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?
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).
Some topics that were discussed at the last Regulatory Affairs Committee meeting of the Canadian Association of Chemical Distributors (CACD www.cacd.ca).
The CACD board of directors has approved a new standing committee – Health and Safety; there will be more news about this committee as it comes together
CACD has re-branded and launched its new website at its 25th anniversary AGM which was held in St. John’s NF this past June
the Auditor General will be reviewing the TDG directorate and will include the emergency response assistance plan (ERAP) programme in the review; the objective is to determine if the programme has value to Canadians; in general, experience has shown that emergency responders do not make use of ERAPs.
the MACTDG met in May at which Amendment 12 was discussed and CACD’s response to this amendment were presented
the security group of Transport Canada may be announcing that they will harmonize with the US regarding security issues, which we will hear more about later this year
CACD’s voice has been heard (along with others) regarding the Generic Products Regulations that Health Canada and Environment Canada buried in the mercury containing products regulations; the government has withdrawn the proposed legislation
the Consumer Product Safety Directorate (CPSD) of Health Canada has formed a new team to implement GHS; this team will be reviewing the decisions made by the CIC (Current Issues Committee), for example:
considering a new classification – hazardous, not otherwise classified
no reference to the SDS is required on a label as it is redundant
possibility of no hatched border on the label
grouping of hazard symbols, signal words and hazard statements
flashback for aerosols will not be considered anymore
CPSD will be meeting with the CIC in the fall; draft regulations could take 6 to 8 months to be drafted with a final regulation in approx. 2 years; however, the Hazardous Products Act needs to be amended which the government has not yet authorized.
the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission (HMRIC) will be issuing a Policy Information Sheet (PIS) on the order of the sections for a material safety data sheet
CACD will be taking a larger role in government affairs; CACD will be registering federally as a lobbyist and in any province that has lobbyist legislation; the goal is to advocate before the rules are made, not after
the first advocacy meeting was be held July 4 with the mayor of Burlington to discuss Responsible Distribution®
by Jim Henry on April 25, 2011 at 9:18 am · in Jim's Blog
This year’s Forum was held in Scottsdale, Arizona at the Hilton Scottsdale Hotel.
Sunday started with a course – Safe and Compliant Transportation of Batteries presented by Tom Ferguson (COSTHA) and Brendan Sullivan (IATA).
Japan does not allow the first year of an IMDG Code amendment to be optional, it is mandatory. For the 35th Amendment, the following do not apply during 2011:
Limited quantity mark
UN3171 Battery powered equipment
UN3476 Fuel cell cartridges (packed with or in equipment)
For lithium, there are cells: cylindrical, prismatic and polymer; for batteries: laptop, camcorder, hybrid vehicles (to name a few). When looking at lithium, we need to look at cells vs. batteries. For lithium ion, we use ELC – equivalent lithium content or watt hour (Wh) rating. These can include lithium cobalt, lithium ion phosphate, etc. For lithium metal, the content of the lithium is used. Lithium cells/batteries are subject to the UN Manual of Test and Criteria, section 38.3. This section outlines the tests required, such as:
Altitude
Vibration
Shock
Short circuit, and
Overcharging
If the cells/batteries do not pass the tests, then they would require competent authority approval.
For shipping lithium batteries by air, each packing instruction has 3 sections – general, section 1 fully regulated and section 2 excepted. For shipments under section 2, the requirements are similar to SP188 of the UN Recommendations. These are excepted shipments not non-restricted; in other words, the batteries are still dangerous goods. The lithium battery label of 120 x 110 mm can be reduced in size to 74 x 105 mm for smaller packages.
Section 1 is for fully regulated batteries. In the IATA Dangerous Goods Panel, for 2013, there will be a move away from gross weight. For 2011, there are 3 new special provisions – A181, A182 and A183.
Shipping lithium batteries under the IMDG Code results in the use of packing instruction P903. Nickel metal hydride (NmH) batteries are regulated under the IMDG Code. In the 35th Amendment, SP963 and SP117 apply. In column 8a of the Code, it reads “See SP963”. For quantities > 100 kg, a shipping document MUST state “Stow away from Heat”, and column 16 applies for segregation – stow away from heat. No marks, labels or placards are required.
The battery roundtable discussed recycling, focus on the auto industry, manufacturers will start collecting alkaline batteries later this year, need for the Wh marking and which regulations to use. Geoff Leach (UK CAA) stated that when he was last in Beijing, he was handed a map on where to buy knock-off products. This indicates that there needs to be training to overcome the cultural issue, so that only OEM tested materials are shipped. There is also a need to educate the passenger who TSA is looking at doing in the waiting line and/or during the aircraft safety briefing.
Geoff continued with harmonization in which he stated that confusion results where regulations differ resulting in frustration. The air acceptance requirements need to change to have some sort of undeclared dangerous goods protocol and develop standardized risk analysis. Some problems with shipping by air are batteries:
Used batteries – not recalls but spent, holds no charge, etc.
Relabeling – OEM ships regulated, properly marked/labelled batteries to Company A who rebrands the battery but it does not have the required label markings.
Rebuilt/refurbished – some types of batteries can be rebuilt, but it still has the original label; the rebuilt battery should be retested but this does not happen
For shipping dangerous goods by air, the bottom line is safe travel.
