The terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” have been in wide-spread use for over thirty years, but the terms have many definitions and interpretations ranging from the global view of sustainment of the human existence, to the more narrow applications to the future of a company, or the availability of a skilled workforce over time. The terms have been referred to as concepts, goals, outcomes, processes, and are extensively viewed by many as being fundamentally an environmental consideration. Usages of the terms have more recently been applied to business models, in more narrow contexts than global survival. Increasingly, decisions by an agency must be balanced across the numerous demands and requirements. Decisions cannot be made in a vacuum, without consideration of constraints or restraints on resources, commitments, obligations, or even public opinion.
Sustainability-PHA Definition
PHA defines sustainability as “the conduct and support of marine operations to contribute to a vibrant regional economy and the well-being of its people and the adjoining communities, while protecting the environment–now, and in the future.” The definition was heavily influenced by PHA’s mission and vision, and its environmental compliance policy. While the association with the environment is obvious, PHA has affirmed that its sustainable process is not an environmental process. The PHA Sustainability committee recognises the Brundtland Commission definition that sustainable development “is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” but concluded that the definition lacked the specificity necessary to capture the imagination of the port and stimulate its employees into action.
Framework for PHA Sustainability
PHA uses the three pillars of economics, environment, and social responsibility as the framework for its decision model. However, it also recognises institutional controls as a “platform” which can strongly influence the starting point for considerations. The PHA-adapted model is shown in figure 1.
|
|
Economic considerations can include available budget, the quality grade of a product, life-cycle costs, labour source (port staff versus contract resources), rate of return on investment, job creation and retention, and funding sources.
Environmental considerations may include air and water quality; climate change factors; resource conservation, including waste elimination, minimisation, and recycling; land use and habitat.
Social considerations include security and numerous quality of life elements as they relate to people and communities. It includes safety and quality of life aspects for port employees, too.
Institutional controls include laws and regulations; port policies and commitments; direction from the board of commissioners, including budget guidance; and stated priorities.
In the PHA model, the intersection of the Venn diagram model represents the sustainable decision.
Framework for Sustainability at PHA
PHA has defined the sustainability “footprint” by recognising four areas, or facets of PHA business to which the decision model can be applied (figure 2).
|
|
Sustainable Facility Management would apply to decisions made regarding tenant leases, facility master plans, space management and standards. It can include many of the considerations of “green leases.”
Sustainable Operations would apply to decisions regarding equipment; automation, and other aspects of marine terminal operations, including equipment maintenance.
Sustainable Design and Development applies to design and construction of facilities, and their impacts on the communities near port facilities.
Sustainable Workforce and Community applies to institutional training, community outreach programs and relations, and environmental leadership initiatives within the Port of Houston, the region, and the port industry in general.
Sustainable Design and Development – Bayport Terminal
Development of the 1,100 acre Bayport Terminal was highly scrutinised by Federal, State and local agencies, and surrounding communities. The federal permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers included stringent noise and dust control during construction, and other requirements regarding isolation of the terminal from the community, water quality during dredging. Sustainability decisions resulted in commitments to first flush containment (first 1″ of rainfall) for the full terminal, LEED and special building construction; reuse of dredged material on site, transition to roller compacted concrete, and smaller expansion projects. (See Table 1)
Sustainable Design and Development-Bayport Dredging
The federal permit for Bayport limited the total construction NOX emissions related to federal action (wetland fill, construction over water) to no more than 25 tons per year. Additionally, construction sounds were required to be less than 55 db during evening hours, which had a huge potential impact on dredge costs and schedule. The sustainable decision was to employ mechanical dredging for reuse of material to elevate the container yard, but moved to electric dredging for productivity and
further construction sound control.
Storm water, site and habitat
PHA historically has a larger than industry average percentage of hazardous cargo. Although its Barbours Cut Terminal had met water quality standards throughout its life, regulatory agency pressure for innovation was high. The sustainable decision was
use of 28 acres of first flush ponds, later converted to containment ponds; high impact and isolation areas for spills within the terminal, and drain cutoffs throughout. The higher cost option was selected, and met environmental and social requirements. Although the Bayport site had over 100 acres of wetlands, multiple delineations determined that 19.7 acres were jurisdictional. However, public interests regarding wetlands, coastal prairie interests, and community concerns over visual impact resulted in decisions to mitigate for all wetlands (including purchase of 950 acres of prairie or wetland areas for permanent conservation), and to construct a 16,000 ft. sight and sound berm along the southern perimeter of the terminal. Economic impact was significant, but environmental and social interests were well satisfied.
Sustainable Operations–RTGs and Equipment
(Table 5)
Although backup warning alarms on construction equipment did not violate permit conditions, they were a source of annoyance to the surrounding communities. PHA coordinated revised operations by contractors, and required contractors to install special broadband alarms on equipment that were not audible outside the terminal. As a social commitment, PHA decided to install directional broadband alarms on all terminal equipment on its container terminals (up to four per crane). It also specified all
equipment at Bayport to be new, and required Tier 3 engines on RTGs, along with engine sound reducing equipment and engine controls to reduce emissions and fuel consumption.
Sustainable Facilities
(Table 6)
Many areas of the PHA terminals are leased to tenant companies, which operate with widely differing requirements for pavements, buildings; additionally, their business can range from operating tank farms to steel imports. PHA facility plans include incremental introduction of BMPs for dust control, spill protection, and energy reduction, among other areas.
Sustainable Workforce and Community
PHA is the recognised leader in the maritime community in Houston, and extends that leadership nationally in environmental areas. It is a leader in the state-chartered Houston Ship Channel Security District, the Gulf Coast Rail District, and supports numerous job-creation, environmental, and health initiatives. Decisions incorporate environmental, social, and economic considerations. Internally, PHA has safety, environmental (ISO 14001) and security (ISO 28000) standards and commitments to the workforce which include policy, training, and quality of workplace requirements Social and Environmental commitments, many of which are historical, are key institutional controls. Although the costs are not significantly high, the funding is limited, and competition for the resources requires a clear vision of the decision process.
Challenges
PHA’s use of sustainability as a decision model differs from historical practices in some areas of PHA operations-and so poses a challenge to management, particularly in facilities and operations. Traditional analyses of the business case for new projects (or for capital projects on the books affected by market changes) need to be adapted for environmental, social/community, and even political inputs that are not readily quantifiable as a “cost.” Existing important processes like ISO 14001 for environmental management and ISO 28000 for security management require continuous improvement goals as part of their management systems. The sustainability decision model requires full consideration of social and economic interests and controls along with environmental goals, which could mean that the sustainability decision “balance” does not enable goals to be as aggressive as they would be if actions were not constrained. There may be fewer opportunities for PHA to regularly exceed standards (institutional controls) if the decision balance requires standards (which generally become more stringent over time) to be met. While decisions may be formed using the sustainability model of balance, there will continue to be a requirement to extract data for reporting for individual areas–environment, budget, facility goals, community support, and workforce programs
Conclusion
PHA’s historical strength in environmental practice has been matched with its responsibility for social and community concerns and economic factors to result in a practice that considers the traditional pillars of sustainability in its decisions. The model and the implementation continue to evolve. However, the expectation is that the model will enable more balanced decisions across the breadth of PHA business, and result in a better appreciation of all environmental, economic, and social factors as they impact business decisions throughout the organisation. Because the aspects for consideration are broader, input from supporting departments will be required. Expanded communications and interaction among PHA departments is expected, as well as a deeper and broader appreciation by the workforce of the complexity of business in the maritime industry.
In a box
This article is an abridged version of a paper given at the Port & Terminal Technology Conference, held in Texas, Houston in April 2011, by Mark Vincent P.E., Project Management Department, Port of Houston Authority, Texas, United States.