One of the conundrums of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG) is the requirement to have an ERAP for a UN number that is not listed in Schedule 1 of TDG.
The problem we run into is that Schedule 1 is only up to the 11th Edition of the UN Recommendations on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods (model regulations). In section 1.3.1, item 39 in the table of standards indicates that TDG is at the 14th Edition of the model regulations. But since the 13th Edition of the model regulations, the UN has issued over 130 new classifications.
But section 1.10 of TDG states:
A person may use the appropriate classification set out in the ICAO Technical Instructions, the IMDG Code or the UN Recommendations to transport dangerous goods within Canada by a road vehicle, a railway vehicle or a ship on a domestic voyage if these Regulations or the document from which the classification is taken does not forbid their transport.
This means that if the consignor cannot find a classification in TDG, then the consignor can use a classification from the model regulations, ICAO Technical Instructions (TIs) or the IMDG Code. And this is where the conundrum lies. TDG section 7.1(12) states:
Any substance that would require an ERAP if its classification were determined in accordance with Part 2, Classification, requires an approved ERAP if its classification from the ICAO Technical Instructions, the IMDG Code or the UN Recommendations is used as permitted under section 1.10 of Part 1, Coming Into Force, Repeal, Interpretation, General Provisions and Special Cases.
For example, as the consignor, you have an IBC (1,500 L) of sodium cyanide solution, UN3414 to ship. As UN3414 is not listed in TDG, you go to the model regulations for the classification. But the model regulations don’t have an ERAP index, so how do you determine if an ERAP is required? Or, you have 2 x 20 L drums of iodine, UN3495, to be shipped and you use the TIs for your classification. The TIs don’t have an ERAP index, so how do you determine if an ERAP is required?
To determine if an ERAP is required for your shipment where the classification is not in TDG, go to: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tdg/clear-newerapnumbers-87.htm and scroll to the table at the bottom of the page to see if your product is listed and what the ERAP index is. Please bear in mind that all the requirements of Part 7 apply to the numbers listed in this table.
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?
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.
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).
