I had an apostrophe today. It wasn’t nearly profound enough to be called an epiphany, but for me it was pretty clarifying. I’ve been thinking a lot about various ‘global’ environmental issues and environmental regulation in general, and wondering in this era of companies ‘going green’ and spouting about ‘corporate responsibility’ why do we still have to go down the path of behemoth regulatory messes in order to get anyone to do anything about environmental issues?
I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but I wonder if part of the issue isn’t that in economics, as currently practiced, it’s very common to discount the social and environmental costs of the business decisions we make. From an economic standpoint, we really haven’t learned the lessons of the last 50 years, or even the last 5. Just look at the continuing debacle that is Wall Street. Is the environmental industry any better?
Minimizing future liability is a nice idea, but it’s a difficult thing to justify in a real time way. Sure, the bigwigs understand that they don’t want to contribute to a Love Canal (Superfund was a great teacher, folks) – but do they understand how their actions contribute to say the acidification of the ocean, or global warming? Do we have a clue what the social and economic impact of these types of potentially huge ecosystem shifts could have in the future? How much ‘human impact’ are we willing to tolerate as ok and how much are we going to pay a price for?
These are fundamental questions that I would challenge anyone to tackle. These are the issues that behemoth regulatory bureaucracies are built around in this country. Gone are the days when a single point source of pollution could be pointed at as ‘the bad guy.’ Now, we’re all bad guys. Individually, each and every human, like it or not, has a carbon footprint, and contributes in a real, bottom-line way to the changes occurring in our environment.
I went to a technical conference yesterday. It was a very good program, and had a lot of great topics on ‘going green.’ But I had to laugh when the guy from the ‘solutions’ arm of the electric utility conglomerate got up to speak. He spoke of the work being done to implement alternative renewable energy sources, many of which, particularly in Ohio, are just not very ‘economical.’
He spoke proudly of an old coal-fired plant where one of the burners is being converted over to biomass fuel, and said that even that wasn’t really ‘economical’ but was being done under consent decree. But what I’m really curious about, now that I think about it, is what does ‘economical’ mean in this context? Compared to coal? Compared to how the plant was historically run, which apparently caused problems if it’s under consent decree? Compared to the cost of continuing to run coal into the future until the fuel source dries up? Compared to the cost of relocating coastal communities in 50 years when the oceans rise, and millions of homes are underwater? Economical is a tricky word to be throwing around when you look at the big picture.
I personally will think about that the next time I'm considering the need to limit future liability. Corporate responsibility, like personal responsibility, only goes so far as the bottom line. Until the economics of future impact are truly integrated into our economic decisions on a routine basis in this country, we’re going to continue to have regulatory elephants entering the room.
What do you think?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Environmental Lexicon Part III: More on Air
I have been mired in PAL permitting work for one of my clients. I can see the benefit of the permit, but at times it just seems the path to the final product is too long and convoluted to traverse safely and efficiently. This is a fairly new permitting realm in the EPA world. In fact there are currently no permits of this kind in Ohio, which complicates matters.
So, I thought today I would share what I'm learned about the Plantwide Applicability Limit, or PAL permit option. We talked about the NAAQS last time and the PAL is a direct result of the existence of the NAAQS. Below are some related definitions.
New Source Review or NSR is a pre-construction permit program for significant new or modified source of air emissions at major stationary sources. The basic idea is to ensure that any new or modified air emission source construction does not adversely impact the air quality (specifically NAAQS) in a non-attainment area. NSR permitting is a notoriously long and arduous process, taking up to and sometimes over a year to complete. It is also not uncommon, under project aggregation, to inadvertently miss the need for NSR permitting, particularly if you are sometimes major and sometimes not (I'll discuss this a bit more below).
Prevention of Significant Deterioration or PSD is kind of the counterpart to NSR but for sources located in an attainment area. The requirements are not as strict, but the general intent is similar to NSR. I mention this just because even in NAAQS attainment areas there are requirements that must be met regarding maintenance of air quality. So just because you're in an attainment area doesn't mean you are home free.
Major Stationary Source is a source, or group of sources that has a 'potential to emit' (see definition below) a regulated pollutant in excess of the major stationary source threshold. In an attainment area, unless the source is one of a group of 26 industries for which the threshold is set at 100 TPY, the threshold is 250 TPY. In a non-attainment area, the threshold is 100 TPY, regardless of industry. Note that a source that is major for VOC (volatile organic compounds) is considered major for ozone.
Potential to Emit or PTE is the maximum emission of pollutants from an emission unit or stationary source usually based on 365 days per year, 24 hours per day operation, UNLESS there are federally enforceable limits that place legally-binding operational limits on the unit/source. Developing the PTE calculations for a new/modified source is the first step that must be taken in order to determine the applicability of the various air permitting requirements. Often voluntary restrictions can be written into a permit to install (they must be in the federally-enforceable portion of the permit) to avoid major source issues, if they are operationally feasible.
That brings us, in a round-about way to the PAL or Plantwide Applicability Limit. Plant-wide limits are not a new concept. When Title V permits were born, along with them came a plant-wide limit that would allow a source that was a major facility based on PTE to take voluntary, federally-enforceable limits to reduce allowable emission below the major-source threshold, allowing the facility to be a synthetic minor, thus avoiding Title V permitting. (Side note - 'major' in Title V has a different definition then 'major' in NSR/PSD).
The PAL is a similar idea, only instead of avoiding Title V permitting, with a PAL the facility is avoiding NSR pre-construction permitting issues. Another neat thing about the PAL is that it can provide some flexibility, depending on how the permit terms and conditions are written. For a facility which is looking at possible expansions that are likely to be over the 'significant' level for a regulated pollutant, but is also working on improving their existing processes to reduce emissions of the regulated pollutant, the PAL can offer a nice unbrella under which to make changes without triggering NSR.
I am still reading and learning about the PAL, and permit flexibility. It's a huge issue, especially given the economic pressures that industry is facing. The ability to make changes rapidly in response to business opportunities is something that my clients are always interested in. It is worthwhile to review your permit structure and take advantage of whatever flexibility you can get written into the permits themselves.
Any tips for building flexibility into air permits? Just curious what others are doing or have seen done.
So, I thought today I would share what I'm learned about the Plantwide Applicability Limit, or PAL permit option. We talked about the NAAQS last time and the PAL is a direct result of the existence of the NAAQS. Below are some related definitions.
New Source Review or NSR is a pre-construction permit program for significant new or modified source of air emissions at major stationary sources. The basic idea is to ensure that any new or modified air emission source construction does not adversely impact the air quality (specifically NAAQS) in a non-attainment area. NSR permitting is a notoriously long and arduous process, taking up to and sometimes over a year to complete. It is also not uncommon, under project aggregation, to inadvertently miss the need for NSR permitting, particularly if you are sometimes major and sometimes not (I'll discuss this a bit more below).
Prevention of Significant Deterioration or PSD is kind of the counterpart to NSR but for sources located in an attainment area. The requirements are not as strict, but the general intent is similar to NSR. I mention this just because even in NAAQS attainment areas there are requirements that must be met regarding maintenance of air quality. So just because you're in an attainment area doesn't mean you are home free.
Major Stationary Source is a source, or group of sources that has a 'potential to emit' (see definition below) a regulated pollutant in excess of the major stationary source threshold. In an attainment area, unless the source is one of a group of 26 industries for which the threshold is set at 100 TPY, the threshold is 250 TPY. In a non-attainment area, the threshold is 100 TPY, regardless of industry. Note that a source that is major for VOC (volatile organic compounds) is considered major for ozone.
Potential to Emit or PTE is the maximum emission of pollutants from an emission unit or stationary source usually based on 365 days per year, 24 hours per day operation, UNLESS there are federally enforceable limits that place legally-binding operational limits on the unit/source. Developing the PTE calculations for a new/modified source is the first step that must be taken in order to determine the applicability of the various air permitting requirements. Often voluntary restrictions can be written into a permit to install (they must be in the federally-enforceable portion of the permit) to avoid major source issues, if they are operationally feasible.
That brings us, in a round-about way to the PAL or Plantwide Applicability Limit. Plant-wide limits are not a new concept. When Title V permits were born, along with them came a plant-wide limit that would allow a source that was a major facility based on PTE to take voluntary, federally-enforceable limits to reduce allowable emission below the major-source threshold, allowing the facility to be a synthetic minor, thus avoiding Title V permitting. (Side note - 'major' in Title V has a different definition then 'major' in NSR/PSD).
The PAL is a similar idea, only instead of avoiding Title V permitting, with a PAL the facility is avoiding NSR pre-construction permitting issues. Another neat thing about the PAL is that it can provide some flexibility, depending on how the permit terms and conditions are written. For a facility which is looking at possible expansions that are likely to be over the 'significant' level for a regulated pollutant, but is also working on improving their existing processes to reduce emissions of the regulated pollutant, the PAL can offer a nice unbrella under which to make changes without triggering NSR.
I am still reading and learning about the PAL, and permit flexibility. It's a huge issue, especially given the economic pressures that industry is facing. The ability to make changes rapidly in response to business opportunities is something that my clients are always interested in. It is worthwhile to review your permit structure and take advantage of whatever flexibility you can get written into the permits themselves.
Any tips for building flexibility into air permits? Just curious what others are doing or have seen done.
Monday, April 5, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Language of EHS: Part 1
Every discipline creates its own nomenclature, develops its own acronyms, and specializes its own communication until it creates a language all its own. I have a friend who always asks me how my work is going and what I’ve been up to. I have to laugh, because I know she really wants to know, but her eyes glaze over as soon as I start talking.
I’ve seen quite a few lexicons for the EHS field, but thought I’d compile some of the terminology I hear most frequently, along with my own personal spin on their definition. Maybe this is something that will help those newbies, and not-so-newbies in the field that need an interpreter for the lingo!
These aren’t in any particular order, though I have tried to group Environmental terms together, and Safety & Health terms together.
EHS (alternatively, HSE, SHE, ES&H, etc.): All acronyms for the wonderful world of Environmental, Health and Safety. Every company comes up with their own acronym, depending on what they want to emphasize. Personally, I’m rather fond of the ‘SHE’ order, but that’s a personal thing. Some companies add Quality into the mix, some Security, so there are additional variations even in the letters included. Is it any wonder we have an identity crisis as a profession – I think not!
EPA (or USEPA, also known as the Feds – no, not the FBI, but close enough in our world): the United States Environmental Protection Agency. These folks set the directions for everyone. Regulations adopted by the states, can NOT be less stringent then the Federal regulations. And the Feds watch the states very closely. Trust me. I know. I live in Ohio, and OEPA (Ohio EPA) and the Feds have had some minor skirmishes. It’s interesting to watch the dynamics – forget about trying to truly understand them, because they’ll change again.
It’s also worth noting that each state adopts there own acronym for their environmental regulatory entity, and they aren’t all ‘EPA’. Ones I’ve seen include ‘DEP’ (Department of Environmental Protection, as in Pennsylvania); ‘DEM’ (Department of Environmental Management, as in Indiana), and ‘DEQ’ (Department of Environmental Quality, as in Michigan) – can you tell I’m a portal to the Midwest kind of girl?
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This regulatory framework covers the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. The acronym ‘RCRA’ is often used synonymously with ‘hazardous’ when discussing waste, but the solid/non-hazardous wastes are addressed under this general framework as well. The primary federal hazardous waste regulations are found in 40 CFR 260-265. Note that 40 CFR is where most of the environmental regs are found, but in this business it isn’t the only CFR title you’ll need to be familiar with, so don’t put on blinders.
CFR: Huh, see how easily those acronyms creep in, and then you realize that not everyone knows what a CFR is. The CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations. If you don’t have the eCFR bookmarked, and you’re going to work in this field, do it now. No one, I repeat, no one, can keep all this in their head, and it changes periodically anyway. Even if you think you know it, check it. Also know your state regs. In Ohio, we’re governed by the OAC (Ohio Administrative Code) and the ORC (Ohio Regulatory Code). Know the code, check the code, love the code!
Back to RCRA . . . it’s worth exploring this realm a bit. Here are some of the (very) basics:
Solid Waste: A waste cannot be a hazardous waste unless it is first a solid waste. Now a solid waste is not to be confused with an actual ‘solid’ in the scientific sense. This is a lesson in READING THE DEFINITIONS because the definition of a solid waste is NOT intuitively obvious (in fact, it’s pretty convoluted and confusing). You will find that there are many things in the environmental arena that are not intuitively obvious. Always, always, always read the definitions for the title, chapter and part of the code you are reading!
Characteristic Hazardous Waste (also known as D-coded waste): These are wastes that exhibit, based on a standard test methodology, one of the four characteristics of a hazardous waste: Ignitability, Reactivity, Corrosivity and/or Toxicity. Each characteristic carries its own D-code (hence the term, D-coded waste). A waste can carry several different D-codes, and it is up to the Generator (the person who generated the waste) to ensure that it is properly tested and all applicable waste codes applied.
Listed Hazardous Waste (F-coded, K-coded, P-coded, or U-coded): This is where the haz waste regs get fun. F-coded wastes are wastes from non-specific sources. Generally speaking, F-coded waste likely also carry a D-code, but not always. K-coded waste are from specific sources (i.e., specific industrial processes), like a steel pickling line. Again, these can also, and often do carry a D-code. P- and U-coded wastes are for specific chemicals that are being discarded, and I’ve encountered them mostly when doing lab packs. The important thing to know about listed wastes is that once a waste is listed, it’s always hazardous, including any residue resulting from the treatment of it, unless it has gone through a delisting process. This is an ugly truth about listed hazardous wastes.
Mixture and Derived From Rule: Less a ‘rule’ and more part of a definition, this is often how I’ve heard it referenced. It relates to listed hazardous wastes, and it’s part of what makes them so difficult to deal with. Basically, if you mix a listed waste with another waste the whole mess carries the listed hazardous waste code, regardless of the resulting mixture characteristics. If you treat a listed hazardous waste, any residue that is left over from the treatment carries the listed hazardous waste code, regardless of the residue’s characteristics. See the definition of a hazardous waste for specifics.
Cradle to Grave: this is the extent of a Generator’s liability where hazardous waste is concerned. Basically, the concept is that once you generate a hazardous waste it is yours forever and ever – your liability for that waste never terminates. If it is buried in a landfill somewhere, and dug up 30 years in the future because it’s contaminating groundwater, you will still be footing the bill for dealing with it. This leads us into another, closely-related regulatory realm, CERCLA (see the next definition.
CERCLA (commonly know as Superfund): The acronym stands for the congressional act: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Superfund, as CERCLA is better known, is a huge, political morass of legalese that I hate to even get into. Suffice it to say that it earned its nickname ‘Superfund.’ If you’ve ever worked for a company that has been named as a PRP (Potentially Responsible Party) in a Superfund suit, you know what I’m talking about. It’s a behemoth, it’s ugly, and you don’t want to go there if you can help it. Really. Of all the lists out there the NPL (National Prioritites List) is not one any company wants to end up on.
The mantra of every environmental person worth their salt should be to MINIMIZE FUTURE LIABILITY. It’s the name of the game, because if you don’t, sometime, 20, 30 or more years down the road, it will come back to bite your employer right in the pocket book. Regardless of whether the bigwigs are interested in short-term goals, your view, as an environmental specialist, absolutely must be focused on the long-term liability of your actions.
CYA: Yeah, I know, everybody knows what that acronym means. Take it to heart. Document, document, document, if for no one else but yourself. I’ve been part of a discussion on LinkedIn recently discussing the documentation and investigation of incidents. “Our lawyer says not to do it.” Stupid, in every sense of the word in my opinion, whether you’re talking about issues related to employee safety, or environmental impact, or any other EHS issue that may come up.
Nobody is perfect – I’d argue that 100% compliance is an impossibility in the regulatory reality of the US. Just peruse the reams of regulations that are out there and tell me you can comply with the letter of the law at all times. But, that doesn’t mean that you don’t try to. Continuous improvement is the name of the game, and I think that’s why EHS ends up partnered with Quality so often. The goal should always to be to get a little bit better every day.
Alright, I know, I didn’t even scratch the surface of the environmental lingo, let alone OSHA. But this article is quite long enough. I’ll post another round of definitions in my next article. And probably another round after that. There is a LOT of ground to cover in EHS. If you are looking for a career that challenges you, this is the place to be.
If you have an area of particular interest that you would like me to address, please, leave a comment and let me know.
I’ve seen quite a few lexicons for the EHS field, but thought I’d compile some of the terminology I hear most frequently, along with my own personal spin on their definition. Maybe this is something that will help those newbies, and not-so-newbies in the field that need an interpreter for the lingo!
These aren’t in any particular order, though I have tried to group Environmental terms together, and Safety & Health terms together.
EHS (alternatively, HSE, SHE, ES&H, etc.): All acronyms for the wonderful world of Environmental, Health and Safety. Every company comes up with their own acronym, depending on what they want to emphasize. Personally, I’m rather fond of the ‘SHE’ order, but that’s a personal thing. Some companies add Quality into the mix, some Security, so there are additional variations even in the letters included. Is it any wonder we have an identity crisis as a profession – I think not!
EPA (or USEPA, also known as the Feds – no, not the FBI, but close enough in our world): the United States Environmental Protection Agency. These folks set the directions for everyone. Regulations adopted by the states, can NOT be less stringent then the Federal regulations. And the Feds watch the states very closely. Trust me. I know. I live in Ohio, and OEPA (Ohio EPA) and the Feds have had some minor skirmishes. It’s interesting to watch the dynamics – forget about trying to truly understand them, because they’ll change again.
It’s also worth noting that each state adopts there own acronym for their environmental regulatory entity, and they aren’t all ‘EPA’. Ones I’ve seen include ‘DEP’ (Department of Environmental Protection, as in Pennsylvania); ‘DEM’ (Department of Environmental Management, as in Indiana), and ‘DEQ’ (Department of Environmental Quality, as in Michigan) – can you tell I’m a portal to the Midwest kind of girl?
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This regulatory framework covers the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. The acronym ‘RCRA’ is often used synonymously with ‘hazardous’ when discussing waste, but the solid/non-hazardous wastes are addressed under this general framework as well. The primary federal hazardous waste regulations are found in 40 CFR 260-265. Note that 40 CFR is where most of the environmental regs are found, but in this business it isn’t the only CFR title you’ll need to be familiar with, so don’t put on blinders.
CFR: Huh, see how easily those acronyms creep in, and then you realize that not everyone knows what a CFR is. The CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations. If you don’t have the eCFR bookmarked, and you’re going to work in this field, do it now. No one, I repeat, no one, can keep all this in their head, and it changes periodically anyway. Even if you think you know it, check it. Also know your state regs. In Ohio, we’re governed by the OAC (Ohio Administrative Code) and the ORC (Ohio Regulatory Code). Know the code, check the code, love the code!
Back to RCRA . . . it’s worth exploring this realm a bit. Here are some of the (very) basics:
Solid Waste: A waste cannot be a hazardous waste unless it is first a solid waste. Now a solid waste is not to be confused with an actual ‘solid’ in the scientific sense. This is a lesson in READING THE DEFINITIONS because the definition of a solid waste is NOT intuitively obvious (in fact, it’s pretty convoluted and confusing). You will find that there are many things in the environmental arena that are not intuitively obvious. Always, always, always read the definitions for the title, chapter and part of the code you are reading!
Characteristic Hazardous Waste (also known as D-coded waste): These are wastes that exhibit, based on a standard test methodology, one of the four characteristics of a hazardous waste: Ignitability, Reactivity, Corrosivity and/or Toxicity. Each characteristic carries its own D-code (hence the term, D-coded waste). A waste can carry several different D-codes, and it is up to the Generator (the person who generated the waste) to ensure that it is properly tested and all applicable waste codes applied.
Listed Hazardous Waste (F-coded, K-coded, P-coded, or U-coded): This is where the haz waste regs get fun. F-coded wastes are wastes from non-specific sources. Generally speaking, F-coded waste likely also carry a D-code, but not always. K-coded waste are from specific sources (i.e., specific industrial processes), like a steel pickling line. Again, these can also, and often do carry a D-code. P- and U-coded wastes are for specific chemicals that are being discarded, and I’ve encountered them mostly when doing lab packs. The important thing to know about listed wastes is that once a waste is listed, it’s always hazardous, including any residue resulting from the treatment of it, unless it has gone through a delisting process. This is an ugly truth about listed hazardous wastes.
Mixture and Derived From Rule: Less a ‘rule’ and more part of a definition, this is often how I’ve heard it referenced. It relates to listed hazardous wastes, and it’s part of what makes them so difficult to deal with. Basically, if you mix a listed waste with another waste the whole mess carries the listed hazardous waste code, regardless of the resulting mixture characteristics. If you treat a listed hazardous waste, any residue that is left over from the treatment carries the listed hazardous waste code, regardless of the residue’s characteristics. See the definition of a hazardous waste for specifics.
Cradle to Grave: this is the extent of a Generator’s liability where hazardous waste is concerned. Basically, the concept is that once you generate a hazardous waste it is yours forever and ever – your liability for that waste never terminates. If it is buried in a landfill somewhere, and dug up 30 years in the future because it’s contaminating groundwater, you will still be footing the bill for dealing with it. This leads us into another, closely-related regulatory realm, CERCLA (see the next definition.
CERCLA (commonly know as Superfund): The acronym stands for the congressional act: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Superfund, as CERCLA is better known, is a huge, political morass of legalese that I hate to even get into. Suffice it to say that it earned its nickname ‘Superfund.’ If you’ve ever worked for a company that has been named as a PRP (Potentially Responsible Party) in a Superfund suit, you know what I’m talking about. It’s a behemoth, it’s ugly, and you don’t want to go there if you can help it. Really. Of all the lists out there the NPL (National Prioritites List) is not one any company wants to end up on.
The mantra of every environmental person worth their salt should be to MINIMIZE FUTURE LIABILITY. It’s the name of the game, because if you don’t, sometime, 20, 30 or more years down the road, it will come back to bite your employer right in the pocket book. Regardless of whether the bigwigs are interested in short-term goals, your view, as an environmental specialist, absolutely must be focused on the long-term liability of your actions.
CYA: Yeah, I know, everybody knows what that acronym means. Take it to heart. Document, document, document, if for no one else but yourself. I’ve been part of a discussion on LinkedIn recently discussing the documentation and investigation of incidents. “Our lawyer says not to do it.” Stupid, in every sense of the word in my opinion, whether you’re talking about issues related to employee safety, or environmental impact, or any other EHS issue that may come up.
Nobody is perfect – I’d argue that 100% compliance is an impossibility in the regulatory reality of the US. Just peruse the reams of regulations that are out there and tell me you can comply with the letter of the law at all times. But, that doesn’t mean that you don’t try to. Continuous improvement is the name of the game, and I think that’s why EHS ends up partnered with Quality so often. The goal should always to be to get a little bit better every day.
Alright, I know, I didn’t even scratch the surface of the environmental lingo, let alone OSHA. But this article is quite long enough. I’ll post another round of definitions in my next article. And probably another round after that. There is a LOT of ground to cover in EHS. If you are looking for a career that challenges you, this is the place to be.
If you have an area of particular interest that you would like me to address, please, leave a comment and let me know.
Monday, November 9, 2009
OSHA's Hot Topic: Combustible Dust
I was reading an article relating OSHA's Top 10 Safety Violations for 2009 and it struck me that there was no mention of an issue that I am certain ranks pretty high on OSHA's list of problems: Combustible Dust.
Who hasn't heard about the Chemical Safety Board's investigations regarding combustible dust? Since then, there have been numerous additional incidents contributed to combustible dust. OSHA reissued its Combustible Dust NEP in 2008 and Congress got into the act with the Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act of 2008. I'd definitely say that combustible dust is a hot topic for OSHA. So why isn't it in OSHA's Top 10 list?
Well, until OSHA develops it's own standard for combustible dust, it is citing employers on combustible dust issues under the General Duty Clause. As a result, combustible dust is invisible to a top ten list. However, in their Combustible Dust NEP Status Report OSHA found over 4900 violations during inspections conducted pursuant to the NEP. If you are a safety professional, and you have not yet read this report - DO SO NOW.
I have a client that has spent the last year addressing the violations with which they were cited under this NEP. We had discussed the issue previous to the inspection, but they were confident that their dust was non-combustible. Wrong. If you don't know, have your dust(s) tested to find out if it is combustible. If it is, you better start evaluating the hazards in your workplace and taking appropriate corrective actions. Itis going to take time, so get started now, and do your homework. Costs are high for corrective measures, but the costs of an incident are higher.
So, if you checked over OSHA's top 10 list and decided you were in good shape, think again. Combustible dust is a hot topic, and one you need to seriously evaluate in your workplace. OSHA has a decent resource page on combustible dust. NFPA 654 is the primary standard for general industry, and until OSHA develops their own standard, is likely the place to go for guidance. To keep up with the latest on combustible dust, visit the Combustible Dust Policy Institute blog.
Have you reviewed your workplace for combustible dust hazards?
Who hasn't heard about the Chemical Safety Board's investigations regarding combustible dust? Since then, there have been numerous additional incidents contributed to combustible dust. OSHA reissued its Combustible Dust NEP in 2008 and Congress got into the act with the Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act of 2008. I'd definitely say that combustible dust is a hot topic for OSHA. So why isn't it in OSHA's Top 10 list?
Well, until OSHA develops it's own standard for combustible dust, it is citing employers on combustible dust issues under the General Duty Clause. As a result, combustible dust is invisible to a top ten list. However, in their Combustible Dust NEP Status Report OSHA found over 4900 violations during inspections conducted pursuant to the NEP. If you are a safety professional, and you have not yet read this report - DO SO NOW.
I have a client that has spent the last year addressing the violations with which they were cited under this NEP. We had discussed the issue previous to the inspection, but they were confident that their dust was non-combustible. Wrong. If you don't know, have your dust(s) tested to find out if it is combustible. If it is, you better start evaluating the hazards in your workplace and taking appropriate corrective actions. Itis going to take time, so get started now, and do your homework. Costs are high for corrective measures, but the costs of an incident are higher.
So, if you checked over OSHA's top 10 list and decided you were in good shape, think again. Combustible dust is a hot topic, and one you need to seriously evaluate in your workplace. OSHA has a decent resource page on combustible dust. NFPA 654 is the primary standard for general industry, and until OSHA develops their own standard, is likely the place to go for guidance. To keep up with the latest on combustible dust, visit the Combustible Dust Policy Institute blog.
Have you reviewed your workplace for combustible dust hazards?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
An Environmental Engineer's Journey
I apologize (to anyone who is listening) for the lengthy hiatus from this blog. Alas, life intrudes and I just haven't had anything interesting to blog about. That got me thinking: is there really anything about environmental work that is truly 'interesting?' Hmmm, why did I get into this field again?
I suppose it was vague ideas about making the world a better place to live . . . oh, that and it was definitely a leading edge career choice when I was in college. There wasn't even an 'environmental' engineering degree in those days. Sure you could get an 'environmental' subdiscipline with a Civil Engineering degree - which meant that basically you could design and run wastewater treatment plants - but that really didn't trip my trigger.
At the time, I was far more interested in environmental contamination and remediation. That could have something to do with growing up next door to the Chemical Corridor of Ashtabula, Ohio (once a booming part of the US war infrastructure), and having an NPL site almost in my back yard (Fields Brook). I suppose, too that the idea of carving out what I thought, in my young idealism, I needed in order to do 'real' environmental work held a certain appeal to my non-conformist side. I guess that's why I ended up in Agricultural Engineering at Ohio State (now called the Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering). At least there, they let me carve out my own path towards an engineering degree. I ended up in the soil and water engineering subdiscipline. For my MS, I did my thesis work on groundwater contaminant transport.
Of course, I was better off than my predecessors in the environmental field, who learned their job entirely on the fly (not to say that I didn't learn most of the real environmental work on the fly, mind you). Now there are degrees in Environmental Engineering. I've actually taken several courses toward a MS in Environmental Engineering through Findlay University. What I wouldn't have given to have some of these courses at the beginning of my career!
But back to my initial question, what is interesting in the Environmental field? Well, actually, looking back on my career, I've done some pretty neat stuff. My first job out of college was with a consulting firm. I got to do investigative drilling, and evaluate the results to determine the remediation path forward. When I moved back to Ashtabula County, Ohio, I got to be involved in some of the early work of the Ashtabula River Project, an innovative approach to cleanup coordination for the Ashtabula River Area of Concern (downstream of the Fields Brook NPL site) that has now been modeled in other places.
I worked at another facility where they treated hazardous waste (my introduction to a RCRA facility), and worked for several years on the program monitoring the contamination at old inactive units, and helping to develop the remedial action plans. Now, years later, as a consultant, I am actually witnessing those plans comes to fruition.
I also worked at a DOE decommissioning project. While I learned A LOT about environmental regulations while working on that project, I also vowed that I would NEVER work for the government again. Long story, probably mostly politically-incorrect, so I won't relate it here. While there, I did get to do some actual remediation project management work on one of the operable units associated with Fields Brook (not related to the DOE project, mind you). Completing the PCB cleanup, and certifying closure of the unit was probably one of my proudest achievements as an Environmental Engineer.
My foray into industrial environmental management was also frought with excitement, especially working for a reinforced plastic composites manufacturer (right around the time the Quad W MACT came out). There was a huge learning curve there, and the work was never really boring, but it was extremely demanding. If you've ever worked in industry, you know that in general it is always about efficiency. Unfortunately, I was doing the work of two people, with no end in site, and a sh**-load of 'new' work coming down the pike.
It definitely takes a dedicated person to become a career industrial environmental manager. I have since struck out on my own, and offer support services to those poor, over-worked, and generally over-looked environmental managers, many of whom are also tasked with managing the safety program. It is a career choice filled with challenges, and in the challenges are significant opportunities.
In fact, there are always new rules and regulations coming out, presenting new challenges, and new opportunities to demonstrate the rewards that environmental stewardship can have for a company. It is in facing these challenges head-on, and making the case for the business oppotunities present in the challenges that the excitement of an environemtnal management career reside.
Yes, the environemntal field is interesting - endlessly so!
So, does anyone else care to share their journey in the environemental field? I'd love to hear YOUR story!
I suppose it was vague ideas about making the world a better place to live . . . oh, that and it was definitely a leading edge career choice when I was in college. There wasn't even an 'environmental' engineering degree in those days. Sure you could get an 'environmental' subdiscipline with a Civil Engineering degree - which meant that basically you could design and run wastewater treatment plants - but that really didn't trip my trigger.
At the time, I was far more interested in environmental contamination and remediation. That could have something to do with growing up next door to the Chemical Corridor of Ashtabula, Ohio (once a booming part of the US war infrastructure), and having an NPL site almost in my back yard (Fields Brook). I suppose, too that the idea of carving out what I thought, in my young idealism, I needed in order to do 'real' environmental work held a certain appeal to my non-conformist side. I guess that's why I ended up in Agricultural Engineering at Ohio State (now called the Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering). At least there, they let me carve out my own path towards an engineering degree. I ended up in the soil and water engineering subdiscipline. For my MS, I did my thesis work on groundwater contaminant transport.
Of course, I was better off than my predecessors in the environmental field, who learned their job entirely on the fly (not to say that I didn't learn most of the real environmental work on the fly, mind you). Now there are degrees in Environmental Engineering. I've actually taken several courses toward a MS in Environmental Engineering through Findlay University. What I wouldn't have given to have some of these courses at the beginning of my career!
But back to my initial question, what is interesting in the Environmental field? Well, actually, looking back on my career, I've done some pretty neat stuff. My first job out of college was with a consulting firm. I got to do investigative drilling, and evaluate the results to determine the remediation path forward. When I moved back to Ashtabula County, Ohio, I got to be involved in some of the early work of the Ashtabula River Project, an innovative approach to cleanup coordination for the Ashtabula River Area of Concern (downstream of the Fields Brook NPL site) that has now been modeled in other places.
I worked at another facility where they treated hazardous waste (my introduction to a RCRA facility), and worked for several years on the program monitoring the contamination at old inactive units, and helping to develop the remedial action plans. Now, years later, as a consultant, I am actually witnessing those plans comes to fruition.
I also worked at a DOE decommissioning project. While I learned A LOT about environmental regulations while working on that project, I also vowed that I would NEVER work for the government again. Long story, probably mostly politically-incorrect, so I won't relate it here. While there, I did get to do some actual remediation project management work on one of the operable units associated with Fields Brook (not related to the DOE project, mind you). Completing the PCB cleanup, and certifying closure of the unit was probably one of my proudest achievements as an Environmental Engineer.
My foray into industrial environmental management was also frought with excitement, especially working for a reinforced plastic composites manufacturer (right around the time the Quad W MACT came out). There was a huge learning curve there, and the work was never really boring, but it was extremely demanding. If you've ever worked in industry, you know that in general it is always about efficiency. Unfortunately, I was doing the work of two people, with no end in site, and a sh**-load of 'new' work coming down the pike.
It definitely takes a dedicated person to become a career industrial environmental manager. I have since struck out on my own, and offer support services to those poor, over-worked, and generally over-looked environmental managers, many of whom are also tasked with managing the safety program. It is a career choice filled with challenges, and in the challenges are significant opportunities.
In fact, there are always new rules and regulations coming out, presenting new challenges, and new opportunities to demonstrate the rewards that environmental stewardship can have for a company. It is in facing these challenges head-on, and making the case for the business oppotunities present in the challenges that the excitement of an environemtnal management career reside.
Yes, the environemntal field is interesting - endlessly so!
So, does anyone else care to share their journey in the environemental field? I'd love to hear YOUR story!
Monday, July 20, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
