Canadian Government Announces Action on Pollution Prevention and Toxic Chemicals

The Canadian government recently issued a press release which states that it is undertaking actions to strengthen Canada’s approach to managing harmful substances and is committing to reform the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The announcement is in response to a 2017 report issued by the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (“Standing Committee”) that entitled “Healthy Environment, Healthy Canadians, Healthy Economy: Strengthening the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999”.

The 2017 report issued by the Standing Committee made 87 recommendations to the federal government, including prohibiting substances of very high concern unless industry can prove the substances can be used or emitted safely and there are no feasible substitutes; ensuring that vulnerable people are taken into consideration when the government assesses and manages new substances; implementing timelines throughout the Act to oblige action on toxic substances; and facilitating public participation in environmental decision-making and in enforcement of the Act.

At the time of the release of the 2017 report, the Committee Chair Deb Schulte stated, “The Act has now been in place for almost three decades. It is time to bring it into the 21st century by taking into account new scientific knowledge and evolving concepts in environmental law.”

Photography of Factory https://www.pexels.com/photo/photography-of-factory-929385/The Government of Canada is taking action to implement many of the Committee’s recommendations including:
• The development of a policy framework for considering vulnerable populations—such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly—in the assessment and management of chemicals;
• Action to protect Canadians from chemicals of high concern, such as endocrine disruptors, which can affect how hormones work and lead to long-term health issues; and
• Updating standards and developing new instruments to improve air quality and reduce air pollution from industrial sources, including oil refineries.

As a first step in the legislative reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and updating of Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan, the Canadian government will conduct a thorough review and consult with various groups

Canadian DND searching possible contaminated sites for buried Agent Orange stocks

As reported by the CBC, the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) has identified up to six known contamination sites at a New Brunswick military base as it works to determine whether the cancer-causing defoliant Agent Orange was buried surreptitiously there decades ago.

Agent Orange is an herbicide and defoliant chemical. It is widely known for its use by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. It is a mixture of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. In addition to its damaging environmental effects, the chemical has caused major health problems for many individuals who were exposed.

Officials at the department’s Directorate of Contaminated Sites presented a map showing the various locations to a former military police officer and a retired civilian employee of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B. — both of whom say they witnessed chemical drums being buried on the base in separate incidents over 30 years ago.

Past Use of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown

Agent Orange had been used on the base in the past.  In 2010, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture) at the time, announced that the Government of Canada was extending the one-time, tax-free ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967.

For three days in June 1966 and four days in June 1967, Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides were tested at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in cooperation with the U.S. military to evaluate their effectiveness. These are the only known instances that these military test chemicals were used at CFB Gagetown. Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides are not used at the base today. The base uses only federally regulated herbicides for brush control during its annual vegetation management program.

Claims 

The claims by retired sergeant Al White and Robert Wilcox, who worked at the training base in the 1970s and 1980s, were first reported by CBC News last month.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan promised an investigation and officials are now trying to cross-reference the eyewitness accounts with existing records. The maps are meant to jog the memories of the two men, and to find out whether their claims involve existing dumps or unreported ones.

A massive asbestos dump

The list of contaminated sites is extraordinary. It shows, among other things, more than 3,900 barrels of asbestos waste buried in the same area as the suspected chemical dump.

Officials have offered to escort White onto the base so he can point out the area where he believes Agent Orange was buried. They and White have yet to agree on a date for the visit.

“Pointing on a map isn’t going to work … obviously it has to be a face-to-face opportunity,” White said in an interview.

A spokesman for the defence department confirmed an invitation had been extended but downplayed the significance, saying officials were “simply conducting discussions … in order to gain further insight into their claims.”

The visit would be closed to the media, said department spokesman Dan Lebouthillier in an email.

White said none of the locations pointed out thus far by defence officials match his recollection of the location.

“I say that with clarity,” he said.

The burial, he claimed, involved over 40 barrels stacked on a flatbed truck. It took place early in the morning in the late spring of 1985 and happened in what he described as a disturbing, clandestine manner that has troubled him ever since.

Map showing the Use of Herbicides at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to Present Day

White said he didn’t believe it was his place to come forward until he lost three friends — all former Gagetown soldiers — to cancer.

Wayne Dwernychuk, an expert who spent over 15 years studying Agent Orange contamination and its effects on combatants during the war in Vietnam, said it’s good the federal government is trying to get to the bottom of the mystery.

Once White points out the area, he said, ground scanning technology can quickly and accurately assess what might be underground.

“They should initiate some sort of ground penetrating radar,” he said. “If something turns up, I believe they should follow through with some deep core sampling to determine the extent of the contamination.”

One of the sites listed by National Defence was a chemical dump that has since been excavated — something Wilcox, the second witness, claims to have seen.

Another location is where the military claims to have disposed of rinsed, empty chemical drums.

The main refuse site — known as the Shirley Road dump — “may also [have] accepted drums,” according to a department statement. There was a separate place for dumping ash from burning coal.

During the investigation 14 years ago into the spraying of Agent Orange at the base in the 1960s, officials looked at a fifth location near a tank firing range, but claimed nothing was buried at that spot.

The sixth possible location involves the dumping of asbestos. Federal environment officials have acknowledged in the past that the fire-resistant insulation, ripped out of 15 nearby federal buildings in 1980s, was present at the base, but have never acknowledged the enormous quantity of it.

The waste asbestos was all wrapped and stuffed into metal barrels.

Five years ago, the federal government’s annual report on contaminated sites pointed to the same locations on the base and said assessment on further remediation was under consideration.

The risks of remediation

The same report noted the unique challenges such a clean-up would involve.

“The waste materials might contain ordnance, presenting an unacceptable safety risk to a remediation team,” said the 2013 review.

The report said tests of the wetland adjacent to the contaminated sites did not show chemical concentrations that would be of concern.

Lebouthillier said the locations are “capped” — meaning there’s a barrier between contaminated and uncontaminated soil — managed and monitored “according to federal environmental regulations and guidelines.”

Agent Orange used during the Vietnam war has left that country’s the soil contaminated and compromised.  Many Vietnamese have life-long health problems as a result to exposure to Agent Orange.  The United States has provided almost $42 million since 2007 toward the effort to clean up the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Past Investigations in Canada

In 2006, Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Public Works and Government Services Canada on a series of contracts on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND) to research, organise and analyse all available information concerning the herbicides used at each Canadian Forces (CF) site across Canada. An objective of this undertaking was to confirm whether tactical herbicides such as Agent Orange and Agent Purple tested in 1966 and 1967 at CFB Gagetown were ever tested at other current and former CF Bases, Stations or Wings.

Golder’s review of the information has found no evidence of spray applications of the tactical herbicides Agent Orange or Agent Purple at any Bases, Stations or Wings aside from CFB Gagetown. Records do indicate that the non-tactical and commercially available herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D were potentially concurrently used, stored or disposed at each of Carp (Ontario), CFB Chatham and CFB Gagetown (New Brunswick), CFB Borden (Ontario) and another unidentified site.

As such, evidence to-date is to the effect that Agent Orange and Agent Purple were only applied at CFB Gagetown.

Soldiers detect Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam’s central Da Nang City.

Couple admits illegally storing 4,500 tons of hazardous waste in warehouse

As reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a husband and wife recently plead guilty to a U.S. federal charge and admitted improperly transporting 4,500 tons of hazardous waste and storing it in a warehouse near St. Louis, Missouri.

The couple, both in their 60’s, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in St. Louis to a misdemeanor charge of placing someone in danger of death or serious bodily injury from a hazardous waste.

Green Materials LLC facility in Missouri (Photo Credit: Robert Patrick, Post Dispatch)

Their company, Missouri Green Materials LLC, Missouri Green Materials LLC stored a large quantity of spent sandblasting materials inside a warehouse located in the town of Berger, approximately 70 miles west of St. Louis.  They couple admitted that they arranged for the transport and storage of the hazardous waste from Mississippi, and failed to tell both the trucking companies that hauled the waste and the personnel that unloaded it of the danger.  Their storage facility was not properly permitted was not registered as a permitted hazardous waste storage or recycling facility.

The sandblasting waste materials are considered to be hazardous because they contain amounts of certain metals, including cadmium, that exceed regulatory limits established by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

The materials were stored in a warehouse in a flood plain for more than four years.  There are no indications of any release of the materials from the warehouse.

The couple have agreed to pay $1.5 million to the U.S. EPA for the costs of dealing with the waste. They could face probation or a sentence of six months behind bars for the crime under federal sentencing guidelines.

The source of the sandblasting waste was for a site in Mississippi.  An Ohio company, U.S. Technology Corp had been buried the waste.  The company was repeatedly ordered by regulators to remove it.

In 2016, the U.S. EPA and U.S. Technology signed a consent agreement whereby the company agreed to remove the waste from Green Material’s facility in Missouri and test the site for soil contamination.  According to prosecutors, this work was never performed.

U.S. Technology and president Raymond Williams, 71, both pleaded not guilty in the case. A hearing has been scheduled to change both pleas later in June.

Some sandblasting waste is classified as hazardous

Hazmat University launches Hazardous Material Online Training

The U.S. Department of Transportation requires anyone whose job involves the performance of any task regulated by the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations to undergo hazardous materials shipping training. Likewise, all employers must provide their employees with relevant training applicable to their job function. Hazmat University offers online training programs that can be completed on your desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone 24/7.

“When transporting hazardous materials/dangerous goods in commerce, compliance is a primary concern. Compliance is achieved through well maintained training programs by the hazmat employer. Training is an essential component of any shipping operation to achieve safety in the transport of hazardous materials,” said Sonia Irusta, Vice President of Bureau of Dangerous Goods, LTD.

Hazmat University recognizes the need for anyone entrusted with the handling of dangerous goods to be trained on the dangerous goods regulations and to be able to perform their job functions when handling dangerous goods.

Hazmat University makes certain their training programs are exemplary and features are excellent and easy to access. Listed below are the four reasons Hazmat University is your one-stop-shop for hazardous material shipping training.

A Variety of Training Options

  • A wide range of classes that suit a variety of needs such as different modes of transportation including ground, air and sea.
  • Classes cover a wide range of regulations including: 49 CFR Hazardous Materials Regulations, the International Air Transport Association Dangerous Goods Regulations, and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.

Regular Updates

  • Hazmat University updates based on “The Hazardous Materials Regulations” multiple times each year which keeps lesson plans and materials for online content up-to-date.
  • Anyone handling hazardous materials is required stay on top of any amendments and regulatory changes made.

Everything is Online

  • All courses are offered online to relieve the stresses of travel, parking and changing schedules.
  • Lessons can be accessed from anywhere at any time whether at home or in the office.

Start Immediately

  • Begin your training from the moment that you finish placing your order.
  • Your enrollment codes come with your order confirmation, so there is no delay in getting started.
  • Certificates are issued instantly upon completion.

Hazmat University provides specialized courses in the transportation of dangerous goods by air, ground, or vessel, and training for specialized needs, such as lithium batteries, general awareness, segregation, and others.

Amendments to Canada’s Hazardous Products Regulations

The Canadian government recently made amendments to the Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR) under the Hazardous Products Act.

The objective of the recent amendment of the HPR is to provide industry with the option to use prescribed concentration ranges to protect the actual chemical ingredient concentrations or concentration ranges on Safety data sheets (SDSs) for hazardous workplace products in Canada rather than submitting CBI applications under the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act (HMIRA).

SDSs, which accompany hazardous products sold or imported for use in Canadian workplaces, must disclose the concentrations or concentration ranges of the ingredients in a product that present health hazards in accordance with the Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR).  This information could be considered confidential business information (CBI) to industry.  CBI for workplace hazardous products can be protected by filing an application with Health Canada under the (HMIRA) and paying the associated fee.

Regulated parties proposed that they should have a means to protect the concentrations or concentration ranges of ingredients without having the burden and cost of the HMIRA application process.

Health Canada is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) and its regulations.  The purpose of the HPA is to protect the health and safety of Canadians by regulating the sale and import of hazardous products for use in the workplace.

All Hazards Waste Management Planning (WMP) Tool

The U.S. EPA recommends that communities have a Waste Management Plan (WMP) that addresses the management of waste generated by all hazards, particularly from homeland security incidents ranging from natural disasters and animal disease outbreaks to chemical spills and nuclear incidents to terrorist attacks involving conventional, chemical, radiological, or biological agents.

This tool is intended to assist emergency managers and planners in the public and private sectors in creating or updating a comprehensive plan for managing waste generated from man-made and natural disasters. The tool walks the user through the process of developing and implementing a plan. The tool also contains many resources that can be used as aids to various aspects of the planning process. View and use at https://wasteplan.epa.gov.

Weather Stations for Public Safety/Emergency Management

Presented by WeatherHawk

To help contain natural disasters or man-made ones, firefighters, police, emergency medical workers, and government officials must track conditions in the vicinity of an emergency. WeatherHawk weather stations can be a vital part of modern public safety equipment and can be set-up on site in less than 15 minutes by one responder wearing full protective equipment.

WeatherHawk meets the requirements of first responders with a cost-effective, easy-to-use weather monitoring and data logging system.  Available at preferred Federal Government pricing under EPA BPA #EP09W000552.

 

WeatherHawk-Pro software is CAMEO/ALOHA compliant (NOTE: Specify 2 sec scan update program at the time of order).

WeatherHawk is lightweight and portable, so it’s easy to move into remote or treacherous areas.

WeatherHawk doesn’t need to be placed near a power source because the system is battery powered and can operate for up to 4 days without an external power source. An optional solar panel enables unlimited operation in remote areas or where electrical power is not available.

The wireless WeatherHawk can operate independently at a distance of a line-of-sight range up to ½ mile from the base computer, ensuring the safety of personnel. Optional high gain directional antennas can increase that range to over 7 miles under most conditions.

Portability, quick installation, rugged construction, automatic data storage, and Internet compatibility make WeatherHawk the choice for first responders with limited equipment budgets and minimal time to train on special equipment.  Save property, save lives. Choose WeatherHawk for your weather station needs.





Ontario Transitioning Municipal Hazardous Waste Program

The Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change recently issued direction to Stewardship Ontario (SO) to wind up the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program by December 31, 2020. This wind up will allow the transition of materials collected under the program to individual producer responsibility under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016.

The Minister’s letters can be found at:

Information related to the program wind up and future consultations will be posted to the Program Wind Up page when available. Until the wind up date, the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program will continue to operate without disruption. This includes the operation of the Industry Stewardship Plans managed by the Automotive Materials Stewardship, the Product Care Association and SodaStream.

The Ontario Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program recycles or properly disposes of paint, antifreeze, batteries, fertilizers and other hazardous or special materials.  These wastes will continue to be managed in Ontario, but under a new program.  The winding down of the existing program is part of the provinces attempt to shift to a circular economy – a new waste management approach where waste is seen as a resource that can be recovered, reused and reintegrated into the production stream.

Ontario’s new waste management framework includes new legislation and a strategy to guide progress that will protect the environment, drive innovation, performance and competitiveness, and stimulate economic growth and development.

 

New ASTM International standard supports hazardous materials packaging

A new ASTM International standard helps with pressure testing certain containers that are used to transport hazardous materials.  The standard will help meet requirements of entities that regulate and support global trade. According to ASTM International member Larry Anderson, current regulations are limited in describing how to perform such a test.

Specifically, the new test method provides instructions for performing hydrostatic pressure testing on intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). “This guide provides the detail on how to conduct pressure testing on IBCs and will provide a more consistent process for container manufacturers, test labs, and regulatory agencies,” says Anderson, who works at TEN-E Packaging Services, Inc., which assists companies with packaging testing and the certification of dangerous goods.

The new standard aims to help manufacturers pass performance tests and qualify their container designs to meet requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, as well as the United Nations recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods.

The new standard (soon to be published as D8134) was developed by ASTM International’s committee on packaging (D10).

 

How to Document Weights on Dangerous Goods/HazMat Transport Paperwork

International Air Transport Association (IATA), International Maritime Organization (IMO), Tile 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), & Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Documentation

No one wants to talk about their weight. Ever. In the world of transport though, you have no choice. You are required to list on your transport paperwork some sort of weight, mass, or volume. The trick is to know which regulation requires what. Should be the net weight or gross weight? Is it per package or per packaging? Sadly, depending on the regulation, the answers to those questions may differ.

Before getting started, be sure you understand what all of those terms mean. I tend to default to the IATA regulations when it comes to definitions. These are found in Appendix A. Take note that these terms are also defined in the other regulations, too. In 49 CFR check in §171.9. For IMDG they are in 2 places – Volume 1, Chapter 1.2 and Volume 2, Appendix B. TDG defines them Part 1.4.

Definitions:

Package

The complete product of the packing operation consisting of the packaging and the contents prepared for transport.

Packaging

A receptacle and any other components or materials necessary for the receptacle to perform its containment function in conformance with the minimum packing requirements.

Means of containment

The road or railway vehicle, aircraft, vessel, pipeline or any other contrivance that is or may be used to transport persons or goods.

Net quantity (or weight)

The weight or volume of the dangerous goods contained in a package excluding the weight or volume of any packaging material; or the weight of an unpackaged article of dangerous goods (e.g. UN3166).

Gross weight (or gross mass)

The weight of a packaging plus the weight of its contents.

Now that we know or remember those specific terms, let’s see what each regulation has to say in regards to the paperwork. These are known as shipper’s declarations, dangerous goods form, shipping papers, or a transport document.

IATA – Section 8 Documentation:

For this regulation, a shipper needs to review §8.1.6.9.2. In particular, Step 6 paragraph (a) provides the information we need for our shipper’s declaration.  You are required to list the net quantity of dangerous goods in each package (by volume or weight as appropriate) for each item of dangerous goods that has a different UN/ID number, shipping name or packing group along with the appropriate units of measure.  Since this is an international regulation, those units must be in metric.

IATA does one step further. Certain entries of the Dangerous Goods List in the column for the maximum net quantity per package there will be the inclusion of the “G”. For example, look at ID8000 for Consumer Commodity or certain limited quantity listings. This “G” indicates the shipper must give the gross weight of each package. To avoid confusion for the carriers this “G” must also be included after the unit of measure.

IMDG – Chapter 5.4

Under IMDG, the weight description needed is in §5.4.1.5.1.  Here it says, the total quantity of dangerous goods covered by the description (by volume or mass as appropriate) for each item bearing a different proper shipping name, UN number or packing group shall be included. At the end of that section is the notation to specific the unit of measure and that abbreviations for those may be used.   Again, this is an international regulation, so the units must be metric.

Take note, the use of the word “shall” is a mandatory requirement.

49 CFR – §172.200 Subpart C for Shipping Papers:

In 49 CFR, or as most of us call it DOT, a shipper needs to read §172.202 paragraph (a) subparagraph (5) closely. Here you see the total quantity of the hazardous materials must be indicated (by mass or volume) and it must include an indication of the applicable unit of measure on a shipping paper. Interestingly enough, §171.10 says the unit of measure is to be compatible with international standards which is metric.

49 CFR lists the “customary” units in parentheses throughout but they are not the regulatory standard. We all know the US has yet to convert fully to the metric system. However, it is a good idea to make the changeover now when it comes to our hazardous materials’ shipping papers.

TDG – Part 3 Documentation:

Here a consignor (shipper) is in a unique situation.  Section 3.5 (1)(d) simply tells a consignor that for each shipping name, the quantity of dangerous goods and the unit of measure used to express the quantity must be on a shipping document.  It does go on to say the units used must be metric.  There is not a differentiation between net and gross mass for Canadian transport.

Keeping all of these requirements straight as a shipper making shipments via ground, air, ocean and between the US and Canada can be difficult. Notice I’ve included nothing about how explosives should be listed. They have their own set of rules in each regulation. Hopefully, this blog will clarify one part of your role as a shipper. If you ever have questions or find your self in need of training, reach to us today.

 

The article was first published on the Compliance Center website.

About the Author

Paula Reavis has the following degrees: BS in Science Education, BA in Chemistry, MA in School Counseling Certification.  She is also a National Certified Counselor.  Ms. Reavis has a teaching background and several years of experience in Hazard Communications. She is knowledgeable in HazCom2012, WHMIS (old/new), 49 CFR, IATA, IMDG and TDG. She started with the the Compliance Center in 2014, and is currently the Trainer. She is active in several associations including NACD, IHMM and SCHC where she served as chair of the Membership and Awards Committee. She is based in St. Louis, Missouri.