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…

TDG
2018 TDG Registration and Fines FAQ

Red semi truck on highway

REGISTRATION and FINES and FAQs, OH MY!

February and March contain some interesting items potentially impacting the Canadian TDG landscape…

Registration-CID Consultation

Transport Canada, through a consultation notice published in late February, has solicited input from stakeholders on a plan to require those who handle/offer for transport, transport or import dangerous goods to register with Transport Canada.

The premise is that, “… public safety depends” on Transport Canada knowing who is transporting DG, including where, when, and how much. The main thrust of this proposal seems to be for targeting enforcement and consultation activities.

The proposal as currently presented does not appear to distinguish among the size, frequency, or nature of DG involved; and will require period re-registration with submission of data to the “Client Information Database” (CID).

There’s nothing in the posted information to indicate whether there will be a cost to “clients” for registration, in addition to the record-keeping burden they will bear.

(For those familiar with the 49 CFR §107 (Subpart G) requirement, intended to subsidize government response activities, this TDG version does not serve the same purpose.)

The only exemptions currently contemplated, extend to those falling under a TDGR Part 1 “special case” exemption. This contrasts with 49 CFR’s registration which has exemptions based on load sizes and hazard types.

The TC proposal and comment provisions are found at:
https://letstalktransportation.ca/cid

Contraventions Regulations

While not directly cited in the Transport Canada TDG Act or regulations, Continue Reading…

TDG
Standard TP14850 Pre-Canada Gazette (CG) I Consultation

Truck Driving on highway at sunset

Updated TDG Packaging Standard – Small Containers for Classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8, & 9

In addition to expanding the title to reflect the various types of containers contemplated in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods regulation (TDGR) §5.6, 5.12 (and cited within other referenced standards), this “final draft” reflects the penultimate result of a review that’s been active since the adoption of the current edition in 2015.

Anatomy of Development

The 2nd Edition of TP14850, published October 2010 was adopted into the Canadian TDGR in July 2014, replacing CGSB-43.150-1997 and becoming the mandatory standard for packaging the “common” classes of dangerous goods in Canada in January 2015.

The 16th Edition (2009) UN Model was the primary basis for the 2010 TP14850 standard, so it was time to move forward in the spirit of harmonization.

Transport Canada began the process of forming a consultative committee in mid-2015. A public notice regarding the consultation was published in early 2016 with provision for general public input. The committee, formed in April 2016, consists of about 3 dozen participants.

The committee includes a core group of 6–8 from Transport Canada with the remainder representing a variety of industry associations, individual manufacturers, users, provincial/US regulatory interests, and labour organizations.

The draft presently open for general comment was developed by consensus following discussions, including face-to-face meetings and a series of web/teleconference sessions, between April 2016 and June 2017. Continue Reading…

United Nations Logo
20th UN Model Recommendations for Dangerous Goods Transport (Orange Book)

UN Model Regulations (Orange Book)

2017 (20th Edition) – Highlights Changes

Those who follow the IATA DGR will have an idea of many of the changes resulting from the UN Recommendations expected to result from the changes in the 20th Edition of the commonly titled “Orange Book”.

Those who work with other modal/government regulations may not be familiar with changes that will likely follow in those regulations as all or part of the amended Model become incorporated.

Changes in Terminology

As often happens, terminology changes were introduced to this edition to clarify or technically improve concepts covered by the regulations. Throughout the document the term “risk” has been replaced by “hazard” to reflect the intent of referring to a danger.

Similarly, most references to “devices” now refer to “articles” which is defined in 2.0.5.1 as including “machinery, apparatus or other devices”.

New UN Numbers

UN3535 to UN3548 have been added to the collection:

  • UN3535 refers to “TOXIC SOLID, FLAMMABLE, INORGANIC, N.O.S.”
  • UN3536 is a new “LITHIUM BATTERIES INSTALLED IN A CARGO TRANSPORT UNIT” applicable to either ion or metal-based batteries.
  • UN3537 through UN3548 cover a sequence of listings for “ARTICLES CONTAINING…, N.O.S.” applicable to a variety of Class 2-5, 6.1, 8 and 9 dangerous goods.

The additional entries result in related changes to classification sections and special provisions.

Lithium Everywhere

As we’ve seen over the last few years regulation of lithium battery regulations continues to evolve.

The concept of “equipment” in the sense of lithium Continue Reading…

TDG
TDG Marine Amendment Clarified (SOR/2017-253)

Let’s Have the FAQs!

Transport Canada published an FAQ (“Frequently Asked Question”) summary on January 17 to clarify and provide background on the Marine Amendment (SOR/2017-253).

Although much of the information in the FAQ, detailing the purpose of the Part 11 and other related changes, was covered in the Gazette II RIAS (CGII Regulatory Impact and Analysis Statement), there are a couple of points that may be of interest.

Schedule 1 – Column 8 Clarification

The FAQ clarifies that the Col. 8 restriction is based on the specific categorization of the number of passengers as dictated in s. 1.10, not on the definition of “passenger carrying vessel” itself in s. 1.4

The amended reference to restriction of DG on board passenger-carrying vessels resulted in a separation on the basis for applying the Schedule 1, Col. 8 restriction. Formerly there was a qualifier in the Part 1.4 definition of “passenger carrying ship”, that invoked the restriction, based on a number of passengers per ship and/or per meter of ship length.

The current Canada Shipping (CS) Act has a definition for “Passenger, but not “passenger carrying vessel””.
Similarly, the Cargo, Fumigation and Tackle Regulations (CFTR), in s. 142, defines “passenger vessel” in the terms currently found in s. 1.10 of the TDGR.

Presumably, without the clarification in the FAQ, shippers might conclude that 1 passenger (based on the s. 1.4 definition) would invoke the Col. 8 Continue Reading…

TDG
Sailing, Sailing – TDGR Part 11 Marine Amendment – Etc.

Red semi truck on highway

Transport Canada issues new Part 11 and makes other miscellaneous changes

SOR/2017-253

The December 13, 2017 edition of the Canada Gazette II contains the expected rewrite of Part 11 “Marine” requirements of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR). In addition, there are related changes in other parts, as well as some unrelated miscellaneous changes in other areas.

Marine Amendment

The most wide-reaching change, although perhaps of relatively minor significance to the general regulated community, is the replacement of the term “ship” with “vessel”. This, among other changes, is to update the TDGR to current Canada Shipping Act (CSA, and related regulations) terminology. Many aspects of Part 11 related to the CSA had not been updated since 2008.

Note: Interestingly, the referenced definition of “vessel” in the CSA includes all “means of propulsion”:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.15/page-1.html#h-2

This differs from the TDGR definitions for road and rail vehicles which expressly exclude “muscle power” as a means of propulsion. (“Means of transport” in TDGR is a different story, but perhaps we’ll leave that one for another blog!)

Other definition changes include elimination of the reference to “short run ferry”, previously defined in TDGR Part 1.3 as operating between points “not more than 3 km apart”. TDGR 1.30 special case exemption now refers only to “Ferry,” but describes within the exemption that it’s applicable to operating between two points “not more than 5 km apart.

The definition of an “inland Continue Reading…

Explosives
Explosives Consultation – Ports & Other Proposals

Recognizing Technological Evolution while Maintaining Safety & Security

Explosives Regulations (ER) – Ports & Wharves

The Explosives Safety & Security Branch (ESSB) of Natural Resources Canada, and Transport Canada, have issued a Gazette I (CG I) proposal to amend their respective Explosives Regulations (ER, under the Explosives Act), and the Cargo Fumigation and Tackle Regulations (CFTR, under the Canada Shipping Act).

The initial reason for the proposed amendment is to remove reference to the express requirement to use quantity/distance principle (QDP) restrictions and ESSB Inspectors from the CFTR. A more modern approach of quantitative risk assessments (QRA), based on actual probable hazards following, methodology authorized by the ESSB (Chief Inspector of Explosives), would replace the more rigid QDP.

QDP, currently covered in CAN/BNQ 2910-510/2015, were established mainly for fixed manufacturing/storage facilities and specifically exclude transportation activities from the scope of the standard.

The proposal also provides for having qualified individuals, not just ESSB Inspectors, determine the risk following an approved QRA methodology. The requirements will appear in a new ER section 203.1 instead of the current CFTR section 155(2) & (3).

It is expected that international trade and commerce will be improved without sacrificing safety or security under this proposal.

Explosives – Other Amendments

The CG I amendment proposes to also include ER changes under the topics of:

  1. Eliminating or relaxing license requirements for certain “low risk” explosives (7 components);
  2. Clarification of wording (13 components); and
  3. Increasing Continue Reading…
Lithium Battery
Lithium Button Cell Air Exemptions

Cargo loading on aircraft

IATA DGR PI 967 & PI 970 Confusion

The wording in recent, current and upcoming editions of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) has some potential to confuse the regulated community, especially regarding shipping lithium batteries.

Exemptions Restricted or Not?

The paragraph providing an exemption from the lithium battery mark (pka “Handling Label”) is found in the last sentence of the second paragraph in Section II “Additional Requirements”, for the packing instructions (PI) for both UN3091 and UN3481 “contained in…” lithium battery entries:

This requirement does not apply to:

  • packages containing only button cell batteries installed in equipment (including circuit boards); XXX
  • consignments of two packages or less where each package contains no more than four cells or two batteries installed in equipment.

The “XXX” is the key that led to this discussion.

2016 as the Baseline:

In the IATA DGR 57th (2016) Edition, both PI 967 and PI 970 (“contained in equipment”, ion and metal respectively), the “XXX” in each case read “or”.

In other words, whereas cells/batteries other than button cells were limited to 2 packages per consignment, the number of packages per consignment were not limited when there were only button cells (of course, the maximum net battery weight per package restrictions in Table II of each PI must also be met).

Looking Forward to 2017?

Things then look as though they’re changing when reading the Appendix H (Intended Changes for Continue Reading…