Canadian ban on asbestos and asbestos containing products

In the same week the cannabis became legal in Canada, the federal government announced the prohibition of asbestos and asbestos-containing products.  The government action is considered the final step in the prohibition of asbestos and asbestos-containing products in Canada.

These new regulations are part of the government-wide strategy announced in 2016 to protect Canadians from exposure to asbestos. The new regulations prohibit the import, sale, and use of asbestos as well as the manufacture, import, sale, and use of asbestos-containing products, with a limited number of exclusions.

In addition, exports of asbestos and asbestos-containing products are now prohibited, with a limited number of exceptions, and the existing Export of Substances on the Export Control List Regulations and schedule 3 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 were amended to reflect that.

The new regulations and related amendments will come into force on December 30, 2018.  They will protect the health of Canadians by preventing new asbestos and asbestos-containing products from entering the Canadian market.

“This is the final step to ban asbestos in Canada.  We have followed through on our promise to deliver new, tougher rules to stop the import, use, sale, and export of asbestos in Canada. These measures will protect our communities and the health and safety of all Canadians,” stated Catherine McKenna in a news release.

Quick facts

Asbestos was declared a human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, in 1987.  At the height of its use, asbestos was found in more than 3,000 applications worldwide.

The regulations do not apply to residues left from mining asbestos.  However, these asbestos-mining residues cannot be sold for use in construction or landscaping without provincial authorization, and they cannot be used to make a product that contains asbestos. The mining of asbestos in Canada ceased in 2011.

Risks related to asbestos-containing products that are already in use or installed—such as in existing buildings, equipment, and vehicles—will continue to be managed by existing federal, provincial, and municipal rules and regulations. There are no significant health risks if asbestos fibres are enclosed or tightly bound, in good condition, and left undisturbed.

The use, sale, and export of any asbestos-containing products that exist in inventories but that have not yet been installed are prohibited under the new regulations and related amendments.

The current Asbestos Products Regulations under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act will be repealed as these new regulations are more comprehensive.

What You Need to Know about Your Written Hazard Communication Plan

by Michael Collins, CIH, CSP, CIEC, GLE Associates

The United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires employers to maintain a written hazard communication plan that effectively protects workers from potentially harmful chemical exposure in the workplace. On the surface, the requirement sounds simple, yet failure to meet this requirement is the second most commonly cited OSHA violation.

Here’s what you need to know to ensure you comply with this simple, critical OSHA requirement.

Who Needs a Written Hazard Communication Plan?

OSHA regulation 1910.1200 requires all employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces to prepare and implement a written hazard communication plan. This applies, according to the regulation, “to any chemical which is known to be present in the workplace in such a manner that employees may be exposed under normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.”

There are some exclusions to the requirement, including ingredients in food, certain pesticides, and distilled spirits. In most cases, the excluded chemicals are covered by other regulations. For full information, visit OSHA’s hazard communications page.

What are the Key Requirements of the Written Hazard Communication Plan?

Employers are responsible for developing and maintaining a written hazard communication program for the workplace that includes:

  • Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for each chemical present
  • Lists of hazardous chemicals present, referenced in each case to the appropriate SDS
  • Appropriate labeling of containers of chemicals in the workplace
  • Labeling of containers of chemicals being shipped to other workplaces
  • Preparation and distribution of SDSs to employees and downstream employers
  • Development and implementation of employee training programs regarding hazards of chemicals and protective measures, which must be provided at the time of the employee’s initial assignment, as well as whenever a new chemical hazard is introduced to the work area
  • The methods the employer will use to inform employees of the hazards of non-routine tasks, and the hazards associated with chemicals contained in unlabeled pipes in their work areas

Employers are further responsible for making the written hazard communication program available, upon request, to employees and their designated representatives.

What Hazards Does the Standard Protect From?

Chemicals can pose a wide range of health hazards, including but not limited to:

  • Irritation
  • Sensitization
  • Carcinogenicity
  • Flammability
  • Corrosion
  • Reactivity

The written hazard communication plan helps protect workers from these and other risks associated with exposure in the workplace.

How to Prepare Your Written Hazard Communication Plan

Writing a hazard communication plan is not overly complicated, but it’s critical that you get it right. Start by collecting data on all potentially hazardous chemicals in use at your work site. Make a list of them. Gather SDSs for each chemical, and reference the SDS for each one inside the master list.

Identify which workers experience exposure risk during the course of their workday, as well as in foreseeable emergency circumstances. Develop an information and training program to ensure workers understand the hazards present in their workplace, as well as appropriate protective measures for those hazards. And, conduct personal air sampling for these chemicals to establish OSHA-required Negative Exposure Assessments (NEAs).

Many employers prefer the confidence and ease of hiring an experienced firm like GLE to prepare an OSHA-compliant written hazard communication plan on their behalf and conduct NEAs.

 

This article was first published on the GLE Associates website.  GLE is an integrated architecture, engineering, and environmental consulting firm, headquartered in Tampa, Florida, with offices throughout Florida and the Southeastern United States.

 

HAZMAT Training – Precautions to Consider

By Ryan Henry, HazSim

Training is an essential priority for any subject that we wish to become proficient in. The HAZMAT training field is no exception to this. However, due to the serious and strenuous nature of HAZMAT response, it is important to safely execute training in a way that doesn’t damage our gear or our health.

Often times one of the most costly things we can do to our response gear is ruining it while in training, rendering it useless during an actual event. Ripping and tearing your issued PPE during a training that, let’s face it could have been planned better, hurts no one but our own members. From bunker gear scraping across a concrete truck bay to a plastic CPC being torn from an ultra-impossible scenario that our training officer threw together can become costly and wasteful.

I may strike a nerve with this one, so prepare yourself now. I feel that most chemicals we commonly deal with as HAZMAT responders can be mimicked with much safer alternatives – rather than using the real things. Many times training facilities or classes boast the fact that live agents are used, and this peaks much interest for the student.

Degrading our PPE for the sake of real meter readings and visual cues is a costly degradation to bestow upon gear that you will decon and possibly re-don in the near future and assume it will protect you adequately. Visual cues are able to be exaggerated, and meter readings manipulated without exposing your gear, and potentially yourself, to harmful materials that every day becomes part of a long list of carcinogens.

Another consideration during training is that of your gas detection equipment. It is no secret that gas detection equipment can be very costly, and sometimes hard to replace. While learning how to use and interpret your detectors efficiently is imperative; a mistake while training could render some out of service for quite some time. We are always looking for ways to make detection more realistic, whether through cross sensitivity or simulation. Sometimes, however, an overzealous approach to making meter equipment respond to atmospheric stimuli – can end up costing us in burned sensors, and possible damage to our front line equipment. Simulation is the future of training, and gas detection is no exception to this.

Time and time again, especially in this glorious age of the internet we are in, we are bombarded with self-proclaimed subject matter experts, who claim their tactics are the only way, or that their way of approaching specific problems is pretty much be all end all. Sifting through these mirages and other facades can prevent us from potentially wasting time, or not being open to other ways of thought about particular subjects.

These statements are true not only for HAZMAT, but fire, and pretty much any other subject if you look hard enough only. It’s great to try new tactics, and store them in your toolbox for the next time the alarm goes off, however, keep an open mind. While I love my leather helmet, I am very open to the possibility that technology may be to the point where I need to hang it on a wall and choose safety over looks.

In closing, training in a necessity for all of us no matter what industry we are in. From oil and gas to emergency response, staying up to date on our skills and tactics is a must if we are to remain successful. Keep an open mind, and protect your equipment. These are the biggest keys to remember while training. Or you may find yourself with an expensive bill, and a rookie who really didn’t learn anything.

This article was first published on the Hazsim website.

 

 

 

Hepaco acquires Trans Environmental

HEPACO LLC (Charlotte, N.C.), a provider of environmental and emergency response services, has acquired Trans Environmental (Loves Park, Ill.), an environmental remediation, industrial cleaning, and emergency response services company. Trans founders Matt Warneke and Jeff Lonas will continue to lead the company. HEPACO is majority-owned by Gryphon Investors, which purchased it in August 2016. HEPACO has 31 locations in more than 20 states in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast United States.

HEPACO CEO Ken Smith said, “We are very excited to have completed the strategic acquisition of Trans.  We have been impressed by Trans’ high service quality, outstanding safety culture, blue chip customer base and strong organic growth.”  Mr. Smith added, “The acquisition of Trans benefits customers of both companies as it enables HEPACO to provide emergency response and other environmental services in the greater Chicago area while also allowing Trans’ customers increased geographic coverage capabilities through HEPACO’s operations in the Eastern U.S.”

Mr. Warneke stated, “We are very excited to join the HEPACO team.  The Company’s sterling reputation and financial resources offer a great path to our continued development.   We are looking forward to accelerating the growth opportunities for both our customers and our employees.”

In November 2017, HEPACO acquired Emergency Response & Training Solutions (“ERTS”). Based in Jacksonville, FL, ERTS is a provider of emergency response services to Fortune 500 companies through a national network of third-party vendors.

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.

Decades Long Secret of Lead Contaminated Soil in Winnipeg

As reported by the CBC, testing performed on soil in several other Winnipeg neighbourhoods more than 10 years ago showed potentially dangerous levels of lead — but residents were never told about the results because the  government at the time withheld the information, according to documents obtained by CBC News.

Documents obtained by CBC through government sources reveal an extensive round of soil testing was conducted by the provincial government in 2007 and 2008 around Point Douglas, Wolseley, Minto and South Osborne.

Residential boulevards were targeted, as were playgrounds, schools and sports fields.

Two draft reports written 

At least two draft reports detailing the results were written in 2009 and 2011, as well as a draft news release and technical report. For reasons that remain unclear, the government never publicly released the reports.

Of the samples taken in the Point Douglas area, 17 came back positive for lead contamination above acceptable levels and a further 10 residential sites in other areas of Winnipeg also exceeded Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, or CCME, guidelines for lead levels.

Excerpt from the 2011 Report

A chart taken from a 2011 report that details lead levels found in residential boulevards in Point Douglas. A result of 140 ug/g — micrograms per gram, or parts per million — or higher exceeds national safety guidelines for human health protection. (Surface Soil Lead Levels in Winnipeg: 2007-2008)

The acceptable level is 140 parts per million. One result showed 2,240 ppm on Angus Street near Sutherland Avenue in Point Douglas.

According to the report, the possible causes of contamination in the city are historic use of leaded gas, a number of now-shuttered lead smelters, scrap recycling yards, the railyards and metal manufacturing operations.

At the sports field for Weston School — an elementary school located just off of Logan Avenue and 280 metres south of a now-closed smelter site — 19 soil samples came back with results that exceeded CCME guidelines.

Government officials could find no record of the Winnipeg School Division being told about the results or evidence that the sports field had been remediated.

A spokesperson for the province’s Sustainable Development department confirmed the documents were never publicly released by the previous government. He said residents and the school divisions were not informed of the results, according to people still working in the department.

He also said no soil remediation was done in response to the results of the report.

The Archibald Tot Lot, Hespeler Park, Maryland Park, Spence Tot Lot and Lord Nelson elementary school all had a least one sample showing unsafe levels of lead.

Locations of high lead contamination in the soil in Winnipeg Neigbourhoods

Children shouldn’t play in sports field: Professor

Francis Zvomuya, a professor of soil science at the University of Manitoba, wasn’t surprised by the test results but said some of the numbers were particularly alarming, including the high levels in Weston and in Point Douglas.

In the case of Weston School, the lead levels had increased since the 1980s, when the first round of tests were completed. Zvomuya said if no attempts were made to clean up the area in the past 10 years, children should not be playing there.

“The case that is particularly glaring is Weston elementary. When you look at the concentrations at the majority of sites [tested] … out of the 22 they looked at, only two sites were not contaminated,” he said.

“That is concerning when you look at the concentrations.”

He said there are a number of health issues that come with exposure to lead, including impaired neurological development and developmental delays in children, as well as learning difficulties.

Health Canada says even very small amounts of lead in the bloodstream can have harmful health effects and children are especially at risk.

Lead can affect their brain development, behaviour, blood and kidneys. Severe cases of lead poisoning are rare in Canada but can cause vomiting, diarrhea or convulsions.

Children are at risk of ingesting lead if they play in contaminated soil and put their hands in their mouth. Ongoing exposure puts people at higher risk of developing health complications.

“Every time you have a site that is frequented by kids or where kids spend a reasonable amount of time playing, then there is a concern — because then there is a risk of exposure to the contaminants,” Zvomuya said.

New testing in Point Douglas area

A senior official with the current government said that new testing of soil in the Point Douglas will be completed by the end of October.  A report on the results will be completed by December  2018 and publicly released.

Zvomuya was in charge of the soil tests that occurred last year in St. Boniface and will lead the new tests the government has ordered for the Point Douglas area.

The best way to clean up the contaminated soil is to bring in new soil to these areas, he said. He said the clean-up should be concentrated in the areas most frequented by children

“If you have a site where our kids play and where humans spend a lot of hours working or playing or doing recreational activities … then they have to be remediated,” he said.

“It may be expensive but that is the only way we can have people doing activities without facing the risk of lead poisoning.”

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

 

Mesothelioma Awareness: Asbestos and Occupational Safety

by Sarah Wallace, Mesothelioma + Asbestos Awareness Center

For many years, the natural mineral known as asbestos was used in constructing buildings, insulation, roofing, and homes. Asbestos is heavily regulated in the United States today, but many people are still exposed daily to asbestos containing materials (ACMs) that still exist in buildings, structures, and homes. During demolition, DIY, or renovation projects, asbestos can become friable and people are then susceptible to inhaling the small fibers. When asbestos becomes lodged in the body, specifically in the lining of the lungs, abdomen, or heart, it can lead to lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Even though the use of asbestos has decreased dramatically in the United States since the late 20th century, mesothelioma is still the leading occupational cancer. This is because the disease can take up to 50 years to develop, and those who were exposed to asbestos prior to the 1980s are still being diagnosed today. On top of that, professionals who work in different industries that have a history of asbestos use, such as construction, manufacturing, and shipyard work, are still at risk of exposure they may come into contact with materials and products made before regulations were put in place. Due to the microscopic size of asbestos fibers and ambiguity around where the toxin could have been used in the past, it’s important for workers to stay educated on where asbestos might be hiding and what safety precautions to take on the job.

Occupations most at risk and how to stay safe:

Construction Workers– Because asbestos was used heavily in the construction of homes and other buildings, many construction workers have been exposed to asbestos, and they are still at risk for exposure. With ACMs still existing in buildings, approximately 1 million construction workers could still be vulnerable to asbestos annually. Today, professionals in the construction industry are at risk for first-hand exposure more than any other profession. Workers in multiple trades including roofers, carpenters, electricians, and masonry should be aware of asbestos as they work.

In order for workers to protect themselves, professionals in these fields should take the precaution of wearing the proper masks during any type of construction project. Understanding the age of the building and what asbestos looks like is also important because this could help workers know the risks associated with a certain structure, making them less vulnerable to exposure. Keep in mind that asbestos can exist in a variety of products including drywall, shingles, ceiling tiles, and insulation, so even those participating in DIY projects should be aware of where their health and safety could be at risk.

Firefighters– Asbestos fibers can be released into the air when a building or home catches on fire. This puts first responders like firefighters in danger of inhaling the toxin in the process of putting out a fire. This leaves firefighters at risk to develop peritoneal mesothelioma, which originates in the lining of the lungs after being inhaled.  While the initial danger to firefighters is the fire itself, even after the flames are put out, asbestos could be present in the air as the structure cools off. Firefighter equipment is designed to keep out hazardous materials like asbestos, but many people do not understand that certain risks persist even after the initial fire is put out. Asbestos fibers can attach to clothing, leading to the possibility of second-hand exposure for those who might come in contact with any type of clothing used at the scene of the fire.

In order to limit exposure to asbestos particles, firefighters should wear a certified self-containing breathing apparatus (SCBA) mask that covers the mouth and nose in order to protect themselves while on the job. They should also keep masks on even after the fire has been put out while debris is cooling, because asbestos fibers could still be in the air. To eliminate risks of exposure for family, friends, and colleagues, firefighters should also remove their gear before leaving the scene and wash off before returning home.

 Shipyard Workers– At one time, asbestos exposure was a large risk for laborers and those employed on ships. Due to the mineral’s strong and heat resistant attributes, was often used for things like boilers and steam pipes on Navy ships and shipyards. As a result, many shipyard laborers were exposed to asbestos, especially if they worked as electricians, painters, machinists, or “asbestos insulators.” This is one of the reasons veterans make up about 30 percent of mesothelioma diagnoses in the United States.

Shipyard workers are less likely to be exposed first-hand to asbestos today, but anyone working with older shipbuilding materials or piping should be aware of the possible risks and wear the appropriate masks to limit inhaling fibers. Workers who have been exposed in the past should let their primary care doctor know and stay up-to-date on appointments. Symptoms of mesothelioma specifically can often go undiagnosed because they are similar to symptoms of the flu, manifesting as a cough at first and eventually leading to shortness of breath and fever. If you know that you have been exposed, paying careful attention to your health and communicating with your doctor could lead to an early diagnosis, improving prognosis and life expectancy.

Preventing asbestos-related disease

 If you come across asbestos on the job, contacting a professional who knows how to handle the material will be the best way to move forward. No amount of asbestos exposure is safe, and handling the mineral should be taken seriously before proceeding with a project. Mesothelioma is a deadly but preventable cancer, if the correct steps are taken by employers and employees. Although asbestos has been heavily regulated over time, there is still not a ban on the material in the United States. Taking the time to check labels before using any products and educating others in your industry on how to protect themselves are sure ways to help bring an end to mesothelioma and other health issues caused by asbestos.

 

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.