EHS COMPLIANCE AUDITING – ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS
VANGUARD'S SOLUTIONS TO FOLLOW

EHS COMPLIANCE AUDITING - ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

RATIONALE, MECHANICS, & DIAGNOSTIC TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF YOUR COMPLIANCE

It was once said, "Wise men gain knowledge, but the wisest begin by asking the right questions." Here is an excellent power tool - industrial strength for sure - in order to explore those challenges facing your facility's compliance relative to the five critical introductory questions offered below and the subsequent diagnostic survey comprised of over 40 major compliance issues that will put even the best EHS professionals to the ultimate test. Following the extremely thought-provoking diagnostic, you are also provided with some ancillary, but valuable, information on just how Vanguard serves its clientele in satisfying compliance on the very questions posed.

1. What does our company have in place now and where do the compliance gaps exist?
2. How will we proceed to define the scope of our site-specific "Regulatory Compliance Agenda," each
compliance year, thus executing the proper due diligence necessary to identify those laws mandating compliance, as well as those laws not applicable, providing the evidentiary defensible documentation in each and every regulation whether it thought to apply or not?
3. How will we move to the implementation stage of satisfying those federal, state, county, and local
mandates requiring compliance?
4. What vehicle will we utilize to systematically satisfy, manage, and maintain our Regulatory
Compliance Agenda over the years reflective of some semblance of consolidation and uniformity
from one site to the next, taking into account, of course, the millions of variables regarding CHEMICALS, THRESHOLDS, REGULATORY GUIDELINES, & LOGISTICS to ensure compliance is actually satisfied to stand the acid test of an inspection?
5. What's the most cost effective manner in which to orchestrate and manage our EHS compliance
program as required by regulatory law?

As you know, these are five tough questions for any company, especially those that have multiple facilities spread across the North America. Obviously, Vanguard brings the solutions to the above questions to your table in the most cost effective manner, but it's helpful to allow you to survey the ideology of the questions posed so you can, in a sense, cover the same ground Vanguard did when establishing itself as the premier "Environmental Compliance Management Company" in North America several years ago. To our knowledge, there is simply no other company that has the philosophy, technology, experience, expertise, and logistical capability to handle the compliance challenges your company is facing, at least at a cost reasonable enough to engage in a viable business relationship.
So let's probe each of the above 5 questions. Following is a diagnostic tool that will assist you in determining what's in place now, how effective it is, and its flexibility for addressing regulatory amendments and newly-enacted laws as they transpire over the next several years. Incidentally, please feel free to skip right on to the next section once the point is clear that the problem is bigger than ever imagined?

DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY FOR DETERMINING OUR COMPANY'S CURRENT COMPLIANCE STATUS & THOSE COMPLIANCE GAPS FURTHER REVEALING A NEED FOR A CORPORATE-WIDE "COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT" SOLUTION

GENERAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ISSUES:
1. Are we aware of all the regulatory compliance laws currently in existence stemming from the Federal government (EPA, OSHA, DOT), as well as those related laws at state, county, and local (or other) jurisdictions?
2. What means do we have in place for proper due diligence in Legislative Updating?
3. If we were visited by an inspector at any of our facilities, would we feel comfortable about his findings, and more importantly, do we have defensible documentation in place that would virtually turn the inspection into a non-event? Or, are we vulnerable to enforcement penalties that could place the well-being of our company in financial jeopardy?
4. If a citizen and/or disgruntled employee chose to become a whistle-blower, would the responding regulatory agency find our compliance house in order?
5. Are we operating from a fact-based regulatory framework leading to the proper implementation of our compliance programs or is our knowledge and information so tainted that it would adversely influence our compliance status? Such as, are we tuned into the nuances of regulatory language as it changes from EPA to OSHA to DOT and its regulatory offshoots at state, county, and local levels?

EPA RELATED ISSUES:
1. Environmental Compliance Reporting under SARA Title III, Sec. 302 (375 EHSs). Knowing that the Threshold Planning Quantities (TPQ's) under this subsection of SARA range from 1 lb. to 500 lbs., how are we screening each of our chemicals against those thresholds assigned to each chemical by the gov't? Moreover, how are we screening for EPA's "Aggregate Total Ruling" in which chemicals of like kind under this subsection must be aggregated so as to properly compare each chemical's cumulative quantity against its TPQ, thus reported to local, county, state, and federal agencies accordingly? What defensible documentation do we have in place demonstrating just how each EHS in our facility stands against this regulation, exceeding the TPQ or not? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
2. Emergency Release Notification under SARA Title III / CERCLA, Sec. 304 (775 liquid or gaseous substances). Knowing that many of the Reportable Quantities (RQ) of this subsection go as low as one lb., how have we screened our chemicals in the form of a management report to know when an RQ has been exceeded in the event of a spill or release which, in turn, requires emergency notification to the Nat'l Response Center in Washington, D.C., the state of record, and the LEPC? Enforcement Exposure: $50,000/Violation.
3. Community Right-To-Know under SARA Title III/EPCRA, Sec. 311/312 (unlimited # of chemicals). Have we continued to satisfy emergency planning mandates and compliance reporting on an annual basis since this law's inception in 1987? Have we developed a facility layout to EPA specs also reflecting product quantities, container types, and locations with the facility? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
4. Toxic Release Inventory, Sec. 313, Form R of SARA Title III. Have we screened our chemical inventory against EPA's list of over 650 chemicals & compounds under this law? Have we applied EPA's "aggregate total ruling" to this law? Have we filed appropriate Form R reports since 1987 on each chemical (liquids, solids, and gases) manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in excess of its pertinent annual usage threshold? Are we aware that no emissions from the chemical process (in our own minds) do not constitute a rationale for not reporting under Form R? Enforcement Exposure: $27,500/chemical/year.
5. Storm Water Runoff (Multi-Sector General Permitting) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Did we file the proper Notice of Intent (NOI) leading up to the original SWR deadline of October 1, 1992? Did we prepare a SWR Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) to serve as a working document leading to the original PPP deadline of April 1, 1993? Did we implement that PPP leading up to the original training and implementation deadline of October 1, 1993? Did we overhaul our General Permit structure to that of Multi-Sector General to accommodate EPA's requirement for separating out each industry's Storm Water Compliance into 30 different industrial sectors, leading up to the most recent deadline of September 9, 1997? Do we have to engage in any sampling and/or monitoring of storm water samples as a part of the new Multi-Sector program? How will we determine such if we haven't as of yet? How will we identify which of EPA's regulated 273 Water Priority Chemicals are being utilized in those processes at our facilities, and how will we properly monitor them for inclusion with our overall NPDES permit? Have we incorporated the new Endangered Species Act into our most current compliance update of the PPP? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
6. Form U Reporting of the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). How will we identify those chemicals on our site relative to the toxic chemicals regulated for Form U? Have we applied EPA's "aggregate total ruling" to this law? Once identified, could we exceed an annual usage threshold of 10,000 lbs through manufacturing, processing, importing, or otherwise using one or more of these chemicals from the TSCA data base of 78,000 regulated chemicals. Provided the threshold is exceeded, has the facility in question grossed more than $4MM in the previous complete fiscal year to the 1998 compliance year? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
7. Spill Control & Countermeasure Plan (SPCC). How have we screened those liquid products we have on site at our facilities against the three thresholds regulating SPCC Plans? Have we made arrangements for the proper secondary containment? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000.
8. Clean Water Act - Process / Waste Water Discharge under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Is the appropriate permitting posture established federally and locally to accommodate the guidelines of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) which oversees our facilities' compliance with Process / Waste Water Discharges? How will we identify which of EPA's regulated 63 toxic pollutants are being utilized and discharged at our facilities, and how will we properly monitor them for inclusion in this aspect of our water permit? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
9. Hazardous Waste Generation, Accumulation, Storage, Treatment, & Disposal under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA). Is each of our facilities properly permitted under RCRA's regulations for hazardous waste generation and disposal? Do our facility personnel understand the proper operational approaches for accumulation, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste generated at the facility? Are our personnel operating under the myth that waste generated at our facility through the use of a parts washer belongs to the disposal company rather than our own company? Do they understand that we are the generator and must be responsible for the regulations covering us as the generator? Have we received the proper EPA Hazardous Waste I.D.#? Have we screened RCRA's 586 Hazardous Waste Codes against all those chemicals in our plants to identify which of our chemicals are regulated as hazardous wastes? Have we identified all hazardous waste streams (and properly registered them as required in some states, i.e. TX)? Do we know our Hazardous Waste Classification in each case? Could we be guilty of mixing non-hazardous waste with hazardous waste, thereby running up costs? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
10. Hazardous Waste Reporting under RCRA as administered under the State of Record. Are we executing the proper quarterly, annual, and/or biennial hazardous waste reporting regulated by our state, based upon our hazardous waste classification, Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG), Small Quantity Generator (SQG), Large Quantity Generator (LQG), or other (i.e. Kansas Generator, etc.)? Are our personnel operating from the common myth that the status of Small Quantity Generator somehow exempts our facilities from the regulations of other regulatory compliance laws? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
11. Hazardous Waste Training under RCRA. Does our status as a hazardous waste generator further require that pertinent personnel be properly trained in the generation, accumulation, storage, disposal, spills, hazards, and personal protective equipment related to employee protection from hazardous wastes? If so, is that 8 hr. training function taking place? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day.
12. Air Permitting under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as administered under the State of Record. Have we screened our chemical inventory against the 4 title programs under the Clean Air Act Amendments: Title I (Volatile Organic Compounds), Title III (187 Air Toxics; also other air toxic lists of state-specific regulations, i.e. Okla's add'l list of 500 air toxics), Title IV (Acid Rain Deposition), and Title VI (22 Class I & 34 Class II Ozone Depleting Chemicals)? Have we applied EPA's "aggregate total ruling" to this law? Have we considered the 10/25 ton emissions thresholds under Title III, in addition to the tonnage thresholds for Title I? Are we a major source, synthetic minor, or state minor source? Is there any possibility that we could have such low emissions (below that of 1,200 lbs/yr.) that we could be classified as an Insignificant Activity? Have we considered the entire facility as a emissions source in its entirety or are we still operating under the notion of isolated point sources? What emissions standard have we utilized to determine our permitting status? Enforcement Exposure: Up to $1,000,000 flat + potential of criminal prosecution.
13. Risk Management Program for Accidental Release Program (112r) as related to the Clean Air Act Amendments. Do we have any of the 160 toxic or flammable chemicals in excess of the Threshold Quantity (TQ) in which an accidental release program must be implemented? How will we identify those chemicals we have regarding this law and, if so, determine they exceed the chemical-specific assigned thresholds? Do we have the manpower, expertise, experience, and time available to implement such a program in order to meet EPA's deadline of June 21, 1999? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day
14. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT - 112g) under the Clean Air Act Amendments. Will our Air Permitting status bring us into this regulation? If so, do we have the manpower, expertise, experience, and time available to implement such a program? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day
15. Chemical Weapons Convention. How will we identify those chemicals within our inventory as related to the 54 chemicals regulated under this Chemical Weapons Initiative? How will we determine if we exceed the chemical-specific assigned thresholds and then report them on an annual basis accordingly? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day
16. Hard & Decorative Chrome NESHAP (Nat'l Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants). Provided our processes include hard and decorative chrome plating, have we met the compliance requirements of this NESHAP? Enforcement Exposure: $25,000/Day

OSHA RELATED ISSUES:
17. Hazard Determination Mandate for Site-Specificity under 29 CFR 1910. Have we fulfilled OSHA's requirement that we as an employer determine all chemical hazards specific to the chemical inventory in each facility in order that subsequent Employee Right-To-Training be site-specific? Are Material Safety Data Sheets representative of all products used, stored, processed, produced, manufactured, or imported at the facility accessible to all employees at any time during the workday? Have we developed a Workplace Chemical List reflective of hazards, quantities, container types, and locations within the facility? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
18. Carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens. Have we determined which of our chemicals happen to be carcinogenic as listed among those 342 regulated cancer-causing chemicals under IARC? Have we also identified mutagens and teratogens be used in our facility in order to properly protect our employees and contract labor? Does our Hazard Communication program (Annual Employee Right-To-Know Training) encompass these special chemical hazards? Does our provisions for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) take these issues into account? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
19. NFPA 704 Placarding Ratings under the Nat'l Fire Protection Assoc. Have we identified the hazards and properly placed placards to NFPA code relative to health, flammable, reactive, and special hazard ratings? Have we further identified the adverse conditions resulting from flammability, pressure, reactivity, acute, and chronic health problems that, in turn, are known to damage genes, lungs, organs, eyes, and skin? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
20. Hazard Communication Training. Do we engage in annual Employee Right-To-Know Training to site-specific chemical hazards in the facility for all employees? Does this training include (remembering that videos are peripheral to the law):
1. OSHA-Mandated "Hazard Determination;"
2. Facility-wide Written Hazard Communication Program:
3. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs);
4. Container Labeling;
5. Site-specific Employee Training;
6. Employee Right-To-Know Hazard Information Station;;
7. New-Hire Orientation Procedures & Manual;
8. Employee Manuals, Materials, & Evidentiary Records of Participation?
Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
21. Machine-Specific Lockout/Tagout. Have we performed a hazard analysis on every piece of machinery or equipment in each of our facilities taking into account the varying energy hazards? Have we determined just who our "Authorized" and "Affected" employees are? Have we developed a site-specific, machine-specific design in the form of a written program that details the hazards, maintenance procedures, locks, tags, which is updated with the addition of new machinery to the work force, upgraded annually, all followed by machine-specific employee training on an annual basis complete with evidentiary records of participation? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
22. Hazardous Waste Operations & Emergency Response (HAZWOPER). Have we designated an internal emergency response team with the appropriate training to respond to hazardous waste spills and emergency of disastrous proportions? Did such training engage the 24 hr. or 40 hr. format? Have we had any changes to the team in the past year in which a team member has not received the initial training? Do we have evidentiary records to support that all team members have been properly trained? Provided we received the appropriate initial training format, do we now engage in the annual 8-hr. refresher training? Is our HAZWOPER site-specific to the hazardous wastes and emergency issues of our own facility or is it coming from a generic vo-tech style instructional class? Is our HAZWOPER trainer certified and qualified to conduct the training? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
23. Contingency Plan. Have we developed a working document specific to emergency response/cleanup procedures and the spill of all hazardous wastes, hazardous materials, and disastrous events that could be reasonably anticipated at each of our facilities? Is our contingency plan reviewed and updated on an annual basis? Do we have evidentiary records of employee participation in which training was conducted with this document as the focal point? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
24. Process Safety Management. Have we conducted a study to determined if any of the 130 chemicals under this law are present at one of our facilities in excess of the Threshold Quantity assigned specific to each chemical? Is that chemical connected to a process at any one point in time? Do we also have any other toxic or flammable liquid or gaseous chemicals above 10,000 lbs connected to a process at any point in time? Provided we met the above criteria in at least one case, did we execute OSHA's 5-yr. compliance plan leading up to the ultimate deadline of May 26, 1997? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
25. Forklift Training (Powered Industrial Trucks). Are all our forklift drivers trained and licensed to operate a forklift? Are they trained annually? Do we have evidentiary records of employee participation? If inspected, could any of those operating a forklift be found in violation of this law? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
26. MSDS Management. Are Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) provided and accessible for all products (liquids, solids, & gases) being used, stored, processed, produced, manufactured, or imported at our facilities? Has an individual been assigned to manage current, temporary (experimental products), and inactive MSDSs (must keep for 30 yrs.) in every facility? Are the MSDSs set up in a master book, a 3-ring binder, and organized by department? Are departmentalized books provided for the work force reflective of those products in use? Has someone been assigned to the annual accountability of MSDS management to determine if these procedures are being followed by the MSDS manager? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
27. MSDS Origination. If we create liquid, solid, or gaseous products originating from our operation, do we follow OSHA mandates in originating and distributing the MSDSs to our internal employees, as well as our external customers (excluding retail)? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
28. OSHA 200 Accident/Injury Log. Do we maintain the OSHA 200 log encompassing all accidents and injuries? Do we post it annually as prescribed by OSHA regulations? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000.
29-36. Industrial Hygiene: Indoor Air Quality; Respirator Training; Confined Space Permit & Rescue; Hearing Conservation; Bloodborne Pathogens; Ergonomics; 22 Chemical-Specific I.H. Protocols. Have we performed an IH-certified air monitoring study in the past year? Have we determined which of the 547 air contaminants under OSHA happen to be present in our facility above the "action level" assigned to each contaminant? Have our personnel been thorough fit-tested and trained on the use of respirators supported by evidentiary records of annual participation? Have all confined spaces in each of our facilities been designated, labeled, and permitted as so with a rescue team designated and trained supported by evidentiary records of annual participation? Do we have any conditions in which noise from machinery, equipment, etc., is occurring in excess of 85 db. on an 8 hr. time waited average (twa)? Have we executed a noise monitoring study in the past year? Have each of our employees been tested for a baseline audiogram, followed by annual audiograms? Do we have an ongoing hearing conservation program complete with written program supported by evidentiary records of annual employee participation? Do we have a written Exposure Control Plan in place at our facilities? Have our employees been properly trained on HIV and Hepatitis B supported by evidentiary records of annual participation? Have we performed a job-specific job analysis on each employee's task assignment(s) to determine what ergonomic problems are encountered with a written Ergonomic Correctional Design? Has a study been made specific to determine which of the 22 chemical-specific OSHA I.H. mandates apply to our facility? Are we conducting the proper I.H. procedures under this law supported by evidentiary records of annual employee participation? Enforcement Exposure: $7,000 - $70,000/Violation.

DOT & OTHER IMPORTANT REGULATORY ISSUES:
37. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HM-180 - Performance Packaging). Has a study been executed on those hazardous materials present in our facilities relative to DOT's list of 1100 regulated hazardous materials? Are we utilizing the appropriate packaging, labeling, and placarding procedures to notify parties downstream from our facility as to the hazards of the material related to human health & safety, as well as to that of the environment? Enforcement Exposure: $10,000/Day.
38. Hazardous Materials Employee Training (HM-126f - HazMat Employee Training). Have we conducted this training for all employees assigned to shipping and receiving - collectively anyone related to the transportation of hazardous materials - be it incoming shipments or outgoing shipments? Is this training conducted on at least a biennial basis supported by evidentiary records of annual employee participation? Is the training comprised of those specific hazardous materials received and shipped, or is it more of a generic safety training mode as it may regard lifting tips, etc? Enforcement Exposure: $10,000/Day.
39. Hazardous Materials Registration. Has a study been conducted to determine whether we are "offering for transportation, or transporting, in foreign, interstate, or intrastate commerce:" 1. any highway route-controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material; 2. more than 55 lbs. of explosive material (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) in a motor vehicle, rail car, or freight container; 3. more than "1.06 quarts per package" of a material poisonous by inhalation; 4. a liquid or gaseous hazardous material in a bulk packaging having a capacity equal to or greater than 3,500 gallons - or more than 468 cubic feet for solids; 5. 5,000 lbs. or more of one class of hazardous materials for which placarding of a vehicle, rail car, or freight container is required? Provided we have exceeded a threshold in one of the above instances, have we properly registered that we have offered for transportation or transported this material? Is the person responsible for compliance with this requirement been registered and certified? Do we have the proper current documentation reflective of DOT registration? Is it updated on a biennial basis? Upon inspection, could we produce our registration and number? Enforcement Exposure: $10,000/Day.
40. Source Reduction / Waste Minimization Program (Texas Only). If we operate a facility in Texas in which we generate hazardous waste and/or we report under Form R of SARA , Sec. 313, have we also prepared and submitted the required program and plan for Source Reduction and Waste Minimization? Do we submit this documentation to the State of Texas annually each July 1? Enforcement Exposure: $10,000/Day.
41. Safe Drinking Water Act, Proposition 65 - for U.S. Companies Doing Business in the State of California. Have we conducted a study to determine whether we have any of the 542 chemicals regulated under California's Proposition 65? Are we conducting business in the State of California in a manner that any one of these chemicals could be present? Have we performed the proper due diligence to determine what implementation of this law's regulations is required of our company? Enforcement Exposure: $10,000/Day.
42. Emergency Response Plan (California Only). Have we submitted an emergency response plan to the California county of record in which we are operating a facility? Does it meet the criteria as mapped out in this law? Enforcement Exposure: $10,000/Day.
43. Oil Spill Prevention & Response Act (Coastal States Only). Has our facility been certified by the general land office under the state of record? Did we submit our Oil Spill Response Plan to the appropriate agencies by the February 21, 1996 deadline? If inspected, could we provide the appropriate 30-point document outlining the procedures to respond to an oil or chemical spill in which such an event could reasonably be anticipated to pollute a U.S. body of water? Enforcement Exposure: $10,000/Day.

VANGUARD ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
THE
"ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM"
- PHILOSOPHY, BENEFITS, RATIONALE, & IMPLEMENTATION -

As we move into the implementation stage for your facility's compliance in the future, the solutions that Vanguard brings to your table become far reaching and enormously beneficial in their impact to your company and its regulatory compliance challenges in the next several years. Here are four categorical signposts to keep in mind.

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, BENEFITS, & RATIONALE;
B. SCOPE OF PROJECT, TIME FRAME, & MECHANICS FOR LAUNCH THRU COMPLETION / DELIVERY
C. MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT & PRICING SUMMARY GRID
D. REVIEW OF VANGUARD'S CREDENTIALS & CAPABILITIES;

A. INTRODUCTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, BENEFITS, & RATIONALE.
It would be wise to review the rationale for Vanguard's development and role in providing "Total Quality Environmental Management - Turn-key, Nationwide" to its clients in the U.S. and Canada. As you know, this is much more than a slogan. Several years ago, we first discovered an urgent, but unfulfilled, need for practically every company in America. Every company needs a "Regulatory Compliance Agenda," primarily motivated by the repercussions of enforcement penalties, although the validity of EPA, OSHA, DOT laws truly speak for themselves and should be reason enough to obey. However, due to the widespread confusion, prevalent myths, and overall lack of awareness, having a "Regulatory Compliance Agenda" was simply not a part of contemporary thought. It is still surprising to us today that most people in companies aren't aware of all the laws, much less which ones require compliance of them and which do not. Secondly, we then discovered there was no systematic, all-encompassing mechanism in place to meet such an objective. At the same time we saw the need, we also noticed a pattern developing in regulatory compliance laws, namely that "virtually all the laws are based on chemicals, thresholds, and regulatory guidelines." We found this to be a veritable common denominator that, if developed through a technology-based method of tracking and accounting for all the millions of variables reflected between a facility's chemical inventory and those EPA, OSHA, DOT compliance laws impacting industry, a "Regulatory Compliance Agenda" could not only be developed, but would offer the client a mind-boggling end-result benefit of proactive decision-making in determining which compliance issues must be satisfied and which, at least for the time being, do not. Such a technology, could further be utilized for the purpose of Legislative Updating - a silver lining benefit allowing Vanguard to operate as a "Mission Control" operation in behalf of its clients for the purpose of monitoring amended and newly-enacted laws so as to keep the client apprised of dynamic changes to his compliance agenda as years passed and the nature of the facility and/or the laws changed as they do. Of course, this challenge is magnified for corporations with multiple facilities spread across the continent.
An overriding matter central to your concerns, however, must be that of "satisfying your company's widespread regulatory compliance requirements at a fraction of the cost relative to building an ever-growing internal compliance department" to deal with all the env'l, health, and safety compliance issues on a nationwide basis (prohibitively expensive for nat'l and int'l companies with multiple facilities), "thereby protecting profitability so important to stakeholders and bottom line issues." Continually building a staff of full-time employees with credentials in the compliance field is extremely costly, once again, defeating the corporation's profitability goals. Costs for full time staff include salaries, benefits, employment taxes, regulatory subscriptions and memberships, seminar attendance / travel, and standard ofc. expenses (ofc. space, furniture, computer, software, phone/long distance, postage, etc.). Vanguard has done a 3-yr. cost analysis of hiring full time staff against its own costs, revealing that a company will pay 5 times Vanguard's costs to maintain its compliance requirements on an internal basis.
It might be noted that Vanguard's contribution may not be perceived as an altogether popular notion for some existing EHS staff who might prefer to see the company exhaust funds in building a large empire of internal compliance staff. However, cost must be considered, and since the cost of hiring employees in the compliance arena can truly be seen as that of meeting "gov't overhead," the only good decision is that of minimizing costs through Vanguard's technology and team of compliance specialists. Interestingly, it's always amazing to Vanguard just how much gets missed by internal staff of all companies due to lack of specialized expertise, technology, manpower, time constraints, technical writing skills, travel demands, budget, etc. However, it's never the role of Vanguard to supplant the work of existing EHS personnel, but to complement what they're already doing with the chemical technology Vanguard brings to the client's table in the form of its copyrighted Chemical Hazard Analysis - a one-of-a-kind "Power Tool" unparalleled by even the resources available to Fortune 50 companies. Analogously, you wouldn't replace a valued employee because he/she has been typing letters on an IBM electric typewriter, you'd merely provide them with a computer to perform their word processing assignment even better and more quickly! The key to Vanguard's relationship with its client is to improve the capabilities of existing staff, reduce the risk of enforcement penalties at each facility, all while limiting the client's need to expand to multitudes of env'l staff to deal with the continual onslaught of EPA, OSHA, & DOT legislation.
Vanguard's chemical technology provides each client with compliance precision and defensible documentation eliminating the gaps prevalent to existing compliance programs. In exploring client programs in comparison to Vanguard's technology, it's often shocking to discover how some critical aspects of a facility's environmental compliance has been neglected - not because of anyone's desire to do so or because of willful neglect, but because of the difficulties associated with meeting the local, county, state, and federal regulatory requirements so formidable without the use of a technology like Vanguard's "Chemical Inventory Analysis."
Here is an overview of the key issues that seem to be most crucial and beneficial to any client's facility managers, compliance personnel, and other stakeholders.

RISK MANAGEMENT AGAINST ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES

"Risk Management Against Enforcement Penalties" is the primary reason why most companies choose to have Vanguard serve their compliance needs. When EPA's written penalty policy speaks of "$25,000 per day for non-compliance," that's an intimidating number that would hurt all but few companies. Typically, though, EPA's track record demonstrates an average flat rate in the mid to high $40K's in fines. Litigation generally lasts from 1 to 3 yrs. Anyone familiar with litigation knows legal fees for this kind of ongoing representation is stiff; the fine is usually reduced somewhat; and finally, the non-compliant party is then required to comply from that point forward. The company consequently becomes "continually victimized" by numerous enforcement agents from various jurisdictions of the EPA, OSHA, & DOT to ensure the company maintains an exemplary compliance record on all laws. Such penalties and resultant predicaments get the attention of stakeholders, preventing positive operational conditions for years to come. Stakeholders include stockholders, bankers, customers, suppliers, corporate mgt., facility mgt., facility employees, politicians, citizens, and even so-called environmental groups. A sample of enforcement penalties can be provided as desired since all enforcement is a part of public record and quite accessible over the internet.

REMOVAL OF THE "DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PERFORMANCE DILEMMA"

If profitability is important to a corporation's stakeholders, most facility managers are appointed because they have the know-how, experience, talent, and motivation in operating the facility for the profitability essential to each facility's success. In addition to profitability targets, the responsibility of Environmental Compliance places an undue burden on the shoulders of facility management. This risk-laden pressure is generally known as the "double-jeopardy performance dilemma." As is common, the facility mgr. knows his responsibilities include meeting compliance of various laws, but his Priority #1 is reaching profit margins, production turn-around, delivery, and other fiscally-oriented expectations of him by corporate management. His own self-preservation and job security require him to maintain profitability at all times, so at best, compliance mandates are met in his "spare" time. This is a real-word performance dilemma. Maintaining compliance requires a combination of time, versatility, subject matter interest, manpower, and effort. In order to achieve even minimum compliance, the challenge requires legislative fluency, environmental law skills, chemical engineering expertise, computer literacy (hardware + software), ongoing seminar attendance with travel budget, and excellent command of technical writing skills representing defensible documentation to enforcement agents. Therefore, the challenge of achieving compliance presents the facility mgr. with a tough dilemma:

whether to invest his time, talent, effort and resources toward compliance achievement; or to concentrate energies on the facility's profitability.

It would be extremely difficult to achieve both priorities for 98% of facility mgrs., so something's got to be compromised, and rightfully so. Given the choice of compromising the facility's profitability goals or pursuing the nonrevenue-producing activity of meeting compliance requirements, it is only natural to compromise compliance instead of profitability, which runs the risk of enforcement penalties in the future, thereby eventually jeopardizing the profitability of a facility on the backside.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATING ON AMENDED & NEWLY-ENACTED LAWS

One of the greatest challenges of maintaining compliance is staying up with amended and newly-enacted laws. With Vanguard's 10 Million Dollar Computer Technology (3rd. largest chemical data base in the U.S.), this benefit is literally built in to Vanguard's services. Since virtually all the laws are based on chemicals and further driven by thresholds and regulatory guidelines, Vanguard automatically updates and upgrades its chemical data base technology to align with all amended and newly-enacted laws BEFORE they are finalized. Vanguard then alerts the client on those compliance issues requiring attention in the future. Vanguard's "Team of Compliance Specialists" also serves as a resource with the client to discuss those laws which affect the client's "Regulatory Compliance Agenda."
We jokingly speak of the facility mgr. diligently reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations at home by the fireside each Friday night for all the compliance laws enacted or amended during the past business week. Vanguard's work automatically executes this essential activity in behalf of the client so he can stay focused on what he does best: operating his facility for profitability.

DEFENSIBLE DOCUMENTATION & TECHNICAL REPRESENTATION FOR ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS

As a result of each project performed, Vanguard provides its copyrighted "Defensible Documentation" to be kept at each facility. This documentation is reflective of the due diligence performed in behalf of the client, site-specific to the facility's local, county, state, and federal compliance requirements. Upon visitation by an enforcement agent, the client's Defensible Documentation serves as an "Inspection Showpiece." Due to Vanguard's outstanding reputation in the field, the mere act of producing the Documentation (with Vanguard's logo prominently displayed) will usually send the inspector on his way without even reviewing the book. In the event the inspector desires more information or assistance, though, the client is encouraged to contact Vanguard for help in meeting the inspector's expectations. If necessary, Vanguard will expedite a Regulatory Specialist to represent the client's compliance as evidenced in the Document Book. Vanguard stands behind its work and enjoys representing the client in this arena that would otherwise be a traumatic and costly experience.

POSITIONING YOUR COMPANY FOR ISO 14001 (EMS) CERTIFICATION THRU
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROTOCOLS

It is highly possible that ISO 14001 Certification lies within your company's future, at least with some of its facilities. Vanguard now has the capability as a Certification Team for serving client needs relative to certification of its Environmental Management System (EMS) under ISO 14001. Because Vanguard's work is comprehensive in its thrust, all of the client's Environmental Compliance Protocols can be met in subsequent projects to that recommended here.

B. EXAMPLE OF SCOPE - A CASE STUDY:
PROJECT, TIME FRAME, & LOGISTICS FROM LAUNCH TO COMPLETION
In approaching a multiple-facility project of 6 or more facilities, here is an example for your consideration. It, of course, can be flexed to fit your situation. The scope of the project would generally be achieved in a 60-day window from the date of program approval with the following phases in mind. Dates are adjustable pending launch.
1. Data Retrieval with a Vanguard Regulatory Specialist physically performing this function at each facility, along with a site-assessment leading to feedback and recommendations to each facility manager and/or other project participants.
2. Each site-specific set of compliance data enters Vanguard's Environmental Science Dept. for the purpose of undergoing the Chemical Hazard Analysis, Development of each Facility's Environmental Compliance Management Program, Preparation of each facility's site-specific Env'l Compliance Reporting under EPA SARA Title III, Sec. 301-312 (Signature-Ready) to Federal, State, County, & Local Regulations, Completion of Defensible Documentation Book Reflective of SARA Reporting, accompanied with the Chemical Inventory Analysis which screens each Facility's Chemical Inventory against all EPA, OSHA, & DOT Laws - thereby establishing an "Regulatory Compliance Agenda" so critical to future strategic planning & legislative updating regarding each facility's compliance responsibilities.
3. All Document Books delivered and Signature-Ready SARA Reports are signed and returned to Vanguard for filing via certified mail to local, county, state, and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over each site. This will meet each facility's compliance. A phone conference is to be held with each facility's designee by the Regulatory Specialist that executed the Data Retrieval. A duplicate copy of each facility's Document Book is provided for the corporate environmental coordinator as a tool for better environmental mgt. of each facility's needs.. This will minimize the number of trips taken to each facility over the years.

C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The enclosed project description provides regulatory information, schedule of work, benefits / features, all accompanied by an array of pertinent information. In this case, this portfolio shall be attached to our standard project description for a complete understanding of the project's scope and terms of agreement. The agreement has been established in 3-yr. increments, renewable annually. For everyone's convenience, it is helpful to tie the corporate-wide project into one "Master Service Agreement." Beginning with the second year of the agreement, a substantial discount will be applied, as the bulk of the work from the first year is no longer necessary. For subsequent years, the annual price will remain at the discounted price. Budgetarily, it's very attractive to clients for Vanguard's prices to go down rather than financial escalation associated with employees' salaries, benefits, taxes, etc.. Of course, we can provide a break-down on each facility's costs (based on each one's scope of chemical inventory) so that each facility can be charged back accordingly. It is the final chemical count that establishes actual pricing, so breaking down each facility's specific costs is not difficult. Travel expenses are an additional cost but only need to be applied to the first year as facility site visits are unnecessary in subsequent years. Invoicing for travel expenses (backed up by receipts) are generally invoiced under separate cover once the trips have occurred. No surcharge is applied to travel expense and there is no hourly charge while Vanguard employees are in transit.
Ironically, an enforcement penalty at any one facility could far outweigh the costs of the projected total for ALL facilities in the corporate-wide project.