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:
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…
(Marine Amendment-Part 11, Rail Car Standard TP14877 Revision, ERAP- Part 7 Consultation)
Transport Canada is heading into what seems to be an ambitious spring/summer period with a variety of projects related to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) regulations. The latest notices are open for comment until the end of April and cover aspects of Parts 5, 7 and 11 (with implications for other parts) of the TDG regulations (TDGR).
SHIP- NO!- “VESSEL” AHOY! – MARINE PROVISIONS
Significant changes are proposed to TDGR Part 11 and Part 1 Special Cases to reflect the current Canada Shipping Act (CSA) and associated regulations, as well as commercial considerations. These affect definitions, terminology and the ability to efficiently transport fuels or medical/diving gases on passenger vessels.
The current Part 11 has been the subject of confusion regarding what constitutes the use of the IMDG Code versus the TDGR, particularly with voyages between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Retailers in particular have had difficulty in determining when consumer commodities can continue on to NL under TDGR Special Case 1.17. The wording in the current TDGR implies that the voyage would fall under a Home-Trade Voyage Class 1 from the Home-Trade Voyage Regulations. At certain times, the Marine Safety branch of Transport Canada Continue Reading…
As worded, the ERAP obligation extends to consignors of the specified flammable liquids in any shipment of an accumulation of large means of containment (LMOC) i.e. capacity exceeding 450L) exceeding 10,000 L or any individual LMOC containing more than 10,000 L.
The intent was to incorporate the ERAP requirement for petroleum/petroleum-like products being shipped by rail tanker as contemplated in the post-Lac-Mégantic Protective Direction 33.
This was clearly stated in the Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying the Gazette II notice.
[What follows, by way of disclaimer, may seem like a bit of a regulatory wonk’s snore- but it does illustrate the importance of keeping aware (and sometimes involved) in regulatory aspects of your business. Onward.]
A similar provision was already in place for things like gasoline (UN 1202) by means of a Special Provision (rather than a direct trigger quantity) in Column 7 of Schedule 1. This Special Provision 82 bypassed the normal criteria of section 7.1(1) & (3), invoking 7.1(6) limiting the rail tanker criteria as applicable to the 3 designated UN numbers.
In extending the ERAP requirement to another 8 substances, some of which are commonly shipped by highway tanker &/or Continue Reading…
The headlines are frightening – Ebola virus, one of the most deadly viruses known, has broken out in several African countries. Medical authorities are concerned that it could spread beyond that region, carried by travellers all over the world. Laboratories in North America and Europe are on alert for patients showing suspicious symptoms. This, in turn, means that samples and specimens must be transported for testing and verification. How can the medical community deal with transportation of such high-risk materials?
Ebola virus is considered a “hemorrhagic fever,” which affects the blood system. Its virulence is astonishing, with a fatality rate of between 50 and 90 percent. Combine this with the ability to be transmitted through casual contact, and the lack of specific vaccines or treatment, and it’s understandable why Ebola is such a feared disease. Therefore, it is all the more essential that transporters make sure that they comply with all legal and safety requirements.
Ebola virus is one of the few pathogens that is always classed as a Category A infectious substance, even in its uncultured form. The shipping description will be:
Identification number – UN2814
Shipping name – Infectious substance, affecting humans
Class – 6.2 (Infectious substances)
Packing group – Class 6.2 is not assigned packing groups
Procedures for shipping samples suspected of containing the virus will depend upon the regulations involved – the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) for Continue Reading…
One of the conundrums of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG) is the requirement to have an ERAP for a UN number that is not listed in Schedule 1 of TDG.
The problem we run into is that Schedule 1 is only up to the 11th Edition of the UN Recommendations on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods (model regulations). In section 1.3.1, item 39 in the table of standards indicates that TDG is at the 14th Edition of the model regulations. But since the 13th Edition of the model regulations, the UN has issued over 130 new classifications.
But section 1.10 of TDG states:
A person may use the appropriate classification set out in the ICAO Technical Instructions, the IMDG Code or the UN Recommendations to transport dangerous goods within Canada by a road vehicle, a railway vehicle or a ship on a domestic voyage if these Regulations or the document from which the classification is taken does not forbid their transport.
This means that if the consignor cannot find a classification in TDG, then the consignor can use a classification from the model regulations, ICAO Technical Instructions (TIs) or the IMDG Code. And this is where the conundrum lies. TDG section 7.1(12) states:
Any substance that would require an ERAP if its classification were determined in accordance with Part 2, Classification, requires an approved ERAP if its classification from the Continue Reading…
This Amendment deals specifically with Emergency Response Assistance Plans (ERAPs), and compensation for situations where the government has invoked a plan in the event of a terrorist action. Costs that are eligible for compensation include:
the salaries and other compensation for employees and contractors;
the cost for tools and equipment used, including rental of equipment where necessary,
cost of replacing supplies, single-use equipment and other consumables,
travel expenses for personnel, including meals and accommodation,
expenses related to injury or death of employees or contractors, and
costs incident to cleanup after an incident, including handling and disposal costs for dangerous goods and contaminated materials.
In the event of a terrorist incident involving dangerous goods in transport, the Minister of Transport can invoke an ERAP, even if the ERAP is held by someone other than the consignor of the goods. The amendment is required to ensure that this does not place an undue economic burden on the owner of the invoked ERAP.
Other aspects of ERAPs, such as the quantities that trigger the requirement, have not been changed in this amendment. If you have questions about how Amendment 10 will affect ERAPs, please contact ICC The Compliance Center Inc at 1-888-442-9628 (USA) or 1-888-977-4834 (Canada).
Some topics that were discussed at the last Regulatory Affairs Committee meeting of the Canadian Association of Chemical Distributors (CACD www.cacd.ca).
The CACD board of directors has approved a new standing committee – Health and Safety; there will be more news about this committee as it comes together
CACD has re-branded and launched its new website at its 25th anniversary AGM which was held in St. John’s NF this past June
the Auditor General will be reviewing the TDG directorate and will include the emergency response assistance plan (ERAP) programme in the review; the objective is to determine if the programme has value to Canadians; in general, experience has shown that emergency responders do not make use of ERAPs.
the MACTDG met in May at which Amendment 12 was discussed and CACD’s response to this amendment were presented
the security group of Transport Canada may be announcing that they will harmonize with the US regarding security issues, which we will hear more about later this year
CACD’s voice has been heard (along with others) regarding the Generic Products Regulations that Health Canada and Environment Canada buried in the mercury containing products regulations; the government has withdrawn the proposed legislation
the Consumer Product Safety Directorate (CPSD) of Health Canada has formed a new team to implement GHS; this team will be reviewing the decisions made by the CIC (Current Issues Committee), for example:
Transport Canada has posted on its website a proposed interim order for the period of the G20 meetings in Toronto. Dangerous goods that require an ERAP, are in Classes 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 or are in Class 7, other than medical isotopes (UN2915), are prohibited from the controlled access zone. Also included in this are dangerous goods that require the display of placards. However, these dangerous goods are permitted between midnight and 06:00.
The controlled access zone is the area in the City of Toronto that is bounded by Strachan Ave from Queen St West to Lake Ontario, Queen St West from Strachan Ave to Bathurst Street, Bathurst Street from Queen St West to Dundas St West, Dundas Street West/Dundas Street East from Bathurst Street to Jarvis Street, Jarvis Street from Dundas St East to Lake Ontario. You can also view this area on a map.
This interim order is expected to be signed by the Minister on June 21 and will expire June 28 at 06:00.