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.
Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are increasingly being used in the airport indus- try to manage environmental and sustainability issues. Typically, EMS are designed to ensure that an airport appropriately manages operations that have a potential for significant impact on the environment or are associated with regulatory requirements. This synthesis reports on the current practice of EMS development at airports in the United States and Canadaâwhy this is occurring, what practices look like, and how they were developed. The report provides guidance to airports with regard to the current state of the prac- tice in the airport industry and answers questions that airport managers and personnel respon- sible for environmental management may have on what their peers are doing. It is written for an audience that may not have extensive familiarity with the technical details of EMS. The study provides background on the framework of an EMS, similarities and differences of various approaches, the development process, and lessons learned by 19 airports that have EMS experience. The airports surveyed include 12 that had an established EMS in place; four that were considering an EMS; one in the process of evaluating an EMS; and two that evaluated and decided not to implement an EMS. Three primary methods were used to gather the information synthesized in this report: a literature search, a telephone interview, and a follow-up electronic survey of 20 airports having experience with EMS. All 20 airports participated in the telephone interview and 19 responded to the electronic survey. Results were aggregated, but airports identified as having unique approaches were used to illustrate differences in approach on specific EMS issues. Two of these airports were then asked to participate in case studies, the results of which can be found located in text boxes next to the survey results to which they relate. The synthesis study found that, according to the airports with established programs, EMS are an effective way to reduce environmental impacts, improve environmental performance, and increase operating efficiency for any size airport. All the airports with EMS in place reported that they had achieved the desired benefits that had initially motivated them to implement an EMS, especially improved environmental performance and greater employee understanding of environmental issues and responsibilities. This finding supports the underlying basis for management systems; that is, that defined and aligned structures, resources, and processes will lead to improved performance. The survey also indicated that one of the reasons early imple- menters had developed an EMS was to demonstrate their leadership within the airport industry, and that the development of their EMS had supported this ambition. In general, the airports reported that they are following the ISO 14001 environmental management systems standard, an international standard that is considered a benchmark, and can be third-party certified. While only half of the airports with established EMS are ISO 14001-certified, most airports in the survey report using most or the entire framework of ISO 14001. The survey also indicated that an EMS can start small and still achieve benefits. The differences in the scope of operations included in the airport EMS ranged from a program that addressed a single operation to a plan that included all airport operations, including SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
2 those of tenants and other operators at the airport. One was even part of a city-wide effort that involved developing an EMS for all municipal operations. Several airports that initially developed an EMS for just a portion of their operation are planning to expand their programs to include additional operations. Just as there is broad flexibility in the scope of an EMS, an EMS allows flexibility with regard to the issues managed within the system. Most airports reported managing all their compliance issues, such as stormwater and air emissions, within their EMS; and many also addressed sustainability issues such as alternative-fueled fleets and green buildings. This indi- cates that an EMS can provide a framework to support and advance an airportâs environmental performance ambitions, whether that be simple compliance or full sustainability. Implementation methodology was another area of difference. Most airports used a cross- functional team that drew from operations and maintenance staff to implement their EMS. The use of a cross-functional team appeared to be a clear precursor to the achievement of the desired benefits. Some airports even included external stakeholders, tenants, and other operators in their implementation efforts. The airports were asked to identify their greatest barriers to implementation. While cost and resources were most frequently cited, line management resistance was another frequently cited barrier. The most consistent answer of how this barrier was overcome was time and experience with the EMS. Although this synthesis established the benefits of EMS and the state of current practices in the airport industry, it left some questions unansweredâwhat best practices are and how they may make a difference in performance, addressing barriers, and aligning outcomes with intent. The survey hints that broader involvement from outside the environmental staff to maintain the EMS may be one component. Further study would be required to examine this issue. Another area for further study would be the use of EMS to promote and manage sustainability. While airports report using the EMS for this, it is not clear how they do it. As more airports address this challenge, information on how an EMS can be used to provide structure to the process would be beneficial. Cost information, while requested, was inconsistent and/or not available. This most likely is reflective of different scopes and scales of the EMS and the approaches taken to implement them. Further study among the airports surveyed would be required to make meaningful cost comparisons and provide better information to the industry.
