How hands-on scenarios can enhance radiological survey training

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

Radiological surveying is an integral task in maintaining safety wherever quantities of ionizing radiation are in use, or where they are suspected to be present.

Whether it is in the context of a military operation, emergency first response or an industrial setting, radiation safety personnel need to be equipped with the right tools to ensure they can accurately assess their environment and determine the best course of action.

Most radiological survey instruments have been designed to be easy to deploy, but it is important to be competent not just in the hands-on operation of the equipment but in being able to interpret the readings that are obtained and decide upon the appropriate recommendations to ensure safety is not compromised.

Once it has been established that the radiation hazard originates from a sealed source – meaning that there is no contamination risk – the principles of time, distance and shielding are vital.

Whenever possible, trainees should be provided with the opportunity to explore and test these principles in hands-on training scenarios that replicate real-life situations.

By adding the use of simulator detector equipment, there is also an opportunity for trainees to fully experience the characteristics, the behaviour and the risks of ionizing radiation – and to do so in a learning environment that is safe, immersive and highly realistic.

The flexible and high-fidelity nature of well-designed simulator detectors makes it possible for trainers to create a virtually unlimited range of realistic training scenarios for their students.

In this blog post we explore how the key principles of radiation safety can be put to the test in a range of hands-on scenarios.

1. Time

Radiation safety hinges on the understanding of the correlation between dose (or exposure) and dose rate (or the radiation present in the atmosphere) is directly related to time.

When the time (or the duration of exposure) is reduced by half, for example, the dose received will also be halved.

Once the trainee has been able to assess the dose rate present in the atmosphere, this information can be used to calculate their incident stay time in the hot zone (calculated as Exposure Limit divided by Dose Rate), which will allow them to carry out their activities as quickly and as safely as possible.

2. Distance

Distance – or how close an individual is to a radiological point source – is a key factor in enabling trainees to control exposure.

When the distance between the individual and the point source is doubled, this will reduce personal exposure by 75%, according to the rules of the Inverse Square Law.

How close it will be possible to get to a source of radiation without high exposure will depend on the energy of the radiation and the activity of the source.

Distance is a prime concern with gamma rays as they travel at the speed of light. Alpha particles, meanwhile, travel just a few inches in air, while beta particles can travel several feet – meaning that once an operator backs out of the affected area (and assuming that the material is not being spread by wind, rain or other forces) the trainee is no longer at risk.

3. Shielding

Radiation shielding is another vital skill that be put to the test during radiation training exercises.

Shielding is based on the principle of attenuation – or the extent to which a barrier can be used to block or bounce a radio wave.

Which radioactive shielding material will be best suited to the task, will depend on the penetration of the dose.

Alpha particles, for example, can be stopped by shielding that is as thin as a sheet of paper – while beta radiation requires something much heavier, such as an inch of wood or a thick piece of aluminum.

The highly penetrating nature of gamma radiation requires far denser shielding – ideally several inches of concrete or lead.

4. Establishing hazard perimeters

The readings obtained from portable survey meters provide essential information to enable personnel to establish operational control zones or hazard perimeters.

The ability to control (and operate within) a hazard perimeter will rely on a trainee’s proficiency in the following skills:

  • Understanding the physical considerations of the scene – for example, being able to assess the nature and severity of the radiation incident, identifying the presence of other co-existing threats, and protecting critical infrastructure.
  • Using existing topography (roads, structures etc) to enforce the perimeter and to aid in the protection and gathering of forensic evidence

 

Portable radiological survey meters provide radiation protection officers, first responders and CBRNe teams with the vital information they need to detect and measure external ionizing radiation fields.

Understanding the principles of time, distance and shielding, and having the opportunity to put this knowledge to the test in realistic training scenarios, will be vital in ensuring that radiation safety personnel are able to carry out their duties safely, efficiently and effectively.


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.

 

Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2020

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) and its consulting affiliate, The Acta Group (Acta®), recently released their Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2020. In this detailed and comprehensive document, the legal, scientific, and regulatory professionals of B&C and Acta distill key trends in U.S. and global chemical law and policy, and provide our best informed judgment as to the shape of key developments we are likely to see in the New Year.

The forecast was prepared by the global team of professionals from the two firms. The core business of the firms are the law, science, regulation, and policy of chemicals of all varieties — industrial, agricultural, intermediate, specialty, and biocidal, whether manufactured at the bulk or nano scale, or using conventional or innovative technologies, including biotechnology, synthetic biology, or biobased.

The team that put together the forecast was comprised of scientists (seven Ph.D.s), including toxicologists, chemists, exposure experts, and geneticists; regulatory and policy experts; and lawyers is deeply versed in chemical law, science, and policy and our unique business platform seamlessly leverages and ensures the integration of law and science to achieve success at every level, and in all parts of the globe.

The table of contents for the forecast can be found below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. UNITED STATES: CHEMICAL FORECAST

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. TSCA
  3. FIFRA
  4. U.S. NANOTECHNOLOGY
  5. BIOTECHNOLOGY
  6. BRAG
  7. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
  8. TRADE
  9. PROP 65
  10. INGREDIENT DISCLOSURE
  11. FDA FOOD AND COSMETICS REGULATION
  12. OSHA, WHMIS, AND GHS

II. KEY GLOBAL CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PREDICTIONS

  1. OECD
  2. SAICM
  3. EU
  4. UK/BREXIT
  5. BIOCIDES
  6. ASIA
  7. MIDDLE EAST
  8. UN GHS

APPENDIX A: B&C SPEECHES AND WRITINGS

APPENDIX B: B&C WEBINARS AND PODCASTS AVAILABLE ON DEMAND

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

 

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.

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.

Hanna, Alberta interested in hosting Biomedical Waste Facility

The Town Council of Hanna, Alberta has expressed interest in the potential of a biomedical waste facility in the municipality.  As reported in the Hanna Herald, Council authorized Mayor Chris Warwick to provide a letter of support to GM Pearson regarding the Cactus Corridor Region interest in having the company establish a Biomedical Waste Incinerator Business in the region.

GM Pearson is an Alberta-based company that provides biomedical waste disposal services.  The company handles biomedical waste from its removal and transportation to its final, safe disposal. The company provides incineration and autoclaving at its Alberta Environmentally Approved facilities.

GM Pearson had proposed an 8,000 tonne per year biomedical waste incinerator in Beiseker, approximately 100-km west of Hanna, but it was met with fierce public opposition.  That plan fell through after the county denied the development permit, saying the site had insufficient infrastructure and water to service the proposed plant.

A human health study commissioned by the company and authored by Dr. Warren Kindzierski, an associate professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Alberta, states that while older studies about older incineration facilities do suggest evidence of health impacts to people who live near waste incinerators, recent studies suggest modern facilities don’t pose the same risk.  “Public concern about health risks is not justified for potential exposure to dioxins and furans and other chemical substances that are emitted by modern, well-run incinerators equipped with modern pollution control technologies,” the analysis reads.

The town has approximately 2,500 residents and is located in east-central Alberta.  If built, the incinerator has the potential ti create 22 full-time jobs, as well as contractor work, and provide tax revenue to the town. The mayor of Hanna, Chris Warrick, noted in a letter to GM Pearson that there are two sites within Special Areas that would be a good fit with the biomedical waste incinerator, as they met the zoning requirement, are in close proximity to major transportation corridors, are near utility infrastructure and regional landfills, and have compatible neighbouring land use.

U.S. EPA Issues the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

Written by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) revised Risk Management Rules, designed to reduce the risk of the accidental release of hazardous chemicals, have been published in the Federal Register.  The citation to this action is 84 FR 69834 (December 19, 2019).  The rule is effective on December 19, 2019, but also provides for some staggered compliance dates for emergency response exercises and updating certain risk management plan provisions.  These revisions were triggered by EPA’s review of several petitions for reconsideration of EPA’s January 13, 2017 amendments to the rules set forth in 1996 at 40 CFR Part 68, which implemented the chemical accident preventions provisions required by Section 112 (r)  of the Clean Air Act.  Many of the 2017 requirements have been rescinded by this action.

On November 21, 2019, the U.S. EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to U.S. EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.

Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized the U.S. EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. The U.S. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. The U.S. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available.  The U.S. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.

In response to the catastrophe in at the West Plant, the U.S. EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at the U.S. EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.

Reconsidering the January 2017 Revision
On May 30, 2018, the U.S. EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (see 83 FR 24850) to reconsider the reinstated RMP revisions and amendments, and the agency has now decided the issues raised in this rulemaking. Basically, it appears that the U.S. EPA is returning the rules to their pre-January 2017 stage and format. Over the years, these rules have been amended with some frequency, and the agency argues that these actions have all been discretionary once it finalized the basic 1996 version. Accordingly, it is acting well within its discretion to revise and rescind large portions of the 2017 amendments. Obviously, this is a complex regulatory program, but here are some highlights. The 2017 revisions to the Risk Management Program have been rescinded regarding safer technologies and alternatives analysis, third-party audits, incident investigations, and information availability. The U.S. EPA is also modifying regulations relating to local emergency coordination, emergency response exercises, compliance dates and public meetings. In addition, “this action rescinds almost all the requirements added in 2017 to accident prevention program provisions,” including again third-party audits. No longer will incident investigations be required to include a “root cause analysis,” or to consider a “near miss” that never resulted in an accidental release. The emergency response amendments are modified to allow facilities to share only that technical information necessary to implement the local emergency response plan. The agency and many commenters were concerned that the earlier rule risked the exposure of national security information. However, some of the 2107 changes to required public meetings have been retained. Finally, the U.S. EPA will establish new compliance dates to reflect these actions.

In the preamble, the U.S. EPA recognizes that the spate of recent chemical plant incidents has created concerns with these topsy-turvy regulatory proceedings. The agency points out that in several well publicized cases, these rules would not even have been applicable because the chemical release at issue was not a substance listed as a hazardous air pollutant in the statute or the implementing regulation, or in threshold quantities. Also, in the West fire and explosion, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) believes that the cause was not an accident, but a deliberate act. Finally, the U.S. EPA argues that it is unfair to burden all covered plants with a complicated and costly regulatory program when it is clear to the agency that only a handful of chemical plants are the source of the great majority of complaints.

What’s Next?
With revised Risk Management Rules now published in the Federal Register, these actions will likely be subject to another judicial challenge. The U.S. EPA has made a strong case that it is acting well within its statutory authority and consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the challenges will be serious and substantial.

This article has been republished with the permission of the author.  It was first posted on the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP website.


About the Author

Anthony B. Cavender provides guidance and counseling relating to enforcement and compliance.  He has represented clients in Superfund matters, and in RCRA and Clean Water Act enforcement proceedings.  He is a Senior Counsel in the firm’s Houston office and a member of the Environmental & Natural Resources practice section. His practice focuses on the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Superfund. Before joining Pillsbury, Anthony was a member of the legal department of Pennzoil Co., specializing in these areas as well as general corporate legal matters. He served on various energy industry committees and trade associations.

Ontario: Wind up of Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program

On November 21, the Ontario Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (RPRA) closed a 45-day consultation period on Stewardship Ontario’s proposed Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste (MHSW) Program Wind-Up Plan. RPRA held two webinars and five in-person sessions across the Province to solicit feedback from interested stakeholders. The Authority has been directed to approve the proposed Wind-Up Plan no later than December 31, 2019.

The MHSW Program allows Ontario residents to safely dispose of household products that require special handling, such as single-use batteries and propane tanks. Industry stewardship organizations are responsible for recovering additional hazardous waste products, including automotive materials; paints and coatings; pesticides, solvents and fertilizers; and proprietary carbon dioxide cylinders.

Background

In April 2018, the then Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change directed the wind up of the MHSW Program on December 31, 2020 as per the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2016. Following wind up, hazardous or special materials will transition to the new, mandatory individual producer responsibility (IPR) framework under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016.

In December 2018, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) amended the timeline for the wind up of the single-use batteries component of the MHSW Program to June 30, 2020.

In July 2019, the Minister issued new directions including extending the timeline to wind up the MHSW Program to June 30, 2021; the Batteries Program wind up remains June 30, 2020.

Stewardship Ontario submitted its proposed MHSW Wind-Up Plan to the Authority by the September 30, 2019 deadline set by the Minister. As part of the wind-up process, the Minister directed the Authority to consult on the proposed plan before considering approval. As directed by the Minister, the Authority anticipates its approval of the plan by the end of the year.

MHSW Program wind up

Until the wind-up date, the MHSW Program will continue to operate without disruption. This includes the operation of the industry stewardship plans managed by the Automotive Materials Stewardship, Product Care Association, and SodaStream.

Single Use Batteries

The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has directed Stewardship Ontario to wind up the program for single-use batteries on June 30, 2020. This change will allow for a coordinated policy approach with the wind up of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Program.

 

 

 

U.S. DOT Proposing Changes to Hazardous Materials Regulations

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is proposing a change to the Hazardous Materials Regulations to allow the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) on railcars. The overture builds on an executive order by President Donald Trump issued earlier this year.

Currently, LNG can only be transported by rail using a portable tank with prior approval from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), although the Hazardous Materials Regulations allow DOT 113 specification tank cars to be used for hauling other flammable liquids. Under a notice of proposed rule- making, DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) now seeks comment on changes that would allow LNG to be transported in these cars as well.

Citing LNG’s expanding role as a critical domestic and international energy resource, PHMSA proposes to permit the transport of LNG by rail tank car to meet the demand for greater flexibility in the modes of transportation available to transport LNG. The proposed rule would facilitate harmonization across the North American rail network. In Canada, LNG is already authorized for transport in DOT-113 equivalent specification rail tank cars (TC-113C120W).

“Safety is the number one priority of PHMSA and we understand the importance and will make it a top priority to evaluate all public comments and concerns raised throughout the rule-making process,” said PHMSA administrator Skip Elliott. “This major rule will establish a safe, reliable, and durable mode of transportation for LNG while substantially increasing economic benefits and our nation’s energy competitiveness in the global market.”

“FRA shares regulatory oversight responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail,” said Ronald Batory, Federal Railroad Administration administrator. “This rule-making is consistent with our systemic approach to accident prevention, mitigation, and emergency response preparedness.”

Packaging requirements

In the NPRM, PHMSA proposes the following packaging controls:

  • Authorized transport of LNG by rail in DOT-113C120W tank cars. DOT-113 tank cars are vacuum-insulated and consist of an inner stainless steel tank enclosed with an outer carbon steel jacket shell specifically designed for the transportation of refrigerated liquefied gases.
  • Amend the Pressure Control Valve Setting or Relief Valve Setting Table in 49 Code of Federal Regulations § 173.319(d)(2) by adding a column for methane, thus identifying the pressure relief valve requirements for DOT-113s transporting methane.

Operational controls

PHMSA is not proposing new operational controls for transport of LNG by rail tank car. However, PHMSA notes the operational controls (e.g., speed restrictions) set forth in the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Circular OT-55 would apply to the bulk transport of LNG by rail in a train composed of 20 car loads or intermodal portable tank loads in which LNG is present along with any combination of other hazardous materials. OT-55 is a detailed protocol establishing railroad operating practices for the transport of hazardous materials that has been voluntarily adopted by the industry.

Safety case for LNG-by-rail

DOT-113 specification tank cars, including DOT-113C120W tank cars, include a stainless steel inner vessel and a thick steel outer vessel (or jacket); there is an insulated vacuum space between the two vessels to minimize the rate of heat transfer from the atmosphere to the refrigerated liquid during transport; and the cars include pressure relief devices, vents, and valves to prevent or minimize overpressure releases.

Additional requests for information

In addition to commenting on the specific packaging requirements listed above, the NPRM asks the public to comment on the following topics that are within the scope of the NPRM:

  • Whether the authorized transport of LNG by rail has the potential to reduce regulatory burdens, enhance domestic energy production, and impact safety.
  • Whether there is a reasonable basis for limiting the length of a train transporting LNG tank cars and what length is appropriate.
  • Whether there is a reasonable basis for limiting the train configuration, such as by limiting the number of LNG tank cars in a train consist or by restricting where LNG tank cars may be placed within the train.
  • Whether PHMSA should consider any additional operational controls and whether such controls are justified by data on the safety or economic impacts.

Comments on the LNG-by-rail NPRM are due on or before December 23, 2019.

 

 

What are the safety risks when transporting radioactive materials?

Written by Stephen Pike, Argon Electronics

Radioactive materials have a wide variety of applications within the fields of medicine, power generation, manufacturing and the military – and just as with any other product, there are times when these materials may need to be moved from one location to another.

In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that there are around three million shipments of radioactive materials to, from or within the US every year.  In the UK meanwhile, Public Health England (PHE) has reported that somewhere in the region of half a million packages containing radioactive materials are transported to, from or within the UK annually.

Regulation of transport of radioactive materials

Ensuring the safety and security of the transport of radioactive material – whether be it by road, rail, air or sea – is understandably a major priority and one that is highly regulated, depending upon the type, and the quantity, of radioactivity that is being transported.

Materials that are deemed to be low in radioactivity may be able to be shipped with no, or very few, controls.

Materials that are considered to be highly radioactive will be subject to controlled routes, segregation, additional security and specialist packaging and labelling measures.

The UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has a primary role to play in advising on the safe and secure transportation of radioactive substances across a wide of sectors – from the movement of decommissioned nuclear reactors or the carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel to the shipping of medical radio-pharmaceuticals, or the transport of sealed radioactive sources used within the construction or oil industries.

What constitutes a radiation transport event?

The normal transport of radioactive materials can result in transport workers (and sometimes even members of the public) being exposed to small radiation doses.

The strict regulatory conditions of transport however are designed to minimise these exposures.

Accidents and incidents can occur for a variety of reasons – from seemingly minor administrative errors, to problems arising from insufficient packaging, mishaps that occur during loading or unloading of consignments or the theft or loss of a radioactive material being carried.

When such events do occur there is the risk of radiological consequences not just for those transport workers in the immediate vicinity but for emergency responders, HazMat personnel and the wider public.

According to the Radioactive Materials Transport Event Database (RAMTED) there were a total of 16 accidents or incidents involving the transport of radiological materials in the UK in 2012.

These included the receipt of a flask from a nuclear power station where one of the lid-chock locking bolts was found to be loose; the failure of lifting equipment when removing a type 30B uranium hexafluoride cylinder from its protective shipping packaging; and an incident involving the stealing of pipes and plates from a scrap meal facility that were found to have traces of orphan radioactive sources.

Public Health England differentiates radiation transport events into one of the five following categories:

  1. A transport accident (TA) – which is defined as any event that occurs during the carriage of a consignment of radioactive material and that prevents either the consignment, or the vehicle itself, from being able to complete its journey.
  2. A transport incident (TI) – comprising any form of event, other than an accident, that may have occurred prior to or during the carriage of the consignment and that may have resulted in the loss or damage of the consignment or the unforeseen exposure of transport workers or members of the public.
  3. A handling accident (HA) – encompassing any accident that occurs during the loading, shipping, storing or unloading of a consignment of radioactive material and that results in damage to the consignment.
  4. A handling incident (HI) – defined as any handling event, other than an accident, that may occur during the loading, shipping , storing or unloading of the radioactive consignment.
  5. Contamination (C) – defined an an event where radioactive contamination is found on the surface of a package or where the conveyance of a radioactive material is found to be in excess of the regulatory limit.

The role of radiation safety training

When formulating a radiation training strategy, it is vital that personnel are adequately trained to handle the hazards and the risks associated with incidents involving radioactive materials.

Radiation safety training and development programmes should ideally provide personnel with both the knowledge they need and the practical skills that they will rely on in order to carry out their duties safely and effectively.

While most radiation detection equipment is relatively easy to use, the key lies in ensuring that trainees understand the significance of the readings that they get, that they can recognise the implications of changes in units of measurement and that they have the opportunity to train in as life-like a setting as possible.


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.

Concern over potential slow response time at Burnaby crude oil storage facility

A recently disclosed fire protection audit report on the Burnaby, British Columbia crude oil storage terminal has raised concerns of local politicians and residents.  The facility is owned by TransMountain Pipeline.  The report estimates that the planned response time to a major event, such as a serious spill or fire, at six hours.

The Burnaby storage terminal is the end point of the Trans Mountain Pipeline System. It is a distribution point for crude oil and refined products to local terminals – the Parkland refinery and the Westridge Marine Terminal. The Burnaby terminal currently has 13 tanks with a combined storage capacity of 1.6-m bbl with secondary and tertiary containment.

The fire protection audit was commissioned by the National Energy Board (now the Canadian Energy Regulator [CER]) in 2016.  The audit was conducted by PLC Fire Safety Solutions, a company provide quality fire safety engineering services.

In May, the National Energy Board (now the CER) issued a report on Trans Mountain’s fire preparedness at three oil terminals in Burnaby, B.C., and Edmonton, Alberta. The CER report notes that TransMountain’s response time goal for assembling staff and contractors to initiate the fire fighting activities as six hours.  In its report, it states the TransMountain reduce the response time to four hours.

The PLC Safety Solutions report on the Burnaby terminal concluded in the emergency response plans were generally in compliance, but it raised questions about the time and manner in which the company’s own firefighting team could respond.

“Since there is currently no mutual aid agreement with the Burnaby Fire Department, initial response will be limited and response time could be six hours,” concludes the report.

The fire protection audit report was recently made public after the local Member of Parliament filed a Freedom of Information request.  In response to the report being made public and the  Since the report was prepared, the Canadian Energy Regulator has stated that the response time has been reduced to four hours.

TransMountain Pipeline issued a news release in response to the report’s finding being made public, stating, “At our terminals, we are ready to respond immediately with people and equipment. Trans Mountain has mutual aid agreements in place with other industrial operators in the areas where we operate, and contracts with response companies to provide fire responders to the terminals.”

The Burnaby crude oil storage terminal has been in operation for more than 65 years.  There has never been a storage tank fire.