Nova Scotia Homeowner Fined for not Investigating Leaking UST

The Nova Scotia Department of the Environment recently fined a homeowner in Sydney (located on Cape Breton Island) with failing to obtain the services of a site professional to determine whether a leaking oil tank had caused contamination.

The regulator had issued two directives to the homeowner prior to filing the charge in court.  The amount of the fine was $350.  The homeowner has been given two years to complete any necessary remediation on his property.

The Nova Scotia Department of the Environment Homeowner Guide to Heating Oil and Tank Systems provides information on how homeowners can lessen the environmental risk posed by above-ground heating oil tanks.  The Province also has a Domestic Fuel Oil Spill Policy.

Fuel oil tanks owned by homeowners can leak and cause environmental damage (Photo Credit: NACHI.org)

Unsafe Levels of Contamination found in Edmonton Neighbourhood

As reported in the Edmonton Journal, unsafe levels of hazardous chemicals were found in unoccupied land near the property that was previously occupied by a wood treatment plant site.  However, the analytical results from soil samples taken from residential properties in the vicinity of the plant found no hazardous chemicals in the top level of soil.

An Alberta Health official recently stated that soil testing has been completed in the Verte-Homesteader community — located near the former Domtar wood treatment facility.

Workers drill core samples in a contaminated parcel of land at the old wood treatment plant site in Edmonton, June 28, 2018. (Photo Credit: Kaiser/Postmedia)

“The results show no issues in the surface soil of any of the homeowners’ properties, but there were four areas of unoccupied land in the southeast corner of the neighbourhood where chemicals were found above health guidelines and that area is now being fenced off,” spokesman Cam Traynor said in an email.

A map showed two tests in the soon-to-be-fenced area exceeded human health guidelines for dioxins and furans.

In the spring, about 140 homeowners near the site of the former wood treatment plant at 44 Street and Yellowhead Trail were warned soil and groundwater in the area was contaminated with a list of potentially cancer-causing substances.

Officials said no contaminants were known to be in residential areas.

From 1924 to 1987, the land was the site of a plant in which toxic chemicals were used to treat railroad ties, poles, posts and lumber. Parts of the property are now a housing development.

The site’s current owners and developers, 1510837 Alberta Ltd. and Cherokee Canada Inc., were ordered to build a fence around the contaminated land to reduce potential health risks earlier this year.  Cherokee Canada did not immediately respond to a request from the Edmonton Journal.

Alberta Environment and Parks also directed the companies, including former owner Domtar, to take environmental samples and create plans to remove contaminants and conduct human health risk assessments. The orders also affected a greenbelt southeast of the site currently owned by the City of Edmonton.

The recently completed testing covered the top one-third of a metre of soil. Traynor said deeper soil testing in the broader area is ongoing. That work, along with a human health risk assessment, is expected to be completed this fall.

Global Emergency Spill Response Market – Trends and Forecast

Analytical Research Cognizance recently issued a report on the Global Emergency Spill Response Market.  The report focuses on detailed segmentations of the market, combined with the qualitative and quantitative analysis of each and every aspect of the classification based on type, spill material, spill environment, vertical, and geography.

The report provides a very detailed analysis of the market based on type, the emergency spill response market has been classified into products and services.  The products include booms, skimmers, dispersants and dispersant products, in-situ burning products, sorbents, transfer products, radio communication products, and vacuum products.

The report has a services section that provides a forecast on the future growth of the services sector.  The services segment has been classified into product rental services, waste management services, manpower training services, transportation and disposal services, spill response drill and exercise services, tracking and surveillance services, risk assessments and analysis services, and other services.

Scope of the Report:

This report studies the Emergency Spill Response market status and outlook of global and major regions, from angles of players, countries, product types and end industries; this report analyzes the top players in global market, and splits the Emergency Spill Response market by product type and applications/end industries.

The market is expected to have significant growth in the coming years owing to stringent environmental regulations across the world to reduce the environmental pollution from spills.

Skimmers held the largest market size, in terms of product, primarily due to the increased demand for mechanical recovery methods for spill recovery.  Unlike other methods, the mechanical recovery methods remove the spill material from the spill environment.  Thus, skimmers are more effective in mitigating the environmental impact of the spills.

The global Emergency Spill Response market is valued at 2,530 million USD in 2017 and is expected to reach 3,410 million USD by the end of 2023, growing at a CAGR of 5.1% between 2017 and 2023.

The Asia-Pacific will occupy for more market share in following years, especially in China, fast growing India, and Southeast Asia regions.

North America, especially The United States, will still play an important role which cannot be ignored. Any changes from the United States might affect the development trend of Emergency Spill Response.

 

New Technology on Track to Vitalize Confined Space HazMat Training

by Steven Pike , Argon Electronics

Teams operating in confined spaces within hazardous industrial buildings or process facilities understand all too well the importance of adhering to strict health and safety regulations.

The hazards that confined spaces present can be physical or atmospheric in nature – from the risks of asphyxiation or entrapment to exposure to extremes of temperature or the release of toxic chemicals.

Confined Space Entry

According to the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, on average two people die in the US every day as the result of incidents that take place within confined spaces.

In many cases too, it is not just the victim who is at risk, but the rescuer or first responder who may be unaware of the hazard they are about to encounter.

Directives such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH), the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR), Atex and many others all have a pivotal role to play in ensuring safety.

But despite the emphasis on prevention, any potentially harmful chemical release, and specifically one that occurs within the context of a confined space, will require personnel who are skilled and confident to handle a variety of complex challenges.

With these challenges in mind, a new app-based multigas simulator technology, specifically designed for use in confined space settings, is scheduled for release in late summer 2018.

And the new system looks set to deliver an enhanced level of realism for industrial HazMat training scenarios.

Applying CWA Technology to Industrial HazMat Training

The use of simulation technology for chemical warfare agent (CWA) training is already well established, with intelligent, computer-based training aids such as Argon Electronics’ PlumeSIM and PlumeSIM-SMART systems currently in use by military forces around the world.

The launch of PlumeSIM in 2008 provided CWA and CBRN instructors with a simulation package that enabled them to use their laptops, in conjunction with a map or images, to plan a diverse range of field and table-top exercises.

The type of substance, whether a single or multiple source and an array of environmental conditions (such as wind direction and speed) could all be easily configured. And the innovative technology enabled whole exercises to be recorded for after action review (AAR) and future contingency planning.

In 2016 came the introduction of PlumeSIM-SMART – which offered similar capabilities to PlumeSIM but replaced the use of simulator devices in the field with the simplicity of a mobile phone.

The ability to transform a mobile phone into a look-alike gas detector was to prove especially practical (and budget-friendly) for high-hazard industrial organizations and municipal responders.

And using mobiles offered some additional and unexpected benefits in that it enabled field exercises to take place in any location.

Realistic Multigas Training

The newest addition to Argon’s simulation technology portfolio has been devised for specific use within the training environs of confined spaces and multi-level buildings.

The device will offer HazMat instructors the flexibility to simulate specific levels and concentrations of gases, whether these be in the form of a gas escape or a dangerous device (or devices) concealed within a building.

It will also be highly configurable to enable instructors to select the use of either single or multigas sensors within their training scenarios.

The hardware will be identical to that currently available for CWA training and toxic industrial response training. It has also been configured to interact with existing hand-held gas detection simulators, such as PlumeSIM-SMART, to provide an enhanced level of realism and a more focused training experience.

Simulation sources will be able to be set to emit a signal that replicates the conditions of a particular substance, a low level or oxygen or an explosive atmosphere.

And as students move around the training environment, their display readings will adjust accordingly to simulate an event such as a breached alarm.

The latest detector also promises to overcome the issues posed by communications interference within buildings where GPS technology can often be limited.

Working in confined spaces within industrial complexes can present a daunting array of hazards, both for the staff operating within the facilities and for the emergency teams charged with first response.

The continued development of simulator technology can help to address these challenges by providing realistic, hands-on training opportunities that replicate real-life conditions.

This article was originally published in 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.

In use worldwide, Argon simulators have applications for training and preparedness within civil response, the military, EoD, unconventional terrorism / accidental release, and international treaty verification, with a growing presence in the nuclear energy generation and education markets. We have been granted a number of international patents in this field.

Nova Scotia Announces Plan to Assess Contaminated Site in Halifax

The Nova Scotia government recently announced that it is taking the first steps to determine what’s needed to remediate a former construction and demolition site in Harrietsfield, Halifax Regional Municipality.

Homemade signs line the road to Harrietsfield, N.S., on May 14, 2018.

Signs of the water contamination issue in Harrietsfield, Nova Scotia. (Alexa MacLean/Global News)

Nova Scotia Lands Inc. will commission a site assessment this summer to determine the extent of contamination, how long it will take to remediate and how much it will cost.  It will also determine the condition of the existing infrastructure and evaluate what potential impacts the remediation might have. The cost of the assessment is about $250,000.

“This site has been a problem for the community for far too long. We’re taking an important and necessary action to address it,” said Environment Minister Iain Rankin.

Two ministerial orders were issued in 2016, ordering the companies to assess the contamination that was impacting residents’ wells and submit a plan to remediate it. Those orders have not been followed.

Mr. Rankin has invoked his authority under the Environment Act to ensure those orders are carried out.

Under the act, the minister also has the authority to hold the former operators of the site responsible for the costs of remediation.

“We will pursue all available options,” said Mr. Rankin.

In 2016, the province had water treatment facilities installed at eight area homes where there was evidence that well water was being impacted by contamination at this facility.

A court case is ongoing against two companies that operated the former RDM Recycling site between 2002 and 2013. The site assessment will not impact the court case. The last court date was in late June.

RDM Recycling Plant, Harrietsfield, Nova Scotia (Photo Credit: CBC)

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.

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.

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Highlights Importance of Safety Training in Affirming Willful Violation of OSHA Standard

Author: H. Bernard Tisdale, Ogletree Deakins, Charlotte, North Carolina)

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently had the opportunity to remind employers not to ignore training employees on safety.  Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, No. 17-12643 (March 27, 2018).

In late 2015, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) contractor was installing an HVAC system on the flat roof of a warehouse in Georgia. The installation was to take place adjacent to several unguarded skylights covered only with plastic sheeting. While the onsite foreman had fall protection equipment in his truck, the employees did not wear any fall protection equipment while on the roof. These circumstances ended in tragically: one of the workers fell through a skylight and died as a result of his injuries.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited the employer for a willful violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(4)(i) for failing to protect its employees from falls. The administrative law judge concluded the supervisor’s actions supported a willful classification in that he demonstrated a “reckless disregard for the safety of his crew.” The employer appealed.

To support a willful classification, OSHA must show either (1) the employer knew of the standard and consciously disregarded it or (2) it exhibited such reckless disregard for the employees’ safety that the employer would not have cared that the conduct violated the standard.  Evidently, the supervisor claimed ignorance of the law, and the court analyzed whether the willful classification could be supported under the second standard.

Air conditioner units (HVAC) on a roof of industrial building

The court of appeals was unimpressed by the employer’s arguments. The court noted the supervisor was well aware of the danger posed by the unguarded skylights in that he warned his employees to be careful around them. The supervisor also testified it was his practice not to use fall protection equipment on flat roofs. The supervisor neither instructed anyone to wear fall protection equipment nor provided his employees with the fall protection equipment he had in his truck. Thus, the Court concluded, while the supervisor did not know of the standard’s requirements, he exhibited such reckless disregard for employee safety that he would not have cared that the conduct violated the standard.

This is where all employers may want to take heed. The court went on to observe that the supervisor’s “unfamiliarity serves, if anything, only to underscore the inadequacy of [the employer’s] training program. To hold that such inadequacy—and the resulting unfamiliarity—precludes classification of a violation as willful would perversely allow [the employer] to use its ineffective training as a defense against OSHA’s most serious charge.” The court upheld the willful classification.

Needless to say, a willful citation can have far-reaching ramifications for an employer—from tort liability and criminal penalties for the injury or death to inability to secure future work. While training may seem trivial and time consuming, doing it just might prevent a willful citation and possibly save a life.

This article was originally published on the Ogletree Deakins website.

______________

About the Author

Mr. Tisdale has wide experience in general civil and employment litigation. This experience ranges from advising clients on preventive measures to avoid formal charges and lawsuits, and representing clients before the United States Court of Appeals, to handling individual employment discrimination cases before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the federal courts as well as handling wrongful discharge and other employment-related litigation in state and federal courts. He regularly represents employers on safety and health matters including advising and defending clients on OSHA compliance issues involving Federal OSHA and state plan states.  He regularly assists clients with contract disputes and non-compete and trade secrets advice and litigation. His experience also includes counseling clients on wage and hour compliance under the Fair Labor Standards Act and performing compliance audits under the FLSA, drafting and reviewing employment contracts and employment

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.

U.S. EPA’s Enforcement of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

By Dianne R Phillips, Holland & Knight

On March 28, 2018, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Project Notification indicating its plans to begin preliminary research to evaluate the EPA’s implementation and enforcement of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule). The RRP Rule, which is part of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, is intended to ensure that owners and occupants of pre-1978 “target housing” and “child-occupied facilities” receive information on lead-based paint hazards before renovations begin, that individuals performing such renovations are properly trained and certified, and that renovators and workers follow specific lead-safe work practices during renovations to reduce the potential for exposure to lead. Although use of lead-based paint in dwellings was prohibited after 1978, EPA estimates it is still present in approximately 30 million homes across the United States. The RRP Rule is intended to protect children and others vulnerable to lead exposure due to the health effects associated with lead poisoning.

Enforcement of the RRP Rule, along with the other lead-based paint rules, has been a priority of EPA. For fiscal year ending 2017, according to EPA’s Oct. 27, 2017 press release from October 2016 through September 2017, EPA finalized 121 civil settlements for alleged violations of one or more of the three lead-based paint rules–the RRP Rule; the Lead Disclosure Rule; and the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule for abatements–and filed three complaints for ongoing actions. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice also prosecuted one criminal case involving violations of lead paint laws and finalized two Clean Air Act settlements that included lead paint abatement projects in local communities. The OIG Project Notification indicates that the “objective for this project is to determine whether EPA has an effective strategy to implement and enforce the lead-based paint RRP.” Only time will tell what is meant by that.

____________________________

About the Author

Dianne R. Phillips is an attorney in Holland & Knight’s Boston office who concentrates her practice in litigation, regulatory, energy and environmental law. As former assistant general counsel for Suez LNG North America LLC (now known as Engie North America) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC, Ms. Phillips was involved in all aspects of regulatory compliance for the nation’s oldest, continuously operating liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal located in Everett, Mass., including safety and security. Her LNG experience includes advising clients with respect to specialized regulatory compliance under 49 C.F.R. Part 193 and NFPA 59A.