WHMIS 2015
Final Employer Countdown – WHMIS 2015 Compliance
Clock and calendar countdown

TIME TO CONSUME OR RE-LABEL EXISTING WHMIS 1988 CONTROLLED PRODUCT INVENTORY

The final stage in the transition from WHMIS 1988 to WHMIS 2015 is drawing to a close. Consequently, employers in Canada have an obligation to ensure that any “leftover” stock at the workplace is identified under the WHMIS 2015 GHS-based classification and hazard communication protocols.

Note that, while the majority of Canadian jurisdictions require all provisions of WHMIS 2015 to be in place as of December 1, 2018, there are currently two exceptions.

Employers under the Federal jurisdiction have the ability, under the Canada Labour Code, to continue to use stock in the workplace with WHMIS 1988 labels/MSDS until May 31, 2019 (Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Regulation – SOR/2016-141, s. 77(b)).

Also, as of November 9, 2018, Nova Scotia has yet to publish an update to the 1989 WHMIS regulation.

ONTARIO CLARIFIES O.REG. 860- WHMIS 2015 REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING WHMIS 1988 STOCK

In an amendment published on e-laws November 2 (to appear in the November 17, 2018 Edition of The Ontario Gazette )- effective December 1 employers must re-label any existing inventory of hazardous product received under WHMIS 1988 regulations.

This amendment affects O.Reg.860 sections 8, 10, and 18. Also a new s. 13 has been added; and the obsolete (transition) s. 25.1 is revoked at Dec.1. Terminology for labels has been modified in recognition that SDS or labels normally provided Continue Reading…

Airplane Icon
FedEx DROPS “V-PACK” REQUIREMENT

IATA DGR 2019 and FX-02

IATA SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

In keeping with the standard practice of alerting users to modifications in the new edition of the Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) for air transport, the list of Significant Changes and Amendments to the 60th Edition (2019) were released several months ago, and are incorporated into the recently published copies of the DGR.

An overview of these changes was the subject of blogs issued by ICC on August 28th and September 26th of this year.

Typically changes in the State and Operator Variations, in s. 2.8, are not outlined in specific detail in the Significant Changes document, but are referenced as a general reminder. This contrasts with amendments issued between publications which illustrate the actual details of changes.

Which leads us to FX-02…

FX-02 DROPS “V” RATED PACKAGING

A rather significant operator variation in s. 2.8.4 of the IATA DGR was the common application of FX-02 (f) to liquids in specified classes. This limitation, which existed as FX-17 prior to the 57th Ed., required shippers to use the heavy duty UN-standard “V-Pack” (“variation” commonly noted by UN code 4GV) package even though it wasn’t mandated by the Packing Instruction (PI) or other provisions of the DGR.

The limitation was invoked when FedEx customers were choosing to ship under the “International Economy” or “International Freight Economy” designations. Not only was it required in place of PI-required UN standardized Continue Reading…

Airplane Icon
Significant Changes and Amendments to the 60th Edition Published

Airplane in Flight

Change is in the Air – IATA DGR 2019

In keeping with past practice, IATA (International Air Transport Association) has released the summary of significant changes to the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) that will appear in the upcoming 60th Edition effective in January 2019.

This useful summary appears in the “Introduction” section of the IATA DGR and allows users to check for items that may affect their procedures that have changed since the previous edition. There are a variety of changes highlighted that comprise revisions to existing provisions, addition of new items and deletions. While some changes are based on updates to the United Nations Recommendations for model regulations (UN Model), typically adopted in other modal regulations, some are specific to the IATA DGR.

Get your copy of the IATA from ICC.

General UN Updates

There are some editorial changes that relate to the clarification of terminology regarding “risk” versus “hazard”. This mainly affects the designation of subsidiary classifications which will now be referred to as “subsidiary hazards”. This is more logical and conforms to protocols in safety and considers “hazard” as the danger inherent to a substance; compared to “risk” as an indication of the possibility/probability of harm from the danger.

Other UN Model-based changes include adding UN numbers, qualifying ammonium nitrate fertilizer classification, adding additional provisions for classification/packaging group assignment for corrosives and expansion of classification of articles Continue Reading…

Compressed Gas
CSA Cylinder Standards – June 2018 Update

compressed gas cylinders

CSA issues new Editions of TDG Class 2 Cylinder Standards

Transport Canada has issued an update “Notice” to inform the regulated community of recent updates to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards addressing the requirements for the manufacture/qualification, selection and use of cylinders used in the transportation of dangerous goods (TDG).

Although these standards are primarily for compressed gases, their use may also be required or permitted for DG substances, other than Class 2, that may produce toxic or flammable vapours. Typically, this information is cited in standard TP14850 by reference in the packing instructions.

The four standards involved are:

CSA B339, CSA B340
(design/manufacture/qualification and selection/use, respectively) regarding cylinders, spheres and tubes, and other similar containers.
CSA B341, CSA B342
(manufacture/qualification and selection/use, respectively) regarding UN pressure receptacles and multi-element gas containers (MEGC).

Why Two Sets? Origins

The B339/B340 set are the seventh revision to the standards based on the older CTC (Canadian Transport Commission, pre-Transport Canada) national standards for these types of containers. These versions are the seventh revision of the original editions commencing in 1983 and 1986 respectively.

This contrasts with the B341/B342 set derived from the standards in UN Recommendation model regulations. The Canadian versions referenced here are the 3rd editions following 2009 and 2015 editions. Issuing these as CSA standards, rather than just adopting the UN Recommendations, facilitates incorporating the country-specific aspects such as special permits, reciprocity, etc.

Details

Although the 2 Continue Reading…

TDG Standards on the Move – Explosives Plus TP14850 & TP14877

TDG Update - Red and white semi truck on the highway

CGSB.43-151 Class 1 Explosives Draft Update

There have been some recent developments in 2 of the packaging standards of potential interest to the DG community involved with Canadian transportation.

  • TP14850- Class 3-6.1, 8 and 9 Small Packaging pre-publication 3rd Edition-Transition to CGSB
  • TP14877- Rail Transition to CGSB

CGSB-43.151 Explosives Packaging Standard

Transport Canada has provided notice of a consultation on a proposed update of the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) standard “Packaging, Handling, Offering for Transport and Transport of Explosives (Class 1),” CAN/CGSB.43-151.

The new edition, to replace the current 2012 edition, will update the list of UN numbers and packing instructions to align with the UN Recommendations 20th edition; and update references to other dangerous goods container standards.

Also proposed in the draft are packing instructions for UN large packaging (ELP) to supplement the existing standards for IBC and portable tanks.

New Canadian domestic packing instructions (CEP 01) for jet perforating guns, used in oil well completion, are also included in the draft. Previously packaging of these (UN0124 and UN0494) had to be authorized on a case-by-case basis as referenced in EP 01.

CEP 02 replaces the previous EP 17 for highway and portable tank transport.

In common with the recent approach in other Canadian standards, changes to the organization of information, as well as regulatory requirement updates and additional definitions are part of the draft.

New or clarified definitions are provided for “IM” and “IMO-type” Continue Reading…

Radioactive
Class 7 IAEA Regulatory Update – SSR-6 Rev. 1, June 2018

Radioactive material warning sign at the package

Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material

– Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-6 (Rev. 1)

As expected, the IAEA has published the 2018 amendment to SSR-6 as Revision 1 (SSR-6).

This Revision removes the term “radiation level” from Section 2 “Definitions,” replacing it by “dose rate” to designate the dose equivalent per unit time (e.g. mSv/h). The associated changes to sections referencing the term throughout the document account for many of the other paragraph (para.) changes.

Also deleted from this edition are the requirements for testing LSA-III material for residual water activity below 0.1 A2 in the 7-day leachate test.

Table 2 “Basic Radionuclide Values” has been updated to include entries for:
Ba-135m, Ge-69, Ir-193m, Ni-57, Sr-83, Tb-149 and Tb-161.

Enter SCO-III

Perhaps the most significant change is the expansion of surface contaminated objects (SCO – “a solid object that is not itself radioactive but which has radioactive material distributed on its surface”) to add SCO-III provisions in the regulation. The Table 1 list of UN numbers, proper shipping names and descriptions now includes SCO-III to SCO-I and SCO-II for UN2913.

In addition to meeting the general requirements for the SCO designation, SCO-III objects are defined in para. 413(c) as a large solid object that is too large to be transported in the type of package described in SSR-6. There are other criteria to be met regarding sealing of openings, insides being as dry Continue Reading…

DOT 49 CFR USA
No Placards, No CDL Endorsement – USA Only

Truck Driving on highway at sunset

Hazmat Certification Under Placarding Exemption

The US DOT recently issued a “Letter of Interpretation” (LoI) regarding the lack of a need for a driver to have a hazmat (hazardous materials) endorsement on the CDL (Commercial Driver’s License) when transporting Class 9 hazmat within the US, despite the presence of Class 9 placards.

Changing Modes without Removing Placards

This situation is likely to occur when foreign shipments arrive which did not have the equivalent to the US 49 CFR §172.504(f)(9) conditional exception for Class 9 placarding, and are to be transported to their US destination.

An example would be if a Class 9 consignment arrives by vessel, which has placarding in conformance with the IMDG Code, and is picked up for road transport without removing the placards.

Even if the placards are not removed, there is not a requirement for the hazmat-endorsed CDL (equivalent to a TDG training certificate- for readers North of the 49th, metonymically speaking).

Note that, despite the exception for an actual Class 9 placard, §172.504(f)(9) does require bulk packages to be marked with at least the UN number.

Key to the Endorsement Exemption

49 CFR §383.93(b)(4) invokes the need for a hazmat CDL when the definition of hazmat in 383.5 is met. For substances defined as hazardous in 49 U.S. Code §5103(a) and (other than infectious substances/ biotoxins in 42 CFR §73) requiring placards, the CDL endorsement is required.

Thus, for most Continue Reading…

Lithium
How to Ship Damaged or Defective Lithium Batteries

Swollen lithium polymer batteries. Dangerous and harmful electronic waste

Regular Damaged or Defective or Dangerous Damaged or Defective?

There is a fair amount of interest in the topic of preparing Damaged or Defective (DoD) lithium batteries for transport and how to make a determination of the degree of hazard they present.

The current (20th) 2017 Edition of the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Model) Regulations have addressed the former (packaging for transport) aspect, but the documents currently posted have not yet established firm protocols for the latter.

The situations involving recalls of defective, unsafe batteries and incidents during transportation has sustained the efforts to find better ways of dealing with them. The topic has been under discussion at the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) in most sessions over the last several years.

For this discussion we’ll refer to cells/batteries that do not meet the UN Manual of Test criteria due to damage or defect, without specific safety hazards, as “regular” DoD; and those that “are liable to disassemble rapidly, react dangerously, produce a flame or a dangerous evolution of heat, or produce a dangerous emission of toxic, corrosive or flammable gases or vapours” as “dangerous” DoD.

This distinction is proposed for clarification in the next version (21st Edition) of the UN Model. See, for example, working document ST/SG/AC.10C.3/2018/51:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2018/dgac10c3/ST-SG-AC.10-C.3-2018-51e.pdf

Batteries or Reactive Substances?

As a technicality, we should pause to consider the basic Continue Reading…

TDG
New Draft: CGSB Standard 43.145

Man preparing shipment

TDG Large Packaging

Still Time to Review the draft “Design, Manufacture and Use of Large Packaging for Transportation of Dangerous Goods in Classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8 and 9

Transport Canada provided notice last month of the availability of a draft Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) standard for large packagings for specified classes of dangerous goods (DG). The contents of the draft are largely based on the UN “Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations” (UN TDG Model) 20th Edition.

The draft is open for comment by interested parties until June 8, 2018.

Similar, but Not Identical

Although the current draft is based on the 20th edition of the UN Model, there are some differences – for example: the Canadian TDG regulations (TDGR) have not yet updated Schedule 1 to the current UN numbers above UN3534; TDGR cite Class-specific standards for certain DG (Classes 1, 2, 6); and not all of the lithium battery packaging has been incorporated.

The CGSB-43.145 proposal does, however, contain a supplementary instruction for UN2794 and UN2795 permitting these batteries to be shipped unpackaged on shelving that is permanently fixed within a vehicle. This LP801 standard presumably replaces equivalency certificates providing the option to battery distributers and members of automotive industry associations.

The UN Model and CGSB 43.145 are similar in restricting the use of large packaging to the lesser hazardous Classes/Divisions, typically at the packing Continue Reading…

TDG
March 2018 TDG TP 14877 Update

Railway Tanker Transporting Dangerous Goods

Rail TDG Standard TP 14877 Update

On March 15 Transport Canada released a notice on the intent to issue a new January 2018 edition of standard TP 14877 “Containers for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail” to replace the current 2013 (with Corrigendum) edition.

This is the penultimate culmination of the public process, in part arising out of the Lac Mégantic 2013 disaster, undertaken by a stakeholder Consultative Committee that began in February of 2016.

The main features of the proposed 2018 edition include:

  • Improved usability by incorporating external technical requirements, such as those in Protective Direction 34, 37 and 38.
  • Updated dangerous goods list to align with the 19th edition of the UN Model Regulations. Adjusted special provisions to reflect updated transportation requirements for Sulphuric Acid (UN1831) and Hydrogen Peroxide (UN2014 / UN2015).
  • Updated technical requirements for Class 3, Flammable Liquids and the new tank car specification known as TC 117.
  • Improved harmonization between tank car requirements in Canada and the US, including tank car approvals, tank car design requirements and a new mechanism to secure One Time Movement Approvals (OTMA) – Category 2.
  • Updated material of construction requirements for tank cars, including the addition of stainless steel, normalized steel for dangerous goods classified as a toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) and improved thickness requirements for new tank car construction.

Comparing the 2013 and 2018 Standard TP 14877

A brief comparison of the TABLE OF CONTENTS Continue Reading…