Environmental Management System Development Process (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

24 The survey queried the 12 airports that have developed and implemented EMS about lessons learned concerning: • EMS responsibilities and support, • EMS benefits, • barriers in EMS implementation, • greatest successes, • what airports would do differently, and • future plans. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RESPONSIBILITIES The majority (eight) of the 12 airports that have implemented EMS characterize the current status of their programs as being mostly the responsibility of the environmental person- nel, although only four of these report that most EMS activi- ties and responsibilities are assigned to the environmental department. Four airports report that broad responsibility for their EMS is spread across environmental, maintenance, and operations. The two airports that did not have the environmental staff lead the development and implementation of the EMS iden- tify themselves within this latter group. MANAGEMENT SUPPORT The 12 airports that have implemented EMS were asked to characterize their current view of management support (see Figure 17). Three reported that management support is fully supportive and resources are easily available; two of these are ISO 14001 certified airports. Seven of the 12 airports characterized management as somewhat involved and reported competition for resources. Two of the airports characterize management as indiffer- ent and resources difficult to obtain. As the EMS average age is 7.5 years, it is not clear based on this survey whether management was fully supportive and resources easily avail- able at the time of implementation of the EMS. Interest- ingly, the degree of management support did not correlate with the number of significant benefits credited to the EMS (see Figure 18). ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BENEFITS The airports with EMS were asked to rate various benefits they have obtained from their EMS. Seven reported that they had obtained all of the potential benefits about which they were asked. They reported either moderate or significant gain, as shown in Figure 18. Airports ranked improved environmental performance highest, with all airports reporting moderate or significant improvements. Similarly, all airports reported experiencing improved integration of environmental responsibilities into line operations. With the exception of one airport in each cate- gory, there was moderate or significant benefit from improved employee understanding of environmental issues (includ- ing sustainability) and responsibilities, improved efficiency, improved compliance and regulator relationships, improved internal processes, greater management confidence, recog- nition of leadership within the industry, cost reduction, and environmental risk reduction. Two airports reported no improved relationship with the public and other stakeholders. Five airports did not see an improvement in tenant relationships. Of those five airports, four had rated improved tenant relationships as at least some- what important as a driver for developing an EMS. (It should be noted that the airports reporting no benefit were not the same airport in each case.) The cost savings issue was interesting. Most airports did indicate that they had modest gains in this area, and two air- ports reported significant cost reductions. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION Airports were asked to identify barriers to implementing their EMS. The airports ranked a set of potential barriers (Figure 19) and responded to open-ended questions about the greatest barrier to effective implementation and solutions. When asked to evaluate barriers to implementation they had encountered, a majority of the airports agreed that all of the barriers had some degree of relevance to their experience. All 12 airports that implemented EMS identified competing priorities as a barrier to implementation; all but two pointed chapter six LESSONS LEARNED

25 to insufficient staff. Line management resistance was cited as a barrier by all but one of the airports. Limited awareness of the EMS and lack of top management support were of com- parable relevance, based on their weighted rankings. Union or staff resistance was the least relevant; five of the 12 airports indicated that this was not at all relevant in their experience. The survey requested that each airport identify its great- est barriers to effective implementation and if they were overcome, how. In all but four cases, the airports identified barriers without providing a solution, indicating the barrier may be an ongoing issue. The greatest barriers included com- munication between all lines of the business, lack of manage- ment support and staff indifference, inadequate resources, initial resistance, inconsistent use of the EMS among depart- ments, and a problem of integrating the EMS into a new soft- ware structure. One airport reported overcoming inconsistent initial sup- port from involved county departments and contractors with persistence and increasing evidence over time of the value of the EMS. Similarly, a second airport reported initial resis- tance to change from the rank and file, which was overcome once they understood the benefits to the work environment. Employees then became “the main driving force (the EMS champions).” One airport identified communication with staff and busi- ness partners as a barrier, and reported overcoming this by per- forming regular visits and audits and providing compliance assistance which contributed to relationship-building. Another reported a barrier associated with inadequate resources and 3 7 2 Management fully supportive Management somewhat involved and competition for resources Management indifferent and resources difficult to obtain FIGURE 17 Management support. FIGURE 18 Benefits of EMS.

26 Case Study: Portland International Airport Cost Savings The Port of Portland initiated its environmental manage- ment system in 2000, with the approval of its environmen- tal policy by the Port Commission. The Port strives for an ISO 14001-conforming EMS implemented across port-wide operations including Portland International Airport (PDX), although formal certification to the standard has not yet been pursued. The following are a few examples of cost savings achieved through the Port’s environmental programs, established to support implementation of its EMS: Energy Management Program. The objectives of the Port’s energy management program are a reduction in energy consumption and the purchase of renewable energy. For several years the Port has set a goal to reduce organization- wide energy consumption by at least 500,000 kilowatt hours each year. In FY2010-11, the Port targeted and completed lighting retrofit projects resulting in a savings of 401,200 kilowatt hours annually as well as a financial savings of about $20,000. To achieve the additional almost 100,000 kilowatt hour reduction for the year, the Port focused on incorporat- ing energy-saving technology into the design and construc- tion of the airport’s new inline baggage screening system. The project used premium energy-efficient electric motors and qualified for funding from the Energy Trust of Oregon rebate program. Waste Minimization Program. The objective of the Port’s waste minimization program is to reduce waste generation and hazardous materials use. Over the years the program has been successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills and improving recycling rates. In FY2011-12, the Port estimates that recycling activities at PDX resulted in a cost savings of $94,000, a combination of reduced hauls to the landfill and tip fees as well as recycling rebates. Water Resources Program. The Port’s water resources program aims to minimize impacts on water resources. In FY2011-12, the Port set an environmental target to involve PDX rental car companies in improving infrastructure and establishing a maintenance program for the rental companies’ car wash facility, one of the Port’s largest water users. The Port partnered with the rental car companies to implement water conservation measures that would achieve a minimum 20% reduction in water use per vehicle. The Port sought conserva- tion recommendations for infrastructure and maintenance program improvements from the rental car agencies and included these in its new contracts. The program will result in an estimated cost savings of $145,000 from reduced water use and sewage bills for the rental car consortium over the term of the five-year contract. The Port will monitor the performance of these improvements to verify their effectiveness. For a summary of Port of Portland’s environmental per- formance results for FY2011-12, objectives and targets for FY2012-13, and highlights on environmental programs and projects, please visit www.portofportland.com. In addition, the Port’s recent move of its headquarters to a LEED™ Platinum office space above the long-term parking garage at PDX offered an opportunity to set a two-year target to become a zero-waste workplace. During the first year of the effort, outreach signage and a durable cup awareness and promotion campaign contributed to an increase in the landfill diversion rate from 76% to 82%. Now, in the second year of the effort, the Port continues to work towards its goal to become a zero waste office building, which requires a 90% or greater rate of waste diversion from landfills. 4 3 1 1 2 5 4 5 5 6 4 5 4 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 3 1 3 4 1 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Lack of top management support Insufficient resources Awareness of the EMS Linemanagement resistance Insufficient staff Union or staff resistance Competing priorities Not relevant Somewhat relevant Relevant Very Relevant FIGURE 19 Barriers to implementation.

27 competing priorities by assigning a dedicated point person to manage the overall program. SUCCESSES The airports were asked the open-ended question, “What has been your greatest success?” Some of the responses refer to the successful completion of the project itself. Responses included: • design and installation of the EMS; • successful recertification of ISO 14001 (two airports); and • survival of the EMS, the institutionalization of the EMS within all involved county departments, the resulting improved environmental performance, improved cred- ibility with regulators, environmental organizations, and the concerned public. Many referred to the integration of the system into the organization. Responses included: • Rank and file employees’ awareness of environmental impacts; • The ability to turn around the rank and file and the per- ceptions concerning the EMS, as well as the integration of the EMS through the intranet; • Using the “EMS Working Group” to improve awareness of issues and identify risks to help prioritize actions; • Distributing environmental responsibilities through- out the organization and adopting other management systems throughout the airport; • Organized response to emergency situations; and • Environmental awareness programs, public outreach efforts, and pollution prevention initiatives. One airport cited its recognition for environmental leader- ship and one pointed to its email alerts when tasks are com- ing due. IMPROVEMENTS The 12 airports were asked the open-ended question, “What would you do differently?” Four airports responded that they would not do anything differently. One airport indicated that it would scale back the EM or not implement it. Other airports responded: • Provide a more accessible/flexible database system, better integrated with GIS mapping. • Build more shared responsibility (beyond environmental staff) into the system. • Have a better understanding of the requirements for the ISO 14001 EMS responsibilities. • Have a dedicated point person/program manager. • Make [the EMS] more of a priority and infuse it into the culture of the airport by getting departments more involved. • Update the different parts of the EMS for the ones used and to make more sense of the information that they are inputting. FUTURE PLANS The final question of the survey asked, “How do you hope to improve your EMS over the next five years?” The airports responded: • Beyond compliance, push sustainability concepts (build sustainability into the way of doing business). • Bring more people into the process and make it more a part of regular operations. • Continually improve key components of the EMS. • Continue to add additional facilities. • Include tenants and contractors with the airport’s EMS and its processes. • Make it user-friendly. • Have more staff use it. • As part of the airport’s ISO certification, require the pur- suit of continual improvement in operations. • Keep it going; keep it relevant. • Provide more resources and management involvement. • Incorporate software into the program to provide database to track management of various airport projects and envi- ronmental aspects. System shall also provide database to track goals, environmental assessments, and training. • Have better integration of environmental data into man- agement decisions to enhance performance further and save money, and improved competency and awareness training.