California Prop 65 Updates
Sometimes I feel behind in the regulatory world. It is just a fact that regulations often change faster than one has time to process. A good case for this is California’s Proposition 65. Not only are there multiple changes for how to represent substances that are on the list, but the list itself changed in May 2018. For more information on “how to represent” and the August 30, 2018 changeover date, take a look at ICC’s blog found here
To refresh your memory, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 is the official name for California’s Prop 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 Prop 65 implementation. They consider adding chemicals to the list when some other “authoritative body” makes a determination regarding a substance’s 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.
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…
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.
Although the 2 Continue Reading…
After an Unfortunate Incident USPS New Rules are Being Created
It was a normal day at the Westgate Post Office, on the outskirts of Rochester, NY. Then a strange odor filled the air, irritating people’s eyes and respiratory passages. By the time the emergency crew had finished its investigation, six people had been sent to hospital for observation, and ten more had been evacuated. At last the culprit was discovered, lurking in an innocuous-seeming package. It turned out that a bottle of nail polish remover inside had broken and the liquid was dripping from the box.
Luckily, no one was seriously hurt. “This was unfortunate, but it could have been worse,” said Karen Mazurkiewicz, spokesperson for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). It isn’t actually illegal for people to ship small amounts of hazardous materials through the mail in the U.S., as long as shippers comply with the “Hazardous Materials Regulations” of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), as well as the “Postal Service Regulations” in Title 39 of the Code (39 CFR). Guidelines for mailing hazardous materials can be found in USPS Publication 52 – Hazardous, Restricted and Perishable Mail.
Unfortunately, many shippers in private life (and even some in industry) aren’t even aware that these regulations exist. And what was created by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for commercial shippers may not provide workers and Continue Reading…
PHMSA Changes Mind on Tape
If you are a frequent shipper of dangerous goods, then surely you know the importance of the type of tape that you use to close your hazmat packaging. In fact, a while back I wrote a blog on this very topic.
It doesn’t take much to fall out of compliance of the regulations outlined in the 49 CFR 178.601 (4) (ii) when it comes to tape. It’s quite simple, you either use the type of tape the package was tested with and is outlined in the closing instructions, or it is considered non-compliant.
Per the interpretation below, PHMSA even went as far as saying that using a wider version of the same exact type of tape was not permitted when using a UN tested outer box, stating specifically that, “it does not conclusively demonstrate how the package will perform when tested or transported.” Meaning if the box was tested with a type of tape that is 2 inches wide, you couldn’t use a 3-inch wide version of the same exact type.
Read the original interpretation.
However, recently PHMSA seemed to have a change of heart on this topic.
What’s The Change?
Recently PHMSA has decided to rescind the above interpretation, stating that, “increasing the width of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and closure notification does not constitute a change in design, provided the Continue Reading…
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…
Winston Churchill and the 49 CFR
As a former high school science teacher, I had a few choice quotes posted around my classroom. Some were motivational while others were thought provoking. One of my favorites was by Winston Churchill.
“All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes.”
Granted I tweaked it from “men” to “people” so as not to exclude the other genders in my class. My purpose for that one was to prevent frustrations over calculations, lab results, or high school in general.
On June 2, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a final rule on Docket No. HM-218H. That docket number had some as miscellaneous amendments to Hazardous Materials Regulations. Now, two years later we have a corrective rulemaking to HM-218H. Published on June 18, 2018 with an effective date of July 18 and compliance date of September 17, it addresses some appeals and comments to that previous rulemaking. Let’s see what changed or was corrected.
- 604 Emergency Response. Emergency response telephone numbers must be displayed in numerical format only. A shipper is no longer allowed to use alphanumeric phone numbers for the emergency response number. For example, 1-800 CLEAN IT is no longer an acceptable emergency response phone number. It must be listed as 1-800-253-2648 going forward. No enforcement actions will be taken from July 5, 2016 to Continue Reading…
TDG Emergency Response Assistance Plans (ERAP) Update
On June 30, 2018, Transport Canada issued a proposed amendment to Part 7 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG). This part covers the requirements for Emergency Response Assistance Plans, or ERAPs. Details can be found on Government of Canada’s website.
Canada’s ERAP requirements are unique, not being adopted from the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Essentially, they require consignor of significant amounts of high risk dangerous goods to establish a specific protocol, often involving an on-call response team, that can assist local responders in case of a release. Transport Canada must review and approve the plan before the consignor can offer or import affected shipments (although the approval only has to be issued once.) Since the Lac-Mégantic disaster in 2013, improving ERAP requirements has been a particular concern of Transport Canada’s.
The June amendment has four main goals:
- To clarify how an ERAP should be implemented;
- To enhance emergency preparedness and response;
- To reduce the regulatory burden for those affected by the requirement; and
- To make some general “housekeeping” changes to keep all parts of the regulations harmonized.
Clarifying Implementation of ERAPs
Currently, the regulations are unclear as to how exactly an ERAP would be implemented – presumably it would be by emergency responders or by the person with control of the released material, but it’s never been Continue Reading…
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.
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…
Are You Ready for e-Manifests?
Paperwork – it’s one of the worst parts of dealing with hazardous waste shipments. In both Canada and the United States, hazardous wastes require a special document, the Waste Manifest that will not only serve as the transportation document for the dangerous goods/hazardous materials transportation regulations, but also allow environmental authorities to track the waste from the generator, who sends it for disposal, through the hands of the carrier, to the end receiver (in the US referred to as a TSDF, for Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility).
In Canada, some jurisdictions have eased the burden by allowing the waste manifest to be created electronically. For example, in Ontario, the HWIN system has been used for years. However, until now, the United States has not had a system for electronic documentation, called e-Manifests. On June 30, 2018, that has changed.
The change has been a long time coming. Although the initial proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was made in 2001, it was not until 2012 that Congress passed the “Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act.” Under the Act, a final rule was published in 2014 that approved the use of such manifests. Since then, the EPA has been working to create an online system that will allow the e-manifest to eliminate substantial chunks of the burden of manifests, as well as Continue Reading…