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)

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)

Footers

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)