An Easter Parade!
(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.
In addition to the changes highlighted in the notice, there are several other noteworthy changes in the proposal.
“Near coastal” versus “Home-Trade” Voyages
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…
Transport Canada clarifies interpretation of 10,000 L ERAP requirement & warns of “e-cigarette” hazards in checked baggage.
Further to my blogs of January 12, 13 & 28th – Transport Canada has issued an Alert (dated February 2015- posted March 6) stating:
“the ERAP index of 10,000 L will only apply to rail tank cars”
This appears to be an interim solution until the entries can be formally modified in an amendment.
The full ALERT may be found here (PDF).
Another Alert deals with the potential fire hazard of e-cigarette heating elements accidentally activating in checked baggage on aircraft. The units typically are powered by lithium batteries.
Read: Transport Canada’s recommendation on transporting these units in the cabin.
IATA also has a guidance document on the use and carriage of e-cigarettes on board aircraft, which can be read here (PDF).
Are You Implicated?
Wording of amendment includes highway tankers, IBC, for UN1993, etc.
Recently, I wrote about the December 31 (SOR/2014-306) amendment to the TDG regulations, which contained a change to the substances requiring an ERAP (TDG-approved Emergency Response Assistance Plan) under Part 7.
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?
Shipping biological substances training »
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…
Transport Canada has recently issued Amendment 10, an update to Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations. The text of this amendment can be found at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2011/2011-10-12/html/sor-dors210-eng.html.
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).
See our TDG resources >>
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.
To view the interim order, please go to:
To comment on this interim order or to make a case for a business critical exemption, please contact, by close of business on June 4:
Director, Legislation and Regulations
Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate (ASDC)
By one of the following options:
Transport Canada has posted on its website Amendment T – Provisions for Orphan Releases. This is a proposed regulation and has NOT been published in the Canada Gazette.
Amendment T outlines the compensation for implementing an ERAP at the request of the Minister. There are 4 sections that will be added:
- 7.10 Compensation for Authorization to Implement an Approved Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP)
- 7.10.1 Compensation Limits
- 7.10.2 Claims for Compensation
- 7.11 Emergency Response Assistance Plan for Emergency Response Contractors
Section 7.10 outlines what expenses will be covered, such as:
- death, disability or injury to the plan holder or its employees
- overhead costs for the plan response
- cost of employees or contractors
- use of tools, vehicles, hoses, pumps, generators, etc.
- travel expenses – meals, accommodation, fuel, flights, etc.
- rental fees
- repair costs for equipment damaged during the response
- cost of defending any legal action
The following are not authorized for reimbursement:
- purchasing new equipment
- cost of lost business or production
Section 7.10.1 limits compensation that would be paid towards the dead, disabled or injured person if they were insured under:
- the Public Service Management Insurance Plan
- The Public Service Health Care Plan, and
- The Public Service Dental Care Plan.
Compensation for equipment or property is limited to market value.
Section 7.10.2 states that claims Continue Reading…
Although Amendment 8 was published in Gazette I in May 2009, Transport Canada (Dangerous Goods Directorate) has made changes due to comments received since May 2009.
Some of the changes are:
- Part 16 Inspectors is revoked
- Part 7 Emergency Response Assistance Plans (ERAP):
- 7.1(1) – now specifies a single means of containment, regardless of the size of the means of containment
- 7.1(2) – has had "small" deleted from means of containment and is the total quantity in all the means of containment
- 7.1(3) – the 10% rule is revoked and it is now back to the accumulation of large means of containment
- 7.1(5) – deals with Class 2 Gases where the means of containment is greater than 225 L and where there is more than 1 and interconnected and permanently mounted on a structural frame for transport
- 7.1(6) – changed to 17 rail cars that are interconnected and each rail car is filled to 70% or more
- 7.1(9) – now allows the use of another’s ERAP provided the shipper gets permission in writing to use that plan and the holder of the plan agrees to do the emergency response