The First Facility Management Blog

Tyson Foods Inc. pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Arkansas and agreed to pay the maximum fine for willfully violating worker safety regulations that led to a worker’s death in its River Valley Animal Foods (RVAF) plant in Texarkana, Ark., the Justice Department announced.

According to the information filed along with a plea agreement, Tyson operated several RVAF plants that recycled poultry products into protein and fats for the animal food industry. As part of the rendering process in four of the plants, the company used high-pressure steam processors called hydrolyzers to convert the poultry feather into feather meal.

Decomposition of biological material such as poultry feathers produces hydrogen sulfide gas, an acute-acting toxic substance. Employees at the Tyson facilities often were exposed to the toxic gas when working on or near the hydrolyzers, which required frequent adjustment and replacement.

As of October 2003, corporate safety and regional management were aware that hydrogen sulfide gas was present in the RVAF facilities and three of the four facilities with hydrolyzers had taken measures to protect employees from hydrogen sulfide gas near the hydrolyzers. However, Tyson Foods did not take sufficient steps to implement controls or protective equipment to reduce exposure within prescribed limits or provide effective training to employees on hydrogen sulfide gas at the Texarkana facility despite an identical exposure, resulting in hydrogen sulfide poisoning of an RVAF Texarkana employee in March 2002.

As a result, at approximately 1 a.m. on Oct. 10, 2003, RVAF maintenance employee Jason Kelley was overcome with hydrogen sulfide gas while repairing a leak from a hydrolyzer and later died. Another employee and two emergency responders were hospitalized due to exposure during the rescue attempt. Two employees also were treated at the scene.

“Federal laws require employers to undertake steps that limit exposure to dangerous substances like the gas that killed Jason Kelley. Tyson Foods willfully ignored these regulations and today is being held responsible,” said Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The Justice Department takes its enforcement responsibility seriously and companies that ignore these laws and risk their employees’ lives will be prosecuted.”

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires that employers furnish places of employment free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. This includes taking steps to ensure that employee exposure to dangerous substances such as hydrogen sulfide gas remains within prescribed limits. Tyson Foods pleaded guilty today to a “willful violation of an OSHA standard resulting in the death of an employee,” the most serious offense available to OSHA.

According to the plea agreement (which was reached on 1/6/09), Tyson Food has agreed to pay $500,000, the maximum criminal fine. The company also will serve one year probation.

The investigation was conducted by the Department of Labor and prosecuted by the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Arkansas under the Environmental Crimes Section’s worker endangerment initiative.

Airport hotels are a common sight, and a welcome one to tired travelers looking for a convenient place to hang their hats for a night. But airplane hotels are a whole other story, and that’s what is located just outside Arlanda Airport in Stockholm, Sweden.

In operation since last month, “Jumbo Hostel” is contained in a circa 1976 Boeing 748-200 plane. The new lodging facility is owned by Scandinavian businessman Oscar Diös, who has previous hospitality experience as owner and operator of hostel Uppsala Vandrarhem och Hotell in Uppsala, Sweden.

The Boeing 748-200 was last flown in 2002.

Jumbo Hostel was designed to offer an affordable and memorable stay for travelers staying over at the airport, or for anyone intrigued by the unusual accommodations. There are 25 rooms, with at most three beds in each. In all, the hostel offers 85 beds, with a mix of shared dorm type rooms (currently about $45USD/night), shared two bed rooms (about $150USD/night), and a private suite in the former cockpit (approximately $170USD/night).

Each room occupies about 64 square feet and heights measure close to 10′ from floor to ceiling. All rooms have a flat screen TV where guests can also watch flight departure times. There is also access to wireless broadband throughout. All rooms offer a shared shower and toilet in the corridor, except for the cockpit suite which contains its own shower and toilet.

Jumbo Hostel also has a cafe where guests can buy breakfast and basic meals as well as heat up their own food.

This cutaway shows a typical guest quarter, along with common space.

In December 2007, Sigtuna authorities granted a building permit for establishing Jumbo Hostel at the entrance to Arlanda airport. In January 2008, the aircraft was moved to a construction site parking where the first phase of the conversion involved dismantling of the old interior, new paint and new decorations for the rooms. 450 seats are taken out, and the plane sanitized in its entirety. The Jumbo Hostel Web site notes that the facility is built “like any house,” subjected to the same demands on climate control and isolation. It adheres to all common energy standards. Heating is achieved with an air-air inverter.

In summer 2008 the plane was towed to its intended site at the entrance to Arlanda where it was placed on a concrete foundation with the landing gear secured in two steel cradles.

(Photo courtesy of Jumbo Hostel; Illustration by Monsén arkitektur)

States must now certify that their building codes meet the requirements in ASHRAE/IESNA’s 2004 energy efficiency standard, under a ruling issued by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) that finds the standard saves more energy than an earlier version.

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low Rise Residential Buildings, has been established by the DOE as the commercial building reference standard for state building energy codes under the federal Energy Policy Act. 

The Act requires all states to certify that they have state energy codes in place that are at least as stringent as 90.1-2004, or justify why they cannot comply. The DOE determined that Standard 90.1-2004 saves more energy than Standard 90.1- 1999, which was the previously referenced standard in the Act.

“The quantitative analysis of the energy consumption of buildings built to Standard 90.1-2004, as compared with buildings built to Standard 90.1-1999, indicates national source energy savings of approximately 13.9% of commercial building energy consumption. Site energy savings are estimated to be approximately 11.9%,” according to the ruling published in The Federal Register on Dec. 30, 2008.

“ASHRAE is committed to continually improving building energy performance, so we are pleased with this recognition that the 2004 standard saves more energy,” ASHRAE President Bill Harrison said. “ASHRAE is currently working on the 2010 version of Standard 90.1 with a goal of achieving 30% energy savings compared to 90.1-2004 as part of our target to achieve market viable net-zero energy buildings by 2015.”

“The Illuminating Engineering Society is pleased to receive the DOE’s positive determination on the site and source energy savings achieved by ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2004 compared to the 1999 standard,” said Rita Harrold, IES director of technology. She also expressed the society’s appreciation for the contributions of the committee members responsible for developing the standard, which help further the goals of the sponsoring organizations, and for the diligence of the DOE in conducting the determination.

The DOE noted that the newer version of the standard contained 13 positive impacts on energy efficiency. These impacts included changes made through the public review process in which users of the standard comment and offer guidance on proposed requirements to the standard. The positive impacts include:

• Removed explicit allowance for supply air into non-occupied isolation areas. 
• Limitations of the use of dampers in closed circuit cooling towers in place of water bypass valves and piping. 
• Additions of insulation requirements for buried ductwork. 
• Mapping of envelope requirements to new climate zones, which led to increased stringency of envelope requirements.
• Mapping of economizer requirements to new climate zones, which led to greater geographic expansion of economizer requirements.
• Addition of requirements for ventilation fan controls. 
• Lowered size range for part-load fan power limitation. 
• Addition of requirements for heat pump pool heaters. 
• Complete replacement of interior lighting power density allowances. 
• Revised exterior lighting power density allowances. 
• Addition of occupancy sensor requirements for classrooms, meeting, and lunch rooms. 
• Lower retail sales lighting power allowance. 
• New exit sign wattage requirement. 

In addition, ASHRAE is working on providing more stringent energy guidance in a proposed standard for high performance buildings. Being developed in partnership with IESNA and the U.S. Green Building Council, Standard 189.1, Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings Except Low Rise Residential Buildings, will provide minimum requirements for the design of high performance new commercial buildings and major renovation projects, addressing energy efficiency, a building’s impact on the atmosphere, sustainable sites, water use efficiency, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.

Since being developed in response to the energy crisis in the 1970s, Standard 90.1 now influences building designs worldwide. It has become the basis for building codes and the standard for building design and construction throughout the United States. ASHRAE publishes a revised version of the standard every three years. The 2007 version of Standard 90.1 was released last year.

The New Buildings Institute (NBI), a 501(c)(3) non-profit based in Washington State, published an interesting report last year that unfortunately didn’t get very much attention.  It documented a study attempting to quantify the actual performance of all 552 buildings that had earned formal certification under LEED-NC v.2 through 2006.

While the executive summary of the report states, “…on average, LEED buildings are saving energy,” this conclusion was based on a VERY UNIMPRESSIVE number of buildings for which actual performance data was obtained. According to the NBI study, ONLY 121 of the 552 LEED-NC v.2 certified buildings (22%) responded to the invitation to participate in the study.

The figure above (taken from the full study) reveals another VERY UNIMPRESSIVE trend: the number of buildings whose actual performance does not resemble the design performance and a disturbing number of buildings whose actual performance falls WELL BELOW the design expectations.

This study begs the following critical questions:

• Why didn’t 431 out of 552 LEED-NC v.2 buildings respond to an invitation that simply requested one full year of measured post-occupancy energy usage data?
• Did the non-responders not have access to this data? Or were they unwilling to expose their actual performance?
• From among these 552 buildings, how many fawning press releases were issued about their decisions to seek LEED certification and their commitments to “going green”?
• Should NBI have drawn any meaningful performance conclusions based on a dismal 22% response rate? 
• Should LEED-NC certification requirements include one full year of operational performance documentation?
• Could architects, engineers, LEED consultants or USGBC end up on the witness stand when facility managers and owners realize their LEED certified buildings lack the superior performance that was promised when justifying a 2% construction price premium?

The industry should petition NBI or USGBC to follow up with the non-responders and attempt to quantify the actual performance of the other 78 % of LEED-NC certified facilities.

Poor Richard

To request a PDF of the study, send an e-mail to tfm@groupc.com with the words “LEED NC Study” in the subject line of your e-mail.

The National Safety Council (NSC) is introducing two new versions of the OSHA Walkthrough for Industry training program. Like the original program, these versions set out to educate new employees or refresh the expertise of seasoned staff.

The NSC’s original OSHA Walkthrough for Industry covers 22 regulatory topics using content from the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s 10-hour training program. The NSC program features an animated character to present lessons and quizzes in an interactive, entertaining manner that enhances retention. New versions include:

• An intranet program with all the original content, designed for use on a company’s internal Web site. Companies can make training available round the clock to anyone with access to the site. This version is ideal for minimizing costs and avoiding scheduling difficulties.
• A CD series that devotes one CD each to the top seven topics in demand from the original OSHA Walkthrough for Industry. This version is ideal for companies or departments needing safety training on specific subjects. Topics include Hazard Communication, Preparing for OSHA Inspection, Lockout/Tagout, Recordkeeping, Electrical, Means of Egress, and Walking/Working Surfaces.

All of the OSHA Walkthrough versions complement NSC’s 15 OSHA Compliance courses and can enhance self-study or classroom training.

CertainTeed Insulation yesterday announced the completion of its acquisition of the OFI Income Fund on January 2. Under the agreement, Valley Forge, PA-based CertainTeed Insulation acquires all of the assets of the OFI Income Fund and the OFI Operating Trust, including Ottawa Fibre, for approximately $42 million CDN ($35.5 million U.S.), and the assumption of its adjusted debt.
 
Established in 1980, OFI served as a manufacturer and distributor of a broad range of fibreglass insulation products used in both residential and commercial applications. The acquisition includes fibreglass insulation manufacturing facilities in Ottawa and Tillsonburg, Ontario and Redcliff, Alberta, as well as a ceiling tile plant in Ottawa.  
 
“CertainTeed has modestly serviced the Canadian building industry with insulation for many years as our U.S. production capabilities would allow,” said Peter Dachowski, president and CEO of CertainTeed. “The acquisition of OFI will provide our Canadian customers with a more consistent, locally produced source of CertainTeed-branded insulation utilizing OFI’s skilled and talented workforce.”
  
Currently, CertainTeed Gypsum enjoys a presence in Canada for its wallboard and finishing products. “We plan to utilize CertainTeed Gypsum’s talented sales force and strong customer relationships to become a full service gypsum, finishing, and insulation products supplier in this market,” continues Dachowski. 
 
Through its U.S.-based manufacturing facilities, CertainTeed currently sells a number of insulation products in Canada, which are approved by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC): OPTIMA Blowing Insulation for wall systems; Fiber Glass Batts and Rolls; InsulSafe Blowing Insulation for attics; MemBrain—The Smart Vapor Retarder; and UltraTherm C Blowing Insulation. CertainTeed’s newest product, CertaSpray Foam Insulation, in both open and closed cell varieties, is currently under evaluation by the CCMC. 

On December 13, 2008, New York Governor David Paterson signed legislation to increase the collection and recycling of plastic carryout bags from large stores and retail or grocery chain stores across the state. Originally passed by the State Legislature in June, the bill was held up by a potential conflict between the state law and a more expansive bag recycling law passed by the City of New York in January.

Beginning on January 1, 2009, many New York State retail stores are now required to recycle plastic carryout bags or face fines from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Stores that “knowingly and intentionally” violate the law will be given a warning for their first violation. A second offense prompts a fine of up to $100. Stores with offenses beyond that will receive fines of up to $500.

The new law applies to stores that have more than 10,000 square feet of space; chains with more than five stores in the state and each having more than 5,000 square feet of space or stores have at least 50,000 square feet of space in a mall.

Those stores must provide bins to collect used plastic bags and then recycle the bags themselves. The stores must also keep records for three years detailing the amount of bags collected and recycled.

With this recycling law in place at the state level, local governments are pre-empted from adopting their own laws on this issue. The state legislation initially threatened to preempt New York City’s law, and would have reduced the number of city stores required to accept bags from consumers for recycling. However, Governor Paterson announced an agreement on legislation that “grandparents” in the city’s plastic bag law, so as to allow it to remain in full force and effect.

In a recent report from the American Chemistry Council, it was found that recycling of plastic bags and wraps increased 24% nationwide in 2006. The recent legislation passed in New York, along with laws passed in California and a number of large cities is expected to increase the amount of plastic bags and wraps diverted from landfills and turned into new consumer products, such as durable decking, fencing, railings, shopping carts, and new bags.

“Workplace safety processes must be in place at all times,” American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHMM, of Fairborn, OH, said last month (December 2008). “They are even more critical during business downturns.” Brown is referring to recent reports of some companies cutting safety processes hoping to reduce costs.

“If companies believe they will save money by reducing or ignoring safety for their workers, customers, and communities they do business in, they are mistaken,” Brown said. “The ongoing positive results are in and have been for companies that have a strong safety culture and continually invest in and implement effective safety processes. Not only does their bottom line benefit positively, but their company reputation stays intact, employees stay safe and healthy reducing health care, workers comp, training, and turnover cost—not to mention keeping customers, the communities they do business in, vendors, and employees happy. Safety is good business.”

President-Elect of the ASSE South Carolina Chapter Laura Comstock said, “Some safety related purchases and testing can be deferred, but other purchases, such as those for employee personal protective equipment (PPE) like hardhats, safety glasses, and respirators, are critical to operations.”

It is especially important for companies to show support for their employee safety during challenging economic times, she notes. “Employee morale may be low and employees may be carrying additional workloads, such as working additional hours or doing unfamiliar tasks due to cutbacks,” she notes. Comstock added, “In order to remain viable long-term, a company must maintain a solid safety process even through difficult times. The most successful companies in the long term also have the strongest safety performance.”

“We realize these are tough times, but during economic down-turns, employers seeking to cut expenses may target variable operating costs such as travel, training and safety,” Brown said. “Money cut from safety processes now could have an enormous cost later; this can be from injury and health care costs, fines, lost production time, employee morale, or worst of all, employee injury or even death. There are better and smarter ways to protect the bottom line.”

Employees can also take measures to help companies save money such as by: following safe working procedures and practices to prevent injuries, related downtime and expenses such as costly fines; by properly using, cleaning, and caring for protective equipment such as hardhats and respirators; reusing gloves whenever possible for as long as possible; and by keeping track of safety glasses and reusable hearing protection.

Investing in safety pays and contributes positively to a company’s bottom line. Businesses spend about $170 billion a year on costs associated with workplace injuries and illnesses and pay almost $1 billion every week to injured employees and their medical providers. In addition, a recent investment firm study in Australia showed valuation links between workplace safety and health factors and investment performance. It found that companies who did not adequately manage workplace safety issues underperformed those that did.

Comstock also reminds employers, “When considering training reductions, some safety related training is driven by regulation, is time sensitive and cannot be delayed. Safety training related savings can be generated by streamlining and implementing simple solutions including using online or electronic safety training services, rather than face-to-face classroom safety training.”

“We need to work together during these difficult times, but reducing or ignoring workplace safety should not be a strategic or budget option,” Brown said. “The costs—both tangible and intangible—are far too high and hard to recoup.”

Owl Power Company, developer and manufacturer of clean energy cogeneration systems, has announced Vegawatt(TM), a cogeneration system for restaurants and food service facilities. Vegawatt uses waste vegetable oil from any food service operation as a fuel to generate on-site electricity and hot water. Vegawatt is installed and has been running since early December at Finz Seafood and Grill in Dedham, MA.

“As a restaurant operator I am constantly looking for more efficient methods, and especially for costs-saving measures,” said George Carey, owner of Finz Seafood & Grill in Dedham, MA, the first establishment to install the Vegawatt system. “My largest line-item expense is runaway utility costs. The Vegawatt system enables me to significantly reduce my energy costs, generate clean energy on-site, and very importantly, reduce the heavy energy footprint of my restaurant.”

The Vegawatt utilizes waste vegetable oil (WVO) from a restaurant deep fryer to prepare a non-toxic fuel. This fuel is used to produce electricity and hot water, which reduces electricity and natural gas purchases. Any food service location with fryers can use the Vegawatt system. It is a fully automated system that requires no intervention or maintenance by restaurant staff, no additional chemicals, and produces no liquid byproducts.

“The Vegawatt is quite impressive,” stated Peter Christie, president of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association. “It is a breakthrough in technology that will allow for a better environment while making use of oil that would normally be thrown out.”

Most restaurants pay to dispose of their used cooking oil. Some owners have begun to receive compensation for this oil, typically $0.10 to $0.25 per gallon. According to Owl Power Company, users of the Vegawatt system achieve a value of $2.55 per gallon. In the case of Finz Seafood and Grill, new green energy incentives and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) will increase the payback to the restaurant.

“As businesses everywhere are taking a hard look at their energy costs and their environmental impact, Vegawatt enables restaurant owners to help themselves and the planet at the same time,” stated James Peret, president and CEO of Massachussetts-based Owl Power Company.

The final rule on Clarification of Employers’ Duty to Provide Personal Protective Equipment and Train Each Employee was published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2008. The rule revises OSHA standards to clarify that, for employers to be in compliance, they must provide personal protective equipment (PPE) and hazards training for each employee covered by the standards.

Each employee not protected may be considered a separate violation and penalties assessed accordingly. This revised language is consistent with language in other standards for which per-employee citations have been upheld.

The final rule amendments do not add new compliance obligations. Employers are not required to provide new kinds of PPE or hazards training or use a different approach than what is already required. Additionally, employers are not required to provide PPE or training to employees not already covered by existing requirements.

“This technical correction to the PPE standard brings it in line with other OSHA safety and health standards,” said Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Thomas M. Stohler. “By making this change, those few employers who egregiously violate the OSHA PPE standard can be held fully accountable for violations affecting each employee who is not provided proper PPE. This kind of vigorous enforcement is a vital component of OSHA’s balanced approach to workplace safety and health.”

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA’s role is to promote the safety and health of America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health.

Earlier coverage of this issue on FacilityBlog in August 2008:
http://todaysfacilitymanager.com/facilityblog/2008/08/osha-proposes-clarification-of-requirements-for-personal-protective-equipment-and-training.html