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?
This week, ICC attended the 33rd Annual Conference and Exposition of the Dangerous Goods Advisory Committee (DGAC), one of the largest trade associations for organizations involved in dangerous goods. The conference, which was held in Tampa, Florida, was well attended by shippers and carriers, as well as companies providing services such as emergency response. ICC’s own Karrie Monette-Ishmael and Barbara Foster were among the exhibitors showing their latest products and services.
The program started with a keynote address from Tim Butters, the Deputy Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). He described how PHMSA was “trying to reopen lines of communication with industry,” that may have been damaged in recent years, and discussed some of their important work on safety and security.
The program itself provided many informative and challenging sessions. Workshops gave a hands-on look at such diverse topics as writing closure instructions for packaging, and compatibility issues between chemicals and packaging. Regulators from North America and Europe gave overviews of issues and upcoming changes to the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, the Hazardous Materials Regulations of 49 CFR, and other related regulations. Speakers from industry were present to give insight into topics such as classification of environmentally hazardous substances. The ever-problematic issue of lithium batteries was addressed by Bob Richard, former Deputy Administrator of PHMSA and now with Labelmaster Services.
A new feature this year (and one that was a big hit!) was a chance to “speed date the regulators”. Participants could choose representatives from various departments for short discussions in small groups about specific topics of concern.
This was the last conference for the current DGAC President, Mike Morrissette. After many years of service in the dangerous goods field, Mike is retiring. ICC wishes him a happy retirement, and thanks him for his years of untiring support for all of us in the industry. We also congratulate the incoming President, Vaughn Arthur, and look forward to working with him.
ICC is a proud supporter of DGAC, one of the best sources for companies involved with goods/hazardous materials to learn about upcoming regulations, and touch base with the people who create them. Check DGAC out at http://www.dgac.org for more information about this great organization, and consider attending next year’s conference, which will be held in Nashville, Tennessee on October 15-17, 2012.
This Amendment deals specifically with Emergency Response Assistance Plans (ERAPs), and compensation for situations where the government has invoked a plan in the event of a terrorist action. Costs that are eligible for compensation include:
the salaries and other compensation for employees and contractors;
the cost for tools and equipment used, including rental of equipment where necessary,
cost of replacing supplies, single-use equipment and other consumables,
travel expenses for personnel, including meals and accommodation,
expenses related to injury or death of employees or contractors, and
costs incident to cleanup after an incident, including handling and disposal costs for dangerous goods and contaminated materials.
In the event of a terrorist incident involving dangerous goods in transport, the Minister of Transport can invoke an ERAP, even if the ERAP is held by someone other than the consignor of the goods. The amendment is required to ensure that this does not place an undue economic burden on the owner of the invoked ERAP.
Other aspects of ERAPs, such as the quantities that trigger the requirement, have not been changed in this amendment. If you have questions about how Amendment 10 will affect ERAPs, please contact ICC The Compliance Center Inc at 1-888-442-9628 (USA) or 1-888-977-4834 (Canada).
In January 2011, OSHA proposed that in August of this year, they would publish the final rule to align the current Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The more recent DOL Spring semi-annual regulatory agenda released in June revisits the scheduling of the release of the HCS revision to an unspecified date in September of this year. September has now come and gone, and we are still without a final rule from OSHA.
This leads to the question of “If not now, then when?”. It is probably a safe assumption that OSHA’s lack of implementation of GHS to date will be a major topic of discussion at the October 1st – 5th Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC) fall conference in Washington, DC. Many health and safety professionals, myself included, will be impatiently waiting for word of a revised deadline.
On September 13, 2011, PHMSA published the current 180-day special permit application list in the Federal Register. Under 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is required to give notice to the public of Special Permit applications which have been under review for issuance or renewal for longer than 180 days. The list includes initial Special Permit applications as well as modification, renewal, and party status requests. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application. The full notice can be viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-13/pdf/2011-22942.pdf
PHMSA also published HM-244D, a corrections document in the September 13, 2011 Federal Register. PHMSA annually reviews the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) to identify typographical errors, outdated addresses or other contact information, and similar errors. In the final rule, PHMSA is correcting typographical errors, incorrect CFR references and citations, inconsistent use of terminology, misstatements of certain regulatory requirements, inadvertent omissions of information and outdated transition dates. The full Final Rule can be viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-13/pdf/2011-23167.pdf
