Brownfield Remediation Success in Hamilton

A recent report by the City of Hamilton has revealed that significant progress has been made over the last 10 years to reduce the number of brownfield sites in the municipality.

According to Brownfield Inventory Report, there were 91 vacant brownfield sites listed by the City in 2008.  As of early 2018, 51 of the sites had been developed representing over 72 ha. Of the 40 sites still considered vacant and contaminated, approximately 13.2 ha are within the Bayfront Industrial Area.

Hamilton is one of the oldest and most heavily industrialized cities in Canada and includes a large number of brownfields in Hamilton’s older industrial areas, downtown, and throughout the urbanized area.

Part of the success in Hamilton in brownfield’s redevelopment is the Environmental Remediation and Site Enhancement Community Improvement Plan (ERASE) (CIP) which began in 2001.

Since the ERASE CIP was approved, approximately 145 property owners and potential
property owners have been approved for Environmental Study Grants. A number of
these studies have led to brownfield sites being redeveloped. A total of 47 projects
have been approved by City Council for ERASE Redevelopment Grants. These
projects once complete will result in:

  • Over 380 acres of land studied;
  •  Total assessment increase due to Environmental Remediation Grant in excess of
    $129,029,379;
  • Every $1 contributed by the City has generated $11.10 in private sector
    construction; and,
  • Remediation and redevelopment approval of approximately 210 acres of Brownfield land 123 acres (59% of approved land area) remediated to date.

In its 16 years, the ERASE CIP has proven to be very successful in providing the
financial tools needed to promote the remediation and redevelopment of Brownfield
sites. There is consistent support for the expansion of programming and updating of
policy in order to meet the significant challenges associated with Brownfield
redevelopment.

Two noteworthy recent brownfield remediation projects have included the Freeman Industrial Park, located at the site of former Otis Elevator and Studebaker plants, and the former Consumers Glass property.

The Freeman Industrial Park is the site of the old Otis Elevator and Studebaker plants.  It is the largest brownfield development project in the City of Hamilton to date.  the developer, UrbanCore Developments, has City approval to divide the 10.5-hectare property into 18 lots and build a road through the property.

440 Victoria Street, Hamilton (former Otis Elevator Building)

The Freeman Industrial Park property is zoned K, which allows nearly any type of heavy industry from fertilizer production to a coke oven.  UrbanCore has prospective buyers for about half of the lots.

Initiated in 2014, the site clean up and remediation program on the Freeman Industrial Park is now complete.

On the Consumers Glass property, the City has plans to build a sports field.  The property at Lloyd Street and Gage Avenue North is the future home of an outdoor sports facility, which will be an $8-million project that will replace the former Brian Timmis Field.  In 2015, it was used as a parking lot for the Pan Am Games.

With respect to the existing inventory of brownfield sites, consideration by Hamilton city Counsel with respect to the viability of contaminated land to be used
for purposes such as the growing/harvesting of medical marijuana, given the concerns
expressed with respect to this industry placing pressure on current viable farm land.

Staff reviewed the prospect of using brownfield land for growing medical marijuana and noted that under Regulation 153/04, cultivation of marijuana would be treated as an agricultural operation, and therefore, deemed a more sensitive operation if located on former industrial or commercially used lands.  On this basis, a mandatory filing of a Record of Site Condition would be required and the threshold for site remediation would be one of the most onerous to conform.

 

 

Concern about Hazmat Incidents at Canada’s Proposed Spaceport

In a joint venture with several US firms, Halifax-based Maritime Launch Services (MLS) is building Canada’s first spaceport near Canso, Nova Scotia. At a total cost of $304 million—a figure that includes the cost of the first rocket launch and promotional expenses—the launch pad is slated to deliver commercial satellites to low Earth orbit aboard Ukrainian-built rockets on a due south trajectory, and at a cost of $60 million per launch.

Stephen Matier, left, president of Maritime Launch Services and Maksym Degtiarov, chief designer of the launch vehicle at the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau, talk with reporters at a meeting of the proposed Spaceport project team in Dartmouth, N.S. on December 11, 2017. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan)

The Canso Spaceport Facility will be 20 hectares in size and is aimed at attracting firms that want to put satellites into orbit for commercial purposes.  The site will include a control centre, launch area and “horizontal integration facility,” where materials will be prepared for the launch and some propellants will be stored

The company would like to launch as many as eight rockets per year starting in 2022.

There are concerns about the spaceport from government experts.  Specifically, concerns related to environmental and health & safety issues.  Recently released documents released by the province detail numerous questions about the planned Canso Spaceport Facility.  Nova Scotia’s environment ministry will not approve the project unless their concerns are addressed.

The specific concerns of the N.S. Environment Ministry is how the company will address an explosion, crash or fuel leak.  According to the recently released government document, a spill would “destroy the impacted ecosystems with no chance of recovery within the next several hundred years.”

According to the Maritime Launch Services proposal, the rockets would use nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimenthyl hydrazine, or UDH, for the second portion of their launch into the atmosphere.

A letter from the Canadian Defence Department says the military “does not have sufficient knowledge” to assess the impacts of an accidental discharge of the UDH on the land or surface water, but “suggests an assessment should be completed.”

A professor at the University of British Columbia has raised concerns about an “exceedingly toxic” rocket propellant that will be used at the Canso, N.S., operation. Michael Byers, a political science professor at UBC, said there is a danger associated with UDH — which he said is known in Russia as “the Devil’s Breath.”

Professor Byers stated “If something goes wrong on launch, you know, if the rocket were to tip over and explode, or if there were some kind of spill during transportation or assembly, you’d still have a serious health and environmental concern.”

Other government officials comment that there isn’t enough information in the proposal to assess potential dangers.

Chuck McKenna, a manager with the resource management unit of the provincial Environment Department, says detailed plans on how dangerous goods will be stored and handled weren’t provided.

He says this should include details on the potential effects of a chemical accident, prevention methods and emergency response procedures.

Johnny McPherson, an expert on air quality in the provincial Environment Department, says in his submission that the first stage propellants of a rocket can create “black carbon (soot)” that is “harmful if inhaled because of small particle size and damaging effects.”

The government comments were made in response to the environmental assessment of the project prepared by a consultant.

Nova Scotia Environment Minister Margaret Miller said last week the environmental assessment, submitted in July, didn’t contain sufficient information for her to make a decision on whether to approve the project.

Miller has given the company one year to provide additional information and studies.

The company’s president has said he’s confident the firm will finish the study in response to the concerns raised, and it is “optimistic” it can address the issues raised.

Gaps on the movement of dangerous goods in Northern Canada

As reported by the The Canadian Press, the Canadian federal government says it doesn’t know enough about how, when, and where dangerous goods move through the Canadian North, highlighting the potential risks of a major spill or other disaster.

As a result, the possible effects on public safety and the environment are also unclear, Transport Canada acknowledges.

The department is commissioning a study to help fill in the knowledge gaps and improve readiness when it comes to movement of goods ranging from explosives and flammable liquids to infectious substances and radioactive materials.

The effort will focus on regions north of the 55th parallel as well as on more southerly, but isolated, areas in eastern Manitoba and northern Ontario, says a newly issued call for bids to carry out the study.

The overall goal is to fully identify the hazardous substances transported throughout these areas and the major hubs that link to relevant airports, marine ports, ice roads, railroads, mines, refining sites, manufacturing plants and warehouses.

The information will help Transport Canada pinpoint potential risks and make decisions concerning safety regulations and compliance, the tender notice says.

A stark reminder of the difficulty of moving goods in northern Canada came when the only rail line to Churchill, Man., was flooded and it became impossible to deliver freight overland until an ice road was built.

There are also virtually no freight rail lines north of the 60th parallel, except for rail access to Hay River in the Northwest Territories, the notice says. Considering the seasonal nature of ice roads and ports, there are limited routes for movement of dangerous goods in or out of northern Canada and other remote areas, it adds.

The tenuous nature of northern transportation systems mean there are “gaps in information” about the kinds of dangerous goods transported, the volume of shipments and the sort of emergency response systems available.

“We continuously examine ways to make transportation in Canada safer for all and this assessment is part of our effort to ensure even greater knowledge regarding the handling of goods in the North,” said Transport Canada spokeswoman Annie Joannette.

She declined to provide additional information given the competitive tender process underway.

The most valuable element of the exercise could be the educational process of better informing people about the risks of transporting dangerous substances, said Rob Huebert, a northern studies expert at the University of Calgary.

“It’s always about the follow-through,” he said. “Because you can have all these exercises through the ying-yang, but if you’re not setting up the system properly and then maintaining the system, what’s the point of having it?”

Until now, Canada’s emergency preparedness efforts have largely been focused on maritime response and less on land-based accidents, he said.

“I think a lot of people always forget that the North is an area that is just so different from every place else.”

North American Rail Network (Transportation Safety Board of Canada)

competition to destroy chemical weapons launched by UK and US

The United Kingdom Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), part of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), has launched the ‘Don’t Blow It!’ competition, the first joint UK-US industry competition run by DASA and funded by the MOD and US Department of Defense (US DOD).

Competitors have been asked to identify innovative concepts or adapt current technologies to access, disable and destroy chemical and biological devices. This includes chemical and biological munitions, improvised explosive devices containing lethal agents or containers of bulk quantities of chemical or biological agents discovered on the battlefield or in other austere and resource-limited environments.

Defence Minister Stuart Andrew said:

Horrific incidents stretching from Salisbury to Syria this year have shown us that chemical weapons are sadly still very much a reality – but a reality that we are determined to deal with. Destroying these deadly weapons is a complicated process and not doing it properly could mean devastating collateral damage. These are challenges that we share with our allies like the US. Competitions like this help us to tackle them head on with some of the best and brightest minds across both our countries.

Although it is over 100 years since the first large-scale use of chemical weapons, the threat from both chemical and biological weapons persists. This has been demonstrated by the recent rise in the use of such deadly weapons on the battlefield and in targeted attacks.

Much progress has been made to destroy state-declared global stockpiles of chemical weapons through very successful large scale destruction programmes, utilising techniques such as incineration, explosive destruction or neutralisation. However, to meet emerging and future challenges, such as the destruction of smaller caches produced by terrorists in resource-limited or hostile environments such as Iraq or Syria, there needs to be a focus on developing more robust elimination capabilities that are less labour intensive.

The competition has an initial £500,000 to fund multiple proof-of-concept proposals at low Technology Readiness Levels. Additional funding of £1.5 million is anticipated to be available for future phases.

The competition is seeking innovative ideas from non-traditional supply sectors and is looking for ‘outside-the-box’ proposals that will:

  • enable rapid and flexible destruction
  • reduce logistical support requirements
  • maximise ease of operation and transportability
  • address a greater breadth of threats

MOD Chief Scientific Advisor, Dr Simon Cholerton said:

As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the Novichok attack in Salisbury demonstrate, the risk from chemical weapons still remains and the issue of safely eliminating them from an austere tactical environment remains an enduring technical challenge. I am delighted therefore that we are working with our closest ally to launch a new industry competition to help us develop effective and safe elimination capabilities. Our collaboration is the first time we have launched a truly joint UK-US competition through the UK Ministry of Defence’s Defence and Security Accelerator, which is charged with enabling us to innovate by rapidly transforming the ideas of today into the capabilities of tomorrow.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, US DOD, The Hon. Guy Roberts said:

The expanding proliferation of chemical weapons use, from state and non-state actors, portends the greatest threat of their use on the battlefield since World War I. My responsibility is to ensure our forces are protected from, and can fight through, any such threats. To that end, we must continually innovate our capabilities, and it is especially important to do so in collaboration with those who fight alongside us. This competition does just that. It allows us to jointly invest in research and development with our closest ally as well as seek innovative ideas from a broader set of brilliant minds who I am confident will lead us to creative solutions.

The competition was launched at an event in London on the afternoon of 26 September 2018. Potential suppliers were provided with context on the challenge by both UK and US speakers, as well as information on how to apply to the competition by DASA.

The submission deadline for proposals is 5 pm GMT (midday EST) on 7 November 2018.

Follow this link for more information on the competition

or contact DASA directly on accelerator@dstl.gov.uk

 

B.C. spill response plans in limbo after Trans Mountain decision

The recent Federal Court of Appeal delaying approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project coast has put the B.C. spill response in limbo.  The proposed pipeline expansion project would see an oil pipeline expansion from Alberta to the British Columbia coast.  The Federal Court of Appeal denied approval of the project pending greater consultation with indigenous communities and greater need for mitigating environmental risks.

The oil spill response plan, as part of the Trans Mountain Pipeline project, is to build six new spill response bases along B.C.’s coast that would be the home port of 43 new spill response vessels and 120 new crew members.

Map of proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Configuration.

The oil spill response plan is to be funded, in part, from a $150 million that is to be collected by Western Canada Marine Response Corp. (WCMR Corp.) from tolls for use of the expanded pipeline.  WCMR Corp. is an industry-funded organization tasked with responding to and cleaning up spills along B.C.’s coast.

When the project gets approval for construction is uncertain.  The federal government is considering a number of options including appealing the Court decision and enacting legislation.

The delay in building additional pipeline capacity from the Alberta oil sands has resulted ins an increase in rail shipment of oil.  More than 200,000 barrels of oil are now carried by rail in Canada each day, up from less than 30,000 in 2012.

In 2017, Canadian crude oil supply grew to 4.2 million barrels a day — exceeding total pipeline capacity leaving Western Canada. As a result, a record-setting volume of oilpatch output is now moving by rail to refineries in the U.S.

If the proposed spill response enhancements are built, the response to an oil spill on Canada’s west coast will be reduced from six hours to two hours for Vancouver Harbour and down from 18-72 hours to six hours for the rest of the coast.

The six bases would have been built in Vancouver Harbour, near Annacis Island in the Fraser River, in Nanaimo, Port Alberni, the Saanich Peninsula and Beecher Bay near Sooke.

 

Former Contaminated Mine Site in NWT Declared Clean

The Government of Canada recently announced that the former Tundra Gold Mine, located in the Northwest Territories, has been successfully remediated.  The cost of clean-up was $110 million and was paid for by the government.

Tundra Mine was briefly operational in the 1960’s and was used as a dumping ground in the 1980’s.  It’s former owner, Royal Oak Mines went bankrupt in 1999.

Remediation of the site included revegetating soil, sealing mine openings, consolidating and isolating tailings and waste rock, treating petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils, erecting barriers for erosion control, and removing buildings.  The clean-up project lasted more than a decade.

Though some re-vegetation has begun, the land – around 240 km north-east of Yellowknife – will remain recognizably an old industrial site for decades to come.

Tundra Mine Site post clean-up (Photo Credit: Jamie Malbeuf/CBC)

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s newly installed minister for northern affairs, called Tundra’s remediation “a great example of the hard work of northerners and the importance of partnerships with local Indigenous communities.”  Northern residents represented 76 percent of the project’s suppliers and 61 percent of its employees.  The Minister stated that the restoration will help local Dene and Métis peoples once again use the land for traditional practices.

The Canadian government will continue to oversea that monitoring of the site to ensure it remains stable.  Monitoring, using a combination of on-site equipment and drones, will cost an unspecified further sum each year.

More work to be done remediating the North

According to an article in Cabin Radio, Tundra’s successful clean-up remains a drop in the larger ocean of contaminated sites within the NWT.  Tundra is the 24th site under federal supervision to have reached this stage, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said by email to on Cabin Radio.

federal webpage last updated in 2013 suggests Canada is responsible for more than 50 significant contaminated sites in the territory, including those 24.

separate federal website lists 1,634 contaminated sites within the Northwest Territories, where a contaminated site is defined by the Federal Goverment as “one at which substances occur at concentrations (1) above background (normally occurring) levels and pose or are likely to pose an immediate or long term hazard to human health or the environment, or (2) exceeding levels specified in policies and regulations.”

Some entries on the latter list are considered remediated and their files closed. Some are smaller sites not felt worthy of their own, separate clean-up projects.  Several dozen of them, for example, are grouped under one project to clean up the Canol Trail, a World War Two initiative which left contaminated soil, asbestos, and a range of hazardous materials strewn across 355 km of the Sahtu.

In the 2017-18 financial year, public records show federal agencies were obliged to spend money on some 275 separate contaminated sites in the Northwest Territories.  $157,000 was spent assessing a range of those sites, while a little over $103 million was spent on remediation work.

Of that figure, around $23.6 million was spent remediating the Tundra site in that financial year.

Unsurprisingly, Yellowknife’s Giant Mine – considered among the most toxic sites in Canada, harbouring 237,000 tonnes of poisonous arsenic trioxide in underground chambers – was the only site receiving more remediation money.

In the same period Canada spent just over $36 million on Giant, where full remediation work does not even begin until 2020.

Giant, like Tundra, was owned by Royal Oak when the company collapsed and the site became an unwanted federal problem. The full bill for Giant’s clean-up and maintenance – a program of indefinite, certainly decades-long duration – is expected to reach $1 billion in today’s money.

Tundra Mine 1963 (Photo Credit: Gerry Riemann)

 

Developer takes Alberta to appeal board over former Edmonton wood treatment plant

As reported by Global News, Cherokee Canada is fighting five enforcement orders imposed by Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) connected to the former Domtar Wood Treatment Facility located in Edmonton.  AEP has been conducting an investigation on properties associated with the former Wood Treatment Plant. As a result of the investigation, a number of Enforcement Orders were issued to the current owners, Cherokee Canada.

Nearby residents, concerned by off-site migration of wood treatment chemicals, have been kept up-to-date of the results of the AEP investigation and subsequent enforcement actions. Contaminants from a historical wood treatment processing plant continue to exist on property formerly occupied by the Domtar Wood Treatment Plant.  This contamination, which originated prior to 1987, consists of benzene, dioxins and furans, free hydrocarbons, naphthalene, polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) mixtures, and pyrene.

AEP stated in a news release that it issued the Enforcement Orders to ensure the responsible parties implement appropriate remedial measures and mitigate the potential risks that have been identified.  The latest Enforcement Orders require that the source of the contamination be controlled and remedial measures be implemented in specific areas of the property.

Off-site testing at lands adjacent to Cherokee Canada development (Photo Credit: CTV Edmonton)

Results of off-site testing for contamination in early 2018 found that contamination had not migrated off-site and that there are no health concerns in the surface soil of people’s properties. The off-site testing program was conducted by an independent third-party consulting firm under the direction of AEP.

Cherokee Canada, the developer has started turning the site of the old Wood Treatment Plant in northeast Edmonton into a new residential community but the current and ongoing legal proceedings have halted the project.  “It’s been very difficult because it’s effectively frozen our activities for three years now,” said John Dill, Cherokee Canada’s managing partner.  “It’s very expensive to go through this process, ” he added.

Houses have already been built in the neighbourhood but recently, the AEP questioned the safety of the soil.  AEP said third party testing at the site found chemicals dangerous to human health. The enforcement orders require Cherokee to remediate any contamination.

“The core aspect of these orders is to basically remove potentially large amounts of soil from these sites,” said Gilbert Van Nes, general counsel for the Environmental Appeals Board. “Domtar and Cherokee disagree that this is necessary.”

Both Cherokee Canada and Domtar have completed remediation efforts but AEP, through the enforcement orders, are claiming that they didn’t go far enough.

“Our approach was to take the contaminated soil, isolate it in a separate soil berm — again, a common practice in other jurisdictions — and ensure the soil was protected from exposure to other receptors, humans, animal,” Dill said.  “The disagreement is over how we can remediate this site so it’s safe for residential standards so that we can complete our residential development and restore the site that was previously contaminated to productive use.”

Three environmental experts are heading up the independent appeal board.  The board will pass its findings on to the environment minister and Shannon Phillips will make the final decision on whether construction can resume. However, a decision is not expected until December.

A map shows the former site of the Domtar creosote plant. (Photo Credit: CBC)

 

Court Upholds Decision That The Ministry May Order Current And Former Owners, And Tenants To Delineate Contamination That Has Migrated Off-Site

Article by Stanley D. Berger and Albert M. Engel

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

On September 4, 2018, Ontario’s Divisional Court released its decision in Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010, dismissing an appeal of a September 1, 2017 decision of Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (Hamilton Beach Brands Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2017 CanLII 57415 (ON ERT)) in which the Tribunal upheld the Ministry’s jurisdiction to order current and former owners and tenants of a contaminated property to delineate contamination that has migrated to off-site properties. The Tribunal’s decision also found that the Ministry had jurisdiction to make an order regarding existing, ongoing and future adverse effects, that the adverse effects do not have to be related to the potential off-site migration of a contaminant, nor must the contaminant be on an orderee’s property at the time the order is made and that the order may require work on-site and off-site to address an adverse effect.

In upholding the Tribunal’s decision, the Divisional Court found that there is no geographical constraint limiting orders to the source property of the contamination and quoted the Tribunal’s observation that “contamination and adverse effects are not constrained by the boundaries of a property, either in initial discharge or because of migration”. The Divisional Court also found that the Tribunal’s interpretation of the Ministry’s order-making jurisdiction is consistent with the Brownfield regime since protection from orders is extinguished under the regime when contaminants migrate from a property that was subject to that regime.

The former appliance manufacturing plant on McFarland Drive that is the property in question in the  Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010 (Phtoto Credit: Jason Parks/Picton Gazette)

The order provisions of s.18(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19 were at issue in this case. This is the first Divisional Court decision interpreting the geographic extent of the powers set out in s.18(2). The decision confirms that the powers are expansive and should be considered by any current, former or prospective owner or tenant of a contaminated property. We will continue to monitor this case should it be appealed further.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

________________________

About the Authors

Mr. Berger has practiced regulatory law for 37 years. He represents nuclear operators and suppliers, waste management operators, renewable energy operators, receivers-in-bankruptcy, municipalities and First Nations. He was an Assistant Crown Attorney in Toronto for 8 years, Senior counsel and Deputy Director for Legal Services/Prosecutions at the Ministry of the Environment for 9 years and Assistant General Counsel at Ontario Power Generation Inc for 14 years.
He is the author of a quarterly loose-leaf service published by Thomson Reuters entitled the Prosecution and Defence of Environmental Offences and the editor of an annual review of environmental law.
Mr. Berger was the President of the International Nuclear Law Association (2008-2009) and the founder, and President of the Canadian Nuclear Law Organization.

Mr. Engel practice all aspects of Environmental and Renewable Energy Law. He advises clients in the development and operation of renewable energy projects, regulatory compliance and civil causes of action.He represent clients before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal and all levels of court. He assist clients with defences to environmental and other regulatory prosecutions, appeals of environmental orders and civil litigation involving environmental issues including contaminated lands.

Mr. Engel has a Masters degree in Environmental Studies and is Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Environmental Law.

Dangerous Goods Industry Survey Identifies Compliance Challenges

Labelmaster (a U.S.-based provider of labels, packaging and technology related to the transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials), recently announced the results of its annual 2018 Global Dangerous Goods Confidence Outlook. Sponsored by Labelmaster, International Air Transport Association (IATA), and Hazardous Cargo Bulletin, the survey was conducted to gain insight into how organizations around the globe approach dangerous goods shipping and handling, and the challenges they face.

“Shipping dangerous goods is complex and high-risk, and those responsible for compliance have an increasingly critical job,” said Rob Finn, vice president of marketing & product management at Labelmaster. “In an effort to better understand today’s dangerous goods landscape, Labelmaster, IATA and Hazardous Cargo Bulletin partnered to gather insights from dangerous goods professionals across the globe. We found that while many organizations have the necessary infrastructure, training and processes to ensure compliance across their supply chains, a large number do not.”

The survey covered personal profile information, including: respondent location, most common DG hazard class materials handled, contact role, etc.; training and DG enforcement concerns; compliance challenges; use of technology; comparison to the 2017 survey results; and other leading industry concerns.

Here are some of the key results from the survey:

Keeping up with regulations and ensuring compliance is challenging: Regulatory compliance is critical to an organization’s ability to maintain a smooth supply chain. Yet with growing volumes and types of DG, increasingly complex supply chains, and more extensive regulations, many industry professionals find it challenging to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. In fact:

  • 51 percent find it challenging to keep up with the latest regulations.
  • 15 percent were not confident that they can ensure DG regulatory compliance across their entire organization, and 13 percent were unsure.
  • 58 percent feel that even if they follow the regulations perfectly there is a chance their shipments will be stopped.

When asked to rank their greatest challenge to compliance: budget constraints (28 percent); company leadership not aware of risk (21 percent); insufficient or ineffective training (19 percent); lack of technology (17 percent); difficulty in keeping up with changing regulations (15 percent).

Compliance technology and training is often inadequate: Those responsible for DG face an uphill battle – not only in meeting evolving regulations, but also in overcoming inadequate infrastructure and training. Technology is critical to the supply chain, and significantly improves efficiency, speed, accuracy and more. And even with a number of technology resources available, 28 percent of dangerous professionals are still doing everything manually. Furthermore, 15 percent believe their company’s infrastructure ability to quickly adapt to regulatory and supply chain changes is “lagging behind the industry,” 65 percent said it is “current, but need updating” and 21 percent believe it is “advanced – ahead of the industry.”

The need for improvement extends to training as well. One-quarter of respondents feel their company’s training does not adequately prepare people within the organization to comply with dangerous shipping regulations. In many cases, the scope of employees being trained needs to be expanded. In fact, 67 percent of respondents believe dangerous goods training should be extended to other departments across their company.

An organization’s attitude towards compliance impacts its level of investment: An organization’s attitude towards dangerous goods compliance has a direct impact on how much a company invests in compliance resources. Unfortunately, their attitude towards compliance often does not reflect its true value. According to the survey:

  • 16 percent indicated that dangerous goods compliance is not a major priority for their company.
  • 54 percent wish their companies would understand that supply chain and dangerous shipping management could be a differentiator.
  • 27 percent think their company’s investment to support dangerous goods compliance is “not adequate to meet current needs.”
  • 28 percent believe their company complies “only because regulations mandate it, and adhere to minimum requirements,” while 48 percent believe their company “goes beyond requirements,” and 23 percent view compliance as a “competitive advantage.”

    Which Type of Technology Companies Use to Ship Dangerous Goods

Dangerous goods professionals desire additional support: Investment in infrastructure and training is critical to enabling DG professionals to do their jobs effectively and efficiently, and whether their budgets have increased, decreased or stayed the same, DG professionals desire additional support. When asked how they would prioritize financial support from their organization: more effective training (42 percent); technology for better supply chain efficiency and compliance (29 percent); wider access to the latest regulatory resources and manuals (18 percent); additional headcount (12 percent).

Finn added, “The risk associated with shipping and handling dangerous goods is greater than ever and industry professionals responsible for managing it need the proper technology, training and regulatory access to ensure they are moving goods in a secure, safe, compliant and efficient manner. Unfortunately, obtaining the necessary budget and resources likely requires buy-in from executive leadership, which can be an uphill battle. So how do you get that buy-in? It starts with changing the conversation around dangerous goods management.”

Changing the Conversation with Senior Leadership

Changing the conversation means reframing the overall view of dangerous goods management within an organization. This begins with dangerous goods professionals quantitatively demonstrating how their compliance program can reduce costs and increase revenue to make a positive contribution to the company’s bottom line. Simply put, it is defining your company’s “total value of compliance,” which takes into account three factors:

  • The cost of maintaining compliance throughout the supply chain, such as expenses for people, compliance products, software & technology, reporting, training, etc.
  • The cost of non-compliance due to errors and lapses, such as penalties, carrier refusal and delays, fines, remediation, higher insurance costs, etc.
  • The opportunities of higher level compliance-enabling differentiation, revenue growth and faster cash flows, such as faster product deliveries, increased brand equity, the ability to offer a wider range of products, etc.

This Total Value of Compliance (TVC) framework helps dangerous goods  companies make compliance a powerful, revenue-positive aspect of their business. To learn more about the total value of compliance, download a TVC technical brief and schedule a free assessment, visit www.labelmaster.com/tvc.

To read the full report, visit www.labelmaster.com/dg-compliance-outlook.

About Labelmaster

Labelmaster helps companies navigate and comply with the regulations that govern the transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials. From hazmat labels and UN certified packaging, hazmat placards and regulatory publications, to advanced technology and regulatory training, Labelmaster’s comprehensive offering of i software, products, and services help customers remain compliant with all dangerous goods regulations, mitigate risk and maintain smooth, safe operations.  To learn more, visit www.labelmaster.com.

 

Oil Spill Response Management Market – Industry Study & Predictions

360 Market Updates recently published the Global Oil Spill Management Market Report 2018-2023. The report offers a comprehensive analysis on Oil Spill Management industry, delivering detailed market data and  insights. The report provides analysis which is beneficial for industry insider, potential entrant, and investor. The Oil Spill Management Report provides information on the key business players in the market as well as their business methods, annual revenue, company profile and their contribution to the world Oil Spill Management market share. The report covers a huge area of information including an overview, comprehensive analysis, definitions and classifications, applications, and expert opinions.

Description:

  • Worldwide and Top 20 Countries Market Size of Oil Spill Management 2013-2017, and development forecast 2018-2023.
  • Main manufacturers/suppliers of Oil Spill Management worldwide and market share by regions, with company and product introduction, position in the Oil Spill Management market.
  • Market status and development trend of Oil Spill Management by types and applications.
  • Cost and profit status of Oil Spill Management, and marketing status.
  • Market growth drivers and challenges.

Global Oil Spill Management market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Oil Spill Management sales volume, Price (USD/Unit), revenue (Million USD), Players/Suppliers Profiles and Sales Data, Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including: Cameron International, Control Flow, National Oilwell Varco, Fender & Spill Response Services, Northern Tanker Company Oy, SkimOil, Hyundai Heavy Industries, GE Oil & Gas, Cosco Shipyard Group, CURA Emergency Services, and Ecolab.

On the basis of product type, Oil Spill Management market report displays the production, revenue, price, Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) and growth rate of each type (2013-2023), primarily split into Mechanical methods, Chemical and biological, and Physical.

On the basis on the end users/applications, Oil Spill Management market report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share and growth rate for each application, including Onshore and Offshore.

Global Oil Spill Management Market: Regional Segment Analysis (Regional Production Volume, Consumption Volume, Revenue and Growth Rate 2013-2023):

  • North America (United States, Canada and Mexico)
  • Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Russia, Spain and Benelux)
  • Asia Pacific (China, Japan, India, Southeast Asia and Australia)
  • Latin America (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia)
  • Middle East and Africa

Inquire for further detailed information about Oil Spill Management industry @https://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/11834137

Key questions answered in the Oil Spill Management Market report:

  • What will be the market growth rate of Oil Spill Management in 2023?
  • What are the key factors driving the Global Oil Spill Management?
  • What are sales, revenue, and price analysis of top manufacturers of Oil Spill Management?
  • Who are the distributors, traders and dealers of Oil Spill Management Market?
  • Who are the key vendors in Oil Spill Management space?
  • What are the Oil Spill Management Industry opportunities and threats faced by the vendors in the Global Oil Spill Management?
  • What are sales, revenue, and price analysis by types, application and regions of Oil Spill Management?
  • What are the market opportunities, market risk and market overview of the Oil Spill Management Market?

The Oil Spill Management Market Report provides a comprehensive overview including Current scenario and the future growth prospects. The Oil Spill Management Industry report sheds light on the various factors and trends in forthcoming years and key factors behind the growth and demand of this market is analysed detailed in this report.