Month: February 2015

A Hazardous World

Last February 2, the senior (4th and 5th year) chemical engineering students attended the Lab Use Orientation and Safety Seminar or basically a reminder for us all to be aware of our surroundings and to know the basic things to do during an emergency. One of the things discussed was the list of requirements in order for the ChE 144 and graduate students to be able to use and perform experiments in the lab. This required several forms to be accomplished, including the Risk Assessment Form and the Waste Management Plan. And there, we had to identify the hazardous chemicals to be used in our experiment and to evaluate the risks associated with our respective methodologies. From here I discovered the numerous classifications of hazardous wastes as given in the Environmental Management Bureau website. There were also various definitions of hazardous waste, one of which is shown in the infographic below. In addition to this, a series of questions could classify the type of hazardous waste as shown in the Four Point Approach.

It was pretty difficult to accomplish the forms since some of the information required were not concretely measurable, YET. We were asked to identify the wastes that were going to be generated, and I guess we had an idea of what those would be, based on our methodology. But there was this part where we had to state the amount and concentration. That was a bit harder to determine. How were we supposed to know how much (of something that we have not yet generated) we were going to generate? I mean, what if we re-do the entire set-up or what if we change the methodology some time in the middle of the semester or what if we just managed to waste a little bit more?

Anyway, I guess we just have to have that engineering sense and be able to estimate properly. Maybe the forms really did not take into account the excess waste due to errors or something. I guess these were really just some way for us to gauge how hazardous our experiment would be. And also to keep us aware of the harm that we could encounter during our experiments and for us to have a sense of responsibility for the wastes that we were going to generate. This includes the money involved in waste disposal, as well. And anyway, another waste management plan had to be submitted after the experiment proper for the semester where we detail out what we actually generated.

This was somehow what various plants and companies needed to do, but in a deeper level, a more detailed and specific waste management plan and risk assessment. The steps to be taken to ensure the safety and well being of the workers, the surrounding people, and the general public are tedious, and oftentimes, include their own hazards as well. The risks involved can be classified into three main areas: threats to people, threats to innovation, and threats to the bottom line.

With hazardous chemicals all over the areas, their is a high risk of probable leakage or spillage. The wrong chemicals might be brought together to result in a catastrophic explosion. Failure to wear proper protective equipment could lead to serious injuries. This, therefore, calls for special trainings for the workers in a plant, as well as information dissemination to the surrounding communities if ever an emergency occurs. The handling of the wastes should be properly planned and mapped out, so as not to result in further hazards along the way up to the time it is disposed.

Handling of hazardous materials require extra research from the scientists of the company. This time, which could otherwise be used in finding other innovative ideas for the company’s products, is spent in the study of the proper waste management.

Disposal of hazardous materials need to follow strict regulations of the government and environmental organizations. In the case where these regulations are not made, heavy fines have to be paid. Even the simplest mistakes will entail its corresponding fines. Some examples are: wrong documentation data, improper shipping and handling, wrong shipping codes and labelling, failure to perform necessary inspections, improper storage and segretation of waste. Repeated offenses will further increase the cost. It is of utmost importance, therefore, to follow the regulations, very strictly monitoring each step.

Another thing that companies have to monitor is their third-party disposal partner. One must assess the expertise and experience of the third-party in dealing with the hazardous waste up to the final step of its disposal. The company’s risk and plant efficiency are also taken into account.

With the inherent risks of the hazardous materials, comes additional risks for the company. How complicated could it get? Well for sure all companies are taking all this into account (hopefully).

We all need to assess and manage the risks and hazardous materials. Not only in the big plants and companies, not only in the workplace in our research experiments, but also in life. Hopefully we are all able to create a mental risk assessment and waste management plan for our own lives and be able to achieve excellent results in a safe manner.

References:

[1] Classification of Hazardous Waste. Retrieved 15 February 2015 from http://emb.gov.ph/hazardous/hw_class_1.htm

[2] Hazardous Waste Management. Retrieved 16 February 2015 from http://www.graphicproducts.com/infographics/hazardous-waste-management.php

[3] For life science organizations, hazardous waste management is… well, a hazard. Retrieved 16 February 2015 from http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/Research/jll-life-sciences-hazmat-wp.pdf?be0c2643-8369-499d-9bfe-4e06700875b6

[4] Lab Use Orientation and Safety Seminar of the Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman. (1 February 2015)

Less Is More

“It is imperative that an international corporation adopt progressive environmental management practices aimed at pollution prevention in every facility it owns or operates throughout the world. The benefits include reduced environmental risks and costs, higher manufacturing efficiency and lower manufacturing costs, a positive public image and progress toward sustainable development.”

—Rao, J.J.

The excerpt above was taken from a journal article entitled Preventing pollution around the world by J.J. Rao back in 2001. It discusses general strategies CPIs can adapt in order to minimize their wastes which brings about progress not only for the company but for the generations to come. The recommendations were simple yet effective and would certainly bring about a good kind of change. One key point of the article would be that pollution prevention is not an effort of only one sector or department in the company, but entails the cooperation, discipline and compliance of all. In a bigger scale, pollution prevention is never an effort of just one country.

1

Image taken from: http://solutions.3mbelgie.be/3MContentRetrievalAPI/BlobServlet?lmd=1271336995000&locale=nl_BE&assetType=MMM_Image&assetId=1258565727861&blobAttribute=ImageFile

In 1975, 3M pioneered what could be considered as one of the most successful and influential pollution prevention program—the 3P or Pollution Prevention Pays. The title itself could be considered as a market strategy already. What company doesn’t want to reduce waste and gain profit at the same time? It’s like a kid on a Christmas morning.

As said by Rao (2001), reduced waste correlates to high manufacturing efficiency—which makes a lot of sense. High manufacturing efficiency entails excellent and efficient processes which optimizes the use of essential raw materials therefore minimizing the waste at the end. So, 3P does pay in terms of saving money intended for treating billions of pounds of industrial waste.

As Dr. Joe Ling elegantly puts it:

2

Image taken from: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/nelson-airqualitystandards-compliancereductionstrategies-120419125040-phpapp01/95/nelson-air-quality-standardscompliance-reduction-strategies-9-728.jpg?cb=1334860357

A person back in 1975 would have thought his words were bogus but facts never lie. In 2005, 3M reported to have prevented 2.9 billion pounds of pollutants and saved more than 1.2 billion US dollars worldwide; and as shown in the photo above, in a matter of 36 years, their 9,324 projects have prevented 3.57 billion pounds of pollutants and saved over 1.56 billion US dollars.

The concept was easy to understand one would think how else could people have missed it and ignored it for such a long time:

3

Image from: https://www.iisd.org/business/images/diagram_bt_pp.gif

The inverted triangle shows that it all starts in reducing the waste at its source. If pollutants can be eliminated through tweaking certain operations, the better. It also implies that at the final step, disposal, waste should have been greatly reduced if not completely eliminated.

As mentioned earlier, pollution prevention isn’t just an effort of one department, say the manufacturing department. Another good concept involved in the 3Ps is that it involves the voluntary participation of all employees. In 2002, the program was also expanded to include participation of R&D, logistics, transportation and packaging employees. Now, the 3P program (or pollution prevention programs in general) has been implemented by various companies around the world.

Now, it doesn’t take such a genius to implement the basic principles of 3P or pollution prevention in general. More than knowledge (which could be easily attained), discipline and compliance (which are harder to master, apparently) would play bigger roles in its success. 3P wasn’t made for just big-time industries, even households can certainly do it. So what’s an excuse for not doing it? Basically, none.

References:

Rao, JJ., (2001). Pollution prevention around the world. Chemical Engineering Progress: Nov 2001; 97, 11 (p. 38-31).

Sustainability In-depth: The Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) Program. Taken 10 February 2015 from http://solutions9.3m.com/3MContentRetrievalAPI/BlobServlet?locale=en_US&lmd=1240969645000&assetId=1180581674144&assetType=MMM_Image&blobAttribute=ImageFile.

Common Sense and Safety

For most of us, safety has been most probably discussed during an experiment in the laboratory in high school. I don’t remember how was it discussed or what exact points were discussed. For us chemical engineering students, safety is inevitably a part of our lives. But how do we really value safety? How important is safety for us compared to our core chemical engineering subjects?

Admittedly, in my early chemistry laboratory courses (sometimes, up until now), discussions pertaining to laboratory safety always come out as exaggerated. I mean, isn’t safety just common sense? Leaving laboratories behind, let us look at the typhoons that visit us every year; whenever a typhoon approaches the Philippines, the government and media give us these endless reminders concerning our safety. Again, I ponder, isn’t safety just common sense?

As shown in the video below, this man named Peter, with Youtube channel named RiskyBusiness, discusses why safety is not common sense.

Later on, I did realize that safety is not all common sense. As we have discussed in my Socio 10 class, it is common sense if it is common knowledge to a number of people. For example, in my Chemistry 16 laboratory, while some of us may already have a background on working in a laboratory, some of us may be in a laboratory for the first time. This calls for the need to discuss safety all over again. In our department, we have this laboratory safety orientation. When we, chemical engineering students, graduate and work in a plant, they have these safety standards, from proper protective equipment down to their plant protocols, which every employee should know.

But then, simple information dissemination or safety orientation is only one part of ensuring safety, may it be in the laboratory or in work or in our daily lives. It is also upon us to do our part. This is where situational awareness comes in. If we see something unsafe, it triggers our brain and we seek all knowledge pertaining to the situation and act accordingly. Situational awareness cannot be polished by any training; it comes with the experiences. This is why we have these drills and demos for us to know what to do, as much as possible, during these disasters.

Going back to the typhoons, more specifically, Ondoy, the common sense to the Filipino people living in Metro Manila, especially Marikina, is that typhoons do not necessarily result or have not been ever resulted to flood, thus the lack of need to evacuate. Don’t get me wrong and say that I am blaming these people. I am simply pointing out that if they had been properly informed about typhoons and their effects, the results may have been reversed. Situational awareness also plays a part in this, as they’ve recognized the danger of the increasing level of flood, they think about what they should do and how they should react to it. Unfortunately and ironically, they haven’t been in the same situation before, which would correspond to the experience Pete was talking about in the video and most especially, they haven’t been informed about how to deal with these kinds of situation.

We acknowledge the efforts of the department, the college and the government in increasing information dissemination regarding safety and disaster risk management. These safety and disaster risk management, however, should not be limited to those who work or to those at school. It should be made known to every concerned individual – educated or not, working or not. But they can only do so much. We, as individuals, should also do our part.

In the end, safety is a pinch of common sense and a spoonful of situational awareness.

References:

[1] “Why Safety is Not Common Sense? (1)” Retrieved February 3, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bZIbTx8dR0