9.2.0.2.

This will ensure that POEMS outputs are kept up to date with overall project and other developments.  Reviews can be triggered by a number of factors for example, changes to equipment design or service, a change in a relevant standard, or a change in the customer requirements. A review will also be part of a planned process of the revision of outputs as the project progresses in order to incorporate improved or amended information, or as the result of audit findings.

9.3.0.1.

All EMPs should be applied at all life cycle phases, Concept, Assessment, Demonstration, Manufacture, In-Service and Disposal/Termination (CADMID/T)  for continual improvement.

9.3.0.3.

Wherever possible, periodic reviews of outputs should be organised to coincide with the major stages and hold points of the CADMID/T cycle. This will increase the likelihood that the most complete and up to date information is available for decisions at the hold points.

9.3.0.5.

The following list summarises some of the potential triggers for ad hoc reviews of procedure outputs, which could occur at any time in the project’s life:

1. Change to relevant project stakeholders;
2. Change to project stakeholders’ requirements or concerns;
3. Change to the information available from project stakeholders;
4. Change to planned project activities (in any stage of the project life cycle);
5. Change to relevant environmental standards;
6. Change to equipment or service specification;
7. Change to operational environment or use;
8. Change in project responsibilities;
9. Change in information available on the environmental impacts associated with the project, i.e. type, frequency or severity of impact;
10. Change in impact priority evaluation methodology;
11. The occurrence of an environmental incident;
12. Non-achievement of objective and/or target;
13. The identification of a non-conformance.

9.3.0.7.

Most triggers are unlikely to require an immediate and complete review of the POEMS and outputs. Therefore, in some cases it will be possible to schedule an ad-hoc review to coincide with one of the planned periodic reviews.

9.3.0.9.

Any significant changes to POEMS outputs will require the amendment and re-issuing of the relevant output. For instance, if new or improved information becomes available on certain impacts it may be necessary to carry out a new Assessment, or at least prepare an addendum to the Report produced under Procedure EMP07 - Environmental Reporting. Keeping EMP02 forms up to date in respect of stakeholder contact details and a communication plan will help and greatly simplify the re-issuing process.

9.3.0.11.

If a change is identified as required to a procedure output which is also a controlled document then this must be completed and recorded by following GMP04 Document and Record Control

In addition to continual improvement of environmental management processes, EMP09 provides an opportunity for sustainable procurement learning from experience capture and sharing.

It is the communication of this experience that will enable continual improvement for the project and inspire similar acquisition programmes to build upon known success and avoid pit falls.

Learning from experience is Step 5 of the Sustainable Procurement Toolkit.

9.4.0.1.

The Delivery Team Leader is responsible for ensuring adequate resources are dedicated to the management of safety and environmental protection within their area of responsibility, and for facilitating appropriate arrangements to discharge responsibilities relating to this procedure in an efficient and effective manner.

9.6.1.1.

This procedure applies through life of the project.

9.7.0.1.

The ‘Common Documents’

1. User Requirement Document;
2. JSP 418 (UK legislation and MOD policy);
3. DSA01.1 Defence Policy for Health, Safety and Environmental Protection;
4. Outputs from all preceding EMPs;
5. When available, outputs from Procedures within Part3 Assurance.

9.8.0.1.

Conformance with the standard will be demonstrated by completing the following required outputs:

1. Completed Form EMP09/F/01 – Continuous Review Record – (plus amended outputs as required).

9.8.1.1.

This procedure could cause any of the outputs produced from Procedures EMP01 to EMP08 to be viewed and amended:

A copy of the information produced from following this procedure must be stored in the project’s Environmental Case.

9.9.0.1.

ISO 14001 and the ISO 14000 series of standards generally, are helpful in understanding how to manage continuous environmental improvement through an Environmental Management System. This concept also underlies all Quality Management Systems and approaches as well as systematic management approaches to Health and Safety risks. Therefore, general guidance on continuous improvement may also be found in standards dealing with any management system approaches.

9.9.1.1.

The key alignment opportunity in EMP09 should be to undertake reviews of safety and environmental records dealing with common issues at the same time, and to ensure that changes introduced by the review process are assessed for both environmental and safety implications.

9.9.2.1.

The objectives for this procedure shall apply to all acquisition strategies. It is MOD policy that the same standards are met, and that assurance that these standards have been met shall be demonstrated for all projects.

9.9.3.1.

For legacy systems reviews may require greater frequency as the system moves towards disposal phase, or if there are other major changes such as modifications, changes to the operating geography or new legal and policy requirements.

9.9.4.1.

If this procedure is not completed in a timely manner there will be an increase in risk that the Environmental Case will not evolve with equipment or service developments and decisions. If the Environmental Case lags too far behind the development of the equipment or service then there are increased risks of the Delivery Team not being suitably prepared for approvals and permissions within the CADMID/T approach. It is also possible that any new or changed environmental liabilities brought about by changes in other project work streams may go unrecognised and therefore be uncontrolled. The consequences of this could be increased cost, however it might also include limitations to operational envelopes and delays for bringing the equipment system or capability into service.