Understanding Benzene—the chemical with a license to kill

This "Chemical of the Quarter" excerpt is from the U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine and was written by Dr. Alan Schneider, formerly of the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards.


Benzene

What is it?
Benzene is a flammable liquid used to make many chemicals that, in turn, go into common consumer products like plastics, rubber, nylon, dyes, detergents, drugs, synthetic fibers, and pesticides. It’s used as a solvent in paints, varnishes, and lacquer thinners. Because it is so versatile, benzene is shipped in very large quantities as a pure chemical, as well as in mixtures.

How is it shipped?
Benzene boils at 176°F, so it is typically carried unpressurized at room temperature in tank ships and tank barges.

Why should I care?
Benzene is a very common cargo. It is also very dangerous. For example:

• Benzene is flammable and explosive.
• Benzene is a known carcinogen.
• Benzene attacks the lungs, blood, bone marrow, central nervous system, liver, kidneys, and women’s reproductive organs.
• It irritates skin and eyes.
• Ingesting benzene may lower blood pressure and cause vomiting, nausea, dizziness, and loss of consciousness.

Shipping concerns. Benzene vapor may be released during normal cargo venting and transfer operations and during tank cleaning. Because it is heavier than air, the vapor can accumulate on the deck, possibly in concentrations high enough to be damaging or fatal.

Health concerns. How much benzene is “bad”? The official exposure level to avoid is more than 0.5 ppm (parts per million). That's the amount that can be in the air you breathe every day at work (for up to a 30-year career) and not get sick.

Benzene is a dangerous chemical, but years ago people didn’t know this. At one time it was a standard practice for workers to wash grease and oil off their hands with benzene.

What’s the Coast Guard doing about it?
The Coast Guard has detailed rules regarding benzene. You'll find these in the Code of Federal Regulations (46 CFR Subchapter D, 46 CFR Subchapter O, 46 CFR 197 Subpart C).

Benzene safety depends on you. The rules can be inconvenient. For example, it can be uncomfortable wearing a respirator continuously during warm weather, but you have to follow the rules if you want to live to retirement age. Too many marine workers have died from leukemia and other diseases linked to benzene exposure.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Exercise Program Management—how to plan, participate in, and learn from response exercises

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. Joseph Pancotti, Exercise Program Technical Advisor to the Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Contingency Exercises.


Many cities conduct annual training and exercise plan workshops to develop their multi-year training and exercise plans. These workshops typically include a spectrum of exercise stakeholders, including federal, state, local, and tribal officials; representatives from first responder organizations; public health and medical community representatives; volunteers and non-governmental agencies and organizations; and the private sector.

The Plan
A well-designed multi-year exercise plan employs a building-block approach of linked training and exercise activities. As the plan is executed, the training and exercise activities increase in complexity, so the community’s response capability grows.

Types of Exercises
Discussion-based exercises are generally the least complex, but their value should not be underestimated. Tabletop exercises can be used to test plans, policies, or procedures that come into play in a specified incident. During a tabletop exercise, participants apply their knowledge and skills to a problem or series of problems presented by a facilitator in a low-stress environment. The problems are discussed and the resolutions summarized.

Operations-based exercises represent an increased level of complexity, as they include personnel and equipment deployment. The most basic operations-based exercise is the drill, which provides specific training to a limited audience to develop a particular capability.

Next in order of complexity is the functional exercise. Real operations are simulated. Exercise players may participate from command centers or emergency operations centers. Realistic problems are presented to trained personnel, requiring quick thinking and solutions.

The most complex type is the full-scale exercise, which is used to test preparedness across agencies and jurisdictions. Complex, realistic problems are presented to participants, requiring rapid and effective response operations in a real-time, stressful environment.

Lessons Learned
In all cases, the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program requires that exercises be evaluated to assess current capabilities. Deficiencies are noted and included in an improvement plan.

In addition, best practices should be noted so that they can be shared with other response communities.


For more information:
For further information about the types of exercises, exercise planning, and best practices, refer to Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program manuals and the Lessons Learned Information System.

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Online Preparedness Exercise Databases

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CDR Jane Wong, Chief, Exercise Support and Coordination Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Atlantic Area.


The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program Lessons Learned Information Sharing database allows users to share important lessons learned with the entire response community—not just the specific participants of the exercise from which the lesson was extracted. The Department of Defense (DoD) maintains a similar database, its Joint Lessons Learned System.

The Coast Guard’s Contingency Preparedness System (CPS) provides the same information sharing capability, capturing elements of the exercises conducted from the original design to the remedial actions required to correct problems identified in exercises.

In the CPS, the CGSAILS database allows Coast Guard personnel to post lessons learned and best practices to enable other units to benefit from their acquired knowledge. Units who observe a partner agency or member of their own command employing a technique or process that allows the response to proceed with greater efficiency and effectiveness can—and should—share that discovery with the rest of the response community.

Also in CPS, the Remedial Action Management Program database allows units to identify planning, funding, personnel, or equipment shortfalls.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Exercises—what’s all the fuss about?

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CDR Jane Wong, Chief, Exercise Support and Coordination Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Atlantic Area.


We may believe that exercises allow people to “practice” what they do in real life, learn more about their response partners, and take their procedures on a test run. Generally, that’s what most exercises attempt—to validate a contingency plan and its implementation.

Once this is accomplished, many participants often return to their offices, congratulating each other on a job well done. But this only marks the halfway point of an exercise.

Pictured above: During an exercise, staff must ensure progress through the “planning P,” a visual representation of the Incident Command System planning process.

Mission Accomplished?
To improve preparedness, the lessons learned and best practices must be identified and—most importantly—acted upon. Validating plans, policies, and procedures is not complete if areas of improvement are not then incorporated back into the applicable plans, policies, and procedures.

In a perfect world, this information would always be incorporated into future plans so that others may benefit. Sadly, plans are often left as they are, and great new ideas are known only by those who participated in the exercise.

Redefining “Failure”
There are some who view identification of weaknesses in their plans as failure. If an exercise is undertaken with the goal that no problems should be found, then participants should identify other projects that would be a better use of their resources.

The only exercise that can be considered a failure is one that doesn’t identify opportunities to improve applicable procedures or plans. It is not a failure to stumble over a roadblock. It is a failure to refuse to remove the roadblock and continue to allow people to stumble over it.

Actionable After-Action Reports
Once participants draft the after-action report, they must then develop an improvement plan, which is arguably one of the most important components of the exercise cycle. These actions often involve multiple agencies and should be developed with participation from relevant planning partners to fully capture each agency’s role in the corrective action.

Don’t Just Stand There, Do Something
Most importantly, each and every responsible agency should be identified to ensure completion of the recommended corrective actions. The final data point in the plan is a completion date.

When the plan is followed faithfully, problems are not allowed to fall through the cracks, nor are they identified at subsequent exercises.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

The Mobilization Readiness Tracking Tool—modernizing Coast Guard response efforts

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. Samuel J. Korson, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Incident Management and Response.


The Coast Guard’s mobilization readiness tracking tool (MRTT) represents a modernization of force readiness. MRTT is a web-based tool that:

· streamlines Coast Guard personnel mobilization;
· captures mobilization-related data;
· provides stakeholders process visibility;
· is capable of tracking active duty personnel assigned temporary duty.

The Process
The MRTT will take a request, match an appropriate individual, and assign him or her to a billet. It will also prevent others from filling the same position. The system will track an individual if he or she is sent elsewhere and ensure that the individual is demobilized properly.

It is also capable of creating force packages (such as incident management teams and joint field office support teams) to facilitate response efforts.

The Contingency Personnel Requirements List
The tool will help tie the Coast Guard’s personnel database to the contingency personnel requirements list, a systematic process to analyze what personnel and equipment support a unit will need for a contingency response.

The MRTT matches the requirements from a unit meeting a surge situation to those on the contingency personnel requirements list. These lists can be uploaded into the mobilization readiness tracking tool, and the planner can then download the appropriate list or create force packages from that list to meet response efforts.

The Voyage Ahead
By providing an automated mechanism by which Incident Command System requirements can match selective criteria, the MRTT enables the Coast Guard to meet the needs associated with a given incident. Logistics section chiefs can remain at their stations within the incident command post and fulfill requests for personnel by entering the web-based system and requesting the appropriate competencies.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Upgrading the Mobile Command Center

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LCDR Richard Sundland, Command and Control Branch Chief, and LCDR Andre Whidbee, Communications and Sensors Branch Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Office of C4 and Sensor Capabilities.


Developed as a “system of systems,” the Coast Guard mobile command center (MCC) project supports an array of product lines while maintaining interoperability with partners through compatible communications and network systems and standards.

The MCC project consists of four main subsystems:

· enhanced mobile incident command post (eMICP, pictured above),
· mobile communications vehicle,
· portable SIPRNet,
· portable computer store.

The eMICP is an incident command post that contains temporary office and conference room facilities and a robust communications suite that includes Internet, intranet, SIPRNet, phone, and radio systems.

When used in concert, the mobile command center subsystems provide scalable resources to establish a Coast Guard operational presence in an area with damaged or non-existent communication infrastructure.

Ongoing Support
Incident management, contingency preparedness, continuity of operations, and surge operations have proven to be more effective with the new and improved mobile command center.

The robust communications, terrestrial and satellite network connections, and capability for unclassified and secure communications has enabled the Coast Guard to reach a higher level of interoperability with partners while better allocating and managing resources.

For example, the Coast Guard’s “blue force” tracking technology provides real-time status of all assets in an operational environment, enhancing the situational awareness necessary for tactical decisions.

The Coast Guard will expand the mobile command center project, building a total of three enhanced mobile incident command posts and three mobile command vehicles.

Ultimately, the Coast Guard will have one eMICP and mobile command vehicle on the West Coast and two eMICPs and two mobile command vehicles on the East Coast. This geographic distribution of assets will help ensure Coast Guard incident commanders have the proper command center capabilities for their mission responsibilities.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

USCG’s Preparedness Campaign

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LT Kristina Hynes and LT Kim Wheatley, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Incident Management and Preparedness.


Readiness vs. Preparedness
The Coast Guard motto “Semper Paratus”— or “Always Ready”—guides its missions and efforts. However, being “ready” is different from being “prepared.”

If individual air and boat crews and shore teams are ready, equipped, and deployed to execute their mission functions, they must also be fully prepared to respond—to combine individual unit and mission area functions into a smoothly operating and consistent whole to ensure a coherent federal response.

Achieving Preparedness
Configuring preparedness to align with both Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Coast Guard strategic preparedness goals is achieved through the preparedness planning cycle, which links missions to plans, capabilities, exercises, and evaluations.

As the Coast Guard modernizes and DHS refines the planning process and adopts the planning cycle, preparedness will become an increasingly integral component of mission execution.

The Campaign Plan
The Coast Guard is establishing a preparedness campaign plan to outline the preparedness program’s mission and vision, scope and impact, goals and objectives, elements and functions, challenges and initiatives, and its alignment and coordination with national preparedness.

Goals for the next five years include:

• Proactively engage with stakeholders to sustain a cooperative unity of effort to protect, prevent, respond to, and recover from all threats and hazards.
• Integrate Coast Guard contingency plans with appropriate departments, agencies, and jurisdictions.
• Maintain required Coast Guard preparedness program capabilities, including staffing, training, and utilization.
• Enhance preparedness through standard exercise delivery that validates plans, concepts, and capabilities; reinforces training; and provides a measure of readiness.
• Produce lessons learned and best practices that incorporate all elements of Coast Guard preparedness and individual mission readiness.

For more information:

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Biometrics at Sea—closing the revolving door

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by CAPT Mark Higgins and LCDR Fair Kim, 7th Coast Guard District.


A Revolving Door
During 2004 and 2005, the Coast Guard interdicted more than 9,000 migrants attempting to illegally enter Puerto Rico from the Dominican Republic—nearly 40 percent of the undocumented migrants intercepted. These migrants were typically repatriated to the Dominican Republic within days of apprehension. In the USCG photo above, this small boat has more than 100 illegal migrants aboard.

The cutters were able to return to their patrols, but many of those interdicted were recidivists. This repeating cycle severely overburdened law enforcement units, provided little incentive for migrants to seek legal immigration avenues, and enabled migrant smugglers to continue to ply their trade.

Without clear consequences, the flow of migrants appeared destined to continue unabated. From a security standpoint, the U.S. did not have a clear idea of exactly who was attempting to penetrate its borders, and whether a would-be migrant was an itinerant worker, deported felon, or terrorist.

Closing the Door
In early 2006, the Coast Guard embarked on an ambitious endeavor to curb these attempts by using biometric equipment at sea to facilitate prosecutions. Biometrics are readily identifiable traits unique to an individual, such as a fingerprint.

This would enable the Coast Guard to track individuals by ascertaining their history of attempted entries into the U.S. and screening each against criminal and immigration databases.

Testing the System
The Coast Guard acquired the biometrics hardware, conducted training, and made other preparations to a prototype cutter. Meanwhile, the service engaged local partner agencies in Puerto Rico including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations, ICE Office of Detention and Removal, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Office of Field Operations, and Border Patrol. The agencies formed the Caribbean Border Interagency Group to formulate a standard procedure for taking action in response to a biometric “hit” from a Coast Guard interdiction.

In November 2006, USCGC Key Largo got underway with the portable biometrics collection equipment. Within days, the Coast Guard had interdicted three small boats attempting to enter the U.S. with 36 migrants aboard—business as usual in the Mona Pass.

Cutter personnel took biometric scans and a digital photo of each migrant and annotated data packets with information about the interdiction.

Five “Hits”
Five of the migrants had interacted with law enforcement or immigration authorities in the past—four were recidivists, and the fifth migrant’s file revealed a felony drug conviction and previous deportation.

Emboldened by this success, the Coast Guard deployed portable collection units to all five cutters based in San Juan.

Program Successes
From deployment of the Biometrics-at-Sea initiative in November 2006 through the end of 2008, the Coast Guard interdicted 1,986 migrants attempting to enter the United States. Of this group, 459 (more than 23 percent) were recidivist entrants, prior deportees, felons, or otherwise had some derogatory information within the database. As appropriate, these were forwarded for prosecution. In the USCG photo above is a Coast Guard cutter with migrants on deck. The vessel was turned over to local police.

Since the introduction of biometrics, the migrant flow decreased nearly 75 percent.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Upcoming in Proceedings

Fall 2010: Recreational Boating Safety (RBS)
• RBS program synopsis
• State RBS involvement
• RBS partners
• Manufacturing standards
• USCG Auxiliary
• Small vessel security
• Lessons Learned: Barkald/Essence: A routine passage turns tragic.

Winter 2010-11: Fishing Vessel Safety
• Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety program synopsis
• Lessons learned
• Training and outreach
• Collaborative efforts/improvements

Your Opinion
• What do you want to read in Proceedings?
• What area under the Coast Guard’s marine safety, security, and environmental protection missions affects you most?
• What do you want to know more about?

Post a comment here or send us an e-mail at HQS-DG-NMCProceedings@uscg.mil.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.