Printable version
Content
Feature
The Dangerous Goods Newsletter is published quarterly in both official languages by the Transport Dangerous Goods
Directorate, Transport Canada, and is distributed to government and industry organizations in fields related to dangerous goods.
Subscriptions are free of charge and available to anyone on request by calling 613 998-1834 or by visiting the TDG Website at
and clicking on REQUEST. This newsletter is also available at the same internet
address. Please address comments and inquiries regarding additional information or publications to:
The Editor,
Dangerous Goods Newsletter
Transport Dangerous Goods
Transport Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
KlA 0N5 |
Editor
Renée Major
(majorr@tc.gc.ca)
Production Coordinator
Rita Simard
(simardr@tc.gc.ca)
Graphics and Design
Yvan Meloche
(T8000ASL@tc.gc.ca) or
(melochy@tc.gc.ca)
|
Editor Writers/Contributors to this issue:
- Michel Cloutier - CANUTEC, TDG Directorate
- Raymond Auclair - Research, Evaluation and Systems Branch, TDG Directorate
- Jacques Savard - Regulatory Affairs Branch, TDG Directorate
- Stéphane Garneau - Regulatory Affairs Branch, TDG Directorate
- Edgar Ladouceur - Compliance and Response Branch, TDG Directorate
- Sonia Lala - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
- Roger Lessard - Dangerous Goods Standards, Aviation
- Debbie Mayers - TDG Inspector, Prairie and Northern Region
We welcome news, comments or highlights of transportation of dangerous goods activities, announcements of meetings,
conferences or workshops. The Newsletter carries signed articles from various sources. Such articles do not necessarily
represent the views of the Directorate, nor does publishing them imply any endorsement. Material from the Newsletter may be
used freely with customary credit.
Contacts:
Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate
Director General
J.A. Read (613) 990-1147 (readj@tc.gc.ca)
Regulatory Affairs
J. Savard, Director (613) 990-1154 (savarjj@tc.gc.ca)
Compliance and Response
E. Ladouceur, Director (613) 998-6540 (ladouce@tc.gc.ca)
Research, Evaluation and Systems
R. Auclair, Director (613) 990-1139 (auclair@tc.gc.ca)
Legislation and Regulations
L. Hume-Sastre, Director (613) 998-0517 (humel@tc.gc.ca)
Publications:
(613) 998-1834
Fax: (613) 993-5925 and 952-1340
CANUTEC: Information (613) 992-4624
Emergency (613) 996-6666 Fax (613) 954-5101
(CANUTEC@tc.gc.ca)
Atlantic Region
Dartmouth (902) 426-9461 Fax: (902) 426-6921
St. John’s (709) 772-3994 Fax: (709) 772-5127
Quebec Region
(514) 283-5722 Fax: (514) 283-8234
Ontario Region
(416) 973-9820 Fax: (416) 973-5905 ou 973-9907
Prairie and Northern Region
Winnipeg (204) 983-5969 Fax: (204) 983-8992
Saskatoon (306) 975-5105 Fax: (306) 975-4555
Pacific Region
New Westminster (604) 666-2955 Fax: (604) 666-7747
Kelowna (250) 491-3712 Fax: (250) 491-3710
Transport Canada Dangerous Goods Directorate Internet address
– http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdg/en/menu.htm
E-mail: TDG@tc.gc.ca
Editorial
Welcome to the Fall 2003 edition of this newsletter.
As you will see from the feature article, the Directorate
has begun a review of the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods Act passed by Parliament in 1992. We invite you
to submit comments on any concern or issues you may
have. The process and proposed timetable are explained
on page 4.
You will also find informative articles on pages 6, 9, and
10, which give the Directorate's interpretation on
several questions that are often asked as a result of the
Clear Language Regulations.
In addition, I would like to draw your attention to a new
feature on the TDG Web site for all subscribers of this
newsletter. You will be able to make your own changes
to our mailing list by visiting the Web site. Additional
information is provided on page 9.
Finally, as we look forward to another year, I would like
to extend to all our readers my very best wishes for 2004!
Renée Major
CANUTEC - Celebrating its 25th Anniversary!
By Michel Cloutier
CANUTEC - the Canadian Transport Emergency
Centre - and the Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate,
were established in July 1979 to promote public safety
during the transportation of dangerous goods. CANUTEC
is responsible for providing guidance and emergency
response information to both emergency responders and
the Canadian public.
Although CANUTEC was originally faced with a few
thousand calls per year, it is now involved with more than
30,000 calls annually. Every call is logged and recorded
for future review and analysis. Each incident also involves
a rapid risk assessment of the situation based on a variety
of factors including the nature of the good being transported,
its location relative to populated areas and other
environmental considerations.
For the Health and Safety of Canadians
CANUTEC continuously strives to improve its services in
order to provide enhanced tools and information for
Canadians. In fact, CANUTEC offers a registration
program through which Canadian companies can obtain
permission to display the CANUTEC 24-hour emergency
telephone number on their dangerous goods shipping
documents. This is a free, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week service for the Canadian industry. More than 6,000
companies now benefit from this essential safety program.
Under the Government On-Line (GOL) initiative,
CANUTEC is now developing a web-based registration
system that will facilitate registration and the ongoing
maintenance of information provided by the industry.
CANUTEC has also developed an information database
containing more than 1,000,000 Material Safety Data
Sheets that can be immediately accessed by Emergency
Response Advisors to help provide essential technical
information and advice to fire, police, ambulance, hospital
services and the public to protect the health and safety
of Canadians.
A Great Tool
Furthermore, CANUTEC has published the Emergency
Response Guide 2000 (ERG2000) in English, French and
Spanish and is presently revising the document for the next
North American 2004 edition. The ERG2000 is an
emergency response guidance document distributed by
Transport Canada to emergency responders throughout Canada.
In order to enhance access for Canadians to this valuable
publication, CANUTEC has developed two electronically
accessible versions of the document that are available on
the CANUTEC Web site at: www.canutec.gc.ca. The
Web site offers a wealth of information, as well as related
links to the world of dangerous goods management.
Transport Canada can be proud of the ERG2000; this great
tool is now used in many countries throughout the world
and has been translated into other languages including
Dutch, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese,
Korean, Polish, Russian and Turkish.
25 Years of Professionalism and Dedication
CANUTEC is now approaching its 25th anniversary. This
is certainly a cause for celebration. Two major factors are
behind the success of CANUTEC - a management vision
of delivering service to Canadians and the professionalism
and dedication of CANUTEC personnel in providing
assistance to Canadians 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
CANUTEC is one of the major safety programs that
Transport Canada has established to promote the safe
movement of people and goods throughout Canada, and
yet another example of Transport Canada's pursuit of
excellence in delivering Results For Canadians.
Feature
The Review of the TDG Act
by Raymond Auclair
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992
is an "Act to Promote Public Safety in the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods."
Background
The TDG Act, 1992, received Royal Assent on
June 23, 1992. It replaced the old TDG Act passed by
Parliament in 1980. Development of TDG
Regulations began soon after 1980, with the first
complete set of regulations coming into force in 1985.
The five-year preparation yielded more than just a set of
regulations. The provinces and territories allowed the
federal regulation makers to coordinate the needs of all
levels of government into one text. The "product" was
a regulatory text which applied everywhere in Canada,
sometimes under federal jurisdiction, sometimes under
the appropriate provincial jurisdiction. In practice, we
had thirteen distinct regulatory texts which, in general,
carried the same requirements.
Today, there are 14 legally distinct texts (1 federal,
10 provincial, 3 territorial) which, by the choice of
each jurisdiction, contain the same words. There are
exceptions to this "copy and paste" approach;
however, they are usually minor or they cover local
needs, like rules for road tunnels in Quebec and in
British Columbia. In addition, the Canadian TDG
Regulations incorporate international harmonization
and trans-border reciprocity.
Although the TDG Regulations appear almost
seamless, the application of the old TDG Act was far
from being without question. The old act found its
application through the National Transportation Act.
Therefore, it could only apply to certain modes (rail,
marine, air) and to inter-provincial and international
activities for any mode.
Many defendants challenged the old TDG Act, using
arguments involving the Constitution, the Charter and
even basic principles of law such as unequal
application. For example, it was possible to have on
the same road, two identical vehicles carrying the
same dangerous goods over hundreds of kilometres;
the one that happened to stop 1 km before crossing
into the next province was not subject to the old TDG
Act (and its penalties) while the other, for the sake of
that kilometre, was subject to the old TDG Act.
The Review of 1990-1992, A Model For the Current Review
The review of the old TDG Act began well before
1990. However, by 1990, it was clear that the Act was
in danger of being declared void by the courts and
there was a real sense of urgency to complete a review
and to make necessary changes.
It was important to rebuild the authority under which
the TDG Regulations were made which, in turn,
provided the structure for the entire collaborative
TDG Program in Canada. Because of the scope and
magnitude of the problem, it was important to
proceed rapidly, yet in a structured manner.
The Process
Step 1: Identify the issues. This was done by
consulting the regulating authorities (provinces, other
federal departments), the inspectors (our own and
others), the regulated industry (consignors, carriers,
manufacturers, users, importers and exporters of
dangerous goods), the public and people working on
their behalf (police, fire fighters, medical community),
and other interested groups (e.g., insurers, environmentalists).
Over one hundred issues were identified.
Step 2: Categorize and prioritize the issues. At
first we wanted to have a "top ten" list. As the
number of identified major issues grew, we aimed
for the "top 25". We grouped similar issues together,
or created themes (e.g., anything dealing with the
Charter or the Constitution). We identified 37 issues
which, admittedly, did not cover everything
unearthed during step 1.
Step 3: Describe the issues. The 37 issues were
consolidated in a consultation document originally
published in the TDG Newsletter, and also made
available on the TDG Web site and available as an
attachment to correspondence. We prepared a brief
description of our understanding of each issue and our
proposed solutions (given that we understood the
issue). Readers were invited to comment both on the
description (i.e., do we understand the issue properly?)
and our proposal (would the solution work?).
Step 4: Invite participation. Copies of the consultation
document prepared at step 3 were sent (along
with an invitation to comment) to all identified
major stakeholders, including any person who
expressed an interest - whatever the reason. We met
with each provincial government and with many
associations (e.g., CCMTA - Canadian Council of
Motor Transport Administrators) to advise them of
the process. We put ads in various trade journals and
talked to reporters, putting out the message that we
were consulting.
When we expected reactions from a particular sector
of the industry, and failed to get it, we would seek
them out, to the point of sending individual letters to
Chief Executive Officers.
Step 5: Consult on the issues. The appropriate
exchange of ideas was mostly done through
correspondence (the Web did not exist yet and email
services were very basic). There were discussion
meetings with some groups (certain sectors of the
industry, emergency responders, carriers) and among
federal departments and agencies. The phone was
also used but it was found that it was most useful as a
support for letters and faxes. This step was the
longest one, overlapping steps 4, 6 and 7.
Step 6: Analyze the results. Hundreds of responses
were received. Some only covered one or two issues,
many were general and some (over twenty) gave
detailed comments on each issue. We had to "modify
our perception" on a few issues (e.g., if our description
of an issue was wrong). However, most comments
were about proposed solutions, where we were given
ample opportunity to adjust our position. We
developed an indicator to quickly assess the overall
comments. It showed in real time (day-to-day) the
issues on which our perception or our proposed
solutions met with the greatest resistance.
Step 7: Seek expert advice. Some comments forced
us to seek expert advice on how an issue could be
addressed. For example, it was common at the time
for governments to establish clean-up funds, fed by a
levy on goods being manufactured or transported.
Because of the nature of the industry and how such
funds would have to be administered (a jurisdictional
nightmare), our initial proposal was shot down by just
about everyone. We met with insurance experts and
replaced the proposal with a legal obligation for
financial responsibility, which is normally met in the
form of insurance policies.
Step 8: Make the decisions. Once all the information
was in, it was time to make the decisions. These were
discussed with the provincial and territorial
representatives, with the Minister's Advisory Council
on Dangerous Goods, even with Opposition Critic
on Transportation.
Step 9: Realize the decision. This step involved
preparing a Memorandum to Cabinet, recommending
various options to the government and more
consultation at the federal level. The Cabinet
requested a new TDG Act. We worked with Justice to
prepare a Bill; prepared explanatory binders,
draft speeches and notes for both Houses, and we
attended Parliamentary Committees in both Houses,
with more speaking notes and background material.
Finally, we had Passage of the Act and Royal Assent.
Here We Go Again (The 2003 Review of the TDG Act, 1992)
When the TDG Act, 1992 was passed, there was a
commitment to review its application after a period of
ten years. In early 2002, we were heavily involved in
analyzing security issues with TDG. It was
impossible to launch a complete review of the Act
before Summer 2003.
Certainly, during the year and a half since
September 11, 2001, the TDG Act, 1992 and the TDG
Program were reviewed (at least internally) with
respect to security issues.
As for a more general review of the TDG Act, there is
not a sense of urgency that existed in 1990. The Act
now deals almost exclusively with public safety and
appears well based on the Criminal Law Head of
Power of the Canadian Constitution. All provinces
and territories have well-established legislation and
programs in place, so that there are no gaps in the
TDG Program or, at least, certainly none of the scope
of the gaps that existed in 1990.
Nevertheless, we intend to follow the same procedure
(the nine steps) this time as we did in 1990-1992.
Step 1 begins
We are soliciting views on what issues exist in
relation to the TDG Act, 1992. We welcome comments
on any concern that anyone may have (e.g.,
safety, security, interaction with other programs,
redundancy, new technology). We will, of course,
take note of comments already received over the last
ten years and include them in any list of issues that we
prepare for Step 2.
We will accept comments in any format and through
any medium. Given our experience in the early
nineties, we know that comments that explain an issue
in relation to the existing Act (something in the Act or
something thought to be missing from the Act) are
ideal but we would rather know about an issue even if
there is no proposed solution. Let the future work and
consultation deal with possible solutions.
Proposed Timetable
Comments received before the end of December 2003,
may be included in the document prepared
at Step 3. We will continue to accept comments (even
new issues) after that date.
We expect to complete Step 8 by the end of
December 2004.
Contact us:
By e-mail (the preferred way):
TDGact@tc.gc.ca
By mail:
Review of the TDG Act,
(ASDE) Transport Dangerous Goods,
Transport Canada,
330 Sparks St.,
9th floor, Tower C,
Place de Ville,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5
Through our Web site:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdg/consult/menu.htm
By telephone:
1 888 758-9999
Leave your name, complete phone number with area
code, and a brief summary of your comment.
We will contact you.
Is the Safety Mark Misleading?
The Directorate's interpretation of section 6 of the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992
By Jacques Savard
Is it misleading to add dangerous goods safety marks
when they are not required by the Regulations?
The Interpretations Working Group is often asked this
question. To answer it, one must probe the meaning
of "misleading as to the presence of danger, the nature
of any danger or compliance with any prescribed
safety standard", which appears in the text of
section 6 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods
Act, 1992.
"No person shall display a prescribed safety
mark on a means of containment or transport,
or at a facility, if the mark is misleading as to the
presence of danger, the nature of any danger
or compliance with any prescribed safety standard".
This provision was introduced when the 1992 Act was
drafted, as a result of a practice which had come to the
attention of the Directorate. Some people would
display four danger placards on their trucks in the
event they would have to carry dangerous goods one
day. In fact, all of these trucks did so very rarely, and
each time they were involved in a road-related
incident, the first responders would have to look for
the dangerous goods to ensure that they posed no
safety risk. Much effort, time and money were
wasted. The purpose of section 6 was to put an end to
this practice.
A. Safety Marks
Section 6 only applies to safety marks which can
be of two types:
- certification safety marks; and
- dangerous goods safety marks
Certification safety marks are defined in section 1.4
of the Regulations as:
"a design, symbol, device, letter, word, number
or abbreviation that is displayed on a means of
containment or means of transport to indicate
compliance with a safety standard".
The metal plates indicate compliance with a
standard and are applied to a standardized means
of containment. For example, these plates are
displayed on most highway tanks carrying
flammable liquids.
Dangerous goods safety marks are defined in
section 1.4 of the Regulations as:
"a label, placard, orange panel, sign, mark,
letter, word, number or abbreviation that is
used to identify dangerous goods and to show
the nature of the danger posed by them".
This type of safety mark includes the shipping name,
the UN number, class, packing group, risk group,
labels, placards and technical name, when required.
Hence, section 6 of the Act only deals with specific
information and does not include all the information
required on the shipping document or means
of containment.
B. Nature and presence of danger
A comparison of the French and English texts of
section 6 of the 1992 Act allows us to see that
there is a difference between both versions. In
English, reference is made to the nature and
presence of the danger while the French text only
refers to the nature of the danger. How do we
reconcile this difference?
According to section 13 of the Official Languages
Act in Canada, both the English and French
documents have equal authority under the law. No
version takes precedence over the other. This
means that an interpretation is never complete
without a joint interpretation of both the French
and English versions to find a meaning that is
compatible with both versions.
The interpretation here is easy to develop. It is
clear that the French expression "trompeuse quant
à la nature du danger" can be used to describe
cases where there is no danger. Consequently, the
French text can be understood the same way as the
English text. We can therefore understand the
meanings of nature and presence of danger in
French as well as in English.
Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of the Act,
a safety mark can be misleading with respect to
either the nature or the presence of danger. If a
safety mark indicates the presence of dangerous
goods in a means of containment or a vehicle and
there are none, it is misleading with respect to the
presence of danger.
On the other hand, when a safety mark indicates
the presence of a class of dangerous goods when,
in fact, the goods belong to another class, the
safety mark is misleading with respect to the
nature of the danger.
However, when a safety mark indicates that a
certain class of dangerous goods is present and
that a substance from that class is clearly present
but in quantities lower than the limits prescribed
by the Regulations, can the safety mark still be
considered misleading with respect to the
presence or the nature of the danger?
C. Nature and presence of danger based on the quantities present
To answer this question, here are a few cases. In
the first case, a product is sent under an exemption
and labels are not required to be displayed. For
example, the product is shipped as a limited
quantity as per section 1.17 or under a personal
exemption as per section 1.15. In both cases, and
as is the case with other exemptions, a label is
not required.
If, for whatever reason, a label to indicate the class
is displayed, is the safety mark misleading?
In this case, there is no possible error with respect
to the nature or presence of danger. The limited
quantities contain a product in the class indicated
which, without section 1.17, would require labels
for this class.
A similar case involving large means of containment
is also possible. Consider, for example, a truck with
a box containing 495 kg of dangerous goods and
displaying placards. Are these placards misleading?
"No" they are not. On the other hand, if the truck
only contained 25 kg, our answer would be "yes". To
understand this apparent contradiction, one must ask
the question "for whom should the safety mark not
be misleading?"
Safety marks were initially developed to assist first
responders approaching a means of containment.
They must be advised of both the existence and the
nature of the danger. It is imperative that they
know what they are dealing with and the scope of
the problem they face. Their response will vary
depending on the nature of the substance and the
quantities involved.
Placards on large means of containment, such as
trucks, indicate to first responders the nature of the
dangerous goods and the order of magnitude of the
amounts involved. They know that the presence of
a placard indicates that dangerous goods
transported are either substances requiring an
Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) or
substances exceeding 500 kg. A difference of a
few kilos for shipments weighing 500 kg will not
alter the type of response they will initiate.
However, if the truck is empty or almost empty
and the placards indicate that a significant
quantity is still present, their risk assessment will
be distorted and the response needlessly
exaggerated, perhaps to the point of responding to
an essentially empty truck before responding to a
second truck with a full load.
What about international shipments under the
IMDG Code and the dangerous goods safety
marks which must remain displayed on a means of
containment until its contents have been
neutralized? In these cases, a distinction must be
made between large and small means of containment.
There will be no confusion with small means of
containment because responders will know they
are dealing with small means of containment and
their response will be adjusted to the level of risk.
As for large means of containment, the
Regulations require compliance with the IMDG
Code which stipulates that international shipments
require placards on all means of containment,
regardless of the quantities involved. They also
know that placards must still be displayed on large
means of containment which have not been purged
and neutralized (generally tanks or intermediate
bulk containers (IBCs) under subsection 4.9(1) of
the Regulations. They will prepare accordingly.
However, when a truck, which normally does not
contain any residue, displays placards and has a
minimal quantity of dangerous goods, the
responders may be misled with their response and
intervention, and the safety marks displayed on the
vehicle will then be considered misleading under
section 6 of the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods Act, 1992.
D. Conclusion
For a displayed dangerous goods safety mark to be
misleading, it must have the potential to be
misleading in a significant manner to first
responders about the risks involved.
The Responsibilities of a Stationary Carrier
The Directorate's interpretation of the definition of "carrier" in the
Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations
By Jacques Savard
It is common during the transportation of goods that a
certain shipment may involve several carriers. This
occurs when one mode of transportation is changed to
another (e.g., from a ship to road or rail carriers) but
can also happen within two segments of the same
mode of transport.
For example, a trucker could leave his shipment in a
supervised location (e.g., terminal, warehouse) where a
second trucker would take possession to continue transport.
When subsection 3.10(2) of the Regulations applies,
is the person in charge a "consignor" a "carrier" or
something else under the Transportation of
Dangerous Goods Regulations?
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations
were written in such a way that someone is always
responsible for dangerous goods "in transport" at all
times in Canada. This is the basic principle of subsection
3.2(3) of the Regulations which reads as follows:
"Dangerous goods in transport are in the
possession of a carrier from the time the carrier
takes possession of them for transport until
another person takes possession of them".
Therefore, if the first carrier leaves his shipment in a
vacant field or in an unsupervised area, he retains
possession of the goods and is still responsible for
them. However, if he leaves the shipment in a
supervised location, someone else takes possession.
This person is the guardian of the area.
By taking possession of the dangerous goods "in
transport", the guardian himself becomes a carrier, as
per the definition of "carrier" in section 1.4 of the
Regulations:
"person who, whether or not for hire or reward,
has possession of dangerous goods while they
are in transport".
As a carrier, even though a "stationary carrier", the
guardian of these goods must meet all the regulatory
requirements applying to carriers. For example, he
cannot accept the dangerous goods without a shipping
document. He must give the shipping document to
the next carrier taking possession of the goods. He
must keep the shipping document in the location
specified by the Regulations. However, he can also
benefit from advantages available to other carriers
such as the electronic transfer of documents
(subsection 3.1(2)), the replacement of documents
(subsection 3.2(7)), etc.
It is important to note that for the transfer of goods
that originate from outside Canada to another
destination outside Canada, the "stationary carrier"
also becomes the "importer", pursuant to the definition
of "import" in the TDG Act, while in possession
of the goods.
"import (from the Act)
means import into Canada, and includes
transporting goods that originate from
outside Canada and pass through
Canada to a destination outside Canada,
except when the goods are being transported
on a ship or aircraft not registered in Canada".
As a carrier/importer, a person who carries dangerous
goods in quantities which require an Emergency
Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) shall also be
responsible for having such a plan filed with
Transport Canada as per section 7.1.
SOMETHING NEW FOR ALL SUBSCRIBERS!
Effective immediately, subscribers to the Dangerous
Goods Newsletter will be able to make their own
changes to the mailing list by visiting the TDG Web
site at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdg/menu.htm
Simply click on NEWSLETTER, REQUEST and
choose options, NEW, MODIFY, or CANCEL to
make your change. As an added feature, if you would
like to reduce the paper copies and replace them by an
e-mail notification when the new issue is available
on-line, you will be able to do so by choosing
NEW SUBSCRIPTION. Please remember to cancel
your subscription, if you are currently receiving the
paper copy.
Outer Packaging and Standards
The Directorate's interpretation of subsection 5.12(1)
of the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations
By Jacques Savard and Stéphane Garneau
Subsection 5.12(1) of the Regulations stipulates that
dangerous goods included in Classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8 or
9 and transported in a small means of containment
must be transported in a UN standardized means of
containment selected and used in accordance with
CGSB-43.146-2002 or CGSB-43.150-97.
A question is raised regarding the application of this
provision when a standardized packaging is placed in
another packaging. Should the second packaging be
standardized as well? If so, should we follow the
same reasoning for all layers of packaging? The
Directorate's answer to this question is quite simple.
Once the dangerous goods are packaged in a small
UN standardized means of containment, the
requirements of subsection 5.12(1) have been met.
Standardized means of containment for all additional
layers of packaging are therefore not required by the
Regulations, since the basic condition in subsection
5.12(1) has been met. Several packages that are in
compliance with CGSB43.150 and/or several
Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) filled or closed
according to CGSB43.146 can also be placed in a
larger container, without the outer packaging
requiring a UN packaging.
A word of caution, however. Some packing
instructions require a type of packaging more
complex than a single package. These include
combination or composite packaging or composite
IBCs. Combination packaging consists of one or
several inner packaging contained in an outer
packaging; for example, four 4-litre plastic bottles
inside a rigid cardboard case. When combination
packaging is required (e.g., for infectious substances),
in order to meet the requirements of the standard, the
overall packaging must be tested for performance, using
the inner and outer packaging used for transportation.
CANUTEC
January 1, 2003 to October 30, 2003
Number of Calls
Technical |
8 073 |
Regulatory |
4 470 |
Information |
10 034 |
Other |
4 804 |
Total |
27 381 |
Emergency Calls |
732 |
Soruce of Emergency Calls
Fire Dept. |
209 |
Police Dept. |
50 |
Hazmat Contractor |
15 |
Carrier |
251 |
End User |
53 |
Manufacturer |
9 |
Government |
37 |
Private Citizen |
38 |
ER Centre |
17 |
Poison Control |
16 |
Medical |
11 |
Others |
12 |
Emergency Calls by Class of Dangerous Goods
Class 1 - Explosives |
4 |
Class 2 - Compressed Gas |
167 |
Class 3 - Flammable Liquids |
194 |
Class 4 - Flammable Solids |
27 |
Class 5 - Oxidizers and Organic Peroxides |
44 |
Class 6 - Poisonous and Infectious Substances |
54 |
Class 7 - Radioactives |
10 |
Class 8 - Corrosives |
255 |
Class 9 - Miscellaneous |
1 |
NR - Non-regulated |
52 |
Mixed load - |
13 |
Unknown - |
42 |
Emergency Calls by Province/Country
British Columbia |
82 |
Alberta |
105 |
Saskatchewan |
19 |
Manitoba |
25 |
Ontario |
247 |
Quebec |
159 |
New-Brunswick |
19 |
Nova Scotia |
18 |
Prince Edward Island |
2 |
Newfoundland |
3 |
Northwest Territories |
2 |
Yukon |
0 |
Nunavut |
0 |
United States |
40 |
International |
2 |
Emergency Calls by Transport Mode
Road |
201 |
Rail |
188 |
Air |
12 |
Marine |
7 |
Pipeline |
0 |
Non transport |
323 |
Multimodal |
1 |
Radiation Protection Program for Carriers
By Sonia Lala
When the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC) put into force the Packaging and Transport
of Nuclear Substances Regulations in May 2000, two
new requirements were imposed on the carriers of
radioactive materials: 1) Section 15(7) of these
regulations requires carriers to implement and
maintain work procedures, and 2) Section 18(1)
requires carriers to develop and implement a
Radiation Protection Program. An exemption to these
two requirements has been granted until May 31,
2004. The CNSC would like to inform all carriers
that this deadline will not be extended, and that these
requirements will be enforced as of June 1, 2004.
The CNSC recognizes a risk-based approach for the
development of such a program. It defines three risk
categories based on the dose that can be potentially
received by transport workers: Low, Medium and High
Risk. Carriers employing workers who have
little chance of receiving a dose in excess of 1 mSv per
year are considered Low Risk. Carriers
employing workers who can potentially receive a dose
greater than 1 mSv per year but less than 5 mSv per
year are considered Medium Risk. The High Risk
category covers all carriers employing workers who can
potentially receive a dose greater than 5 mSv per year.
For carriers at low risk of exposure, the basic
elements of a Radiation Protection Program may be
covered in work procedures as required under Section
15(7) of the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear
Substances Regulations. A separate Radiation
Protection Program is not required. However, carriers
at high risk will be responsible for a detailed and
complete Radiation Protection Program.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is
currently developing guidance material that will assist
carriers in developing a Radiation Protection Program
for the transport of radioactive material.
An updated notice will appear in the next issue of this
newsletter. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact Robert Irvine, (613) 995-1491,
irviner@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca, of the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) Requirements and Gases
By Edgar Ladouceur
Questions have recently been asked regarding
requirements found in Part 7 of the TDG Regulations
- Emergency Response Assistance Plans (ERAPs).
The questions relate to Class 2 (gases) residue in
containers being returned by customers, particularly
those customers who are located in the United States.
The current ERAP requirements for Class 2
dangerous goods is based on the capacity of the
means of containment (container) itself rather than a
threshold mass or volume of the residual dangerous
goods therein. For example, for Vinyl Chloride the
container capacity limit requiring an ERAP is 3000L;
for each of Chlorine, Sulphur Dioxide and Ethylene
Oxide the container capacity limit is 500L; for
Hydrogen Sulphide the limit is 0. When residue
containers of ERAPable Class 2 materials are
returned to Canada, the consignor (in this case the
consignor is the person who imports the dangerous
goods into Canada) is responsible to ensure that the
carrier has a shipping document that contains the
Reference Number and its Activation Telephone Number.
Unless the U.S. customer is aware of the ERAP
requirements, the required information may not be
entered on the return shipping documents provided to
the carrier. It is therefore important for Canadian
importers to ensure that U.S. customers returning
residue containers of Class 2 dangerous goods are
aware of the ERAP requirements under the
TDG Regulations.
Civil Aviation Dangerous Goods Public Awareness Stakeholder Committee
By Roger Lessard
Each day, products defined as dangerous goods are
transported within Canada. It is essential for the
public, government and industry to continually work
towards minimizing the risks involved in the
transportation of these goods through the application
of safe practices.
Many common items used everyday in the bathroom,
kitchen, and garage, for hobbies or for work may seem
harmless, however, due to their physical and chemical
properties they can be very dangerous when transported
by air. As a general rule passengers are not permitted
to transport dangerous goods on board an aircraft in
their carry-on or checked baggage. However,
incidents and accidents caused by dangerous goods in
carry-on or checked baggage or being shipped
undeclared do happen:
- A soap-dispensing bottle containing acid (drain
purging liquid) leaked its contents when an over
head bin was opened after arrival at the airport.
Two passengers were transported to the hospital
and treated for third degree burns. Three flight
crew, the airport Customer Service Manager and
one paramedic were overtaken by fumes and also
hospitalized. Before it could be cleaned the fluid
had damaged the overhead bins, the seats, the
floor and the baggage hold below.
- An undeclared flammable liquid in a passenger's
luggage inadvertently ignited in the cargo locker
of a DHC-6 Twin Otter 300 causing an in-flight
fire. Two crew members and all 13 passengers
were killed.
- A nine-volt battery shorted out against a piece of
metal causing a pilot's flight case to overheat and
explode in the baggage compartment of a Cessna 182.
- A misdeclared fibreboard drum containing five
gallons of 50 % hydrogen peroxide and 25 lbs. of
a corrosive agent leaked during a flight on a
DC-9 causing an in-flight fire in the cargo compartment.
Just before landing smoke began to fill
the passenger cabin.
The Dangerous Goods Standards Division, Civil
Aviation Directorate, Transport Canada is responsible
for the development and implementation of the Civil
Aviation Dangerous Goods Public Awareness
Program. Initiated in 1998, the Program went
through extensive review in 2000/2001 to reflect the
Civil Aviation Flight 2005 Safety Framework: "We
are here for aviation safety". This resulted in the
Dangerous Goods Standards Division soliciting the
support of various organizations from both the
government and industry to launch the Civil
Aviation Dangerous Goods Public Awareness
Stakeholders Committee.
In choosing participants for this Committee, it was
recognized that both government and industry have a
vested interest in ensuring that the public is
encouraged to transport dangerous goods safely.
The Civil Aviation Dangerous Goods Public
Awareness Program Stakeholders Committee, made
up of both government and industry, held their first
meeting June 9 and 10, 2003. During that meeting the
Terms of Reference were finalized, target groups
identified, a Strategic Plan adopted, and strategic
partnering developed.
During future meetings the Committee will be
responsible for:
- Developing a strategic plan;
- Accessing strategic partnerships;
- Defining needs;
- Establishing and re-evaluating goals;
- Identifying communication tools;
- Evaluating outcomes;
- Consolidating awareness capabilities through
leveraging, networking, and sharing expertise;
- Obtaining strategic stakeholder buy-ins;
- Implementing effective, timely, and cost
effective strategic information delivery;
- Developing short and long-term data
collection mechanisms.
If you are interested in learning more about the
Committee please contact Roger Lessard at:
613 991-3988 or by email at: lessaro@tc.gc.ca.
Do Your Service Vans Transport Gas Cylinders or Other Kinds of Dangerous Goods?
(Take Note: Service Vans Are Not Exempt from the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations)
By Debbie Mayers
Since August 15, 2002, service vans are no longer
exempt from the Transportation of Dangerous Goods
(TDG) Regulations. A technician driving a service
vehicle (both pick-up trucks and closed vans) with
refrigerants, welding gases, drain cleaning chemicals,
or any other items common to this industry and
classed as dangerous goods without a training
certificate issued by his/her employer (or self, if
self-employed), and a shipping document, will be in
non-compliance with the TDG Regulations. A
dispatcher who schedules work involving dangerous
goods or a warehouse employee who moves these
goods, or a clerical staff who prepares the documents,
all require training.
What Are Dangerous Goods?
There are nine different classes of dangerous goods
listed in Schedule 1 of the TDG Regulations. Most
service vehicles would likely carry a few of these
classes: Class 2, Gases (compressed, deeply
refrigerated, or dissolved under pressure) which has
3 divisions - 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3 (Refrigerant Gases are
either a class 2.1 or a 2.2, dependent on the gas, while
Oxygen and Nitrogen are a Class 2.2); Class 3,
Flammable Liquids; or Class 8, Corrosives. Also,
each dangerous goods is assigned a "UN number,
which includes "UN" followed by four digits, and a
shipping name.
How Do the TDG Regulations Apply to
Service Vehicles?
The TDG Regulations do provide partial exemptions
from the regulatory requirements. These partial
exemptions are found in either Part 1, Special Cases,
or in Schedule 2, Special Provisions and apply only if
all of the conditions of the partial exemptions are
followed. Below are the partial exemptions that could
apply to service vehicles and the section of the TDG
Regulations where they are found:
Special Provision (SP) 42 (Schedule 2):
- This partial exemption provides relief to only the
following six Class 2 dangerous goods, provided
that all of the conditions outlined below, are followed:
- Acetylene; Air, compressed; Argon, compressed;
Methylacetylene and propadiene mixture, stabilized;
oxygen, compressed; and propane NOTE that
NO refrigerant gases or Nitrogen are included in
this exemption.
- There can be no more than 5 means of
containment (cylinders)
- The dangerous goods have a gross mass less than or
equal to 500 kg; and
- The labels displayed on the means of containment
(cylinder) can be seen from outside the road
vehicle. (This means that the cylinders could be in
a pick-up truck box, provided that the dangerous
goods labels on the cylinders are visible from
outside the truck).
Thus, if you are transporting any of these specific six
gases, and meet ALL of the conditions listed, you do
not require documentation, training, or need to
placard the vehicle.
1.16 (Part 1): 500 kg Exemption:
This partial exemption will most likely apply to most
service vans. Note that cylinders must be of an
approved specification and must be requalified
periodically. Furthermore, labels with the dangerous
goods "UN" number and shipping name must be
displayed on the container/package/cylinder, and that
training is still required for this partial exemption.
Remember that all of the conditions outlined below,
must be followed to use this exemption.
- The dangerous goods in transport have a gross mass
less than or equal to 500 kg.
- All classes, except Class 2, of dangerous goods
must be in one or more means of containment (a
container or packaging), where each has a gross
mass less than or equal to 30 kg, and the containers are
such that under normal conditions of transport, there
will be no accidental release of the dangerous goods.
- Class 2, gases, must be in a means of containment
(cylinder) that is in compliance with Part 5, Means
of Containment. This means that the cylinder has
been manufactured, selected and used in accordance
with a prescribed standard.
- To be in compliance with Part 5 of the TDG
Regulations, the cylinder must be of an
approved specification and must be within its
prescribed requalification interval. The kind of
test to be conducted and the frequency of the
test varies dependent on the gas in the cylinder
and the construction of the cylinder. Cylinders
can only be inspected and requalified by
a company that is registered with Transport
Canada to do so. These "registered facilities"
are listed on the TDG Web site
under "Containers".
- Note that no one may fill a cylinder that is not
"in standard" - that is the cylinder cannot be
past its due date for requalification.
Manufacturers may sometimes stamp the
testing frequency directly on to the collars of
these cylinders. This is valuable information
but the retest frequency may change depending
on the substance contained in the cylinder. It
has been discovered that a number of cylinders
that contain refrigerant gases and that are used
to recover refrigerants are long past the
required test date - which is a violation of the
TDG Act and Regulations. Reclaimed
refrigerants are considered to be corrosive to
the cylinder, and cylinders in that service
require an increased requalification frequency.
- The dangerous goods are accompanied by a
shipping document that only needs to indicate the
primary class of the dangerous goods, following the
word "Class", and the total number of means of
containment (package/container/cylinder), following
the words "number of means of containment";
- For example:
- Class 3, number of means of containment, 1
- Class 2.1, number of means of containment, 2
- Class 2.2, number of means of containment, 3
- Class 8, number of means of containment, 1
- The means of containment (package/container/
cylinder) displays the dangerous goods label,
which includes the "UN" number and shipping
name; and
- The person transporting the dangerous goods is
trained in accordance with Part 6, Training.
- It is the responsibility of the employer to issue
a training certificate, with specified
information on it, to their employee. The
training must be adequate and specific to the
duties that the employee performs. A listing of
training organizations and a sample training
certificate is found on the TDG Web site under
"Training". Keep in mind that Transport
Canada does NOT certify any of the training
organizations listed. Thus, test the organization's
knowledge by asking questions to see
if they understand some of the requirements
applicable to your needs and that are
referenced in this article. A training certificate
is valid for three years.
- NOTE: Section 1.16 CANNOT be used for:
- Almost all Class 1, Explosives
- Class 2.1 (Flammable Gases) in a cylinder
with a water capacity greater than 46 litres.
- Class 2.3 (Toxic Gases)
- Some dangerous goods in Class: 4; 5.2; and 6.1
- Class 6.2, Infectious Substances; and Class 7,
Radioactives
What Are the Penalties for Non-Compliance?
Section 33 of the TDG Act outlines the consequences
for any person who fails to comply. The fines for
non-compliance with the TDG Act and Regulations
can be a maximum of $50,000 per person per day for
a first offence, and up to $100,000 for each
subsequent offence. However, Section 1.13 of Part 1
refers to due diligence and states that "a person must
not be found guilty of an offence if it is established
that the person took all reasonable measures to
comply with the Act or to prevent the commission of
the offence."
For further information or should you have any
questions on the TDG Act and Regulations, please
contact the Regional offices or visit the TDG Web site
at: www.tc.gc.ca/tdg/menu.htm
Dangerous Goods Public Display Cabinets
We are pleased to announce that two Dangerous Goods Display Cabinets have been installed in Canadian
airports: the first one at the Dorval Airport, in Quebec and the second one at the Lethbridge Airport, in
Alberta. Each display contains mock-ups of dangerous goods items that should not be packed in carry-on
or checked baggage when travelling by air. The Passenger Dangerous Goods Awareness Brochure
(TP13570) is also available in a holder attached to the display booth.
A special thanks is extended to the Quebec Region and the Prairie and Northern Region, Commercial and
Business Aviation Dangerous Goods Inspectors, and to the Commercial and Business Aviation Dangerous
Goods Standards Division in Headquarters for their efforts in making this happen.
Call for Volunteers
If you or your organization have a stake in standards development and would like to be a
part-time participant on a dedicated team of technical professionals, the CGSB Committee on
the Reconditioning of Drums for the Transport of Dangerous Goods CAN/CGSB -43.126-98 is
asking for your support.
The Committee works to reflect the needs of
industry and the public by addressing health and
safety in a national standard. The scope of the
standard includes the reconditioning and
remanufacturing processes for steel and plastic
drums, the quality management system
specifications applicable to re-conditioners and
re-manufacturers, and Transport Canada
registration requirements.
Committee membership is open to those who are
knowledgeable in the reconditioning or
remanufacture of steel or plastic drums.
Membership is in one of the following four
categories: producers; users, regulators and
general interest.
As a voting member, you will attend Committee
meetings, review the standard itself and vote on
proposed changes. Your input will ensure a
balanced representation of industry viewpoints
and updating current industry practice, and
provide both you the member and your
sponsoring organization due recognition as
leaders in your field of expertise. You may also
choose to participate as a non-voting member.
You will receive the most current working drafts
and minutes of meetings but are not obliged to
attend the meetings.
For membership or further information on this
or other Committees currently working on
standards that relate to the Transport of
Dangerous Goods, please contact the following
CGSB officer:
John Knox
Canadian General Standards Board
Telephone: 819 956-7430
Email: John.M.Knox@pwgsc.gc.ca
On behalf of my
colleagues in the
Transport
Dangerous
Goods
Directorate, I would
like to wish Season's
Greetings to all our
Newsletter readers and
all the best for the
coming year.
The Fall 2003 Newsletter (file size 135 KB) is available in Portable Document Format which will download in approximately 5 seconds on a 28.8 connection and may be viewed using version 3.0 or higher of the Adobe® Acrobat Reader. This reader may be downloaded free of charge by visiting the Adobe® web site
|