Those who follow the IATA DGR will have an idea of many of the changes resulting from the UN Recommendations expected to result from the changes in the 20th Edition of the commonly titled “Orange Book”.
Those who work with other modal/government regulations may not be familiar with changes that will likely follow in those regulations as all or part of the amended Model become incorporated.
Changes in Terminology
As often happens, terminology changes were introduced to this edition to clarify or technically improve concepts covered by the regulations. Throughout the document the term “risk” has been replaced by “hazard” to reflect the intent of referring to a danger.
Similarly, most references to “devices” now refer to “articles” which is defined in 18.104.22.168 as including “machinery, apparatus or other devices”.
New UN Numbers
UN3535 to UN3548 have been added to the collection:
UN3535 refers to “TOXIC SOLID, FLAMMABLE, INORGANIC, N.O.S.”
UN3536 is a new “LITHIUM BATTERIES INSTALLED IN A CARGO TRANSPORT UNIT” applicable to either ion or metal-based batteries.
UN3537 through UN3548 cover a sequence of listings for “ARTICLES CONTAINING…, N.O.S.” applicable to a variety of Class 2-5, 6.1, 8 and 9 dangerous goods.
The additional entries result in related changes to classification sections and special provisions.
As we’ve seen over the last few years regulation of lithium battery regulations continues to evolve.
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.
Disclosing Concentration Ranges Under WHMIS 2015
Q. Do I have to indicate “Proprietary” on a WHMIS (M)SDS when masking actual concentrations with ranges?
A. It depends. WHMIS 1988 accepted the use of concentration ranges on MSDS to mask confidential business information (CBI) without requiring any indication.
WHMIS 2015 does not currently allow the use of ranges other than the concentration range actually present for a variable substance (also, unlike WHMIS 1988, ranges cannot be used to allow a single SDS for a series of different but similar products).
Products subject to an approved masking under the HMIR Act do have to, in both versions, reference the exemption authorization on the (M)SDS.
A CBI amendment under consideration may re-introduce the permissible use of ranges to unilaterally mask actual concentrations. This proposal as currently written requires a statement in the SDS when a range is used that’s wider than the actual concentration range, to protect CBI. We’ll have to wait for the final amendment to answer the question going forward …
IMDG or TDG?
Q. Does a shipment within Canada by vessel from Newfoundland require placarding according to the IMDG Code or do the provisions of the TDGR Continue Reading…
It is January and all of the new or updated transport regulations are in full swing. This includes the new IATA addendums and IMDG Code corrigenda that were recently published. That leaves many tracking down what changed in and how those changes could impact business. Add to that dealing with the complexities that come with shipping lithium batteries and many people end up feeling confused like Vincent “Vinny” Barbarino on “Welcome Back Kotter”. Check out that memory.
Here is my attempt to simplify the placarding and segregation requirements as they now stand for lithium batteries. Let’s take a look at each topic and regulation to sort things out.
49 CFR – US Ground
Placarding (§172.504): Class 9 materials are found on Table 2. This indicates that when the gross aggregate weight of the materials in the transport vehicle reaches 1001 pounds (454 kilograms) placards would be needed. In Paragraph (f)(9) there is an exception. The exception tells us that placards are not needed for Class 9 materials shipped domestically. Easy right? Now this paragraph also tells us that should you use a bulk packaging of batteries, we would be required to mark the identification number on an orange panel, a white square-on-point configuration or a Class 9 placard.
Segregation and Separation Chart of Hazardous Materials (§177.848): There is currently nothing in this section of 49 CFR to indicate batteries should be segregated or Continue Reading…
Welcome back to the Regulatory Helpdesk where we answer your dangerous goods & hazmat questions. Check back weekly, the helpdesk rarely hears the same question twice.
Location of the To/From Address
Q: Can the name and address of the shipper and/or receiver be on top of packages of hazardous materials?
A: For 49 CFR only 1 address is needed and for air you would need both. Ocean doesn’t specifically mention addresses but we tend to include one since most carriers are going to ask for it. None of the regulations actually state where they MUST go. In some of our older trainings it was indicated that the addresses had to be near the name and number. I’ve tried to correct that.
For Air – Section 22.214.171.124(b) – both addresses “located on the same surface of the package near the proper shipping name mark, if the package dimensions are adequate“
49 CFR – Only one address is required per 172.301(d)
IMDG – There are no set guidelines for including addresses in Section 5.
New Segregation of Lithium Batteries
Q: Do lithium batteries have to be segregated?
A: It depends on the mode of transport.
In 49 CFR and IMDG 38-16, there are no segregation requirements for batteries. There could be information on a batteries SDS that should be followed.
For Air, in the new 59th edition of IATA or as some call it the 2018 version, there is some Continue Reading…
Welcome back to the Regulatory Helpdesk where we answer your dangerous goods & hazmat questions. Due to the Holiday week, we have only 2 FAQ’s worth sharing.
Check back weekly, the helpdesk rarely hears the same question twice.
More Lithium Batteries
Q. We want to ship a 63 W-hr lithium ion battery. Are there any issues with packaging 2 or more together in the same container under IATA 2018 and 49CFR? If 2 or more are ok what is the limit?
A. Under IATA you have 2 options and it will be up to you as the shipper to make the decision as to how to handle your shipment. As you know the 65 w-h battery falls into the excepted type. Now, for IATA that puts you in either Section II or Section IB. By the way, be sure to grab the recently published Addendum!
For Section II batteries there is a change for this year. As per usual, there are several changes to the operator regulations. Also, these batteries cannot be packed in the same outer packaging as any other dangerous goods.
The rest of the section still applies in PI 965. You are not allowed to offer more than 1 package prepared under Section II in any single consignment or shipment.
If you are using an overpack, you can only have one package of these batteries in the overpack. The overpack cannot Continue Reading…
A new state variation was added for Ethiopia. This new addition includes 4 variations including mandatory requirements for the shipper’s declaration form and a mandatory inclusion of an (M)SDS.
UPS Airlines (5X), Air Canada (AC), Air France are some of the others who have operator variations. Check these carefully, as there are several pages dedicated to these changes.
Table 2.3A – Provisions for Dangerous Goods Carried by Passengers or Crew has been regarding Lithium Batteries. This section is not only important for shippers, but also for travelers.
Section 126.96.36.199 has been completely revamped. There isn’t an easy way to go in and make the changes they have listed. As a courtesy to our customers, you can download a revised section with all the changes, deletions and additions. It fits on one page and can be printed for adding into IATA.
A change was added for Dangerous Goods in Excepted Quantities. The number of packages must now be shown on in the Nature and Quantity of Goods box on the waybill, unless they are the only thing being shipped.
Now doesn’t that sound interesting. When you want to ship different dangerous goods in one outer packaging, you have to calculate something called a “Q value” using a formula. The Q value ordeal is only applicable to air shipments and seldom used as most prefer to put the dangerous goods in separate packaging.
Last week a customer requested to have 2 different dangerous goods packaged and shipped to Brazil via air. Since the quantities for each product was less than 200 ml I thought I might be able to apply the “Q” value and besides it’s always better to consolidate your shipment if you can to prevent loss/delay of packages. Especially this time of the year.
I ensured the dangerous goods met all the requirements of Section 188.8.131.52 of the IATA Regulation. I calculated the “Q” value and it was less than 1.0. So, everything seemed to be a go. For packaging, I used a 4GV box and lots of vermiculite to:
separate the two dangerous goods and
more than enough absorbent in case there was a leak (only one product was liquid)
Applied all the labels and markings, created the shipper’s declaration and added the Q value as required per Section 184.108.40.206.2(f), then shipped it out with Fedex.
Transport Canada issues new Part 11 and makes other miscellaneous changes
The December 13, 2017 edition of the Canada Gazette II contains the expected rewrite of Part 11 “Marine” requirements of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR). In addition, there are related changes in other parts, as well as some unrelated miscellaneous changes in other areas.
The most wide-reaching change, although perhaps of relatively minor significance to the general regulated community, is the replacement of the term “ship” with “vessel”. This, among other changes, is to update the TDGR to current Canada Shipping Act (CSA, and related regulations) terminology. Many aspects of Part 11 related to the CSA had not been updated since 2008.
This differs from the TDGR definitions for road and rail vehicles which expressly exclude “muscle power” as a means of propulsion. (“Means of transport” in TDGR is a different story, but perhaps we’ll leave that one for another blog!)
Other definition changes include elimination of the reference to “short run ferry”, previously defined in TDGR Part 1.3 as operating between points “not more than 3 km apart”. TDGR 1.30 special case exemption now refers only to “Ferry,” but describes within the exemption that it’s applicable to operating between two points “not more than 5 km apart.
Here we are at the end of 2017 and the best word to summarize it is “change”. Every transport regulation had some sort of change this year. The most recent one is to the IMDG Code. A Corrigenda was published earlier this month that makes some changes to the 38-16 version. Note that this version becomes mandatory for use starting January 1, 2018.
Here are a few of the highlights:
The words “fishmeal” and “seedcake” are now divided into separate words throughout the regulation. You now have “fish meal” and “seed cake” throughout the code.
The words “marking” and “markings” have all been replaced with “mark” or “marks” through the entire code.
Several chapters in the regulation have been renumbered such as the subheadings under 5.1.1, 7.8.6 and 7.8.7.
Packing Instruction P002 has a change to Special Packing Provision PP11 to include 5H1, 5L1 and 5M1 bags.
Special Packing Provision PP40 has been deleted from several UN numbers including 1396 (PG III), 1398 (PG III), 1402 (PG I) and 3132 (PG III) to name a few.
For the new Lithium Battery mark there is now the allowance that it can also be a “suitable contrasting background” rather than just black and white.
The new Class 9 Hazard Label for Lithium Batteries also received some clarification in Chapter 220.127.116.11.1.3 in that the number of vertical stripes Continue Reading…
Recognizing Technological Evolution while Maintaining Safety & Security
Explosives Regulations (ER) – Ports & Wharves
The Explosives Safety & Security Branch (ESSB) of Natural Resources Canada, and Transport Canada, have issued a Gazette I (CG I) proposal to amend their respective Explosives Regulations (ER, under the Explosives Act), and the Cargo Fumigation and Tackle Regulations (CFTR, under the Canada Shipping Act).
The initial reason for the proposed amendment is to remove reference to the express requirement to use quantity/distance principle (QDP) restrictions and ESSB Inspectors from the CFTR. A more modern approach of quantitative risk assessments (QRA), based on actual probable hazards following, methodology authorized by the ESSB (Chief Inspector of Explosives), would replace the more rigid QDP.
QDP, currently covered in CAN/BNQ 2910-510/2015, were established mainly for fixed manufacturing/storage facilities and specifically exclude transportation activities from the scope of the standard.
The proposal also provides for having qualified individuals, not just ESSB Inspectors, determine the risk following an approved QRA methodology. The requirements will appear in a new ER section 203.1 instead of the current CFTR section 155(2) & (3).
It is expected that international trade and commerce will be improved without sacrificing safety or security under this proposal.
Explosives – Other Amendments
The CG I amendment proposes to also include ER changes under the topics of:
Eliminating or relaxing license requirements for certain “low risk” explosives (7 components);