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 Throughout the document the term “risk” has been replaced by “hazard” to reflect the intent of referring to a danger.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 22.214.171.124 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.
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…
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…
Transport Canada issues new Part 11 and makes other miscellaneous changes
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.
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”:
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…
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:
- Eliminating or relaxing license requirements for certain “low risk” explosives (7 components);
- Clarification of wording (13 components); and
- Increasing Continue Reading…
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…
When Can I Use UN3363?
What does one do when there is device or piece of equipment (“apparatus” or “machinery”) that is not intended to consign dangerous goods or hazmat (DG) specifically, but requires a certain quantity as part of its function or as a residue from earlier use or testing?
Many consignors can take advantage of UN3363, Dangerous Goods in Machinery (or Dangerous Goods in Apparatus), Class 9 – with (depending on the mode) a potential relaxation of packaging, marking, and documentation requirements.
There are basic conditions that must be met, however, to use this entry. Restrictions on using this entry exist in special provisions (SP) or packaging requirements in national and modal regulations.
Function – Not “Deus EX Machina”
This term is derived from the classical theatre world- but could represent an effort to use a “loophole” or take advantage of an unintended provision – for a discussion of the term see:
The apparatus or machinery’s primary function cannot be to “deliver” the DG in question. That is the item must have a purpose other than solely to act as a container to get the DG to the destination; and it must not be intended that the DG is discharged from the item.
Exclusions – Wisdom Begins in Calling Things by Their Proper Name
… with apologies to Confucius
Any article which has an appropriate UN number/shipping name already assigned must be shipped Continue Reading…
Updates to Packaging Standards for Explosives & Drums
In keeping with the move to ambulatory references to quoted standards, Transport Canada has recently published notice that the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) is undertaking consultation on a review of the packaging standards for Class 1 (Explosives) and Reconditioning/Remanufacture/Repair of Drums used in dangerous goods (DG) transportation.
The current edition of the former, CGSB-43.151, is dated Oct., 2012 (with a Jan., 2013 corrigendum). The latter, CGSB-43.126, is dated Sep.2008 (reaffirmed Jan. 2013).
This represents the last of the five CGSB packaging standards cited in the s. 1.3.1 Safety Standards Table of the TDG regulation.
Interested parties have until Oct. 31/17 (explosives) and Nov. 15/17 (drums) to submit comments for consideration in the preliminary drafts of the updated standards.
The Notice, which contains links to the free access copies of these standards is available here:
Or: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, … “it means just what I choose it to mean …”
Lewis Carrol “Through the Looking Glass” in Bartleby’s “A Dictionary of Quotations”:
Health Canada provided an FAQ presentation at a recent CIC (Current Issues Committee) meeting that may provide a useful lead in to the more detailed Guidance document published in December 2016.
The latter, “Technical Guidance on the Requirements of the Hazardous Products Act & Hazardous Products Regulations – WHMIS 2015 Supplier Requirements”, provides (at 540 pages) a detailed review of the content of the law and various aspects of guidance/interpretation. This document is available for download at:
The length of the document may be daunting to the casual user, so the FAQ presentation attempts to present Health Canada’s position on items that are of current concern.
The CIC is a multi-representative committee that meets several times a year to review, as it’s name implies, issues that can be improved to increase the effectiveness of WHMIS in helping to protect workers. Currently there are representatives from various government levels (Federal/Provincial/Territorial), Health & Safety organizations (e.g. CCOHS), industry organizations (e.g. RDC, CIAC, etc.) and Labour (CLC, Unifor, etc.).
One of the current issues being addressed is to form sub-committees that may streamline the effectiveness of the committee in considering jurisdictional issues; in addition to establishing a working group to look at Continue Reading…
Changes in Special Provision 23
One aspect of the International Harmonization amendment (SOR/2017-137) of the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) that did not receive a lot of attention is the change in Special Provision 23. This special provision (SP) deals with the assignment of markings on containers and descriptions on shipping documents for entries related to goods which exhibit inhalation toxicity. Although the basic concept for classification remains the same- i.e. gases in Class 2.3 and Class 6.1 with associated inhalation toxicity. The majority of the latter are in PG I, but there are several PG II entries invoking SP23).
Marking – Keep It Simple?
A significant difference is the change in wording applied to means of containment (MoC). Following the transition period, markings required under SP23 must read “inhalation hazard” for all entries except UN 1005 (anhydrous ammonia). This eliminates the previous options of either “toxic by inhalation” or “toxic-inhalation hazard” (TBI or TIH).
UN1005 retains the previous wording “Anhydrous Ammonia, Inhalation Hazard” when the option of using the ammonia placard (rather than Class 2.3) is chosen. However small MoC of UN1005 will use the standard Class 2.3 label and “inhalation hazard” wording.
The new SP23 simplifies things somewhat by referencing the specific sections of Part 4 that apply- i.e. 4.18.2 for UN1005 and 4.23 for the rest. These sections include specifications for the height and Continue Reading…
News From the Provinces
Alberta Labour Announces Comprehensive OHS Review – Invites Comments by October 16
Taking Alberta workplaces a little closer to heaven:
The province of Alberta is inviting stakeholders to get involved in a comprehensive review of its occupational health and safety (OHS) system. Although there have been some amendments (e.g. to the OHS Act in 2012, with an update to the OHS Regulation in 2013), the system was established in 1976. The operating OHS Code, containing details (such as WHMIS requirements) has not been updated since 2009.
[Note: Alberta Labour has also posted an update to their WHMIS 2015 transition policy following the extension of Health Canada’s deadline to 2018 for suppliers:
In addition to general regulatory updates, the review will also look at improving the fundamental aspects of the system under the key themes of responsibility, worker engagement and prevention.
This topic will examine potential enhancements to the internal responsibility system that may include tools such as prescribed joint health and safety committees or other programs, and enforcement options.
Worker engagement is dependant on protected rights- i.e. the right to: know about hazards; freely participate in OHS decisions or to refuse unsafe work, without fear of reprisal. Education and training of workers can assist in promoting worker engagement.
The main focus of this theme in the review seems to be examining current programs to determine their effectiveness, as well Continue Reading…