Hazardous Noxious Substances


Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Hazardous Noxious Substances

  2. 2. Table of Contents1.0 Introduction 12.0 Background 13.0 OPRC-HNS Protocol 44.0 Moving Towards a Ship-Source Hazardous & Noxious Substances Incident Preparedness and Response Regime 9 Annex 1 – OPRC-HNS Protocol 13 RDIMS # 6226056
  3. 3. 11.0 INTRODUCTIONConsidering the increasing volume of Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS), includingmiscellaneous types of hazardous chemicals transported in Canadian waters, the risk of an HNSincident is also increasing. Ship-source incidents involving HNS occur every year around theworld. So far the impact of these incidents has been low for various reasons: small volumespilled, low toxicity of the material, etc. In Canada, the increase in transportation of dangeroussubstances is raising the risk that a marine HNS-related incident may occur. In an effort toimprove Canada’s ability to combat marine pollution, consideration should be given for thecreation and implementation of a Ship-Source Hazardous & Noxious Substances IncidentPreparedness and Response Regime.2.0 BACKGROUNDResponding to a marine HNS incident could be a very complex operation involving a large numberof different stakeholders: specialized emergency response teams, emergency responsecontractors, local Hazmat Teams, provincial and federal Departments, local authorities, carriers,port authorities, etc. Among other functions, the principal actions and tasks to be undertaken byresponders would be: to mitigate the effects of an HNS spill or leak by first assuring the safety ofthe public, ship crews and responders; to protect the environment; and to analyze the situationwith a view to taking proper action to respond to the incident and perform a clean-up.An HNS preparedness and response regime should, at a minimum, contain the propermechanisms to respond to emergencies involving all types of pollutants except those consideredas persistent oils1, which are covered under the existing Canadian Oil Spill Preparedness andResponse Regime. Preparedness and response activities under an HNS Regime shall include allmeans of containment such as bulk and packaged goods. HNS transported in bulk represent agreater risk considering the large volume of material and the immediate impact that an incidentwould have on the environment. However, HNS are widely transported in other means ofcontainment such as cylinders of gas, drums, containers and other forms of packaging. Thediverse nature of packaged hazardous goods makes emergency response even more complex andincreases the number of people involved in the response. Ultimately, an HNS Regime could beapplied to all types of dangerous goods in any means of containment.Canadian ContextThe need for a formal emergency response regime, for both oil and chemical substances, wasidentified as early as 1990 in the Public Review Panel on Tanker Safety and Marine Spills ResponseCapability, usually referred to as the Brander-Smith Report. Before work started on theestablishment of an HNS response system, a response regime to deal with oil and petroleumproducts was developed and came into force in 1995 through amendments to the CanadaShipping Act.1 Non-persistent oils are those that are generally of a volatile nature and are composed of lighter hydrocarbon fractions, which tend to dissipate rapidly throughevaporation. In contrast, persistent oils generally contain a considerable proportion of heavy fractions or high-boiling material. Oils, which are normally classified aspersistent, include crude oils, fuel oils, heavy diesel and lubricating oils. Non-persistent oils include gasoline, light diesel oil and kerosene.
  4. 4. 2In the mid-1990s, as a result of several recommendations in the Brander-Smith Report, theCanadian Coast Guard (CCG) initiated the development of a Marine Chemical EmergencyResponse (MCER) system for HNS spills in Canadian waters. In April 2004, following theDepartmental reorganization between Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries andOceans, responsibilities related to marine safety policies were transferred to Transport Canada(TC). Those responsibilities include the development and implementation of an HNS Regime.As part of the work done by the Canadian Coast Guard in 1995, seven fundamental principleswere adopted for the design of a Canadian marine chemical emergency system. TransportCanada believes those principles continue to be valid and lay the foundation for an HNS regime.The principles are summarized below: 1- Polluter Pay Cost of clean-up, response, and restoration would be the responsibility of those who caused the pollution/incident 2- User Response: Response to incidents would be carried out by the industry under the supervision of the federal government Manufacturers of chemicals to be involved because of their knowledge in the products 3- Minimal Cost for Government Funding for preparedness and response should be provided by private industry (e.g. through a levy system imposed on marine carriers) 4- Fairness and Equity 5- Building on existing resources 6- Harmony with International Regimes HNS Convention (1996) and HNS Protocol (2010) OPRC Convention (1990) and OPRC-HNS Protocol (2000) International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code 7- Harmony with other Domestic Regimes Transport of Dangerous Goods Act (TDG) Other departments (CCG, Environment Canada) Provinces and municipalitiesThe same year (1995), an extensive study of marine chemical transportation in Canada written byAcres International Ltd. was published in a report entitled Considerations for a Canadian MarineChemical Emergency Response. It should be noted that due to the passage of time, this essentialbaseline study would need to be updated as the study’s picture of trade and traffic in Canada mayno longer be accurate. Similarly, the nature of the fleet carrying hazardous materials may havechanged. Both of these factors could affect the risk analysis of marine hazardous materialsincidents in the study’s conclusion. RDIMS # 6226056
  5. 5. 3JustificationIn addition to the recommendations provided in the Brander-Smith Report, Transport Canada alsoput forward various strategies for the implementation of an HNS regime in Canada. Thesestrategies can be found in the following documents:1. Transport Canada’s Sustainable Development Strategy (2007-2009) http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acs-sd-sds0709-challenge5-528.htm CHALLENGE 5: Improve Performance of Carriers and Operators COMMITMENTS 5.2: Marine Sector Pollution Control The design and implementation of an effective national accident prevention and response regime for hazardous and noxious substances (HNS), sufficient for Canada to meet its obligations under the OPRC-HNS Protocol. TARGETS: Develop the legislative structure required to put an HNS regime in place together with the necessary regulations and standards starting in 2007/2008. Create the required HNS response mechanism in order to provide a nationally consistent method of responding to, and managing, the response to marine HNS incidents and spills from ships and during the loading and unloading of ships at chemical handling facilities starting in 2007/2008. Take the necessary action to permit Canada to accede to the OPRC-HNS Protocol starting in 2009/2010. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: 1) Number of regulations and standards developed. 2) Effectiveness of a national HNS incident response framework. 3) IMO indication of Canada’s accession to the OPRC-HNS Protocol.2. The New Wave – Marine Safety Strategic Plan 2008-2015 http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/TP13111/pdf/hr/tp13111E.pdf The challenges for the Marine Safety Program are to: viii) Design and implement an efficient national incident prevention and response regime to cope with spills of hazardous and noxious substances, which meet Canada’s obligations under the international Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances (OPRC-HNS Protocol). Page 213. Transport Canada Report on Plans and Priorities 2009-2010 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2009-2010/inst/mot/mot-eng.pdf • 2.2.2 Programs Activity: A Clean Water from Transportation Planning Highlights: Develop a national regime for preparedness and response to Hazardous and Noxious Substances incidents. RDIMS # 6226056
  6. 6. 43.0 OPRC-HNS ProtocolIn March 2000, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the Protocol onPreparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and NoxiousSubstances, 2000 (OPRC-HNS Protocol) at a diplomatic conference held at IMO headquarters inLondon. The Protocol follows the principles of the International Convention on Oil PollutionPreparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC Convention) and aims to provide a globalframework for international co-operation in combating major incidents or threats of marinepollution. Parties to the OPRC-HNS Protocol are required to establish measures for dealing withpollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with other countries. Ships and seaportsare required to develop and maintain pollution emergency plans to deal specifically with incidentsinvolving HNS.The OPRC-HNS Protocol entered into force internationally in July 2007. It ensures that shipscarrying HNS are covered by regimes similar to those already in existence for oil incidents. Todate, 25 states (see figure below) have ratified the OPRC-HNS Protocol, which representsapproximately 32% of the world tonnage. There are only a few states that have implemented thefull provisions of the Protocol and established national systems for responding to HNS in all forms.The following is a summary of some important articles (requirements) of the OPRC-HNS Protocoland their main implications. The full text of the OPRC-HNS Protocol can be found in Annex 1 ofthis document: Article 2 (Definitions) For the purpose of this Protocol: 1. “Pollution incident by hazardous and noxious substances” (hereinafter referred to as “pollution incident”) means any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin, including fire or explosion, which results, or may result, in a discharge, release or emission of hazardous and noxious substances and which poses, or may pose, a threat to the marine environment or to the coastline or related interests of one or more states and which requires emergency action or immediate response. 2. “Hazardous and noxious substance” means any substance other than oil which, if introduced into the marine environment, is likely to create hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine life, damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea. 3. “Sea ports and hazardous and noxious substances handling facilities” means those ports or facilities where such substances are loaded on to or unloaded from ships (…) RDIMS # 6226056
  7. 7. 5NOTE: Similar to the CSA 2001 definition of a pollutant but with fewer constraints, the IMOdefinition of an HNS is very broad, allowing most chemicals and noxious substances to be taken intoaccount. However neither definition explicitly covers gases (flammable, toxic, corrosive, etc.). Itwould be the intention of TC to extend the definition of HNS to gases. For example, a major leak ofa flammable gas on a ship near a port could become an extremely dangerous hazard to thepopulation, nearby workers and communities; a similar emergency could occur with a poisonousgas. The definition of an HNS should be amended to eliminate any ambiguity regarding thereceiving environment (instead of “…introduced into the marine environment” it should read“…introduced into the environment”). In addition, CSA 2001 defines oil as petroleum products inany form, excluding liquefied petroleum & natural gas products. For the reasons mentioned above,a HNS Regime would need to include such products. By expressly extending the coverage of the HNSRegime to gases, TC intends to increase the safety and protection of the public.Article 3 (Emergency plans and reporting) 1. Each Party shall require that ships entitled to fly its flag have on board a pollution incident emergency plan and shall require masters or other persons having charge of such ships to follow reporting procedures to the extent required (…) 2. Each Party shall require that authorities or operators in charge of sea ports and hazardous and noxious substances handling facilities under its jurisdiction, as it deems appropriate, have pollution incident emergency plans or similar arrangements for hazardous and noxious substances that it deems appropriate which are coordinated with the national system established in accordance with article 4 and approved in accordance with procedures established by the competent national authority (…)NOTE: With regard to the requirement that every ship have an emergency plan on board, section188 of the CSA 2001 should be amended to include the expression “hazardous and noxioussubstances”, and sections 18, 38, 66 and 73 of the Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution fromShips and for Dangerous Chemicals should be amended in consequence. Specifications such asminimum quantities would have to be provided to establish guidelines.Article 4 (National and regional systems for preparedness and response) 1. Each Party shall establish a national system for responding promptly and effectively to pollution incidents. This system shall include as a minimum: (a) the designation of: (i) the competent national authority or authorities with responsibility for preparedness for, and response to, pollution incidents; (ii) the national operational contact point or points; and (iii) an authority which is entitled to act on behalf of the state to request assistance or to decide to render the assistance requested; RDIMS # 6226056
  8. 8. 6 (b) a national contingency plan for preparedness and response which includes the organizational relationship of the various bodies involved, whether public or private, taking into account guidelines developed by the International Maritime Organization. 2. In addition, each Party within its capabilities, either individually or through bilateral or multilateral cooperation and, as appropriate, in cooperation with the shipping industries and industries dealing with hazardous and noxious substances, port authorities and other relevant entities, shall establish: (a) a minimum level of pre-positioned equipment for responding to pollution incidents commensurate with the risk involved, and programs for its use; (b) a program of exercises for pollution incident response organizations and training of relevant personnel; (c) detailed plans and communication capabilities for responding to a pollution incident. Such capabilities should be continuously available; and (d) a mechanism or arrangement to coordinate the response to a pollution incident with, if appropriate, the capabilities to mobilize the necessary resources. 3. Each Party shall ensure that current information is provided to the Organization, directly or through the relevant regional organization or arrangements, concerning: (a) the location, telecommunication data and, if applicable, areas of responsibility of authorities and entities referred to in paragraph 1(a) above; (b) information on pollution response equipment and expertise in disciplines related to pollution incident response and marine salvage which may be made available to other states upon request; and (c) its national contingency plan.NOTE: Article 4 establishes the guidelines for an HNS Response Regime. The framework for aCanadian regime and the procedures, functions and responsibilities of all stakeholders would beestablished by Transport Canada. The matter of a minimum level of processes and equipment torespond to HNS pollution incidents would need to be considered on the basis of risk managementstudies. Considerations would be made to adapt the type of equipment required to respond basedon the quantity but also on the type of chemicals transported in a specific region. A program ofexercises for pollution incident response organizations and of training of relevant personnel, wouldneed to be expanded. Finally, attention would also have to be paid to a detailed communicationplan for responding to an incident as well as a mechanism or arrangement for coordinating theresponse to an incident in order to mobilize necessary resources. RDIMS # 6226056
  9. 9. 7 Article 7 (Technical co-operation) 1. Parties undertake directly or through the Organization and other international bodies, as appropriate, in respect of preparedness for, and response to, pollution incidents, to provide support for those Parties which request technical assistance: (a) to train personnel; (b) to ensure the availability of relevant technology, equipment and facilities; (c) to facilitate other measures and arrangements to prepare for and respond to pollution incidents; and (d) to initiate joint research and development programs. 2. Parties undertake to co-operate actively, subject to their national laws, regulations and policies, in the transfer of technology in respect of preparedness for, and response to, pollution incidents. NOTE: By acceding the OPRC-HNS Protocol, Canada would ensure that it receive technical support/training from other state parties. This could assist in developing a national regime that reflects international best practices.International DevelopmentTransport Canada has studied the marine spill preparedness and response regime of other states,in particular Australia, the United States and Japan. This confirmed that the implementationprocess differs from one state to another and that the experience acquired during the ratificationprocess and the lessons learned by those states could assist Canada in developing its own regime.Although the legal and administrative frameworks of those countries may differ from Canada’s,they nonetheless provide important case scenarios on how the OPRC-HNS Protocol has beenimplemented and the difficulties that may be encountered during the process.AustraliaAustralia has signed the International Maritime Organization’s Protocol on Preparedness,Response and Cooperation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances (OPRC-HNS). This means that as signatories to the protocol, under the Australian Maritime SafetyAuthority (AMSA)’s National Plan, Australia’s ports, maritime industries and first responseagencies are now required to develop detailed plans for reducing risks in relation to HNS pollutionincidents. These plans include:• the establishment of HNS spill combating equipment stockpiles,• the holding of HNS spill combating exercises, and• the training of staff in marine HNS spill response. RDIMS # 6226056
  10. 10. 8After consultations between government officials and industry, Australia developed the NationalMarine Chemical Spill Contingency Plan (ChemPlan) in response to the obligations set out inarticle 4 of the OPRC-HNS Protocol. With this ChemPlan, Australia was able to accede to theOPRC-HNS Protocol in 2005. AMSA is now responsible for maintaining the plan as the nationalsafety agency responsible for marine safety and the protection of the marine environment. Thescope of the ChemPlan “…relates primarily to incidents involving releases and spills from ship’sbulk chemical cargoes, from container chemical tanks or packaged chemicals”. The ChemPlanoutlines how the combined resources of the federal and state governments as well as thechemical, plastics, shipping and exploration industries may be activated to respond to a threatposed to Australia, its population and the marine environment by discharges of bulk or packageddangerous goods and chemicals from vessels. But to this date, federal officials have not definedprocedures to respond to a major incident involving packaged HNS substances and keep therelated costs feasible. ASMA conducted a study to assess the marine traffic of HNS in 2006 but itonly focused on MARPOL Annex II Category A, B and C bulk chemicals2.United SatesThe United States ratified the OPRC Convention but is not party to the OPRC-HNS Protocol. Inearly 2000, the U.S. expressed serious concerns regarding several Articles of the draft Protocol.These comments specifically focused on certain aspects of the Protocol that are inconsistent withU.S. domestic regulation or policy relating to HNS contingency planning, prevention and/orresponse. As a result, the U.S. has reserved its position on the draft Protocol. On the other hand,the U.S. produced a series of internal laws and regulations, which constitute the foundation of thecountry’s emergency management program. In the U.S., hazardous substances response isregulated under a number of different federal statutes, including the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, the Clean Air Act and theOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The management and response tohazardous substances incidents is therefore covered under many pieces of legislation (CleanWater Act, Oil Pollution Act, Hazardous Material Transportation Act, etc.) with varying degrees ofresponsibilities for specific agencies.The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 amended the Clean Water Act, which strengthened the nationalresponse system and improved coordination of spill contingency planning among federal, stateand local authorities. These amendments resulted in a new National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). As required by the Clean Water Act of 1972, theNCP was revised in 1973 to include a framework for responding to bulk hazardous substancesspills as well as oil discharges. Following the passage of Superfund legislation in 1980, the NCPwas broadened to cover releases at hazardous waste sites requiring emergency removal actions.Over the years, additional revisions have been made to the NCP to keep pace with the enactmentof legislation.2 The Annex II “Regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk” defines a four-category categorization system for noxious and liquidsubstances. A revised classification came into force on January 1st 2007: Categories A, B, C, D were replaced by X, Y, X, and other substances. RDIMS # 6226056
  11. 11. 9JapanIn Japan, the domestic law relating to the Prevention of Marine Pollution and Maritime Disasterwas revised in 2006 due to the accession to the OPRC-HNS Protocol. Since April 2008, when atanker carrying HNS of more than 150 GT sails in specific and pre-designated waters of thecountry, the owner is required to secure response materials, equipment and expertise necessaryfor the prevention and elimination of an HNS spill at the location near a route where help can bequickly mobilized. Failure to meet this requirement, ship owners face a penalty up to 500,000 Yen(approximately $6,000.00 CDN). At the present time, the Maritime Disaster Prevention Center(MDPC) – a government body, is the only organization in Japan that can offer HNS maritimeemergency response services. To obtain the service, each designated vessel must apply for acertificate and pay the proposed fee (based on tanker tonnage), which is directly deposited in theMDPC bank account. Cost for responding to an actual incident is charged separately. Note thatthe Japanese regime only deals with HNS carried in bulk.4.0 MOVING TOWARDS A MARINE HAZARDOUS & NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES INCIDENT PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE REGIMEOn December 12, 2003 the federal government announced that the Coast Guard was to become aSpecial Operating Agency. As a result, a number of changes including rationalizing responsibilityfor marine safety and security policy under the Minister of Transport were also introduced.Responsibilities were transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) toTransport Canada (Policy Group, Marine Safety) including those portions of the Marine ProgramsBranch that are responsible for policy related to pleasure craft safety, marine navigation services,pollution prevention and response, and navigable waters. In March, 2004, the EnvironmentalResponse Division was transferred to Transport Canada except for the portion of that groupresponsible for carrying out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Fisheries andOceans under section 180 (Response Measures) of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA 2001)TC and DFO have distinct but interrelated responsibilities for the overall management of marinesafety and environmental protection. The responsibilities that were transferred to TC encompassthe development of policy as well as implementation, enforcement and administration. DFO(CCG) retains the responsibility for non-regulatory programs and services including programdesign, operational standards and levels of service, monitoring and reporting.Since May 2003, efforts have been made by the federal government to initiate the planning of theHNS Regime. The first phase was to analyze and evaluate the work that had been done in thepast and identify the elements that were considered important issues. The next phase was toplan and define the options that would constitute the framework for a national HNS Regime.The fundamental objective of the HNS Regime is to develop and implement national policies,frameworks and procedures to mitigate the environmental impact of HNS incidents on Canadiancoastal and inland waters, as well as to ensure the protection and safety of the public. RDIMS # 6226056
  12. 12. 10This would be achieved through: Development of criteria for national response requirements for the HNS Regime Establishment of roles and responsibilities for all parties (Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Coast Guard, industry, etc.) Conducting a technical evaluation of the marine chemical industry (manufacturers, carriers, ports, etc.), which would include: o Identification of all HNS and their classification; o Emergency procedures (response, public safety); o Clean-up and decontamination. Development of Emergency Response Procedures Drafting of legislation and standards Communication procedures and plans Training plan Exercises (field/tabletop)Regime ModelsThe following are national regime models that could be established: 1. Public sector-led regime 2. Joint public/private sector-led regimeModel 1 - Public sector-led regime The public sector would have the responsibility to manage the HNS Regime and respond at all times to an incident. Considerations: HNS Regime framework to be put in place. The public sector is the main responder. The public sector would have the power to hire contractors for special chemicals. Completely managed by the government. Co-ordination within government and other federal/provincial organizations. Comments: A response system managed and operated by the public sector would imply that the costs for the government could be high since it would have to finance all expenses related to emergency response to HNS incidents. The amount that would have to be committed would require appropriation of funds for equipment maintenance and training/exercises. In the domain of HNS, a greater participation of the industry in the emergency response operations is a principle already set out in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. RDIMS # 6226056
  13. 13. 11Model 2 - Joint public/private-led regime The public sector would have the sole responsibility for the regulatory and policy framework supporting the HNS Regime, while the response component could be given to private industry , as is currently the case for the Canadian oil spill response regime. Considerations: A system managed by the public sector in co-operation with other federal/provincial organizations. Private sector to plan for and respond to incidents under the supervision of the public sector. Manufacturers of chemicals take responsibility under the “Responsible Care” program. Comments: A marine chemical emergency response system based on response by private industry could meet the government’s objectives. In fact, chemical specialists would be dealing directly with the response operations and would contribute to enhancing the security and safety of the public and the front-line responders when an incident occurs. Emergency response contractors located across the country also have considerable expertise and could handle most incidents of transportation of dangerous goods. In the Transport of Dangerous Goods Directorate of TC, a system based on this principle has been in place since 1986. For transportation by road and rail of certain highly dangerous goods, the shipper/consignee must have an Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP), which explains the plan of action in case of an emergency prior to shipment of the goods. This system has proven its effectiveness on many occasions over the years. The federal government would obviously not always be directly involved in the operational portion of an emergency. Its role could be to monitor and evaluate the situation and make sure that the interests of the Canadian public are protected and that the established procedures and regulations are followed.Regime Model ConsiderationTo respond to an HNS spill or release, a coordinated effort of industry and government wouldmost likely be an efficient and viable system. Private industry (emergency response contractors,specialized response teams for the chemical manufacturers, etc.) has the expertise to respond tomost chemical incidents on land (road, railway). However, a marine emergency response wouldnecessitate a different approach in terms of logistics and overall procedures. RDIMS # 6226056
  14. 14. 12André LaflammeSenior Advisor Hazardous and Noxious Substances /Conseiller principal – substances nocives et dangereusesTel/Tél : (613) 990-9414Email/courriel: andre.laflamme@tc.gc.ca RDIMS # 6226056
  15. 15. 13 Annex 1OPRC-HNS Protocol, 2000 RDIMS # 6226056