The Canadian Auditor General’s office has raised concerns about how dangerous goods are transported in Canada, in a report that may have far-reaching effects on Transport Canada, as well as the transportation and chemical industries. The conclusion in the report that “Transport Canada has not designed and implemented the management practices needed to effectively monitor regulatory compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992” has already become a major news story, raising public concern. But how valid are these concerns?
Scott Vaughn, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, this week issued his report on the performance of Transport Canada and the National Energy Board. The report, issued as the 2011 December Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found, among other areas of concern:
Transport Canada lacks a consistent approach to planning and implementing compliance activities. In particular, it has not established a “risk based” approach to monitoring companies involved in transporting dangerous goods.
There is a lack of follow-up on reported deficiencies. Corrective action is not consistently taken when violations are discovered. Documentation of corrective actions is often missing or incomplete.
The system for approving and overseeing Emergency Response Assistance Plans (ERAPs) is slow, and many plans are given merely “interim” approvals, but never progress to full approval (some have been designated interim as long as ten years).
Inspectors lack detailed guidance on how to enforce and monitor compliance.
The report identifies some significant areas of concern, and Transport Canada has committed to addressing these issues. However, it should be pointed out that most of the issues raised by the Commissioner are not related to actual incidents, but the day-to-day administrative procedures of the department. In general, Canada’s record in safe transportation of dangerous goods is still very good. The number of accidents related to non-compliant dangerous goods is low, and most incidents are dealt with quickly and appropriately, due to the hazard communication requirements of the regulations.
Companies involved in the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada should watch the developments from this report carefully. As the government tries to address these concerns, we may see improvements for industry, such as speedier approvals, but there may also be a downside. Will the criticism of Transport Canada’s enforcement procedures result in inspectors taking a more “hard-nosed” approach during investigations?
Christmas time is almost upon us again. Many of us like to decorate our homes for the Christmas season with traditional plants and flowers. The poinsettia is always a big favorite; it’s bright red leaves just scream Christmas. We hang mistletoe so we can kiss our beloved. We like to decorate window sills and banisters with holly and ivy. And last, but certainly not least, many of us like to put a large real Christmas tree in the middle of our living rooms.
Poinsettas
There is some controversy, mostly from those who sell flowers, whether or not poinsettia’s are poisonous. Actually, the flower itself is not poisonous but the sap that comes out of the leaves can cause skin and mouth irritation, and vomiting. If a pet or child ingests any of the plant, it can be treated by washing with soap and water.
Mistletoe
The berries of the mistletoe plant are extremely poisonous. It is recommended that you remove the berries if you plan to have the plant around your house. The berries can cause excessive salivating, vomiting, diarrhea, excessive urination, heavy breathing and a fast heart rate.
Holly
Like mistletoe, the berries on the holly plant are poisonous. They are not as poisonous as mistletoe berries and many birds do live on them but they can cause gastric intestinal distress, vomiting and diarrhea in small children and pets. If you think a pet or child has ingested the berries, contact your doctor or vet immediately.
Pine trees
If you bring a real Christmas tree into your home you must be aware of the dangers, to pets especially. It is inevitable that the needles will fall off a pine tree. If your pet ingests the pine needles there is a danger of their internal organs being pierced by the needles. It’s probably safest to buy an artificial tree. They don’t drop needles, they don’t dry out, and they are not a fire hazard.
Don’t be afraid of decorating your homes with Christmas plants and flowers. Just taking a few precautions can ensure that you and your family and your pets will have a wonderful holiday season.
As a Christmas enthusiast, I enjoy stringing Christmas lights around trees and small plants to give my home a warm glow for the holiday season. These lights mesmerize children and adults alike in a stunning display of twinkling color. But we forget the risks that Christmas tree lights pose when used inside the home. We can steer clear of such hazards by taking preventive measures against potentially threatening situations.
Real Tree Fire Hazards
Christmas tree lights have a reputation of sparking electrical fires on Christmas trees. According to our local fire administration, a short in one light of the electrical light string often ignites a fire on the family tree. However, fires are less likely to break out on well-watered Christmas trees than dry ones. Therefore, Christmas tree owners have to keep their trees well-watered to reduce the chance of an electrical light fire.
Choking Hazards
Children seldom consider the consequences of getting tangled up in Christmas tree lights. Toddlers and small children may get the electrical light cords wrapped around their necks and suffocate if not placed under adult supervision. Parents can prevent this occurrence by making sure their small children are never left alone in a room with boxed or partially strung Christmas tree lights, as children might use them as toys or attempt to string the lights themselves.
Pre-lit Tree Risks
Christmas tree lights don’t need loose cords to pose a threat. In the United States the Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled some pre-lit trees. According to the commission, some buyers experienced electrical shocks and fires resulting from exposed wiring, wires that were too short and electrical cords that were not plugged in all the way. While not purchasing pre-lit trees is the only way to prevent such issues, individuals can take some precautions by placing the tree in a well-ventilated area where it is not likely to quickly spread fire to furniture, pillows or gifts within close proximity.
Fake Tree Dangers
Even though real trees and pre-lit trees seem to pose the most threats in the home, artificial trees are equally as vulnerable to Christmas tree light risks. According to the National Christmas Tree Association, fake trees are likely to catch fire when decorators overload electrical sockets with Christmas tree lights. Did you know that even flame retardant or flame resistant artificial trees can eventually succumb to a fire, as their resistance wears off when completely consumed in flames? By following the instructions on Christmas tree light packaging, owners can determine how many light strings they can safely connect before posing a threat to their homes.
At the United Nations, the Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) have unanimously granted observer status to the Dangerous Goods Trainers Association (DGTA).
This means, that as a non-governmental agency (NGO), DGTA will be able to contribute and comment on proposals and changes to the model regulations. Members of DGTA will be able to share their vast wealth of knowledge and experience with this regulatory body.
Dr. Bob Richard (Labelmaster) was insturmental in writing up the application and presenting at the UN. The chair of DGTA, Leif Soderman (Optimal Assistans Sweden), will be representing DGTA at the TDG meetings.
For more information on the DGTA, please go to www.dgta.org
So, what’s going to be coming in TDG in the next year?
Well, let’s start with an Equivalency Certificate for limited quantities. Members of the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association have an Equivalency Certificate (http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdg/permits/htm/10832-eng.htm) for the use of the new limited quantity mark. If Transport Canada is not going to have this in a very near future amendment, then why don’t they issue the Equivalency Certificate to all shippers?
Amendments 8, 9 & 10 have come into force this year. Amendment 11 was sent to the Minister on October 20 and it deals with correcting errors in Amendment 6. The next step for Amendment 11 is a consultation phase.
Amendment 12, which was reviewed last June, is a large amendment with emphasis on placarding and introduces the overpack. The comment review was completed in June and it may go direct to Gazette II.
Amendment 13 will deal with the standards and Part 5 Means of Containment. This proposal has been at Justice since June and its next stop should be Gazette I.
Amendment Q will be an update of Schedule 1 and 2. Amendment 12 was to take us to the 17th Edition of the UN Recommendations on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods, so why would a separate amendment be needed for the Schedules? Interesting that Schedule 3 is not listed in this proposal – typo? The next step for this amendment is consultations.
The Surface Inter-modal Security (SIMS) directorate is still in the policy development phase. They have indicated a combined use of voluntary practices and regulations that will be phased in over a reasonable time period. In addition, harmonization with the US will be key, but there will be some unique Canadian situations.
The one thing we do not have are target dates for each of the above.
The Auditor General will be releasing his findings on December 13th on the ERAP programme.
