Be Careful When Dealing With The French Military

Environmental compliance in other countries can be difficult as the question of whether rule of law applies there as it does in the USA, and other places.  We all hope that it does, and I believe to some extent that this is really what it means when we say "our way of life".

Law is what is used as the rules of how we conduct ourselves as civilized people.  Otherwise we live in a world of chaos and anarchy with everyone doing whatever they believe they can do, which may include bad or good.  Without a standard there is no way to judge, so it is a free for all, or there is a dictator.  Of course a dictator does have a rule of law as he/she is the rule(r).

Our field is used from time to time as a tool that is welded about by people or organizations to get what they want, which is not always associated with environmental protection.  They just use it to show that they don't have some self interest.  The good person simply trying to do the right thing.

LESSON LEARNED--FRENCH MILITARY

I am on a project in Djibouti, with the project site located next to French military ammunition storage area.  The project site was sold to the company by the Djiboutian land office in coordination with the Djiboutian military.  We provided the French with a copy of all our project documents to advise them of our operation to include air quality program, safety program, spill prevention/protection, and project layout.

The French general made a good point.  He was concerned about the four 18,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks in regards to fire safety for his ammunition storage area, and a one house residence.  He was also concerned about the generators interfering with the high frequency military transmission system located near by.  That we needed to postpone the project until his engineers could evaluate the potential impact.

It is always important to not wait on what maybe a local neighbor's concern, and let them do the report--this includes dealing with regulators.  So, I proceeded to conduct my own analysis, and found out very quickly that these questions had already been answered by the US military many years ago.  There are no impacts, and by following NFPA for the storage tanks we were very safe.

I provided this report, and yet the French military threw up another 'roadblock' by saying that as a military post they have jurisdiction over all the land that surrounds their bases.  They said it was a agreement with the host country.  But they could not provided the agreement or any other proof.

Asking them about it, they simply said it is a security issue and then they informed their Embassy.

During this time they brought in heavily armed military personnel to shadow our staff as we conducted our work.  They used binoculars to peer at us from close range, as our project is only 25 meters from the property line.

Then of all things, the French military actually stated that if we approached their fence line they would shoot us.  I think this is one war they could win.

The lesson is to document every aspect of your project to include any subject that may not seem important.  It is also important not to assume anything.  Legal documentation that is valid in the USA may not be as binding due to the political strength of the protester, so it is important to be prepared to go public to protect your interests as best you can.

Make it obvious that your project is USA.  Sometimes this is not possible due to security issues, but if at all possible raise your flag.

Get a couple of very good in country lawyers and do not hesitate to file a law suit.

SIDE NOTE:

Interesting also that the same people who are concerned about fires resulting from a aboveground diesel storage tank 300 feet away, are the same ones starting big fires right next to their munition storage areas.

Air Quality Management __ Diesel Generator Example

We live in a world were we all share the same breathing space.  No one individual has more access to air than another.  We can improve the indoor air quality through various means, but unless we live in a perpetual bubble we all breath the same air.  Through our advancement and growth we have done some damage to the natural filtering mechanisms created over eons of time.  What extent is not the discussion for to day.  I am going to cover air quality compliance at oversea locations.

I do not think there is anyone in the USA that is under the dilution that US regulations are the toughest in planet.  A lot of US businesses will try and say that, but the truth is what it is.  US regulations are tough, but there are places in remote locations that are just as tough or tougher.  I have talked about the issue regarding environmental regulations in general, and it is just a matter of how they are enforced that separates developing from developed countries.  Air regulations is one that baffles me.  Some locations are extremely tougher than others with no rhyme or reason.

USA regulations are tougher than EU in many ways.  How is that possible?  The core EU countries like France, Germany, England are very pro green.  Yet, cars built in Europe or for the European market do not meet USA air emissions standards.  One friend tells me how much more efficient and better European cars are compared to USA, but he fails to understand that the emissions equipment does taxi the performance of a automobile.

Working in developing countries presents a whole other set of questions in regards to air quality compliance.  And it certainly goes back to enforcement.  If the company is not concerned about enforcement, or has the coin and will to fight it then do as they please.  But if there is a concern about public image, follow on business, or the potential legal ramifications possible then compliance is the road to take.

I am building a 52MW electric power plant that uses 62 diesel generators.  Combining the emissions of 62 short exhaust stacks is a potential environmental permit specialist' worse nightmare.  Air quality regulations are sparse at best in this location.  But my company (TKE-International, LLC) has stated since the beginning of the project that we will comply with all regulations to include US EPA.  

What is interesting to me is that I have run across a number of companies who's EHS policy is based on some high standard to include ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001, yet do not actually comply with the high standards.  They continue to spend time and money to identify the lowest standard possible, while violating their own company policy.  This is also a violation of their marketing material (promise) to their client that they really do have and comply with high standards.

There is a second issue of site security.  As our facility will construct a 6 MW PV solar field site security for safety of the general public along with prevention of vandalism and thief are all of high importance.

The means to address each of these items is limited by the cost factor.  How many security guards, fences, air scrubbers, cameras, installation of taller stacks, changes in fuel, the list can be endless as well as costly.  So which combination of equipment, training, and procedures are required to meet the balance of protecting the environment, providing a product (electricity) that is desperately needed, and cost (both to produce and sell)?

At my plant we are combining both conventional (diesel generation) with renewable (PV solar).  Since we are a rather large micro-grid facility the potential impacts (positive and negative) are a bit larger than the typical 5MW and smaller micro-grids.  Our business plan is to use the conventional for a short time to cover base load and periods were the PV solar cannot supply.  We are starting with a smaller PV solar plant due to current limit on available land within our demonstration footprint.  The national government does not have a strong belief that the best avenue for them is PV solar, as geo-thermal is also a strong possibility.  No it is not practical to parallel both, just because this is still Africa; another topic of discussion at a later date.

So over a period of time as renewable technology improves we will take the conventional units offline and replace with the renewable.  

Air Quality.  We are using all new equipment, with the cleanest fuel possible.  Maintenance schedules will be rigorously adhered.  All waste will be recycled in some fashion, including the used oil.  I am devising a methodology to monitor our air quality from the ground as well as in the air to get a full picture of our impact to air quality, as well as to obtain data on air quality in the region.

Security.  We will use fencing with ground level motion activated cameras, and cameras located aerially.  Security personnel will be provided with all terrain vehicles to respond to any motion along the fence perimeter.  

I am looking at using a aerostat balloon to mount air quality monitoring and weather equipment, along with motion detection cameras.  This will provide 360 degree security around our plant, and give me excellent data from our air quality instruments.

All data will be streamed real time so that we can have accurate unto date modeling.  If there are any variations that are attributable to our plant we can adjust accordingly.  

It is the Process; international permits

I just had the obvious articulated to me on why the developed and undeveloped countries have such a hard time working together.  Why we who have been indoctrinated in the step by step written process world of the developed countries are so frustrated when we go to the undeveloped countries. It is simply the "Process".

The developed world is based on a system of processes for everything.  That is why when we leave our job the world does not come to an end.  The next person is able to take over where we left off, so that no matter how important we think we are the company keeps moving forward without skipping a beat.  A lot of people will not accept this reality, but it is true.  In one sense it makes us simple clogs in the system, moving along as part of the process.

Our developed world process gives us a sense of security.  We know that the bus will be at a certain point at a certain time everyday, the price of water is equal for me and my neighbor, the purchase of a home is based on regulations (no matter how loose the regulations maybe at the time), that our agreed to paycheck will be paid on x day of every month, and the rules apply to everyone equally.  In the USA we pride ourselves on being a country of laws.  The laws that generate processes to protect the individual, while being good for the group.

In general a small business can compete against a large corporation.  Lower overhead, streamlined processes, etc makes doing business with the small company much more enjoyable than the large cumbersome corporation with all their processes.  But in the end the process of the competition itself is what makes the playing field more or less equal.  We (USA) are more angry with 'set aside quotas,' 'special interests', 'special circumstances', than with the actual competition for the project or job.  Why, because these special items with their added bonus points is not process driven--favoritism

How does this translate to doing business in a undeveloped (under-developed country)?

These countries rely on individual judgement to manage their day to day lives within government.  Even in the democratically elected governments.  The individual manager makes a decision based on the person standing in front of him at the time, which takes into account relationship, and how risky the decision maybe for his career.

These managers build the process for the operation of their offices from scratch, and like most small businesses the process revolves around the one person.  It should make for quicker decision making not be tied up with the normal red tape found in government, but in actuality it makes it more difficult.  Why?

A process requires that decisions be made at each step of the process.  It is either yes or no, based on meeting specific criteria that is documented (most ofter).  There is little subjective decision making in the process.  You either have the spill plan or you don't.  The Spill plan is certified or it is not.  Simple as that.

But when the process requires a manager to make the decision that manager's career is based on making the right decision.  Without a approved process to protect him he can't just say a certified spill plan is acceptable.  He has to have a strong comfort level that the person who is presenting it is credible, and does this plan really meet a level of requirements which he has no clue about.

Now for a manager to get to the point of making decision assumes that the gate keepers in front of him allowed the issue to get to him in the first place.  This is a whole other set of decision makers, which more often than not resemble typical government employees that rather have no decisions to be made all day long.  But if the person standing in from of the first worker is a friend, or family member this person gets taken up the chain.  The decisions are easier to make, which doesn't seem fair in our world, but it is no different than a woman owned, veteran owed, whatever getting in front of the line.  This is a broken process.

We as environmental professionals base our work on process.  Cleanup process, environmental management system, ISO14001, procurement, environmental assessment, on and on.  Each is a process that have multiple processes within the big process.

Recently I obtained the first ever Used Oil Authorization/Permit from a government agency in one of these undeveloped countries.  The agency had never issued this permit before, yet used oil is transported, stored, and shipped all the time.  In fact the US government in that country uses the services of companies that have no government authorization.

In order to obtain the authorization I, being from a developed country and trained in process, completed all the typically necessary plans and procedures used to obtain a Used Oil transport/handling/storage/processing permit.  I expected to be asked for this documentation.  It took nearly two months to be obtained, and had to be signed by the Minister.  The documents were not reviewed, only asked if we had them.  It was more a matter of coordinating with another high level government official who is working with us.

Could we have operated without this authorization?  Yes, sure of course--no one else has taken the time to get one.  But with the authorization we have set the precedent.  Now the next time the US government wants to ship used oil they HAVE to make sure the company they use have a permit to do it.

I have now deviated from my topic, so back on track.

A lot of international companies operate their businesses without permits that we are familiar with in our normal world.  There are a lot of projects never get past the discussion phase.  It is assumed that it is because of issues of 'bribery', or what I have seen many times 'inability to communicate'.

Bribery is what a lot of companies assume is needed to move a process a long, not knowing that the slow system is not meant to extract a bribe, it is just the way things are done.  

The 'inability to communicate' issue raises its head when nothing seems to be getting done fast enough.  In these worlds the pace is slow and generally non-confrontational.  So when we ask for something it appears to be 'demanding' and aggressive so the response to us is "yes, you are right."  This translates to "impatient man is hiding something, I better slow it down".  

There is a method to doing the right thing, and getting through the system.  If you haven't figured it out yet from what I have written, contact me.  I am happy to help out.

Environmental Compliance_International: Captialism, Energy, and Sustainability

Environmental Compliance_International: Captialism, Energy, and Sustainability: It is not a new concept to make money from sustainable projects.  Long term project returns and properly planned and managed projects can re...

Environmental Compliance_International: Use of Foreign Workers

For some reason this blog seems to be getting hijacked.  Not sure if it is technical or intentional.  I will assume the later, because who really would do such a thing?

In this blog we discuss the ethical issues related to the use of foreign workers in order to avoid environmental compliance, but actually it applies to all compliance.

In the USA there are companies that are USA owned and generally managed, but are operated with foreign labor.  This labor is obtain from contracting through a foreign staff firm.  The advantages this provides to the company is that all normal Environmental, Safety, and Health  reporting is circumvented.  And this contracted labor is not protected by whistle blowing laws.

For example one temporary power company I worked for utilizes foreign labor for its oversea operations.  This staff, including most of the management are trained overseas.  They do not adhere to OSHA or EPA standards, because they don't have to in their country of origin.  Because any injury or death is not a reportable incident for the power company, there is no real concern about EHS.  The company's senior leadership reports to its Board of Directors that there are no EHS incidents.  2 people have been killed, and several injured during operations, and yet the company's history is clean.  Looks good to the wine totting investors.

These foreign workers have no concern regarding environmental impacts of their operation.  Why, because they weren't train to care in their home country.

One would think the company with a Corporate Image, and a Board of Directors who speak of environmental conscious, would be conscious of how they operate.  But they don't, because operationally they have no clue.

But this is just one example.  Because it is more normal than not.  Safety workers in the oil & gas industry overseas are office workers.  They are expected to stay in the office and file their reports.  No walking around.

Sometimes no EHS positions are even included in the facility staff.  The plant manager will assume the role, which of course serves nobody.  The plant managers normally get salary plus bonus which means that any injuries or environmental issues could impact their bonus.

The foreign labor are well skilled.  They typically demand far less $ than their USA expat brothers/sisters.  They will not complain in fear of being sent back to their country where they will be unemployed for the remaining part of their life (loose lips sink ships).  So the company's bottom line is significantly improved, and there are no human resource issues to address.  And less likely hood of any environmental consequences; I see no evil, I hear no evil, I speak no evil.

So think of this as the Business Model of the Future.  Even for operations in the USA.  Why hire people who have rights and know their rights, when you can hire a similarly skilled person who doesn't want insurance or other benefits, and is scared to say anything?

Funny thing, this business model is not the sole property of USA operations.  Most countries utilize it in some manner or form.  This is the loop hole in compliance with any regulation.  Think about it.

Now is it ethical?  Nope, not in the least bit.  Especially when the company claims no deaths or injuries related to its operation.

But as long as the owners can drive their expensive sports cars, their kids can do was they want, and the Board is happy, who cares?

Environmental Compliance_International: Strange Happenings in the Horn of Africa

Environmental Compliance_International: Strange Happenings in the Horn of Africa: 26 August 2012--currently I am working on a electric energy project in the Republic of Djibouti.  This project sort of just happened.  That ...

Environmental Compliance_International: Environmental and Profits can be written in the sa...

Environmental Compliance_International: Environmental and Profits can be written in the sa...: Jaime Lopez To remain competitive in the world market the USA manufacturing sector must deal with its environmental responsibilities....