Phiri Robert T R076321F ME 410: Assignment

By considering the Malawian BEEFCO case study make a thorough and critical analysis as to whether it is a proper CP rendition of a case Company.
Introduction The CP assessment methodology is used to systematically identify and evaluate possible CP opportunities and facilitate their implementation in industry. This procedure is useful in organising CP programmes and unifying a work force to be involved in the evaluation, development and implementation of Cleaner Production. The following Cleaner Production assessment was done on a company known as Beef Co and it is divided into five phases as follows: Planning and organisation, Assessment procedure, Feasibility analysis, Implementation and Continuation phases. Below is an Overview of the Cleaner Production Assessment methodology (UNEP, 1996)
PHASE Phase I: Planning and organisation STAGES 1. Obtain management commitment 2. Establish a project team 3. Develop policy, objectives and targets 4. Plan the Cleaner Production assessment 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Company description and flow chart Walk-through inspection Establish a focus Collection of quantitative data Material balance Identify Cleaner Production opportunities Record and sort options Preliminary evaluation Technical evaluation Economic evaluation Environmental evaluation Select viable options Prepare an implementation plan Implement selected options Monitor performance Sustain Cleaner Production activities

Phase II: Pre-assessment (qualitative review)

Phase III: Assessment (quantitative review)

Phase IV: Evaluation and feasibility study

Phase V: Implementation and continuation

Planning and organisation The objective here is to get management committed to the exercise set goals, inform and create an understanding between all parties involved and establish the company project management team. Now for the particular case of Beef Co it can be seen that this stage was done well, there was commitment shown by all the relevant managers and all personnel involved were given a clear understanding of what Cleaner Production is all about. This facilitated the laying of the project objectives. The project team was established and it consisted of external consultants and seven members of the company. Now although this stage was established it was not exactly structured to give the best effective outcome because it did not include any input from groups such as the community where the company operated and from the company only the line supervisors were chosen so basically the was no input from the ordinary person in the environment. The lower level employees who actually have first hand knowledge and experience on how the pollutants are generated were not included which might present a real problem in accurate implementation .of the CP procedure. Thirdly the funding for the project was inadequate only a one day training session was afforded to the group and this might not exactly provide enough relevant knowledge for the programme.

Pre- assessment This is the first stage in reducing waste and overcoming pollution problems. It is an overview of the company`s processes and various wastes produced. This phase was done quite well a standard procedure was followed by the company team. Setting the plant-wide CP goals, developing process flow charts, evaluating the general inputs and outputs and selecting an audit focus was done by the project team. This involved moving around the entire plant so as to get a good insight on all the individual processes. At this stage the plant was broken down into process areas and not unit processes, this was not considered necessary at this stage. The site inspection revealed the following main problems: 1. High usage of running water 2. Running hoses

3. Un-insulated steam pipes and steam water mixers and 4. Steam leaks In revealing theses problems the project team was however not in a position to accurately determine the actual water usage and other losses incurred at every unit and so this was left to the assessment stage. Since this stage involved confronting workers in different units of the plant it can be earmarked as being a successful because valuable information relating to the problem solution was obtained.

Assessment The focus of this stage is to collect data to evaluate the environmental proficiency of the company. In order to carry out this stage the project team decided to break out the processing units into smaller units. The particular units for Beef Co included: 1. The stunning section 2. Sticking and bleeding section 3. Washing and splitting section 4. Weighing and grading section and the, 5. Chiller storage section Material balance was established for each stage, much of the actual data needed for each stage was not available and so the team decided to use estimates. This was a critical point in the assessment as poor approximations can lead to poor implementation. Generally it was noted that there was a lack of process monitoring and no resources afforded for accurate data recording. The team however did manage to identify areas of environmental concern such as water and air pollution and their effects on the surrounding community and the possible reactions of the board of environmental protection to theses. From here CP options were formulated and recorded but sorting and choice was left for a later stage.

Evaluation and feasibility There was considerable deviation from the standard CP method in this phase as the project team only performed a preliminary economic evaluation on the subjects, leaving out the technical evaluation of the CP options that resulted from the previous stage. It should also be noted that no environmental evaluation was actually performed prior to the implementation of the CP methods. It can be argued that the implementation of these CP options was done following management`s approval but omitting technical and environmental evaluations in direct contradiction to the standard CP methodology.

Implementation and continuation There is no mention in the report that an implementation plan was even drafted, let alone carried out. The report only gives a preliminary economic evaluation of the CP options provided by the project team. There was never any follow up from the team on actual implementation of CP methods nor did they specify and establish monitoring methods for the given polices they suggested. It is inherently not clear as to whether the team put in place measures to sustain Cleaner production activities and culture within the organisation, which ultimately passes for poor or even no implementation of the CP programme.

Conclusion From this case study of Beef Co the Cleaner Production methodology was carried out fairly well on paper up to some point where it began to deviate greatly. Then in terms of the actual implementation there seemed to be no real conviction in carrying out the plan. This leads one to think that the whole thing was merely done just to observe protocol or perhaps give false cover towards some legislation. There is obvious room for improvement here but never the less the advantages and outcomes of CP methods of production could be seen even in a half baked product like this which goes to show the significance of Cleaner Production. I would however not recommend this to be a Case Company as far as CP Methodology and implementation is concerned but at the same time it is not to be discarded because the very inadequacies and mistakes that occur in this case can still provide a very good starting point or learning tool for those to follow.