Ms. Graves was asked to address the following questions in her comments (View her slide presentation):
|
I was asked to reflect here today upon some of our experiences in North Carolina dealing with Environmental Management Systems.
There have been a couple of voluntary agreements that have been signed in North Carolina between the Attorney General's office, and two pork producers, Smithfield Foods, Inc. and Premium Standard Farms, Inc. These agreements were signed in the summer and fall of 2000. The agreements include commitments to investigate environmentally superior technologies and to support "environmental enhancement activity" funding. These funds will be used to enhance the environment of the State, to obtain environmental easements, to construct or maintain wetlands and such other environmental purposes as the Attorney General deems appropriate. Portions of the funds, not to exceed a total of $2 million dollars, may also be designated as grants to the State to defray the costs incurred by the State as a result of this Agreement, including permitting and compliance assurance. Smithfield Foods has a division, Carroll's, which had been working on an environmental management system for some time. The agreements were a proactive approach, I think, for agriculture, which is really not an area that has seen much activity with EMSs. It was certainly something in North Carolina that really got people's attention, and got people thinking about agriculture and EMSs.
There were five main elements of those agreements. I want to share those with you because I think that's an important piece of this. One was to identify company-owned buildings and lagoons located in the 100-year flood plain and propose measures to protect the waters of the state from the effects of flooding. The second was to identify company-owned facilities that have the potential to adversely impact water quality due to deficient site conditions or operational practices, and propose measures to correct the deficiencies or operating practices. Three is to identify wetlands and natural areas on company-owned facilities that protect water quality, and propose measures to protect such areas, including conservation easements for such areas. Four, to identify all abandoned lagoons on company-owned facilities and propose measures for closure of these lagoons. The final element was to implement an ISO 14001 EMS on company-owned farms. This last step was achieved by the Carroll's division of Smithfield Foods in March of this year (other Smithfield divisions are on track to certify by the end of 2001). In regards to an EMS, I think they are a leader. To my knowledge, this was the first livestock EMS certified to 14001 in the United States, and perhaps in the world, although that's more difficult to track.
Obviously DENR [Department of Environment and Natural Resources] had been working with agricultural operations for a while, but DENR has now developed a two-year livestock plan. It's got two overriding elements in it: to identify and begin the implementation of an environmentally superior animal manure management technology, which again is part of the Smithfield and Premium Standards agreements. Also, in the interim, it aims to improve management of existing animal manure management systems through monitoring, technical assistance and focused compliance inspections. Similar to the agreement with the Attorney General's office, ours is a multi-pronged approach, and EMSs are one element.
It's important to note that DENR, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, is a large agency. We have lots of different divisions. I represent the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance [DPPEA], which is a non-regulatory agency. We're fairly small within DENR and we do a lot of technical assistance. We have not typically worked within the agriculture arena. Our expertise and background have been primarily working with industry, more manufacturing-based, as well as with local government entities, cities and counties. Agriculture is a new arena for us, something we're excited about. Something, I think, that is also important, is that we see our role as facilitator, bringing different parties together in the discussion of EMSs.
There are some federal initiatives that are coming down that have been talked about already. In North Carolina, we're under the gun, on a slightly shorter time frame, as far as looking at NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permitting. And this is going to be a significant resource issue for us. My understanding is, as far as agricultural business goes in North Carolina, we're number one in turkey production, we're number two in pork production, and we're number three in chicken production in the country. We've got a lot of animals in our state. Our agency needs to interact with all those facilities; that's a lot of work.
Regarding EMS and pork producers, there was a question this morning specifically to Gary, asking about the work that he was doing and where does swine fit in his project. At the time his proposal was developed, there was work being done by Allan Stoke's group [America's Clean Water Foundation]. In North Carolina, we felt like this might be an area where we could play a role. Given the work that Smithfield was already doing and what Premium Standard was doing, there were some efforts we could build upon. Plus we had a lot of people to choose from in North Carolina that we could potentially work with as partners. Our office, DPPEA, in cooperation with North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service proposed a 2-year EMS and Pork Producer project. Jim Horne's group, the Office of Water, funded that, and we're very appreciative for that, because I do think it's important, as was said earlier by Krysta Harden, to be able to dedicate resources to this effort.
We've got two deliverables that we want to have at the end of our two-year period. For the first, in year one, we'd like to work with up to seven pilot farms in the development and implementation of an EMS. The EMS would be based on ISO 14001. That's certainly the model that most people have looked at. But I think one thing that's important for us, and I think for other people who have already begun work with agricultural systems, is the question, "Is 14001 going to be a good model when you look at different types of systems where it would be implemented? Is a two or three person operation going to be the type that needs a full 14001 implementation program?" The basic premise of any EMS is the plan-do-check-act model, which Gary Jackson talked about this morning in his presentation, and that's going to be the foundation we build on. But we also want to make sure that it is something that people are interested in implementing and can do. So that's something that we're going to look at.
In year two, we're going to be developing design tools, specific to pork producers, that are part of an environmental management system. I think an important element is we have a swine advisory committee that we're going to rely upon to provide feedback to us as well as the pilot farms. Different parties are represented on that. We have folks from within DENR, and not just my agency, but the Division of Water Quality which is our regulatory body, and Soil & Water Conservation which is a non-regulatory, technical assistance agency that is already working with that sector quite a bit. We have our North Carolina Department of Agriculture, as well as DENR. We have not always worked closely together, so I think that's a great opportunity. We've got Cooperative Extension who is going to be part of that, and not just the folks out of Raleigh, which is the capital of North Carolina, but also the folks who are out working in the counties. We also have, on the producer side, both company-owned representatives, as well as contract growers. There's a large number of contract growers. It's important, I think, to get different viewpoints. Independents are another group we need to work with. And then NGOs, Non-Governmental Organizations. These are all folks that we need to be talking to, and they're part of this advisory committee that we're looking to, to provide input to us.
I was asked to provide some thoughts on agricultural EMS from a State Agency perspective. There are a couple of things I want to talk about. Our involvement with EMSs began with a pilot program back in 1997, again with a grant from Jim Horne's group at the Office of Water, to work with facilities that are implementing an EMS. In North Carolina, we've got several industries involved. We have a Department of Defense facility, a marine corps base, and we have two local governments that are implementing an EMS, all except for one using the 14001 model. We are collecting information from them that is going into a national database which is housed at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And we're one of nine states that are providing data to that database. I think that's an important part of what we're looking at because there's a lot of anecdotal information -- my experiences, and many other people's experiences about what we think the potential benefits of EMSs are. This database is an effort to look at quantitative benefits. What really are the benefits to environmental performance? What happens with costs and benefits? What happens with environmental compliance? That information is going into this database, which is publicly available. [To access information from the National Database on EMS, go to http://www.eli.org/isopilots.htm.]
The second item on my list to talk about is a DENR EMS Policy Statement adopted in 1999. We talk a lot about a policy needing to come from top management. Within my agency in DENR, we had our Secretary, our highest, top-management person, sign a policy statement talking about EMSs. It's still in force today, although it was signed two Secretaries ago. Basically, it is a fairly simple thing that says that we support EMSs, we think they are a good idea, and we encourage our customers - the people we interact with - to look at implementing an EMS; and it says that we're going to provide education not only to folks that we work with - to our customers, people that are permit holders - but we're also going to educate ourselves about them. Which means that we need to talk with regulatory and non-regulatory agencies within our state. We need to talk to people within Raleigh, and outside of Raleigh. We have seven regional offices and that's kind of a barrier in our state, as people always talk about everything happening in Raleigh, and they're not talking to people out in the field, and that's something important that we need to do. One of the goals of the pilot program, recognized within the policy statement, is that DENR is also interested in working smarter. We've got plenty of things on our plate, and there are new things that are coming down the pipe, but we're not getting new resources from the North Carolina legislature. So we need to figure out a way to work smarter. That means we need to use our resources better, and we need to find out if EMS is a tool that can lead us to help do that.
The third item I have here is North Carolina Environmental Excellence legislation discussion and other state EMS policy initiatives. Within my state, in 1999, our legislature was approached with draft legislation that looked at offering regulatory flexibility for improved environmental performance. There was discussion about having EMSs be part of that linkage, of providing regulatory benefits or incentives to folks who have an EMS. Those discussions continued for 2 years. There was not legislation enacted, but it certainly has brought a lot of people to the table in thinking about what might happen in this arena. A number of states, for example Oregon, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Arizona, have adopted policies that in some way have EMSs and either recognition or incentives tied to those. I think that's important as far as looking at where we're going down the road and how EMSs might fit into a bigger, broader picture.
One of the things it did for us was help us increase our contact with, NGOs, Non-Governmental Organizations. They're certainly a part of DENR's customer base, the folks who we serve. For purposes of illustration, there are two reports on or from NGOs I brought with me. One is a study done by the Pacific Institute, which is based in Oakland, California. It's called Managing a Better Environment: Opportunities and Obstacles for ISO 14001 in Public Policy, and Commerce. The second came out of a 1999 focus group we did with North Carolina NGO environmental organizations, which is entitled Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations and Environmental Management System: North Carolina Groups Share Their Views. I think that what's important about this is getting to the issue of how we could move forward with EMSs as part of the bigger scheme, and what people's concerns are. That's not limited to NGOs. There are different parties at the table. State regulators are not a homogenous group - we do not all think alike. Different programs have different views about what they find important or what they're knowledgeable about. NGOs are the same, likewise all our customers. Education and discussion among all these parties is very important, and recognizing where concerns are is part of that. That's what this work group is all about both this afternoon and tomorrow.
The final element of the EMS landscape in North Carolina that I want to talk about is EPA Performance Track - 2000. This is an initiative that was launched last summer. They had their first round of folks that were a part of that program, I guess in December or so of last year. It's a program on a federal level that, somewhat similar to state initiatives, looks at offering recognition to folks having an environmental management system consistent with the program description. Again, it's built on the premises of 14001. It has some add-ons to it. Performance Track was conceived to have two tracks. The first level was an Achievement Track, which has been unveiled and is out there. The second level is a Stewardship Track, which has not been unveiled and is still in development. It would again look at offering increased benefits for environmental management systems and improved environmental performance.
I guess that would get at my last point I was asked to speak about: Why do we care about environmental management systems? One of the things that I think is important to us, what I hear a lot of people talk about is, "Why do you want me to do an EMS? We're already doing a lot of pollution prevention work. We have won the Governor's award for Excellence in Waste Reduction. Why should this program apply to us?" Or other people will say, "This organization has a lot of compliance issues, they have too much stuff to focus on already, why should they be doing it?" From our perspective, an EMS is a system, it is a model, it is something that can be put in place to help an organization improve no matter where it starts. No matter where you come in, the idea is that you're going to get better. That's important to us, the continual improvement thing. Some states require pollution prevention planning by their industries. One of the things that has been learned about that is, those plans are developed, they're written, they're stuck on a shelf. What we like about EMSs is they're something that happen every day and that people continue to use.
A piece of the EMS that has not been talked about as much today, but again, is something that we feel is valuable is what I call CARs and PARs. Who can tell me what a CAR is? And I mean the acronym CAR, not a car car. Maybe this is something that you'll learn before you leave today. CARs are Corrective Action Reports. Given that hint, what might a PAR be? Preventive Action Report, great. So CARs and PARs are something that are very important to us. If problems are identified, there are not only corrective action plans that are identified, but also preventive actions that are taken. It's not only a response to things when they fail, but there is forward thinking, proactive approaches to looking at improved environmental performance. What we're looking for is that there are responsible parties assigned and there is accountability. No organization is going to be 100% compliant, 100% of the time, but what we are interested in is how does the organization return to compliance? How was the root cause analysis done to help prevent that compliance problem in the future?
Improved communication is another important element of the EMS. For some of the organizations that we worked with in our pilot program and other vehicles, communication is the big thing that they point to as far as benefits they see. That's not only within the organization, but outside the organization as well.
Two last points I want to hit on. Today several speakers have said things that I've related to some of the other work I've done with EMSs that was not agriculture based. One was talking about practical problem solving. Ford Motor Company implemented an EMS throughout 140 manufacturing facilities worldwide and then surveyed their environmental managers to see what were some of the benefits they thought they saw. And improved problem resolution is what they said. So it's not that an EMS, no matter if it's an agricultural setting or a manufacturing setting, is going to see that different of a result. It's the system that's making an impact there.
Finally, a speaker made this point earlier today, talking about results based systems. When I've worked with organizations on EMSs, we're talking about them as performance based, outcome based. We're not describing how we got from A to B, but what B is going to look like.
So with that, I'll turn it back over. Thank you very much.
Question: An EMS is a continual improvement process, whereas a permit is either you're in compliance or you're not in compliance. Could you talk about how you bring these two things together? How would you satisfy the two different expectations or documentation?
Beth Graves: Jim Horne commented this morning about regulated vs. non-regulated waste, and he used the example of a pizza. There's a slice of the pizza that's regulated. And there's a lot of that pizza that's not regulated. Your EMS is meant to be looking at a broad approach. You usually have a water permit, an air permit, or whatever. An EMS is meant to look at the whole picture, and how the organization chooses to improve its overall environmental performance. Certainly if there are difficulties with compliance in a certain area, that would be a more short-range priority for improvement than something else perhaps.
DENR Two-Year Livestock Action Plan
DPPEA EMS web site
Beth Graves, EMS Project Coordinator
800-763-0136 or (919) 715-6506
Beth.Graves@ncmail.net
