Here is one more blog in support of knowing it is autumn even though the weather may not feel like it. The Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in California just published a revised list. If you aren’t familiar with the OEHHA, you likely do know about California’s Proposition 65 list. As per usual, the list has changed a few times over the course of the year.
To refresh your memory, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 is the official name for California’s Proposition 65. The list has to be revised and republished at least once per year. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the agency responsible for the implementation. Chemicals are added or removed from the list when some other “authoritative body” makes a determination regarding a substances ability to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
Shown below are all of the new substances that were added and or removed by month. They are listed by name, type of toxicity, and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS). Now would be a good time to see not only if you are up to date on the new required “warnings” but if any of your products or substances were added to the new list.
Proposition 65 – Additions and Deletions
Bevacizumab for female developmental effect with CAS 216974-75-3
Since Canada first created regulations on the transportation of dangerous goods, those who “handle, offer for transport or transport” dangerous goods must be adequately trained. The question, of course, is what does “adequately” mean? Section 6.2 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) says that it means “the person has a sound knowledge of all the topics … that relate directly to the person’s duties and to the dangerous goods the person is expected to handle, offer for transport or transport,” but that still doesn’t clarify how the employer should verify that the knowledge is “sound.” Now Transport Canada, in consultation with the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB), has attempted to answer that question.
The proposed standard would establish two levels of training. First, a “general awareness” segment, that should be approximately 2 hours long, which would cover the basics of how the TDGR works. Then, when employees are familiar with those concepts, they would receive “job specific” training, which would specifically address the job functions they do in that organization.
The Labor Day Holiday generally symbolizes the end of summer for many people. For many businesses it is the end of their fiscal year. For parents in many areas it means back to school. For the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) it means releasing notices of proposed rulemakings. We also have OSHA publishing their Top Ten Violations. Finally, it is time for IATA to publish the list of significant changes for their upcoming edition.
Keep in mind, these changes are in the 61st edition of the IATA. It goes into force January 1, 2020. The other thing to remember is these are just a list of “significant” changes. Some of the changes always seem a bit cryptic to me. Plus, I’m one of those folks that takes the old one and compares it to the new one to better understand exactly how it changed. Guess it comes from being a visual learner.
If you should want to read the list of changes, it can be found here. A brief overview of some of the changes are shown below for quick reference. There is a little something for everyone in the industry. As you read through, there are some times where I added some information to supplement the change as it is stated on the publication.
Brief Summary of Some Proposed Changes by Section:
In the vast world called the dangerous goods community, it can sometimes feel like we are specks in the universe, simply just faces in the crowd. The regulations exist, and we follow them. However in certain cases like in the latest NPRM, we do have a voice. What is a NPRM you may ask? It stands for a notice of proposed rulemaking, which derives directly from requests from within the dangerous goods regulatory community to address a variety of provisions within the regulations. That’s right, we can make a difference! The purpose of this is to help clarify, improve, and provide relief from the various regulatory requirements when shipping dangerous goods. As a result of the requests, PHMSA addressed a wide variety of provisions including those addressing packaging, hazardous communication, and incorporation by reference documents. Some of the proposed amendments include revising the basis weight tolerance provided in § 178.521 from ±5% to ±10% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report for paper shipping sacks, incorporating by reference updated versions of multiple Compressed Gas Association (CGA) publications, and removing the words “manufactured before September 1, 1995” from § 180.417(a) (3) to allow for an alternative report for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1985.
Per PHMSA, these revisions proposed therein are intended to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining, or enhancing, the existing level of safety. In this NPRM, Continue Reading…
IHU 2019 Proposed Amendment: Pre-Gazette I Consultation
In late March, Transport Canada posted a notice on their public website regarding a pre-Gazette I consultation on proposed amendments to the TDGR. The consultation was distributed to selected stakeholders by email on March 4.
This proposal is the latest in a series of international harmonization updates (“IHU”) to incorporate changes to reflect the current editions of the UN Model Regulations (UN Recommendations), ICAO Technical Instructions for air, and the IMDG Code for ocean shipment. In addition, the Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation Council work planning effort has suggested several items that would facilitate reciprocity in shipping dangerous goods between the two countries.
Updating to 20th edition and preparation for 21st edition.
Incorporate packaging updates by adopting 3rd edition TP14850 (pending repatriation to CGSB as standard CGSB-43.150-xx), normalize EC-allowed practices on batteries; allow UN3175 in FIBC 13H3 & 13H4.
Marking/Labeling: text on labels, banana labels on cylinders, require orientation arrows for liquids, marine pollutant, and Lithium Battery Mark on overpacks.
Language issues under review, include determining the options on the use of either or both English/French and circumstances when a different second language might appear (i.e. foreign sourced material).
Consider adding provisions for optional hazard class text on placards – see also marking/labeling.
Allow US placards for re-shipping road/rail within Canada. In addition to text issues, this would allow re-shipping with US Continue Reading…
Much like Sheryl Crow sang, “A change, could do you good”, at least one would hope. When it comes to PHMSA, change is aimed at improving an already existing process, or adding a new process we can all benefit from. So in this case, I believe Sheryl Crow is right.
With that being said, The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), recently issued a final rule that requires railroads to create and submit Comprehensive Oil Spill Response Plans for route segments traveled by High Hazard Flammable Trains also called HHFTs. The rule applies to these trains that are transporting petroleum oil in a block of 20 or more loaded tank cars and trains that have a total of 35 loaded petroleum oil tank cars.
Why the Change?
Incidents involving crude oil can have devastating consequences to local communities and the environment. Countering these effects on the environment can take between a few weeks to many years, depending on the damage caused. For this reason, fast and effective response is essential to rail accidents containing oil. The 174-page final rule is designed to improve the response readiness and decrease the effects of rail accidents and incidents involving petroleum oil and a flammable train. The agency said the rule also is needed due to expansion in U.S. energy production having led to “significant challenges for the Continue Reading…
Every year at this time training is busy at ICC. It happens for various reasons. The one that causes it most often is companies are due. As we know each transport regulation has a training requirement to it. Many decide to do all transport training at one time which is great.
Here’s the rub though. To me, 49CFR is always just a few steps behind all of the other transport regulations. I get the whole rulemaking process but it is frustrating to constantly have to explain or mention times when the US ground regulations don’t align with other international ones. When you add lithium batteries to the mix, it just complicates things even more.
For once, efforts are being made to catch up with all of the other regulations. On Wednesday, February 27, the Department of Transportation published HM-224I which is an Interim Final Rule (IFR) centered around transporting lithium batteries. Take note, this is a final rule with no advanced notice and was not open to comment. Comments will still be accepted and reviewed which could cause amendments later on but for now, this is what is required. DOT believes this IFR was “necessary to address an immediate safety hazard” presented when shipping lithium batteries.
So, what changes did this IFR bring in to the regulations? Let’s take a look.
HM-224I: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries
Welcome back to the Regulatory Helpdesk where we answer your dangerous goods & hazmat questions. We’re here to help you become independent with – and understand the whys and hows of – the regulations.
Q. Customer called and asked if their company name was required to be printed on the new lithium battery mark when shipping by ground within the U.S.
A. No, that is not a requirement. Per 173.185 (c) (3) (i), it states the following must be printed on the label: The “*” must be replaced by the appropriate UN number(s) and the “**” must be replaced by a telephone number for additional information.
Q. Regarding Canadian address/phone number, do you know how a wholesaler company can market in Canada without a Canadian address? For obvious reasons, there will be multiple suppliers that could be selling our products.
A. This situation could be covered by the Hazardous Products Regulation (HPR) s. 5.9(2) or 5.15(1).
The requirement for having a label with the (Canadian) initial supplier identifier is invoked by the Act (HPA) s. 14b).
HPR s. 5.9(2) allows an employer to import with only the foreign supplier identifier on an otherwise compliant label if it’s for use in their own workplace.
HPR s. 5.15(1) exempts importers from having a compliant label as long as they can prove (5.15(2)) that they will ensure it’s labeled legally before it’s Continue Reading…
In-transit, manufactured for export, and editorial/transportation changes
IN-TRANSIT OR “FOR EXPORT” PMRA-UNREGISTERED PESTICIDES & WHMIS-STYLE HAZARD COMMUNICATION
Those involved in manufacture, import, storage or transportation of pesticides, which are not registered for use in Canada may soon see reference to GHS-style documentation accompanying foreign products while they are in Canada. This amendment is partly as a result of a relaxation of the “in-transit” prohibition on pesticides (“pest control products” or PCP) that are not registered for use in Canada (required as a result of the government’s support of the 2017 World Trade Organization’s ratification of the 2014 Trade Facilitation Agreement – TFA).
Until recently, there was a general prohibition in the Canadian PCP legislation that, in general, prohibited the: manufacture, possession, handling, storage, transportation, import, distribution, or use of unregistered pest control products. An amendment to the PCPR adopted in Canada Gazette II (CG II) on December 26, 2018 includes authorization of import/export for “Products not Intended for the Canadian Market”.
WHMIS 2015, as specified in the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) s. 12/Schedule 1, excludes “pest control products”, as defined in the PCP Act (PCPA), from the WHMIS regulations. This wasn’t perceived to be a safety issue since, up until the recognition of the TFA only registered PCP were authorized for general manufacture, possession, handling, storage, transportation, import, distribution, or use. There are limited exceptions, but only under specified circumstances, Continue Reading…
The Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) were uncharacteristically quiet in 2018. This represents the first year in a 5-year stretch where stakeholders didn’t see at least one amendment to the TDGR.
That doesn’t mean, however, that there was no activity within this very active government department. For example, in keeping with the move to adopting ambulatory references to cited standards, the responsibility for several standards (e.g., TP14850 small container performance packaging, and TP14877 rail containers) began their return to the Canadian General Standards Board. In addition, there were various consultations on topics such as ERAPs (TDGR Part 7), and discussion of training requirements (TDGR Part 6) – the latter in conjunction with establishing a CGSB committee.
NEW & ONGOING RESEARCH
Various research projects were explored in 2018 including collaboration on examining crude oil flammability, properties of produced water in oil and gas activities, as well as validation testing of a proposed SAE standard for lithium battery packaging. These activities a
Various topics referenced above and others undertaken in the 2016-2018 period were given status updates, including proposed Canada Gazette (CG) I (final consultation) or II (final amendment) at a late November GPAC (General Policy Advisory Council) session: