Part 1 – The Importance of Training for Regulatory Compliance
Training is an eternal problem that has been going on for so many years. I started my career in 1999, and at that time the regulations did not help us to define our needs for training requirements regarding the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR). It is fair to state that in many ways, we are not that much further ahead today.
It is essential to understand which sections of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations apply to your business to define whether or not your company should have a training program, and determine who in the company should receive training, what needs to be covered, the frequency of training, and how long the training needs to be for maximum effectiveness.
This blog is one of a series that will try to make it as clear as possible and help your process to establish the training needs for your employees.
We start by asking ourselves relevant questions that we will answer with regulatory sections and afterward, I will attempt to explain accurately and guide you to the best solution for your business.
Before I begin, I would like to clarify the term ”Transportation”. When Transport Canada uses the term transportation it is to include any activity that relates to the request for transportation by all modes of transport (contacting a carrier Continue Reading…
One of the most frustrating issues with shipping dangerous goods is finding a carrier that will transport the goods. When a client contacts us for repackaging services, besides the DG information, I always ask if they have arranged a carrier to transport their goods. Most of the time it’s a “no”. Then I get started with what their options are; ground or air.
For shipments going from Canada to the US, believe it or not, it is easier to ship by air than ground. Of course, it does depend on the quantity being shipped and whether the DG is allowed for air transport. It is definitely more cost-effective to send anything via ground than air; however, that is not always true especially for small DG shipments. I have been told that sending a small, e.g., 20 lbs, DG package by air will cost about the same as sending it via ground.
Carriers such as FedEx and Purolator do not haul DG packages from Canada to the US via ground service. They do offer air but not ground. UPS which offers both air and ground does transport certain dangerous goods (just check for limitations on the UN# being shipped on UPS’s website under “UPS Dangerous Goods Acceptance Tool” prior to shipping) from Canada to the US but you must have a DG account set up with them.
Sometimes no matter how many precautions you take, there is no way to stop the inevitable. Football players with helmets designed to protect their brains still get concussions. You cross every “t” and dot every “i” on your federal income tax return and you still get audited. And sometimes even if you follow all of the safety tips for lithium ion batteries in my previous blog, they still can explode. http://blog.thecompliancecenter.com/safety-tips-for-lithium-ion-batteries/
However, by not taking the proper preventative measures in all of the cases listed above, the chances of a negative outcome can be greatly increased. With the travel season looking to pick-up in the coming months and many of us looking to hop on a plane and head out to our idea of paradise, I think it is safe to say that none of us want to end up in a situation like the story below.
Just like any other domestic flight, passengers on a Delta flight in New York City were stowing their carry on items in the overhead storage bins and preparing for take-off for a scheduled departure to Houston, Texas. Suddenly, passengers started to smell something burning, similar to the smell of a camp-fire. It was at that point that passengers started to see smoke in the cabin and begin panicking. The panic was caused by a vape pen that started smoldering Continue Reading…
If your business is like most, you don’t usually deal with shipping explosives in Class 1. However, this class sometimes shows up in places you’d least expect it. While it’s expected to deal with explosives in construction, mining, and the military, you can also find explosives in unexpected products such as toys (caps for cap guns), pyrotechnics for stage and movie productions, and animal tracking collars (some use explosive bolts to free the animal so it doesn’t have to make a permanent fashion statement).
Shipping explosives can be more complex than many other classes of dangerous goods. They are subject to other regulations, such as the Explosives Act, and may require special licensing depending on what type they are. In addition, they are often excluded from some of the common exemptions found in Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR). For example, explosives can’t use the Limited Quantity exemption of section 1.17, or the Excepted Quantity exception found in section 1.17.1. Some low-level explosives may qualify for the 150 Kilogram Gross Mass Exemption in section 1.15 and the 500 Kilogram Gross Mass Exemption in section 1.16, but only if they fall into certain divisions, compatibility groups or UN numbers. You’ll need to read each exemption closely to ensure that your particular explosive will qualify.
To balance things out, TDGR does contain some provisions for shipping small amounts of low-level 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:
At this time of year all the regulatory updates start. Every time a notation comes across my desk or email I can’t help but think about a famous line in the movie “Sixteen Candles”. That particular line is “What’s happening hot stuff?” Click here to see the actual movie clip. One of these days, I want a presentation to start with this. It would sure break the ice on some rather detailed subject matter.
Having prepared you for thinking about what’s happening or changing, we have to start at the UN level specifically. Much of this information comes from a presentation by Duane Pfund at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. We need to focus on is what changed from the 2015 – 2016 biennium. That biennium gave us Revision 20 of the UN Model Recommendations for the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Revision 20 is what will drive the changes starting in January 2019.
What’s Happening or Changing for 2019?
Class 8 Corrosive Materials:
A new alternative method for classifying these mixtures is being introduced. It revolves around using the GHS Purple Book bridging principles and calculation methods. Note that flammable gases and explosives are on the list for this same concept in the current biennium.
IBC Residue, Choosing Placards, IATA Special Provisions, and Hazard Class Label Size
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. Please note that over the summer we will be going to a bi-weekly posting of Regulatory Helpdesk.
Residue in IBCs (TDG)
Q. Under TDG, do Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) such as tote tanks that contain residues still have to be transported as dangerous goods? Should the placards remain or be removed?
A. Under TDG, packagings or containers that still contain enough residue to pose a hazard during transportation should still be treated as dangerous goods. Unfortunately, the regulations do not give a specific way of judging this, so they should be considered hazardous unless you are absolutely sure they are not. (There is some misinformation that you may come across about how to make this decision. TDG does not specify “triple-rinsing” as a standard for cleaning or declare that an inch or less of residue can be considered non-dangerous. These references may come from other regulations or industry guidelines, but do not apply to TDG.)
So, if your IBC contains a dangerous residue, it should be clearly identified as such for transportation. If it was originally placarded or labelled correctly, just leave those 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.
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.
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…