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.
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).
by Jim Henry on October 14, 2011 at 8:00 am · in Jim's Blog
I am beginning to feel like Peter Mackay of Hazardous Cargo Bulletin (HCB) – doing this in two parts. Cheers Peter!
The Thursday session continued with Richard Bornhorst, USCG, on Amendment 35 of the IMDG Code. This amendment is at the 16th Edition of the UN model regulations, but does not include the revised EHS/GHS criteria. Some of the new issues with this Amendment are:
the new limited quantity mark
new Chapter 5.5 on fumigated containers, including a fumigation certificate
UN3166 Engines, has two new special provisions 961 & 962
new TIH n.o.s. entries UN3488 – 3494, such as sour crude oil
training record retention
monitoring equipment as part of a CTU does not need to be declared
Some proposals for Amendment 36 are:
revised EHS/GHS criteria
adopt the 17th Edition of the UN model regulations
revision of Chapter 7 – simplified stowage and packing requirements for Class 1 based on vessel type
books to be published every 4 years with amendments every two years
new illustrations
new guidelines for packing CTUs
revised circular on CTU inspections that contain dangerous goods; 56,000 CTU inspected worldwide in last year with 51,000 in the US alone
Bob Richard then continued the presentation on:
DSC 16 (Sub-committee on dangerous goods, solid cargoes and containers) on fibre bulk containers (FBCs) – these will be restricted to a stacking height of 3, and restricted on long distance roll on, roll off (RoRo)
batteries tested prior to 2014.01.01 will be grandfathered
there were papers that were presented by Belgium, China, Korea and DGAC that were rejected:
China proposed a limited quantity for alcohol
Korea: 1) prohibit metal packaging for Li batteries, 2) separate wet batteries from Class 3, 3) allow the use of the UN number on limited quantity packages, 4) the overpack marking should be a minimum of 65 mm in height
DGAC: wanted specific packaging and storage rules for Class 4.3
all the above were rejected as these proposals should be presented to the UN not the IMO
Dave Evans (Purolator Canada) and Duane Pfund (PHMSA) brought us up to date with the changes in Canada. Amendment 8 is still at Justice. Linda Hume is off on medical leave and will retire in February 2012. Transport Canada has met with PHMSA recently and both signed a memorandum of understanding regarding compressed cylinders. Both parties have agreed to circulate proposed changes with each other.
Geoff Leach returned to go over the top 5 feedback points regarding training programmes. His first question was “what is feedback?”. Feed back is: Knowledge of the results of any behavior, considered as influencing or modifying further performance.
if you don’t know where you’re going, how do you know which route to take? you need objectives
talking vs asking: why ask? a) to test understanding & acceptance, b) to stop switching off, c) stop participants from being passive
why are we here? be specific – illustrate by using an example, i.e. ValueJet
reading vs teaching
visual aids – Geoff did an exercise of reading a list of items vs showing a list of pictograms
Chris Egloff, Americase, did a presentation of shipping oxygen cylinders or generators by air. This only applies to the US, but also applies to shipments leaving the US, entering the US, intra US or US flagged aircraft. FedEx requires the use of the ATA300 package. One issue of note is the number of cylinders per case. The regulations do not say you can or can’t have multiple cylinders in a package. The shipper would need to refer to the manufacturer for clarification. Boeing 787s do not have oxygen generators on board, rather, the aircraft has a 10k cylinder in the cabin. A 10k cylinder is a 10,000 psi cylinder.
Gene Sanders lead a session on classification questions – how not to write them. He talked about wisdom vs experiences and introduced Emily.
M – measured
L – learning
E – exercise
M-L-E
Gene does not say that the course will end with a test, quiz or exam, but says that Emily (MLE) will show up at the end of the session.
On Friday morning, Duane Pfund presented Bob Richard with a PHMSA inspection shield for his years of service at PHMSA. We were also regaled with some stories about Bob.
Three inspectors from PHMSA told us that inspections are random subject to a priority list. The regulations pertain to shippers, carriers, freight forwarders, 3rd party labs, SP holders, fillers and shippers of aerosols, cylinder re-qualifiers, nurse tanks, package manufacturers and high hazard entities (TIH). The biggest question is “why me?”. The inspectors show up if there has been a complaint, if the party is high risk (TIH), ongoing investigations, observations or there has been an incident history. Inspectors will observe the various processes, use of test equipment, training, records, closure instructions, shipping papers and MSDSs.
Some consistent problems encountered: no training records, failure to train, package closures, improper marks and labels, incorrect shipping papers, failure to register with PHMSA, and lack of security plans. Stats for 2010: 1,650 inspections, 42% OK – no further action required; 57% non-compliant and 1% waiting for test results.
Donna Lepik (CHEMTRC/TRANSCAER), David Binder (Tanner Industries) and Bill Burke (Dupont) did “Soup to Nutz”. This presentation dealt with the development of the TRANSCAER anhydrous ammonia training programme. To view this programme, go to http://www.transcaer.com/aa-tour. If you work with anhydrous ammonia, there is a wealth of information here.
For dangerous goods trainers, this is the symposium that you need to attend.
