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?

This week’s post was written by Dr. Ken Ferguson, an independent consultant evaluating project risk and risk mitigation related to new nuclear reactor projects. He has a PhD in Nuclear Science and Engineering from Carnegie – Mellon University and a B.S. in Physics from the University of Michigan.

The nuclear power industry is committed to safe operations. The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan reinforces the value of attention to even more effective safety performance from nuclear power reactors. One nuclear technology effort that has promise for such an outcome involves Small Modular Reactor (SMR) designs. Numerous SMR designs are being developed and confirmed which can deliver power levels much lower than the current range of one thousand megawatts offered in nuclear power plants in operation. An additional factor regarding the utilization of SMRs is the directive by the Obama administration for government facilities to have plans by 2020 to reduce their carbon emissions by 80 %. A significant part of this goal can be met by the use of small sized reactors by the Department of Energy and Department of Defense.

Why the attractiveness to the electric utility sector? The fundamental advantage is that the capital outlay and investment for an SMR is billions of dollars less than for a larger reactor. SMR deployment includes adding more modules as time progresses and the actual need for more megawatts is recognized. In a simple economic model, the revenue generated by the first modules help fund the deployment of future modules. In addition, SMR deployment can involve a manufacturing approach rather than on-site construction of larger nuclear plants. This shift has the promise of reducing uncertainty in project completion time that can be experienced in large size nuclear plant projects.

The details of SMR development have important safety features and advantages. A variety of designs are considered to have “passive” safety features in that external actions such as electrical initiation of safety pumps and power sources are not required. Inherent physical behavior such as gravity induced coolant flow and natural circulation of coolant are the basis for safe shutdowns. This basis of safety can also reduce plant cost due to the elimination of certain pumps, valves, electrical wiring, etc.

As with much nuclear technology innovation, an important project risk involves the details of regulatory acceptance and related timing to achieve that acceptance. For SMRs, examples of regulatory action and attentions that need to be accomplished and monitored include:

1. Can events in one module impact another module (“common mode failure”)?
2. Can one control room operator be allowed to be responsible for more than one module concurrently?
3. What is the proper security staffing (many SMR designs are intended to be sited underground)?
4. Does an SMR qualify to have a smaller land zone to control during an accident than currently required for larger plants?
5. What tests and analyses are needed to properly validate the SMR designs?
6. What new regulatory requirements are appropriate to the features of SMR designs?
7. What will be the extent of regulatory agencies global cooperation and information exchange on these matters?

This week's post was written by guest blogger Sarah Medearis; Sarah is a Senior Consultant with Antea Group’s Baltimore Office and is the company’s Operational Performance and Assurance Practice Leader.

Twenty-first century environmental regulations require more detailed pollutant accounting than their 20th century predecessors, and rely on increasing public demand for transparency and corporate social responsibility to green industrial operations. Ontario’s Ministry of Environment (MOE) is one of many agencies in North America requiring manufacturers to track and publicly account for toxic substances at their facilities under its new Toxics Reduction Act (TRA) regulations (O. Reg. 455/09). Finalized in December 2009, reporting requirements for some of the listed toxic substances were due for the first time on June 1 of this year.

These new and more rigorous regulations draw on each other, creating a complex diversity of similar requirements throughout North America. The MOE drew upon the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) and New Jersey’s Pollution Prevention (P2) Act to develop the TRA requirements. Ontario’s TRA regulations focus on specific industrial operations at a facility that create or use toxic substances, not just those that result in pollutant emissions from the facility as a whole. Accounting for individual toxic substances is a more complex process than previous requirements. It starts by organizing facility operations into distinct “Stages” within which there are one or more processes using, creating or emitting toxic substances.

At the process level, measurements and calculations must be performed to quantify the amount of toxic substances used, created, transformed, destroyed, contained in the product, released or disposed of, or transferred to another process or medium. The data and quantification methods must be evaluated for accuracy with mass balance checks performed to identify any imbalances between input and output so that all quantities can be explained.

As part of the drive towards transparency, and to ensure there are no hidden icebergs under the water, MOE requires firms to also report costs associated with these industrial operations in its P2 plan due at the end of the year. MOE is particularly interested in all the “indirect costs” that the agency believes really drive P2, including:

• Environmental, health and safety compliance
• Pollution liability
• Waste disposal
• Hazardous material storage & handling
• Worker protective equipment, ventilation
• Container labeling, packaging (CLP), material safety data sheets (MSDS)
• Administrative burdens
• Public relations
• Energy, operation and maintenance for pollution control equipment

As part of the expected corporate social responsibility, the P2 plan must identify at least one method for reducing toxic substances under each of seven P2 categories. Both feasible and non-feasible options must have a rough toxic substance reduction estimate. For those options that are considered technically feasible, the P2 plan must document the anticipated cost savings. The net present value and timelines for implementing feasible P2 options must be outlined, along with the anticipated cost savings of both direct and indirect (and co-benefits) including:

• Total Savings
• Return on Investment (ROI) and Payback Period
• Replaces Equipment Scheduled for Repair/Replacement
• Energy Efficiencies
• Reductions in Byproducts
• Reduced Worker Exposure (including reductions in claims, comp time, PPE costs)

The increased complexity of these newer pollutant regulations and the sharing of regulatory requirements across North America do have benefits. Despite the variations among regulations, environmental professionals experienced with, or certified under, TURA and the New Jersey P2 Act can support firms in meeting Ontario’s 2011 TRA accounting, planning and reporting requirements. As the reach of these regulations expands, so does the professional expertise to stream-line and more efficiently meet the regulatory requirements as well as reap the benefits of P2 plans. In addition, while annual pollutant reporting and compound-specific P2 plans are required, implementing P2 measures remains voluntary. But with increasing public pressure for corporate social responsibility, together with the effort spent preparing compound-specific P2 plans, companies can make both social and environmental gains by greening their operations.

This week's post was written by guest blogger Fu Lu, Senior Environmental Regulatory Specialist with ESD China Limited, an associate of Inogen Environmental Alliance.

Released by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) on September 17, 2010, and effective November 1, the Interim Measures on the Assessment and Review of Energy-Saving of Fixed Asset Investment Projects (the Measures) are designed to curb excessive increases in energy consumption and raise energy use efficiency across China.

According to the Measures, all new investment projects (including new construction, renovation and expansion projects) must undergo independent assessments and government reviews on whether they are energy-saving or not before being approved by regulators. Independent institutions will carry out the energy-saving assessments while government departments will take charge of the review work. Any fixed asset investment project that fails to meet the energy-saving requirements will be vetoed. Those projects that pass the energy-saving assessments and reviews will be subjected to strict supervision of their actual energy consumption.

According to the Measures, projects with an annual energy consumption of over 3,000 tons of coal equivalent must submit an energy-saving assessment report to government regulators. Projects with an annual energy consumption between 1,000 tons and 3,000 tons of coal equivalent will have to submit an energy-saving assessment form. Projects that consume less than 1,000 tons of coal equivalent annually will only have to submit a government energy-saving registration form. Both the assessment report and assessment form must be completed by independent institutions and reviewed by government regulators, while the registration form can be filled out by the project owner and does not need to go through a government regulator’s review.

Before the Measures took effect, there were no such compulsory restrictions on the country's new fixed asset investment projects. The implementation of the new Measures will ensure only projects that pass the energy-saving assessment and review can be approved for construction. This will restrain excessive increases in energy consumption for all new investment projects and thus help China achieve the new target of 16% reduction of per unit GDP energy consumption during 2011 - 2015.

This week’s post was written by Dr. Ken Ferguson, an independent consultant evaluating project risk and risk mitigation related to new nuclear reactor projects. He has a PhD in Nuclear Science and Engineering from Carnegie – Mellon University and a B.S. in Physics from the University of Michigan.

The recent events in Japan underscore the role that natural events, site selection, and site suitability have on the safety of nuclear power reactors. The developed world addresses the concept of nuclear safety as an integrated effect of the specific design proposed for power generation coupled with the specific site for which the nuclear reactor is being deployed. Many years ago, as a young engineer with nuclear engineering degrees, I made a decision to get the full view of nuclear power projects by accepting my first nuclear position as part of a licensing organization. I soon became involved in a rapid learning curve, appreciation, and incorporation of the “…ologies” into my safety and regulatory interfacing duties. Site characterizations regarding hydrology, geology, seismology, and meteorology are examples of critical information that is collected and transmitted in documents to regulatory reviewers. This information also provides key inputs to the duty cycles imposed on nuclear plant systems and components, as well as the related engineering and safety analyses and evaluations that are performed by nuclear design companies and independently by regulatory staff. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) creates a series of regulatory guides for power plant applicants to utilize in generating and utilizing site suitability and related plant evaluations. Regulations are promulgated regarding acceptance parameters such as radiological exposure limits for the public and workers for normal operations as well as accident scenarios.

Regulators are the referees, not the champions of the nuclear technologies in which they are involved. One key value performed is determining the safety of the reactor designs proposed by others for deployment. An historical, coincident question and challenge is “how safe is safe enough?”  For nuclear accidents, keeping the reactor sufficiently cooled to prevent fuel damage is an overriding concern. Operating plants utilize electrical powered pumps to deliver such cooling.

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan is expected to have compliance and regulatory implications for nuclear power plants world wide. The United States NRC, for example, has already become involved in an action for additional seismic risk evaluations of nuclear plants currently in operation. Other related actions can be expected to occur; including updates to the regulatory process and details to assure that a proper level of safety risk is involved in utilizing specific reactor designs at selected locations. Ramifications could involve rulemaking, public hearings, regulatory guide development and reviews, calls for additional analyses and testing, etc. aimed to assess current adequacy or to establish effective enhancement.

Some of the characteristics of the progression of these reviews and implications for the nuclear regulatory process may include the following:

1. Expect the United States NRC and its staff to be out in front regarding such actions and to be a standard for actions and attentions taken globally.
2. There has been recent attention in “Regulatory Harmonizing” globally regarding coordination and effective and proper consistency among countries. Expect future regulatory enhancement directions to ultimately reflect such harmony to an increasing degree.
3. Expect the attention to be focused on operating units (over one hundred in the US, over 400 globally), followed by new large reactors not constructed (perhaps 60 worldwide) and finally new concepts for small reactors, expected to be applied for next year in the United States.
4. Expect this action to include a necessary involvement of the dozens of emerging nations having a serious interest in nuclear power but not yet ordering plants. Many are working through the establishment of a nuclear regulatory structure as part of a supportive national nuclear infrastructure.
5. An interactive involvement of nuclear design companies, utilities, and regulatory staff as changes are drafted and reviewed internally and externally.
6. Effective implementation of finalized changes to any regulatory process must involve an “early and often” interfacing with regulators to assure that the body of work undertaken and documentation delivered achieves the compliance that the regulations and regulators require.

Do you think that these industry and regulatory actions make a nuclear plant “safe enough?” Tell us your thoughts on this matter.

This weeks post was written by guest blogger Chris Hinchcliffe, Senior Environmental, Health & Safety consultant for Delta Simons Environmental Consultants.

On 17 February 2011, Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd was fined £385K after being found guilty of corporate manslaughter under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This was the first case in UK law under this Act. The court took into account that a greater fine would have tipped the company into insolvency and thus the judge allowed the business to pay the fine over a 10 year period. Charges against the sole director were dropped due to the worsening state of his health.

The company allowed an employee to work in a narrow 3.5 metre deep pit with no supported sides and it collapsed and killed him. The court findings were that they allowed employees to carry out such work knowingly and supplied no training, method statement, risk assessment or adequate information.

The Act applies across the UK and also extends to offshore installations covered by UK criminal law. The Act creates an offence whereby an organization will be guilty if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a person’s death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to that person. This breach must lie mainly with the senior management team. The Act extends to companies and partnerships but not to individual directors.

A business can face an unlimited fine if convicted and ordered to publicize the conviction, which could have significant PR implications. Cotswold Geotechnical only has four employees currently and larger businesses should note that normal fines will seldom be less than £500K.

The outcome of the case should lead businesses to review their health and safety policies to ensure their management systems and work instructions are up-to-date. Staff should be fully aware of those policies and trained regularly on any important changes. Line management should supervise and audit work so that breaches are detected and corrected early.

Do you think that fault should lie with the corporation?  Do you think similar legislation would pass in the United States?