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.
12 EMS adopters have numerous choices to make with regard to the overarching structure of the program. This chap- ter describes the framework options that the airports who decided to implement EMS have selected, including: ⢠use of the PDCA concept; ⢠use of the ISO 14001 standard; ⢠decision to certify to ISO 14001; and ⢠environmental and sustainability issues addressed with the EMS. PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT FRAMEWORK In general, the framework of EMS for respondents who are con- sidering implementing, or have implemented EMS, are based on the PDCA model that is also incorporated in the ISO 14001 EMS standard. All of the airports surveyed that have an EMS, are developing an EMS, or are considering an EMSâwith the exception of oneâare using or will use the PDCA model. The exception airport is considering or thinking about an EMS and it did not indicate whether another standard will be used. USE OF THE ISO 14001 STANDARD Of the 16 airports who have implemented, are implementing, or will implement an EMS (excluding the airport that pro- vided a limited response), 12 are using the ISO 14001 EMS Standard for their EMS framework. This included all but one of the airports with an EMS in place. The four airports that are not using ISO 14001 did not identify another standard, such as EPAâs model. Half (six) of the 12 airports that have an implemented EMS are ISO 14001 certified. No correlation appears to exist between the size of an airport and decision to be certified. Nor was there a correlation between airport geographic area and certification, as certified airports were scattered across the United States and Canada. When asked to rank the value of their ISO 14001 cer- tification, those airports ranked credibility and independent confirmation of EMS effectiveness as the most important benefits, as shown in Figure 9. This was followed by better rate of improved performance. Better employee buy-in was also recognized as a benefit of ISO 14001 certification. Among those ten airports that reported not seeking certi- fication, the highest ranked reason was cost (Figure 10); the next most important reason was the time required. This was followed by no value in being certified, although one airport indicated that there may be some value. The lowest ranked reason was no need for independent review, indicating that at least three airports might have seen some benefit in an independent review. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The 16 airports that have developed or are considering devel- oping an EMS manage a variety of environmental and sus- tainability issues in their facilities. All airports identified spill avoidance and response, and stormwater management. All but one airport identified haz- ardous or universal waste management and recycling as included in the EMS. Fourteen airports address solid waste management, chemical storage and use, and air emissions. Clean and alternative fuel fleets and vehicles, and fuel and petroleum storage and use were addressed by 13 airports; energy use and efficiency by 12. Greenhouse gas emissions, deicing, and water use and conservation were identified by 10 airports; sustainable design and development, and renew- able energy by nine. Resource usage, green buildings, green purchasing, environmentally sensitive habitats and recep- tors, endangered species, and noise were all identified by half of the airports. Seven airports included land use planning, alternative and renewable fuels, and wetlands; six listed cli- mate change mitigation and purchasing; and four included climate change adaptation. As âotherâ issues, one airport identified remediation and another airport listed avoidance of pesticides. As shown in Figure 11, traditional compliance-related environmental issues were universally included in the EMS. However, half or more of the airports also include sustain- ability initiatives such as reduced greenhouse gases and green building, which reflect a broader intent. This is sup- ported by the self-reported desire of over half the airports responding to go beyond compliance with their EMS. One airport included management of all issues identified in the survey in its EMS. A second included all but deicing, which it reports that it does not perform because of its climate. chapter four ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FRAMEWORK
13 FIGURE 9 Use of the ISO 14001 standard. FIGURE 10 Reasons for not seeking ISO 14001 certification. 3 1 5 6 3 1 1 2 5 5 1 1 2 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 No need for independent review No value in being certiï¬ed Time required Cost Not Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important
14 FIGURE 11 Issues managed within the EMS. 2 4 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Other Adaptation to climate change Purchasing Climate changemitigation Wetlands Alternative and renewable fuels Land use planning Noise Endangered species Environmentally sensitive habitats and receptors Green purchasing Green buildings Resource usage Renewable energy Sustainable design and development Water use and conservation Deicing Greenhouse gas emissions Energy use/eï¬ciency Fuel and petroleum storage and use Clean/ alternative fuel ï¬eets, vehicles, or GSE Air emissions Chemical storage and use Solid waste management Hazardous or universal waste management Recycling Stormwater Spill Avoidance and response