Friday, November 13, 2015

Interesting Rumor

I heard an interesting rumor today and I am very reluctant to share it on a couple of different levels. First I don’t want the people who sent it my way to face any repercussions and secondly it is usually not a good idea to destroy someone’s preconceived notions. But, since the rumor concerns me and this blog, I have to set the record straight.

Apparently there is a rumor going around that I am some sort of muckty-muck in DHS that is using this blog to get inside information about the Department out into public light. There are a couple of things wrong with that. First, I am not now, never have been, and almost certainly never will be a member of DHS. Hell, I haven’t even been in the city of Washington in over 30 years.

I am not exactly the sort of person that someone would hire for the Department nor would I really be happy being an employee of that organization. I spent a number of years trying to be a somewhat compliant member of the US Army and it used up all of my getting along with the bureaucracy; as anyone that knew me in that period of my life can attest. And I am certainly not someone who would be able to climb the internal ladder to reach a level of bureaucratic power and there is no politician in their right political mind that would appoint me to anything approaching a position of authority.

In many ways I should be (and really am) proud that the knowledge that I do have about the CFATS program is thought well enough of in the community that people assume that I have to be in a special position of influence to be able to share that knowledge. But a close observer would probably note that I don’t have an infallible insider’s insight into the goings on in ISCD or anywhere else in the Department (or on the Hill or in the Transportation Department, or anywhere else that I write about).

What I do have is a basic knowledge of how agencies and bureaucracies work, particularly in the political aspects of those operations. I was raised in a household where politics and engineering were the things that adults discussed and children were encouraged to listen and ask questions. I studied history, and political science and even some law from a variety of people that had insiders experience and I cultivated those connections whenever I could.

And just as important as all of that, I have cultivated connections over the last eight years with a number of people in and around the chemical safety and security (and lately in the cybersecurity) realms that are willing to tell me things about the goings on in these areas that are an important part of my life. I seldom get the whole story or both sides of the story, but I am experienced enough in the ways of the world to be able to piece together what the other side or missing pieces probably look like. Finally, I am not really trying to be a news person here, but rather an influencer of how things are proceeding in the world.

Ten or twenty years ago I would not have been able to pull off this blog without living in or near the seats of power. Without the internet I would not have access to half of the information available to me and the other half would be so out of date by the time that I got it that it would be just about worthless. But I do exist here and now and the internet and modern communications all make this possible.

So, sorry to destroy the mini-myth that is growing up around PJ Coyle (Please not - Pat or Patrick Coyle; PJCoyle was my AOL handle and it got stuck to the blog when AOL was hosting it). I am just an able muckraker who is an evangelical about chemical safety and security with a bit of knowledge about the political process with access to modern research tools and a niddly need to explain things. Please keep that in mind as you read this blog and perhaps send me interesting bits of information, or questions to be answered.


Oh and please remember that muckrakers are cheap but we still do have to feed the family and the dogs. A periodic small financial contribution to the cause is always appreciated.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Non-Toxic Gases Kill

There was a short news item on Click2Houston.com this afternoon about an industrial accident that killed one employee. The report notes that a CO2 gas leak at the facility was responsible, explaining:

“Alarms immediately sounded when the leak happened, and employees responded properly, but a man who was closest to the leak was affected, HFD [Houston Fire Department] said.”

While there is a great deal in the news about the release of CO2 to the atmosphere as a probable (or not depending on your political suasion) cause of global climate change, there is very little talk about this being an industrial chemical that is used in a number of different commercial applications, from industrial cooling, to atmospheric deoxygenation, to caffeine removal from coffee.

CO2 at room temperature is a non-toxic gas that is a routine part of the air that we breath every day and an important part of the respiratory cycle for the exchange of oxygen between plants and animals.

So, if CO2 is non-toxic and necessary for life, how did a person die from a CO2 leak? The answer if fairly simple; asphyxiation. The atmosphere contains a number of chemicals, but the most important one from an animalistic point of view (and please remember that humans are animals) is oxygen. Oxygen is typically found in the air at about 21%. Anything below about 19% starts to become too little to support life. As other gasses are added to the atmosphere the amount of oxygen (as O2) starts to decline. If too much is added to the local area, then there is not enough oxygen present to support life and animals die.

Apparently what happened here is that there was a leak, probably in a CO2 transfer line. The facility had some sort of alarms in place (probably based upon O2 sensors), but the person closest to the leak did not apparently have time to evacuate to a place of high-enough oxygen concentration and died.

Short of requiring employees to carry O2 cylinders all of the time (expensive and not without their own level of hazard) there is not much that can be done to prevent this sort of accident, except ensuring high levels of ventilation. If you move high amounts of fresh air through areas of the facility where leaks can be expected to occur (and CO2 leaks should not happen often; it is a relatively inert gas) you greatly reduce the probability that unsafe concentrations of CO2 can occur or last long enough to kill employees.

One relatively simple way to do this is to keep all CO2 transfer lines on the outside of the building, normal air movements should serve to keep ambient O2 levels high enough in the event of a leak. In areas where transfer lines must traverse enclosed areas of the facility emergency ventilation fans (tied to O2 sensors) may be necessary to flood the area with outside air to displace the leaking CO2. In areas where such ventilation is not necessary emergency O2 bottles can be placed to allow anyone in such areas to get oxygen before the pass out (2 to 3 minutes after being in a depleted O2 environment).

It is way too early in this incident to tell what precautions had been taken by the facility owner to prevent this type of incident. The presence of alarms would seem to indicate that the employer was aware of the hazards, and it is possible that even if all reasonable precautions had been put into place that unusual circumstances were in play in this case.


A detailed investigation is going to be necessary to determine what happened and what could have been done to prevent it. Since a death from chemical exposure was involved, we might normally expect that the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) would investigate this accident. Recent news stories, however, have reported that the CSB does not intend to initiate any new investigations until their current investigation backlog is erased. We will probably hear more about this at the public CSB meeting later this month in Washington.

ICS-CERT Publishes Unitronics Advisory

This afternoon DHS ICS-CERT published a control systemadvisory for two vulnerabilities reported in the Unitronics VisiLogic OPLC IDE. The vulnerabilities were reported (through ZDI) by Steven Seeley of Source Incite, Fritz Sands of ZDI, and Andrea Micalizzi. Unitronics has produced an update package but there is no indication that any of the researchers were provided the opportunity to verify the efficacy of the fix.

The two vulnerabilities were:

• Unsafe ActiveX control marked safe for scripting – CVE-2015-6478; and
• Code injection – CVE-2015-7905

ICS-CERT reports that a moderately skilled attacker could remotely exploit these vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code.

There is nothing on the Unitronics web site or in the version documentation that describes the security vulnerabilities. There is the possibility that Unitronics directly contacted their customers during the period that this vulnerability was listed on the US CERT Secure Portal (posted November 3rd, 2015).

Actually, looking at the vulnerability ID number assigned by ICS-CERT (ICSA-15-274-02) it would seem that the advisory was probably placed on the Secure Portal on October 1st when the Omron advisory (ICSA-15-274-01) was published. Either that, or something happened at the last minute to cause ICS-CERT to hold the advisory for more than a month.


BTW: If you had been following the ICS-CERT notices on the Secure Portal, you would have already known about this vulnerability. If you are a critical infrastructure owner or cybersecurity officer see the bottom of the ICS-CERT landing page for instructions on how to apply for access.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

ISCD Publishes CFATS Newsletter

Today the DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD, the CFATS folks) posted a link to their latest CFATS Quarterly newsletter on the CFATS Knowledge Center. The newsletter is designed to provide a high-level overview of what is happening in the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program.

According to Annie Hunziker, Program Analyst with ISCD, the newsletter has been sent to “authorizers and submitters from all regulated facilities” in addition to being posted on the CFATS Knowledge Center.

This issue highlights the recent progress of the CFATS program, including approval of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program (PSP) Information Collection Request, information about the 2015 Chemical Sector Security Summit and the compliance inspection process.

Personnel Surety Program

Readers will remember that I last discussed the CFATS PSP in early October when ISCD published their Fact Sheet on the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. I told you at that time that we would be seeing a notice in the Federal register in the ‘near future’. The latest word that I have from ISCD is that the notice is still making its way through the Department’s approval process. I suspect that there is still some political pressure being exerted by industry to get some additional changes or clarifications made to the PSP process.

Compliance Inspections

The compliance inspection process is actually mentioned in a couple of the articles in the newsletter. The one of most direct interest, however, is found on the second page. Announcing that the “Compliance Inspection are in full swing” the brief article provides three suggestions for preparing for the inspection:

• Review the SSP/ASP in its entirety and ensure that there is visual evidence of each measure to demonstrate to the inspection team;
• Review the planned measures and ensure there is documentation showing the successful completion of each planned measure; and
• Ensure all personnel with CFATS duties have been trained and are fully aware of their responsibilities within the SSP/ASP.


With the GAO reporting earlier this year that there were a large number of the facilities that had undergone compliance inspections that had not completed their planned security measures, this is an area that will undoubtedly get special attention from the Chemical Security Inspectors (CSI) conducting these compliance inspections. They will expect to see extensive documentation for the reason that any planned measures are not fully in place.

S 1356 Passed in Senate – 2016 NDAA

Yesterday the Senate adopted the House amendment to S 1356, the National Defense Authorization Act 2016 by a decidedly bipartisan vote of 91 to 3. This bill was passed last Thursday in the House by a similar vote of 370 to 58. The funding provisions of this bill were in accordance with the recent budget agreement, so there has been no threat of veto of this bill.

As best as I can tell the non-funding provisions of this bill are the same as HR 1735 that was vetoed by the President. It certainly has the same cybersecurity related provisions.


BTW: There is not yet an official copy of the House version of this bill. The only thing currently available is the final draft version that had been circulated in the House prior to the vote last week.

Bills Introduced – 11-10-15

Yesterday there were 21 bills introduced in the Senate (the House is back in their districts for Veterans Day and the Senate left last night). Of those two may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

S 2270 A bill to address voluntary location tracking of electronic communications devices, and for other purposes. Sen. Franken, Al [D-MN]

S 2276 A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide enhanced safety in pipeline transportation, and for other purposes. Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

S 2270 is more than a bit of a reach for possible coverage on this blog but that ‘for other purposes’ bothers me.


S 2276 is almost certainly going to be followed in this blog; just have to wait and see what the details are in the bill.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

The Chemical Gloves Controversy – A Manifesto

I had an interesting (and prolonged) Twitversation with @SellaTheChemist (a well known British chemist and populizer of all things Chemistry in Britain) yesterday about laboratory gloves. It all started with my comment about a photo accompanying a @ChemistryWorld post. The folks in the picture were using the old style bulb pipettes. They were wearing safety glasses and lab coats, but not gloves, and I complained about the lack of gloves in the stock photo.

Little did I know that in Britain, at least (but I suspect that might extend further in the EU), there is a ‘controversy’ over requirements to routinely wear lab gloves in the laboratory. I had never heard of a controversy about this very common personal protective equipment, so the conversation was a bit eye opening for me.

It became clear pretty quickly that Andrea Sella and I were talking past each other because of some basic disagreements on lab safety. And, to be sure, the 140 character limit of a Twitversation is more than a little limiting. So I thought I would take to my bully pulpit and issue a manifesto on lab gloves.

The Legal Standard

Here in the United States the basic legal requirement for the use of hand protection in the workplace is derived from the basic PPE Standard found in 29 CFR 1910.132. Paragraph (a) sums up the basic requirement nicely:

“Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.” [emphasis added]

The specific standard (§1910.138) for gloves is actually quite short. It describes the selection process for gloves in paragraph (b):

“Employers shall base the selection of the appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified.”

To get a better understanding of how the glove requirements are enforced in a lab environment you have to turn to the standard for “Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories.” (§1910.1450). Each lab is required to develop and maintain (annual updates) a Chemical Hygiene Plan. Part of that plan is the requirement to outline the criteria that “the employer will use to determine and implement control measures to reduce employee exposure to hazardous chemicals including engineering controls, the use of personal protective equipment and hygiene practices” {§1910.1450(e)(3)(ii)}.

That clearly does not require the use of lab gloves. OSHA inspectors expect to see the routine use of lab gloves because of a couple of statements seen in Appendix A to §1910.1450. This appendix is technically ‘non-mandatory’, but deviations from what is recommended typically draw official comments from inspectors that require justification of the deviations. The guidelines in the appendix address the development of the required Chemical Hygiene Plan and are based upon the National Research Council’s (NRC) 2011 edition of “Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Management of Chemical Hazards.”

The first principal is to minimize all chemical exposures and risks. A key component of that principal is explained this way:

“Because few laboratory chemicals are without hazards, general precautions for handling all laboratory chemicals should be adopted [emphasis added]. In addition to these general guidelines, specific guidelines for chemicals that are used frequently or are particularly hazardous should be adopted.”

This is further expanded upon in the discussion of Hierarchy of Controls to avoid chemical exposures. There is the specific admonition to “not allow laboratory chemicals [emphasis added] to come in contact with skin” that precedes the discussion of glove selection. Both of these comments in Appendix A are used to explain an inspector’s expectation that laboratory gloves will be worn whenever chemicals are handled in the lab. Failure of a lab to meet that expectation would need to be justified to an inspector during an inspection or investigation.

Selection of Gloves

As a lab manager the proper selection of gloves for use in the lab is a very challenging topic if there are a variety of chemicals in use since there is no single glove that is appropriate for handing of all chemicals. Since lab gloves are high-turnover PPE, cost is certainly an issue. But other factors that must be taken into account include

• Ease of wear or dexterity issues;
• Chemical permeability;
• Chemical reactions; and
• Temperature resistance.

For most labs this is going to mean that there is a general use lab glove that is used for most operations in the lab and then there will be gloves that will be used for specific chemicals or lab operations. It is not unusual to find the typical medical vinyl or latex ‘exam’ gloves to be used for general lab work; they are readily available from most supply houses and are relatively inexpensive when bought in case lots.

There are a number of glove compatibility guides available on-line. I have used both the Cole-Parmer and the Ansel guides, but there are a number of others available. A quick test of chemical compatibility (but not permeability) is to place 10 mL of the chemical in question in a finger of the glove and see if the chemical leaks through the glove. The longer it takes to break through the better, but I would never use a glove with a chemical if it did not take at least five minutes to break through (more on that later).

Wearing of Gloves

The first thing that you have to remember about gloves is that they are, by definition, not permeable. This means that liquids outside of the glove do not get inside (the purpose of wearing the gloves). But it also means that liquids inside the glove (think sweat) will stay inside the gloves. For people whose hands sweat prolifically this can lead to medical problems with the skin if gloves are not changed frequently. Some people use powdered (typically baby powder) gloves to mitigate this issue, but I have found that this can create contamination issues. I prefer to use cotton inspection gloves inside of my lab gloves.

Gloves have to fit properly so that the wearer can still accurately operate lab equipment. Nothing will stop people from wearing gloves faster than not being able to do their job with the gloves on. Unless you are able to hire a staff with all the same sized hands (good luck) this means that you are going to have to have multiple sizes of each type of glove on hand. As a lab manager one of the first things that I do with new personnel is to determine which size gloves they need and update my stocking as necessary.

Generally speaking, gloves should be worn whenever open containers of chemicals are being handled. This includes shipping and storage containers, but also lab containers like beakers, flasks and the like. Once a container is closed and checked to ensure that there is no chemical on the outside of the container, then gloves are typically no longer required. For chemicals that have a low quantity/concentration chemical hazard may require gloves when handling closed containers that have been previously opened because of the possibility of small quantity spills/contamination on the outside of the bottle. This needs to be addressed in the chemical hygiene plan.

Finally there have to be clear limits on where gloves cannot be worn. Part of a chemical hygiene plan is taking a detailed look at lab operations to see where gloves must be worn and areas where they may not be worn. Doors are a common problem; you don’t want people to manipulate door handles with gloves on and then have someone without gloves manipulate the same handle. If people routinely carry chemicals into or out of the lab and that requires wearing gloves (product samples coming into a QA lab are a good case in point) then an automatic opener or levered door handles should be considered.

Computer keyboards are another concern. Gloves should never be worn when using a strictly admin computer. Keyboards (or other controls) for lab instruments make for more difficult rules. A detailed analysis of how the equipment is used will determine if the controls are always or never operated with gloves. Signage and training are keys to making this work.

Chemical Hygiene

The whole purpose of wearing gloves is not to wear gloves but to stop skin contact with chemicals. They are not to be used in place of good laboratory techniques that strive to keep chemicals IN their appropriate containers and not on the outside of the containers. This means that anytime chemicals get on the gloves they either need to be cleaned or disposed of. This is an absolute necessity to prevent cross contamination, particularly of closed containers that most people feel comfortable not wearing glove to carry from one location to another.

Making the decision between the two is primarily a chemical hygiene decision, but any lab manager who has had to live within a budget knows that there are also financial considerations. For any chemical, however, that comes with a medical hazard at low concentrations (for bio-accumulators for instance) disposal is probably going to be the first choice.

To make this work, lab personnel are going to have to be trained to look at their gloves after each time that they handle a chemical container. That way they will have the best chance of properly identifying the contaminating chemical and taking the appropriate action to decontaminate.

Remember the five minute break through standard that I described earlier. This is where that comes into play. You can get away with using a glove that will break through after five minutes if you have properly trained your personnel to check their gloves after each time they handle a chemical. It is important, however, to let your people know what chemicals do have break through times with specific gloves so that they can be extra careful with the handling of those gloves.

Staging Gloves

If you are going to require employees to wear and change gloves you are going to have to ensure that they are readily available. If people have to walk very far they are probably going to ‘forget’ to wear the gloves. This is especially true for gloves that are for limited use with specific high hazard chemicals. Those chemicals and their required gloves need to be collocated in the lab.

Training

Training is the key to any successful Chemical Hygiene Plan and that is especially critical for the proper use of gloves. Employees need initial and periodic refresher training on the Chemical Hygiene plan, but I have found that additional training on the proper use of gloves is usually required. Job aids are especially helpful in areas where specific glove types are to be used. Just as important, however, is a clear marking of areas where gloves are not to be worn.

Formal, documented training, is important, but day-to-day training and evaluation needs to be included in the training program. Every time that the lab manager enters the lab, a short pause should be taken for a general safety observation of the lab. Specific checks for cleanliness, orderliness and PPE should be made each time the lab manager enters the lab with other observation objectives being made on a routine (scheduled) basis. Short comings need to be quickly addressed as both a matter of training (ensuring that people know what and why safety requirements are in place) and discipline (ensuring that people do what they know is required).

One technique that can be used to help people consider PPE requirements in labs where non-routine chemicals and processes are used is to require a listing of the PPE as part of the heading in the lab notebook that is completed before the experiment is run. With this in place, lab notebook reviews become another technique for reinforcing the PPE requirements, with attention paid to both the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ of the requirements.

Moving Forward

A Chemical Hygiene Plan is required for all chemical labs in the United States. A key component of that Plan is delineation of the use of chemical gloves to protect lab employees from physical exposure to chemicals in the lab. Consideration of the chemicals handled, the mode of handling and the quantities handled all must be included in determining the requirements for selecting and using gloves as personal protection equipment.


 
/* Use this with templates/template-twocol.html */