool that allows each employee and/or team to measure their contribution to waste reduction. There are also a significant number of incentive generating tools used at the plant and throughout the corporation; most of these are aimed at recognizing teams and employees for their achievements and accomplishments.

The two most important attributes of a successful pollution prevention program are to have management support from the CEO on down and to have the involvement of each and every employee. The overall objective is to accomplish a change in corporate culture, to have everyone in the corporation accept pollution prevention as a part of their daily job. The attainment of this objective takes time and an attitude of continuous improvement. But the end result will be a facility or a corporation whose operations are much more environmentally efficient and cost effective.

In 1991, the Brookings plant employees reduced the generation of waste by 10.1 percent.

The plans are to continue down the path of continuous improvement in both TQM and pollution prevention. As zero defects is the goal of any TQM Program, 3M’s pollution prevention efforts have, as an ultimate goal, zero waste. While on a short term basis that may be impractical for an entire facility, it may well be possible and achievable for many individual operations.

Tom Zosel Manager, Pollution Prevention Programs Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company 3M Center St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel. 612-778-4805

81

Lima, Ohio

rocter & Gamble is committed to providing products of supe- rior quality and value that best fill the needs of the world’s

consumers. As a part of this commit- ment, Procter & Gamble continually strives to improve the environmental quality of its products, packaging and operations around the world. The Lima Plant has a history of commitment to environmental quality. Its position as an environmental leader of the commu- nity and corporation is demonstrated by full integration of environmental aware- ness into its businesses, a proactive posi- tion with all regulatory agencies, and efforts to reduce all of its waste streams.

The plant manufactures Downy fabric conditioners, Biz powdered bleach, and liquid laundry detergents such as Era, Tide, and Cheer. This plant has experi- enced continued steady growth and has emerged as the corporations leading liquids plant. The work system that was originally piloted at the facility has played a tremendous part in the facili- ty’s success. This “high performance” or technician system, as i t is sometimes called, has few job classification restric- tions and strives to push decision mak- ing into the core work, promoting own- ership for virtually every aspect of the business. Today, with over 300 employ- ees, the facility remains one of the most productive sites in Procter and Gamble.

As a participant in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality’s (PCEQ) Quality Environmental Management Initiative,

the goal of the project was to reduce the amount of wastewater effluent by 50% in 12 months from levels existing at the start of the plant’s involvement in the PCEQ. Pollution prevention has been a focal point for several years and some notable improvements have been made with procedural and equipment changes. In light of increasing regula- tion and environmental concerns cou- pled with public trust and sheer eco- nomic interests,the plant has estab- lished a continuous improvement goal with a target of “zero” discharge.

A number of benefits have resulted from the project. Total quality teams have been successful in identifying and implementing specific steps to reduce wastewater effluent. As a result, a 38% reduction in wastewater effluent dis- charges has been achieved in the last 6 months as compared to the previous six- month period. The addition of an ultrafiltration unit will continue to reduce wastewater effluent discharges toward an ultimate goal of “zero” discharge.

82

Procter 8c Gamble, Procter 8c Gamble Manufacturing Company, Lima, Ohio

Background

Output/Employees:

Business/Products:

Pollution Prevention Experience:

Total Quality:

Overview

0 bj ec tive :

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Metrics:

Approximately 360 employees.

Liquid laundry detergents, fabric softeners and a powdered laundry additive.

Prevention and reduction have been pursued at this site for many years. This activity was primarily driven by our rapid growth, regulatory requirements and our desire to be a good environmental neighbor in our community.

This site has employed Total Quality since the early 1980’s. A more structured process has been utilized for the past one to two years with significant improvement in results.

Our objective has been to implement programs and procedures to make changes to our systems that would provide a 50% wastewater effluent reduction from what existed when we became involved in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality (PCEQ) in March of 1991.

Water: plant effluent water going to the local POTW (Public Owned Treatment Works).

A 50% reduction in equivalent pounds of our product in our wastewater stream going to the POTW.

The initial work was started by a soap recovery team dealing only with the liquid detergents entering our wastewater stream from the soap processing area. Data gathering by this group led to the establishment of a packing quality improvement process (QIP) group which happened to be the key contributor to the pollution from the module. The third group that has recently been activated is now working to reduce the pollution from the fabric softener module.

An 8-step Quality Improvement Process (QIP)

Processes were previously established to determine the pounds of our products in our effluent wastewater. We are, however, in the process of verifying the accuracy of these analytical methods based on the start-up of our ultra-filtration unit which is a new technology for our site.

84

I

Incentives:

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Incentives for accomplishing our objective have been to provide for added capacity at our location and save money on product previously lost to the sewer. We also feel that we are staying way ahead of the regulatory game with more stringent requirements on our wastewater stream projected for the future.

Fortunately, we ran into a limited number of barriers during the establishment and roll out of our project activities. There were some technological barriers after we had basically completed all the operational changes to our systems to reduce products in our wastewater stream. There were considerable studies done to finally come up with the ultra-filtration unit to remove the surfactants and to redesign our packaging equipment to reduce its effluent producing characteristics. There also were technology issues related to product quality because we were reclaiming product that was previously lost.

8-step Quality Improvement Process (QIP) which is a P&G corporate standard.

Total Quality really works and provides an organized approach for making improvements and gaining acceptance of changes by our employees.

We are now starting to see results in our effluent reduction. Although we have not yet realized our goal, we are confident that as we complete the work that currently is in progress, we will achieve it and will re- apply the processes that we have learned to continuously improve toward our ultimate goal.

Continue to follow up on other items that could reduce effluent that have been identified by the QIP teams and put them through the PDCA cycle (Plan, Do, Check, and Act).

Richard Scott Environmental Manager The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company Reservoir and Mumaugh Roads Lima, OH 45802 Tel. 419-226-5522

85

Mehoopany, Pennsylvania

he Procter & Gamble Paper Division is committed to bringing products of superior quality and value to con-

sumers worldwide. The products manu- factured at Mehoopany include: Pampers and Luvs disposable diapers, Charmin and White Cloud bathroom tissues, and Bounty paper towels. This commitment to quality and value in our products includes environmental per- formance of our manufacturing opera- tions. For over 25 years P&G - Mehoopany has cared about environ- mental performance by “Treating Nature as a Customer.” The Mehoopany plant conducts operations in a manner that protects the environ- ment for the use and enjoyment of everyone, and protects the health and safety of employees, neighbors, and con- sumers. Mehoopany employees have been recognized by several organiza- tions for excellence in environmental efforts. Such efforts most recently were recognized by the State of Pennsylvania - the Mehoopany plant received the Governor’s Award for Waste Minimization.

As a participant in the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality, P&G - Mehoopany focused on mini- mizing waste from all of its operations, with emphasis on source reduction. Two strategies were implemented to achieve this goal: (1) reducing existing wastes; and (2) avoiding the introduc- tion of new wastes. Company employees charged with addressing source

reduction opportunities were assisted by an advisory team of state and federal regulatory agencies, academia, and pub- lic action groups. This team approach provided a “customer” perspective on proposed source reduction efforts.

The project identified new source reduction opportunities for existing wastes. This pollution prevention/source reduction effort has been made an integral part of the finan- cial game plan for the site. Successful solid waste minimization efforts are yielding savings of $25,000,000 year. This result could not have been achieved without the empowerment of employees and the integration and insti- tutionalization of pollution prevention into the business framework.

I

Procter 8c Gamble, Procter 8c Gamble Paper Products, Mehoopany, PA.

Background

Output/Employees: Approximately 3,000 employees.

Business/Products: Pulp and paper manufacturing (tissue, towels and diapers)

Pollution Prevention The current initiative is an extension of previous Experience: waste minimization work involving solid and hazardous wastes and a

change management system aimed at waste prevention through scope and design review of new projects.

Total Quality: This site has been employing and growing in the area of TQM. Many employees have participated in SMQI (Statistical Methods for Quality Improvement) and almost all in Deming TQM training. Current emphasis is on improving process reliability and on application of a quality improvement process (QIP) .

Over view

0 bj ec tive :

Media:

Goals:

Accomplish a breakthrough improvement in pollution prevention performance. Specifically increase emphasis and successes with Source Reduction and broaden the base of pollution prevention (P2) emphasis from environmental specialists and teams to all site personnel. Accomplish this by integrating and institutionalizing related TQM thinking and action into the current best approaches (CBAs) for managing all site business.

Air, water and solid waste.

Put in place and institutionalize a system that documents the bottom line costs associated with the production, handling and disposal of wastes. Make continuous improvement in the reduction of both these costs and releases of waste to the environment. Accomplish this largely by source reduction through a cultural intervention which xklresses the “root causes” of waste generation. Demonstrate t o 0111 extci r i d

customers that TQM driven pollution prevention is a key contribiitor to environmental cxce llence .

Participants: Existing waste management teams, environmental staff, and ultimately all employees. Also, an external advisory conimittec consisting of regulatory agencies, academia, and public action groiips.

Mechanisms

Process: A customized quality improvement process and integration of‘ learning into site-wide system owner reliability concept.

88

Metrics:

Incentives:

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Raw materials lost, production losses through scrap product, waste handling and treatment costs, amount of waste produced and that released to the environment, number of chemicals used and capital avoided.

Cost savings, public recognition, regulatory influence, and employee satisfaction through environmental excellence.

Competition with other site efforts to gain attention, alignment, and resource allocations.

TQM techniques including QIP, Rational Process, System Owner, ...

To gain alignment, tie P2 to the business bottom line; to gain long-term continuity, integrate related procedures with base business systems.

Successful solid waste minimization efforts are yielding a total value of approximately $25,000,000 a year and have earned the Governor’s Waste Minimization Award. Notable water and air successes include elimination of the use of chlorine for converting broke bleaching and pulp washing improvements which decreased sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and chloroform releases and saved more than $275,000 through lost production avoidance and reduced chemical usage. Savings of $500,000 are projected from the P2 projects currently underway. Site-wide interest and appreciation of the value of Pollution Prevention is building.

Implement a recently designed metrics accounting and reporting system. Begin formal recognition of P2 successes. Complete and act on the analysis of “root causes’’ for waste generation. Institutionalize key learnings.

Charles B. O’Hara, P.E. Environmental Engineer The Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company Route 87 South Mehoopany, PA 18629 Tel: 71 7-833-3478

89

S Generating Company (USGen) , a partnership formed by subsidiaries of Pacific Gas and Electric

Company and Bechtel Group, Inc., develops, builds and operates non-utility electricity and cogeneration facilities. Its management philosophy commits it to developing energy sources that bene- fit society and contribute to a net improvement in the environment.

is a 330-megawatt, $825 million pulver- ized coal facility being built in south Florida, an area with a sensitive and valuable ecosystem. Project design was, and is, refined through an iterative process conducted by a multi-discipli- nary team (engineering, permitting, compliance, legal, public affairs, finance) working closely with the local community, regulators and other inter- ested parties to identify and resolve issues. This process was implemented to develop a project that earned consistent public acceptance.

USGen is developing its compliance monitoring system to optimize opportu- nities for ongoing improvement. Is it identifying real examples of refine- ments to facilities, site layout and con- struction schedule that will result in an environmental benefit, such as moving the discharge structure out of a pre- serve area, where it is currently permit- ted. USGen will meet with agencies to review these proposals and agree on a procedure for quick approval so that procedural delays do not become a

The Indiantown cogeneration project

disincentive to change. On-going design reviews by QAT members ensure that permit obligations and continuing environmental improvement can be accommodated by the evolving facility design.

mented an environmental awareness training program for all construction workers to integrate each worker into the QAT. Indiantown’s labor force will peak at 800 workers, with a total of about 1,100 people ultimately being employed during construction. The training describes sensitive resources on the site (air, water, wetlands, wildlife) and explains the workers’ responsibili- ties. Feedback will be collected from workers in order to refine the program. More detailed training will be provided to all supervisory personnel, both to allow them to respond to questions about environmental resources posed by the workers, and to empower them to identify and resolve potential issues.

USGen is using Indiantown as the pilot program to formalize procedures for compliance monitoring during con- struction and is expanding the QAT to include the prime construction contrac- tor. Reporting responsibilities, frequen- cy of audits, and audits checklists will be developed as part of this effort.

USGen also has developed and imple-

90

/’

U.S. Generating Company (A Partnership of Bechtel Group, Inc. and Pacific Gas 8c Electric), ’ . Indiantown Cogeneration Project, Martin County, Florida

Background

Output/Employees: More than 500 during construction; about 80 in operation.

Business/Products: Generation of electricity and steam.

Pollution Prevention Experience:

The experience gained in permitting activities in four other states, as well as designing other cogeneration plants, was applied here and greatly expedited the process.

To tal Quality: Air emission levels will be substantially cleaner than Florida requires; a stream of water now polluting Lake Okeechobee will be used as a productive source of cooling water, without offsite discharge; and the onsite wetlands, an important state and national resource, will be preserved.

Overview

Objective:

Media:

Goals:

Participants:

Mechanisms

Process:

Metrics:

Develop a proposal so superior to what is required or expected that local, state, and federal approvals are readily granted.

Air, water, wetlands, land use, sensitive biological species and communities, cultural resources, soils and geophysical hazards.

Construct and operate an energy facility that will ultimately allow older facilities to be retired, thus providing a net improvement in environmental quality.

Company personnel representing design, development, construction, operation, permitting and compliance; regulatory officials; local residents.

A custom-designed facility fashioned from prior experience and tailored for the site.

Federal and state regulatory standards; local zoning requirements.

92

In ce n tive s :

Barriers:

Tools:

Lessons Learned

Results

Plans

Contact

Cost savings through expedited process; enhancement of reputation with regulatory and zoning boards; employee satisfaction at doing some - thing very positive for environment.

Public perception of coal as a “dirty” fuel; public resistance to major infrastructure improvement; shortage of fresh water; critical nature of Florida’s wetland ecosystem.

QAT-USGen’s project development teams gather data and implement activities. Use of local legal and community relations counsel as well as top-flight environmental expertise, reinforces QAT’S in-house strength.

Involve key stakeholders early in the process; be prepared to continually refine project design in response to management. This is especially true with community residents and regulatory officials. Being open with the community can avoid, or minimize, local opposition. Demonstrating to permitting authorities that USGen will be building a facility that substantially exceeds requirements leads to an expeditious permitting process.

The issuance of all permits without any controversy expedited financing and allowed for a prompt construction start.

The lessons learned with the Indiantown project will be used in future development projects. Similarly, construction and operations experience will he assessed and correlated with all USGen facilities.

Kent L. Fickett Director, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs US Generating Company 7475 Wisconsin Avenue 10th Floor Bethesda, MD 2081 4-3422 Tel. 301-718-6860

93

Demonstration Project Metrics Used Results

AT&T SARA 3 13 TCA (lbs/yr) Elimination of TCA forecast for end of 1993; estimated annual savings of $200,000

Environmental operating costs Chevron

Dow Chemical Waste in effluent (lbs/yr) Fugitive emissions (Ibs/yr and lbs/component)

Reduced fugitive emissions of ethylene oxide by 29%; Reduced lab waste by 67%

DuPont Ammonium sulfate (lbs/yr) Reduced by more than 60 million lbs/yr; saved $1 million/yr in manufacturing costs

Trichloroethylene (lbs/part cleaned)

Replaced TCE with an aqueous detergent

Ford

GE Chemicals use (lbs/yr); water consumption (gal/wk)

Reduced 1,1,1 trichloroethane by 95%; reduced water consumption by 300,000 gallons/week

Reduced fiber lost to sewage by 50% International Paper

Merck

Raw material usage

SARA 313 releases and off-site transfers for disposal (lbs/yr)

Reduced by 1.5 million lbs in 1992 and estimated to reduce by 4.8 million lbs in 1993 (using 1990 baseline)

3M Total waste reduced by 10% M'aste Waste - -

M'astetByproducttProduct Total Output

Procter & Gamble (OH) Product in wastewater stream (lbs/yr)

Reduced wastewater effluent discharges by 38% in second half 1992

Procter & Gamble (PA) Total waste management (raw materials lost, production losses, treatment costs, etc.)

Elimination of chlorine, reduction in sulfur dioxide, ammonia, chloroform releases; solid waste minimization efforts are saving $25 million/year

All permits obtained on time and without controversy.

US Generating Federal and state regulatory standards; local zoning requirements

94

he Global Environmental Management

Initiative (GEMI) is generally credited

as being the first organization to

approach environmental management

through Total Quality Management (TQM) princi-

ples. In 1992, GEMI published a primer that

describes five tools that can be used to discover

opportunities for pollution prevention:

Cause and Effect (or Fishbone) Diagram

.Control Chart

.Histogram

.Pareto Chart

.Flow Chart.

The primer evolved out of the high level of

interest generated by numerous presentations on

“tools that work” at GEMI’s first conference in

1991 and the theme of measurements and commu-

nications at its second annual conference in 1992.

The tools and techniques described in this section

build upon GEMI’s work and are used with GEMI’s

permission.

Cause and Effect (or Fishbone) Diagram

The cause and effect diagram is a method for

identifying possible causes of a problem. Seven

steps are involved in creating a cause and effect

diagram:

State the problem. In the example illustrated

below, environmental managers complained that

soil contamination analyses were taking too long

to complete. The problem was stated as “delays ,

in turnaround time.”

Identify possible causes. This is best accom-

plished as a brainstorming exercise in which

there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The

Quality Action Team (described on pages x-y of

this report) should generate a list of all possible

contributing factors to delayed turnaround time.

Causes identified in the example include “rain

water in sample,” “soil disturbed,” and “heavy

travel. ”

Define categories of causes. Causes should be

grouped into generic categories, such as person-

nel or materials. In the example, causes are

grouped into four categories: bad samples, plant

delay, customer communication, and lab rework.

Draw the diagram. Draw a box on the right side

of a piece of paper and a horizontal line from

the left edge of the paper to the box. The prob-

lem (stated in the first step) should be written in

the box. Categories of causes should be drawn as

diagonal lines toward the horizontal line. Causes

should be drawn as short horizontal lines off of

the diagonal category lines.

Ask “why?” four or five times. For each cause, ask

why the condition exists. Then ask why again

(and again and again and again!). For example:

0 analysis error occurs because staff are

poorly trained;

95

3 staff are poorly trained because they never

participate in technical training courses

offered by the human resources

department;

0 they never participated because technical

training is offered only during the standard

work day (9:OO AM to 5:OO PM); 0 staff can’t participate between 9:00 and

5:OO because they have to meet a quota.

Walk through the logic backwards. Start with the

fifth “why” to see whether it actually causes the

fourth “why” and so forth back to the original

cause. This process surfaces any illogic. In the

preceding step, quota requirements do not cause

training to occur between 9 and 5 and so is

illogical.

Verify root causes. Root causes of problems

should be verified by data obtained through mea-

surement, surveys, or observation and analysis.

When the QAT is satisfied that it truly under-

stands the reasons underlying its stated problem,

it can implement corrective actions.

Control Chart

The control chart is a statistical tool to deter-

mine how much variability in a process is inherent

(that is, the result of common causes) and how

much is due to special causes such as fires. A con-

trol chart defines the expected performance range

of a process and identifies abnormalities.

Establish control lines. The first step establishes

the standard for evaluation, or “limits.” The con-

trol chart is a line graph with limit lines, also

called control lines.

The upper control limit (UCL) defines the max-

imum acceptable level of performance. An efflu-

ent monitoring control chart, for example, might

track pounds per day of product lost to sewer. The

Bad Samples Plant Delav

- . nain vvarer -+ \ f Flaw Found

Response to Que-"- - -

in Sample

Delays in Turnaround

Time

Customer Communication

Lab Rework

96

UCL would be the maximum number of pounds

allowable by permit limits.

The lower control limit (LCL) defines the lowest

level of performance exhibited during normal

plant operations.

The average (mean) line is mathematically

derived from the UCL and LCL.

Define the X and Y axes. The horizontal (Y) axis

reflects time. Most process control charts use

either weekly or monthly increments. The

process that is being monitored should deter-

mine the length of time between measures.

For this example, measures would be taken on

a daily basis.

The vertical (X) axis represents the unit defined

by control limits. For this example, the X axis

reflects pounds because the issue of concern is lost

pounds of product.

Collect data. Data should be collected to

determine whether performance falls within the

control lines. Variations within control limits are

known as common causes and reflect elements

inherent to the process such as choice of

equipment, materials, or personnel.

A control chart with data points outside the con-

trol limits is said to be out of control. Such abnor-

malities reflect unique, one-time events that are

not part of the normal process.

Monitor process changes. To eliminate common

causes, the QAT may institute fundamental

process changes. The time at which a change

occurs should be noted on the control chart. In

this example, installation of a new filtering sys-

tem would be tracked to see whether pounds per

day of product lost to sewer was reduced.

Define new control limits. As system changes

prove effective, new control limits should

be calculated.

2000

1500

1000

NEW FILTER SYSTEM INSTALLED

I

500 1 LCL

NOV 88 APR 89 SEP 89 FEE 90 JUL 90

Sources: Total Quulity Enuironmrntal1Management: A Primer, GEMI, 1992; Proceedings, (.‘or$omtc Quulily/~nuirc~nmc.wtal ~ ~ f U ~ l ~ g ~ l I i ~ 7 ~ l : The First Con ferenre, GEMI, 1991. Used with permission.

97

The histogram, a graphic technique that displays

the distribution of data, is simply a version of the

familiar “bar graph.” In a histogram, the horizon-

tal (Y) axis represents classes or class intervals of

interest. For example, a histogram of economic

status might depict three intervals along the Y axis

- “poor,” “middle-class,” and “wealthy.”

The vertical (X) axis reflects the number of

cases for which data have been collected. The size

of each interval depends on the size of the sample.

If the economic status of 1000 American families is

displayed as a histogram, the vertical axis might be

marked in intervals of 50. If only 50 families are

surveyed, the X axis might be marked in

increments of 5.

When data are collected, a rectangle equal in

height to the number (or frequency) for each class

interval is constructed to provide a “picture” of the

results. Histograms provide two key pieces of

information about a data set: average (mean) and

variation (dispersion).

Collect data. Creating a histogram requires col-

lecting measurable data, such as number of days

required to complete a soil contamination

analvsis.

Count the number of data points. The number of

measures must be counted in addition to collect-

ing the measure of interest. The measure of

interest in this example is the number of days

required to complete the analysis. The number

of measures is the number of soil contamination

analyses that were examined to determine

required number of days.

Calculate the range for the data set. The range

depicts the smallest and largest values in the data

set and is derived by subtracting the smallest

value from the largest. In this example, the

smallest number of days is 20 and the largest,

180.

Define class intervals. Class intervals depend on

the issue of concern. In this example, class inter-

vals designate number of days. A histogram of

toxic releases might assign class intervals on the

basis of toxic material (e.g., toluene) or type of

release (e.g., air, water).

Determine width of class intervals. In some

instances, definition of class intervals is absolute

and width is not an issue. If toxic releases from

different processes is of interest, each opera-

tional process is a class interval without width.

Some class intervals are less clear-cut. In this

example, because number of days is the critical fac-

tor, it is necessary to determine whether each class

interval encompasses 5 days, 15 days, or more.

Sometimes there is a logical basis for establishing

the width - a histogram of economic status could

use government definitions for poverty through

wealth, for example. If such distinctions are not

apparent, the number of classes (and, therefore,

their width) can be derived from the number of

data points. The following table provides general

guidelines for establishing class interval width.

Number of Number of

Data Points Class Intervals

50 or fewer 5-7

51-100 6-10

101-250 7-1 2 251 or greater 10-20

To determine width, divide the range by the

number of class intervals. For this soil contamina-

tion analysis example, the range is 100 days -

from 20 days to 120 days. Sixty-four soil sample

analyses were initiated and completed in that

98

Analyses Cumulative Cumulative Class Intervals Completed Total Percent

0-1 5 days

16-30

31-45

46-60

61-75

76-90

91-105

106-120

0

13

17 13

5

3

0

3

0

13

30

43

48

51

51

54

0%

24

56

78 89

94

94

100

period (54 data points) so the range should be

broken into 6 to 10 intervals. Six intervals encom-

pass 20 days while 10 intervals encompass 12 days

- 15-day intervals probably make the most sense.

Construct a frequency table. A frequency table con-

tains the raw data from which the histogram will

be constructed.

Construct the Histogram. The histogram is a graph-

ic representation of raw data. It is intended to

show the distribution of the data relative to com-

pany targets. In this example, if ideal turn-

around time is defined as 30 days, 76 percent of

analyses fall outside the desired target.

USL Upper Specification

0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

m 0-1 5 16-30

0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0

n

Limit=30 Days (Ideal Turnaround Time) Percent Out of Specification=37%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I I I 1 1 1 31 -45 46-60 61 -75 76-90 91 -1 05 106-1 20

Source: Total Quality Envirnnmrntal Management: A Primer, GEMI, 1 W2. Utrd with permission.

99

Pareto Chart

A Pareto chart rank orders the causes of a partic-

ular problem. Based on the “80-20” rule - 80 per-

cent of the problem results from 20 percent of the

causes - the Pareto chart often is described as

depicting the vital few versus the trivial many.

The Pareto chart is, simply, percentage calcula-

tions of data arranged in descending order from

left to right, where the left axis depicts actual data

and the right axis presents percent of total. It is

critical, however, that the classifications across the

horizontal axis are carefully defined.

Identify problem to be analyzed. This generally has

occurred prior to construction of a Pareto chart.

It might be reducing the number of environmen-

tal violations or reducing delay in soil contamina-

tion analyses.

Selpct classijktions. Classifications should be

mutually exclusive. If the problem if interest is

reducing the number of environmental ~7iola-

tions, data might be classified by type of violation

- for example, hazardous waste, air, asbestos.

In the soil contamination example, the four cate-

gories developed with the cause and effect (fish-

bone) diagram provide mutually exclusive classi-

fications.

Determine number of occurrences. For each classifi-

cation, total the number of incidents within the

time frame of interest (e.g., one month)

Create Pareto chart. The horizontal axis should

depict classifications. The left vertical axis

should be marked in intervals based on actual

data. The classification with the largest actual

value should be drawn against the far left vertical

axis. The next vertical bar represents the second

largest actual value and should touch the first

bar. All remaining bars should be placed in

descending order.

The right vertical axis should depict the percent-

age values of the actual data. The 100-percent

mark should be at the same height as the total

number of occurrences designated on the left axis.

Finally, a line should be plotted from the O-per-

cent point on the left axis to the 100-percent point

on the right axis. Plot points along this line are

the cumulative percentages.

In the soil contamination example, the QAT dis-

covered that 80 percent of the turnaround delay

was attributable to two factors: poor communica-

tion (45 percent) and lack of a standard analytic

format for lab technicians (35 percent).

If the Pareto chart is “flat,” selected classifica-

tions are not discriminating between the vital few

and the trivial many. A different set of classifica-

tions should be tried.

Flow Chart

Percent of Incidents

N = (Total) 4 1

100%

80

60

40

20

0 Customer Lab

Communication Rework Plant Bad Other

Delays Samples

100

Solving a problem sometimes involves finding

where in the process the problem occurs. A flow

chart is a schematic that illustrates the relationship

between process steps. It often follows a pareto

analysis.

Chart actual process. The QAT should work with

all process participants to chart a step-by-step

sequence of the process of interest. In the soil

contamination example, the QAT discovered that

turnaround time was delayed because analyses

often had to be reworked.

Chart ideal process. The same group that charted

the actual process should chart the ideal process.

Often, individuals most closely involved with a

particular operation are best able to pinpoint

process flaws. In this example, soil contamina-

tion analysts may have a clear understanding of

why turnaround time is slow and can suggest

process changes to eliminate identified impedi-

ments.

Analyze differences. The differences between the

actual and ideal flow charts generally signify

problem areas.

I Soil Contamination Analysis Request I I I

Data Gathering I

I Initial Analysis

Detailed Lab Analysis I

- YES - 0 N O - ADDITIONAL WORK?

Sourtu: 7 h f n l Qunlitj Bnvironmrntcil 'Mniingrmmt: A Primrr, GBMI, 1992. iuzth pel-misszon.

101

I Soil Contamination Analysis Request I

I J Follow Plant Check List

- - * I Data Gathering I I I ;$. I I

I

I

I I I J Follow Lab Check List I

I L

I I

I I I I

I I I Initial Analysis I I I

I I

I I 1

1

I I I I I

Detailed Lab Analysis

I

ISSUE REPORT

I @'.\ @ . I @

YES ---- I,,,, ADDITIONAL. .- NO + 4\. %WORK?& @ @

Sourrr Total Quulztj Enuz~onmrntal Management A Przmer, GEiW, 1992 C'ted wlth permzssion

102

Brassard, Michael. The Memory Jogger Plus+. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1989.

Crosby, Philip B. Quality i s Free. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1979.

Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1982.

Deming, W. Edwards. Quality, Productivity and Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982.

Global Environmental Management Initiative. Corporate Quality/Environmental Management: The First Conference. Proceedings. Washington, DC: Global Environmental Management Initiative, 1991,

Goal/QPC. Cross-Functional Management. Sustaining Members' Research Committee. Methuen, MA: Goal/QPC, 1990.

Goal/QPC. The Memory Jogger: A Pocket Guide to Tools for Continuous Improvement. 1991 Conference Edition. Second Edition. Methuen, MA: Goal/QPC, 1985, 1988.

Harrington, H. James. The Improvement Process: How Amem'ca 's h a d i n g Companies Improue Quality, Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1987.

Jablonski, Joseph R. Implementing Total Quality Management: Competing in the 1990s, Second Edition. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1992.

Kleiner, Art. What Does it Mean to be Green? Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review, August 1991.

Marguglio, B.W. The Laboratory Quality Assurance System: A Manual of Quality Procedures with Related Forms. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1990.

Moran, John, et. al. Facilitating and Training in Quality Function Deployment. Methuen, MA: Goal/QPC, 1991.

Walton, Mary. The Deming Management Method. New York, NY Putnam, 1986.

Walton, Mary. Deming Management at Work. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1990.

Weaver, Charles N. TQM: A Step-by Step Guide to Implementation. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1991.

Wilson, Paul F., et. al. Root Cause Analysis: A Toolfor Total Quality Management. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1992.

Wilson, Paul F., et. al. Workbook to Accompany Root Cause Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality Managemenl. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1992.

103

cc r.

Points of view expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the President’s Commission on

Environmental Quality (PCEQ), its member companies, or demonstration project participants. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement.

Permission granted to reprint with credit to the PCEQ.

Environmental Policy Center Law Companies Environmental Group

Washington, DC.

This report was prepared for the PCEQ by the

Copies of this report are available from the PCEQ.

Please contact: President’s Commission on Environmental Quality

Executive Office of the President 722 Jackson Place, NW Washington, DC 20503

Tel: [202] 395-5750 Fax: [202] 395-3745

Art direction and drsign by Mark Nardini, Severnu Park, 1Mmyland. Production b j Jim Funzone & J q Harrison, De~ignConcepl, Baltimnre, Ma?ylurid.

Computer illuslrations by J im Funzonr. Printing by Colorcraft, Strrling, Virginart

104