Global Crisis, Emergency and Incident Management Platforms Market 2019

Persistence Market Research recent market report on Global Crisis, Emergency and Incident Management Platforms estimates that it will be worth $102 billion (USD) by the end of 2024.

A 2017 market analysis by Persistence Market Research on the market in North America predicted the year-over-year growth the Global Crisis, Emergency and Incident Management Platforms to increase at a CAGR of 7.2%. through to 2023. The 2017 report estimated that the North America market accounted for a relatively high market share and be valued at more than US$ 20 Billion in 2017. The report estimated that the North American regional market would continue to remain dominant in terms of value during the forecast period (2017 – 2024).

The latest market report from Persistence Market Research predicts that the global market or crisis, emergency & incident management platforms will be fragmented across various systems and platforms. Among which, the demand for web-based emergency management software, geospatial technology, emergency notification system, hazmat technology, seismic warning systems, and remote weather monitoring systems is expected to gain traction throughout the forecast period. These systems are also predicted to be demanding greater incorporation of communication technologies. Through 2024, satellite phone, vehicle-ready gateways, and emergency response radars will be the most dominant type of communication technologies used in working of any crisis, emergency & incident management platform.

Likewise, the report also expects that during the stipulated forecast period, professional services such as consulting and emergency operation center (EOC) design & integration will be in great demand. By the end of 2024, crisis, emergency & incident management platforms will be actively adopted across industry verticals such as BFSI, energy & utility, government & defense, and telecommunication and IT.

A regional analysis of the global crisis, emergency & incident management platform market indicates that North America will dominate by accounting for over US$ 36 Billion revenues by 2024-end. Adoption for such platforms will also be high in Asia-Pacific, and the region is expected to showcase a 6% value CAGR.

Leading providers of crisis, emergency & incident management platforms in the world include Honeywell International, Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, Motorola Solution, Inc., Rockwell Collins, Inc., Siemens AG, Iridium Communication Inc., Guardly, Environmental System Research Institute, Inc., and Intergraph Corporation.

Get Rid of Outdated Hazmat Compliance Materials

Written by Hazmat University

Spring is in the air! And along with that comes the pleasant and incessant urge to clean closets, declutter the house, and scrub the whole thing down!  Something that we may overlook, however, is that Spring is also a perfect time to do a Hazardous Materials refresh – and it doesn’t involve washing walls!  

Spring Clean and Keep Current Hazmat Compliance Materials

Spring is also an ideal time to do a Hazardous Materials refresh. Many people avoid this kind of clean-up because they don’t know what they should keep and for how long. But hazmat compliance is dependent on maintaining current knowledge and current practices. Now really is an excellent time to make sure that your hazardous materials are current, relevant, and not overly burdensome for the people that need them to properly do their jobs.

Out With The Old, Hold On to the Current

Do you have a tendency to hold on to outdated materials, forms, or labels? If you are, stop immediately. Hazmat compliance materials are detail-oriented to begin with, so the simpler, clearer and less cluttered, the better. You’ll be happy you did it. Outdated materials present the danger of actually being used by someone and causing an issue. Good riddance, old subsidiary risk labels!

Which Important Documents Should You Keep?

As regulations for shipping dangerous goods increase in complexity, there’s no reason to keep information laying around that could increase your risk for non-compliance, including stopped shipments, supply chain delays, fines and more.

The industry makes sweeping changes all the time, making it all the more important to only have up-to-date regulations on hand. If your printed copies of 49 CFR, IATA DGR, or the IMDG Code are outdated, it may be time to move on to online resources. An example of an online resource is Title 49 CFR   “e-CFR” which is available online, and the Government Publishing Office maintains it so that it is always up-to-date.

Compliance is dependent on maintaining current knowledge and current practices, and this is a perfect time to ensure that your hazardous materials

  • regulations;
  • policies;
  • practices;
  • employee training;
  • training content;
  • training records;
  • packaging closure instructions;
  • internal audits;
  • emergency response provider product information;
  • and more

are current, relevant, and not overly burdensome for the people that rely on them to properly do their job. Hazardous materials transportation compliance is detail-saturated to begin with, so the simpler you can make it, the better – and you’ll be happy that you did.

Making sure you discard old training and compliance documents is crucial, especially if you have new or inexperienced hazmat employees. Remembering all the regulations for various shipping transportation processes can be difficult. That’s part of the reason why it’s crucial to stay up-to-date on regulations.

It’s also critical that hazmat employees have access to transportation regulations at all times in case they need to refer to them. Remembering the most essential aspects of hazmat compliance becomes second nature for most employees, but that happens over time.

Stay Up-to-Date with Hazmat University

Everyone involved in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce is required by law to be aware and comply with the appropriate regulations. Hazmat University offers several training programs for shipping and handling hazmat by air, ground, and sea. Courses include initial training for novices, recurrent training for those with more experience.

Now we can take a breath of that fresh spring air, and just maybe we have inspired you to clean out those closets too! Happy Spring from the Bureau of Dangerous Goods!

What is the Cost of An Asbestos Test?

Written by Robert B. Greene, PE, PG, CIH, LEED AP, GLE Associates Inc.

The presence of asbestos can be hazardous to workers and building occupants during renovations and even in the course of daily business, and the only way to know if it is a problem is to test for it. You may now be wondering whats an asbestos survey and do you need one?

What Is Asbestos and Why Is It a Problem?

Asbestos is a heat-resistant silicate fiber that is frequently present in building materials. Contrary to common understanding, it is still used in building materials today and can be present in any building of any age.

It becomes a problem when asbestos-containing materials are disturbed and the fibers enter the air. The fibers lodge themselves in the lungs of anyone who breathes them in and can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other acute and long-term health problems, up to and including death.

How and When Should You Test for Asbestos?

An asbestos test (also called an asbestos survey) should be conducted prior to any renovation or demolition activities in any building of any age. In fact, an asbestos survey is required by law prior to these activities for any building materials which may be disturbed.

You should also be concerned about the ongoing presence of asbestos in older buildings, where asbestos-containing materials may have deteriorated over time. This can cause them to release asbestos fibers into the air, creating a hazard for building occupants. An asbestos survey is a relatively inexpensive way to ensure your buildings are safe for tenants and employees.

How Does an Asbestos Test Work?

A qualified asbestos company will bring in an experienced team to collect samples of potential asbestos-containing building materials. The samples will be sent to a lab for testing, and a report will be generated based on the results.

How Much Does an Asbestos Test Cost?

An asbestos survey is a relatively inexpensive precaution and may be mandated by law prior to even small renovation projects. The cost to conduct asbestos testing will vary widely based on a number of factors, including:

  • The type of facility. The more complex the building, the more time it will take to collect an adequate number of samples from all the relevant types of materials. It will also cost more to have more samples tested in the lab. For example, an asbestos survey of a hospital would be much more expensive than the same size open warehouse.
  • Type of survey. For example, a survey for a renovation of a small portion of the building, affecting a limited number of building materials, will generally cost substantially less than a building demolition survey which will affect all of the building’s components and materials.
  • Square footage. A larger facility will likewise require more time and a larger number of samples, all else being equal.
  • Facility use. If the facility is currently in use, the cost of testing will increase to account for accommodations and protections necessary for the safety and comfort of your occupants. In some cases, such as hospitals, extra care will be required to minimize disruption and ensure safety, which can further increase the cost.
  • Accessibility. If asbestos surveyors have to crawl into tight spaces, remove walls or ceiling materials, climb to high spaces, or use ladders and scaffolding to reach potential asbestos-containing materials, those factors will increase the cost of testing.

It’s hard to know exactly what your cost for an asbestos survey will be without a qualified quotation. Ultimately, if asbestos is found in your property, then seeking out a firm that specialises in asbestos removal Brisbane, or asbestos removal wherever you are is essential.


About the Author

Robert B. Greene, PE, PG, CIH, LEED AP has served in the engineering, environmental consulting, construction and remediation arenas for more than 36 years, including president of GLE since 1989. He has managed numerous consulting and contracting projects for public and private sector clients throughout the United States with construction and environmental remediation costs exceeding $100 million.

In 1987, the governor appointed Mr. Greene to the Florida Asbestos Committee, which was responsible for developing state asbestos regulations. He has also served as an expert witness for litigation for environmental and construction related issues.

United States: U.S. EPA Takes Action Under TSCA Identifying Chemicals For Agency Scrutiny

Written by by Lawrence E. Culleen, Arnold & Porter

Prioritization of Chemicals

In its continuing quest to meet regulatory deadlines imposed by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has published a list of 40 chemicals that must be “prioritized” by the end of 2019. The announcement marks the beginning of the Agency’s process for designating the 40 listed chemicals identified as either “high” or “low” priority substances for further the U.S. EPA scrutiny. At the conclusion of the prioritization process, at least 20 of the substances likely will be designated as high priority.

A high priority designation immediately commences the U.S. EPA’s formal “risk evaluation” procedures under the amended statute. The risk evaluation process can lead to “pause preemption” under the terms of the 2016 amendments and new state laws and regulations restricting the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of a chemical substance undergoing a risk evaluation could not be established until the evaluation process is completed. The U.S. EPA commenced its first 10 risk evaluations as required under the amended law at the close of 2016. The Agency is required to have an additional 20 risk evaluations of high priority substances ongoing by December 22, 2019. If the U.S. EPA’s risk evaluation process concludes that a substance presents an “unreasonable risk” to health or the environment under its “conditions of use,” the Agency must commence a rulemaking to prohibit or limit the use of the substance under Section 6 of TSCA.

The Agency’s announcement of the list of chemicals to undergo prioritization provides the makers and users of the listed substances an important, time limited opportunity to submit relevant information such as the uses, hazards, and exposure for these chemicals. The U.S. EPA has opened a docket for each of the 40 chemicals and the opportunity to submit information for the U.S. EPA’s consideration will close in 90 days (on June 19, 2019). The U.S. EPA will then move to propose the designation of these chemical substances as either high priority or low priority. The statute requires the U.S. EPA to complete the prioritization process, by finalizing its high priority and low priority designations, within the next nine to 12 months.

The list of 20 substances to be reviewed as high priority candidates consists entirely of substances previously identified by U.S. EPA in 2014 as “Work Plan” chemicals. Thus, the list contains few chemicals that should be considered complete “surprises.” However, the inclusion of formaldehyde may raise concerns in certain quarters given the scrutiny that has been given to the U.S. EPA’s previous struggles with assessing the potential effects of formaldehyde. The Agency has attempted to address these concerns by stating “Moving forward evaluating formaldehyde under the TSCA program does not mean that the formaldehyde work done under IRIS will be lost. In fact, the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process. By using our TSCA authority EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority.” Also included in the listing are several chlorinated solvents, phthalates, flame retardants, a fragrance additive, and a polymer pre-curser:

  • p-Dichlorobenzene
  • 1,2-Dichloroethane
  • trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene
  • o-Dichlorobenzene
  • 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
  • 1,2-Dichloropropane
  • 1,1-Dichloroethane
  • Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester)
  • Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) – 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester
  • Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester)
  • Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester)
  • Dicyclohexyl phthalate
  • 4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA)
  • Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)
  • Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP)
  • Ethylene dibromide
  • 1,3-Butadiene
  • 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB)
  • Formaldehyde
  • Phthalic anhydride

The U.S. EPA has signaled that it has received a manufacturer request for a EPA to undertake a risk evaluation of two additional phthalates which, if administrative requirements for such request have been met, the Agency would announce publicly in the very near term.

The 20 low priority candidate chemicals were selected from the U.S. EPA’s “Safer Chemicals Ingredients List”—a list of substances previously evaluated and considered to meet the U.S. EPA’s “Safer Choice” criteria for use in certain common product categories, such as cleaning products.

Other Recent and Impending U.S. EPA Actions Under TSCA

Given the numerous deadlines that are looming under the amendments to TSCA, it is critical that chemical manufacturers and processors of chemicals and formulations remain aware of the recent and upcoming actions under TSCA that can significantly impact their businesses. The following provides a short list of important actions of which to be aware.

Active/Inactive TSCA Inventory Designations. EPA released an updated version of the TSCA Inventory in February 2019. The Inventory is available for download here. This version of the Inventory includes chemical substances reported by manufacturers and processors by their respective reporting deadlines in 2018. The updated TSCA Inventory (confidential and non-confidential versions) includes 40,655 “active” chemical substances and 45,573 “inactive” chemical substances. Once the current 90-day “transition period” has concluded, it will be unlawful to manufacture, import or process in the US any substance that is listed as “inactive” without first providing notice to the U.S. EPA. Thus, prior to the expiration of the “transition period” on May 20, 2019, manufacturers and processors of chemical substances that are not listed as active on the February 2019 TSCA Inventory must take steps to activate the substance by filing a Notice of Activity (NOA Form B) for any chemical substance that they currently are manufacturing or processing, or anticipate manufacturing or processing within 90 days of submission.

Final TSCA Section 6(a) for Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating Removers. EPA has released its long-awaited TSCA Section 6(a) rule restricting the use of methylene chloride in paint and coating removers. The final rule prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution of methylene chloride in paint removers for consumer use. The rule prohibits the sale of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers at retail establishments with any consumer sales (including e-commerce sales). The U.S. EPA declined to finalize its determination that the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers presents an unreasonable risk. Therefore, distributors to commercial users, industrial users, and other businesses will continue to be permitted to distribute methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. However, given recent efforts by store-front retailers to “deselect” such products for consumer sales, it remains unclear how distributions to commercial users can or will occur.

The U.S. EPA simultaneously released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking related to a potential certification program for commercial uses of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA has similar programs in place for certain pesticides and refrigerants, and the United Kingdom currently has in place a program to certify commercial users of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA is seeking comment on whether a certification program is the appropriate tool to address any potential risks that could be posed by the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers.

Upcoming Draft Risk Evaluations. The U.S. EPA is expected to publish within days or weeks the highly anticipated draft Risk Evaluations for the remaining 9 of the 10 initial substances to undergo TSCA Risk Evaluations under the amended law and which have been under review since December 2016. The Agency will accept comments on the drafts for a limited period.

Proposed Rules for 5 PBT substances. The U.S. EPA is required to issue no later than June 2019 proposed TSCA Section 6 regulations for 5 persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances that were identified during 2016 as priorities for regulatory action. The Agency must propose expedited rules intended to reduce exposures to the extent practicable.


*Camille Heyboer also contributed to this Advisory.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

About the Author

Lawrence Culleen represents clients on administrative, regulatory, and enforcement matters involving federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Agriculture, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Mr. Culleen has broad experience advising clients on US and international regulatory programs that govern commercial and consumer use chemicals, pesticides and antimicrobials, as well as the products of biotechnology and nanoscale materials. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Culleen held significant positions at EPA serving as a manager in various risk-management programs which oversee pesticides, chemical substances, and biotechnology products.

Tesla Fire Is A Reminder For Businesses Storing Hazardous Materials

Written by Dawn DeVroom, IDR Environmental Services

fire broke out on Saturday, February 17 at Tesla’s car plant in Fremont, California. This isn’t anything new, because we do hear about businesses that have fires from time to time.

But, what makes this fire different is that it happened in an area where the company stores some of its hazardous materials outside. And, because of this, Tesla was forced to call the local Fremont Fire Department and required a hazardous materials unit.

According to reports, Tesla has a history of fires at this facility. This includes a fire in their paint shop in April 2018 and another outdoor fire in August 2018.

Add to this, Tesla was already under investigation by Cal-OSHA cited in January and fined $29,000 for allegedly violating six different worker safety regulations in their general assembly 4 (GA4) production line.

According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal:

“Tesla allegedly didn’t obtain a building permit or inspect the tent for safety violations, train workers on how to get out of the building in an emergency, or protect themselves from heat illness. Cal-OSHA also claims the tent had exposed metal rods and rebar that workers could potentially impale themselves on, and failed to cover a hole in the floor that was 22 inches wide, 14 inches wide and 8 inches deep.”

Suffice it to say…this fire isn’t helping Tesla’s safety record with OSHA.

So, what can businesses who store hazardous materials do to avoid Tesla’s potential catastrophe with that fire. Here are some very important things you should do.

Store Hazardous Waste In Proper Containers

storing hazardous materials

As a hazardous waste generator, you must satisfy safety, environmental and regulatory guidelines and have a solid base of knowledge and experience in using and handling hazardous materials in your facility.

Using the right storage containers for different types of hazardous waste is the key to safety and compliance. All hazardous waste generators must insure that their containers are built to specification according to the most current codes and regulations.

Following is a list of the different types of hazardous waste storage containers according to the Environmental Protection Agency website.   

  • Containers – portable device in which hazardous waste is stored, transported, or otherwise handled.
  • Tanks – stationary device of man-made materials used to store hazardous waste, either open or closed.
  • Drip Pads – wood drying structure used by the pressure treated wood industry to collect excess wood preservative and drippings.
  • Containment Buildings – completely enclosed self-supporting structures used to store or treat non-containerized hazardous waste.
  • Waste Piles – open, uncovered pile used for treating or storing hazardous waste.
  • Surface Impoundments – a natural topographical depression, man-made excavation or diked area such as a holding pond, storage pit or settling lagoon.

Proper storage and disposal requires you to understand which materials are toxic, what they do, the types of containers needed for storing the material and the type of personal protective equipment (PPE) that must be used.

You can learn more about which container is right for you waste by reading our article, How To Choose The Right Hazardous Waste Storage Container.

Label Hazardous Waste Correctly

Identification of properties and the regulatory status of waste that you generate is vital in maintaining compliance with state and federal regulations.

Hazardous waste generators that accumulate hazardous waste on-site in containers must be aware of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations regarding the proper labeling, marking and placarding requirements for hazardous waste containers.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides the following guidance for the proper labeling requirements for California hazardous waste generators as outlined in Title 22, California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.):

  • Date – The date upon which each period of accumulation begins must be clearly marked and visible for inspection on each accumulation unit.
  • Hazardous Waste Notice – Each generator tank or container must be labeled or clearly marked with the words, “Hazardous Waste”.
  • Name and Address – Name and address of the generator.
  • Composition and State – Chemical composition (chemicals in the waste) and physical state of the waste (e.g. solid, liquid, etc.)
  • Properties of Waste – Statement or statements that call attention to the particular hazardous properties of the waste (e.g. flammable, reactive, etc.)
  • Accumulation Dates – If waste is collected or consolidated in containers or tanks, the initial date of the accumulation must be marked, as well as the “90-day or 180-day period” dates, whichever applies to your company. If waste from an older container is added, the initial accumulation date will need to be changed.
  • Recurring Waste Labels – “Recurring use” labels may be used on containers where same waste streams are initially collected and emptied into larger accumulation containers. The labels can revise the initial accumulation and “90-day period” dates (without having to change the other labeling information). If the container is emptied at least once each day, the word “daily” may be used in the date area of the label. 

You can learn more in our article, How To Properly Label Hazardous Waste Containers.

Prepare a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan

According to federal and state regulations, every hazardous waste generator is required to have an emergency contingency plan. This plan outlines the company’s program to minimize hazards to human health and the environment from fires, explosions or an unplanned sudden release of a hazardous waste.

Failure to implement a plan can lead to hefty fines with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Your Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan should include:

Small Quantity Generators (SQG’s)

  • Designate an emergency coordinator and post contact information
  • Post the location of emergency equipment
  • Post emergency telephones
  • Ensure employees are familiar with emergency procedures

Contingency Plan Requirements for Large Quantity Generators (LQG’s)

  • Create a written plan on-site and make sure the it is up-to-date and reviewed frequently
  • Designate an emergency coordinator(s) and post contact information
  • Post the location of emergency equipment
  • Post emergency telephones
  • Create an emergency evacuation plan
  • Ensure employees are familiar with emergency procedures
  • List name, address and phone number (s) (home and office) for designated emergency coordinator
  • Submit written plan to local authorities

You must maintain at least one copy of the contingency plan at the facility, but multiple copies is even better. In addition, copies must be submitted to local police departments, fire departments, hospitals, and state and local emergency response teams that may provide emergency services to the facility.

Even if a facility will be providing its own responders, the contingency plan should still be sent to appropriate authorities in the local community in case of an off-site release or major emergency that requires their assistance.

You can read more about how not having a hazardous waste contingency plan affected another company in our article, No Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan Leads To Big Fine For Manufacturer.

Consider a HazMat Emergency Response Team

storing hazardous materials

The risks of working with hazardous substances and generating hazardous waste are great, and the consequences of a release, fire or spill can be dire.

Many companies choose to outsource their emergency response as an alternative to training, equipping and maintaining an emergency response team in-house. And, some companies will have more than one company at their disposal to ensure availability when an event occurs.

Emergency response companies have a fully-staffed, fully-trained hazmat emergency response team that are available 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.

It is important to establish a relationship in advance to allow for fast response times, with experienced supervisors who coordinate with all responsible agencies (such as local fire and rescue) to limit liability and costs.

Whether you need to control a situation or stop a potentially dangerous one, having an outside HazMat emergency response team provides the following benefits:

  • Save Lives
  • Protect Property
  • Preserve the environment
  • Limit Liability

You can learn more about using a HazMat emergency response team in our article, What A HazMat Emergency Response Team Can Do For Your Business.

Final Thoughts

Tesla serves as an example of what could happen to companies that use, generate and require storage of hazardous materials. Although nothing serious happened in Tesla’s recent fire, it could be much worse for your company if you don’t have the above procedures in place.

If you need assistance with putting together your program, contact a hazardous materials company that specializes in helping companies create and maintain their program.


About the Author

Dawn DeVroom is the CFO at IDR Environmental Services based in California. The company specializes in hazardous waste disposal.

Hazardous industry leaders give insight on the keys to operational excellence

A global survey of hazardous industries and Operational Index was recently published by Sphera. The annual Operational Excellence Index (OEI) survey report which highlights trends in digital transformation and OE strategies across the hazardous industries.

Previously conducted by Petrotechnics, now a Sphera company, the index is in its third year of surveying oil and gas, chemical, energy and industry manufacturing professionals to gauge attitudes around OE and the measures taken towards its adoption. Year after year respondents agree, OE programs help reduce risk, cut costs, and improve productivity. The 2018/2019 survey reveals senior leaders are relying on technologies to support their OE initiatives and identifies where they are coming up short and what they could do to improve.

Ninety percent of respondents agree digital transformation will accelerate their ability to achieve OE – not just as a one-off target but as an ongoing business objective. This is a significant increase from last year’s report where 73% of leaders agreed that going digital was key to achieving OE. Implementing digital technologies is now aligned with overall business goals with 55% leveraging technology to reduce operational risk and 55% to improve asset availability and uptime.

Paul Marushka, President and CEO at Sphera, commented, “As the third-annual Operational Excellence Index shows, digital transformation is upon us. As companies look for new ways to keep their people safe, their operations productive and their products sustainable, being able to tap into and monitor data from Industry 4.0 solutions will be a major differentiator for organizations looking to separate themselves from the competition. It’s not surprising that 90% of respondents agree that digital technology will accelerate operational excellence. We couldn’t agree more. Sphera believes digital is the wave of the future for operational risk mitigation.”

But while industry leaders agree digital is essential to OE, more than half are still trying to figure out what ‘digital transformation’ means for them, and 69% are just beginning their digital journey. The approach to digital matters, according to 83% of survey respondents, who admit they have relied on legacy systems to improve their business agility but had not embedded operational best practices cross-functionally.

The good news is the industry is on the brink of a major step forward when it comes to achieving OE through digitalization. Seventy-five percent of leaders recognize the need to create new, insight-driven business processes across enterprise functions. Advanced analytics and digital twins were highlighted as key solutions to help operators understand how to make better, safer planning and operational decisions. 

Scott Lehmann, VP, Product Management, ORM for Operations at Sphera, said, “This year’s survey clearly illustrates the challenges digital leaders face within their own organizations to understand what digital transformation means or could mean practically and tangibly to their company. While the pace of digital transformation and ROI is still in its early days, the survey points strongly to a rapid acceleration on the horizon. Digital leaders understand digital integration and the adoption of new technologies must focus on creating actionable insights to help underpin new cross-functional business processes that enhance decision-making and the way people work together.”

One survey respondent suggested: “The best approach to digital is not to use technologies to close gaps that you know already exist. Rather, start with a blank sheet of paper and define what you need – and then assess the available technologies.”

Petrotechnics, now a Sphera company, conducted the survey between October and November 2018, collecting 116 responses from a broad representation of functions, demographics and industries across the hazardous industries, including: oil, gas, chemicals, manufacturing, utilities, mining, engineering and other sectors. The survey included respondents from each major region – specifically Middle East (29%), Europe (28%), North America (28%), Asia Pacific (11%), Africa (3%) and South America (1%).

View the full report and results from the 2018/2019 Operational Excellence Index.

What are the core requirements of wide area CBRNe training?

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

When you are required to conduct wide area emergency preparedness training – be it in the setting of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNe) school, a dedicated military center or an industrial facility – the ongoing challenge for any CBRNe instructor is to be able to create a scenario that is realistic, safe, reliable and cost effective.

Trainees need to be equipped with the practical knowledge and skills to respond with confidence to an enormous variety of potential live incidents. And each threat brings with it a unique set of practical, physical and psychological tasks that need to be ‘experienced’ in order to be understood.

So what is the recommended approach to help instructors implement a realistic but safe CBRNe training environment?

Overcoming regulatory obstacles

While the spreading of chemical simulants can still occasionally be an option, strict environmental regulations generally make it unfeasible – and the use of any form of radiological source is almost always going to be unrealistic for all but the most high specialized of training facilities.

Simulant training also brings with it the problem of being very location-dependent, which restricts the ability to create scenarios in public settings or confined spaces. And there is the added difficulty of it not being able to be readily integrate simulant training with other conventional live training methods.

Wide-area instrumented training systems

When the highest degree of realism is required, a powerful modular exercise control system such as PlumeSIM enable instructors to take their CBRNe training exercises to an entirely new level. And it especially comes into its own in the context of counter terrorism scenarios, nuclear training drills and HazMat emergency exercises.

So what benefits does the PlumeSIM training system offer?

Portability – Plume-SIM is highly portable making it quick to set up and to use in any environment. The inclusion of a planning mode also means that instructors can easily prepare exercises on a laptop or PC without the need for any form of system hardware.

Realism – Students are equipped with simulators and GPS enabled players, to enable them to take part in large area exercises that can include sequential multi-threat releases or that integrate with third-party live training systems.

Instructor control – The instructor retains complete control of the exercise including the ability to decide the type, quantity, location and nature of the source.

Environment – Specific environmental conditions can also be easily defined by the user, including temperature and changes in wind direction.

Repeatability – The Plume-SIM’s exercise parameters can be saved so the identical scenario can be repeated as many times as required.

Real-time action -The trainees’ movements, progress and instrument usage can be monitored in real time from a central control station.

After action review – The recording of student activity in real-time provides useful after action review (AAR). This can be used to encourage discussions about the effectiveness of an exercise and to facilitate further improvements.

Data capture – All recorded exercise data can also be exported and emailed to external personnel for future analysis.

Pre-exercise capability – The table-top planning mode uses standard gamepad controllers which enables trainees to undertake pre-exercise practice to take place within the classroom environment. The exercise can also be recorded and analysed prior to heading for the live field training area.

Versatility – If environmental conditions preclude the ability to obtain or maintain continuous long-range radio communication then the scenario can be pre-loaded on the player unit for timed activation.

Compatibility – The Plume-SIM system is compatible with a wide variety of simulator equipment including the M4 JCAD-SIMCAMSIMAP2C-SIMAP4C-SIMRDS200-SIMEPD-Mk2-SIMAN/PDR-77-/VDR-2 and RDS100-SIM.

Room to grow – The modular system gives instructors the flexibility to expand their range of training equipment as and when their budgets allow.

Achieving the highest level of realism in CBRNe training is paramount – and assuring personnel safety will always be key.

A flexible, modular simulator-based training solution such as the PlumeSIM system can provide trainees with the opportunity to practice and perfect their response to a wide variety of highly-realistic simulated threats in a completely safe environment.


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.

With more oil to be shipped by rail, train derailments show enduring safety gaps

by Mark Winfield and Bruce Campbell, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada

The recent runaway CP Rail train in the Rocky Mountains near Field, B.C., highlighted ongoing gaps in Canada’s railway safety regime, more than five years after the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster that killed 47 residents of the small Québec town.

The British Columbia crash resulted in the deaths of three railway workers and the derailment of 99 grain cars and two locomotives.

In the B.C. accident, the train involved had been parked for two hours on a steep slope without the application of hand brakes in addition to air brakes.

The practice of relying on air brakes to hold trains parked on slopes was permitted by both the company and by Transport Canada rules. Revised operating rules, adopted after the Lac-Mégantic disaster, had not required the application of hand brakes under these circumstances.

The latest accident was one of a rash of high-profile train derailments in Canada since the beginning of 2019. While none compares in magnitude with Lac-Mégantic, they evoke disturbing parallels to that tragedy. Although investigations are ongoing, what we do know raises questions about whether any lessons have in fact been learned from the 2013 disaster.

Now must apply hand brakes

Within days of the B.C. runaway, both CP Rail and Transport Canada mandated the application of hand brakes in addition to air brakes for trains parked on slopes. This after-the-fact measure parallels the action Transport Canada took days after Lac-Mégantic, prohibiting single-person crews, after having granted permission to Montréal Maine and Atlantic Railway to operate its massive oil trains through Eastern Québec with a lone operator.

Furthermore, like the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, existing mechanical problems with the locomotives involved reportedly played a role in the CP Rail derailment, raising questions about the adequacy of oversight with regard to equipment maintenance practices.

Like Lac-Mégantic, worker fatigue may have also played a role in the crash. Despite efforts within Transport Canada to force railways to better manage crew fatigue, railway companies have long resisted. Instead they have taken page out of the tobacco industry playbook by denying inconvenient scientific evidence as “emotional and deceptive rhetoric.”

The situation has prompted the Transportation Safety Board to put fatigue management on its watchlist of risky practices, stating that Transport Canada has been aware of the problem for many years but is continuing to drag its feet.

Oil-by-rail traffic explodes

The implications of the B.C. accident take on additional significance in light of the dramatic growth seen in oil-by-rail traffic in Canada over the past year. Export volumes reached a record 354,000 barrels per day in December 2018, with the vast majority of the oil going to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast and Midwest. These oil tankers potentially being able to derail is a legal claim waiting to happen with the help of a personal injury attorney, compensation could and would be very wholesome.

This development has not gone unnoticed by people living in communities across North America, who are concerned about the growing danger of another disastrous derailment.

The increase in traffic — now bolstered by the Alberta government’s plan to put another 120,000 barrels per day of crude oil on the rails by next year — is occurring at a time when the Transportation Safety Board reported a significant increase in “uncontrolled train movements” during 2014-17 compared to the average of the five years preceding the disaster.


Read more: Technology to prevent rail disasters is in our hands


This is despite the board’s Lac-Mégantic investigation report recommendation that Transport Canada implement additional measures to prevent runaway trains.

Two weeks after the B.C. crash, a CN train carrying crude oil derailed near St. Lazare, Man.; 37 tank cars left the tracks, punctured and partially spilled their contents. The cars were a retrofitted version of the TC-117 model tank car, developed after Lac-Mégantic, intended to prevent spills of dangerous goods. The train was travelling at 49 mph, just under the maximum allowable speed.

Budgets chopped

In the lead-up to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, the Harper government squeezed bothTransport Canada’s rail safety and transportation of dangerous goods oversight budgets. These budgets did not increase significantly after the disaster.

Justin Trudeau’s government pledged additional resources for rail safety oversight. However, Transport Canada’s plans for the coming years show safety budgets falling back to Harper-era levels. It remains to be seen whether these plans will be reversed in the upcoming federal budget.

Safety Management Systems-based approach remains the centrepiece of Canada’s railway safety system. That system been fraught with problems since it was introduced 17 years ago.

It continues to allow rail companies to, in effect, self-regulate, compromising safety when it conflicts with bottom-line priorities. Government officials claim there has been a major increase in the number of Transport Canada rail safety inspectors conducting unannounced, on-site inspections. But the inspectors’ union questions these claims.

If an under-resourced regulator, with a long history of deference to the industry, is unable to fulfil its first-and-foremost obligation to ensure the health and safety of its citizens, the lessons of Lac-Mégantic have still not been learned. The B.C. accident highlights that the window for history to repeat itself remains wide open.


This article is republished with permission. It was first published on The Conversation website.

About the Authors Authors

Mark Winfield is a Professor of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada

Bruce Campbell is an Adjunct professor, York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada

Are New United States Regulations Coming for Accidental Releases into Air?

By Louis A. Ferreira, Willa B. Perlmutter, and Guy J. Thompson, Stoel Rives LLP

On February 4, 2019, a federal court ruled that the U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Board must issue regulations within one year that set forth reporting requirements for accidental releases of hazardous substances into the ambient air. This requirement has been part of the Board’s statutory mandate since its inception in 1990 pursuant to Section 112(r)(6)(C)(iii) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Nevertheless, the Board has never issued any such regulations.

Four non-profit groups and one individual filed a one-count complaint against the Board, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to compel the Board to promulgate reporting requirements as required by the CAA. Plaintiffs claimed that the Board had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not issuing any regulations. Plaintiffs further asserted the lack of reporting requirements have impaired their respective abilities to collect information that would help prevent future releases and the harm caused from such releases.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that the Board must issue regulations within one year. In reaching its decision, the Court rejected the Board’s defenses that the delay in promulgating regulations was reasonable given the Board’s limited resources, small staff size, and other required functions. “[I]f that is the case,” the Court said, “the solution to its resource constraints is not to ignore a congressional directive[,] [i]t is to return to Congress and ask for relief from the statutory requirement.” The case is Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. U.S. Chem. & Safety Hazard Investigation Bd., D.D.C., No. 17-cv-02608, February 4, 2019.

The Court’s decision appears to follow a similar one issued in August 2018 in which some of the same plaintiffs brought a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In that case, the plaintiffs petitioned the D.C. Court of Appeals for review of the EPA’s decision to delay for 20 months the effective date of a rule designed to promote accident safety and enhance the emergency response requirements for chemical releases. The Court rejected all of EPA’s defenses justifying the delay in a strongly-worded opinion that held the agency strictly to the letter of the CAA. That case is Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, 906 F.3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

The same directness is evident in this recent decision.

Ultimately, the practical effect of the ruling is not clear. There are already laws in place that require companies to report accidental releases to state and federal authorities. It is possible the Board will promulgate regulations that align with its current practice of deferring reporting requirements to other agencies. If the Board took that approach, there likely would not be a noticeable difference in reporting requirements from the current practice.

On the other hand, the two recent decisions discussed above suggest that a trend may be forming in which the courts are pushing back when the government steps off its clear statutory path.


This article has been republished with the permission of the authors. The original post of this article can be found on the Stoel Rivers LLP website.

About the Authors

Lou Ferreira is a senior partner with more than 27 years of complex trial experience.  His practice focuses on commercial litigation, insurance coverage and environmental, safety & health issues.  A seasoned litigator, Lou has significant experience in high-stakes litigation including successfully defending a class action filed against a utility by residents of a town in Washington asserting that the utility was liable for flooding as a result of the operations of its upstream dams.  Lou  successfully defended a port in Washington from a $20 million lawsuit brought by developers alleging breach of contract to develop a large mixed-use waterfront project on the Columbia River. 

Willa Perlmutter has more than 30 years of experience as a litigator, focusing for the last 20 on defending mine operators across all sectors of the industry in administrative enforcement proceedings brought by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for alleged violations of the Mine Act.  In addition, she regularly counsels clients on a broad range of issues that affect their mining operations, from personnel policies and actions to compliance with a broad range of federal statutes. Willa regularly defends companies and individuals facing investigations and formal legal proceedings for alleged safety and health violations under both the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, whether those arise out of a catastrophic event, such as an accident, or in the course of a regular inspection by MSHA or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). She has successfully defended a number of mining companies in whistleblower cases brought under the Mine Act.

Guy Thompson is a litigator and advisor on a wide-range of insurance matters. His practice focuses on insurance coverage litigation, including natural resources/environmental insurance coverage, and a wide variety of risk management issues. Guy helps policyholders obtain the recovery they deserve from their insurers and has helped recover millions of dollars from insurance companies for his clients. Guy is skilled at getting insurance carriers to cooperate in paying claims and often secures settlements with insurers without the need for litigation. Recently, he helped recover over $1.65 million from multiple insurance carriers for a Portland company that was required to perform environmental cleanup by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

U.S. PHMSA Study Will Assess Aligning U.S. and International Regulations for Aerosol Containers

by Bergeson & Campbell

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) routinely reviews and amends the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to harmonize the HMR with international regulations and standards.  In February 2019, PHMSA’s Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) contracted with the Cambridge Systematics (CS) Team to conduct a risk assessment for the transportation of aerosol containers to align U.S. and international regulations.  The study is intended to determine whether the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods — Model Regulations (Model Regulations) definition of aerosols maintains an equivalent level of safety to the definition in the HMR and to assess the risk associated with aligning the definitions.  The study is expected to be completed in February 2020, and any rulemaking to align the definition of aerosol containers would be issued after that.

Federal law and policy favor the harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation.  In a November 27, 2018, proposed rule to amend the HMR to maintain alignment with international regulations and standards, PHMSA notes that it was directed by the federal hazardous materials law “to participate in relevant international standard-setting bodies and requires alignment of the HMR with international transport standards to the extent practicable.”  While federal hazmat law allows PHMSA to depart from international standards to promote safety or other overriding public interest, “it otherwise encourages domestic and international harmonization.”

The Model Regulations define aerosol or aerosol dispenser as “an article consisting of a non-refillable receptacle meeting the requirements of 6.2.4, made of metal, glass or plastics and containing a gas, compressed, liquefied or dissolved under pressure, with or without a liquid, paste or powder, and fitted with a release device allowing the contents to be ejected as solid or liquid particles in suspension in a gas, as a foam, paste or powder or in a liquid state or in a gaseous state.”  The HMR, in 49 C.F.R. Section 171.8, defines aerosol as “an article consisting of any non-refillable receptacle containing a gas compressed, liquefied or dissolved under pressure, the sole purpose of which is to expel a nonpoisonous (other than a Division 6.1 Packing Group III material) liquid, paste, or powder and fitted with a self-closing release device allowing the contents to be ejected by the gas.”  Unlike the Model Regulations, the HMR permits only an aerosol with a liquid, paste, or powder.  Industry has petitioned PHMSA to align the definitions and permit certain non-refillable gas containers with or without a liquid, paste, or powder to be transported without needing a Special Permit.

Commentary

Since the study is not expected to be completed until February 2020, there will be no immediate impact for U.S. manufacturers of aerosol products.  The study will likely conclude that the definition of aerosols in the Model Regulations ensures an equivalent level of safety to the definition in the HMR, and that there is no risk associated with aligning the definitions.  Should this be the outcome, PHMSA would then initiate a rulemaking.  We would expect the rulemaking to align the HMR definition with the Model Regulations and permit certain non-refillable gas containers with or without a liquid, paste, or powder to be transported without needing a Special Permit.  Stakeholders may wish to keep an eye on the study and, of course, any ensuing rulemaking and comment as appropriate.


This article has been republished with the permission of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. The original post can be found at the Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. website.

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is a Washington D.C. law firm providing decades of experience in the manufacture, handling, and transport of conventional, biobased, and nanoscale industrial, agricultural, and specialty chemicals, including product approval and regulation, product defense, and associated business issues. www.lawbc.com.