Talk:Chem395:February 8 discussion

This is the location for the first meeting of the Environmental Committee of Acme Chemical Company as part of the Chemistry 395 role playing scenario.

Date and time

Based on the times shown below, I'd suggest we meet at 2:00-3:00pm on Wednesday.

We won't be able to meet at the regular time, so we'll have to meet early next week. Please post your best times below (click "edit" and then it's pretty easy).

Available times to meet

Day	User:Walkerma	User:J-Fed	User:Murphy44
Monday Feb 11	11:30-2:30, 9:00pm-11:00pm	3:00-6:00 pm	8:00-10:00am, 10:30pm-12:00
Tuesday Feb 12	12:30-5:00	2:00-4:30 pm	8:00-10:00(pm)
Wednesday Feb 13	11:30-3:30	2:00 - 6:00 pm	2:00pm-Whenever

Agenda

At the start, I will ask Jesse to make the case for the environment (Items 1-3). Assuming he can convince us that this effort is worthwhile, we will move onto discussing what specific things we can do at Acme to address environmental issues - Chris and Joe will (hopefully) a lot to say on that.

Jesse will respond to the first three, in the first 10-15 minutes:

1. Should we even be addressing environmental issues and sustainability here at Acme, beyond our legal obligations (EPA, OSHA)? On the one hand we have the moral case that "it is the right thing to do," but if we go bankrupt in the process it's not a good thing.
2. (Related) Our core mission is to make chemicals - how do environmental issues fit in with that?
3. (Related) In general terms, how can we make the company more "sustainable?"

Then I'll open things up for all of us to chime in, on specific ways to make the company more sustainable and environmentally responsible:

1. What specific things can we do in our general ways of organization and working?
2. What specific things can we do in our plant machinery?
3. What specific things can we do in our chemical processes?
4. What specific things can we do in our sales and marketing?
5. Should we go for ISO 14000 certification?

Discussion

Hello everyone! Thanks for coming to the first meeting of the environmental committee here at Acme. Are you all here? Walkerma 14:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Just testing to make sure that this works! J-Fed 14:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Reading you loud and clear JF Murphy44 14:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Great! I'd like to start out by asking - should we even be doing this? Walkerma 14:04, 13 February 2008 (EST) Is it even worth us investing good money just to be "green"? Walkerma 14:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, I feel that as long as the best interests of the company are at the forefront of any changes this is a very reasonable consideration. Murphy44 14:09, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Jesse, you've been pushing us to do this for some time. Can you spell out exactly why we should, so we all know why we're here at this meeting? Walkerma 14:08, 13 February 2008 (EST)

I believe it is important for us to be doing this, particularly for the environment. We have more to do beyond the scope of basic legal and moral obligations. it is definately worth investing in "green" processes in the long run because it will boost our efficiency and productivity and generate more profit. J-Fed 14:12, 13 February 2008 (EST)

We need to move past the basic moral and legal grounds to help the environment and ourselves in the process. If the environment disappears, so do the people who live in it. If we do not have customers, well there won't even be a need for production. J-Fed 14:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Does this mean pushing the ACME into the red for a number of quarters? Murphy44

In other words, are we going to be losing profits for a time? Murphy44 14:15, 13 February 2008 (EST)

For a time yes. All types of new processes have some cost-benefit ratio.

Sorry I'm late guys, we had a methanol spillage on the plant. I'll pick things up as we go along. Joe Smith 14:17, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• This is not a long run loss though. During that time we can change certain thigns that go on in the company. For instance: Green accounting and supply management. J-Fed 14:17, 13 February 2008 (EST)

If Acme lifts constraints and pools talents by cooperating with other companies to focus on innovation we can do much more for the environment and make it look good for the companyJ-Fed 14:18, 13 February 2008 (EST)

So, Jesse, are you saying we can be green and make money? How can we manage to do that successfully? Walkerma 14:18, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Further more, can we do this without a loss of productivity? Murphy44 14:21, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• Yes we can be both green and make money. We can deliver better product performance while using ewer materials so that less waste is produced and certain risks are less (particularly our workers). We can even save money by using the waste heat generated from our temperature processes to meet the demand for low temperature heat. J-Fed 14:21, 13 February 2008 (EST)

What type of process are we using in the facility? Is it batch or continuous? J-Fed 14:22, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• there needs to be a focus on innovation. ACME needs to ruse resources where possible and re-manufacture or recycle wastes. These would even create new jobs in our company and boost our levels of production. J-Fed 14:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

I like the sounds of that, more production means greater profitsMurphy44 14:27, 13 February 2008 (EST)

This will mean an initial cost for more equipment, but your saying we can make more but using what we now throw away? Murphy44 14:29, 13 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sure Joe would agree with me on this. The use of other chemicals that are not as hazardous as the ones we currently use could minimize the damage done to our workers. I don't think a personal injury case would look good in the papers compared to using "green processes" in our facility. J-Fed 14:28, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Look after the workers? Amen to that! The HCl coming off V327 these days is awful, fix that and all the guys will be happy! That reactor runs a batch process, like nearly all of our reactors. Joe Smith 14:28, 13 February 2008 (EST)

A happy worker is a more productive worker, I like that as well. Murphy44 14:30, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Most definitely! Improved maintenance schedules, record keeping and even procedures can make ACME a forefront in the the industry. Operating practices should be changed and the certification we are moving towards is a fantastic step to that! J-Fed 14:30, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Well, I want to believe that we can do it. If we can make money AND look good in the community (and with customers) I'll be very pleased. The EPA keep adding regulations anyway, it might be nice to be one step ahead of them. One concern I have though - if we're investing all our R&D into making our processes green, maybe we'll "take our eye off the ball" and find we're no longer competitive? Shouldn't we be focusing mainly on what pays our wages - making chemicals? Walkerma 14:32, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, we can't forget about our productivity. This is what keeps us all employed, our quality and production can't be alteredMurphy44 14:34, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• Modification in our facility, either for the reactor, pipes, cleaners etc should be a priority. Yes these changes cost money, but as I said before we will increase our productivity, boost profits and create jobs. With expansion it is pretty hard to argue with the numbers. Even switching to some machines for such maintenance would be beneficial. J-Fed 14:38, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• We need to design for the environment (DFE) and consider our product performances with respect to health, safety and life cycle. We need to take a low-risk, low-waste approach to industry. J-Fed 14:38, 13 February 2008 (EST)

I'm all for a safer, greener workplace, my worry is during this crossing over stage we may have to lay-off workers while new machines are being installed. This isn't beneficial to the workforce that keeps this company afloat. Murphy44 14:42, 13 February 2008 (EST)

OK, Jesse, how can we go about actually DOING that? What should we do next? Walkerma 14:40, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• It's imperative that we dont take our eye off the ball. ACME should create a committee - A DFE that looks at the designs we can make for sustainability and designs for safety and health. We can't switch over everything that ACME does, but there need to be some changes. Even with packaging materials or re-designing packaging materials. We can help save the environment through biodegradable packages.J-Fed 14:42, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• I propose that (1) a committee be formed to study the DFE (2) use different marketing tactics that show how ACME cares for the environment (3) different packaging (4)new assessment methods to predict our product performance (5)Trade-off methods for eco-efficiency (6)RRR (recycle, re-manufacture and re-use) (7)process changes if any new developments exist, we shouldn't be doing something unsafe or out-dated. J-Fed 14:46, 13 February 2008 (EST)

ISO 14000 is a serious consideration. Achieving this status would look great for Acme but if were not being required to do so is it really necessary?Murphy44 14:51, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Our batch processing is actually more harmful to the environment instead of continuous processing. However, if our process can be made to minimize unwanted products, either through different chemicals, reagents and equipment ACME can be safer for everyone. J-Fed 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

The certification that we are looking at is not that common because its relatively new. I want to congratulate our company and our president for allowing us to make it this far! It is definitely eco-friendly and will make ACME a part of a great industrial community. J-Fed 14:52, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Is achieving this certification even feasible for Acme? (both practically and economically) Murphy44 14:54, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Well, batch processing is pretty much the ONLY option we have right now, since mainly we're in the toll manufacturing business (making small quantities on single run contracts). Also, packaging is a minimal part of our environmental impact. Our main impact is in the thousands of gallons of hazardous waste we make each day. Walkerma 14:55, 13 February 2008 (EST)

The ISO 14000 certification would definitely improve our marketability in Japan and Europe (and probably in North America too, in time). There is very little cost to certification - it only involves setting up an environmental management system to look at each process - the cost comes when we have to consider spending money to meet the recommendations after certification! Certification kinda means, "We are considering the environmental impact in every decision we make." Walkerma 15:00, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• ISO14000 integrates a holistic approach to industry and the environment. Plans, actions and approaches our company takes will be directed by this proposal. The certification effectively communicates issues between ACME, its workers and our shareholders. This will make our DFE and committee more effective also. ISO 1400 can meet our internal company objectives and external objectives. Internally we will have management that is aware of the impact we have on the environment and that our employees are working for an eco-friendly company. Externally, our customers and shareholders will notice our care for our planet and other agencies- such as the EPA will be glad that we are taking an initiative. The certification will show that ACME will comply with new regulations, support these regulations and adopt new policies and take new actions. This certification will demonstrate many things about ACME that the industry needs to see. J-Fed 15:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

How does everyone else feel about this certification? Joe? What are your thoughts? J-Fed 15:04, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Well, we're near the end of our meeting now. I think we need to hold another meeting - perhaps next month - to move the process forward. I like the idea of ISO14000, and DFE, I think we can make this happen. Any last points on this? Walkerma 15:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

I'm supportive of setting high standards and making Acme a role model for the rest of the American chemical industry, If this means ISO14000 then so be it. I'm just concerned with the short term loss of productivity of our plant. If we can't deliver to our customers then they may go elsewhere regardless of our environmental record. Murphy44 15:09, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Sounds good to me. I think it'll make people realize that we can be forward-looking, people in the town will really appreciate it. Joe Smith 15:08, 13 February 2008 (EST)

• I am in favor of the certification and want to thank everyone for attending! Until next time!J-Fed 15:11, 13 February 2008 (EST)

-out of character- Thanks for taking on the company and fighting for whats environmentally moral, great argument and well said JF Murphy44 15:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Well, at least we can discuss it seriously, and we can make sure that ISO 14000 doesn't harm our productivity too much or we won't go for it! Thanks, and I'll see you guys. I must dash to another meeting. Walkerma 15:13, 13 February 2008 (EST)