APPLICATIONS OF

VALUE ENGINEERING AT DOE Value engineering is information about a problem-solving value engineering tool widely used in A versatile tool for assessing P2 and how it works at both the federal

private industry. It has proven to be versatile, and has found applications throughout the defense weapons industry.

Within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), one environmental stewardship application of value engineering has been in the conduct of pol- lution prevention opportunity assessments. Value engineering provides an essential rigor and sys- tematic formality to the identification and devel- opment of pollution prevention options. Its focus is on costs, and it can be used to both generate options and evaluate the consequences of those options. It helps managers identify how to best use limited environmental resources.

This article describes the application of value engineering techniques to environmental stew, ardship activities in the DOE. It begins with a case study -ifivolving DOE’s Office of Defense Programs, and then continues with more detailed

government and opportunities

0 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc

DOE. Also included are “project briefs” describing how DOE facilities use value engineering for activities such as

waste management, environmental restoration, and Design for Environment.

Case Study: DOE’s Off ice of Defense Programs

The DOE’S Office of Defense Programs (DP) is an organization of about 53,000 federal and con- tractor employees charged with:

effectively supporting and maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable enduring stockpile of nuclear weapons without nuclear testing; safely dismantling and disposing of excess nuclear weapons;

Bryant Poston

Pollution Prevention Review I Summer 2000

providing technical leadership for national and global nonproliferation and nuclear safe- ty activities; and developing and supporting nuclear reactor plants for naval propulsion.

Nuclear weapons production activities- including chemical separations, component fab- rication, system assembly, repairs, engineering, life extension activities, surveillance, and certifi- cation-are conducted at ten installations in the United States. Typically, component and system

design, engineering, surveillance, and certi- fication are accom- plished by the nation- al laboratories; compo- nent manufacture, assembly, refurbish- ment, dismantlement, and other activities are accomplished in man-

ufacturing and industrial facilities. In the absence of underground nuclear testing, weapon certifica- tion is accomplished in large degree through sim- ulation and non-nuclear experiments.

The typical nuclear weapon might consist of hundreds of separate parts, each manufactured individually with the highest possible quality control, and then assembled into subsystems and functional weapons in over 1,000 steps. Any devi- ation from standard, or change in process or materials, could potentially have significant effects on weapon performance, safety, and/or reliability. As a result, the prove-in process for changes is lengthy and expensive.

At the time the activity described in this case study was initiated, underground testing was the ultimate proving ground for any real or potential weapon system defect; in the early 199Os, the DOE began observing a moratorium on under- ground testing.

The typical nuclear weapon might consist of hundreds of separate parts, each manufactured individu- ally with the highest possible quali- ty control, and then assembled into subsystems and functional weapons in over 1,000 steps.

-- .-

Historically, the nuclear weapons production mission has produced vast quantities of radioac- tive, hazardous, and toxic wastes. Production processes over the course of a 50-year weapons production program left the Department of Energy with the largest environmental cleanup program in the world: 353 cleanup projects around the nation, with total life-cycle costs for cleanup estimated at $147 billion.

Waste Minimization Program In 1989, DP initiated a formal waste mini-

mization program, with a goal of eliminating or greatly reducing waste and hazards in the manu- facture and reuse of individual nuclear weapon components. Value engineering principles were incorporated into the program level design to generate options, evaluate their consequences, and prioritize them for implementation. A series of in-depth assessments, meetings, facilitated workshops, and other activities were conducted to characterize wastes and identify opportunities to reduce or eliminate wastes.

This effort was an organization- and systems- wide look at the entire nuclear weapons manu- facturing complex-from nose cone, to plutoni- um primary, to drogue parachute. Waste mini- mization assessment and technology develop- ment efforts were organized into waste streams (see Exhibit l), which included both radioactive and toxic materials.

Sites involved in the production and reuse of nuclear weapons components submitted 21 1 technology development project proposals that would reduce or eliminate wastes. While com- mitted to implementation, the costs to imple- ment all proposals exceeded the funds available to DOE, which over the course of three years totaled more than $82 million dollars.

Value engineering techniques were used to prioritize the proposals and optimally allocate resources. A multidisciplinary team of waste

36 / S u m " 2000 / Pollution Prevention Review Bryant Poston

Waste Stream Source

Plutonium

Energetic Material

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

stream managers, DOE policy makers, environ- mental planners, systems analysts, and others developed and applied, in a test case,' a model to determine the life-cycle costs of projects and their associated risks and benefits.

The model that was developed is intended for use in prioritizing projects for funding and imple- mentation. It offers a formal and specific process for selecting-from among a very diverse set of project proposals supporting changes to nuclear weapons manufacturing processes- activities that would provide the greatest benefit to DOE.

During the pre-study and implementation phases of this effort, the team collected quantita- tive data on costs to implement, time to imple- ment, volumes of waste, worker exposure, toxicity, and radioactivity. They also assembled qualitative data regarding the effects on weapon reliability, weapon safety, community relations, likelihood of s u c c e d l implementation, applicability of the technology to general industry, and the impact of operational disruption if the proposal failed.

Uranium

Solvents

Mixed Waste

Miscellaneous

Electroplating

Environmental Stewardship Applications of Value Engineering at DOE

~

Y-12

Sandia National Laboratories (NM)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Kansas City Plant

Sandia National Laboratories (CA)

The team then objectively scored each pro- posal on 53 evaluation criteria loosely grouped under the following headings:

Polymers

Tritium

economic feasibility effect on environment, safety, and health operational issues intangibles technical risk

Pantex Plant

Mound Plant

The group scores were then summed. See Exhibits 2 and 3.

Senior managers and decision makers within the DOE then established the relative importance of individual and grouped evaluation criteria. Summary scores were multiplied by weighing fac- tors to yield an order-of-merit list of proposals.

This model was a disciplined application of a rigorous analytical and prioritization methodolo- gy developed by Sandia National Laboratories. The model, which initially was sponsored by DP and the Office of Environmental Management

Pollution Prevention Review / Summer 2000 /

I

Exhibit 2. Example Evaluation Criteria for Waste Minimization Proposals

Operational Product Processing Issues Quality Characteristics

+ Reliability * Process yield - Safety * Capacity Testability Availability Maintainability Safety

Implementation downtime Effect on other processes

(EM), resulted in significant progress towards reducing and eliminating wastes.

A review of 13 Defense Programs sites in 1992 indicated cost savings of more than $50 million resulting from material substitutions, process improvement, and recycling. The 1998 Annual Report on Pollution Prevention -reported an all- time low in waste generation by the nuclear weapons complex (see Exhibit 4).

The prioritization methodology was adapted for wider use and was published as guidance to all sites in 1993 in Prioritization of Pollution Prevention Options Using a Value Engineering Approach. The same methodology was included in a later update of the Department’s Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment training, and was taught complex-wide.

Exhibit 3. Example Evaluation Criteria Scoring

The net present value of all life-cycle costs associated with the proposal is: 1 = large, negative (< 500,000)

3 = approximately zero (break even) 4 = positive ($1,000 to $500,000) 5 = large, positive (>$500,000)

The total, discounte cost of the implementation phase of the proposal will be: 1 = very high (>$lO,OOO,OOO) 2 = high ($5,000,000 to $10,000,000) 3 = moderate ($1,000,000 to $10,000,000) 4 = low ($500,000 to $1,000,000) 5 = very low (<$500,000)

2 = negative (-$1 ,000 to -$500,000) 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Exhibit 4. Waste Generation in DP (cubic meters)

300000

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Understanding Value Engineering Value engineering is defined by DOE Policy

430.1A as:

an organized effort, directed by a per- son trained in value engineering tech- niques, to analyze the functions of sys- tems, equipment, facilities, services, and supplies to achieve the essential functions at the lowest life-cycle cost that is consistent with required per- formance, reliability, availability, quali- ty and safety. (Terms such as value analysis, value control, value improve- ment, value management, and func- tionality analysis are synonymous.)

Many other definitions exist, but most imply, if not define, a rigorously applied, systematic, team-oriented analysis of costs. Full-blown value engineering studies are not performed every day as a matter of routine. They differ from tradi- tional cost reduction approaches in that value engineering analysis achieves cost reduction without sacrificing essential performance, relia- bility, or maintainability.

Value engineering studies take considerable time, and are often conducted in phases. The major phases of a value engineering study are:

38 / Summer 2000 I Pollution Prevention Review Bryant Poston

prestudy; information analysis; function analysis; option generation; option evaluation; option development; and report preparation.

Any reader who is interested in learning more detailed information on value engineering study design and implementation can find a number of good texts and manuals on the topic.

A successful value engineering effort, which culminates in the implementation of activities that eliminate unnecessary costs, depends to a large extent upon the integrated and disciplined applicafion of proven techniques (see Exhibit 5)2 that identify costs, remove obstacles, and establish a course of action that will ensure the development and implementation of doable alternatives of merit.

Exhibit 5. Value Engineering Techniques

1. Avoid generalities.

2. Get all available costs.

3. Use information from only the best source.

4. Blast, create, refine.

5. Use real creativity.

6. Identify and overcome roadblocks.

7. Use industry specialists to extend specialized knowledge.

8. Get a dollar sign on key tolerances.

9. Utilize vendors’ available functional products.

10. Utilize and pay for vendors’ skills and knowledge.

11. Use specialty processes.

12. Use applicable standards.

13. Use the criterion “Would I spend my money this way?”

The Department of Energy maintains an active value engineering program in accordance with the Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. section 401 et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-13 1, “Value Engineering.’’ Value engineering is implic- it in the DOE Strategic Plan, and required of departmental contractors by DOE Order 430.1.

Historically, the predominant government applications of value engineering have been in weapons system acquisition and facility construc- tion activities; pollution prevention applications are relatively new.

A Graded, Integrated Approach Within the DOE, value engineering tech-

niques are integrated into management process- es for pollution prevention. Structured creative activities, systematic analysis, and multi-disci- plined teams are recommended components of a Level 1 pollution prevention opportunity assessment. Level 2 and 3 assessments make pro- gressively more rigorous analyses of function and cost, and are correspondingly documented more thoroughly.

As applied to opportunity assessments in DP, value engineering is a serious group effort com- pletely dedicated to identifying and developing pollution prevention options, and evaluating the consequences of their implementation. It is used to produce prioritized opportunities to reduce wastes and releases, and to save money.

In general, DOE site pollution prevention per- sonnel use specific value engineering techniques in particular situations where they make sense. The avoidance of generalities in analysis is a basic essential of all value engineering applications. The most rigorous application of value engineer- ing techniques is reserved for situations where cost and function require it, including make/buy analysis, specialty process development, and other resource-intensive and lengthy studies.

Pollution Prevention Review / Summer 2000 / 9 Environmental Stewardship Applications of Value Engineering at DOE

Defense Programs has an active training pro- gram for putting value engineering tools and techniques into the hands Of those who run Pollution Preven- tion programs at DP and other sites on a

day-to-day basis. Facilitation skills, teamwork, benchmarking, various creativity approaches, and other skills are practiced semi-annually during hands-on technology workshops.

The particular prioritization method described in Prioritization of Pollution Preven- tion Options Using a Value Engineering Approach is an adaptation of the method used in the case study discussed here. It is designed into the way basic opportunity assessments are conducted in the DOE - an outgrowth of the waste minimization activities described in the case study.

Recent developments in Design for Environ- ment assessments also integrate value engineer- ing techniques. Opportunity assessments con- ducted prior to and during facility design, but before construction (called “pollution prevention design assessments”), incorporate value engineer- ing methodology. A guidance document is cur- rently being developed for use by DOE site design engineers, and is based in part on successful demonstrations conducted at DP sites.

Recent developments in Design for Environment assessments also inte- grate value engineering techniques.

Project Brief: Hanford Environmental Restoration Waste Management

At the Hanford Site in Washington State, spe- cialty processes and life-cycle costs were used to prioritize waste minimization activities associated with environmental restoration. Hanford Site occupies 560 square miles, and was the location of the first full-sized plutonium production oper- ation. With over 1,200 individual sites identified for restoration, and expected life-cycle cleanup

.*

costs in excess of $50 billion, elimination of unnecessary costs is essential.

As part of an opportunity assessment con- ducted at the site this year, a team of experts, led by a certified value engineering specialist, identi- fied 45 environmental restoration waste streams. Adapting the prioritization method described above, the site identified the four environmental restoration wastes with the most potential for waste minimization. Using structured creative processes and rigorous analysis, the team identi- fied and evaluated various waste minimization options for concrete, structural steel, construc- tion equipment, and contaminated soils over a 15-year life cycle.

Preliminary waste minimization options, if successful, will save $38.3 million over 15 years at the Hanford Site. Feasibility analysis of high- merit options is continuing.

Project Brief: Kerr Hollow Quarry Restoration Waste Management

The Department of Energy once used Kerr Hollow Quarry for the routine disposal of reactive wastes. The Kerr Hollow site is located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In 1995, restoration activities at the quarry were forecast to generate significant volumes of containerized waste recovered from the quarry.

Initial project baselines for the restoration project specified crushing and breaching of recovered containers, necessitating the construc- tion of a repackaging plant. Following site clo- sure, the repackaging plant would require decon- tamination and decommissioning, at consider- able expense.

A value engineering’ study team evaluated, among other things, container function. Changes in project design were proposed and approved by state regulators, allowing storage of waste in containers, pending disposal, as the waste is recovered from the quarry. The value

Bryant Poston

engineering results included avoidance of $15.5 million.

Project Brief: Waste Compf- Recycle, Treatment, and Disposal In' ited Demonstration (WeDIO)

rash announced deep strategic and tactical I: weapons reduc- tions that would necessita: tilons dismantle- ment and disposal. Meetir: reduction goals meant that many Sandia 'mal Laboratory- designed weapons would .n to the Pantex Plant in Texas for dismant fit. Following dis- mantlement, a wide varie? components (rep- resenting over 30 years of i- 'ware development) would require disposal.

Not. counting the ph' x s packages of the weapons, dismantlement dC tivities would gener- ate approximately 1,000 tons of classified and otherwise problematic scrap never before encountered in such quantity. The scrap was esti- mated to contain an average of $8,000 per ton of precious metals. To maximize the amount of material recycled, and to minimize hazardous and mixed wastes, Sandia developed and demon- strated specialty processes for use in dismantle- ment activities.

Nuclear weapons encompass many advanced technologies involving sophisticated combina- tions of materials and components; the technolo- gies present a unique set of problems from the standpoint of security and environmentally con- scious waste management. Many weapons com- ponents - including arming, fusing, and firing assemblies, sealed and potted configurations, radiation hardened electronics, and others - pose real and expensive challenges to sites responsible for their ultimate disposal.

Focused efforts to develop and demonstrate separaeion and treatment technologies for prob- lem wastes, combined with maximum recycling of materials (including precious and bulk metals

In September 1991, Presit'

Environmental Stewardship Applications of Value Engineering at DOE

and KevlarTM), was found to be the most life-cycle cost-effective approach.

Recycling instead of disposal, and treatment technologies to reduce hazards and security risks instead of a no-action disposal alternative, demonstrated life-cycle cost savings of $17 mil- lion dollars. Reduction in mixed waste generation was the single biggest cost saver, estimated at $11.3 million.

Project Brief: National Ignition Facility - Design for Environment

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a DOE inertial confinement fusion laser facility now under construction at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Not counting the physics packages of the weapons, dismantlement

activities would generate approxi- matelv 1.000 tons of classified and

When completed, it will be used, among other things, to assess physical conditions in

- , matters of interest concerning nuclear weapons physics and to provide an above- ground simulation capability for weapons effects testing. To achieve inertial confinement fusion, NIF will focus 192 laser beamlets onto a target suspended in the center of a spherical aluminum alloy target chamber. Construction of the facility began in 1997.

During the preliminary design stage, site plan- ners and engineers initiated a comprehensive pre- dictive evaluation of all the facility's significant waste-generating processes throughout the facili- ty's expected economic lifetime, including decon- tamination and decommissioning. The methodol- ogy used in the predictive assessment was similar to the value engineering principles found in the DOE performance-based training course "Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments," and included very specific analysis of material input changes, operational improvements, pro-

otherwise problematic scrap never before encountered in such quantity.

Pollution Prevention Review / Summer 2000 / 41

duction process changes, and product reformula- tion as possible options.

Waste reduction opportunities identified were evaluated for costs, technical and economic feasi- bility, anticipated savings, return on investment, and anticipated reduction of a specific waste stream. Engineers, using standard engineering practice, independently evaluated technical feasi- bility with a primary goal of maintaining process or product reliability and efficiency.

Predictive opportunity assessments were con- ducted on ten primary waste streams, including vacuum pump oil, molecular sieves, target cham- ber decontamination wastes, oil-filled capacitors, and general chemicals. Thirty-one options were identified and developed. A number of pollution prevention or waste minimization options have been implemented (see Exhibit 6) , and others are awaiting further development.

The NIF Site has established a specific proce- dure for triggering assessment and reassessment activities; as construction is completed and NIF moves into routine operations, additional oppor- tunity assessments will be conducted as necessary.

Value Engineering: Observations and Opportunities

One major strength of value engineering is its versatility. Value engineering has been applied to source reduction, recycling, treat- ment, storage, and disposal. Its applicability to energy efficiency, Design for Environment, and other environmental stewardship activities has also been demonstrated.

Application of value engineering techniques is acceptable in any prioritization activity. The disciplined nature of value engineering- which ultimately involves a rigorous analysis of the consequences of action or inaction-increases decision-maker confidence in the allocation and dedication of resources for source reduction and recycling.

Value engineering helps create a “minimum personal loss” environment. Taking different actions in order to achieve a very much improved product (one that performs as designed, but is not waste- and release-intensive to manufacture and maintain) means doing things differently, with concurrent personal risk. When the potential

Exhibit 6. P2 Success to Date at NIF

Mixed waste

Low-level radioactive waste

Redesigned vacuum systems, specified oil-free vacuum pumps

Developed concrete formulations with low activation characteristics to minimize end- of-life activated waste

Nose cone concept was developed to attenuate and scatter neutrons, minimizing target positioning hardware activation

Nose cone materials have been studied to increase service life and reduce thick- ness

Hazardous waste Developed specifications for parts washers that disallow the use of solvents or other hazardous materials

Designed and tested capacitors with significantly longer service lives

Adapted and tested switches without mercury components for the power condition- ing system

~

.* Nonhazardous wastes Excavated soils from construction used as fill on-site

Wood and metal construction debris recycling programs operating on-site

Bryant Poston

consequences of change are coherently and com- pletely understood, change is made easier.

As the complexity of change increases, the utility of value engineering analysis also increas- es. Consideration of life-cycle costs and net pres- ent value are essential decision-making elements when both the cost of business-as-usual and the cost of change are high.

Dialogue among designers and builders, assemblers, and maintainers is enhanced when value engineering techniques are used in envi- ronmental problem solving. The detailed records produced during the various phases of a value engineering study provide a useful source of con- tinuity in function and program direction.

(without creating product quality problems) then as it does now.

The DOE has invested significant resources in value engineering processes, and in the develop- ment of tools that encourage value engineering activities. Good practice guides are available. Contract clauses have been developed regarding value engineering incentives and mandatory pro- gram requirements. Proven models for opportu- nity assessment and option prioritization exist. New guidance for the conduct of design assess- ments is being developed.

Value engineering is not something that has to be reinvented - just applied.

Conclusion Value engineering has stood the test of time.

Developed during World War 11, value engineer- ing methodology helped solve cost problems

Notes 1. Kjeldgaard, E.A., Saloio, J.H., & Vamado, G.B. (1990). Development and test case application of a waste minimization project evaluation method, Sandia Report SAND90-1178-0974- UC-722, Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. 2. Miles, L.D. (1961). Techniques of value analysis and engi- neering, General Electric Company. New York McGraw-Hill.

Bryant Poston is with McPherson Environmental Resources, Inc.

Environmental Stewardship Applications of Value Engineering at DOE Pollution Prevention Review

~-

Summer

THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY

ON CLEANER PRODUCTION AND POLLUTION

PREVENTION Making effecfive Training programs in

Cleaner Production use of vendor

knowledge without undue and Pollution Pre- vention (CP/P2) are

commercializa fion regularly offered by government, non-

the workshop. In domestic training, participants are often given lists of local technology suppliers. However,

profit, and business programs around the world. These pro- grams are usually designed to give participants a basic understanding of CP/P2 concepts, and often have some industry-specific technology orienta- tion. Experienced trainers have noted that many participants, especially engineers and technicians, are eager to try out CP/P2 technologies and ask, “Where do I get this particular technology to solve this particular problem?”

When training is sponsored by international assistaice agencies, the most common approach used is to refer participants to the commercial service of the country or agency that is hosting

0 2000 John Wiley 8 Sons. Inc.

these are very limit- ed responses that do not give partici-

pants an understanding of the complex and sophisticated network of technology sourcing, financing, and delivery systems. In effect, many CP/P2 training programs fall short; they get industry managers interested in specific solu- tions, but don’t tell them how to find vendors.

It appears that, in many cases, this has been the result of policy decisions made by sponsoring programs or line managers. In my experience,

Burfon Hamner

Pollution Prevention Review I Summer 2000 / a5

I

many sponsors are concerned about “commer- cializing” the message of CP/P2. They fear that participants will not attend, or will be cynical about the motives of, a training program that includes information from vendors or that steers them to one main information source (often with national biases).

While these fears may have been justified in a few cases, there is an evident consensus among

experienced CP/P2 trainers that vendors of appropriate tech- nologies can and should be a valuable addition to training programs. If vendors are carefully selected, coached on the right

approaches to use, and monitored during their delivery, they provide the following benefits:

In partnership with other trainers, vendors can also tell participants how to use the vast technology transfer programs and networks that are available.

extensive knowledge about specific technical CP/P2 solutions for specific industries; objective overviews of the pros and cons of technology alternatives (not competing vendors); experience with installing, operating, and repairing technologies; and ability to help trainees right away with progress towards a technical CP/P2 solution.

In partnership with other trainers, vendors can also tell participants how to use the vast tech- nology transfer programs and networks that are available. A little training on this can provide tremendous long-term benefits to smaller enter- prises that cannot conduct technology research and development on their own.

-- .- Experience with Vendors in CP/P2 Training To determine what the “experts” say about the

use of vendors in CP/P2 training, I polled an email

I i

6 I Summer 2000 / Pollution Prevention Review Burton Hamner

discussion group, P2Tech (http://www.great- lakes.net/lists/p2tech/), whose members represent hundreds of pollution prevention technical assis- tance programs and projects. The question I posed, and quotations from the responses I received, follow. The question and responses have been given minor editing for clarity and focus.

Original Question Subject: Training Question From: Burton Hamner

A recent P2 training event leads to this question: Considering that P2 programs have reputations to protect, is it appro- priate to have vendors with specific tech- nical solutions participate in an indus- try-specific P2 course? 1 ask because I heard that [a] recent event sponsor refused to allow such vendor participa- tion because it would be “too commer- cial,” although there was a person ready to help who was not going to do a com- pany sales pitch but a presentation on the specific applications of specific hard- ware. As a result, the participants left with some ideas about basic technologies -but no idea about who sells them, “inside” tips about how they work, what it is like to install and use them, what they cost, etc.

How can this tension between “commercialism” and the real need for specific solutions be resolved in P2 training? My own feeling is that P2 training should be “pure” as advertised, but that an OPTIONAL vendor presen- tation the next day, or after lunch, would be OK and useful as long as it was clearly advertised as complementary but not necessary. I hope this stimulates some good discussion.

The U.S. government and some states are sending people all over the place doing P2 training. The local ven- dors of appropriate technology are ask- ing to participate, and now often have the door shut on them. This does not seem to be very helpful all around. How to balance these interests? Any thoughts?

Responses From: Judy Jakobsen

Suffolk County Water Authority P2 Program

I have run spray-painting workshops with vendors as speakers and found them to be an invaluable resource. They spoke about specific technical use of equipment and application techniques in spray painting, such as transfer effi- ciency, and were not hawking their product. They also provided a lot of valuable technical literature to assist customers on painting techniques, safe- ty concerns, etc., that didn’t hawk their product. I have no problem with ven- dors participating.

I think you need to know from ref- erences (talking to other people) how the vendor is as a speaker and you make it clear they are not to hawk their product during their talk. Also if vari- ous solutions from different vendors are presented, I don’t see why this would be a problem. Otherwise how is industry to know what options are out there? I am certainly not an expert in the industry and rely on tapping into otheL -- experts. There is a different rap- port between vendors and clients that may be more beneficial since there is

still industry fear of P2 programs since some are regulatory or perceived as reg- ulatory. 1 also made a point of getting literature from numerous vendors to have out for attendees to go away with knowing where they could get products and other information.

I feel strongly it is a mistake not to tap into vendors as a technical resource. I also feel the vendors can be a valuable resource to help get information out to their clients on your P2 Program by pro- viding them with program brochures when they visit with companies - so it can be a two way street.

From: Dale H. Francke Pratt & Whitney

Your question is a good one. The P2 Coalition of Palm Beach County [Florida] has put on numerous P2 events/workshops for various industry/ business groups over the last four years. During these events vendors who deal in the area of busi- ness being dis- cussed were nor- mally present as exhibitors. Access

The U.S. government and some states are sending people all over

the place doing P2 training.

to them was prior to the event, dur- ing any breaks, and after the event. This put in their perspective as a commercial entity, and talking with them was volun- tary for everyone.

When a vendor, one exhibiting or not, had a technical representative (not just a salesperson) who was an expert or very knowledgeable in the area of P2 which their product was used, they have also been asked to speak - but on

The Role of Technology Vendors in Training on Cleaner Production and Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention Review I Summer 2000 I

a subject matter, not a product line. This has been very successful, as techni- cal experts have easily eliminated the product side for the technical side of the discussions.

I think you need to be sure that the speaker has the technical background,

training, experi- ence so that they can On a sub-

j e c t . This e’imi- nates the need for them to be prod- uct specific in order to have something to dis- cuss. While most

sales reps have a good understanding about their product and how it works within a specific area of P2, they may or may not understand the total area of P2 their product represents. Our experience (P2 Coalition) has been that technically competent vendor reps can speak to a group in their area of competence with- out having to use specific product refer- ences. Specifics about products can suc- cessfully be provided by company exhibits to be viewed before, during, and after the event.

While most sales reps have a good understanding about their product and how it works within a specific area of P2, they may or may not understand the total area of P2 their product represents.

From: Mike Heaney North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance

Vendor participation is always a question of balance. Fortunately, most vendors know that the quickest way to lose an audience is for their talk to become an infomercial. Often vendors are some of the most knowledgeable experts in their field. Their practical experience is valu-

able to the audience. And they also have the strongest motivation to deliver a good presentation because building cred- ibility is good business. Too often public sector training shuns vendors based on unfounded fears of seeming like an endorsement. I helped organize a one- day workshop on coatings P2 for the local chapter of the [American Institute of Chemical Engineers] (AIChE), and for organizations like that using vendors for some presentations is a financial necessi- ty. It is important, though, to use ven- dors whom you can trust.

From: Steve Hillenbrand Tennessee Valley Authority

If the training is very basic and elemen- tary, the in-depth understanding that vendors can bring to a training session is probably overkill. However, my training team, Process & Prevention Services (P&PS), has used vendors many times to provide credibility to in-depth P2 work- shops and have almost always been very pleased with the results. We provide the P2 philosophy and an introduction to the technology, which is a shell around the kernel of information that the ven- dors provide.

If your audience is industry person- nel, they tend to trust the knowledge of vendors and are very familiar with how to separate hype from fact. They do not tend to trust the “industrial” knowledge (read “experience”) of “government folk” or “those university people.’’

Remember that vendors are in the business to sell a product. Their offer to help provides them exposure, name recognition, and sometimes contacts. A

48 I Summer 2000 / Pollution Prevention Review Burton Hamner

few vendors do not realize that this is enough and try to sell their product also. But in my experience, these are very few. safety compliance.

Vendors are in the business of selling a product, not to get the business com- munity in regulatory or health and

From: Robert Ludwig From: Janet Clark California Department of Toxic Substances Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Control Institute

The best source of credibility for equip- ment and processes can be found from the businesses that have used the equip- ment, and not from the vendors. From my experience in the area of water- based cleaning equipment and cleaners in southern California, having a busi- ness provide a brief (5-10 minute) overview on how well or poorly a prod- uct worked for a specific process con- veyed a lot more credibility to her/his peers in the business community. When a business responds to impromptu workshop questions in the language of that business, one is apt to get a more honest answer.

Vendors rarely volunteer regulatory information and requirements related to their products, such as the testing of spent baths to determine their haz- ardous nature, permitting for on-site treatment (including water evaporators or clarifiers), and/or disposal to the sewer, hazardous waste manifesting and transportation, and the unknown toxicity of new cleaning chemicals. I have observed cases where lack of con- clusive toxicological data for various water-based cleaners has been market- ed as a safe alternative by vendors even when-<ihe cleaners contain organic compounds similar to known carcino- gens or teratogenic compounds.

The points made about positive aspects of vendor participation need to be weighed against the negatives. We have seen vendor control of information get- ting to companies. Always a preferred source, vendors are frequently interested in selling their products and services rather than offering a balanced message. Our director of the Surface Cleaning Lab, supporting aqueous cleaning to replace problematic solvents, has decried the transformation of recent conferences in her field. There is little science in what is presented at panels, only vendor sponsored messages.

At the same time, supply chain management suggests a two-way street. If companies trust vendors, are talking to vendors, do business with vendors, then perhaps the whole construct

can be encour- The points made about positive aged upscale. w e aspects of vendor participation need have found in&- to be weighed against the negatives. pendent Toxics Use Reduction Planners quite able to provide valuable content in workshops without blatant- ly marketing. The same is true of I S 0 14000 service providers. Certainly a problem is perceived favoritism from the government in providing such a platform.

The Role of Technology Vendors in Training on Cleaner Production and Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention Review I Summer 2000 / 49

I

From: Gary Kolan Santa Clara County Pollution Prevention Program

I echo Dale’s experience using vendors for presenting technical information at P2 workshops we have conducted. We have

depended heavily on pro botio partici- pation of technical experts of both

product and consultants. In developing the outline for a par-

ticular workshop, we work very closely with the technical people of the partici- pating vendors and consultants about our expectations and demands. We also always have representatives from the tar- get industry (the credible spokesperson), that have already installed some of the P2 technologies that are the subject matter of the workshop, talk about their experience with the technologies.

We have had tremendous success with

With the specific training purpose clearly defined, the task of secur- ing the desired vendor participation is simplified.

our workshops. In some cases, they were so popular that we had to turn people away at the door. Our local industry has come to trust the merit of the workshops we put on because they know our work- shops are technically- and reality-orient- ed. No “pie in the sky” claims about any particular P2 technology. This is primarily a result of the fact that we “government types” (“I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”) do not actually provide any of the technical content of the workshops. Our role is to do all the planning, resource-gathering, etc., to pull together a successful P2 workshop, draw- ing from the actual technical expertise

and experience of those who work in or provide services to the target industry.

We did have one situation where, at the last minute, one equipment vendor sent its sales rep rather than the techni- cal rep that was supposed to present on one topic at a P2 workshop we put on. The sales rep and his company wound up looking very foolish in comparison to the other presenters, all of whom were highly technically qualified. This situa- tion has never happened again.

I guess this is a long way of saying that vendors and consultants can be very effective technical presenters at P2 work- shops - particularly when coupled with representatives of firms that have already installed some of the P2 technologies that are the subject of the workshop. Our experience is that the government types can be most “helpful” by doing all the necessary planning activities to make highly credible P2 technology training available to our local industry.

In order for vendor participation to be successful in a P2 training program, it is important to very clearly identify the P2 techniques and/or specific technologies that the training program will feature during the planning phase of developing a training program. With the specific training purpose clearly defined, the task of securing the desired vendor participa- tion is simplified. It also makes it easier to make sure you get the desired technical staff from the vendors, not sales staff.

From: Terry Foecke Materials Productivity LLC

I have had to deal with this issue, and often groused about presentations that

50 / Summer 2000 I Pollution Prevention Review Burton Hamner

were “too commercial.” I have also myself been accused of talking too much about our [company] and appearing “too commercial.” Reading the responses to Burt’s question leads me to suggest that we may need a definition of “too com- mercial”: Sales staff versus technical staff giving the talk? Touting a specific solu- tion? Lack of balance at a particular gath- ering between “science,“ “what’s avail- able,” and “applied information”? All pie-in-the-sky, nothing about problems?

I hesitate to say that where a person pulls up to a desk can be used to define whether or not they will be too “com- mercial.” I also hesitate to rely too heav- ily on recommendations, since as some- one in the audience I prefer levity and a good story, and as a conference organiz- er I tend to prefer “Just get to the point!’’

One cross-cutting theme that I always appreciate from any presenter is “How To Make A Good Choice of X.” This perforce captures a problem review, an options review, and some implemen- tation guidance that can be customized. Of course, presenters will tend to put a certain emPHAsis on certain syLLAbles to make sure that their option is seen favorably ... but it’s a balancing act, right?

From: Sue Sommerfelt Iowa Waste Reduction Center

An interesting dilemma. I hope that the vendors can and will continue to partic- ipate. After “we win the war” and P2 pro- fessionals are no longer necessary, the vendors will be the information vector. Take6e New Pig Corporation, for exam- ple. They provide outstanding technical and regulatory assistance to their client.

They put regulatory summaries in their catalogs and send their client the “Pig Tech News” periodically. When all ven- dors provide this kind of information to the client as routinely as MSDSs, then truly some headway will have been made. Now, if we exclude them from giv- ing and receiving P2 training, how will we bridge the gap?

Discussion The responses above, although not unani-

mous, indicate that vendor participation in CP/P2 training can and should be an invaluable component, as long as it is properly managed. Key themes from the experiences reported include careful selec- tion of vendors, focus on technology topics rather than product lines, stories of field experience with vari- ous solutions, and effective use of resource materials such as brochures and catalogs. Also very important to note is the way that vendor participation makes it possible for underfunded CP/P2 programs to do more training and do it more effectively.

As Terry Foecke suggests, it is difficult to define what “too commercial” really means. Perhaps the best answer is “use the marketplace” - have several vendors participate. Consider the quote above regarding a sales representative who did not really know what helshe was talking about, and who performed badly in comparison to other vendor representatives who were techni- cally competent and objective. If there are sever- al vendors participating in the training, there will be a natural competition among them to appear the most professional. And that means focusing on satisfying the customer’s need for clear, rela-

Also very important to note is the way that vendor participation

makes it possible for underfunded CP/P2 programs to do more training

and do it more effectively.

The Role of Technology Vendors in Training on Cleaner Production and Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention Review / Summer 2000 / 51

tively objective information about alternatives and implementation.

Thus, one recommendation: If vendors are to be used in CP/P2 training, have at least two or three who represent significantly different tech- nology solutions to problems. That way, there will be no perception that the sponsors are favor- ing one company, and the expertise present will likely keep vendors honest about their state- ments. The lead trainers can keep the discussions focused, practical, and non-competitive.

Implications for Program Policy In my experience, the decision to exclude

vendors from training programs has sometimes been made by local representatives of sponsors who have no guidance or experience with CPP2 training and its many complex aspects. Moreover,

many training pro- grams do not specifi- cally exclude vendors; they just never consid- ered involving them.

Vendors must submit their presenta- tion materials to the program direc- tors for review.

This represents an opportunity for CP/P2 training programs that can be exploited via policy guidance from program management. It should be a specific policy of CP/P2 training programs to include vendors in the training whenever possible, subject to proper management and use of multiple vendors to avoid charges of favoritism or technology bias.

The experiences reported above provide much guidance to the actual types of policies that can be implemented. Because programs operate in such a wide variety of technical, social, and commercial environments, all such policies will need to be developed with local expertise. However, there are several themes that seem to be a consensus of experience from the CP/P2 training community:

Vendors should be selected as trainers only after careful review of their qualifications,

including recommendations from competent persons who have seen the vendors deliver training. Last-minute substitutes of personnel are not acceptable; don’t end up with a sales rep instead of an expert. Vendors must submit their presentation mate- rials to the program directors for review. Discussion of specific technologies represent- ed by vendors should clearly state both the pros and cons of the technology in compari- son to other potential solutions, including those of other vendors. The vendor’s talk must focus on the CP/P2 subject matter, not product lines. Ensure that there is sufficient technical back- ground material for participants, including items such as brochures and directories of suppliers. Don’t be too suspicious of vendors. They know that if they do a poor job, they will not get invited back-and they will also not impress many potential customers.

Training in CP/P2 Technology Transfer Networks

The use of local vendors gives CPP2 training participants access to a local network for tech- nology transfer. But there are also national, regional, and international technology transfer networks available to participants, and it is important that participants learn how to use them. Many of these resources are accessible via the Internet, and thus can be reached from almost any country.

For example, the current edition of Green Pages (http://eco-web.com) features 4,215 leading suppliers and environmental organizations from 94 countries. If a CP/P2 training is being held in Argentina, there are 14 listings for that country in the Green Pages database. This is information that training participants can use right away, but most people are not aware of such resources. Trainers

Burton Hamner

I !

should have printed copies of such listings avail- able for participants, as well as lists of useful Internet websites.

There are also resources for case studies, tech- nology verification, financing, and import assis- tance - in fact, all the things a company must do to actually get a CP/P2 technology solution in place. Training programs should maintain a directory of local and national technology assis- tance and sourcing organizations, and include specific modules for participants about how to find and use these sources. Such modules do not have to be extensive, but they do need to priori- tize the resources for the participants.

Working with a Local ISP An ineresting way to conduct resources train-

ing is with the help of a local Internet Service Provider (ISP). In return for the marketing expo- sure, the ISP can provide the computer hardware, projectors, and network connections needed to do a live Internet demonstration of CP/P2 tech- nical resources.

I used this approach in Indonesia in a CP/P2 workshop for the pulp and paper industry. The

Internet demonstration covered relevant industry websites, major CP/P2 websites and how to use them, and email and newsgroups for sharing questions and answers. The local ISP provided all the systems at no cost, and apparently gained a '

number of new customers as a result of his demonstration. The advantages of this approach for small training programs with limited time and budget are obvious.

Summary There appears to be a consensus among many

CP/P2 trainers that vendors should be involved in training, following practical guidelines. Now there is a serious need for program managers to institutionalize policies that encourage and guide the use of vendors in training.

This is a critical issue for program sustainabil- ity and long-term effectiveness. Vendors should not be excluded from participation because local workshop sponsors have unfounded fears about "commercialization" of the CP/P2 message. Specific policy guidance can alleviate these fears and ensure that participants end their training knowing who to call for what problem.

Burton Hamner is president of Hamner Associates, LLC, in Seattle. He can be reached by email at bhamner@home.com.

The Role of Technology Vendors in Training on Cleaner Production and Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention Review I Summer 2000 / 53