On a Sunday evening, on March, 13, 2011, the community of Middleton, MA was rocked by a powerful explosion emanating from a plant owned and operated by Bostik, Inc., a plastics and adhesives manufacturer.

The blast injured four people, shook nearby homes, and raised concerns about the town's water and air safety. It also called into question the company's enforcement of safety regulations.

After a six-month investigation, on September 13, 2011, OSHA cited Bostik for 50 alleged violations of workplace safety standards and proposed fines totaling $917,000.

The inspection identified serious deficiencies in Bostik's process safety management (PSM) program, a detailed set of requirements and procedures employers must follow to proactively address hazards associated with processes and equipment that involve large amounts of hazardous chemicals.

A valve was inadvertently left open on the day of the explosion, releasing flammable acetone vapors that exploded after being ignited by an undetermined source.

"In this case, Bostik knew from prior third-party and internal compliance audits conducted at the plant that aspects of its PSM program were incomplete or inadequate, and misclassified electrical equipment was in use,"  said Jeffrey A. Erskine, OSHA's area director for northeastern Massachusetts. 

"The company did not take adequate steps to address those conditions," Erskine said. "Luckily, the explosion happened when there were few workers in the plant. Otherwise, this incident could have resulted in a catastrophic loss of life."

OSHA found that the Company's process safety information was incomplete. The employer's analysis of hazards did not address previous incidents with a potential for catastrophic results, such as forklifts that struck process equipment, and did not address human factors such as operator error, communication between shift changes and employee fatigue from excessive overtime. In addition, the company did not ensure that a forklift and electrical equipment, such as light fixtures, switches and motors, were approved for use in hazardous locations where flammable gases or vapors are present.

On May 17, 2012, OSHA and Bostik, Inc. reached a settlement of $600,000 in fines. Bostik is no longer using the manufacturing process that was in part responsible for the explosion. The settlement also commits Bostik to strengthening its PSM program to prevent a similar incident in the future. The company must keep OSHA apprised of its progress in abating workplace hazards.

The EPA published a news release last week stating that fast food giant McDonald’s is ranked 14th on the EPA’s 2012 list of top 50 green-powered organizations. 

I was intrigued by this.  Were they re-using their fry oil to create bio-diesel to run their supply trucks?  They have a guaranteed supply of used oil, that’s for sure. 

A little Googling reveals that, in fact, McDonald’s in some foreign countries are already doing this.  A little further digging on the EPA website revealed that McDonald’s spot in the top 50 was earned through the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from U.S. wind sources. 

RECs are tradable energy commodities representing proof that 1 megawatt-hour of electricity was generated from a renewable energy source.  Whether McDonald's is truly using green power depends on how you define “use.” 

In addition to the purchase of RECs, the fast food company has also worked on reducing energy consumption via energy efficiency initiatives and technical innovations, including the installation of photovoltaic panels and energy efficient lighting in some restaurants.

A further look at the top 50 list revealed some interesting (to me) entries. 

• WalMart is number four on the list, getting 28% of their total electricity use in California and Texas stores from biogas, solar and wind energy. 

• Lockheed Martin is number fifteen, getting 15% of their total electricity use from solar and wind energy.

• Boeing of South Carolina (#36 on the list) comes in at 100% of their total electricity use from biomass and solar energy, with some generated on-site. 

• Carnegie Mellon University (#40 on the list) appears to actually be giving back (or buying) extra green energy, as, according to the EPA list, it gets 103% of its total electricity use from solar and wind energy, again with some generated on-site.  Leave it to an educational institution to get “extra credit.”

While all of the entries on the list may not actually be using green energy, to me, it’s a step in the right direction. 

I’m sure the merits of using RECs, as well as what kind and how much, run deeper than this blog will get in to, the bottom line is that something is better than nothing. 

Companies may strive to produce their own power or recycle/reuse their water, that is not always attainable or profitable for them. 

As always, profit is the bottom line.  Until that changes (not likely) or until the company’s users push for a change (and are willing to pay for it), companies will do what they can. 

So, next time you pull through the McDonald’s drive-thru for some french fries, be it in your Hummer, Smart Car or something in between, remember that a little bit of green power was used to help make them.