Meat Packing Plant facing major fines for exposing workers to hazardous chemicals

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (U.S. OSHA) has cited 7 S Packing LLC – operating as Texas Packing Company in San Angelo, Texas – for exposing workers to releases of hazardous chemicals. The company faces $615,640 in penalties.

The U.S. OSHA determined that the meat-packing facility failed to implement a required Process Safety Management (PSM) program for operating an ammonia refrigeration unit containing over 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. The employer also failed to provide fall protection, guard machines and equipment, control hazardous energy, and implement a respiratory protection program.

The PSM Covered Chemical Facilities National Emphasis Program focuses on reducing or eliminating workplace hazards at chemical facilities to protect workers from catastrophic releases of highly hazardous chemicals. PSM standards emphasize the management of hazards associated with highly hazardous chemicals, and establishes a comprehensive management program that integrates technologies, procedures, and management practices to prevent an unexpected release.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.

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.

Disagreement on Human Health Impacts from former Wood Treatment Facility in Edmonton

On February 26th, the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board (AEAB) issued a Report with recommendations related to Orders issued by the Alberta Environment Ministry for the remediation of a former wood preservative facility in Edmonton.

The site had been owned by Domtar Inc. and had been used to treat wood with preservatives from 1924 through to 1987. The property was purchased by a Cherokee Canada Inc. in 2010. Cherokee planned on remediating the site and developing a residential neighbourhood.

The AEAB report deals with a dispute between Cherokee and the Alberta Environment Ministry on whether the property that housed the wood treated facility is remediated and if it poses a hazard to human health. The AEAB report concludes “there is no immediate risk to these residents and other people.”

The Board also concluded the Alberta Environment had no basis for issuing Enforcement Orders against Cherokee. The Board stated that more clean-up of the site is needed, but none of it is an emergency as claimed by the Alberta Environment Ministry.

John Dill, a managing partner at Cherokee, stated in an interview with Global News: “I’m pleased that the decision confirms that the site is safe for the neighbourhood and its residents. We’re anxious to put an end to any further uncertainty by following the process that’s been set out, suggested by the board and minister.”

If Cherokee had not appealed the Order and won, it would have faced a very significant cost in removing and disposing of the contaminated material. The company estimated the cost to conform to the Orders to be in the at least $52 million.

March 7th Alberta Environment Press Release

On March 7th, the Alberta Ministry of the Environment and Parks released the results of analytical tests performed on soil samples taken at the former wood treatment plant along with findings from a human health risk assessment. The risk assessment concludes that contamination at the site is hazardous to human health.

Officials from the Alberta Ministry of Alberta and Parks conducted sampling at analysis of the soil at site of the former wood treatment plant at various times between 2017 and 2018. The sampling program consisted of sampling surface soil and subsurface soils at more than 1,039 locations at the property and collecting/analyzing over 1,457 soil samples.

The results from the analysis of the soil samples indicate 183 samples have levels of contamination that exceed human health guidelines for dioxins and furans. Of these, 96 per cent are located in fenced-off areas. A number of other contaminants of concern for human health are identified in these reports. Remediation of those locations remains the responsibility of the companies previously ordered by Alberta Environment and Parks to clean up the site.

Google Maps view of the Site and Surrounding Properties

Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Alberta stated: “Our highest priority is the health and safety of residents, and we will continue to work towards minimizing any potential health risks to local residents. While these reports show that there are hazards in the areas, these risks are being addressed through the protective measures already in place until remediation of the soil is undertaken.”

Human Health Risk Assessment

Alberta Health issued the finding of the Human Health Risk Assessment. It made a preliminary comparison of the rates of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects in the surrounding neighbourhoods. This initial analysis found no difference between rates in the area near the former Domtar site compared with other parts of the province, with the exception of three types of cancer.

Among people who had lived in the area for 10 or more years, there were:

  • 34 cases of breast cancer in women (16 to 31 cases would have been expected)
  • 14 cases of endometrial cancer in women (three to nine cases would have been expected)
  • 22 cases of lung cancer in men (six to 14 cases would have been expected)

No differences in any childhood cancers were found compared with other parts of the province.

This data on its own does not indicate why there are higher rates for these three types of cancer in the area. Many factors could contribute to an increased risk of cancer, including but not limited to medical history, medication use and tobacco use. Alberta Health will, therefore, be working immediately with federal experts to conduct a field epidemiology investigation to try and identify what population health factors might have contributed to higher rates of these three cancers.

The Alberta Environment press release states, as a precautionary measure, women who have lived in the area for 10 or more years should talk to their doctors about the risks and benefits of starting breast cancer screening at the age of 40. This is a precaution until the results of the field epidemiology study are available.

History of the Site

The site itself had been used as a wood preservative plant by Domtar Inc. from 1924 until 1987. The plant manufactured “treated” wood products such as railway ties and telephone poles. The wood products were treated with chemical preservatives, such as creosote, to prolong their lifespan.

Between 1987 and 2008, the plant was decommissioned and Domtar conducted a partial remediation of the property including soil testing. Contamination remains in the subsurface including creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and furans.

Cherokee Canada Inc. bought the site from Domtar in 2010 for $1.8 million. The purchase of the property is made with the company fully aware of the contamination at the site and with the acknowledgement by the Alberta Environment Ministry of a remediation plan to clean-up the property prior to redeveloping it for residential use.

Between 2011 and 2016, Cherokee Canada Inc. works on its remediation plan. Part of the plan consists of constructing a berm with contaminated soil from the site and covering it with clean soil. Cherokee Canada Inc. claims the berm structure contains contamination and that natural attention of the organic contaminants in the soil will occur over decades.

A 2013 environmental risk assessment conducted by Cherokee Canada Inc.
concludes that the constructed berm should not lead to any adverse health or environmental outcomes. The Alberta Environment Ministry approves a remediation certificate for a parcel of the site and allows for construction of a residential housing development on the parcel.

By October 2014, the contamination berm is nearly complete. The Alberta Environment Ministry claims that it was the first it had heard of the berm’s construction. The company says the province knew about the project all along and even had representatives on-site from time to time.

In 2016, the Alberta Environment Ministry conducts its own environmental testing at the site and claims that there is evidence of naphthalene in most of the samples, and that the substance is not contained.

Late in 2016, Cherokee sues the Province of Alberta for $126 million, claiming Alberta Environment acted in bad faith by “recklessly” changing its position on the remediation plan after the company had already spent considerable money.

Also in 2016, Alberta Environment issues an Enforcement Order that requires Cherokee to conduct further environmental testing. It also issues an Environmental Enforcement Order against both Cherokee and Domtar requiring further environmental testing in other parcels at the site.

In 2018, the Alberta Environment Ministry said third-party testing at the site found chemicals dangerous to human health. It imposed five enforcement orders on Cherokee, requiring the company to remediate any contamination.

Cherokee appealed the decision, arguing it had already undertaken remediation efforts (as had Domtar), including isolating and protecting contaminated soil from exposure.

The February 26th, 2019 decision by the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board vindicated Cherokee as the Board stated the Orders were inappropriate.

Cherokee Canada Inc.’s Position

In response to the Alberta Environment’s March 7th announcement, Cherokee issued its own press release. In the release, the company claims that Alberta Environment March 7th publication provides unsubstantiated information to community members about potential health risks. It also states that the issue of health risk and the appropriate standards and scientific criteria for remediation for certain chemicals of concern were addressed in by the Environmental Appeals Board in 2018.

The press release also states “We are concerned that the Ministry’s approach is a veiled attempt to influence the Minister’s response to the Board’s independent Report and Recommendations or to attempt to discredit the Board’s findings.”

March 13th Alberta Environment Orders

On March 13, Alberta Environment and Parks Minister Shannon Phillips released her decision on the appeal of the orders issued to Cherokee Canada Inc., 1510837 Alberta Ltd. and Domtar Inc.

In the the newest order, the minister directs the both Cherokee and Domtar to undertake the work on the site within specific periods of time from the issuance of the order. This work includes:

  • Temporary dust control plans (within seven days)
  • Dust control plans (within 60 days)
  • Site delineation (sampling) plan (within 90 days)
  • Site delineation(sampling) (within 150 days)
  • Site modelling identifying all current and historical sampling (within 180 days)
  • Human health risk assessment (within 210 days)
  • Site-specific risk assessments (within 210 days)
  • Reclamation and remediation plans (within 240 days)
  • Long term site monitoring plans (within 240 days)
  • Completion of residential reclamation components (within 280 days)

The minister also issued two environmental protection orders:

  • An order to Cherokee Canada Inc. and 15120837 Alberta Ltd. to conduct sampling and remediation within the neighbouring community and for the berm to the south of the community to address the presence of dioxins and furans.
  • An order to Domtar Inc. to conduct sampling and remediation within the neighbouring community and for the Greenbelt to the south of the community to address the presence of naphthalene, dioxins and furans.

A spokesperson for the Province of Alberta pointed out the AEAB’s recommendations “did not take into consideration the new testing results and health outcomes issued by the chief medical officer of health, as this information was not before the board at the time of the hearings (see below).

Brownfield Redevelopment in New York City and Community Air Monitoring – What you need to know

Written by Paul R. Pickering, Aeroqual Ltd.

Brownfield cleanup in New York City

As New York City’s need for space grows, existing stock of land must be used more effectively. Brownfield cleanup and redevelopment represents one of the best opportunities to engage communities and reclaim land for development in many cities. In 2018, the Mayor’s Office of Environmental Remediation (MOER) announced 1000×21, the most aggressive land cleanup and revitalization goal of any city in the world. This OneNYCinitiative seeks to remediate and redevelop 1,000 lots in NYC by the end of the de Blasio administration in 2021.

A vacant lot in Mott Haven, NY before remediation. Photo: OneNYC

Remediation air quality challenges

Any time a remediation or construction project involves earth-moving, it has the potential to release particulate (dust) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contaminants that exist below the surface. VOCs will readily transition to the gaseous, breathable phase, when exposed to air. Particulate emissions must be controlled to prevent impacts to the respiratory system. Negative impacts range from mild lung irritation to chronic lung disease. 

Regulations to protect community

To protect workers and the surrounding community, construction and demolition projects that involve excavation need to follow a stringent Community Air Monitoring Plan(CAMP), as specified by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). If the excavation activities are occurring on a remediation or cleanup site, additional requirements are outlined in a guidance document known as DER-10. NYSDOH and DER-10 specifically apply to sites in New York. However, agencies and authorities in other states may also recognize these guidelines. They have been known to apply or refer to them for projects in their designated territories.

What is DER-10?

In 2010, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued Division of Environmental Remediation (DER)-10 Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation, known as DER-10. This is the source document the NYSDEC refer to for authority to oversee remediation projects. It was designed to help parties and consultants (environmental and engineering) in developing and implementing investigation and remediation projects at contaminated sites.

DER-10 extensively (over 225 pages) describes the A to Z requirements for remedial site investigations, cleanups, post-cleanup monitoring and site closure. It presents detailed technical guidance for each of the investigative and remedial steps undertaken at contaminated sites. DER-10 covers procedures for assessing the environmental conditions at the site, including air monitoring during remediation activities.

What is CAMP?

Appendix 1A of the DER-10 outlines requirements for the implementation of a CAMP. This air monitoring plan is prescribed by NYSDOH. It involves direct-reading air monitoring instruments placed at defined locations around the perimeter of a remediation, construction or demolition site.

A CAMP requires real-time air monitoring for total VOCs (also referred to as total organic vapors) and PM10 (particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter) at downwind and upwind locations relative to each designated work area when certain activities are in progress at contaminated sites. The CAMP is not intended for use in establishing action levels for worker respiratory protection. Rather, it is intended to protect the downwind community) from potential airborne contaminants released as a direct result of investigative and remedial work activities. The downwind community includes off-site receptors such as residences, businesses, and on-site workers not directly involved with the subject work activities. The specified CAMP action levels require increased monitoring, corrective actions to abate emissions, and/or work shutdown. Additionally, the CAMP helps to confirm that work activities did not spread contamination off-site through the air.

VOC and particulate monitoring

Basic requirements of a CAMP call for real-time air monitoring for VOCs and/or particulate levels at the perimeter of the exclusion zone, or work area. Sites known to be contaminated with heavy metals alone may only require particulate monitoring. If radiological contamination is a concern, additional monitoring requirements may be necessary in consultation with NYSDEC and NYSDOH. The table below summarizes CAMP Monitoring Action Levels for total VOC and particulate monitoring.

CAMP air monitoring equipment

Since the introduction of DER-10 in 2010, sensor-based technologies have reduced the cost of air monitoring and increased efficiency of the implementation of CAMP. Real-time air monitoring solutions are available to fit the budget and complexity requirements of every project. Below is a sampling of equipment options:

Entry Level – Basic environmental dust monitoring kit

Assembled kits, like this Basic Environmental Dust Monitoring Kit from Raeco Rents, are portable and suited to short-term or temporary CAMP. The ensemble includes an off-the-shelf dust monitor, handheld PID monitor for total VOCs, and a cloud-based telemetry system mounted in an environmental enclosure.

Ultimate Flexibility – All-in-one air quality monitor

All-in-one air quality monitors, like the AQS1 and the Dust Sentry from Aeroqual, are highly flexible and defensible, as well as good allrounders for short or long-term CAMP. In addition to the primary particulate fraction PM10, these monitors can also measure PM2.5, PM1 and Total PM. They can also be configured for monitoring total VOCs and NO2 emissions from remediation and construction sites. A robust light-scattering Nephelometer with sharp cut cyclone is integrated with a PID-based VOC analyzer module (or GSE-based NO2 gas module), Cloud telemetry platform, air quality software, and optional plug-and-play weather and noise sensors. Trigger alerts are programmable for SMS and email notifications, or can be used to activate an external VOC canister sample collection for speciated analysis according to EPA Method TO-15.

The Rolls Royce – GC-based perimeter air monitoring station

Perimeter air monitoring stations, like the AirLogics Classic 2, contain analytical, climatic, and communications instrumentation. This equipment includes: a gas chromatograph (GC) to measure specific VOCs, a respirable particulate meter to measure dust levels, shelter heaters and air conditioners, and a radio-based data acquisition system. These systems were originally developed for use in the cleanup of former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites.

Weather monitoring

DER-10 guidelines require daily measurement of wind speed and direction, temperature, barometric pressure, and relative humidity, to establish background weather conditions. Wind direction data is used to position the air monitoring equipment in appropriate upwind and downwind locations.

The evaluation of weather conditions is also necessary for proper fugitive dust control. When extreme wind conditions make dust control ineffective, remedial actions may need to be suspended. There may be situations that require fugitive dust suppression and particulate monitoring requirements with more stringent action levels.

Additional monitoring

Under some circumstances, the contaminant concentration and/or toxicity may require additional monitoring to protect site personnel and the community. Additional integrated sampling and chemical analysis of the dust may be required. This must be evaluated when a Health and Safety Plan (HASP), is developed. Appropriate suppression and monitoring requirements are established for protection of people’s health and the environment.

Reporting

All recorded monitoring data is downloaded and field logged daily, including Action Limit Reports (if any) and daily CAMP monitoring location plans. Records are required to be maintained onsite for NYSDEC and NYSDOH to review. A description of the CAMP-related activities is also included in a monthly progress report submitted to the NYSDEC. The overall report submitted to the NYSDEC should include all CAMP monitoring records. If site works are stopped due to inability to control fugitive emissions to below the action limit, the NYSDEC is to be notified within twenty-four hours of the work stoppage.

For a real-life example of air monitoring at a remediation site please read my blog about the pilot cleanup of the Gowanus Canal, NY.

What CAMP solutions does Aeroqual offer?

Aeroqual’s Dust Sentry and AQS1 are flexible air monitoring platforms used by air quality professionals, and environmental and geotechnical consultants, for community air monitoring plans on remediation sites. We help environmental consultants deliver defensible data on projects by providing cost-effective and reliable instrumentation. For insights on the latest air monitoring trends at construction sites please read our blog about measuring NO2 and multiple PM fractions.


About the Author

Paul R. Pickering is the Business Development Director at Aeroqual Ltd., and is located in Auckland, New Zealand. Aeroqual Ltd. is a company that delivers innovative air quality and environmental monitoring solutions. He is passionate about making it easier to measure the air with advanced sensor-based technology. He believes that more relevant information about our environment can help us make better informed decisions, enjoy better quality of life, and make our planet a better home. 

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.

U.S. NTSB updates list of most wanted safety improvements

The United States National Transportation Safety Board (U.S. NTSB) recently unveiled its list of most wanted safety improvements for the transportation sector in 2019-2020.

Launched in 1990, the most wanted list serves as a primary advocacy tool to help save lives, prevent injuries and reduce property damage resulting from transportation accidents, U.S. NTSB officials said in a press release. In 2017, the U.S. NTSB changed it from an annual to biennial list to provide list developers and recipients more time to implement recommendations, some of which are longstanding safety issues the board believes continue to threaten the traveling public.

The 10 items on the 2019-20 list are:
• eliminate distractions;
• end alcohol and other drug impairment;
• ensure the safe shipment of hazardous materials;
• fully implement positive train control (PTC);
• implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce speeding-related crashes;
• improve the safety of certain aircraft flight operations;
• increase the implementation of collision avoidance systems in new highway vehicles;
• reduce fatigue-related accidents;
• screen for and treat obstructive sleep apnea; and
• strengthen occupant protection.

Hazmat Safety

In terms of hazmat safety, the NTSB is calling on the rail industry to meet existing federal deadlines for replacing or retrofitting tank cars. More than 2 million miles of pipeline deliver 24 percent of the natural gas and 39 percent of the total oil consumed in the United States, yet only 16 percent of U.S. rail tank cars carrying flammable liquids meet the improved safety specifications for DOT-117/DOT-117R cars. Failure to meet safety standards by or ahead of deadlines places communities near tracks at unacceptable risks, board members believe.

The U.S. NTSB investigations have shown that moving ethanol by rail and crude oil by pipeline can be unnecessarily hazardous. These essential commodities must be conveyed in a manner that ensures the safety of those who are transporting it as well as those in the communities it passes through.

There are 267 open safety recommendations associated with the current most wanted list and the board is focused on implementing 46 of them within the next two years, U.S. NTSB officials said. The majority of the recommendations — roughly two-thirds — seek critical safety improvements by means other than regulation, they said.

“We at the NTSB can speak on these issues. We can testify by invitation to legislatures and to Congress, but we have no power of our own to act,” said NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt. “We are counting on industry, advocates and government to act on our recommendations.”