The Language of EHS Part II: Air

Continuing with my take on the EHS lexicon, let's talk about one of the more ubiquitous and unwieldy parts of the EHS regulatory arena: Air. Whether you're talking about environmental or safety, air quality is an issue that is going to come up, and it can get sticky. How are the contaminant emissions from the facility stacks impacting the local community? And 'closer to home' how is air quality within the facility impacting worker safety and productivity?

These are the kinds of questions that are at the heart of the air arena. Of course, the regulations that have been constructed around these two questions sometimes get just a wee bit off course, but that's part and parcel to our command and control regulatory structure here in the US. But I digress.

Let's explore some of the language of air in the EHS world.

CAA: Clean Air Act. This was the legislation that would forever create the regulatory structure for air quality under which US companies currently struggle. The enacting regulations are lengthy and convoluted (like many environmental regs) and for any company that employs contaminant-emitting processes, this likely represent the biggest time-eater for their environmental staff.

Title V: refers to Title V of the CAA as amended in 1990. This resulted in the creation of a new operating permit structure for 'major sources' of air emissions. Under this structure, a source is major if it emits more than the threshold of any of the criteria pollutants. If a facility is a major source, it is required to obtain a Title V operating permit.

Ok, I just re-read that definition, and it spouts lingo left and right, here are some of the related definitions, to help clarify.

Let's start with the NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Ambient Air Quality standards, or criteria, are set for six common, or 'criteria pollutants:' Ozone, Particulate Matter, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead. The criteria are not stagnant, and change periodically. When they do, it throws everyone into a tizzy because it impacts what areas of the country are designated 'attainment' versus 'non-attainment' for the pollutant in question.

Attainment/Non-attainment is basically an evaluation of the air quality of an area (in Ohio, areas are designated attainment/non-attainment on a county by county basis, for the most part, other states may vary) against the criteria for the pollutant in question. If an area is 'attainment' for a pollutant it means that the area, on average, meets the NAAQS criteria for that pollutant. The states had to set up a huge network of monitoring stations in order to monitor for the criteria pollutants, and it is based on this data that designations are made.

When a new NAAQS standard is released, USEPA includes a deadline for each state to recommend designations within its boundaries. The state environmental regulatory agency evaluates all available monitoring data, and makes recommendations to the USEPA, with supporting evidence, for the designation of each area as either attainment or non-attainment for the new criteria. USEPA then reviews the information provided, and either agrees (making the designation 'official') or disagrees, and counters. This process is lengthy, and can lead to some back and forth between the state agency and the Feds.

It makes a BIG difference how an area is designated, because it impacts the definition of 'major source' as well as what type of permit a major source must pursue when installing a new emitting unit (or a new facility, for that matter). Companies have been known to locate plants based on the existing designation of an area, and this can be a huge consideration for new installations. As a result, NAAQS designation can have a profound impact on the economy of an area, particularly in heavily industrialized regions. I'm from Ohio. I know from whence I speak here. Economic impact has become a huge issue between OEPA and the Feds for precisely this reason.

Alright, again, I barely scratched the surface of the environmental regulations realted to air quality, but I really want to get into the safety regulations, because it's an important topic. indoor air quality (IAQ) in a facility is essential to worker health and safety, and is something that can generally be managed through installation and maintenance of appropriate ventilation equipment.

OSHA has published data on what they consider 'adequate' air quality for various chemicals and pollutants. There is a whole bunch of acronyms that go along with understanding this regulatory realm, and what 'limits' an employer should evaluate against is something I've heard debated more than once. Let's start with the OSHA 'official' limits, and then we'll discuss other sources that you should review.

PEL: Permissible Exposure Limits - OSHA has established over 500 PELs, mostly within 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z-1. These are regulatorily-required limits related to air quality within workers' breathing zones (also referred to as BZ). PELs are set mostly as 8-hour TWA or time-weighted average, limits. For evaluating this limit, air quality is measured continuously over a typical 8-hour shift, and the average exposure must be below the TWA limit. There are also PEL-STELs or short-term exposure limits, usually 15-minutes. For evaluation purposes, the continuous measurements are averaged in 15-minute increments, and for no 15-minute period may the STEL go above the limit, even if the TWA is below the limit. Some chemicals may even have a PEL-C, or ceiling limit established, which is an exposure limit over which a worker should NEVER be exposed.

NIOSH: the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health is part of the Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). This agency is responsible for conducting research and making recommendations on the prevention of workplace injuries and illnesses, and as part of that directive publishes the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (NPG). The NPG is updated far more frequently then the OSHA PELs. The 2005 NPG contains general industrial occupational exposure limits for 677 chemicals. The NIOSH limits, referred to as RELs (Recommended Exposure Limit), follow terminology analogous to that used by OSHA, with TWA, ST and C limits. The NPG is particularly useful, because it also provide a lot of other data on the chemical, such as its chemical properties, exposure routes, symptoms of exposure, etc. As a bonus, the entire guide is available on line, or in a downloadable format from the CDC. However, NIOSH is NOT a regulatory body, and can only make recommendations regarding exposure limits. These limits do not carry the force of law, though OSHA has been known to enforce them under the General Duty Clause.

ACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (though I notice on their web page that they have dropped the 'governmental' part of the acronym, which I find curious). ACGIH also publishes their own set of occupational exposure limits. ACGIH is an entirely independent body, not related to the government. Their exposure limits, called TLVs or Threshold Limit Values, are developed by a body of independent IHs (Industrial Hygienists). There have been instances where the science behind thier limits has been questioned, and I am, by no means suggesting that you blindly accept the limits ACGIH publishes. However, though OSHA does not generally enforce these limits, it is always good to be aware of them. ACGIH is often at the leading edge of limit setting for occupational exposures, and if they choose to make a stink about a particular chemical, NIOSH and OSHA usually at least lend an ear, if not a hammer.

General Duty Clause: I realized, looking over the above, that I threw out a term that you hear bandied around in the OSHA realm a lot, and there's a good reason for it. The General Duty Clause is a catchall in the OSH Act of 1970, and states in part that "Each employer shall furnish . . . a place of employment which [is] free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm . . ." As an employer, therefore, it is not enough to comply with the OSHA standards, but you must take action to abate any and all recognized hazards. That is why it is important to be aware of what NIOSH and ACGIH have published as limits. Though fairly recent court rulings have put the brakes on OSHA issuing citations against NIOSH or ACGIH limits, note that states can, and often do adopt more stringent limits then OSHA (Particularly California, where CalOSH has been known to adopt ACGIH limits as law).

It is in every company's best interest to periodically test the air quality within their facility. Developing a routine Air Quality Evaluation protocol. Physical testing should be conducted at least once every couple years, or when there is a change in the facility operations. If your company is a small business, the state BWC (Bureau of Workers Compansation) will often offer help. I know in Ohio, at least at one point in time, BWC would actually come in and perform the testing for a small company, and provide the results with a preliminary evaluation. There are also consulting firms that offer this sort of testing, and can also provide aid for taking corrective measures where problems are found.

The key when designing any new industrial process is to ensure that proper ventilation and other safety measures are included in the design requirements up front to avoid the development of problems once the process goes into operation. However, as with any new process, it is important to test to ensure that everything is working as designed.

In addition, tracking results over time, and under different operating scenarios (summer versus winter, for example) can also help reveal conditions under which worker safety and health may be compromised, even with appropriate controls in place. Air quality is influenced by so many factors, that a one-time testing under controlled conditions is not enough to provide a clear picutre of the exposures a worker may experience.

I got a bit off-topic there toward the end. I will be back next week with the next installment of my take on the EHS lexicon. Again, if you have any particular areas you'd like covered, leave a comment and let me know.

Accounting and the Environment

“If all the accountants in the world were laid end to end – it would be a good thing.”

I used to tease my husband while we were in grad school with this quote. He was working toward a masters in economics, and at the time he was taking a series of honors accounting classes. His usual comeback was “I don’t want to be an accountant. I want to be the accounting boss. You have to understand what you manage.”

OK, entirely off-topic, right? Not really. There is a corollary to my husband’s philosophy: You cannot manage what you do not understand. Perhaps it is because I was in the throes of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) report preparation that the topics of accounting and regulating came to mind. The vagaries of my interests tend to lead to some odd philosophical thoughts. This one caught my attention when it flitted through, and I decided that it was worth at least a brief essay attempt.

For those of you who do not know, TRI reporting is required every year for any industrial facility that ‘processes’ or ‘otherwise uses’ any of a list of 581 chemicals or 30 chemical categories above the reporting thresholds. If the threshold is exceeded, the facility must then account for what happened to that chemical through the facility processes that resulted in releases to each of the three environmental media:
• How much was emitted to the air?
• How much was released into surface water?
• How much was released to the land (i.e., managed in onsite waste management units or was sent off site for disposal)?

And my favorite: how much is projected to be released into the various environmental media in each of the next two years? Talk about polishing your crystal ball. After this past year, clients are quite uncertain about their production projections for the next month, let alone the next year!

Anyway, the data gathered is now submitted through the USEPA’s Central Data Exchange where it is compiled, validated, confirmed, and finally put out on TOXNET for perusal by the public. The TOXMAP feature is really quite interesting, and contains a phenomenal amount of data. You can, literally, see what is released in your back yard.

From an industry perspective, I know I anticipate the TRI reporting cycle with a dread akin to my annual visits to the OB/GYN (apologies to any male readers - you can insert dentist, if you prefer, but trust me, this analogy is more apt). It doesn’t matter how conscientious I am about my accounting practices, I always find something I’ve missed before. I spend so much time worrying about whether I’ve accounted for everything, I have little time, or energy, left over to actually make any headway on managing what I’ve measured, let alone understanding exactly why changes may have occurred.

Also, who selected the 581 chemicals and 30 chemical categories? Are these the worst, most toxic chemicals? Are there other chemicals that I should worry about? I always start with what I reported on the SERC (State Emergency Response Commission) report for the year, since its reporting requirements are much broader. But there isn’t always a lot of correlation, since the SERC reporting is based on the product, while the TRI reporting is based on specific chemicals, which may be in the products, some at low percentages. I also look at the air reporting, but it is done in even broader terms like volatiles and particulates (an exception being hazardous air pollutants, which generally do require individual emission tracking). In short, the TRI reporting really does end up being a process onto itself.

And while I applaud the collection and dissemination of data, I wonder, does it help to make our environment any cleaner? I fully adhere to the idea that you cannot manage what you do not understand (read as ‘measure’) but when has the measurement gone so far that we lose sight of the need to manage?

I finished the TRI reports for two clients on time (due July 1) – woot! For one client, I found a chemical that I missed last year. It’s a small percentage of a product, but they use enough of the product that the threshold was exceeded. We’ve made strides in reducing use of the nastier products at the facility. This particular one is really a fairly innocuous material, overall. It just happens to have a small percentage of a TRI chemical in it. Turned out that there was very little ‘released to the environment,’ but it was processed over the threshold so it has to be reported. Feels like the time I spent on this was a colossal waste.

I shouldn’t complain. This is what keeps me in business. But it irks me when it just seems like a bunch of busy work with no real benefit to the environment. Maybe that’s my general problems with the regulatory framework in the U.S. as a whole; a lot of busy work with little benefit; a self-sustaining bureaucracy that has lost touch with its intended purpose.

It is disheartening to me that picking up trash with my 4-year-old along the road feels more environmentally-relevant than performing my work as an environmental manager.

Go figure – literally.