In the Sale of Property, Responsibility for Removal and Remediation of Underground Storage Tanks needs to be clear

Written by Stan Berger, Fogler Rubinoff LLP

On January 9, 2020, the British Columbia Supreme Court in Walton v. Warren 2020 BCSC 19 found in favour of the Purchaser when an undiscovered underground storage tank required removal and site remediation following closing. This ruling was given despite the Purchaser having signed off on an inspection report prior to closing. The purchase and sale agreement provided that the Seller had to ensure that any underground storage tank (UST) located on the property be removed and the surrounding soil remediated. The Seller was responsible for all costs. The Seller had to provide written confirmation before the Completion Date from the tank removal contractor and relevant provincial and local authorities that the remediation complied with provincial or local government laws. The Purchaser had to obtain and approve an inspection report 6 weeks before the completion date. The report recommended that a specialist company survey and sweep the property to determine the presence of buried oil tanks. The Purchaser’s realtor arranged for a scan of the property free of charge. This was followed by a scanning company’s report stating there was no evidence of any UST. The contract closed on schedule and almost 3 years later the basement of the property flooded. During a necessary drain replacement a UST was discovered requiring its removal and remediation at a cost of $42,000. The Purchaser sued the sellers.

The Judge found that the existence of the UST was unknown to the Seller at the time of the sale. The Seller argued that their obligation with respect to responsibility for any underground storage tank ended upon the closing. The Purchaser completed the purchase being satisfied with the condition of the property. The judge disagreed finding in the Purchaser’s favour.

“[62] There is no language in the Addendum which could be interpreted as limiting the defendants’ obligations only to those USTs that were discovered prior to the Completion Date or to those USTs of which they were aware. [63] The Addendum does not include any conditional language. For example, it does not say that the defendants are to remove and remediate “any oil tank that is discovered prior to the Completion Date” or “any oil tank that they are aware of prior to the Completion Date”.

Moreover the survival clause in the agreement contained no exceptions.

The lesson here is that courts are disinclined to infer any limit on the responsibility of a party when the language in the contract isn’t clear.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.


About the Author

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

Water company pleads guilty to hazardous waste violations

As reported by the Associated Press, A California-based water company recently pleaded guilty to illegally storing and transporting hazardous waste and agreed to a $5 million fine.  The company produces Crystal Geyser bottled water.

The hazardous waste was generated at the company from the sand filters used to remove arsenic out the spring water at the CG Roxane LLC’s facility in Owens Valley.  When the sand filters were back washed with sodium solution, thousands of gallons of arsenic-contaminated water was generated.  The company entered the pleas to one count of unlawful storage of hazardous waste and one count of unlawful transportation of hazardous material.  The  company was accused of discharging the wastewater into a man-made pond over the course of approximately 15 years.

Pond sampling by local water quality officials in 2013 found arsenic concentrations above the hazardous waste limit, as did subsequent sampling by state authorities and the company.  State officials instructed the company to remove the pond.  The two companies hired to manage the wastewater were not informed the wastwater was considered hazardous material, resulting in 23,000 gallons (87,064 litres) being discharged into a sewer without proper treatment.

 

U.S. Federal Toxmap Website Closes

TOXMAP® is no longer.  Launched an run by the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) fifteen years ago, the website closed down in December.

ToxMap was a Geographic Information System (GIS) that usedmaps of the United States and Canada to help users visually explore data primarily from the U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and Superfund Program, as well as some non-EPA datasets. It combined pollution data  from the U.S. EPA and at least a dozen other U.S. government sources.

ToxMap helped users create nationwide, regional, or local area maps showing where TRI chemicals are released on-site into the air, water, and ground. It also provided facility and release details, color-codes release amounts for a single year or year range, and aggregates release data over multiple years. Maps also showed locations of Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites, listing all chemical contaminants present at these sites. Two versions of TOXMAP wereavailable: the classic version of TOXMAP released in 2004, and a newer version of TOXMAP based on Adobe® Flash/Flex technology. The newer version provided an improved map appearance and interactive capabilities and additional datasets such as U.S. EPA coal plant emissions data and U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.

ToxMap began in 2004 as a way of culling data that the U.S. EPA collected on toxic releases and conveying it to the public in more accessible and relevant way. Thanks largely to the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the agency had been collecting huge amounts of data on chemicals of concern being released from individual facilities—the Toxic Release Inventory. But until the early 2000s, this vast store of “public” information demanded considerable time and expertise to find and tap, much less to interpret.

The development of ToxMap was part of a broader government push towards data transparency. ToxMap made it much easier to find out about the chemicals a plant in a neighborhood was releasing into the local water or air, or about where the nearest hazardous wastes sites were located.

 

Green Remediation: Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently updated a set of analytical workbooks known as “SEFA” (Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis) to help decision-makers analyze the environmental footprint of a site cleanup project, determine which cleanup activities drive the footprint, and adjust project parameters to reduce the footprint. Information to be input by the user may be gathered from project planning documents, field records and other existing resources. Automated calculations within SEFA generate outputs that quantify 21 metrics corresponding to core elements of a greener cleanup.

 

Environmental Footprint Summary

Core Element Green Remediation Metric Unit of Measure
Materials & Waste M&W-1 Refined materials used on site tons
M&W-2 Percent of refined materials from recycled or waste material percent
M&W-3 Unrefined materials used on site tons
M&W-4 Percent of unrefined materials from recycled or waste material percent
M&W-5 Onsite hazardous waste generated tons
M&W-6 Onsite non-hazardous waste generated tons
M&W-7 Percent of total potential onsite waste that is recycled or reused percent
Water Onsite water use (by source)
W-1 – Source, use, fate combination #1 millions of gallons
W-2 – Source, use, fate combination #2 millions of gallons
W-3 – Source, use, fate combination #3 millions of gallons
W-4 – Source, use, fate combination #4 millions of gallons
Energy E-1 Total energy use MMBtu
E-2 Total energy voluntarily derived from renewable resources
E-2A – Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use MMBtu
E-2B – Voluntary purchase of renewable electricity MWh
E-2C – Voluntary purchase of RECs MWh
Air A-1 Onsite NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions lbs
A-2 Onsite HAP emissions lbs
A-3 Total NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions lbs
A-4 Total HAP emissions lbs
A-5 Total GHG emissions tons CO2e
Land & Ecosystems

Qualitative description

SEFA was first released in 2012 and updated in 2014. In 2019, SEFA was updated to incorporate new default footprint conversion factors for additional materials, diesel or gasoline engines of various sizes, and laboratory analyses. The 2019 update (Version 3.0) also provides additional areas for entering user-defined footprint conversion factors.

Instructions for SEFA Users

  • SEFA comprises three internally linked workbooks (files) in a standard spreadsheet (Excel) format; the files should be saved in a single directory to assure accurate/complete data exchange.
  • Optimal functioning of the workbooks relies on use of Microsoft Office 2013 or higher.
  • An “Introduction” worksheet (tab) in the “Main” workbook provides an overview of SEFA, including its data structure.
  • Technical support in using SEFA is not available outside the Agency; other parties interested in using or adapting the workbooks may wish to obtain technical assistance from qualified environmental or engineering professionals.

Supporting Methodology

EPA’s “Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project’s Environmental Footprint” report provides a seven-step process for quantifying the 21 metrics associated with a site cleanup. The report also addresses the value of footprint analysis; discusses the level of effort and cost involved in footprint analysis; details interpretative considerations; provides illustrative approaches to reducing a cleanup project’s environmental footprint; and contains related planning checklists and reference tables.

Are your Waste Transport Drivers Properly Trained under Ontario’s EPA?

Companies that hold an Environmental Compliance Approval (Waste Management System) for the transport of municipal waste, liquid industrial waste, or hazardous waste or are registered under the Environmental Activity Sector Register (EASR) for waste transport are required to have their drivers undergo specific environmental training.

Ontario’s General – Waste Regulation (Ontario Regulation 347) under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act ensures that wastes are effectively managed from the point of their generation to where they are ultimately processed or disposed of.  To provide this necessary control, the regulation includes definitions for different waste types and detailed requirements for a range of waste management activities.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MOECP) Guideline for Training Requirements for Drivers of Waste Transportation Vehicles (Guideline C-12, PIBS 7914e01) provides information on environmental driver training related to the transport municipal waste, liquid industrial waste or hazardous waste.

The Guidelines outline the major areas that drivers of vehicles used for the transportation of municipal waste, liquid industrial waste or hazardous waste need to be trained on which includes:

  • The operation of the vehicle and waste management equipment,
  • Relevant waste management legislation, regulations and guidelines,
  • Major environmental concerns for the waste to be handled,
  • Occupational health and safety concerns for the waste to be handled, and
  • Emergency management procedures.

For more information on driver training requirements, contact John Nicholson, the editor of Hazmat Management Magazine.

Alizadeh v Ontario: Directors Face Uphill Battle to Rebut a Presumption of Management and Control

Written by Donna Shier, Partner and Certified Environmental Law Specialist by the Law Society of Ontario, with the assistance of Lauren Wortsman, Student-at-Law, Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP

Corporate directors and officers are presumed to have management and control of a corporation. As such, directors and officers may be named in Orders issued by the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) to address environmental contamination. The Ontario Environmental Protection Act, s. 18 provides the MECP with authority to issue an Order to any person who “owns or owned or who has or had management or control of an undertaking or property”.

The Environmental Review Tribunal (“ERT”) recently affirmed that the evidentiary burden on a corporate director to rebut a presumption of management and control of a corporation is extremely high. In Alizadeh v Ontario (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks), the ERT held a former director personally liable for an Order after the director led insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Further, the director’s financial inability to comply with the Order did not warrant removal of the director’s name from the Order.

Facts
In Alizadeh, the company purchased a wood waste landfill site. In 2013, the MECP issued an Order requiring the company to conduct work on the landfill and leachate collection system. The company did not comply with the Order, and the company and its former director were prosecuted. The company was convicted and fined. The charges against the former director were withdrawn.

After the company was convicted, leachate from the landfill continued to discharge to a creek off site. In March 2018, the MECP issued another Order against the company. This Order also named the former director personally. The Order required the company and the former director to conduct work on the leachate collection system to inhibit the migration of leachate off site.

The former director argued that the Order improperly named him for two reasons:

  1. he was never a person in “management or control” of the company, and
  2. he had no financial ability to comply with the Order.

Presumption of Management and Control
The ERT confirmed that corporate officers and directors are presumed to have management and control of the company.

The ERT affirmed holdings from previous decisions:

  • In Rocha v Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), the ERT held that “control” includes both the power to make things happen and the power to prevent them from happening
  • In Currie v Ontario (Ministry of the Environment), the ERT held that a director who acts as a “point person” with respect to the MECP and has knowledge of the environmental issues at a site has management and control
  • In Caltex Petroleum Inc v Ontario (Ministry of Environment and Energy), the ERT held that the onus is on the officer or director to present convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of management and control.

In Alizadeh, the ERT stated that management and control is not limited to formal legal control by officers and directors. It also includes “de facto control”.  However, the ERT does not define “de facto control”.

The ERT said “Where those with formal legal control of a corporation deny their involvement, the Tribunal puts the onus on them to make a ‘convincing case’.”

The ERT concluded the former director had not led sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of control. This was despite the fact that the former director:

  • was not a director at the time of the Order,
  • had no access to any corporate documents that might prove his position,
  • had no access to the site to comply with the Order, and
  • was prohibited by court-ordered bail conditions in an unrelated matter from contacting the other director to obtain access to the site.

The ERT cited the following factors to conclude that the former director did have management and control:

  • publically-available corporate filings indicate that the former director was the only
    director for much of the relevant time period,
  • the former director negotiated and signed the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the
    property on behalf of the company,
  • the former director signed contracts on behalf of the company for work to be done on
    the leachate treatment system,
  • for five years, the former director held himself out to the MECP as the only person
    making decisions about leachate management on behalf of the company,
  • the former director made commitments to the MECP that the company would comply
    with the Order, and
  • the company’s environmental consultant took instructions from the former director.

The ERT concluded the former director had management and control.

Alizadeh affirms that the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of management and control is extremely high.

Financial Hardship
The ERT affirmed that financial hardship is not a reason to remove a director’s name from an Order. Three notices of assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency showing that the former director had limited income were insufficient to warrant removing the director from the Order.

The ERT rejected the director’s argument that the MECP should use financial assurance provided by the company to pay for the completion of the leachate treatment system. The ERT held that using the financial assurance for this purpose would mean there would be insufficient funds available to maintain the system in the future.

The ERT also noted that when the company had purchased the property, the vendor advanced funds to the company to be used to construct a leachate treatment system. Under the former director’s oversight, those funds were not used for this purpose.

Order Requirements
The ERT concluded that it is insufficient for a director to provide reasons for removal of their name from the Order without also addressing how the environmental objectives of the EPA will be met if the Order is revoked.

This articles has been republished with the permission of the author.  It was first published on the Willms & Shier website.


About the Author

With almost 40 distinguished years of experience practicing environmental law, Donna Shier is one of Canada’s leading environmental counsel to major industrial corporations. Donna is also frequently called upon by corporate, commercial and real estate lawyers to assist their clients with environmental legal issues, and provides environmental law expertise to external litigation counsel. Donna is a qualified mediator and is an accredited member of the ADR Institute of Canada. Donna is called to the bar of Ontario.

Newest Guidance on Implementing Advanced Site Characterization Tools

The United States Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) recently published their newest guidance document, Implementing Advanced Site Characterization Tools.  Advanced site characterization tools (ASCTs) are capable of rapid implementation and data generation and can be used to provide data for a more precise and accurate conceptual site model. Although these tools have been available for several years, they often are not used because users perceive them to be expensive and unavailable, or do not understand how ASCTs work and how to interpret the acquired data.

Over the past two years, a team of environmental experts worked together to create this comprehensive guidance to assist stakeholders with the selection and application of ASCTs, as well as the interpretation of data gathered by ASCTs to evaluate the best cleanup options for a project. The guidance divides ASCTs into four categories: Direct Sensing, Borehole Geophysical, Surface Geophysical, and Remote Sensing.

To support the selection and use of ASCTs, this free guidance includes:

  • An ASCT Selection Tool that provides an interactive dataset to identify appropriate tools for collecting geologic, hydrologic, and chemical data,
  • Summary Tables that provide additional information to evaluate the applicability of each tool,
  • Case Studies that provide examples of the use of tools at a site,
  • Checklists that provide information to be considered when planning to use a tool, describe typical content of a report, and identify appropriate quality control checks, and
  • Training Videos that provide an overview of the ASCT document and examples of the application of select tools.

Access the document by visiting https://asct-1.itrcweb.org/


About the U.S. ITRC

The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) is a state-led coalition working to reduce barriers to the use of innovative environmental technologies and approaches so that compliance costs are reduced and cleanup efficacy is maximized. ITRC produces documents and training that broaden and deepen technical knowledge and expedite quality regulatory decision making while protecting human health and the environment. With private and public sector members from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, ITRC truly provides a national perspective.

How new technology is improving first responder safety

Written by Steve Pike, Argon Electronics

When the pressure is on to make quick decisions in emergency response situations, the value of practical personal experience is something that can never be underestimated.

But while the “human factor” remains an inestimable force, it is also essential that first responders have access to the appropriate technological support to enable them to work safely and effectively in the field.

In the US, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) works in close collaboration with the nation’s emergency response community.

Their recent projects have included the development of body-worn cameras that activate without responder manipulation, thermal sensors for firefighters that provide early detection of infrared radiation (IR), and wearable smart chemical sensors that warn responders of toxic exposure.

The International Forum to Advance First Responder Innovation (IFAFRI) brings together global industry and academia to identify common capability gaps within first response – in particular the ability to rapidly identify hazardous agents, and to detect, monitor and analyse hazards in real time.

More recently, an exciting array of new technologies have been put to use within the emergency services sector – including an eCall vehicle alarm system that delivers automated messages to emergency services following an accident, the deployment of drones for search and rescue, and the development of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for firefighters.

Advancements in radiation safety training

New innovations in simulator detector technology for radiation safety training are also playing an important role in supporting first response personnel.

Unlike other forms of hazardous materials where the threat may be clearly evident, ionising radiation is a formidable and invisible force.

So it is even more vital that first responders are equipped with the correct tools, that they are skilled in interpreting the readings they obtain and that they are confident to act on that information.

Enhanced simulator training systems

Incorporating the use of simulator detector equipment in radiation training exercises offers an opportunity to significantly enhance the quality of a trainee’s learning experience.

The effectiveness of the training, however, will depend on a number of key factors.

Firstly there is the realism of the simulator’s user interface components (the visual display, indicators, switch panel, vibrator, sounder etc) which should be designed to match as closely as possible the look, feel and functionality of the actual device.

As trainees approach or move away from the simulation source, the response speed and characteristics of the simulation will also be important in providing an accurate depiction of the behaviour of the actual detector.

Also key, is the extent to which trainees are able to experience the practical applications of inverse square law, time, distance and shielding. Different shielding effects will need to be realistically represented, for example, as will the effects of user body shielding for source location.

The consistency and repeatability of the simulation will be vital in ensuring that trainees are able to repeat the same scenario, in the same location, and receive the same result – and that the readings obtained on different types of simulator are within the accepted tolerances of the actual detectors.

From the trainer’s perspective, the whole life cost of ownership of the device will undoubtedly be an important consideration.

It may be important, for example, that the simulator uses only the same batteries as the original detector, that it requires no regular calibration and that there is no need for costly and time-consuming preventative maintenance.

The development of innovative simulator detector technologies, such as Argon’s RadEye SIM, offers the opportunity for first responders to enhance the timeliness, precision and effectiveness of their response to radiological emergencies.

For radiation safety instructors there is also the benefit of being able to create highly realistic and compelling radiation training exercises that are free from regulatory, environmental and health and safety concerns.


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.

Researchers develop sponge for recovering oil from wastewater

Researchers at the University at Imperial College London and the University of Toronto have developed a cost-effective sponge that can soak up oil relatively fast (less than 10 minutes). The research article, found in the Journal Nature, describes an innovative surface-engineered sponge (SEnS) that synergistically combines surface chemistry, charge and roughness.  The sponge is adept at adsorbing crude oil microdroplets.

The team of chemical engineers led by Pavani Cherukupally sought to find a solution by turning to polyurethane foam, a common material used in everyday household items like mattresses. Although polyurethane foam has good oil absorption properties, it only works well under certain conditions of acidity, which can strengthen or weaken the affinity between oil droplets and the sponge.

“It’s all about strategically selecting the characteristics of the pores and their surfaces. Commercial sponges already have tiny pores to capture tiny droplets. Polyurethane sponges are made from petrochemicals, so they have already had chemical groups which make them good at capturing droplets,” said Cherukupally.  “The problem was that we had fewer chemical groups than what was needed to capture all the droplets.”

The researchers developed a coating that alters the foam’s texture, chemistry, and charge, thus making it more suitable for a broad range of situations. When viewed under a microscope, the coating contains hair-like particles of nanocrystalline silicon that act like fishing rods for the oil droplets.

“The critical surface energy concept comes from the world of biofouling research—trying to prevent microorganisms and creatures like barnacles from attaching to surfaces like ship hulls,” Dr. Cherukupally said in a statement.  “Normally, you want to keep critical surface energy in a certain range to prevent attachment, but in our case, we manipulated it to get droplets to cling on tight.”

The sponge can remove microdroplets of crude oil in less than 10 minutes.  An earlier version of the sponge the the research team developed was able to remove over 95% of the oil in the tested samples, but it took three hours to achieve to same level of removal.

When tested under four different scenarios of acidity, the coated foam soaked up between 95% and 99% of the oil in approximately 10 minutes.  One of the great aspects of the sponge is that it can be reused after being washed with a solvent to remove the oil.  The oil can be recycled.

8 Dangerous Goods myths and misconceptions—busted!

Contributed by LabelMaster

Remember Mythbusters? A couple of former Hollywood effects pros created one of the top shows on cable TV by debunking popular myths and misconceptions. They proved—over and over—that just because “everyone knows” something doesn’t make it true.

If there were a supply chain TV network, Dangerous Goods professionals could probably run their own version of Mythbusters. We hear myths and misconceptions all the time!

Labelmaster consultants Jay JohnsonAlicia Saenz and Jim Shimko helped compile this list of hazmat shipping myths, along with the facts and regulatory knowledge that busts them.

  1. As long as the box is UN rated and/or marked you can put anything in it. Um, no. UN-certified packaging is highly specialized, with packagings designed specifically for lithium batteries, air bags, chemicals and other materials.
  2. If you’re only shipping Limited Quantities by ground, you don’t need any training. Please don’t fall for this one! Anyone who handles hazmat—any kind of hazmat—is required to have up-to-date training, and if your teams’ training is out of date there’s a very good chance you’ll be fined. Heck, we even offer training specifically for shipping Limited and Excepted Quantities.
  3. Packages marked Limited Quantity or ORM-D shipping via ground are “not really regulated.” Yes, it’s true that the Limited Quantity, Excepted Quantity and ORM-D designations were created to be less burdensome than Fully Regulated shipments, but there are still lots of regulations that do apply to such shipments. (By the way, the ORM-D designation is being phased out by the end of 2020. Stay tuned.)
  4. Regulatory agencies are in cahoots with manufacturers to sell more labels and packaging. Sure, that’s why ICAO has three days of 12-hour meetings every year! Contrary to this conspiracy theory, the truth is we’re not crazy about rules changes, either—but we recognize that each change represents hundreds of hours of work by incredibly dedicated professionals who only want to make the supply chain safer.
  5. “They shipped it to me that way so it must be compliant, and I can just ship it again.” Yikes. 71% of hazmat pros surveyed in our most recent Global DG Confidence Outlook say their supply chain partners are not as compliant as they are. In Dangerous Goods transport, you can never assume anything—please check the regulations for everything you ship.
  6. You can ship anything in 4GV packaging. Maybe, but why would you? As Johnson explains, “Don’t make the exception the rule! You might be able to use 4G packages for the 99% of your shipments and use more expensive  4GV packagings for the 1% odd primaries.”
  7. Button cell lithium batteries aren’t really regulated. People who say this may mean button cells aren’t Fully Regulated, but there’s no such thing as “not really regulated.” Please don’t make the mistake of believing that any kind of lithium batteries can be shipped without regard to relevant lithium battery regulations.
  8. If you light a match in a porta potty, it will explode. Oops, sorry, that’s actually Mythbusters episode. But in case you were wondering … you’d need to be in a tightly sealed porta-potty filled with thick methane gas for it to be flammable, so you can light up without fear.

Remember—just because “everyone knows” something doesn’t make it true! If you ever have any questions about how to compliantly package, label, placard or document a Dangerous Goods shipment, call Labelmaster at 800.621.5808 to separate the facts from the myths.

Make sure your shipments are safe and in complete compliance with a full line of solutions from Labelmaster—a full-service provider of goods and services for hazardous materials and Dangerous Goods professionals, shippers, transport operators and EH&S providers.