TDG Standards on the Move – Explosives Plus TP14850 & TP14877

TDG Update - Red and white semi truck on the highway

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…

ICC's Regulatory Helpdesk
Regulatory Helpdesk: June 25

Carrier Variations, WHMIS vs. OSHA, Placarding, Lithium Batteries and More 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. Please note that over the summer we will be going to a bi-weekly posting of Regulatory Helpdesk.

Carrier Variations

Q. Can you help me understand what I did wrong or how to respond to them?

DHL is the carrier for my product. It is UN3077 and it is packaged 25 kg per fiberboard box. They sent me the following comments regarding my shipment.

They told me the country of USA must be a part of my address on the shipper’s declaration. They also said I had to use PI 956 even though it is marked and labeled as a limited quantity shipment. Finally, they told me I had to include the place and title on the shipper’s declaration.

A. First of all, carriers can ask for things beyond what is in the regulations. Sadly, you must comply with their requests if you want your shipment to proceed. Having said that there are a few things about your points that I can provide some regulatory framework for should you choose to push the issue with them. As to the country of USA being required, the IATA regulations never Continue Reading…
ICC's Regulatory Helpdesk
Regulatory Helpdesk: May 21

Limited quantities, manufacture expiry dates, regulated or not regulated, and reclassifying flammables to combustibles.

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.

Limited Quantity Limits (TDG)

Q. Customer called and asked if he can ship a box with 16 liters of UN1219 in inner containers as a limited quantity through ground in Canada.
A. The max according to the TDG is 1 L for limited quantity, so they can’t ship limited quantity.

Manufacture Expiry Dates

Q. Can you tell me if both the manufacturer and expiration dates are required to be on each label? Or if we have the option of just stating the manufacture date and verbiage that states the product is good for two years after the manufacture date? Also, would you happen to know which regulatory agency monitors these types of things?
A. The expiration date or manufactured date are not requirements of a GHS label. OSHA and The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals considers this supplementary Information, which is permissible as long as it doesn’t contradict any other information on the label, but they are not required components of the label.

Combustible materials (49 CFR)

Q. We have some drums of a material classified as NA1993 Combustible Liquid and only ever Continue Reading…

PHMSA/DOT Update: Label Border Line Thickness

HM-215N Update: Clarification on 2mm label border line thickness

2mm Label Border Requirement Changed

As most hazardous goods professionals know, HM-215N was intended to harmonize the 49 CFR regulations with the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods—Model Regulations (UN Model Regulations), International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), and the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions).

Among many other mandates, the final ruling ultimately revised §172.407 (c)(1)(iii), which changed the required width of the solid line forming the inner border of hazard class labels to a minimum of 2mm thick allowing for a transition period for domestic transportation to be in effect until December 31, 2018 in a final rule published in March of 2017.

“Approximately” vs “At Least”

Although this ruling intended to improve consistency in labeling specifications worldwide, the language has caused confusion at the international level, and The United Nations Subcommittee of Experts recently adopted new language to clarify the width of the line may be “approximately” 2 mm instead of “at least” 2mm.

As a result, earlier this year in response to the industry’s request for clarification, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) rescinded the requirement for label borders to be at least 2mm in thickness.

This action will officially take effect on January 1, 2019. However, US enforcement inspectors currently still have been referring to the Continue Reading…

ICC's Regulatory Helpdesk
Regulatory Helpdesk: April 23

Using absorbents with variation packaging, UN marking height, limited quantity, and de minimis quantities

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.

Absorbent Materials in Variation Packaging

Q. Can I use absorbent padding instead of the vermiculite as the absorbent in a 4GV package that was tested with vermiculite?
A. Per the 49 CFR §178.601, the packaging must meet the standard to which it is certified and the material must be of the same type or design as used in the tested design type, in this case vermiculite. Therefore vermiculite would have to be used to comply with the regulations.

UN Number Height

Q. Is there a minimum size requirement for the UN number on a lithium battery mark?
A. The only place that a specific size requirement is referenced regarding the UN number on a lithium battery mark is in the IATA DGR – §7.1.5.5.2(b)- which states that the UN number “should be” at least 12 mm high.

None of the other common (49 CFR §173.185(c)(3)(i); IMDG §5.2.1.10; TDG §4.24; or UN Model §5.2.1.9) regulations quote a minimum UN number size specifically for the lithium battery mark. All of the regulations referenced allow for proportional reduction, of features without specified dimensions, when the authorized Continue Reading…

ICC's Regulatory Helpdesk
Regulatory Helpdesk: April 16

WHMIS 2015 concentration ranges, training, overpacks, segregation and non-DG in DG packaging

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.

New WHMIS 2015 Concentration Ranges

Q. There is a very specific list of approved concentration ranges listed in the CA regulations.  We had previously set up our ranges to be .1-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, etc. (groupings of 10) and always included the “trade secret” caveat after our concentration list. Would this still be considered “compliant” for Canada, meaning using our ranges vs. their list of ranges?
A. There is a Regulatory Impact Assessment file that was sent out to stakeholders by Health Canada a couple days before the new amendment appeared in the Gazette II.

Under the comments received section of that file was the following:

Use of the prescribed ranges

One stakeholder agreed with the proposed amendment as it read in the context of the CGI publications, but asked for the following clarification: can smaller ranges be used if they (1) fall within an existing range, e.g. using 3.8-4.5% rather than 3-5% (as listed), or (2) when combining up to three prescribed ranges, e.g. combining ranges (e), (f), and (g) would be 5-30% but using 6-28% instead. Health Canada clarified that the prescribed concentration ranges are Continue Reading…

ICC's Regulatory Helpdesk
Regulatory Helpdesk: March 26

Proper shipping name, 500 kg exemption, MANCOMM symbol, and a TDG error

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.

Proper Shipping Name (49 CFR)

Q. The customer wanted to know if they can print the product name in section 1 of the SDS next to the UN number on a hazard class label instead of the proper shipping name.

A. No. The proper shipping name on the outside of the box is a requirement per 49 CFR §172.301 (a) (1) and must be marked along with the UN number in a non-bulk packaging.

500 kg Exemption (TDG)

Q. Can I apply the 500 kg exemption when I have a mixed load where part of the load is excluded from using a DANGER placard under the 1000 kg Class restriction in TDGR §4.16 but the remainder is less than 500 kg gross? An example would be a consignment offered that included 1200 kg of Class 3, 100 kg of Class 8 and 300 kg of Class 9 (no ERAP required for either)?

A. In the DANGER placard scenario in 4.16, the Class 3 is restricted from using the DANGER placard specifically, based solely on quantity. Regular placarding requirements apply to the load based on the guidance text Continue Reading…

ICC's Regulatory Helpdesk
Regulatory Helpdesk: March 19

Proper Shipping Name, Hydrostatic Pressure Tests, Other Information on the Lithium Battery Mark, and an Interesting Lithium Battery Story

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.

Proper Shipping Name for Lithium Batteries (IATA)

Q. Is it acceptable to print “Lithium Ion batteries packed in equipment” on a Class 9 Miscellaneous lithium battery label for UN3481 instead of Lithium Ion Batteries Contained in Equipment?
A. Yes. In the blue pages (Section 4) of IATA, you will notice there are 2 spots for UN number “3481”, one for lithium batteries containing equipment, and one for lithium batteries packed in equipment, so either of those printed on the label is acceptable.

Hydrostatic Pressure Test by Air (IATA)

Q. I plan on shipping an F-style container as an inner container in a combination package. Per IATA  §6.3.5.1, it says the internal pressure test is not required for combination packages. Does this mean the inner container doesn’t have to meet the 95 kPa pressure rating if shipping liquids by air?
A. Although IATA §6.3.5.1 does state the internal pressure test is not a required test for inner packagings of combination packages, it also references §5.0.2.9 for further instructions, which states that packaging for retention of liquid must be capable Continue Reading…
Regulatory Helpdesk: February 19 & 26

Shipments to Puerto Rico, Non-hazardous substances, the Overpack label, and Aviation Regulated Liquids or Solids

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.

Shipping to Puerto Rico

Q.  If 49 CFR is used to make a vessel shipment of limited quantities from the mainland US to Puerto Rico is a shipping paper required? I’m asking because limited quantities don’t require shipping papers.

A. Technically that is true. Shipping papers are not needed for US GROUND shipments. You have to read the fine print in paragraph 173.150(b) which is the section on limited quantities for flammable and combustible liquids. It that paragraph it says, ” … is not subject to the shipping paper requirements of subpart C of part 172 of this subchapter, unless the material meets the definition of a hazardous substance, hazardous waste, marine pollutant, or is offered for transportation and transported by aircraft or vessel, and is eligible for the exceptions provided in §173.156 of this part“.

Non-hazardous substances under WHMIS 2015

Q.Customer called and asked if SDS’s were required for non-hazardous substances and where to find this in the WHMIS 2015 Regulations?

A.The answer to your question can be found below in WHMIS 2015, which states that safety data sheets only pertain to a hazardous product, therefore Continue Reading…

PHMSA
PHMSA & OSHA Make a Video Together – an Oxymoron?

Warehouse with chemicals

PHMSA vs OSHA

George Carlin will always be a favorite comedian for people of a certain age. One of his best-known bits is on oxymorons. An oxymoron, is basically a set of contradictory terms that work together. While not the greatest of explanations, let’s have George give you some examples to make the point.

This concept came to mind on the heels of the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) joint video on labeling. Those two organizations are just that, 2 different organizations, yet they released a joint video? It sounded like a setup to a bad joke. Turns out I was wrong.

The video does a great job of explaining the focus of each organization and goes a long way to clearing the air. There are references to the regulations used by each, but not a lot of time is spent on “regulatory language” or the details of either one. 

Comparing PHMSA vs OSHA

Here is my version of the comparisons between the two and how closely the align based on the video.

PHMSA OSHA Take Away
Regulates hazardous materials in transport Regulates hazardous chemicals in the workplace Both want people to be safe.
Uses the Hazardous Materials Regulation Uses the Hazard Communication Standard Both have a set of “rules”.
Defines Hazardous Material as those that pose an unreasonable risk to health, safety and property when transported in commerce Defines Hazardous Chemical as Continue Reading…