# Presentation: 001889

## The Scorecard

- EMS focus

## Review - Where is the Federal Government?

- First scorecard was 2002 – agency focused
- 2005 still agency data
- 2378 “appropriate facilities”
- 967 or 41% had self declared conformance to EO 13148
- 142 or 6% had declared based on 2nd or 3rd  party review of the EMS

## 2005 EMS Data

## 2006 Report Questions

- First year to gather data at the facility level – assumed that the agency had done all it could
- Progress on implementation - scored
- Impact of EMS on Facility (Programmatic)
- Impact of EMS on Environmental Issues
- Barriers, Successes, Best Practices, Benefit to Mission

## Aspects

- ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS.
- A.	Significant environmental aspects were not identified during this reporting period or previously.
- B.	Significant environmental aspects were identified during this reporting period or previously; an established procedure was not used for this process.
- C.	An established procedure was used to identify significant environmental aspects during this reporting period or previously; however, previously identified significant environmental aspects were not reevaluated during this period.
- D.	Environmental aspects identified in a previous year were reevaluated during this reporting period using an established procedure and updated (added/deleted/modified) as appropriate.

## GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND TARGETS

- GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND TARGETS.
- A.	Measurable environmental goals, objectives, and targets were not identified, reviewed, and updated as appropriate during this reporting period.
- B.	Measurable environmental goals, objectives, and targets were identified, reviewed, and updated as appropriate; 0-49% of targets were on schedule during this reporting period.
- C.	Measurable environmental goals, objectives, and targets were identified, reviewed, and updated as appropriate; 50-79% of targets were on schedule during this reporting period.
- D.	Measurable environmental goals, objectives, and targets were identified, reviewed, and updated as appropriate; 80-100% of targets were on schedule during this reporting period.

## OPERATIONAL CONTROLS

- OPERATIONAL CONTROLS.
- A.	Documented operational controls to address significant aspects consistent with goals, objectives, and targets were not established during this reporting period or previously.
- B.  Documented operational controls to address significant aspects consistent with goals, objectives, and targets were established during this reporting period or previously and have been partially implemented
- C.	Documented operational controls to address significant aspects consistent with goals, objectives, and targets were established during this reporting period or previously and are fully implemented.
- D.	During this reporting period, previously documented operational controls to address significant aspects consistent with goals, objectives, and targets were fully implemented; in addition, they were reviewed during the year, and/or updated (i.e. supplemented, revised, deleted) as appropriate.

## ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING

- ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING.  [Note: These metrics pertain to competence training for those whose tasks have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts]
- A.	Training requirements to ensure individual competence and responsibility were not been identified during this reporting period or previously.
- B.	Training requirements to ensure individual competence and responsibility were identified during this reporting period or previously but training was not available and/or carried out.
- C.	Training requirements to ensure individual competence and responsibility were identified during this reporting period or previously and training was available and carried out, and recorded during this reporting period.
- D.	Training procedures were established to ensure that training requirements for individual competence and responsibility were identified; training was available and carried out during this reporting period; training is recorded and tracked; and training requirements are monitored, revised, and refresher training provided, as appropriate, to maintain competence.

## CONTRACTS

- CONTRACTS.  [Note: An appropriate contract is one whose actions may have potential impact on the environmental aspects identified by the applicable EMS.  Appropriate contracts may include legal arrangements with concessionaires.]
- A.	Facility has not carried out a process to identify appropriate contracts in which to include EMS requirements.
- B.	Facility has carried out a process to identify appropriate contracts, but has not modified appropriate contracts to include EMS requirements.
- C.	All new and renewed appropriate contracts were in the process of including EMS requirements during this reporting period; contractors were required to fulfill defined roles and specified responsibilities.
- D.	EMS requirements were included in all appropriate contracts and contractors fulfilled defined roles and specified responsibilities during this reporting period.

## EMS AUDIT/EVALUATION PROCEDURES

- EMS AUDIT/EVALUATION PROCEDURES.
- A.	EMS audit/evaluation procedures were not established during this reporting period or previously.
- B.	EMS audit/evaluation procedures were established during this reporting period or previously but no audit was conducted during this reporting period.
- C.	EMS audit/evaluation procedures were established during this reporting period or previously; an audit was conducted during this reporting period; nonconformities are not yet being addressed or corrected.
- D.	EMS audit/evaluation procedures were established during this reporting period or previously and an audit was conducted during this reporting period; nonconformities are being were addressed or corrected.

## MANAGEMENT REVIEW

- MANAGEMENT REVIEW.
- A.	Senior leadership review of the EMS was neither planned/scheduled nor conducted during this reporting period.
- B.  Senior leadership review of the EMS was planned/scheduled, but was not conducted during this reporting period
- C.	Senior leadership review of the EMS was conducted during the current reporting period:  recommendations for continual improvement were not addressed by top management during this reporting period.
- D.	Senior leadership review of the EMS was conducted during this reporting period and top management responded to recommendations for continual improvement.

## BENEFIT OF EMS ON THE FACILITY 

- Reduced risk to facility mission
- Improved fiscal efficiency or cost avoidance
- Greater understanding of environmental issues at all levels of the organization.
- Greater empowerment of individuals to contribute to improving the organization’s environmental footprint
- Greater integration of environment into organizational culture or operations
- Greater integration of environment into real property asset management
- Improved community relations
- Improved effectiveness in overall mission
- Improved cooperative conservation with other groups

## ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

- Improved overall compliance management
- Improved overall personnel health and safety
- Improved overall pollution prevention
- Improved water quality
- Improved air quality
- Improved hazardous material management
- Improved hazardous waste management
- Improved solid waste management
- Improved conservation of natural resources
- Improved conservation of energy in facilities
- Improved conservation of fuel in vehicles
- Improved conservation of water
- Reduced number of permits needed to operate

## ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXPERIENCES 

- EMS BENEFITS/SUCCESSES
- EMS BEST PRACTICES/LESSONS LEARNED
- EMS CHALLENGES:
- EMS BENEFITS TO AGENCY MISSION

## What will be done with the data?

- Implementation progress will identify areas for improvement or where help is needed
- Benefits to facility responses will provide evidence of programmatic effects
- Benefits to environment responses will identify how well EMS is working at addressing environmental issues
- Challenges, successes and best practices will inform decision makers of necessary assistance and provide information to assist others in implementation

## 2006 status report

- Based on 7 EMS metrics developed by interagency group
- Metrics reflect elements of EMS framework
- Each appropriate facility responds to metrics
- Facility implementation reflects agency progress
- Facility scores reflects progress towards fully implemented EMS elements
- A= “inactive” to  D= “deployed”
- Agency scores reflect combined facility scores

## Facility-Level Rating

- At Least 4 C’s (or D’s)
- No More than 1 A

- Neither Green nor Yellow

- For Green, a Facility Needs:

- For Yellow, a Facility Needs:

- For Red, a Facility is:

**Constant From 2006-2008**

## Department-Level Rating

- At Least 70% of Facilities are Green
- No More than 5% of Facilities are Red

- No More than 20% of Facilities are Red

- Neither Green nor Yellow

- G

- Y

- R

- At Least 75% of Facilities are Green
- No More than 5% of Facilities are Red

- No More than 15% of Facilities are Red

- Neither Green nor Yellow

- G

- Y

- R

- At Least 80% of Facilities are Green
- No More than 5% of Facilities are Red

- No More than 10% of Facilities are Red

- Neither Green nor Yellow

- G

- Y

- R

**2006**

**2007**

**2008**

**A Sliding Scale – More Stringent Each Year**

## 2006 Agency EMS scores

- Seven REDS
- Seven YELLOWS
- Three Greens

## Challenges

- New EMSs at something other than facility level
- Conformance - updating EMSs to the new standard
- Adequate ability across Federal community for 2nd party review
- Ability to track progress for all facilities and organizations – for EMS and other practices

## THANKS !

- Will Garvey
- 202-564-2458
- _[Garvey.will@epa.gov](mailto:Garvey.will@epa.gov)_