| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 24.1 | Ask the question? Give an answer! | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Fri Jun 21 1991 23:47 | 51 |
|
One of the markets that I've been watching and attemting to penetrate
is the ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT sector.
Reason:
In 1991, the estimated dollar expenditure for pollution control,
monitoring, plant, legal, electronic systems, PC applications and all
the related issues regarding the environmental field is between NINTEY
to ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. This dollar figure is going to get
larger every year.
Granola and yogurt, you may say! No, it's a real issue of
competitive and profit opportunity for every business that particpates.
Those who chose not to, will be falling behind, and that is a fact.
Check out those new blue baskets to seperate your trash, glass, metal,
etc..... Just check out what DEC is doing.
Business are allocating more dollar resources to their
environmental departments, even while they may be scalling back on
other capital dollars. Check it out with your customers, ask them.
Check the annual reports, there are a new class of executive
manager. An Environmental manager. This person is not for window
dressing, they have staff, and budgets to keep their companies out of
hot water.
Check for manufacturing plants, are they on contaminated land? If
so how can it be sold. The buyer is required to have an environmental
impact study by the bank. A plant asset may become a liability, until
it's cleaned up.
The government has a gun to industry's head!
WHY DIGITAL?
We have the best opportunity to capture significant business in the
Environmental Information Management area. We have the networks, the
integration services, the talenetd software project people, and we
could use the work.
It's an opportunity! That means we have just as good a chance as
anybody else! And why wait for anyother vendor to do it.
I have more details..... to numerous for this file....
```hy,,,
|
| 24.2 | "You can see a lot by looking around" | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Thu Jun 27 1991 08:16 | 112 |
| The followig are some small examples of the impact EPA is having and
will increasingly have in the future.
Imagine if you will;
A DEC team assisting in the planning of an Environmental Information
system for its customers.
Think of our service offerings to the client base that addresses the
discontinuity of data that our customers have in their present
operations. What if we were able to pull together all the sets of raw
data, while understanding the nature of the requirements that EPA and
OSHA has placed on industry. We can help them manage their business.
I see this market space rapidly expanding, I think there is a
wonderfull opportunity to capture a position in a new service business.
The management of all the environmental data that companies are and
will be required to have to run their business in the 90's and next
century.
The following are examples of fines, imposed bu the EPA. Larger
corporations are facing similar situations. Many are begining to take
a proactive stance to address their problems. They include, a
repository of information; knowing what is in inventory, what is being
used, how it is tracked, etc, etc.....
```hy,,,
<<< SICVAX::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DOWVISION_TEST.NOTE;1 >>>
-< DowVision Test >-
================================================================================
Note 91.0 US Environmental Protection Agency 1 reply
SDSVAX::SWEENEY 35 lines 24-JUN-1991 15:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: Press Release News Wire
Headline: EPA COLLECTS $13,200 FROM TWO NEW JERSEY FIRMS FOR RIGHT-TO-KNOW VIOLATIONS
Time: JUN 24 1991 1530
Story:
NEW YORK, June 24 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has signed consent agreements with two Passaic, N.J., firms for
violations of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
The firms did not file required forms about ammonia emissions from their
facilities with EPA for calendar year 1987. The firms will pay $13,200 in
penalties.
"The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act gives citizens the
opportunity to learn about the chemicals being released in their
neighborhoods," said EPA Regional Administrator Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff.
"The failure to provide information on emissions violates the intent of the
act and undermines the citizens' and EPA's ability to use this data in
environmental protection efforts."
Listed below are the firms and fines:
-- Interstate Dyeing and Finishing Company, Inc., Passaic, NJ, $3,000.
-- Sunbrite Dye Company, Inc., Passaic, NJ, $10,200
Penalties are assess based on the amount of each chemical used and the size
of the facility. EPA has collected more than $1 million so far from firms
within Region 2 for their failure to file Toxic Release Inventory forms.
/CONTACT: Kim Helper of EPA, 212-264-2515/
categoryGovernment G/EPA
categorySubject N/ENV N/LEN
categoryGeographic R/NJ R/NME R/US
================================================================================
Note 91.1 US Environmental Protection Agency 1 of 1
SDSVAX::SWEENEY 37 lines 24-JUN-1991 15:28
-< EPA SEEKS $177,000 PENALTY FROM BROOKLYN FIRM FOR RIGHT-TO-KNOW >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: Press Release News Wire
Headline: EPA SEEKS $177,000 PENALTY FROM BROOKLYN FIRM FOR RIGHT-TO-KNOW VIOLATIONS
Time: JUN 24 1991 1531
Story:
NEW YORK, June 24 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has issued a complaint to Belmont Metals, Inc. of Brooklyn, N.Y. for
violations of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act. The
firm did not file required forms about emissions from its Belmont Avenue
facility with EPA for calendar years 1987 and 1988. EPA is seeking $177,000 in
penalties.
"The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act gives citizens the
opportunity to learn about the chemicals being released in their
neighborhoods," said EPA Regional Administrator Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff.
"The failure to provide information on emissions violates the intent of the
Act and undermines the citizens' and EPA's ability to use this data in
environmental protection efforts."
Under Section 313 of the Act, facilities with ten or more employees that
manufacture, process or use more than "threshold" amounts of certain chemicals
are required to report their chemical emissions into the environment during a
calendar year by July 1 of the following year. An EPA inspection at the
Belmont facility found the firm should have filed reports for antimony,
cadmium, copper and lead for calendar years 1987 and 1988 and for manganese
for calendar year 1988. The firm has since filed the required reports.
EPA Region 2 has collected more than $1 million dollars for reporting
violations under the Act since 1988.
/CONTACT: Kim Helper of the EPA, 212-264-2515/
categoryGovernment G/EPA
categorySubject N/ENV N/LEN
categoryGeographic R/NME R/NY R/US
|
| 24.3 | One More...... | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Thu Jun 27 1991 08:39 | 81 |
|
The following is more information on EPA rules.
Someone's going to have to react to the rules, they have to do
something that uses computers, consulting, integration of systems and
data. Can DEC capture some of that business? You bet we can....
In "FATHER AND SON, INC." Thomas Watson stated that IBM nearly doubled
in size because they had machines that could handle the information
when the Social Security provisions were put in place. I see the same
scenario regading the environment. Just think, if companies pollute
less, they are wasting less and are more profitable.
```hy,,,
Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: Wall Street Journal
Headline: EPA To Propose New Rules On Air Pollution
Time: APR 24 1991 0834
Story:
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing rules for an
air-pollution permit system that would expand reporting requirements for
industrial facilities ranging from oil refineries to dry cleaners.
The rules being issued for public comment today are the first major
regulations to be proposed under the Clean Air Act approved last year and
establish a framework for later rules that will deal with specific pollutants.
William Rosenberg, an assistant EPA administrator, said the rules "set up a
clear enforceable program . . . that attempts to ensure that there is adequate
public participation, and that industry will be able to continue to adjust to
the demands of the marketplace."
All large pollution sources -- except motor vehicles -- would have to obtain
permits from state pollution authorities specifying that their emissions don't
exceed limits under the Clean Air Act. Many states already have permits
programs; the new system will standardize the requirements and subject them to
EPA scrutiny. In total, 34,000 facilities will be covered by the program.
The program would be financed through a fee of $25 a ton of pollution
emitted, which could run into the tens of thousands of dollars annually for
big companies. The fee is expected to raise about $300 million a year for
state pollution officials, or about double the current take. No facility would
have to pay more than $100,000 a year.
Once a permit is filed with a state, a company would have to undergo a
revision process -- including a public review -- anytime it made a change in
operations that significantly increased emissions. At the same time, a
so-called permit shield would protect a company from lawsuits involving
activities allowed by its permit.
A hotly contested provision would let companies make certain operating
changes that cause small increases in emissions without going through the
permit-revision process. A state would have seven days to object to the
change. States could set up additional criteria for companies to qualify for
this "fast-track" approach. The EPA is seeking comment on what standards it
should use in approving states' criteria.
Some environmentalists and state pollution officials contend that the law
doesn't authorize the EPA to give companies this flexibility, and the EPA
originally agreed. The agency softened its stance after considerable lobbying
by industry officials.
All permits would be subject to EPA review before they are approved. If the
EPA doesn't object to a permit, citizens would be able to petition the agency
to do so. The public also can comment on permits and request public hearings
during the approval process.
The EPA rules are to be made final by November. States will submit proposed
programs by November 1993, with permits for most companies scheduled to be in
place by November 1995.
The EPA is giving small companies an additional five years before they have
to start complying with the permit requirements. The move is designed both to
give smaller businesses a break and to avoid having a glut of permit
categoryGovernment G/EPA
categorySubject N/ENV
|
| 24.4 | Team up with exisitng experts | WHOS01::BOWERS | Dave Bowers @WHO | Thu Jun 27 1991 11:48 | 8 |
| There are a goodly number of environmental consulting firms out there
whose sole business is advising clients on government regulations.
While I doubt that we have the expertise to compete with these folks,
some sort of teaming approach, in which they provide the
environmental/legal expertise and we provide our knowledge of
information management and systems, would likely be quite profitable.
-dave
|
| 24.5 | President Bush's remarks | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Thu Aug 15 1991 23:07 | 52 |
|
President Bush's Environmental Vision for America.
July/August 1991 TRILOGY magazine........
The following are summaries of the article written by George Bush.
* Stewardship of our national resources
* Balancing the twin goals of environmental progress and economic
growth.
* Incentives that harness the power and ingenuity of the marketplace in
service of the environment.
* Creative partnership, combining the resources of all levels of
government, industry, and citizen volunteers.
* Cooperative international efforts to address global problems.
* Pollution prevention.
* Firm and fair enforcement of environmental laws.
The agenda for the environment:
* Renew the Clean Water Act, to better protect the nations waters,,
including coasts and wetlands-and to incorporate innovative,
market-based features.
* Create a Cabinet-level Department of Environment.
* Implement a national energy strategy that leads to increased
energy efficiency, expanded use of renewable energy and
alternative fuels, and promotes responsible development of U.S.
energy resources.
* Expand access to Americas rich natural heritage of recreation
areas and parks and wildlife refuges.
* Forge new international agreements to protect the global
climate, safeguard the worlds forests, and strengthen the
ecomomies and environments of emerging democratic nations.
For further information, you can contact Patricia Kearney, Director
of the Presidents Commission on Environmental Quality, at 722 Jackson
Place, Washington, DC 20503.
In the article, President Bush will honor a select group of
individuals who best exemplify the cooperative and innovative spirit.
This article is an example of the commitment by the President, it
appears that the momentum in the environmental area is picking up. We
have an opportunity to contribute and benefit simultaneously.
|
| 24.6 | EPA Information...... | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Sun Aug 25 1991 19:35 | 102 |
| <<< MR4DEC::AUX$SYSPACK:[NOTES]ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING.NOTE;1 >>>
-< ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING >-
================================================================================
Note 37.1 Environmental regs ---> Information Systems 1 of 1
POWDML::KNIGHT 94 lines 23-AUG-1991 22:14
-< Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA FLOATS PLAN TO REQUIRE RIGOROUS
MONITORING FOR ALL MAJOR CLEAN AIR ACT SOURCES
[The U.S.] EPA has floated a proposal for requiring all major sources
to conduct rigorous emissions monitoring under the Clean Air Act,
seeking far stricter data controls than observers expected, a plan
that has alarmed industry sources because of its potentially huge costs.
While there has been no question that EPA's acid rain regulations
will require utilities to install technologies to continuously
monitor emissions for sulfur dioxide, the new proposal for "enhanced
monitoring and compliance certification" (EM/CC) has stunned industry
sources familiar with the draft plan who say it goes far beyond
anything companies expected. Sources fear companies will have to
install expensive monitoring technology under the rule.
In a draft proposal EPA has floated and will be discussing at an Aug.
22 meeting, the agency lays out its thinking on the EM/CC program
required under section 702(b) of the Clean Air Act amendments. Under
that section, EPA must promulgate rules requiring certain stationary
air pollution sources to install systems to perform "enhanced
monitoring" and to submit compliance certifications. The law says
EPA "shall" require major sources to meet such requirements, and
"may, in the case of any other person," impose its rules. To ensure
accurate and timely information in the annual compliance
certifications sources must submit, EPA will adopt criteria to ensure
that "an affordable, effective self-monitoring system exists at each
major source for each affected emissions unit and pollutant,"
according to EPA's August, 1990 draft. At a minimum, EPA's rule will
require that the monitoring system will provide a "reasonable
assurance that every period of noncompliance with the applicable
emissions limitation or standard will be identified." To achieve
that goal, "a direct measurement of emissions or, if direct
measurement is not technologically available, then the most reliable
compliance data on the most frequent basis that is reasonable," will
be required, the draft says.
The proposal "could require continuous emissions monitors for just
about everything," says a concerned industry source, noting the
potentially huge costs of such a program. Requiring such monitors
could discourage companies from participating in the Clean Air Act
early reductions program and the 33/50 industrial toxics project,
both of which seek voluntary toxic emission reductions from
facilities, because it would cost so much to track those chemicals
with such rigorous requirements, this source says. But an EPA
source, while acknowledging the rule "does raise the bogeyman of
CEMs" for industry, says that the Air Office intends to allow choices
in monitoring methods. Basically, facilities have to certify that
they can continuously monitor their emissions for compliance, but
CEMs won't be the only approach to achieve that basic goal, the
source explains.
EPA's rule will apply to every major source that is subject to a
Title V operating permit, but will apply only to the pollutants for
which the affected facilities are a "major" source. All operating
permits for existing sources will be required to propose enhanced
monitoring systems that meet the criteria EPA's rule will lay out;
when approvable systems are not available, permit applications will
require a proposed plan to design, install, test and begin operating
a system as soon as possible. For new sources, the agency intends to
require that a preconstruction permit include provisions for
selecting, designing, installing and testing a system; the operating
permit will be required to cover operation and maintenance of the
system. With regard to the annual compliance certifications required
under section 702(b), sources will be required to submit semiannual
monitoring results and to report "deviations" promptly. If there are
"actual deviations," sources would be required to submit quarterly
deviation reports. The agency's draft defines "deviation" as: "any
excess emissions or any other deviation from a required limit,
including measurements below the limit if the limit is a minimum
standard -- e.g. a minimum incinerator combustion temperature limit.
A deviation could also be a failure to observe a required work
practice -- e.g. failure to wet down a surface area, or to repair a
leaking seal at a bulk terminal."
EPA's criteria for selecting enhanced monitoring systems will allow
continuous emissions monitoring systems, continuous process or
control system parameter monitoring systems, and other methods to
meet the goal of having a reliable and timely set of data showing
whether a facility is in compliance, the draft says. The rule will
have a "strong presumption" toward the use of a technological
monitoring system, though non-technological systems may be more
appropriate in some cases.
Several key issues will be discussed at the agency's Aug. 22 public
meeting. For instance, though the agency plans to apply its rules to
the statutory minimum of "major sources," it will ask for comments on
whether the rules should apply to all sources requiring an operating
permit, not just major sources. In its criteria for selecting
enhanced monitoring systems, the agency asks if too much flexibility
will hinder effective EPA oversight during permit reviews.
Inside E.P.A. Weekly Report
Vol. 12 No. 33 - August 16, 1991
|
| 24.7 | Another perspective! | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Wed Aug 28 1991 12:05 | 53 |
|
<<< MR4DEC::AUX$SYSPACK:[NOTES]ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING.NOTE;1 >>>
-< ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING >-
================================================================================
Note 36.2 SALES PERSPECTIVE 2 of 2
TROOA::MCAULEY "Half vast organization" 44 lines 28-AUG-1991 08:28
-< Let's Look Beyond the First Sale >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there's at least a two-level view of the opportunities in this
space. First is the immediate response to what the customer already
knows is needed. Second is the pro-active response to help customers
integrate environmental systems into all functions of their
organization. Let me illustrate.
I'm part of an account team working with the corporate office of a
large ($9+ billion) natural resources conglomerate. They have defined
a set of requirements and have already surveyed the market for software
solutions, concluding that what they need will take some combination of
existing software -- up to 6 or 7 packages in some combination. They
don't want to take on the job of coordinating these third parties or of
integrating their packages together. But when they get the whole thing
together, they want to roll it out to their subs at a rate of 10
companies per year for five years. Naturally, we are jumping allover
this with an SI approach. This is the first level response.
The second level response is best described in an article which I think
I've seen reference to earlier in this conference: "What Does It Mean
To Be Green?" (Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1991). This
approach says, why spend all that money installing stack scrubbers,
measuring effluents, recycling/disposing of hazardous waste? Why not
redesign your manufacturing processes so that you don't produce the
stuff in the first place! The author draws parallels to the Total
Quality Management approach, which says you should design in quality in
the first place instead of inspecting for bad quality and incurring the
costs of scrap and re-work.
In the company I described above, I've asked and found that at least
from the systems people's perspective, they have not even thought of
this approach. We still need to find out whether the people who run
the business think this way or not. In any case, if we can get the
five-year roll-out at the first response level, I would hope that we
can introduce the second level of response long before the five years
is up and get the much more lucrative work of helping them redesign
their operations.
Question is, since we have lots to bring to the table in the Total
Quality arena, has anyone in Environmental Marketing looked at tapping
into these resources and adapting them to this market, so we're well
positioned to take this second level reponse approach?
PTM
|
| 24.8 | Momentum in DEC's participation | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Fri Sep 13 1991 14:00 | 207 |
| <<< MR4SRV::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING.NOTE;2 >>>
-< ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING >-
================================================================================
Note 27.2 Sequoia 2000 2 of 2
MR4DEC::JEKLUND 200 lines 12-SEP-1991 14:23
-< SEQUOIA 2000 STAFFING >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MR4DEC::LEVINE "Randy Levine MRO4-2/C15 297-6255 12-Sep-1991 0756" 12-Sep-91 07:57
To: JBENNETT,BOWIE,DENVER::BENDEL,@ENV
CC:
Subj: FYI - Sequoia 2000 looking for engineers
From: RDVAX::MACHEFSKY "EXTERNAL RESEARCH PROGRAM, WEST COAST 415-723-4339 12-Sep-1991 0326" 12-Sep-91 04:48
To: @SUN
CC: MACHEFSKY
Subj: I need your help...
...finding some engineers who are looking for a new challenge in Digital.
The External Research Program has an immediate opening for three engineers
to work on Sequoia 2000, a major new research project at the University of
California System. If you liked what California did in the '80s to computing,
you're gonna' love the '90s. All others beware!
Please give this wide circulation. Serious inquiries only, please.
Regards,
Ira
=================================================================
Join the "A" team.
Digital's External Research Program is looking for a few good
engineers to work on a challenging, multidisciplinary research
project that is engaging over 21 faculty investigators in earth
sciences and computer science at four campuses in the University
of California System.
In the past, Digital engineers working as residents at university
research projects have become leading experts, spokespeople, and
major contributors to the advancement of technology in their project
areas. Some have published books and articles about their research
and become acknowledged leaders in their field.
Digital has just begun Project Sequoia 2000, a new research endeavor
which we expect to have a major impact on the development of storage
and information systems in this decade.
Sequoia 2000, the largest External Research project sponsored by
Digital in the '90s, is a research collaboration between Global Change
scientists and computer systems and information scientists throughout
the University of California System. The goal of this multi-year
collaboration is to develop improved data management systems that will
enable scientists to manipulate large-scale data sets and climate
system models. Refinements in data storage, networking, distributed
file systems, extensible distributed data base management systems, and
visualization are the general goals of Sequoia 2000.
Global Change researchers -- atmospheric physicists, meterologists,
earth scientists, oceanographers, and geographers -- are engaged in
Grand Challenge science that seeks to understand the Earth, its
environment, and mankind's impact on it. This research is at the
leading edge of storage and information management problems that burst
the bounds of current technology. Global Change research serves to
focus and organize the research of the computer scientists as they seek
to develop information systems adequate to the demands of the
application. We expect these leading edge problems to be mainstream
within five years.
Successful candidates will have the opportunity to work with some of
the leading computer and information scientists in the world today who
are investigators on this project. Included among them are Mike
Stonebraker of database and Ingres fame; Dave Patterson of RISC and
SPARC fame; Randy Katz of RAID fame; and Domenico Ferrari of networking
and BSD fame.
There are five major shortcomings of current computer systems that this
project will address:
1) Tertiary storage systems for many terabytes to petabytes of information.
2) I/O and networking technologies for real-time, continuous I/O at
gigabit rates.
3) Scientific visualization systems for Global Change satellite and modelling
data.
4) Data bases for diverse data types including point, vector, raster, and
text data.
5) Collaboration technologies for sharing data.
External Research has three slots open for engineers in the following
areas:
1) STORAGE SYSTEMS
Sequoia 2000 requires a storage systems engineer to participate in
the design and implementation of a variety of tertiary storage systems.
The objective of the project is to create a storage subsystem with
the storage capacity of a tape robot and with the performance of a
disk. Off-the-shelf components will be employed to the greatest extent
possible. RAID, parallel tape, and optical jukebox technologies will
all be explored.
The successful candidate should have a background in the design of
storage subsystems or the integration of storage systems into computer
systems. An understanding of I/O performance issues, system level storage
issues, and the interaction of operating systems and file systems with
I/O subsystems is extremely desirable. Experience writing device drivers
would be helpful.
This position will be located at the University of California at Berkeley.
2) NETWORKING
Sequoia 2000 requires a networking engineer to participate in the design
and development of a very high performance, wide-area network to deliver
gigabytes of data in real time to remote users. Networking issues
to be explored include performance guarantees for real-time, continuous
I/O (digital video), compression, variable packet sizes, and fast inter-
device data paths.
The successful candidate should have a background in network protocol
design and implementation. Experience with routers and gateways would
be higly desirable. Experience with TCP/IP would be useful. Experience
with the development of high performance, wide-area, distributed
applications would be desirable.
This position will be located at the University of California at Berkeley.
3) Scientific Visualization and Data Base Management
Sequoia 2000 requires a visualization engineer to participate in
the design and development of scientific visualization software and
tools for Global Change research that has far better interaction
with data base systems than anything available today.
Some of the visualization issues to be addressed are: a) visualization
of multidimensional data; b) overlays and comparisons of data sets;
c) I/O to and from models; d) data base and visualization tools
interaction; and e) GUIs.
The successful candidate should have a background in the design and
implementation of scientific visualization software and applications,
and with data base management systems. A good understanding of current
visualization software would be highly desirable, along with data base
management systems.
This position will be located at the San Diego Supercomputer Center
on the UC San Diego Campus. This position will work closely with
the Global Change scientists throughout the project and the
scientific visualization lab at SDSC.
In all of these positions, we seek a balance between experience and
engineering "smarts". In default of someone with the right background,
we will accept someone with some background and the right "smarts".
The succesful candidate will enjoy working in a university research
environment, will possess great initiative, be capable of working
independently with minimal supervision, and possess excellent spoken
and written communication skills.
In addition to technology development, Digital engineers will be
responsible for technology transfer of their work into the appropriate
Digital product, engineering and marketing groups. Success will be
measured both by the quality of research/engineering and successful
commercialization.
These positions will report jointly to the Digital Project Manager and
to the two Principal Investigators on Sequoia 2000, Prof. Mike
Stonebraker and Prof. Jeff Dozier. The Digital engineers will be
treated in all matters as full members of the research teams. Some
travel, both to other Sequoia sites and Digital sites, will be required
throughout the project.
Subject to the candidate's current level, the job classifications are
as follows:
Job Series SRI Job Code
1) Storage Systems Hardware Engineer 28 39 28AD
2) Networking Software Engineer 50 39 50AD
3) Visualization Software Engineer 50 39 50AD
Relocation benefits are available from Digital.
UC Berkeley is located in Berkeley, California, a city very much like
Cambridge, Ma. in flavor but enjoying the balmy weather of the San
Francisco Bay Area. San Diego, the site of the San Diego Supercomputer
Center, is one of the sunniest cities in the world, with a mild climate
year 'round.
Electronic copies of the Sequoia 2000 research proposal and a five page
executive summary are available on-line from Ira (RDVAX::) Machefsky.
To apply for one of these jobs send an electronic copy of your resume
to one of the following people, stating which of the above Sequoia
positions you are applying for:
1) The Sequoia Project Manager, Ira (RDVAX::) Machefsky, 415-723-4339
([email protected])
2) The Sequoia Recruiter, Marty (Hubie::) Dorfman, DTN: 223-4593
([email protected])
The selection process will be conducted jointly by both Digital and
university researchers, and final approval will also be by joint
decision.
----The End----
|
| 24.9 | Numbers in the Environmental Market | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Sun Sep 15 1991 21:16 | 27 |
| <<< ICS::LOOKUP$SOFT:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MKT_ANALYSIS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Market Analysis notes conference >-
================================================================================
Note 35.1 IT fo Enviro Market 1 of 3
ICS::PRESS 20 lines 12-SEP-1991 14:23
-< Numbers >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Adams (@BRO) shared with me some Environmental market numbers
that were generated by Helmut Kaiser, a German consultancy. Total
worldwide market volume is estimated to be
1990 - DM 463.9 Billion
1995 - DM 625.4 Billion
2000 - DM 867.9 Billion.
The Measurement, Control, Analysis market segment is DM 15 Billion and
will grow to 24 (1995) and 38 (2000).
Based on their German experience, they estimate the European average IT
percentage of the the total market to be 1.5% in 1990 and 4% in 2000.
The report includes also numbers on other segments, on different Western
Eu and Eastern Eu countries, on public and private spending, and some
qualitative information on trends and opportunities. Send me a message
(or reply here) if you want me to send you a copy.
Gil
|
| 24.10 | US/CANADA Numbers | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Mon Sep 16 1991 14:12 | 14 |
| <<< ICS::LOOKUP$SOFT:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MKT_ANALYSIS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Market Analysis notes conference >-
================================================================================
Note 35.4 IT fo Enviro Market 4 of 4
ICS::PRESS 7 lines 16-SEP-1991 10:15
-< US/Canada >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Helmut Kaiser report the total environmental market in
the US/Canada was DM 151 Billion in 1990. This number will grow to 203
and 268 in 1995 and 2000, respectively.
BTW, the Environment_Marketing notes conference was moved to MR4SRV.
Gil
|
| 24.11 | DEC's RECYCLING MATRIX | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Wed Sep 18 1991 21:15 | 261 |
| <<< TOWNS::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ENVIRONMENTAL_ISSUES.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Current topics concerning the natural environment >-
================================================================================
Note 374.1 Digital Recycling Matrix 1 of 1
ISLNDS::GRAHN 254 lines 18-SEP-1991 10:14
-< September 1991 Recycling Matrix Report >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASTE MANAGEMENT /RECYCLING ACTIVITY REPORT
(This report is from Doug Shaw H.A.P.M. and Deborah Grahn for U.S.M.
If you wish to be removed from this reports distribution please
contact us. Comments and suggestions can be sent to Doug Shaw
MCIS5::DSHAW or @UPO for Hdqtrs Admin Property Mgmt and Deborah Grahn
ISLNDS::GRAHN or @BXC for U.S. Mfg)
Solid waste generation and disposal has escalated into a crisis in this
country requiring an intense focus on the issue. Corporate America is
responsible for one third of this nations solid waste generation,
therefore, Corporate America is an integral part of the solution. The
scope of waste is continually expanding and requires corporate and
functional focus. The Waste Minimization function was put in place to
aid Digital operations in the quest to practice the 3 R's of waste
management -- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Recycling is not new to Digital, some Manufacturing and Headquarters
operations have been recycling for many years. What is new are some the
methods, opportunities, technologies and interest. In the past,
recycling has been managed by the site facilities functions and over
the past 18 months the general population has shown considerable
interest. Recycling has become the responsibility of every employee. In
today's environmentally conscience climate employees are expected to
participate in recycling at Digital and take waste seriously. While the
facilities function remains responsible for implementing and managing
waste reduction/recycling programs it's the employees that will make it
work. A few sites discovered this early on and have implemented waste
management/recycling small group improvement teams. As indicated by the
matrix these are the sites that have the most expansive and inclusive
programs.
Recycling is dynamic. Opportunities and markets available today were
not, just one year ago. Some of the opportunities are experimental as
in the case of polystyrene food service recycling. Several sites became
involved in a polystyrene recycling pilot early on and are now
discovering it's limitations - on a National level polystyrene
recycling is clearly at risk. These are pioneering times in the
recycling industry and some programs will work and others won't. As we
continue to explore recycling opportunities, we need to manage these
risks as a corporation while learning from and with each other.
Hopefully, the attached matrix will develop into a useful tool to
facilitate networking and information sharing as we continue our
journey towards minimizing solid waste.
This matrix is the result of formal surveys and informal discussions
with the listed sites/contacts. It's just the beginning of the data
collection process which is intended to be a snap shot summary of
current waste minimization efforts within US Manufacturing and
Headquarters Administration and Property Management. It is our hope to
issue a report quarterly and expand upon this effort to include other
sites and information as it becomes available.
If you find this report useful please share it with others, if you
don't please send us your comments and suggestions. Thank you.
WASTE MINIMIZATION/RECYCLING ACTIVITIES 9/91
Manufacturing & H.A.P.M
FACILITY WHITE/CPO PAPER
Contact | | NEWSPAPER
Phone | | | MIXED PAPER
| | | | CORRUGATED
X recycling operational| | | | | PALLETS
M recycling minimal | | | | | | POLYSTYRENE
| | | | | | | OTHER PLASTICS
I Investigating | | | | | | | | BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
key cont. last pg. | | | | | | | | | METALS
| | | | | | | | | | GLASS
| | | | | | | | | | | OTHER
ABO, ALBUQUERQUE, NM** | X | X | X | X | X | h | a | X | b | | c |
Lisa Jennings | | | | | | | | | | | |
552-2439 | | | | | | | | | | | |
ACO, ACTON, MA | M | | | | | | | | | | |
Len Briggs, | | | | | | | | | | | |
232-2500 | | | | | | | | | | | |
APO, ANDOVER, MA** | X | X | X | X | | I | M | X | X | X | g |
Brian Blake | | | | | | | | | | | |
289-1186 | | | | | | | | | | | |
ASO, AUGUSTA, ME | X | | | X | X | | a | | | | |
Jake Magee | | | | | | | | | | | |
271-6520 | | | | | | | | | | | |
BOO, BOSTON, MA | M | | | X | X | | | | | | |
Bob Castano | | | | | | | | | | | |
281-5723 | | | | | | | | | | | |
BTO, BURLINGTON, VT | X | X | X | X | X | r |a,p| X | X | I |j,k,l|
Ken Stratton | | | | | | | | | | | |
266-4419 | | | | | | | | | | | |
BXB, BOXBORO, MA | X | | X | | |X,I| | X | | X | |
John Mastroianni | | | | | | | | | | | |
227-3578 | | | | | | | | | | | |
BXC, BOXBORO, MA | X | | | | | h | | X | | | |
Judy MacDonald | | | | | | | | | | | |
229-7500 | | | | | | | | | | | |
BYO, BOYLSTON, MA | X | | | | | X | | | | | |
Peter Sharon | | | | | | | | | | | |
234-4691 | | | | | | | | | | | |
DSG, WESTFORD, MA | X | | | | | X | | | | | |
CTC, CHELMSFORD, MA | X | | | | | X | | X | | | |
CTS, CHELMSFORD, MA | X | | | | | X | | X | | | |
Ron Spiewak | | | | | | | | | | | |
235-8017 | | | | | | | | | | | |
CXF, COLORADO SPRINGS | X | X | X | X | X | I | X | I | X | |n,o |
CXN, COLORADO SPRINGS | X | X | X | X | X | I | X | I | b | |n,o |
CXO, COLORADO SPRINGS**| X | X | X | X | X | I | X | I | b | |n,o |
Jim Doak | | | | | | | | | | | |
522-2793 | | | | | | | | | | | |
CXO3 COLORADO SPRINGS | X | X | | X | X | I | | I | X | | |
Ray Monacelli | | | | | | | | | | | |
592-5206 | | | | | | | | | | | |
DLB, MARLBORO, MA | X | | | | | X | | | | |g,h |
Mike Menchion | | | | | | | | | | | |
291-8200 | | | | | | | | | | | |
DOO, CONTOOCOOK, NH | X | | | X | X | h | f | X | X | I | |
Daniel Dudley | | | | | | | | | | | |
267-2209 | | | | | | | | | | | |
FXO, FRANKLIN, MA | X | | X | X | X | | | X | | | |
Nancy Nordberg | | | | | | | | | | | |
228-5551 | | | | | | | | | | | |
GSO, GREENVILLE, SC** | X | | X | | X | | X | X | | |q |
Phil Lawrence | | | | | | | | | | | |
354-6276 | | | | | | | | | | | |
HLO, HUDSON, MA** | X | I | | X | | X |t,e| X |b | I |g,u |
Ilya Olasha | | | | | | | | | | | |
225-5559 | | | | | | | | | | | |
LJO, LITTLETON, MA | | | | | | | | | | | |
Fred Kilmartin | | | | | | | | | | | |
226-2600 | | | | | | | | | | | |
LKG, LITTLETON, MA | X | | | | | X | | | | |g,h |
Steve Swift | | | | | | | | | | | |
226-7406 | | | | | | | | | | | |
LMO, MARLBORO, MA | X | | | | | | | | | | |
Peter Sharon | | | | | | | | | | | |
234-4691 | | | | | | | | | | | |
LTN, LITTLETON, MA | X | | X | | |X,I| | X | | X | |
John Mastroianni | | | | | | | | | | | |
227-3598 | | | | | | | | | | | |
MET, MARLBORO, MA | X | | | | | | | | | | g |
Janice Murphy-Shaw | | | | | | | | | | | |
296-4314 | | | | | | | | | | | |
MKO, MERRIMACK, NH | X | | | M | M | | | | | |g,h |
Frank Kalwell | | | | | | | | | | | |
264-5600 | | | | | | | | | | | |
MLO, MAYNARD, MA | X | | X | p | p | | | | | |g |
Al Legere | | | | | | | | | | | |
223-0951 | | | | | | | | | | | |
MOO, MARLBORO, MA | X | | | | | | | X | | | |
Janice Murphy-Shaw | | | | | | | | | | | |
296-4314 | | | | | | | | | | | |
MRO, MARLBORO, MA | X | | | | | h | | | | |g |
Jim Marlow | | | | | | | | | | | |
297-6487 | | | | | | | | | | | |
MSO, MAYNARD, MA | X | | | | | | | | | | |
Pete Dicicco | | | | | | | | | | | |
223-7380 | | | | | | | | | | | |
NIO, SALEM, NH | X | X | X | X | X | | | | | | |
Jennifer Van de Car| | | | | | | | | | | |
285-3501 | | | | | | | | | | | |
NKS, MARLBORO,MA | X | | | | | | | | | | |
Wayne Timura | | | | | | | | | | | |
237-3952 | | | | | | | | | | | |
NQO, NASHUA, N.H. | | | | | | | | | | | |
Bill Gagne | X | | | X | X | | | X | | | |
264-6315 | | | | | | | | | | | |
NRO, NORTHBORO, MA | X | | | X | X | X | | | | |g,h |
Tracy Farber | | | | | | | | | | | |
234-4681 | | | | | | | | | | | |
OGO, STOW, MA. | X | | | | | X | | X | | |g,h |
Tony Fernandes | | | | | | | | | | | |
276-9010 | | | | | | | | | | | |
PKO, MAYNARD, MA | X | X | X | | M | | | | | | g |
Art Demars | | | | | | | | | | | |
223-5967 | | | | | | | | | | | |
PNO, PHOENIX, AZ | X | | X | X | X | I | f | X | X | I | |
Don Essley | | | | | | | | | | | |
551-5255 | | | | | | | | | | | |
SHR, SHREWSBURY, MA | X | | | | I | | I | | | | |
Wayne Timura | | | | | | | | | | | |
237-3952 | | | | | | | | | | | |
SPO, SPRINGFIELD, MA | X | | | X | X | | | | | | |
Tim Moulton | | | | | | | | | | | |
243-2841 | | | | | | | | | | | |
TAY, LITTLETON, MA | X | | | | | | | | | | |
John Mastroianni | | | | | | | | | | | |
227-3578 | | | | | | | | | | | |
TFO, TEMPE, AZ | X | | X | I | I | I | e | X | X | | |
Alan Abbott | | | | | | | | | | | |
566-5632 | | | | | | | | | | | |
TWO, TEWKSBURY, MA | X | | | | | | | | | | |
Brian Kimball | | | | | | | | | | | |
247-2343 | | | | | | | | | | | |
UCF, CUPERTINO, CA |Recyclables recovery managed by waste hauler
Nancy Immekeppel | | | | | | | | | | | |
529-6150 | | | | | | | | | | | |
UPO, MARLBORO, MA | X | | | | | | | | | | g |
Janice Murphy-Shaw | | | | | | | | | | | |
296-4314 | | | | | | | | | | | |
WFO, WESTFIELD, MA | X | | | X | X | I | | | X | | |
Wayne Konrad | | | | | | | | | | | |
242-2225 | | | | | | | | | | | |
WMO, WESTMINSTER, MA** | X | | | X | X | h | | | | | d |
Sandy Bardsley | | | | | | | | | | | |
241-3884 | | | | | | | | | | | |
ZKO, NASHUA, NH | X | X | | X | X | I | | I | | | j |
Andy Demers | | | | | | | | | | | |
381-1233 | | | | | | | | | | | |
cont. key
** - Sites have established Recycling/Waste Management teams
a - recycling PVC IC tubes
b - recycling/reclaiming site/process specific metals
c - re-using conductive/non-conductive bags.
d - recycling dry cell batteries
e - recycling plastic chemical containers
f - recycling marketable plastic products ie: enclosures
g - re-using office supplies, Dbl. sided copying at copy centers
h - cafe waste through source reduction - durables vs disposables
j - re-using 3 ring binders
k - recycling tin cans
l - recycling Nynex telephone books
n - re-inking/re-using printer ribbons
o - 3 R's of packaging
p - re-using commodity in-house
q - recycling/reclaiming hazardous or regulated waste ie: solvents
r - polystyrene foam peanuts
s - recycling disposable gloves
t - recycling wafer carriers
u - equipment salvage/re-use
REV 1.1 9/91
|
| 24.12 | Environmental Events and Messages | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Tue Sep 24 1991 18:12 | 178 |
| <<< MR4SRV::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING.NOTE;2 >>>
-< ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING >-
================================================================================
Note 17.3 Field messages 3 of 3
MR4DEC::WICKS 171 lines 24-SEP-1991 14:25
-< 24th September 91 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environment is continuing to get increasing focus from our customers and
many more of them are starting discussions with Digital about how we can help.
Feedback from you folks indicates that to help you reinforce in your customers
mind that Digital is a major player in the Environment market you need to know
more about our planned attendance at trade shows and other high profile
environment events. This message focuses on some of those planned events and
highlights various experiences from a couple of recently completed events.
Please inform your customers about any events that you feel are appropriate.
Environment specific events
This list is intended to cover a representative selection of various events and
is subject to potential changes. It is by no means complete and many other
local events are being carried out at country level. Several of the listed
events are being driven/funded by groups other than Environment marketing and
cover a wide range of different activities from exhibits, and speakers to
donations. More specific details can be obtained from the contacts listed.
November 91 - Conference on Health Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and production - De Haag, Netherlands (This event is being
sponsored and run by the Shell Corporate Account team).
Contact Bill Detweiler @UTO, DTN 838 2075
November 91 - PROMA'91, Spain, Miguel Lanza @SQO Dtn 874 4362
March 92 - Globe 92, Vancouver, Canada
A conference and exhibition targeted at government and industry sponsored by
the Canadian Government but attracting a worldwide audience. Over 20,000 people
attended the previous event. We will be loaning equipment but have yet to
decide on other activities. Contact Garry White @OTO Dtn 633 3742
April 92 - ETEX, Washington
Specific targets for this event are Environment Managers and the top management
of organizations that would be held responsible for Environment issues or non
compliance. Contact Jan Eklund @MRO Dtn 297 5017
April/May 92 - DECworld, Boston. Contact Malcolm Wicks @MRO Dtn 297 4230
May 92, Envitec 92, Dusseldorf, Contact Michael Adams @BRO Dtn 856 8294
June 92 - Earth Summit, Brazil
Billed as the most significant UN organized meeting for governments to discuss
and come to agreements on Environment issues and policies. We will be loaning
equipment but have yet to decide on other activities. Contact Dave Chisamore
@AKO Dtn 244 6563, or Malcolm Wicks @MRO Dtn 297 4230.
June 92 - Air and Waste Management,Kansas City, Contact Jan Eklund @MRO
Dtn 297 5017.
Other Digital events where Environment Marketing will be presenting
October 91 - State and Local Government Sales Kickoff meeting.
November 91 - CSO Executive Seminar, Texas.
December 91 - Utilities Business forum, Boston.
December 91 - Various locations in Asia. (contact Jerry Newton)
Compliance with Environmental regulations and the Petrochem Industry
In July we presented to the US petrochem sales kickoff meeting. Almost every
attendee at the presentation said that their customer had asked about
Environment applications and particularly about compliance with regulations.
Many account managers see compliance as an excellent entry vehicle to sell
management consulting and SI business to meet specific needs. This work can be
enhanced by some of the third party products in the Environment applications
Guide and Digital offerings such as EDMS (Electronic Document Management
System) and consulting on TQM (Total Quality Management) from the consulting
practice.
A Hot line number for support on Compliance resources in the US has been
established, DTN 385 2141. Hard copies of the presentation are available from
Mary Duboyce @MRO Dtn 297 4180. A similar presentation was given to UK sales
staff and is available from Russ Holland @REO.
Compliance Marketing Manager
The Environment group has an open job req. for a Compliance Marketing Manager
based in Marlborough. More information in the NOTES file
MR4SRV::Environment_Marketing or contact Malcolm Wicks @MRO Dtn 297 4230.
GIS (Geographic Information Systems) events
A selection of GIS events driven by various groups
AM/FM Conference and exhibits. European event, Switzerland September 91.
US event, Texas April 92. Dutch event March 92. Pacific rim event, Brisbane
Australia, September 91.
October 91, GIS/LIS, Atlanta.
October 91, DECUS. GIS and it's application to Business, London,
October 91, CAD/CAM fair, Belgium.
November 91, National Exhibition and conference of the Association of
Geographic Information, Birmingham, England.
November 91, Teledetection & Environment, Seville, Spain.
March 92, EGIS, Munich.
April 92, MARI92, France.
Many other GIS events and customer seminars are being held in various parts of
the world. Please contact the appropriate person listed below for more details.
European events Michael Adams @BRO Dtn 856 8294, GIA events Jerry Newton @AKO
Dtn 244 6640, US events Dave Donelan @MRO Dtn 297 6864.
GIS and the Environment
In July we exhibited at a GIS show in Washington called GISDEX. For the first
time we had a significant booth and did targeted advertising around the event.
The strategy worked. We received a steady flow of visitors (much more than IBM)
and picked up over 80 substantive leads. We were even invited onto the planning
committee for next years event and offered a keynote speaker slot. We will be
continuing to drive this strategy of significant presence at a few targeted
GIS and Environment events.
Interestingly the two most popular pieces of literature on our booth at GISDEX
were the Environment Applications Guide and the environment brochure. Even
though this was a GIS event the link to environment was firmly established both
in our exhibit and the types of solutions that customers were looking for. I
strongly recommend that everyone uses both of these documents at all
Environment and GIS events.
The Notes file
The Environment NOTES file has changed nodes and is now on MR4SRV. For those of
you already using the notes file please type this instruction at the > prompt.
Modify entry Environment_Marketing/File=MR4SRV::Environment_Marketing.
For those of you NOT already using the notes file type the following
instruction at the > prompt.
ADD ENTRY MR4SRV::Environment_Marketing
And Finally
To finish off this message here is a couple of quick "did you knows" that you
might like to drop into your conversation with customers. If you want more of
them please let me know.
Did you know that the casing of workstations and other Digital products are now
being made out of the same type of plastic to allow for easy re-cycling?
Working with General Electric this recycled material is being used for shingles
(roof tiles) on McDonalds restaurants.
Did you know that Digital employees donate money to over 1,800 different
Environmental organization where Digital matches their contribution dollar for
dollar.
best regards
malcolm
|
| 24.13 | Prospect, Yes or No? | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Wed Oct 02 1991 14:36 | 57 |
| Could this and the next reply identify potential prospects for
an Environmental Information Management Service?
Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: Press Release News Wire
Headline: EPA CHEMICAL SAFETY AUDIT CONDUCTED AT B.F. GOODRICH CHEMICAL COMPANY, CALVERT CTime: OCT 02 1991 0938
Time: OCT 02 1991 0938
Story:
ATLANTA, Oct. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in
conjunction with the Kentucky Air Quality Compliance Branch, the Kentucky
Emergency Management Agency, the Marshall County Local Emergency Planning
Committee, and the local fire department, has completed a chemical safety
audit at the B.F. Goodrich Chemical Company in Calvert City, Ky.
Chemical safety audits are part of the agency's Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Program. They are conducted to determine the
causes of accidental releases of hazardous substances and to find ways of
preventing such releases.
In its chemical safety audits, EPA examines the facility's chemical
processes and equipment; its maintenance, operating, storage, training, and
safety procedures; and the management's commitment to chemical accident
prevention and safety. EPA reviews the facility's contingency planning and
dispersion modeling for accidental releases should they occur. Chemical
safety audits are routinely conducted at various facilities throughout region
by EPA, with state and local agencies.
B.F. Goodrich Chemical Plant manufactures chlorine, caustic soda, and
specialty polymer products. B.F. Goodrich and similar facilities are required
to notify federal and/or state and local officials of accidental releases of
hazardous substances in amounts in excess of established minimum quantities.
In addition, these facilities must report annually to state and local
officials on the types and amounts of hazardous substances on-site in
quantities above established threshold levels. They are also required to
report to EPA and to the state their annual emissions of certain toxic
chemicals which enter the air, water and/or land.
EPA will prepare a technical report describing the audit, including findings
and recommendations. EPA plans to complete its audit report within four to
six weeks. Copies of the audit report will be made available to the public
upon its completion. Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the report
should contact P.H. Steed, U.S. EPA Region IV, 345 Courtland St. NE, Atlanta,
GA 30365.
/CONTACT: Pat Steed, 404-347-1033, or Carl Terry, 404-347-3004, both of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency/
categoryGovernment G/EPA
categorySubject N/ENV
categoryGeographic R/KY
categoryCompany GR
|
| 24.14 | Prospect.....? | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Wed Oct 02 1991 14:45 | 37 |
| Just take a look at the fines. They could invest in a Environmental
Information Management Service. They could continue along an old
road, or go with DEC as an IT/SI source to solve their problem and
correct it for the future.
How about DEC getting some revenue for what we do best, manage a
network, integrate systems, help the customers by providing solutions.
Just a thought.......
Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: DJ International Economic News Wire
Headline: Justice Dept, Bethlehem Steel - Asbestos
Time: OCT 02 1991 1140
Story:
NEW YORK -(AP-DJ)-- The Environmental Protection Agency said the Department
of Justice, at the EPA"s request, filed a civil complaint against Bethlehem
Steel Corp. and four of its contractors for improper asbestos removal at its
basic oxygen furnace and slab mill in Lackawanna, N.Y.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York, seeks up to 25,000 dlrs a day for the alleged violations and an
order requiring the company to develop and implement a program to ensure all
future work complies with the Clean Air Act and federal asbestos regulations.
The Bethlehem Steel contractors named in the complaint are Dismantling
Corp., of Charlotte, N.C.; Safe Air Environmental Group of Williamsville,
N.Y.; Professional Services Industries Inc. of Amherst, N.Y.; and Eastern
Environmental Services of the Northeast Inc. of Drums, Pa.
categoryGovernment G/EPA G/JUS
categorySubject N/IEN
categoryMarketSector M/BSC
categoryGeographic R/NME R/PA R/US
categoryCompany BS
|
| 24.15 | EPA, Cabinet level! | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Wed Oct 02 1991 21:44 | 63 |
| How about increased governmental action in the Environment....
SEE BELOW................................
From: [email protected] (STEVE GERSTEL)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.environment,clari.biz.economy,clari.biz.top
Subject: Senate votes cabinet post for environment
Date: 1 Oct 91 21:11:50 GMT
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Senate voted Tuesday to elevate the
Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet level to deal with the
expanding duties of the EPA in the United States and internationally.
The bill, strongly backed by the administration, was approved by
voice vote and sent to the House. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., asked to be
recorded as a no vote.
The Department of the Environment, headed by a secretary, would be
the 15th department and the first created since the Veterans Department
in 1988.
The bill also would establish a bureau of environmental statistics,
which would be charged with making annual reports on environmental
quality. It also would be responsible for addressing changes in the
natural environment as well as the impact on the cost and benefits of
environmental protection.
The legislation also urges the head of the proposed department, along
with the secretaries of state and energy, to convene an international
meeting in the United States on energy efficiency and environmentally
sound energy resources.
The measure also would establish a commission on improving
environmental protection.
"I think it's a piece of legislation that is long overdue," Sen.
John Glenn, D-Ohio, said.
Sen. William Roth, R-Del., said the United States is one of the very
few, if not the only, industrialized nation that does not accord cabinet
status to the environment.
"I strenuously oppose the elevation of EPA," Helms said. "It will
inevitably lead to more bureaucracies, more bureaucrats and more
harassment of well-intentioned citizens.
"This enormous bureaucracy will grow and grow like topsy," Helms
said. "Its tentacles will reach out all over the country."
Creating the new department originated with Glenn, who discussed the
proposal with President Bush in June 1989. After six months of
negotiations a bill was introduced.
Although the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which Glenn
heads, reported out the bill last year, it was not approved before the
101st Congress adjourned.
A move to integrate federal policy on the environment gained momentum
in the late 1960s and early 1970s and led to the creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency, charged with overseeing regulation of
some air and water pollutants and registration of pesticides.
Since then, EPA's responsibility has grown to overseeing 15 major
statutes, including the Clean Air, Clean Water, Superfund, Ocean Dumping
and Oil Pollution acts.
Given a seat in the cabinet, the head of the department would have
much greater access to the Oval Office and would have the opportunity to
argue the government's environmental policies at the highest levels.
Glenn estimated the cost of the bureau of statistics and the
commission would be about $6 million over five years. The Congressional
Budget Office said that converting EPA into a department would cost
about $30,000 a year, mostly in salary increases for top officials.
|
| 24.16 | COMPUTERWORLD ARTICLE ON `dirty' DATA | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Wed Oct 30 1991 18:54 | 46 |
| COMPUTERWORLD Magazine, October 28, 1991.
Page: 59 CLEANUP EFFORTS TARGET `dirty' DATA.
Industry close-up
IS in Pollution Control
by Julia King, Special to CW
Summary:
Pollution control firms use technology to ensure data accuracy and
avoid fines.....
Mr. Steve Hanna, chief of data management at Calif. Office of
Environmental Protection, has a map of the globe with colored pins
identifying the reporting quality of firms who transport and dispose of
hazardous waste. Plotted with longitude and latitude, the data
indicates that sites are in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, Pacific,
including the North Pole.
Companies have been fined and hauled into court after discovery of data
irregularities.
Companies are now looking to implement data management systems to avoid
human errors and improve reporting quality.
Automated tracking systems, databases and networks are begining to gain
acceptance in industry.
******************************************************
Another item in the article was that the EPA going to EDI.
Pollution control companies may be able to file governement-required
environmental data electronically as early as next year following pilot
tests of an ANSI X.12 transaction set developed by the National
Governors' Association in conjunction with state and federal
environmental protection agencies(EPA).
More and more.....
******************************************************************
The momentum is building......... GREEN = PROFITS
|
| 24.17 | NEW ENGLAND EPA | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The plot thickens! | Wed Oct 30 1991 19:01 | 134 |
| Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: Press Release News Wire
Headline: MOST NEW ENGLAND STATES IN NON-ATTAINMENT FOR OZONE, CARBON MONOXIDE AND PARTICUTime: OCT 30 1991 1201
Time: OCT 30 1991 1202
Story:
BOSTON, Oct. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
today signed a final rule identifying 11 areas in Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island that do not meet federal air pollution
standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulates. The Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA) require EPA to identify areas that exceed federal air
quality standards (referred to as "nonattainment areas").
Nationally, 98 areas violate the ozone standard and 42 exceed the carbon
monoxide standard. EPA also identified 71 areas with high particulate levels
and 12 areas that fail to comply with the lead air quality standards.
"New clean air programs developed to improve air quality will begin
operating in designated places over the next couple of years. The effect of
these measures, combined with other recent actions such as reformulated
gasoline, will mean healthier air for more Americans to breathe," said William
K. Reilly, EPA Administrator.
"These designations will allow the EPA and the states to aggressively
control sources of pollution in New England and the northeast corridor, and
will go a long way toward bringing the region into attainment with air quality
standards," said EPA Regional Administrator Julie Belaga.
Ozone is formed through a complex chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and
volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. Nitrogen oxides and
volatile organic compounds are emitted primarily from cars and trucks; paints,
coatings, and other solvents used at home and by industry; and combustion of
fossil fuels such as those burned at utilities.
Ground level ozone (smog) causes respiratory tract problems, may also cause
eye irritation, nasal congestion, reduced resistance to infection, and
premature aging of lung tissue. Carbon monoxide is emitted primarily from
cars and trucks, as well as other combustion processes.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted by cars and trucks, and industrial
combustion sources. CO acts in the blood stream to deprive the heart and
brain of oxygen. It impairs the ability of the blood to carry oxygen, and
affects the cardiovascular, nervous, and pulmonary systems.
In 1978, EPA issued its first nationwide designations of air pollution
attainment and nonattainment areas for six pollutants (sulfur dioxide, oxides
of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, lead and ozone). These
designations began a process for EPA, in partnership with the states, to clean
up the nation's air.
Air quality for these pollutants has improved greatly throughout the region,
except for ground-level ozone, which has shown only modest improvement.
Solving the ozone problem, not only in New England, but nationwide, was one of
the factors leading Congress to enact the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
1990.
The CAAA require the Administrator to designate and classify areas based on
air quality monitoring data. Areas with more unhealthful air receive a
classification that requires more controls on emission sources. These
designations and classifications trigger a process for states to develop plans
to attain clean air by the deadlines specified in the act. In spite of the
strategies that many of the New England states have already adopted, states
being designated nonattainment today must develop plans that include a number
of additional control measures delineated in the amended act. This will mean
tighter emissions control on both mobile sources and industry. However,
regardless of the designations and classifications listed in the notice, all
of New England is part of the ozone transport region, which will require a
base level of emission controls throughout the area. For example, all large
urban areas will need to implement enhanced motor vehicle inspection programs
to monitor and control automobile emissions contributing to air quality
problems. Nonattainment Areas
-- The areas and their classification for ozone are as follows: (The scale
of ozone nonattainment for New England ranges from marginal (i.e. slightly
unhealthful air) to severe (very unhealthful air))
AREA CLASSIFICATION
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Severe
Area (Most of Fairfield and parts of
Litchfield Counties, Connecticut)
Greater Connecticut (Remainder of CT) Serious
Providence, RI Area (all of RI) Serious
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA-NH Serious
(Eastern MA) Area
Springfield, MA (Western MA) Area Serious
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH Area Serious
Portland, ME Area Moderate
Lewiston-Auburn, ME Area Moderate
Knox and Lincoln, ME Counties Moderate
Hancock and Waldo, ME Counties Marginal
Manchester, NH Area Marginal
-- The three areas designated and classified as moderate with respect to
carbon monoxide in New England:
Greater Boston
Greater Hartford
Greater New York area that encompasses southeastern Connecticut.
-- There are only two areas in New England that are nonattainment for small
particulates, such as dust (PM 10):
New Haven, Conn.
Presque Isle, Maine.
(Notice of the final rule will appear in the Federal Register Nov. 6. The
Agency will consider comments for 30 days following publication. The
designations and classifications become effective 60 days following
publication.
/CONTACT: Bob Judge, 617-565-3248; or Richard Burkhart, 617-565-3244 both
of EPA Air Office; or Alice Kaufman, office of public affairs for EPA,
617-565-4592/
categoryGovernment G/EPA
categorySubject N/ENV N/LAW
categoryGeographic R/CT R/MA R/ME R/NH R/NME R/RI R/US
|
| 24.18 | Customers are looking for help in Enviro! | WILARD::BRAVERMAN | The PLOT THICKENS! | Thu Nov 07 1991 12:54 | 57 |
| Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: Business Wire
Headline: Corporations now choosing all-purpose environmental companies to help with envTime: NOV 07 1991 0928
Time: NOV 07 1991 0928
Story:
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In these days of proliferating environmental
regulation and escalating penalties for violating the rules, many American
corporations are choosing all-purpose environmental companies to help them in
all aspects of environmental compliance.
Following the rules can be costly, but it's more expensive not to. The
compliance issues can be complicated, bringing in outside expertise that can
handle everything from applying for air permits to helping reduce hazardous
waste is increasingly the way major corporations approach the problem.
``Laws are being passed all the time at the local, state and federal levels.
They can create liability where it didn't exist before. It's virtually
impossible to keep abreast of everything that goes on without the help of
environmental consultants,'' said Robert C. Keefer, president of San
Diego-based EnviroQuest Inc.
Keefer points out, for example, that many companies today have no idea how
the recently passed Clean Air Act will affect them. In some instances, the
law cuts allowable emissions to one-tenth previous levels. The new law will
cost American industry an estimated $21 billion annually.
Since the enactment of the Superfund Law, financial institutions are being
extra cautious when backing companies with potential environmental problems
and many facilities to manage. To satisfy these institutions, industry is
hiring environmental companies to do environmental audits and develop
all-inclusive compliance programs.
Using public information, to develop a huge environmental database,
EnviroQuest monitors hundreds of thousands of companies and millions of
properties nationwide with environmental concerns. For marketing purposes,
access to the database is sold to environmental consultants who have the
capacity to serve large corporations.
Keefer points out that marketing environmental expertise can be difficult.
``Executives often won't acknowledge that there's a problem that has to be
dealt with. Then too, environmental consultants most often have technical,
not marketing, backgrounds,'' he said.
EnviroQuest also provides help in approaching these kinds of industries and
determining which industry will generate the most environmental business.
``Large corporations need multidiciplinary solutions. Complying with air
regulations is different from cleaning up your water or handling underground
storage tanks. It's much more cost -efficient to bring in companies with
multiple kinds of environmental expertise than to try to deal with these
issues on your own,'' Keefer said.
CONTACT: Robert Keefer, 619/450-6120
categorySubject N/ENV
|
| 24.19 | More companies are responding to the Environment | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The Toxic Terminator... | Mon Nov 11 1991 11:50 | 124 |
| Copyright � Dow Jones & Co. 1991
Source: Press Release News Wire
Headline: NEMA MEMBERSHIP TO SHOWCASE ENVIRONMENTAL SUCCESS STORIES
Time: NOV 11 1991 0917
Story:
On Nov. 12 and 13, eight electrical manufacturers will present case studies
of successful source reduction and source elimination techniques as part of
NEMA's 65th Annual Meeting held here at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, Nov. 11-15.
Each company will have a table top display in the meeting registration area
that will graphically portray the pollution prevention method used by the
manufacturer and the results achieved. The tables will be staffed by member
company representatives familiar with the process.
Members of the press are welcome to stop and visit the Pollution Prevention
exhibits and interview the members present, as well as attend all of the
meetings, general sessions and workshops.
The meeting runs from 7 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 12, through 4 p.m. Thursday, Nov.
14.
Members of the press may register at the NEMA registration desk and pick up
a press packet.
NEMA, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, headquartered in
Washington, is the largest trade association in the United States for
companies that manufacture products used in generation, transmission,
distribution, control and end use of electricity. Annual shipments of these
products are close to $100 billion.
NEMA Environmental Affairs Committee Exhibit --
Pollution Prevention Successes
NEMA member companies presenting their successful pollution prevention
programs include:
-- Robertshaw Controls Company -- Holland, Mich.
Achieved a 90 percent reduction in use of Freon cleaning of
printed circuit boards through the use of "no wash" process.
Savings of over $500,000 per year.
-- Electrisola, Inc. -- Boscawen, N.H.
Replacement of methylene chloride degreaser with aqueous
system for wire drawing dies saved several thousand dollars a
year.
-- Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Elimination of use of 1,1,1-thrichloroethane degreaser at
several facilities resulted in a 35-60 percent reduction in
air emissions and generation of still bottoms yielding cost
savings of $60,000 a year.
-- Dry Cell Battery Manufacturers
A concerted industry research effort to eliminate use of
mercury in alkaline and zinc carbon dry cells has led to over
a 90 percent reduction -- down to less than 50 tons of mercury
per year.
-- Emerson Electric Company
An across-the-board effort to replace high solvent paint
systems has led to the use of a chemical powder paint system
which gave improved product quality and savings close to $2
million a year.
-- Wilson Greatbatch Ltd. -- Clarence, N.Y.
Installation of a laser machine to etch serial numbers on
lithium dry cell batteries for implantable medical devices to
replace a chemical etching process resulted in substantial
savings, improved safety and a payback period of less than
three years.
-- 3M Electronic Products Plant -- Columbia, Mo.
Several major parts cleaning operations were changed to use
mechanical scrubbing and recycling of solvent, yielding
reduced waste, substantial savings in raw materials and a
payback time of less than three years.
-- Lincoln Electric Company
Investment in equipment to apply a high solid paint system is
paying off in improved product quality and virtual elimination
of toxic organic solvents with attendant regulatory
requirements.
CONTACT: Janet Goebel of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association,
202-457-8455
/PRNewswire -- Nov. 11/
categorySubject N/ENV N/SKD N/TRG
categoryGeographic R/DC
|
| 24.20 | Pardon me, but I'm confused ... | SWAM2::MCCARTHY_LA | Martians are stealing my underwear | Mon Nov 11 1991 12:51 | 5 |
| Apparently, this note stream is not, in fact about "New, Improved
Markets", but entirely devoted to things environmental.
Is the topic incorrectly labelled, or is the environmental market the
only new and improving market? (I hope it's the former ...)
|
| 24.21 | My view of the playing field. | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The Toxic Terminator... | Tue Nov 12 1991 10:38 | 22 |
| re. -1
This is a topic that is devoted to new and improved markets. I'm
contributing the environmental portion because it is my opinion that
DEC can capture new business in this sector.
What I mean as new business? EIS, SI, NAS, etc.......
Because..... Every manufacturer, business entity HAS to comply with the
ever increasing environmental regulations.
I see this segment as an opportunity to expand our services and product
portfoilo to a new area, Environmental Information Management.
My entries are meant to support my claim.
The base note asked for areas where digital can get new market areas.
I can't be the only one that has identified a new source of business
for DEC to make more revenue.
hy
|
| 24.22 | Background on Environmental Market | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The Toxic Terminator... | Wed Nov 20 1991 21:02 | 0 |
| 24.23 | Increased activity around the environment | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The Toxic Terminator... | Wed Dec 04 1991 13:46 | 73 |
| <<< MR4SRV::NOTES$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING.NOTE;2 >>>
-< ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING >-
================================================================================
Note 49.0 CALCULATING ENVIRONMENT IN GNP No replies
POWDML::KNIGHT 67 lines 4-DEC-1991 10:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAFF WILL SOON FLOAT FIRST-EVER EPA STUDY
ON CALCULATING ENVIRONMENT IN GNP
EPA will soon issue a first-ever agency study on the feasibility of
including environmental impacts in national accounting systems, an
approach that departs significantly from current methods for
calculating national wealth, or gross national product (GNP). EPA's
study comes at a time when proposals for revising national accounting
systems to include environmental impacts has gained international
attention. If EPA becomes a Cabinet-level department with a bureau
of environmental statistics, such a bureau would likely draw upon
this study, say agency sources.
The EPA study, conducted by Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation
staff, involved creating a fictitious country called "Chesapeaka," to
encompass the Maryland counties surrounding the Chesapeake Bay and
those along the estuaries that enter the bay. Using an accounting
model developed by an outside consultant, the agency examined the
labor income, capital income, and other facets of traditional GNP
accounts for the "country." But besides these usual accounts, EPA
added a "nature sector" that includes accounts for "services from the
environment" that are currently free and pollution damages that are
currently not factored into national accounts. For instance, the
study calculated a cost for waste dumping into the Chesapeake that
does not cost industry anything and therefore may be regarded as a
kind of subsidy, explains one agency source. EPA also accounted for
damages to the air and water. The total wealth calculated represents
a "Green GNP," says the agency source.
"We're working with a pilot area" because Green GNP calculation is
"experimental," and still fraught with numerous problems, says an
agency source. Problems arose in trying to place a monetary value on
a number of environmental benefits and damages, such as valuing the
functions wetlands provide, this source explains. Nevertheless, EPA
found "you can certainly generate numbers, but whether they're
reasonable numbers, we don't know." In some cases, however, the
study found that it could not place a value on aspects of the
environment, such as "biological diversity" or "habitat" functions of
natural systems. The study also could not deal with environmental
damages from dredging toxic sediments in the Baltimore harbor. But
the fact that data and methods for valuing such environmental items
are unavailable would not have been revealed without a "pilot" study,
says an EPA source, who hopes this first study will be a "springboard
for research." Because of the numerous data gaps, "you probably
can't use [the method] for policy decisions" right now, this source
adds, though ultimately a "Green GNP" system could be used in
analyzing the environmental impacts of economic policy and vice
versa.
"There is a lot of interest worldwide in trying to develop better
accounting systems" that would include environmental and natural
resource depletion factors in calculating GNP, says a private
consultant involved in the EPA project. This source notes that
"Chesapeaka," because it includes three large cities, was calculated
as having GNP equivalent to that of Switzerland. Thus, the
demonstration project could be applied more broadly. After releasing
its study for review, the agency will consider whether to apply the
accounting system to another region, or nationwide, or even
internationally, says an agency source.
The OPPE staff are "close to having a draft" for review, but could
not specify a date when the study would be out.
INSIDE EPA - November 22, 1991
|
| 24.24 | DEC, Envirocycle, Corning | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The Toxic Terminator... | Sat Dec 07 1991 07:50 | 25 |
| An article from:
<><><><><><><><> T h e V O G O N N e w s S e r v i c e <><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><> VNS Edition : 2467 Friday 6-Dec-1991 <><><><><><><><>
VNS COMPUTER NEWS: [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
================== [Nashua, NH, USA ]
Digital, Envirocycle, Corning - Announce unique glass recycling process
{Livewire, U.S. News, 5-Dec-91}
Digital, Envirocyle Inc. (Endicott, New York), and Corning Inc. (Corning,
New York) announced the development of a unique process for recycling glass
from cathode ray tubes (CRTs). This process eliminates the need to bury
television sets and computer video display terminals in increasingly
expensive hazardous waste landfill sites, while providing an environmentally
sound solution for these products.
Recycling requires three elements: a material to be recycled; a process
that extracts the primary material and recycles residual materials; and a
source to utilize the primary material, in this case the CRT glass. Digital
supplies the material, Envirocycle provides the process and Corning utilizes
the crushed glass end product in glass manufacturing.
The current glass manufacturing process can accommodate approximately
fifteen percent recycled material. This is expected to rise, and, as the
percentage increases, the economic viability of using recycled material also
increases, since recycling higher volumes will lower unit cost.
|
| 24.25 | The law generates the opportunity! | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | The Toxic Terminator... | Tue Dec 10 1991 21:44 | 239 |
|
The rate of information regarding the environment and the pressures
felt buy business leaders is increasing. Their costs of dealing with
the issue is escallating as well. The opportunity exists for Digital to
provide Information Technology Services to business that want to get a
grip on their environmental problems. They sure spend a lot for legal
help.
***********************************************************************
<<< MR4SRV::NOTES$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING.NOTE;2 >>>
-< ENVIRONMENT_MARKETING >-
================================================================================
Note 51.0 Environmental Compliance Program No replies
POWDML::KNIGHT 223 lines 10-DEC-1991 15:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is a reprint of an article in an Environmental newsletter
quoting Jud Starr's views on the essence of an Environmental
Compliance Program. Jud Starr is the former head of the
Environmental Crimes Section in the U.S. Department of Justice, and
is probably the most influential lawyer in the U.S. on the subject of
criminal enforcement of environmental law. Jud Starr is currently a
partner in the Washington/Baltimore firm of Venable Howard &
Civiletti. Also, included are remarks on criminal enforcement of
environmental laws in Canada.
Reprint from "News & Views," Air & Waste Management Association,
September-October 1991.
Attachment
ARE YOU A COMMON CRIMINAL?
by Martha Swiss, Contributing Editor
Does your company generate, handle, or transport hazardous
wastes? Even small amounts? Do you have any responsibility for how
these materials are stored, used, or disposed of? If you answered
"yes," "maybe," or "I don't know" to these questions you could be
an environmental criminal.
Environmental laws are being promulgated and enforced at all
government levels in the United States and Canada as never before.
Corporations are being fined and employees are going to jail for
violating environmental regulations. Therefore, if you have any
decision-making responsibility in an organization that makes, uses,
or handles substances that have the potential for harming the
environment, it is your responsibility to find out what problems
may occur and how to handle them. If you ignore the fact that the
substance exists in your facility you could find yourself in jail.
United States Perspective
There have been great changes in environmental laws in the
United States in the past 20 years. In the past 10 years, changes
have centered mostly around Superfund, increased scope of other
environmental laws, and tough crackdowns on industry. In addition,
criminal enforcement of the laws has been stepped up dramatically
in the past 10 years.
The Enforcers
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began
hiring criminal investigators in 1982. Today, the EPA and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) both employ more than 60
investigators and agents who work on environmental cases.
The FBI plays a major role in investigating environmental
cases and EPA plans an even bigger role. The state's attorney
generals and local sheriffs and district attorney's are taking an
increasing role. Cases are also being reported by citizens,
employees, and the media.
Only a small number of cases make it to the Department of
Justice, but 98% of those that do are convicted. A conviction can
occur if you admit you knew that an environmental violation was
occurring.
The Criminal Profile
More people -- primarily managers -- are going to jail for
environmental crimes. Last year in the United States, the average
time served for an environmental crime was one year. There are
very few repeat environmental crimes because the people who are
convicted tend to be middle managers who do not fit the typical
criminal profile. Once convicted and sentenced, these people tend
to leave their positions and usually do not commit another
environmental crime.
According to Judson Starr, Partner, Venable, Howard &
Civiletti, Washington, DC, "As the law now stands, any corporate
official who bears a responsible relationship to a prohibited
environmental act, and who also had the power to prevent the act,
may be liable simply by virtue of his or her position in the
corporate management structure."
The Myths
There are several myths you should know about and work to
dispel:
1. Penalties are imposed only when the environment has been
harmed.
2. A crime only occurs when a violation has resulted in
environmental harm.
3. All plants and field personnel will follow policy and
procedures in regards to environmental protection.
4. Minor violations can be concealed or ignored.
Listen To Your Employees
According to Judson Starr, "The government's number one source
for leads in their investigations is the employees of targeted
companies... the typical "informant" in fact is usually not a
mischief maker. A large number of those who go to the government
care deeply about their jobs and employers. As proof of this fact,
they have... sometimes repeatedly approached management in a
non-hostile manner about disturbing activities. This regularly
happens well before those activities have become suspect and
warrant a government investigation."
RECOGNIZE THAT JAIL TERM IS REAL POSSIBILITY
What Corporations Can Do
The first thing that must be done is recognize that the threat
of jail penalty is real. Anyone who has the slightest
responsibility for environmental compliance is vulnerable to
criminal prosecution.
Judson Starr recommended these steps keep yourself out of
jail:
1. Do everything you can to achieve compliance with environmental
regulations.
2. Make sure all facilities and field personnel are applying
uniform corporate policies and procedures to comply with
environmental regulations.
3. Perform independent internal audits and third-party audits.
These should be more than just a checklist.
4. Build in follow-up mechanisms to fix problems uncovered in
audits.
5. Provide ongoing training for all employees, including all
levels of management.
6. Institute an award system to provide incentive for compliance.
Canadian Perspective
In Canada, environmental laws exist at the Federal and
Provincial levels; there is some overlap between these governments.
Since 1985, both legislative levels have stepped up their criminal
enforcement of environmental laws, but as yet are not considered as
zealous as the United States.
Nonetheless, Canadian Federal and Provincial legislatures
are making new developments toward enforcing their environmental
laws. The number of criminal prosecutions for environmental
offenses is on the rise, and corporate directors and officers are
personally being prosecuted for these offenses. However, the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is significantly affecting
environmental prosecutions. These developments may help enforce
environmental laws in Canada.
More Prosecutions
Today's laws provide for greater inspection powers into the
environmental affairs of corporations. In addition, guilty parties
face heavy fines or imprisonment. The prospect of such penalties
is providing an incentive to protect the environment. According to
Dianne Saxe, a leading Canadian environmental lawyer, more
prosecutions are having this effect on environmental protection:
"Since 1985 the increased prospect of prosecution and of
substantial fines appears to have had a dramatic effect on the
environmental consciousness of numerous corporations and
municipalities in Ontario... Prosecutions have received heavy press
coverage, enhancing and fortifying the change in corporate culture.
Corporate environmental staff say that they are listened to with
greater respect and have bigger budgets. Government and
environmental staff also report being heard with greater
attention."
Personal Liability
Corporate directors and officers are being held personally
responsible for environmental offenses. According to Chief Justice
Stuart of the Yukon Territorial Court,
"Fines are inadequate principally because they are easily
displaced and rarely affect the source of illegal behavior.
Usually fines can be ultimately passed on in the form of higher
prices to either the consumer or the taxpayer. Sentencing, to be
effective, must reach the guiding mind -- the corporate managers...
They are instigators of the illegality either through willfulness,
willful blindness, or incompetent supervisory practices."
Because environmental responsibility is placed on corporate
decision makers, they have a strong incentive to make sure their
corporations abide by environmental laws and regulations.
Charter of Rights & Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that a
defendant will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However,
current environmental litigation often requires defendants to
prove that they took reasonable precautions to prevent a violation
before they have been found guilty. Thus, the burden of proof is
shifted onto the defendant. However, events in the Ontario Court
of Appeal may force changes in environmental prosecutions in
Canada. The Ontario Court of Appeal is currently working on a bill
of environmental rights, and is also examining how the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to environmental law.
Editor's note:
Criminal enforcement of environmental laws was discussed during a
session held at the Association's Annual Meeting last June.
"Guilty without intent: Criminal enforcement of environmental
laws" featured top representatives from the United States and
Canadian Department of Justice.
|
| 24.26 | Information technoloy and Environmental laws | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | Sounds like assonance to me... | Wed Jan 22 1992 16:15 | 919 |
|
Lack of information can cause people as well as companies to get into
trouble. Environmental compliance is real. Information technology is a
solution to Information discontinuity. The following is a good
description of Envirionmental laws and how they relate to information
technology as a sloution.
hy
****************************************************************
The following is a working document developed by Foster Knight @MSO,
DTN 223-6389. It contains a brief summary of major U.S. environmental laws,
highlighting key provisions that are driving the increasing use of information
technology(IT) by industry to manage compliance and risk. Note: "Environmental"
laws, as used in this document, includes Health and Safety laws.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH LAWS -- EVOLUTION AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MARKET
Introduction
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF LAWS
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
II. WATER PROTECTION
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
III. CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE CONTROLS
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA)
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
IV. OSHA AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (SARA TITLE III)
V. HAZARDOUS WASTES
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)
Introduction
Title I Nonattainment
Title II Mobile Sources (not discussed)
Title III Air Toxics
Title IV Acid Rain
Title V Operating Permits
Title VI Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Title VII Enforcement
VII. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Other Environmental Laws
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH LAW -- EVOLUTION AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MARKET
Introduction
During the past twenty years, U.S. environmental and health law has
grown from a sparse scattering of statutory provisions to a complex,
highly developed body of law. In 1971, the newly established
Environmental Law Institute's (ELI) summary of environmental law
consisted of 33 pages. There were fewer than 100 court decisions. By
1991, ELI's compilation of federal statutory environmental law exceeds
5000 pages. There are now over 5000 federal court decisions
interpreting this law and many thousands of administrative decisions.
Federal regulations implementing environmental, health and safety law
now exceed 13,000 pages -- a 160% increase since 1980.
U.S. environmental law is characterized by information disclosure,
self-monitoring, self-reporting, adversarial relationships, and
strong public participation. Beginning with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) requirement -- the quintessential information
disclosure law -- U.S. environmental law has evolved through three
main stages:
1970s -- technical command-and-control standards and
regulations and industry permit requirements
(e.g. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
and Resources Conservation & Recovery Act)
1980s -- emphasis on liability and tort law
(e.g. CERCLA [Superfund] and hazardous
waste cleanups, environmental liability
in mergers and aquisitions and real estate
transactions)
Late 80s
and 1990s -- renewed emphasis on information disclosure laws,
monitoring, self-reporting, economic incentives and
criminal enforcement (e.g. Federal Community
Right-to-Know Act [SARA Title III], Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990)
The use of Information Technology by government agencies to manage
their environmental research and implementation responsibilities
began in earnest in the 1980s. Large industrial enterprises also
started using computers in the 1980s to address specific compliance
issues such as Material Safety Data Sheets and reporting
required by the Federal Community Right to Know Act.
During the 1990s, the combination of 1) more extensive information and
monitoring requirements, 2) new economic incentives, 3) harsher
criminal sanctions, and 4) continued public sensitivity to
environmental and health quality will dramatically increase the use of
computers and software applications by government agencies and
industry to manage their increasingly more complex environmental
responsibilities.
CONCISE SUMMARY OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL/HEALTH LAW
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that
any federal agency proposing to take a "major federal action" must
prepare and consider an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
EIS requirement applies to most major federal projects supported
by federal funding or those requiring a federal permit. The EIS
is required to identify and analyze comprehensively all the
environmental effects of the proposed action as well as reasonable
alternatives to the proposal. NEPA provides for public participation
during the EIS process and in decisions not to prepare an EIS. NEPA
has spawned many thousands of lawsuits contesting the adequacy of
federal EISs and the soundness of federal project approvals.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* *
* -Local, State and Federal government agencies are beginning to *
* computerize their geographical, environmental, infrastructure, and*
* government services data using mapping (Geographical Information *
* Systems). Components of GIS data (e.g. noise survey data from *
* GIS on major federal project affecting a city) will increasingly *
* be included in these new mapping systems. GISs thus will function*
* as a source of specific environmental data for broader, general *
* purpose mapping projects. *
* *
* -Many countries have adopted environmental assessment laws like *
* NEPA and some, like Taiwan, are building environmental databases *
* of environmental impact data collected in individual environmental*
* assessments. *
**********************************************************************
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (CONT.)
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
Although FOIA is not an environmental law, it is a critically
important legal tool used by the public and industry in the
context of enforcement and compliance with environmental law.
FOIA requires all federal agencies to make available to the
public on request any non-confidential information in their
files. Confidential information is narrowly defined in the law.
FOIA enables industry and the public to monitor EPA's non-public
implementation policies. Most states have disclosure laws
similar to FOIA.
II. WATER PROTECTION
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972 established a joint federal-
state program aimed at eliminating all discharges into the nation's
waters by 1985, with the goal of making rivers, lakes and coastal
waters "fishable and swimable". The cornerstone of this program
are two permit programs and a construction grants program for
municipal sewage treatment plants.
The foundation of the Clean Water Act's regulatory scheme is
Section 301 which prohibits any person or entity from discharging
any pollutant into "navigable waters" without a permit.
The first major permit program establishes the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) setting effluent limitations and
regulatory standards for individual point source dischargers. The
regulations set nationally uniform restrictions, by industry category
and subcategory (e.g. chemical plants have one set of standards, pulp
mills have another). Effluent limitations are specific numerical
standards that reflect the degree to which technological means are
capable of reducing effluents by treating or eliminating contaminants.
There are two main types of dischargers regulated: 1) direct
dischargers--plants discharging wastewater to a river or other
surface water through a pipe, and 2) indirect dischargers--plants
discharging wastewater into public sewage systems going to a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Direct dischargers are required to
achieve stringent limits for toxic and nonconventional pollutants
reflecting the "best available control technology economically
achievable" (BACT) and EPA has volumes of technical regulations
spelling these out.
For indirect dischargers, EPA has promulgated "categorical
pretreatment standards" by industry category and subcategory.
POTWs themselves are subject to stringent discharge standards set
by EPA, and POTWs have primary enforcement authority against
indirect industrial dischargers that connect to their sewage
systems.
The second major permit program governs the discharge of dredged
and fill material into the "waters of the United States" --
essentially all wetlands, including land that only is periodically
wet. The Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA jointly administer
this program, with EPA having veto power over Army Corps permits.
The Clean Water Act also establishes a multibillion construction
grants program providing federal financing of municipal sewage
treatment plants.
The Clean Water Act regulates to prevent oil spills, to
conduct cleanups, and to seek cost recovery for cleanups and damage
to natural resources comprising the "waters of the U.S.".
Finally, EPA has broad enforcement authority under the Clean Water
Act. EPA can inspect facilities, monitor their performance, obtain
samples and require self-reporting by facilities of their compliance
with standards.
In 1987, the Clean Water Act was strengthened and expanded. Much
stronger criminal and civil sanctions were added.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* -Particularly for industries using toxic chemicals, the Clean Water*
* Act and EPA regulations require collection, management and *
* reporting of increasingly larger amounts of data concerning *
* treatment and quality of wastewater, as well as efficient *
* administration of permits. These requirements will force *
* automation of data entry, monitoring, recordkeeping, permit *
* tracking and compliance reporting. Industry must increasingly *
* integrate its management of Clean Water Act compliance with other *
* applicable compliance and risk management programs. *
* *
* -An estimated 100,000 industrial facilities nationwide must comply *
* with new EPA storm water discharge permit requirements. Permit *
* requirements require management of detailed data relating to *
* operational activities at sites that come in contact with *
* storm waters. *
* *
* -Industry will increasing use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) *
* applications integrated with other environmental data management *
* systems for site-related environmental compliance management *
* such as stormwater permit management, oil spill prevention, *
* groundwater contamination cleanup and monitoring, and emergency *
* response planning. *
**********************************************************************
II. WATER PROTECTION (CONT.)
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The Safe Drinking Water Act is aimed at ensuring that public
water systems provide drinking water meeting minimum safety
standards and at protecting valuable underground aquifers.
EPA promulgates health-based Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs), which are set at levels having "no known or potential
adverse effect" on human health, with an "adequate margin of
safety". Next, EPA sets national primary drinking water standards
establishing Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for chemicals and
other substances (to be as close as possible to MCLGs). The
States have primary enforcement authority.
EPA also has regulatory authority over valuable underground sources
of drinking water. EPA can designate an aquifer as a "sole
source aquifer" which has significant implications for industrial
and other development activities in the vicinity. In addition,
EPA directly regulates underground injection activities that pose
contamination risks.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* The SDWA, in many cases, forces industry to conduct extensive *
* monitoring of underground water quality over long periods of time.*
* The MCLs are increasingly influential in determining "how clean *
* is clean" in connection with hazardous waste cleanups involving *
* ground-water contamination. *
**********************************************************************
II. WATER PROTECTION (CONT.)
Marine Protection, Research And Sanctuaries Act
This law was enacted in 1972 and is commonly known as the
Ocean Dumping Act because it mainly is aimed at regulating
disposal activities in ocean waters. Ocean dumping is not
allowed except by permit. EPA has permit authority over
all ocean dumping except dredged material, which is under
Army Corps regulatory jurisdiction. EPA sets permit criteria
for both agencies and can veto Army Corps permits.
The Ocean Dumping Act also authorizes the Commerce Department's
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
to conduct monitoring of and research on effects of ocean
dumping, and to designate marine sanctuaries.
III. CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES CONTROLS
This section briefly summarizes U.S. environmental laws regulating
the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of certain kinds of
chemicals.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
TSCA, enacted in 1976, regulates all chemicals manufactured and
imported into the U.S. (with specified exceptions for pesticides
and products regulated by the Food & Drug Administration).
The foundation of TSCA is the chemical inventory -- a compilation of
some 40,000 chemicals being manufactured, imported, processes or used
in the U.S. as of 1978. Any company seeking to manufacture or import
a chemical not on the Inventory must first file a PreManufacture
Notification (PMN) form with EPA. This enables EPA to conduct
toxicology tests independently, if necessary, before approval. EPA
also has authority to establish testing procedures, and may ban,
restrict usage and otherwise regulate chemicals in commerce that
pose risks to health and the environment.
TSCA imposes stringent recordkeeping and reporting obligations on
industry including industry that only "processes" or "imports"
chemicals. EPA can require industry to monitor the generation,
exposure and health effects of specified chemicals. EPA is also
authorized to require industry to report any health and safety
studies that they conduct.
TSCA also regulates Polychlorinated Byphenyls (PCBs), asbestos and
radon. PCBs have been banned from production since 1979 except in
very narrowly defined uses.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* -large federal databases containing the chemical inventory and *
* toxicology data on more than 60,000 chemicals *
* *
* -industry must manage increasing volumes of data relating to *
* chemical safety and health effects; workplace exposure monitoring *
* long-term occupational/medical surveillance is increasingly *
* becoming computerized. *
**********************************************************************
III. CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES CONTROLS (CONT.)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide And Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
This law dates back to 1910 and major amendments in 1947. In the
1970s, the law was again amended to create a comprehensive regulatory
scheme governing pesticides. FIFRA, administered by EPA, mandates
registration of all pesticides to be used in the U.S. Manufacturers
must submit detailed studies, test results and other information to
EPA on all new pesticides proposed for the market. Pesticides in
use that have not undergone these studies must be reregistered based
on the latest scientific data. The timetable for completion of
the re-registration process has been extended to 1997 because of a
huge backlog.
EPA can ban, restrict usage, prescribe labeling and otherwise regulate
pesticides. Registrants have a continuing obligation
to monitor and report to EPA any significant new information
concerning the effects of the pesticide on health and the
environment.
III. CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES CONTROLS (CONT.)
Food, Drug And Cosmetic Act
The basic law was enacted in the early 1900s and has been amended
numerous times. The law requires testing of food additives, proposed
new drugs and cosmetics before release into commerce.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* The pharmaceutical and food processing industries have been using *
* computer systems for many years in the development of new *
* products that will have an optimum chance of clearing the health *
* and safety regulatory requirements of the FDA. This trend will *
* continue in the 1990s. There will be increasing use of *
* supercomputers and modeling applications to identify the most *
* promising candidate substances for new products--in an effort to *
* speed up the lengthy "time to market" and gain competitive *
* advantage. *
**********************************************************************
IV. OSHA AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Occupational Safety And Health Act (OSHA)
OSHA, enacted in 1970, vastly expanded employers' obligations to
protect worker health and safety. With respect to chemical
safety, OSHA and implementing regulations set Permissible Exposure
Limits (PELs) for a wide range of substances and require workplace
monitoring and recordkeeping of exposures. OSHA regulations also
establish several hazard categories to classify all hazardous
chemicals in the workplace.
In recent years, OSHA regulations have merged with certain EPA
requirements, especially in the case of Hazard Communication
(Right-to-Know) and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs).
OSHA's Hazard Communication standard requires employers in virtually
all industry categories to maintain complete, up-to-date MSDSs for
each chemical in use within the site, to train all employees in
chemical safety, and to maintain detailed records.
OSHA requires employers in virtually all industries to maintain
records of all injuries to employees.
In recent years, OSHA has dramatically increased its enforcement
including use of criminal sanctions.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* -OSHA, in combination with TSCA and other laws, has caused an *
* increasing number of industrial enterprises to install computer *
* systems for monitoring workplace health effects, including *
* long-term medical surveillance of employees, linked to personnel *
* and other records. *
* *
* -OSHA's Hazard Communication regulation affects some 20M employees *
* and is causing many employers to computerize their chemical *
* safety training programs. *
* *
* -OSHA proposed regulations in 1990 significantly upgrading *
* chemical process safety management. These proposed regulations *
* will require chemical companies, oil refineries, semiconductor *
* plants and many other facilities to establish effective systems *
* for managing engineering and other documents related to facility *
* systems that pose safety risks, and to conduct hazard assessments *
* and fault-tree analyses before altering systems. This proposed *
* regulation is motivating the process industry to computerize *
* its engineering drawings and systems analyses. *
* The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 require OSHA to promulgate *
* a complementary Chemical Process Safety Management requirement *
* identifying "highly hazardous chemicals" and a standard to *
* protect employees in the event of an accidental chemical release. *
**********************************************************************
IV. OSHA AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW (CONT.)
Emergency Planning And Community Right To Know Act
(SARA TITLE III)
This law was enacted in 1986 as Title III to the Superfund
Reauthorization Act. SARA Title III was Congress' response
to the Bhopal disaster. The law requires industrial facilities
to work with local community leaders and state officials to
prepare coordinated plans for responding to emergencies involving
chemicals (e.g. fire, emergency releases of hazardous chemicals).
The Community Right-to-Know component requires industrial facilities
using any of the EPA listed categories of hazardous chemicals to
report on the quantities of such toxic chemical substances released
into the air, water (including sewage system), and land disposal sites
in the form of wastes (Form R). This annual reporting
requirement provides EPA and the States and local communities
on total releases of toxic chemicals to the environment above
specified thresholds. EPA uses the data to publish its annual
Toxic Release Inventory which is publicly available. Every August,
the media publish a list of the top 50 polluters in the U.S. based
on this data.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* -SARA Title III's toxic chemical release reporting requirements *
* have riveted the attention of senior management in the process *
* industries on the need to reduce chemical releases and to make *
* dramatic improvements in the way their companies manage *
* chemical data. Leading chemical companies have responded to *
* publicity about their pollution releases by publicly committing *
* to reductions of pollution releases by a specified percentage *
* by a specified date (e.g. 50% reduction by 1995). To achieve *
* these objectives - which are regarded by management as essential *
* to stay competitive - some process industry companies are *
* installing or upgrading integrated Environmental/Health/Safety *
* Information Systems. *
**********************************************************************
V. HAZARDOUS WASTES
Resource Conservation And Recovery Act (RCRA)
At the time of its enactment in 1976, RCRA was EPA's most far-reaching
and complex regulatory program, taking over 4 years to complete the
basic framework of regulations. Since its passage, RCRA has been
extensively amended (over 200 provisions).
RCRA comprehensively regulates and manages hazardous wastes from
"cradle to grave". In contrast with Superfund, which looks
retrospectively at cleanup of past waste disposal, RCRA is largely
prospective in its approach.
RCRA Subtitle C establishes a federal-state program for managing
hazardous wastes. EPA has promulgated regulations that identify
specific wastes as "hazardous" and criteria for determining whether
other substances are to be classified as "hazardous". Each entity
must review all its wastes and classify them according these EPA
lists and criteria. Hazardous wastes are then subject to very
demanding regulations covering temporary storage, transportation,
treatment and disposal. Each facility generating hazardous wastes
is responsible for proper labeling and compliance with waste
manifests during transportation. Each shipment of wastes must be
specifically covered by waste manifests and signed copies of manifests
must be returned to the generator after proper disposal
at a licensed disposal facility.
In 1984, Congress added major new components to the RCRA regulatory
scheme. Increasing tighter standards for landfill disposal were
established making land disposal much more expensive. In addition,
individual facilities were required to have "corrective action"
plans to address cleanups of any localized contamination of soil
at their sites.
RCRA, as amended, establishes extensive recordkeeping, reporting,
labeling, manifest, and permit requirements affecting virtually
every industrial facility and federal facilities.
RCRA's permit program is considered to be the most onerous among
federal environmental laws. For example, a facility seeking to
treat hazardous wastes on site or to store hazardous wastes on
site for more than 90 days must apply for an obtain a so-called
Part B permit. The permit application requires volumes of information
about the facility, how it was constructed, information
on all processes and chemicals used, detailed engineering drawings
and evidence that the facility meets EPA exacting requirements.
Permits can take over a year to obtain and cost more than $1M
in preparation. Furthermore, permits are subject to public
review and comment.
RCRA provides EPA with broad inspection and enforcement powers. EPA
can enter facilities, review records, take samples, require monitoring
(for example, to drill wells and monitor groundwater).
Civil and criminal sanctions for RCRA violations have been
dramatically increased in recent years.
RCRA Subtitle D establishes a cooperative federal-state framework
for managing solid wastes (non-hazardous), and focuses mainly on
municipal (sanitary) landfills. Subtitle D is expected to undergo
major amendments to tighten controls and standards.
RCRA Subtitle I established a separate program in 1984 to regulate
underground storage tanks (UST Program). Subtitle J was added
in 1988 to regulate medical wastes.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* -RCRA imposes extensive data management obligations on industrial *
* facilities using chemicals generating hazardous wastes, inter *
* alia: *
* -detailed waste sampling and analysis *
* -groundwater monitoring and sampling *
* -recordkeeping and document management (permits, manifests *
* etc.) *
* -underground storage tank monitoring *
* -medical waste tracking for hospitals and similar operations *
* *
* -RCRA compliance increasingly must be integrated with other *
* environmental and health law requirements (OSHA, TSCA, Community *
* Right-to-Know, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act) *
**********************************************************************
V. HAZARDOUS WASTES (CONT.)
Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation And Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
This law, commonly known as Superfund, gives EPA broad authority
to manage a nationwide program to protect health and the environment
from leaking landfills, abandoned waste dumps, and other uncontrolled
waste sites. Superfund allows EPA to act immediately to undertake
cleanups, without waiting for administrative or judicial
determinations of liability. Furthermore, EPA is authorized to
take whatever measures are necessary to protect health and the
environment in response to a "release" or "threatened release"
of "hazardous substances".
Superfund provides for two basic types of response actions: removal
and remedial. A removal usually means an immediate, interim measure
to cleanup and stabilize the site. A remedial action involves
long-term cleanup actions based on a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RIFS), detailed characterization of
the site and groundwater contamination and conditions, alternative
cleanup technologies, long-term monitoring. The process leading up
to a final decision on a remedial action can take years and cost
millions (a few final Superfund settlements have been in the $100+M
range).
To carry out this program, EPA was initially required to identify all
priority cleanup sites in a National Contingency Plan (NCP). The
current NCP lists over 1000 sites, but it is estimated that there
are an additional 20,000 cleanup sites that will require some form
of cleanup.
Superfund establishes cleanup liability without fault on the
following (known as "Potentially Responsible Parties" or PRPs):
- present owners/operators of contaminated sites
- past owners/operators of facilities where hazardous
substances were disposed
- generators and others who arranged for treatment,
transportation, and disposal of wastes at the site
[Digital is a PRP in connection with about 4 major
Superfund sites because Digital facilities generated
wastes that ended up in these sites]
- those who transported hazardous substances to treatment
or disposal sites
PRPs are strictly, jointly and severally liable for all response
costs incurred in connection with cleanups and for damage caused
to natural resources.
If there are no known PRPs that are financially responsible, EPA
can then use the $8+B Superfund to pay for cleanup costs.
Federal facilities are responsible and liable as PRPs in the same
way as industry is based on 1986 amendments to Superfund.
The Superfund program has been heavily criticized for its bureaucracy
and excessive involvement of consultants and lawyers. Critics say
more money has gone to pay for these services than for actual
cleanups. Progress in cleanups has been painfully slow. We can
expect that the Superfund program will extend well into the 21st
Century.
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* -enormous data management requirements at major Superfund sites *
* involving hundreds of PRPs *
* -long-term groundwater monitoring projects typify final *
* remediation plans *
* -chemical intensive industries are further motivated to reduce *
* generation of hazardous wastes ("source reduction" and "waste *
* minimization") in order to avoid potential future Superfund *
* liabilities associated with land disposal; information technology *
* is increasingly used to support source reduction and waste mini- *
* mization *
* -federal facilities (and responsible Agencies) are starting to *
* use information technology for wide-area monitoring, document *
* management and site-specific cleanup projects. *
**********************************************************************
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)
Introduction
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was the first major "command and control",
technology-forcing environmental law in the U.S. It was amended in
1977 to add new programs. During the 1980s, repeated efforts by
Congress to strengthen the Clean Air Act (especially to address
acid rain) were defeated by the Administration and industry/labor
coalitions. Finally, in 1990, a substantially strengthened Clean
Air Act was enacted.
The 1990 Amendments are far-reaching--perhaps the most significant
U.S. environmental law enacted. The implementation costs are
estimated at $25B (average annual costs over time). These costs
reflect aggressive goals: 90% reduction of 1990-level auto emissions
(already dramatically reduced since 1970), 90% reduction of industrial
emissions of air toxics, and a 50% reduction of SO2 emissions.
This section briefly summarizes the major provisions of the CAAA of
1990.
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)(CONT.)
Title I - Nonattainment
Nonattainment refers to geographical areas in the U.S. that have
failed to cleanup their air quality to meet National Ambient Air
Quality Standards since enactment of these standards in 1970.
- Extends deadlines for certain pollutants and requires states to
submit a new round of State Implementation Plans (SIPS).
Establishes new classification categories for nonattainment areas
(e.g. Boston is in the "serious" category; LA is in the "extreme"
category; in between are "severe I and severe II").
- Requires States to prepare an actual inventory of emissions in
each nonattainment area (a great weakness of the previous CAA
was the relatively poor information on each area's emissions);
the new inventory will be used as a baseline for planning emission
reduction levels.
- Requires States to correct existing SIP deficiencies
(RACT + RFP + Contingency Plan)
- Requires EPA to issue new Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs)
and to develop Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs)
- Redefines "major sources" by lowering applicable thresholds
in most nonattainment areas (for example a Digital plant in
Mass. used to be governed by a 100 ton per year threshold; now
it will be governed by either a 50 tpy or a 25 tpy (or even,
possibly a 10 tpy) threshold.
- Restricts use of "netting" (as in "netting out" of New Source
Review)
- Imposes offset ratios of 1.2 to 1 ("serious" areas) on up to
2.0 to 1 ("extreme" areas) for proposed new and modified
sources that do not qualify for "netting"
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)(CONT.)
Title II - Mobile Sources (not discussed)
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)(CONT.)
Title III - Air Toxics
- new law specifies 172 individual compounds and 17 compound
categories that are now regulated as "hazardous air pollutants"
(compared to 8 substances regulated as "hazardous air
pollutants" since 1970)
- requires EPA to regulate air pollutants based on environmental
effects (previously only health effects considered)
- requires EPA to set emission standards based on Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for "major" and "area"
sources of listed hazardous air pollutants
- requires EPA to evaluate residual health risks after
implementation of MACT standards (late 1990s) and set even
more restrictive standards if necessary to protect health
- establishes new permitting requirements for all sources
that emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous pollutant
or 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous pollutants.
- establishes an extensive new program to prevent accidental
releases of hazardous substances (EPA, DOT and OSHA must
coordinate)
- requires new guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment
- States can enact air emission limits and other requirements
stricter than the new federal requirements
- EPA implementing regulations are to 1) identify first 40 major
source categories requiring emission standards in two years,
2) identify the 30 hazardous pollutants that pose greatest
health risk in urban areas, and 3) identify at least 100
substances to be covered in new accidental release prevention
program.
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)(CONT.)
Title IV - Acid Rain
- requires electric utilities to reduce S02 emissions by 10
million tons below 1980 levels by the year 2000; requires
significant new controls that will reduce NOx by 2.5 million
tons below 1989 levels by year 2000
- Phase I begins Jan. 1, 1995 for 111 high-emitting
powerplants; plants using scrubbers can postpone
until 1997
- Phase II--more than 200 additional plants must make
S02 cuts by year 2000
- "cap" goes into effect Dec. 31, 2000 (no more than
8.9 million S02 "allowances" can be granted to
electrical utilities in any year)
- creates market-based approach to allocate burdens of acid
rain reduction by establishing system of tradeable S02
emission allowances
[E. G. Power plant in Ohio limited to no more than
30,000 tons/yr of S02 by year 2000 may chose to install
equipment that reduces emissions to 20,000 t/p/y. Ohio
plant could then sell the 10,000 ton difference as an
allowance to a new plant in Utah to offset cost of
control technology]
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)(CONT.)
Title V - Operating Permits
- requires operating permits for most sources in nonattainment
areas and for hazardous emission sources; one big
Permit for an entire facility with potentially thousands of
individual emissions (more than 10,000 facilities will now have to
get permits)
- permit applications must include compliance plans, enforceable
emission limits, compliance schedule, monitoring and reporting
requirements, provisions for progress reports, prompt reporting
of deviations, and inspection conditions. Responsible
Corporate Officer must certify compliance with the permit at
least annually.
- Virtually all industry categories are affected and there will
be a major effort by industry to prepare for EPA implementing
regulations by 1) undertaking detailed baseline inventories of
all their air emissions, and 2) heavy lobbying to minimize
severe impacts.
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)(CONT.)
Title VI - Stratospheric Ozone Protection
- Phases out certain CFCs, halons, HCFCs, carbon tetrachloride,
and methyl chloroform (slightly more restrictive than Montreal
Protocol phaseout schedule)
- requires quarterly reports on amounts of all regulated
substances each person (facility) has produced, imported, or
exported.
- requires labeling of regulated substances beginning April 1993.
Products containing regulated substances also must labeled
unless EPA determines no substitute products exist not relying
on regulated substances
- numerous additional EPA rulemaking
VI. CLEAN AIR ACT (1990 AMENDMENTS)(CONT.)
Title VII - Enforcement
- Makes "knowing" violations a felony, including false or
incomplete reporting ["knowing" means being aware of your
actions; prosecutor does not have to prove you acted
"willfully"]
- Prison terms of up to 15 years plus $1M per violation
- "Responsible Corporate Officers", plant managers, environmental
managers and more senior managers will be targeted for
prosecution (lesser penalties for non-senior employees unless
they are acting "knowingly and willfully")
- Vastly expands civil and administrative sanctions
VII. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Coastal Zone Management Act
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
National Forest Management Act
Wilderness Act
Endangered Species Act
Marine Mammal Protection Act
**********************************************************************
* Information Technology Implications *
* *
* Geographic Information Systems will increasingly be used to *
* manage natural resources in accordance with federal natural *
* resource management laws. GIS will enable federal land *
* and natural resource managers to meet statutory "multiple use", *
* "sustained yield" and species protection requirements, as well *
* as in prioritizing federal expenditures for new aquisitions and *
* measures for protecting and enhancing lands and natural *
* resources. *
**********************************************************************
|
| 24.27 | Sales opportunities in new market area. | CTOAVX::BRAVERMAN | Perception=Reality | Fri Jun 19 1992 10:01 | 325 |
| Subject: Igal Pitchon's White Paper on the Environmental Market
Subject: Igal Pitchon's White Paper on the Environmental Market
The following was written by Igal Pitchon, from the solutions
Integration Center in Santa Clara. This is an interesting document and
identifies the environmental market as a source of revenue.
regards
hy
ASSESSMENT OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
APPLICATIONS WITHIN INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this memo is share with account teams, in
various industry segments the results of the Federal Funding to
States Pilot program. This information is disseminated to support
the generation of new business.
BACKGROUND:
The Northcentral Region sales management team initiated a
marketing program to investigate the business potential which may
result from the flow of federal funds (Environmental Protection
Agency - EPA) to states. The effort was sponsored by SLG
management: U.S. Sales, SLG IBU and SLG SI.
WHY THIS MAY BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO READ:
As many of you are hearing and reading about, the business of
pollution prevention, pollution control, and anything else that
impacts what happens between businesses and the environment, is
fast becoming BIG business. It is estimated that the environment
industry will be one of the largest, and most profitable,
business arenas within the next five years with a projected
market of $200 Billion by 1995.
No matter what industry your customer is based, his/her business
will be effected and become involved with, and be impacted by,
environmental issues to which they will be mandated to respond.
The federal government is making mega funds available to
businesses in order that they can comply with federal
regulations. Your customers will have to respond, and will comply
with federal regulations. your customers will have to respond,
and will take advantage of federal moneys to do so.
Therefore, the findings of the pilot point to a new evolving
market and virgin business opportunities for Digital. Your
customers, will be directly influenced by this new government
direction and face problems for which they will be seeking
vendors who can provide solutions. Furthermore, this will become
a liquid market with federal funds available directly to
corporations, small and large businesses, that chose to follow in
the government footsteps. Corporation are looking to allocate
funds and budgets to remain compliant with EPA regulation and
emerging policies.
This memo is written for your quick reading. It enables a
"thumbnail" assessment of the value of this information to your
business. This is not meant to be a comprehensive report. It is
to inform, open the door for questions and a further dialog.
CONTENT:
The memo highlights: Government Direction and its influence on
industry; problems faced by government and industry as a result
of this direction; Digital's opportunity in addressing these
problems.
1. Government Direction and its Influence on Industry
1.1 Environmental Laws:
There are two major categories of evolving laws that influence
industry and force it to reorient itself in order to be
responsive: the "cradle to grave" and the "liability for
pollutants" laws.
These laws are significant in that they set a trend by government
to place on industry's shoulders the responsibility for
compliance with EPA regulations (at both federal and state and
local government levels) and pollution prevention.
The "cradle to grave" laws put the full responsibility for the
life cycle of a manufactured product and its by-product
pollutants on the manufacturer. For example a car manufacturer is
responsible for scrapping the car after it finished its useful
market life. He is also responsible for cleaning any pollutants
generated during the manufacturing process of said car (i.e.
Mercedes Benz is buying back all junked Mercedes cars, Coca Cola
will buy back all cans and bottles, etc).
The "liability for pollutants" laws places the full
responsibility for any damage caused by the plume of the
pollutants, regardless of geography, on the party responsible for
generating the pollutant. For example, if wind carries toxic
fumes from one state to another and the fumes were proven to be a
health hazard, the party generating the fume is held responsible
subject to legal action and penalties.
1.2 Government's "Carrot and Stick" Approach to Industry
The government is focused on creating a clean environment and is
shifting its defense budget to fight a newly declared national
threat - hazardous waste, pollutants and an unclean, unhealthy
environment. Environmental policy is the pivot for shifting from
a defense oriented economy to a peace-time economy. It is
expected to result in a 200 billion dollar market for high
technology and information applications.
1.2.1 "The Carrot"
Government preference is to entice industry to implement EPA
policies via voluntary "non-compliance" initiatives, pollution
prevention.
In support of this objective a market is being created to trade
in a clean environment. Some examples are: The Chicago Board of
Trade is trading "air free of certain toxic gases" as a
commodity. Southern California has established a point system in
which companies can trade their "clean air". There are dollars
associated with these trading systems.
The New Clean Air Act provides for funds and technical assistance
to companies which will avail themselves of technology and
information to achieve EPA policies.
1.2.2 "The Stick"
EPA is methodically shifting the responsibility for compliance
enforcement from its federally administrative regions to the
states and local governments. Compliance will be enforced with
increasing vigilance accompanied by steep fines. Permits for new
plants will require a more rigorous qualification process and
empirical data in support of permit applications.
2.0 Government's and Industry's Problem
The department of Environmental Protection Agency has been formed
in 1974. It is a spin-off from Department of Health and Human
Services to address health hazards caused by an unclean
environment. The focus was on media (air, water, underground
waste, etc.). Hence, laws were legislated by media. EPA organized
to monitor compliance and enforcement by media - i.e. "stove
pipe" laws, "stove pipe" allocated congressional funds, and
"stove pipe" organizations to administer and enforce the laws.
The federal government assumed the responsibility for "keeping
the country clean". It did not delegate this responsibility to
industry. The management of the "clean up" was centralized in
Washington. EPA refers to its administration as "centralized
command and control"; that is "command" by regulation and
"control"by permits and enforcement. EPA Primary mission is:
- Set national Standards
- Promulgate regulations
- Issue permits
- Inspect for compliance
- enforce where necessary
- monitor for environmental results
2.1 The government problem
Since the laws are media specific, there is a limit to industry's
ability to comply with one law without breaking another. For
example: air may be kept clean by putting waste underground. The
underground may be kept clean by washing waste down the river,
etc. Soon, there is no place to store waste and remain compliant
with ALL regulations. While reductions are made in one media, we
merely have transferred the problem to another media.
EPA has a 20 year old administration entrenched in the regions.
These administration was put in place and funded in support of
laws which are media specific. The infrastructure is not in place
to support pollution prevention initiative by industry.
2.2 Industry's problem
Industry is focused on the manufacturing and distribution of
products for profit. The issue of waste material as a by-product
of the manufacturing and distribution process is, for the most
part, treated as a necessary evil. Corporate funds spent in
clean-up are not viewed as an investment which brings return.
2.2.1 Permit Regulations
Permit regulation are per media. Hence a manufacturer has to
produce enough empiricial data to show compliance per media (air,
water, underground waste etc.) before he is FULLY permitted to
open a plant. This may take from months to years.
2.2.2 Alternative Materials
Once into the manufacturing process, a manufacturer wants to look
for new raw materials which are environmentaly sound. The search
for such raw materials is expensive and rigorous. The information
may be available in multiple data bases, world-wide, in different
formats, different measuring standards and a variety of access
communications protocols.
If such raw material is found. The manufacturer may hesitate
in implementing it in the manufacturing process because it may
involve going through the permitting process again which is long
and costly.
2.2.3 The Manufacturing Envelop
The manufacturing process is complex. A change in an established
process to accommodate the replacement of raw materials with new
ones requires a great deal of econometric modeling, process
modeling and plant reorganization. Such sophisticated analysis
tools are available to very few large companies and are virtually
nonexistent to small to medium companies.
3.0 The Opportunity for the Digital Account Teams
3.1 Compliance and Permitting
As the burden of environmental responsibility is shifted from
government to industry, industry has to establish systems in
place to prove compliance with environmental regulations and
collect and analyze data to get required permits. They are no
longer considered "innocent until proven guilty" but guilty until
proven innocent".
In addition to providing such information to government agencies,
at all levels, there is the proliferation of environmental
information to the community. The disclosure requirements of the
Community Right to Know provisions of SARA Title III are
reshaping environmental policy. Information is power; and when
citizens have information about the release of toxic substances
to the air, water, or land they demand action. The ability of
business to provide such information to their community restore
public confidence and corporate image.
3.2 Control Technology
Industry is expected to have a mandate for new control technology
to control environmental releases. The new regulations at the
federal, state, and local level are all "technology-forcing", in
that they deliberately establish performances requirements that
necessitate advanced technology research and application.
3.3 Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention is emerging as the most compelling aspect of
the future. Pollution prevention is not only good environmental
policy, it is good economically. Businesses are finding that
pollution prevention program can result in improved regulatory
compliance, reduced costs for pollution control and waste
disposal, improved employee safety, and reduced liability
associated with the management of hazardous materials and wastes.
When one considers the billions of dollars spent each year on
pollution control and the additional billions spent on
remediation of past environmental damage, it becomes even clearer
that the most efficient environmental expenditure, both
economically and ecologically, is pollution prevention.
Industry is encouraged by EPA to look for Integrated
Environmental Management manufacturing process. Today this is in
direct conflict with the EPA administration which is by media.
The new laws encourage industry, small to large concerns, to
take such initiative and be rewarded for it with funds,
government technical support, positive public relation image etc.
Integrated Environmental Management helps the manufacturer and
distributor to think pollution prevention, build the cost of
waste disposal into the business accounting practices and engage
in risk assessment and media priority measurement techniques
(i.e. if there is waste, what is the best way to dispose of it ?
air, water, etc.)
3.4 Connectivity to Material Data Bases
Industry will be focused more and more on an on-going search for
finding alternative raw materials. They will be looking for
access for material data bases which can help them find such
information. The sources of such data bases are, DOD, DOE,
academia, foreign government's agencies and commercial data bases
manufacturers.
3.5 Outsourcing
The management of the data processing functions associated with
Integrated Environmental Management is becoming a very
specialized field of knowledge. The data collection, tracking,
monitoring, risk analysis, decision support, econometrics, etc.
are brand new areas which industry needs to address and
incorporate in their day to day activities. They will need to
staff up, develop expertise, worry about training and
re-training, upgrading technology to remain state-of-the-art and
invest heavily in capital equipment. Where as all industry needs
is ACCESS to the information and applications to process such
information. All the rest, they'll be open to have someone else
perform for them and expense the service out of operational
funds. This will not have to go for capital expenditures and
establishing new organizations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors of this white paper (Igal Pitchon, SLG SI and Marilyn
Ashley, Minnesota SLG Account Team) wish to extent their thanks
to the Government Relations Group for helping in making the
contacts with U.S. Senators, U.S. Congressman, Various
Appropriation Committees, The Executive Branch and EPA
officials. This enabled getting the information direct from the
source and evaluate this new market.
|