What are the most common HazMat threats for first responders?

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

The unintentional release of toxic chemicals can pose a wide range of physical, health and environmental hazards. And when it comes to the storage, handling or transport of hazardous materials (HazMat), safety is paramount.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines HazMat as any substance that is potentially harmful to human health or the environment. 

While there are a multitude of precautions that industries will take to stay safe, in the event of accidental spillage due to a road traffic accident or as the result of an industrial incident, highly trained HazMat crews will be called on to mitigate the threat.

In this article, we explore eight of the most common hazardous materials that first responders are likely to encounter in the event of an industrial accident or road transport incident.

1) Carbon Dioxide

Refrigerated carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, non-flammable gas used to chill or freeze food products as part of the process of transport to market.

Although non-toxic, when carbon dioxide displaces oxygen in confined spaces the carbon dioxide vapors can cause headache, nausea, dizziness or asphyxiation. And when carbon dioxide comes into contact with skin it can also cause severe burns.

When responding to incidents where C02 is stored, firefighters need to be alert to the possibility of leakages. A low oxygen meter should be used to determine that an area is safe for occupancy.

2) Chlorine

Chlorine is a key component in the production of key industrial and consumer products including the vast majority of pharmaceutical production and virtually all crop protection chemicals.

It is a highly reactive and volatile substance, particularly when in the presence of heat, and is considered to be among the most dangerous of hazardous materials.

Chlorine is classified as both a Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) and a Poison Inhalation Hazard (PIH).

3) Fireworks

Both the transport and storage of consumer fireworks pose a high fire risk. In the United Kingdom (UK), the physical movement (transfer) of explosives from one place to another (excluding those moved within a site) requires a Recipient Competent Authority (RCA) document. 

According to the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) a license is required from an appropriate licensing authority in order to be able to store explosives, however depending on their hazard type certain quantities of explosives can be kept for a short time without the need for a license. 

In the US, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued mandatory safety regulations for fireworks devices that are regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

4) Gasoline

Typical gasoline contains approximately 150 different chemicals including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

The highly flammable nature of gasoline, the ease with which it evaporates and its explosive potential in air, makes it a high exposure risk. Gasoline exposure can occur through the breathing of gasoline vapours, via the drinking of contaminated water or by coming into contact with contaminated soil.

Gasoline should only be stored in approved containers and must not be handled near any ignition source.

5) Argon

A refrigerated liquid, Argon is most commonly used in the production of fluorescent light bulbs and in welding.

Argon is classed as neither flammable nor toxic, however it can cause significant tissue damage if it comes into contact with skin and it can be extremely harmful if inhaled. To avoid sudden releases Argon is transported in upright cylinders.

6) Sulfuric Acid

Sulfuric acid (also known as “battery acid”, “hydrgen sulfate” and “oil of vitriol”) is one of the most important compounds in the chemical industry. The annual production of sulfuric acid worldwide has been predicted to hit 260 million tonnes by the end of 2018. 

Sulfuric acid is used widely in the production of phosphate fertilizers, metal processing, lead-based batteries, fiber production and chemical manufacturing (including paints, pigments, dyes and synthetic detergents.)

It is a highly corrosive substance which is destructive to skin, eyes, teeth and lungs. Severe exposure can be fatal.

7) Propylene

Propylene is a volatile, flammable gas used as a crucial product in the petrochemical, packaging and plastics industries.

It is often used in the place of propane in high-velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) processes. Propylene gas poses a fire hazard when it is handled in the vicinity of any equipment capable of causing ignition.

8) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

Comprising a combination of propane and butane, LPG is commonly used as both a fuel (to heat vehicles and appliances) and as a refrigerant. Its mixture of hydrocarbon gases poses a major fire risk which means it must be stored in pressured vessels.

Toxic chemicals can pose a wide range of potential health and physical hazards to those employees operating within industrial plants and to the personnel charged with handling or transporting these substances. And as such they are heavily regulated.

In the rare case of accidental release, the knowledge of HazMat crews can provide life-saving assistance in identifying the threat, containing the area and mitigating the effects of the incident. 

This article was first published on the Argon Electronics website.

___________________________________

About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators.
He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

What is the best HazMat training method to keep first responders safe

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

While regulations exist to guide HazMat training requirements for first  responders, the reality is that many personnel still don’t consider themselves to be adequately skilled in the use of their equipment.

Sometimes it’s because there simply isn’t enough time to carry out regular and structured training programmes. Sometimes this lack of preparedness comes as the result of budget cuts where training is one of the first things to go.

So says, independent CBRN consultant and subject matter expert, Debra Robinson in a white paper she has written which explores the subject of keeping first responders safe.

As Debra explains, it’s not enough for a department to simply purchase a full array of safety and monitoring equipment.

“Responders need to be thoroughly knowledgeable about the capabilities, limitations and applications and be proficient in the use of each piece of equipment, and that takes a great deal of training,” she says.

It would seem too that smaller fire departments are often the ones losing out, with many volunteers not always being crystal clear on what their training requirements even entail. 

“Large city or larger communities with paid fire departments are far better off than the smaller departments. Some 70-80% of fire departments across the United States are manned by volunteers and many struggle to find volunteers to provide the services, let alone complete the requisite training,” she says.

For those departments that do have training coordinators and solid programs in place,there is still the challenge of trying to deliver equipment training that provides the most realistic learning experience possible whilst also guaranteeing personnel safety.

As Debra points out,the equipment that is used to detect, identify and measure hazardous materials can often involve significant risk, even in the presumed safety of a training environment.

Some trainers may still defer to more traditional HazMat training methods – such as the use of powerful simulants that closely mimic the properties of chemical materials. But many of these simulants can be hazardous in their own right,even in the smallest and most controlled of quantities.

In recent years, Debra explains, there’s been more of a move towards the use of training simulators which rely on specific frequencies and technologies to replicate the effects of actual, chemical, radiological and biological materials.

Says Debra: “The obvious benefit is the simulators greatly reduce the risks associated with the use of live agents. Used properly, they can be a valuable training tool and can provide for a much more realistic training environment.”

Simulators have developed a strong reputation for their abilities to facilitate hands-on training that can simply not be achieved with live agent training methods. Live agents by their nature carry an extreme level of inherent risk – something that is eliminated through the use of simulator equipment.

As Debra highlights, having the opportunity for some “serious hands-on time with the equipment” is another major plus for trainees, where repetition is the key to successful learning.

And there are also tangible benefits to be gained for a department’s bottom-line, she says, with the return on investment (ROI) being clearly evident in fewer operator errors,as well as “reduced damage to detectors, avoidance of simulant and source related administration etc. and perhaps even lower insurance premiums.”

As Debra argues, it can be easy for political or government leaders to dismiss the need for investment in CBRNe and HazMat training – and particularly when budgets are tight. Bu the risk to communities from chemical, biological or radiological threat is very real. While this may come in the form of terrorist threats, there is also the much greater risk of hazardous materials that exist in our communities’industrial plants, hospitals and businesses.

As Debra concludes:”Ultimately, the decision-point and justification is quite simple. Are you willing to accept the risks associated with under-qualified personnel and insufficient training and capabilities, or should you consider moving toward ensuring you have sufficiently trained, equipped and qualified personnel to respond to the hazards that exist in the community?”

Debra Robinson is founder of 2o8 Consulting & Solutions, based in Lincoln, Nebraska. She provides consulting and SME services in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) and Emergency Management preparedness across a diverse range of platforms and industries.

This article was first published in Argon Electronics website.

About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a world leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators.

Market Report on VOC Detectors

VOC Detector Market

QY Research recently published the Global Market Study VOC Detector Market Provide Forecast Report 2018 – 2025.  The report presents a detailed analysis of the VOC Detector market which researched industry situations, market Size, growth and demands, VOC Detector market outlook, business strategies utilized, competitive analysis by VOC Detector Market Players, Deployment Models, Opportunities, Future Roadmap, Value Chain, and Major Player Profiles. The report also presents forecasts for VOC Detector investments from 2018 till 2025.

United States is the largest Manufaturer of VOC Detector Market and consumption region in the world, Europe also play important roles in global VOC Detector market while China is fastest growing region. The 126 page VOC Detector report provides tables and figures and analysis the VOC Detector market. The report gives a visual, one-stop breakdown of the leading products, submarkets and market leader’s market revenue forecast as well as analysis and prediction of the VOC Detector market to 2025.

Geographically, this report splits the global market into several key Regions, with sales (K Units), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of VOC Detector for these regions, from 2013 to 2025 (forecast), covering United States, China, Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia, and India.

The report provides an analysis of the global VOC Detector market competition by top manufacturers/players, with VOC Detector sales volume, Price (USD/Unit), revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player.  The top players include the following: REA Systems; Ion Science; Thermo Fisher; Skyeaglee; Omega; and E Instruments.

The report provides an overview of the global market on the basis of product.  This report displays the production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into the following types of detectors:
PID and Metal-oxide Semiconductor.   The report also breaks down the global market based on application as follows:  Environmental Site Surveying; Industrial Hygiene; and HazMat/Homeland Security.

RAE Systems Gas Detector

Chemical hazard training using Simulator Detectors

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

The ability to deliver consistent, engaging and true-to-life chemical hazard detection training scenarios relies on regular access to realistic, hands-on equipment.

What’s vital is that these training tools replicate not only the readings and the responsiveness of real detectors, but that they also provide trainees with an authentic experience that recreates the potential challenges that they will face in actual incidents.

Training for CBRNe and HazMat threats

Planning exercises for modern-day CBRNe and HazMat threats has never been more complex, with the need to respond to anything from clandestine laboratory searches to major industrial incidents, chemical improvised explosive devices or terrorist threats.

And key to the success of any training scenario is the capacity for instructors to be able to create compelling training experiences that are straight-forward to set up and easy to repeat.

While training with Live Agents (LAT) can still have a role to play, it introduces a substantial degree of risk to instructors, students, their equipment and the environment – not to mention incurring greater cost, increased administrative effort and a heavier regulatory burden.

Simulant training is often viewed as presenting a safer “middle ground” for CBRNe and HazMat exercises, bringing with it the advantages of a more credible, real-life experience but at the same time reducing risk through the use of smaller, controlled quantities of substances.

But even in the most carefully managed of exercises, the use of simulants brings with it certain disadvantages. It can often restrict the breadth and variety of scenarios – for example, when they are required to be used in confined spaces, or where wind, temperature or training location can impact negatively on the learning experience.

It is also increasingly common for modern detectors to provide limited response to simulant sources, due to their highly developed interference rejection (IR) capabilities.

The good news though is that safe, high-quality and easily repeatable CBRNe/HazMat training needn’t be so complicated.

Simulator detectors for CBRNe and HazMat training

One solution that has revolutionized modern approaches to chemical detection training is the adoption of innovative and safe detector training aids that replicate the functionality of real devices.

These intelligent, electronic training tools place instructors in control, they are environmentally friendly, they can be set up in an unlimited variety of indoor and outdoor locations and they offer powerful after action review features.

Let’s now take a closer look at one specific example of a chemical hazard detector – the Smiths Detection LCD3.3 – and its simulator equivalent – the LCD3.3-SIM, also known in the USA as the M4A1 JCAD and M4A1 JCAD-SIM respectively.

The Smiths Detection LCD3.3

The Smiths Detection LCD3.3 is a person-worn device which is reported to be the most widely deployed chemical detector in use today.

It is used for the detection of Chemical Warfare Agents (CWAs) – including nerve, blood, blister and choking agents – as well as for the identification of a selected library of Toxic Industrial Chemicals(TICs). The detector also incorporates different operating modes ensuring optimal detection capability.

The detector is simple to operate, requires no calibration or routine maintenance and can log up to 72 hours of mission data for further analysis while user replaceable sieve packs reduce the need for factory based overhaul. A key benefit of this detector is its ability to specifically identify CWAs, however this advanced selectivity and makes simulant based training challenging.

The Argon LCD3.3-SIM

The LCD3.3-SIM is a training device that has been designed replicate the features and functionality of the actual LCD3.3.

The simulation detector responds to electronic sources that imitate the effects of chemical vapors, toxic substances and false positives and that realistically replicate the effects of wind direction and temperature, the depletion of sieve packs and batteries, confidence testing and the use of a survey nozzle.

With no requirement for simulants as part of training, there is zero possibility of environmental contamination or health and safety risk to instructors or students.

The device is compatible with a wide variety of other simulators (including simulators for the AP2C, AP4C, CAM, LCD3.2 and the RAID-M100) which means that multi-detector and multi-substance training can take place within the same scenario.

The inclusion of a remote control feature provides CBRNe and HazMat instructors with complete management of the exercise – from deciding on the effectiveness of decontamination drills, to simulating the effects of wind, temperature and persistency and the ability to instantly reset a scenario in readiness for a new exercise.

After Action Review (AAR) enables instructors to confirm that their students have set up and used the detector in accordance with the procedures for the real-life device. In the event of student error, the student performance reporting feature provides a detailed breakdown of their actions to assist with learning.

The use of innovative simulator detector training systems significantly increases personnel safety, as well as enhancing learning and easing regulatory pressures.

Such devices also place the instructor firmly in control of the exercise to ensure you’re delivering consistent, verifiable and measurable CBRNe/HazMat training outcomes.

This article was first published as a blog on the Argon Electronics website.

__________________________

About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a world leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators.

When Oil and Water Mix: Understanding the Environmental Impacts of Fracking

Dan Soeder, director of the Energy Resources Initiative  at the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, has co-authored the cover article titled “When oil and water mix: Understanding the environmental impacts of shale development,” in the recent issue of GSA Today, a magazine published by the Geological Society of America.

The article explores what is known and not known about the environmental risks of fracking with the intent of fostering informed discussions within the geoscience community on the topic of hydraulic fracturing, says Soeder. Soeder’s co-author is Douglas B. Kent of the United States Geological Survey.

In this paper, Soeder and Kent bridge the gap in consensus regarding fracking, providing current information about the environmental impacts of shale development. The article is open access and adheres to science and policy, presenting a complicated and controversial topic in a manner more easily understood by the lay person.

“Geoscientists from dinosaur experts to the people studying the surface of Mars are often asked by the public to weigh-in with their opinions on fracking. We wanted the broader geoscience community to be aware of what is known and not known about the impacts of this technology on air, water, ecosystems and human health.  A great deal has been learned in the past decade, but there are still critical unknowns where we don’t yet have answers,” Soeder says.

Development of shale gas and tight oil, or unconventional oil and gas (UOG), has dramatically increased domestic energy production in the United States and Canada.  UOG resources are typically developed through the use of hydraulic fracturing, which creates high-permeability flow paths into large volumes of tight rocks to provide a means for hydrocarbons to move to a wellbore. This process uses significant volumes of water, sand, and chemicals, raising concerns about risks to the environment and to human health.

In the article, Soeder and Kent address the various potential impacts of fracking and how those impacts are being addressed.  Risks to air include releases of methane, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. Water-resource risks include excessive withdrawals, stray gas in drinking-water aquifers, and surface spills of fluids or chemicals. Landscapes can be significantly altered by the infrastructure installed to support large drilling platforms and associated equipment. Exposure routes, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process are poorly understood, as are the potential effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and human health.

Schematic diagram illustrating unconventional oil and gas (UOG) development activities relevant to research on human-health and environmental impacts (not to scale): well-pad construction (1); drilling (2); completion/stimulation (3, 4); production of natural gas (5) and oil (6) with well casings designed to protect drinking-water aquifers; ultimate closure (plug and abandon), illustrating legacy well with leaking casing (7); wastewater disposal (8); induced seismicity (9); landscape disturbance (10); and potential for transport pathways from deep to shallow formations (11). Also represented are water supply wells in shallow and deep aquifers (12). Photographs by Dan Soeder.

 

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, according to a recent study published at DailyCBD.com.  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.