The Good

Rewarding EH&S innovators

The Campbell Institute has announced their plans to reward inventive EH&S thinkers in the 2013 Campbell Institute/Stewardship Action Council Innovation Challenge.

The Campbell Institute partnered with the Stewardship Action Council in an effort to honor organizations for achievements in planning and implementing innovative programs that address specific EHS topics.

According to the Campbell Institute’s website, the Challenge topics will be “Off-the-Job Public/Private Partnerships” and “Zero Waste.” Awards will be given for existing and/or new programs in multiple categories, including "best implementation plan," "best path forward," "best results" and "best overall proposal."

The Innovation Challenge is open to all organizations.  Winners will be recognized and invited to speak at the National Safety Council Congress & Expo.  For more information on the Challenge and entry, visit the Campbell Institute website.

 

The Bad

Fatalities slip through cracks in OSH reporting

EHS Today reported that gaps in Occupation Safety and Health (OSH) reporting have allowed companies who report high fatalities to still end up on a “Most Sustainable” List.

A study released by the Center for Safety and Health Sustainability revealed the worrisome gaps as well as a general lack of transparency in OSH sustainability reporting among organizations rated highly for sustainability performance.

According to the article in EHS Today, five organizations on the Corporate Knights’ 2011 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World reported more than 10 work-related fatalities in a year. One organization alone reported 49 deaths in a year.

Researchers blame the oversights on the difficulty of interpreting corporate OSH performance and a lack of uniformity in data collection and clarity over reporting methods and metrics. 

 

The Non-Compliant

EPA fines Arizona school districts for Asbestos

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined six Arizona school districts a combined total of $94,575 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violations.

The inspections were conducted in 2011, and found 25 schools in a state of non-compliance. Inspectors discovered numerous violations, including failing to inspect facilities for asbestos containing materials, failing to re-inspect campuses with known asbestos containing materials and failing to have an Asbestos Management Plan.

More than 15,000 children attend the 25 schools not in compliance with the federal AHERA in these districts.

All of the school districts have since taken steps to comply with the law, with the cost of compliance reducing the penalties in most cases to zero, the EPA said.

The six school districts being fined:

·         St. John's Unified School District in Apache County—fined $14,195, penalty reduced to $824 by the school district's cost  of achieving compliance

·         Florence Unified School District in Pinal County—fined $31,705, no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty

·         Vernon Elementary School District in Apache County—fined $2,700, no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty

·         McNary Elementary School District on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation—fined $14,200, no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty

·         Round Valley Unified School District in Apache County—fined $10,100, no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty

The Self Assessment Checklist is one of the worksheet options in the Compliance Suite.  It displays applicable regulatory requirements specific to your company or site. 

The Checklist information is generated from individual reviews and exported as a document or spreadsheet that contains the Detailed Requirements and areas for progress reporting.

It is recommended that you complete your review before generating the Self Assessment Checklist so that it includes all applicable requirements. 

The 10 Steps to Create a Self Assessment Checklist: 

1.    Navigate to your list of Active Reviews

 

2.    To the right of the review you would like to generate the Checklist for, click on the icon in the “Worksheets” column—this will take you to the “Worksheets” page

 

  

 

3.    Select “Self Assessment Checklist”

 

  

 

4.    Choose the Type of checklist

 

a.    Self Assessment Checklist: A document with applicable Detailed Requirements and an area for progress reporting  **Selected for this example 

 

b.    Self Assessment Checklist – Short Form: An Excel spreadsheet with applicable Detailed Requirements and an area for progress reporting

 

5.    Choose the operations to be included by including a checkmark in the box (Default: all checked)

 

6.    Click “Generate Worksheet”

 

 

 

7.    From the pop-up screen, you can choose to go to the worksheet queue or stay on the page

 

8.    If you stayed on the page, you can navigate to the worksheets queue by clicking “Worksheets Queue” near the top right corner

 

9.    Click on the title of the worksheet you generated

 

 

10.Click “Open” in the File Download pop-up screen—the Checklist should contain all applicable Detailed Requirements, generated from your completed review

 

Example of a Self Assessment Checklist:

 

 

Example of a Self Assessment Checklist - Short Form:

 

You can print or save this document.  Because the content is exported from the tool, it will not reflect any future changes made to regulatory requirements. 

To ensure that your Checklist is current, create a new each time a review has been updated.  You can keep track of your worksheets in the Worksheets Queue by the “Date Created,” or archive older versions by clicking the icon in the column on the far right to remove them from you Active worksheets queue.

A tool for excluding requirements from the system by exporting then importing a spreadsheet of desired changes, found in “Settings”

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Instructions:                                                                              

1.   Set up permissions to use this function (for the Company Administrator)

a)    To set up permission for the entire company:

·         In the Compliance Suite, go to Settings, then “Manage Roles”

·         Choose the role you wish to give “Excluded Requirements” access

·         Check off the appropriate permissions under the sections “Operational Templates” and “Entire Company Excluded Requirements”  

b)   To set up permissions for an individual template:

·         Go to Settings then “Manage Operations Templates”

·         Either select an existing template (changes will apply to all reviews using this template) or create a new one (note: you cannot assign a new template to an existing review)

v  If creating a new template, make sure to include all applicable operations in the “Operations” tab

·         Under the “Excluded Requirements Access” tab, you will see the box with a list of roles.  You can assign permissions here (the ability to View, Export and/or Import excluded requirements)

·         Click “Save” when finished

·         Changes will apply to reviews with this template in place

 

 

 

2.   Exclude Requirements

·         Go to Settings, Excluded Requirements

·         Choose the Operation Template attached to the review from which you want to exclude requirements, or choose “Entire  Company” for changes to apply company-wide

·         Choose the Country, Region and (if applicable) the Supplemental Region

·         Click “Export Requirements” to export a spreadsheet of requirements for the selected region

 

 

3.   Mark desired changes in the spreadsheet

·        Place an “X” in the “Excluded” column of the spreadsheet to exclude any requirement that does NOT apply to the site (see Summary and Guide Notes columns for reference)

·         Add rationale if/when necessary

·         Save the spreadsheet to your computer and return to the Compliance Suite window

 

4.   Import Requirements

·         Click “Import Requirements,” “Browse” to find your saved spreadsheet

a)    If “Require Rationale” box is checked you must have the rationale column of the spreadsheet filled out for importing to work

b)   An unchecked “Require Rationale” box does not require the rationale column to be filled

·         Click “Import Requirements” in the small box when ready to upload the spreadsheet

·         You can see Excluded and Included Requirements on this page by selecting either option in the small box near “Search Table Contents”

 

 

 

 5.   Apply the changes

Any changes you make in this feature (company-wide or to an individual Operations Template) will automatically apply to all new reviews you create. 

Previous reviews with an older set of exclusions will need to be versioned for changes to apply.  To apply the changes to an existing review:

·         Go to your list of reviews

·         Next the review that has been modified, click on the red circle with “!”

·         Icons will indicate whether there has been an inclusion or exclusion of requirements

·         Complete the normal update process to apply changes

 

 

The Content Schedule is a global option on the toolbar that will allow any customer to see when each jurisdiction was last updated

To view the Content Schedule:

Click on “Content Schedule” near the top of the screen in the Compliance Suite tool

 

This will bring up a list of ALL jurisdictions, organized by the most current updates

 

 

Use the “Search Table Contents” tool to find a specific jurisdiction

 

The icon to the left indicates that the entry has been updated in the last 7 days

 

The following is a basic "How to" for updating a Compliance Suite regulatory review

Step 1:  Changes to regulations (i.e. additions, deletions, or modifications) will be seen upon logging in, indicated by icons to the left of a review. 

Impacting updates are indicated by a red circle with an exclamation point in the middle.  If you hover your cursor over icon, the words “Impacting Update Available” will appear.

   

Click the icon to initiate the update process 

Step 2: Clicking on the icon leads you to the “Requirement Changes” page.  Select the content you wish to view from the pull down menus. 

The first menu provides the following options:

·         Impacting and Non-impacting

·         Impacting only

·         Non Impacting only

The second pull down menu allows you to choose:

·         Do not filter requirements by answer

·         Hide ‘Not Applicable’ requirements

·         Show only ‘Not Applicable’ requirements

There are many different scenarios and outcomes available.  For the purpose of this guidance documents, we will proceed using the following choices:  Impacting only and Hide ‘Not Applicable’ requirements. 

At this screen, the user will see:

 

Hover your cursor over the icons on the left for more information; see deletions, additions and modifications on the right in the “Changed Detailed Requirements” column.

Click “Next” 

Step 3: If regulations were deleted since you first performed the review, you will be taken to the “Deleted Requirements” page.  These are regulations that were deleted. 

1.    You can remove these from the review via the “delete” function

OR

2.    You can keep some of these requirements in the review as Supplemental Requirements (they may represent “Best Practices” or otherwise provide benefits, e.g. perhaps compliance with a company policy)

 

 Make your selections, click “Next”

Step 4: Deleted Detailed Requirements: This is the same as the previous page, only it pertains to Detailed Requirements (the previous page contained High Level Requirements).  

1.    You can remove these from the review via the “delete” function

OR

2.    You can keep some of these requirements in the review as Supplemental Requirements (they may represent “Best Practices” or otherwise provide benefits, e.g. perhaps compliance with a company policy)

 

 

Make your selections, click "Create Version" 

 

Step 5:  A default screen will come up listing three versioning options:

·         Review non-impacting changes

·         Review changes to High Level Requirements answered "No" (in the original review)

·         Review changes to Detailed Requirements answered "No"

 

 

The final choice is the default.  If it is changed, a warning message will appear asking, “Are you sure you want to not review changes to Detailed Requirements answered ‘No?’” 

 

Why the warning?  Perhaps you answered “Yes” to the High Level question, “Do you discharge wastewater?”  Your facility discharges an average of 75,000 gallons per day.

However, you answered “No” to the Detailed Requirement because it only applies to sites that discharge > 100,000 gallons per day.

If the regulatory requirement changes to affect those that discharge > 50,000 gallons per day, then you won’t capture this in your updated review.

Select your preferred Versioning Option(s), click “Create Version” 

Step 6: In the next screens, High-Level Screening (Update Mode) and Detailed Screening (Update Mode), you will need to review the regulatory changes presented.

It works just like the review process—you can answer the questions, or mark them as reviewed.  Features such as the Progress bar are available for use.

 

Step 7: Once all of the updates have been reviewed in High-Level Screening (Update Mode) and Detailed Screening (Update Mode)… 

  

Click “Complete Update Process”—the versioning process is complete 

Once you have created a new version of a review, the review is in "Update" mode until you have finished reviewing all of the requirement changes and making the desired updates to your review.

Citation Technologies has a team of highly educated Regulatory Analysts who prepare the content for the company’s EH&S compliance software, the Compliance Suite.

This monthly Q&A series highlights the individual members of this top-notch team.  February’s Analyst of the Month is Patrick Carrube!

Patrick Carrube, Sr. Regulatory Analyst

Citation News Editor: Where are you from?

Patrick: I jokingly refer to my childhood as the “Tale of Two Cities”. I was born in Brooklyn, NY, but the summer I turned 14, my family moved to a small rural town just north of Scranton, PA. I lived in one of the biggest cities in the world, and then in one summer I moved to a town that literally had more cows than people.

It may have been a shock for some kids, but I loved it and even to this day I enjoy many aspects of both city and country living. I still find myself in awe from the immensity of sky scrapers and suspension bridges, but also the calm and quietness of the great outdoors.

What is your education background?

I have a B.S. in Biology from Mansfield University (Mansfield, PA) and a M.S. in Environmental Technology & Management from Arizona State University. I am currently wrapping up my thesis project and would love to continue on to a PhD project, possibly in Sustainability or Environmental Chemistry.

When and how did you become a regulatory analyst?

Like many of the other analysts here at Citation, my career wasn’t a straight shot into Regulatory Analysis.  I actually started my career in the semiconductor industry, working as a R&D Chemist and Technical Engineer. As the group expanded, so did my role.

I found myself heavily involved in the EH&S world and transitioned to Environmental Management. With my technical background and education, it was a relatively easy transition into Regulatory Analysis.

What is your area of expertise and what are the jurisdictions you cover?

My personal areas of expertise would be Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste and Waste Management, and Hazardous Communications. Having managed both a research and environmental lab, I am also in tune with the specific HSSE challenges associated with them. My current jurisdictions include: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Alberta (Canada),  Quebec (Canada), South Australia, and Botswana.

What is a typical day of work like for you?

I usually start my day by performing some basic pre-flight checks – ailerons, rudders, flaps, afterburners, and the like. I make a call to verify open air space and then make sure I top off the fuselage. I’m just kidding of course. One of the things that I think all the analysts enjoy is that each day brings something new. The majority of my time is spent going through regulatory updates, but I also will build-out and cover a new jurisdiction as needed.

What do you enjoy doing in your free time?

I spend a lot of time with my beautiful wife and two wonderful kids. If I’m not with them, you can usually find me in one of three places: the garage, the woods, or on top of my Harley. I enjoy carpentry, metal-work, and antique restoration. I love the outdoors and am an avid outdoorsman and fisherman. 

What is the strangest regulation you’ve come across?

We see plenty of strange regulations as Analysts and I would have to think long and hard to settle on the “strangest” one. However, one of my jurisdictions is Botswana, where many of the regulations are worded as if they were taken out of a Shakespearian novel. One of the most amusingly worded regulations is:

"Every factory shall be kept in a clean state, and free from effluvia arising from any drain, sanitary convenience or nuisance, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing"

It makes me laugh when I see phrases such as “sanitary convenience” and “without prejudice”. You know exactly what they are trying to say, but where else would you hear a phrase like this?

What are your thoughts regarding the effectiveness of cloud-based technology in the EH&S realm?

While I certainly like to “rough it” on camping trips, I will admit to being a “techie” my entire life. I remember when a CD-ROM drive nearly doubled the cost of a PC and I’ve had smart phones since before they were very smart. I see cloud-based technology (CBT) as an immensely valuable tool for HSSE Professionals.

As we have seen in the regulatory world - including federal, state, and local agencies –the transition to electronic reporting is already underway. I believe very strongly that CBT will be the “norm” in the near future for a multitude of reasons – it is convenient, it is user-friendly, and it ties in well with current computer and IT systems already in place.

When I think of occupations subject to environmental, health and safety (EH&S) regulations, images of oil drilling, factories and mining come to mind. 

As the Customer Service Account Specialist at Citation Technologies, I don’t typically worry about violating EHS regulations.

That is, until I replaced our printer’s Photoconductor Kit.  

After removing the old kit from the printer, it didn’t seem right to simply toss it in the garbage.  So I did what any sensible person working for an EHS regulatory software company would do—I Googled.

When searching for “how to dispose of a photoconductor kit,” I came across this message:

"Do not dispose of the used photoconductor unit in fire, as it may explode and cause injury.

Dispose of it according to local regulations."

Naturally, I wanted to light it on fire make sure that I was getting rid of the unit in a regulation-abiding manner.

This experience made me realize my job is not exempt from EHS regulations.  Certain policies, a la Disposal of Hazardous Materials, apply to us office workers as much as someone drilling oil, working in a factory or a miner.

In any job, it’s critical to know what regulations apply, and how to comply with them.

In this one instance of changing out printer hardware, a Google search was all I needed to figure out the rules and how to follow them. 

As omniscient as the great and powerful search engine seems, it would be nearly impossible to use for tracking down all of the thousands upon thousands of existing regulations that apply to, say, a mining site in Kentucky.

Let’s take TRC Mining Corp.’s #2 mine in Letcher County, Ky., for example.

On Nov. 27, 2012, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) conducted an impact inspection at the mine.  The Kentucky site was issued 23 citations, five unwarrantable failure orders, and two failure-to-abate orders for previously issued citations, according to an article from EHS Today.

The five unwarrantable failure orders were issued for failure to follow an approved ventilation plan, failure to properly maintain and repair mine seals and failure to conduct adequate pre-shift examinations.

As a result of non-compliance, the entire underground portion of the mine was closed.  It seems the mining company required more than just rock drills and chipping hammers to operate—they needed a tool for compliance.

Compliance happens by utilizing the right tool—one that makes you aware of applicable regulations and lays out a plan for how to comply.

This could mean using an environmental consultant, regulatory software, or, if you’re up for a challenge/slightly insane, Google.

From the bottom of a mine to an office cubicle, regulations affect all workplaces… 

What tools are you using to achieve compliance?

Obama Administration to Release New Environmental and Safety Regulations

A regulatory revival is coming, are you prepared?

President Barack Obama’s second-term administration is preparing to finalize multiple environmental and safety regulations stalled before the 2012 election, according to Regulatory revival near for U.S. energy industry by Jennifer A. Dlouhy.

The new regulations could have serious impacts on the coal, electric generation, hydraulic fracturing and offshore drilling industries.

According to Dlouhy’s article, the following regulations (proposed by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Environmental Protection Agency) are on the horizon, and will affect the oil and natural gas business:

1.  Hydraulic Fracturing

Water use, well construction and chemical closure

New regulations would require energy companies to disclose the chemicals they use when drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands.  They would also put in place new construction standards for wells and testing requirements for managing and storing water that comes back to the surface (a part of the fracturing process).

2.  Emergency offshore drilling equipment

More stringent standards

These regulations are a result of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and would set new standards for blowout preventers (shearing and sealing rams that cut drill pipe and block off the well hole in a blowout).  They would require more frequent maintenance of blowout preventers, stronger training for blowout prevention operators and better sensors to track preventers’ underwater performance.  The new standards could possibly also require rigs to have two sets of blind shear rams.

         3.  Offshore Safety

Independent Audits

Oil and gas companies working offshore would be required to have third party audits of safety and environment management systems.  The new regulations would provide guidelines for reporting unsafe working conditions.  It would also mandate an employee participation program for implementing the programs and set new requirements for establishing who has the authority for operational safety and decision-making.  Stop-work policies would be enforced, authorizing all employees cease working if they see risky or dangerous activity.

 

 4.  Offshore production equipment

Broader Analysis of equipment

These regulations would be a revision of rules written in 1988, and would mandate a longer life-cycle analysis of critical equipment.  From design to retirement of equipment, standards and safety elements would be embedded and analyzed in every step of the process.

5.  Sulfur emissions

 Mandated reductions

New regulations would call for cutting smog-forming sulfur emissions from gasoline.  This would mandate refiners to slash sulfur emission in fuels they produce from 30 parts per million to 10 parts per million, in order to allow catalytic converters to work more efficiently and reduce smog emissions from vehicles.

Regulatory changes are imminent, how is your business preparing to take them on?

 

The environment and government environmental policies are uneasy bedfellows at best. 

Often, an environmental issue in one state originates in another state, making it difficult and sometimes impossible for an individual state to protect its own environment.  When and if a state attempts to address an environmental issue, it may very well affect another state.

For many states, air pollution has caused just such issues.

Under the current federal law, a state is able to establish higher-than-federal air quality standards for itself, but has little influence over any other state’s emissions.  This can cause problems, as air pollution does not recognize man-made geopolitical boundaries.

It can also be a challenge to remain aware of policies without some type of regulatory software, relying on tribal knowledge to stay on top of state and federal regulations.

In certain states, emissions from another state may make it impossible to meet national clean air standards, let alone more-stringent state regulations.  In these cases, a state can attempt to sue the upwind state or polluter, or seek equitable relief.

Federal regulations allow the polluter or the state to argue in its defense “that it is simply complying with the federal standards, and that it should not be held to a higher standard,” according to the Harvard Environmental Law Review.

This scenario occurred in North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority.

In 2002, North Carolina passed the Clean Smokestacks Act, setting an air quality standard more rigid than what is required by federal law.

The state found the standard difficult to meet because of emissions from three power plants in Tennessee.  North Carolina brought suit against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the operator of the electric facilities.

North Carolina argued that the pollution from TVA’s facilities was a public nuisance to North Carolina under state laws.

The district court agreed, ruling that certain facilities significantly contributed to the air pollution in North Carolina. An injunction was issued requiring the TVA facilities to install pricey equipment to reduce emissions.

The case was reversed and dismissed by a panel of the Fourth Circuit in June 2011.  The court reasoned:

·         The district court applied the wrong standard of law, using North Carolina law rather than the laws of the states in which the plants were located

·         The laws of the states in which the facilities were located precluded nuisance actions of this sort

·         The nuisance action was preempted by federal law

North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority is just one case (of many) where the environment and government environmental policies made for a troubled pair.

Therefore the question is: “Whether ‘tis nobler to regulate or not regulate?” or perchance to dream?

 

It’s more than likely going to take some time.  Some might even call it a bit of a slog.  But answering the many questions in Citation Compliance Suite is necessary to understand how to comply with ever-changing EHS regulations.

 

 

The general consensus is that the question-answering process is time-consuming and slightly mind-numbing.  However, the plethora of questions you must answer keeps you in the know and away from trouble and fines.

 

These questions also help you to define and measure your risks and establish the values of your non-financial assets, which are important in today’s financial reporting strategies.

 

 

Where do all of the questions come from?

 

The Compliance Suite database is made up of thousands of HSSE regulations from jurisdictions around the world.  From this database, the questions are formed.  Our products:

 

 

Support 10 Primary Industry Sectors, with each having

up to 18 Subject Areas

 

Maintain 159 legal jurisdictions, globally

 

Track over 31,000 individual base regulations

 

Define 250,000 Detailed Requirements

 

 

Starting on the path

 

The process begins with qualifying questions, which are designed to help a company establish the regulations that impact their business.  Qualifying questions enable the user to quickly navigate away from inapplicable requirements.

 

For example, if a user does not manufacture any inorganic chemicals, by answering “no” to the qualifying question, any further questions regarding the manufacture of inorganic chemicals will not appear in their review.

 

There are 2 types of qualifying questions:

 

Yes/No questions—These can be grouped and answered with a simple yes or no

 

Multiple select questions (with sub-questions)—These have multiple parts but the same overarching theme, i.e. “Does the business manufacture any of the following inorganic chemicals?” with the sub-questions being each of the inorganic chemicals 

 

Qualifying questions are found in both levels of Compliance Suite products, Citation Determine and Citation Build. 

 

Citation Determine uses simple, conditions-based questions so you can determine how the rules apply to your business and build a high level Regulatory Register to manage compliance with these rules. 

 

Citation Build also provides conditions-based questions and a register, as well as risk-assessment tools that enable a business or operation to become aware of risks then set up actions and tasks to manage them.

 

 

At the end of the day

 

The qualifying questions within the Citation Compliance Suite help you take on the challenges of EHS regulatory compliance. 

 

These questions enable you to build global corporate compliance tools, grant you access into the world of defining and measuring your intangible assets and empower you with the knowledge necessary for tracking and reporting objectives in corporate social responsibility.

 

Answering the hundreds of questions may be tiresome, but it thoroughly breaks compliance down into something understandable and attainable.