Sustainable Construction_Djibouti

The Republic of Djibouti. 


The country as a whole is stable politically (due to government subsidy of a narcotic-Khat), although economically it is near the top of the lowest standards of living. They have no major resources, and other than 2 large military bases and a deep water port there is no major industry. The government on paper is a democracy, but is run more along the lines of the famous Italian families that operated 'business' out of New York and Chicago; I am trying to be nice here.

The electric is provided by old diesel generators which are undersized and breaking down, in fact one of the 5 remaining units was taken off line recently. Electric costs are near the most expensive in the world; $.88/KwH.

The climate in the summer is horrid, where temperatures can get up to the 120 degree with heat index above 140.

A place where sustainable construction should be the norm is non-existent. Buildings are constructed out of concrete blocks (cinder), with no insulation. Windows are cheap and installed with gaps in the frames, no solar reflective quality. No weather striping around doors, nothing. The most non-energy efficient structures you could possibly imagine being built in the most high cost energy country with a super low per capital income.

I have learned, when I asked why insulation is not being used and the reliance on concrete bricks, that this construction method/materials and lack of insulation is a designed plan by the government. The idea is for the populace to use more energy, to maximize income from electric sales! I am sure few would believe it, but up until this year solar power was not allowed to be installed (jail time) in the country. 


The lesson is to know about the country you are planning on building in and do not assume that if it is of benefit (alternative energy), that it is legal. 

Believe it Or Not

Ground Water 1.1

Water is a issue of high importance on the international front.  It is both a welcome and life sustaining element, and at the same time one that can kill or weaken a whole people.  Access to clean water is a basic human right, which we all tend to overlook in the west as we have it available in plentiful supply with ease of access.

Countries have regulations in place that cover contamination of both ground and surface water, but it depends on the location as to how much or little enforcement of these regulations is applied.  It should not be a matter of having a government enforce a regulation in order for an entity to do whatever it can to be protective of local drinking water sources.

From the point of view of someone considering the establishment of some enterprise in a country there needs to be an understanding of the available resources.  Water is one of those key resources.  From a political point there also needs to be an understanding of the availability of water to the enterprise as well as to the local populace.  The reason being if the government gives the enterprise unrestricted access to the water, while at the same time limits or fails to provide the same water to local populace this may create a future issue; also it is not the right thing to do.

Before engaging in an agreement concerning water rights for the enterprise it is best to conduct an evaluation of this resource that covers quantity, quality, availability, and local politics.  The same as a environmental assessment to provide the user with the information necessary to make the right decision.

Never sign an agreement without consulting with your environmental experts, as well as legal staff.  Use this team to obtain guidance. 

Alternative Energy_International

The conducting of an environmental assessment study is not a USA driven monopoly.  These studies are required by all world agencies for any project that can have an impact.  I was reading about how hydroelectric dams are impacting people whose lands are inundated by the resulting lakes that are created.  News stories such as these never direct the readers to the EA that was conducted as part of that project.  The EA will outline the impacts, the alternatives, etc.  So that the suggestion that these news stories make that people are arbitrarily being displaced without consideration is never accurate.
_________________________________________________________________________

This is my editorial about Alternative Energy that has nothing to do with Environmental Compliance:

When the Tennessee Valley Authority built hydroelectric dams there were many Americans farmers who were driven off their lands; also destroying hunting and fishing grounds. Now those areas thrive with new business development, irrigation farming, and people who were just getting by now have other opportunities. Not to mention all the people outside of the area whose standard of living was improved. 

We as "Green" conscious professionals need to pick a side. Either we want alternative energy or we don't. It is a fact that any major change will impact somebody. Is this right? The answer is not easy. We continue to scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame the oil companies and government for in action, and the current state of energy affairs. Then when an alternative energy project is built we scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame government for this action. Because this project impacts the beauty of the landscape, changes the natural wind patterns, displaces people from their homes, confuses a bird’s flight route, turtle populations increase, changes the this or that. Guess what, any alternative energy source you pick will have some consequence and impact; ANY.

Most all alternative energy sources do not have the energy equivalence of oil, so that they are not as efficient.   Which means that their use will have a greater impact.  Look at the solar or wind farms.  For example the proposed solar farm near Primm Nevada will require 3,500 acres of desert.  But it will provide clean energy to millions of people.  Also, these particular energy sources do not in themselves contribute anything else back to the user. Hydroelectric provides users with multiple uses beyond supplying a clean energy source, such as irrigation, recreational, creating a reserve of water in case of a drought, etc.

This is the hard choice to be made, either: provide alternative energy, maintain the status quo (oil), or let people remain in the dark ages. Pick a side and then live with the consequences.  

Fuel Spill on a DoD facility in a third world country

I am sure everyone at one time in their life has wondered how a fuel spill is handled by the DoD in one of those far off third world countries.  Spent a sleepless night just pondering that very topic.  Okay, perhaps not, but in case the thought passes quickly by, you can at least know how I dealt with it.

First of all we know that the DoD operates under one of two different legal guidance documents; Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document (OEBGD), or a Final Governing Standard (FGS).  The difference between the two is that the FGS has been negotiated and the OEBGD has not.  Not that not being negotiated makes it less of a document, but it is in practice less appreciated by those who it covers.  A FGS has the power of a nation to nation treaty, so it makes it a bit more appreciated, if you follow my meaning here.

The OEBGD covers all the primary environmental categories that would be typically found at a installation, but it does so in a generic manner.  It does actually reference US regulations, but most people who use it on a daily basis at the installation level (and most of the higher ups) do not understand the intricacies of how referencing makes those regulations applicable.  The thing is that this is a self enforcement document, in that the DoD enforces it against itself.  Similar to the guy who is given a rule book and told that when he breaks the rules he is to punish himself, and he determines how harshly.  Really it is that simple.

A FGS on the other hand gives the host country some latitude to do some of that enforcing.  It also is tailored to that particular country, along with the specific activities that are to occur at that installation.  It may be more stringent than US laws, but never less.  So it is not uncommon for installation personnel to be annoyed that they maybe held to a different enforcement standard than a local.  But in actuality this is the same situation that occurs in the states, as most all regulators perceive the DoD to be the worse environmental violators in the area--this is a fact about regulators.  So regulators are the same no matter where you go, applying the law unequally; this is life.

Now back to my fuel spill.  In the location I am at there is currently no reliable energy sources, so everyone uses large diesel generators for power.  And we have to have power to keep our ACs and refrigerators running, or else it would get very hot and uncomfortable.  I also need to heat water for my green tea habit.

Okay so we have four generators for our compound; compound sounds so exotic.  The largest generator had a fuel filter that broke and released an unknown quantity of fuel, as we didn't know when it happened.  Most all generators have secondary containment of some sort, not all as this rule is not always equally applied; again this is life.  The secondary containment for most stationary generators such as this one is simply made of concrete; yes I know it should be sealed but it is not, this is life.

When I was notified about the spill I went out and found that the fuel had been contained, and never reached the top of the containment unit.  But somehow some quantity had escaped and contaminated soil at two different locations; concrete not sealed hmmmmm I wonder how the spill occurred.  The soil in this area does not absorb anything very well, so the fuel was standing free on top.  It didn't look like a lot at the time (you can read where this is going).  So I got a couple of workers to get shovels and directed them to put the wet dirt into the bags.  As they dug the free product continued to ooze up.  Plastic bags were not going to cut it.

As part of a spill response it is required to report the spill to the facility when a reportable quantity is reached; part of the spill plan that is written for the installation and a specific one is written for each tenant.  This spill appeared to be over 20 gallons so I then sent a email off to the environmental officer to report.  In locations such as this there are no formal release reporting forms, so I made one up.  I provided information related to how I thought the release occurred, and what I was doing to cleanup it up.

The level of restoration is of course not equal to that found in the US.  I had the workers remove all the grossly contaminated soil, which went down nearly three feet.  This soil was placed into 55 gallon drums that were transported to the installation's hazwaste storage area.  Typically contractors are responsible for paying for disposal of hazwaste, but as there are no 'legal' hazwaste companies in the country the installation is handling the disposal of this waste.

Keep in mind that contracting away of responsibility for any waste is not defensible in court, and that applies to oversea operations as well.  A DoD installation is assumed to be under US regulations no matter if it is simply expeditionary or enduring.  The practical enforcement of those regulations are vague, and it is only hoped that the DoD would enforce.

Hazwaste is transported to a legal hazwaste disposal facility in another country.  The process this takes is submitting paperwork with the local country and any port that the waste may encounter, as the Basel Agreement affects the movement of this waste even if the US is not a signatory.  This can make the movement a logistical nightmare, as the signatory countries tend to make it tough for the non-signatory country (USA) to move waste through their country.

My hands still smell of diesel...

Recycling Trash means different things to different people

I wrote this as a email to an associate, concerning local contractors who are happy to dismantle an American built building and haul it away all for no cost.  I thought I would share it here:
________________________________________________________________________________
I wish I could make this stuff up...

In our country of plenty the result is what it is...no waste recycling. Why bother? It is just as easy to demolish a building and haul the wastes to the landfill, which regardless of the PR the landfills are not full up or else the tipping fee costs would be prohibitive.

In this country of Djibouti that I am in, which has little to nothing the result is... little waste.

In the city the trash from the affluent areas are picked up in normal trash trucks then transported to the immigrant sections of town and dumped in the middle of the main street of these areas. The children and ladies come out and pick through this material for all the good stuff. Then the cattle, goats, and camels go through the rest. A couple of days later the trash people show up again, pick up whatever is left and haul it out to a landfill that was built by the UN 10 years ago which is now no more than a large track of land that trash is dumped (if it makes it that far) on. The UN forgot to provide on going instruction, and inspection, on how to maintain and operate a landfill; another story.  People living in this dump then go out and pick through that trash for anything missed by the city people and animals. Then at night the mass of plastic bags, and remaining waste is set on fire, and the resulting smoke bank covers the DoD facility I am at.  This smoke is so thick it keeps people awake at night.

The moral of the story--one man's trash is another man's treasure (and livestock feed).

And thus with the American mentality the idea that the demolition of a facility for "FREE" does not compute. When in actuality the local contractors think the Americans are nuts for giving this good stuff away. Each thinks they are getting something over on the other.

Have a GREAT day,

Why this Blog

I have been involved with Environmental Compliance for a number of years now.  Dealing initially in USA compliance.  As time has gone by this experience came to include international.  Depending on the part of the world compliance can mean a lot of things.  Such as the difference between which entity is having to comply, Department of Defense versus a private company for example.  I hope to share some of my real world experiences for others to perhaps learn from and build upon.

Currently I am located in country located in the Horn of Africa, part of the Sub-Sahara.  I have come to find out that for all practical purposes I am one of the most knowledgeable and experienced environmentally trained professionals in this whole country.  Which is really not saying much, but it does make for good bragging rights.  Although it makes people ask why.

"Why" is a good question.  I am a pragmatist and not inclined to suppose that the world would come to an immediate end if someone with my training where not located here.  Not like a lot of people who's ego won't let them get beyond that what they do in the grand scheme of things is not that important.  But even with that said, compliance with basic environmental philosophies is just as important or more so in a austere location.  

The basic understanding of environmental compliance has been muddied in recent years by the conservatives in the USA to equate to protectors of the bugs and bunnies--making environmental a bad word.  Now I am a conservative and for the most part a "ditto head", so I understand the stance being made against the wackos of this profession.  But as a conversationalist, and a resident of this planet is does not seem right to pollute for the sake of polluting; because of convenience or for a higher profit margin.

So in locations outside of the western world, environmental compliance becomes a basic human rights issue.