Mark Harbin has more than 20 years of experience in commercial and industrial environmental systems. With the Compliance Services Division of IHS and a Certified Environmental Auditor (CEA), he is actively involved in conducting onsite refrigerant management audits and assisting clients in meeting their operational and environmental goals.

Continuity is a big challenge for organizations today – especially when it comes to regulatory compliance. Owners and operators have obligations under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to ensure compliance – regardless of economic or other challenges. Yet more and more employees are being charged with “do more with less” and to “wear more hats.” People get spread too thin. Something’s got to give – right?

The “sine wave” up and down of environmental initiatives in organizations is related to many factors – employee turnover, reorganizations, consolidations, downsizing, acquisition, layoffs, budget cuts, etc. No matter what external factor upsets business as usual, environmental regulatory compliance initiatives (fragile things at best) will be negatively affected. From my experience as an environmental auditor, refrigerant compliance is a frequent victim of lack of continuity. Why?

It is the one area of the Clean Air Act Amendments that is most perplexing to environmental managers. Title VI along with Section 608 and 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments is related to stratospheric ozone depleting CFC and HCFC refrigerants. These regulations are a morphed hybrid of the air conditioning industry and its jargon, and highly detailed air pollution rules. The end product is a mass of confusion for most owners and operators.

Environmental managers do not typically speak HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) jargon and can have difficulty matching what the AC techs have said or logged with what the rules say. Getting a clear answer is often dependent on understanding the language of that trade. This tends to make them hesitant to lead refrigerant compliance initiatives.

The other group, facility managers, is typically managing groups of personnel that are crisis driven – systems break down, need immediate attention and quick resolution – or major costs can be incurred. Often spread thin with too few people and limited budgets, facility managers are usually not the first to volunteer to launch refrigerant compliance initiatives – or sustain them. But they often do anyway! Why? Because they understand that it is necessary for the organization to cover itself and its people.

Ownership and upper management, however, may not understand the necessity (and fragility) of refrigerant compliance – it’s too far down the food chain in their organization. Environmental managers have the responsibility of informing management of their regulatory obligations, but if they do not have a clear understanding of the specific rules how can they explain them to management?

"Sustainability" is a term that gets attached to a lot of issues. Management needs to inject some sustainability into their refrigerant compliance programs to ensure they survive the constant change that is the norm these days.

Sustainability measures that management can implement to aid continuity include:

• Establish a refrigerant management team to include environmental, facilities, operations, and purchasing/contracting (more people involved helps build momentum)
• Assign a site refrigerant compliance manager to oversee compliance initiatives
• Assign a “wingman” – don’t put the whole program’s success in one person’s lap (they might win the lottery and then what?)
• Develop refrigerant compliance policies and work practices specific to your organization.
• Assign responsibilities related to job titles. The Team should revisit and revise these as reorganizations, mergers, consolidations and the like occur.
• Provide the resources necessary to initiate and sustain refrigerant compliance over time – regular training, auditing, electronic recordkeeping systems

Deep downside: Ownership needs to keep in mind that failure to act can be deemed negligent and criminal by regulators. Several cases exist where plant managers and facility managers have had to defend themselves when accused of criminal conduct. Civil fines are based on $37,500 per day, per each violation. Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) can end up costing millions of dollars with complete replacement of CFC/HCFC chillers and HVAC systems. One facility with sub-standard compliance can bring full EPA investigation and enforcement to the entire organization! Guess who gets downsized next?

Citation's Software Compliance Tool Boasts New Functionality

 Citation built the original versions of ART from the ground up with the customer in mind, providing a simple and effective solution for complying with regulatory requirements.

"We are impressed by the intuitive nature of ART, and how its conditions-based questions will enable our customers to better manage their risk through a more comprehensive understanding of applicable regulations and laws," said Laura Mixon-Gould from CH2M HILL, a Citation partner. "ART is a good fit within our suites of services."

And it was with that mindset that Citation asked for feedback from customers. It was largely this feedback that eventually led to the improvements and new features within ART 3.0, which is being released to customers today.

By incorporating both Detailed Requirement screening and Tasking into ART 3.0, the software tool simplifies the compliance process into fewer steps for the user.

Clients can also add their own Detailed Requirements to address local plant requirements, and these supplemental requirements can now be defined at the company level.

Citation also took efforts to streamline the review process by implementing high-level applicability questions to significantly reduce the total number of questions that need to be answered. Additionally, users can more easily see how far along they are in the process and jump from step to step if needed.

Improvements to security include allowing companies to manage their own security and set-up, expanding role-based security functions, and improving password strength requirements for new users. And users now have the ability to use Internet Explorer 7, 8 and 9, along with Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

How ART Notifications Work

 The US EPA warned in August of upcoming changes to the way it collects information from commercial chemical manufacturers, adding the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. Published in the Federal Register on August 16 as 40 CFR 711, the new rule went into effect on September 15.

The CDR rule, which replaced the Inventory Update Reporting rule, enables the EPA to collect and publish information on the manufacturing, processing and use of commercial chemicals on the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory. The main points of the CDR include more frequent reporting, reduced reporting thresholds for specific chemicals, new exemptions, and new reporting requirements.

Under TSCA, failure to maintain required records or to report the required information can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 a day as well as criminal fines and imprisonment. Users of Citation's CyberRegs could have found the new CFR material the day it was released, and might have even received email notification that 40 CFR 711 had changed. But unless they were following closely, they might have missed the specific changes pertaining to their practices and procedures.

ART users not only received an automatic email notification that relevant changes were made in the company's ART Review, but they were given specific changes in eight Detailed Requirements. They would have not only known that previously written compliance tasks for the replaced Inventory Update Reporting rule were outdated, but they would have realized immediately how they needed to alter their reporting thresholds or frequency, or if they received a new exemption.

Citation's regulatory analysts would have done the leg work for them, providing them specific citations to the material that contained the necessary compliance actions. For example, the Detailed Requirement for 40 CFR 711.20 tells users they must "File reports during applicable submission periods" and 40 CFR 711.35 tells users to "Submit reports electronically pursuant to requirements."

The ART notifications contain the citation and full text of the rule that was changed. Users simply have to look up the citations and make the necessary changes within their compliance matrix. In this manner, the company will always be in compliance with the standards of the federal government.

I was surprised to see a news release from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stating that a former EPA fugitive had been caught and sentenced to prison for running an asbestos training scam. 

First of all, I wasn’t aware that the EPA had a fugitive list.  Second of all, I was appalled at what this fugitive had done. 

Albania Deleon ran an asbestos abatement training school in Methuen, MA from 2001 through 2006.  During this time, the company offered training courses on proper asbestos abatement.  Upon successful completion of an asbestos training course, participants are considered certified in asbestos abatement and given a certificate stating so. 

Ms. Deleon skipped a few key steps in this process.  She was convicted of, among other things, selling certificates to thousands of illegal aliens who had not taken the required course.  The individuals then filed the certificates with the Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety in order to be authorized to work in asbestos abatement.

Ms. Deleon then placed these uncertified workers in positions as certified abatement workers in public buildings throughout New England. 

The fact that someone cold knowingly do this blows my mind.  It’s similar to a story covered previously on this blog about a man in Iowa who knowingly allowed a building he owned that contained asbestos-laden materials to undergo extensive renovations without the proper equipment or certified workers. 

What Ms. Deleon did happened on a much larger scale and with the potential for much larger consequences.  It is estimated that certificates were issued to over 2,000 unqualified individuals.

Ms. Deleon was captured in the Dominican Republic in November of 2010, nineteen months after her federal conviction in 2008.  She was sentenced to 87 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.2 million to the IRS (she was also found guilty of tax fraud), and $369,015 to AIM Mutual Insurance Company. 

After her conviction in 2008, but before she fled back to her native Dominican Republic, Ms. Deleon wrote in a letter “I pray that God will forgive my soul and allow me to atone the rest of my life repaying and repairing the harm I have done.  This is my solemn promise…I commit myself to work ceacelessly [sic] to make restitution to the government and to the keeper of my soul until I draw my last breath life (sic).” 

The irony in that statement is obvious, as many of the workers that received “certification” under her watch will suffer long and painful deaths from asbestosis or other asbestos-related diseases. 

I am glad to see that the EPA is cracking down on environmental criminals like Ms. Deleon.  The EPA fugitive website was launched in December 2008 and has helped aid in the capture of five environmental criminals in that time.